posted 04-08-2013 01:17 PM               

A week from Monday marks the third anniversary of President Obama’s speech at the Kennedy Space Center where he formally announced the goal of a human mission to an asteroid by 2025. While that is an official goal of NASA’s human space exploration program, there remains some opposition or, at the very least, lack of acceptance of the goal by many people, including some with NASA, as a report on NASA’s strategic direction concluded last December.

At a joint meeting of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board in Washington on Thursday, the head of that study, Al Carnesale of UCLA, reiterated those concerns. “Since it was announced, there was less enthusiasm for it among the community broadly,” he said of the asteroid mission goal. “The more we learn about it, the more we hear about it, people seem less enthusiastic about it.”

Carnesale suggested that, in his opinion, it might be better to shelve the asteroid mission goal in favor of a human return to the Moon. “There’s a great deal of enthusiasm, almost everywhere, for the Moon,” he said. “I think there might be, if no one has to swallow their pride and swallow their words, and you can change the asteroid mission a little bit… it might be possible to move towards something that might be more of a consensus.”

Carnesale was followed at the meeting by NASA administrator Charles Bolden, who showed no sign of accepting Carnesale’s advice. He noted that a number of nations have expressed interest, to varying degrees, in human lunar exploration. “They all have dreams of putting human on the Moon,” he said. “I have told every head of agency of every partner agency that if you assume the lead in a human lunar mission, NASA will be a part of that. NASA wants to be a participant.”

However, he made it clear NASA has no plans to lead its own human return to the Moon under his watch. “NASA will not take the lead on a human lunar mission,” he said. “NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime. And the reason is, we can only do so many things.” Instead, he said the focus would remain on human missions to asteroids and to Mars. “We intend to do that, and we think it can be done.”

“I don’t know how to say it any more plainly,” he concluded. “NASA does not have a human lunar mission in its portfolio and we are not planning for one.” He warned that if the next administration tries to change course again back to the Moon, “it means we are probably, in our lifetime, in the lifetime of everybody sitting in this room, we are probably never again going to see Americans on the Moon, on Mars, near an asteroid, or anywhere. We cannot continue to change the course of human exploration.”

posted 04-08-2013 01:36 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glint:
Wasn't the Bush plan to go to the moon, and then speed on to Mars?

---

The Vision for Space Exploration as outlined by President Bush on Jan. 14, 2004, called for manned missions to Mars without a timeline.

Conduct human expeditions to Mars after acquiring adequate knowledge about the planet using robotic missions and after successfully demonstrating sustained human exploration missions to the Moon.

...The timing of the first human research missions to Mars will depend on discoveries from robotic explorers, the development of techniques to mitigate Mars hazards, advances in capabilities for sustainable exploration, and available resources.

posted 04-08-2013 01:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Bolden's perspective is unfortunate but impermanent (will change with the next administration).

---

Space enthusiasts have only themselves to blame for the position we are in now. Instead of rallying behind a single plan (i.e. Constellation), space enthusiasts were the most vocal critics, putting their own pet projects (e.g. Jupiter) ahead of a desire to see anything actually accomplished.

The Moon Society wants to go to the moon; the Mars Society wants to go to Mars. The National Space Society wants permanent human settlements; the Planetary Society wants expanded missions to the outer planets.

Everybody wants something different and so we end up going nowhere.

Going to an asteroid (either in situ in the asteroid belt or captured at L2) may not be the mission of everyone's dreams, but it is technically and more importantly, financially feasible given current realities. If space enthusiasts would stop tripping over each other, or worse, actually working to sabotage the others' efforts, we might be able to provide a unified voice and achieve a mission — any mission — which will lead to other missions elsewhere.

As much as I am an advocate for the internet, Tom Stafford's observation in 2009 rings more and more true with each passing day:

If the Internet had been there when Apollo went on, we would have had a very difficult time of completing Apollo.

...there were all different engineers and scientists who said we should do it 'this way' or it's unsafe but then we had good decision makers who made the decisions and we went ahead.

Today when that happens, they go to their computer and send an e-mail to the staffers on the Hill, the congressmen, the press, to you people, and so it shows up all over.

We didn't have that in Apollo. It would have been lots tougher in Apollo. Think about that.

posted 04-08-2013 02:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
I will rally around a plan that is the best one for the nation.

---

posted 04-08-2013 04:40 PM               

Unfortunately when (and if I guess) the republicans get back into office we'll probably go in a different direction. So it seems that space exploration is being used by both parties for political reasons and not what's best for our country.

Landing on a 25' diameter asteroid will give us some experience in tracking them down but I really don't think that is a very big step. The best thing I can say about this plan is that we won't need to build a rover to explore this monster!

posted 04-08-2013 04:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCroft04:
That was a political decision.

---

In November, 2009, his advisers, in a memo, delivered some bad news: "The 10-year deficit has deteriorated by roughly $6 trillion." The next sentence was in boldface type and underlined: "Especially in light of our new fiscal context, it is not possible to achieve the inspiring space program goals discussed during the campaign."

Obama was told that he should cancel NASA's Bush-era Constellation program, along with its support projects, like the Ares launch vehicles, which were designed to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. The program was behind schedule, over budget, and "unachievable." He agreed to end it. (Source: The New Yorker)

Just enough doubt was introduced into NASA's ability to carry forth Constellation that it was already in jeopardy when the administrations changed.

posted 04-08-2013 08:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Constellation, as originally envisioned, was going to be an umbrella title given to all beyond-Earth orbit missions, regardless if they were destined for the "Moon, Mars or Beyond."

---

posted 04-08-2013 09:22 PM               

But well before its end, Constellation was not about "Mars and Beyond," at least not based on what projects were actually being funded and advanced at NASA, and it can be argued that it never would be.

Bush wanted Constellation to function on NASA's existing budget and Griffin's answer to that, whether forced or by choice, was to curtail other NASA activities (the space agency's human research program, dedicated to supporting safe and productive human space travel, was just one of the programs that saw its resources depleted).

Constellation, inside and outside of NASA, became synonymous with the moon, with an undefined promise that building a moonbase would eventually lead to going to Mars. And that might have been true, if the agency had been provided the budget to support such an ambitious plan while at the same time flying out the remainder of the shuttle program and completing the International Space Station. But it wasn't, so even the moon was slipping outside of NASA's grasp.

I wrote earlier that everyone wants something different. I'll amend that to say everyone wants everything as well. Ask space enthusiasts if they want the Moon, Mars or Beyond and I believe most would answer "All of the above." But we're not going to get the funding for all, and realistically, the budget doesn't exist for any.

The best chance we have is to identify a mission that fits the budget, rather than fits our desires. Bush defined his vision's timeline by the "available resources," which is to say whenever NASA was able to scrounge together the funds to do so.

posted 04-09-2013 07:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The decision was in part political — you can't escape politics — but per internal White House memos, it was forced by the economy.

---

Sounds like when things started getting tough, instead of rolling up their sleeves and fixing the root problem, the Obama administration turned to window dressing.

However, rather than cutting NASA's budget, it was actually increased according to Scientific American and the NASA administrator.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden expressed support for the budget request, saying that he was "excited" to present the president's proposal, which would add $6 billion to NASA's total outlay over the next five years. Bolden said that he and Obama agreed that Constellation was in an untenable position. "The truth is, we were not on a sustainable path to get back to the moon's surface," Bolden said.

posted 04-09-2013 08:00 AM               

I still don't buy the argument that Constellation had to be cancelled. Why not modify or revamp it in ways that are done to other Federal programs like the F-35? Like Nixon wasn't a fan of Kennedy's moon program, Obama wasn't a fan of Bush's vision.

posted 04-09-2013 08:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glint:
Still, claims by Obama's people that they had to cancel Constellation to save money because of a downturn in the econonmy, while at the same time increasing NASA's budget by $6 billion, doesn't pass the laugh test.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Like Nixon wasn't a fan of Kennedy's moon program, Obama wasn't a fan of Bush's vision.

---

posted 04-09-2013 09:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I still don't buy the argument that Constellation had to be cancelled.

---

posted 04-09-2013 07:56 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
In my opinion, it needed to be cancelled. It was bloated and it took money from the rest of NASA. There was no need for a program the size of Constellation.

---

posted 04-10-2013 07:44 AM               

As for the Augustine Commission, political registration does not always equal allegiance (Augustine-Bush for example). One could make note that there was not one member of the "Apollo-era" NASA on the Commission, so there might have been a bias against a return to the Moon by the group. Lastly, I do not believe that a new administration (of either party), would accept too many program of the previous administration that they bashed in the campaign season.

posted 04-10-2013 07:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I still do not understand why paring down Constellation was not considered.

---

Regarding funding, during this week economy dollars are scarce. But that will change with time; the economy will eventually turn around and additional dollars will become available. Given the long time frame to implement a return to the moon and then onward to Mars, we need to begin taking the initial steps and give ourselves a chance to take advantage of an improved economy when it returns.

posted 04-10-2013 08:52 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCroft04:
If this administration would have taken this approach and supported Constellation there is a good chance it would have worked.

---

Don't get me started on the sham Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), kludge called Ares I and the unnecessary test that wasted taxpayers' money called Ares I-X.

posted 04-10-2013 09:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCroft04:
If this administration would have taken this approach and supported Constellation there is a good chance it would have worked.

---

Development of the Altair lander had been set aside, its funding depleted. And Ares V development had been stretched out such that it wouldn't be available until the late 2020s. To quote the Augustine commission's report:

Under the FY 2010 budget, the lunar landing and surface systems will also be delayed by over a decade, indicating that human lunar return could not occur until well into the 2030s.

posted 04-10-2013 05:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fezman92:
...is there anything we as the community can do

---

posted 06-02-2013 05:49 PM               

"It's clear from the press releases from NASA these days that the space agency has little interest in sending people back to the moon.

This might have something to do with President Obama's speech at Kennedy Space Center in 2010 where he [in]famously said, "Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon... but I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We've been there before. Buzz has been there."

Well, Mr. President, Buzz Aldrin has indeed been there but I haven't, neither have you, and neither have a lot of other folks who would love to go, not only to explore but to enrich our country.

The moon beckons because we have the technology to get there, we already know a lot about it, and most of what we know is enticing.

In fact, I think an economic case can be made to put our country's focus back on the moon."

posted 06-03-2013 10:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Its also about choices.

---

posted 06-07-2013 10:18 AM               

MOONWARD: The Republican chairman of the House Space subcommittee is doubling down on his preference for NASA to prioritize returning astronauts to the Moon, even as the embattled agency continues promoting its asteroid-capture plans. Rep. Steven Palazzo (Miss.) told the ABA Forum on Air and Space Law in Washington June 6 that while the ultimate goal is landing humans on Mars, returning to the Moon is the logical next step. Why? "We have other countries that are aggressively pursuing space exploration programs, and the Moon is one of their specific destinations," he says. "And I would not like to wake up and have to explain why perhaps China is on the Moon with a permanent space presence and America is not."

posted 06-07-2013 12:26 PM               

"Been there, done that," as they say.

The asteroid mission is something people can understand. Tell them that if the scenario in the movies, "Deep Impact" or "Armageddon" comes to pass, NASA needs to know how to do something to prevent that, and most people get that. There's value there in that NASA can easily explain the reason and what Americans in general can hope to get out of it (continued life as opposed to a horrific death after a massive meteor strike).

I think a Mars landing can be 'sold' to the public if NASA can figure out the best sales pitch. But that's as far away as a Moon landing was in 1950, with not nearly the national mandate to accomplish it.

posted 06-07-2013 05:47 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Consequently my interest in space is slowing coming to an end. Or if not, I'll be as interested in space matters as I'm reading the sports section of the paper.

---

I actually like at least one thing that this Administration and Congress are doing, which is to help develop private systems for access to space. This is actually quite consistent with US history where the US government helped subsidize what they thought was important, such as the development of transcontinental railroads.

posted 06-08-2013 12:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
This is actually quite consistent with US history where the US government helped subsidize what they thought was important, such as the development of transcontinental railroads.

---

Subsidize is ok?

posted 06-10-2013 07:40 AM               

There's a BIG difference between subsidising (as in US subsidies for Boeing/ EU subsidies for Airbus in a billateral market with established product) and SEEDING competitive domestic research projects in a venture capital-type scenario.

posted 06-10-2013 12:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Consequently my interest in space is slowing coming to an end. Or if not, I'll be as interested in space matters as I'm reading the sports section of the paper.

---

posted 06-11-2013 07:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
I lost interest in the shuttle 5 years in and have 0 interest in the ISS. While I enjoy a great deal learning even more about the historical realm of spaceflight the current "missions" and "goals" of NASA are largely uninteresting and very uninspiring.

---