NASA may abandon plans for moon base

[n2doc]

18:33 29 April 2009 by David Shiga
NASA will probably not build an outpost on the moon as originally planned, the agency's acting administrator, Chris Scolese, told lawmakers on Wednesday. His comments also hinted that the agency is open to putting more emphasis on human missions to destinations like Mars or a near-Earth asteroid.

NASA has been working towards returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 and building a permanent base there. But some space analysts and advocacy groups like the Planetary Society have urged the agency to cancel plans for a permanent moon base, carry out shorter moon missions instead, and focus on getting astronauts to Mars.

Under Scolese's predecessor, Mike Griffin, the agency held firm to its moon base plans. But the comments by Scolese, who will lead NASA until President Barack Obama nominates the next administrator, suggest a shift in the agency's direction. He spoke to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Scolese was asked repeatedly whether NASA could still make it to the moon by 2020 under the proposed 2010 budget, but failed to give a clear yes or no, and his answers suggested the agency's plans were in flux.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17052-nasa-may-abandon-plans-for-moon-base.html

Until they get an Administrator NASA is going to be like a headless chicken....

[rcrush]

1. Of course they wont.

They know better than to go back there. The aliens wouldnt like it.

[pscot]

2. I can think of a thousand things

I'd rather spend tax dollars on. If we can use drones to murder muslim villagers, we can damn well use them to explore mars.

[Kolesar]

5. I am an advocate of "deep space probes"

But I cannot even think of what purpose the manned Space Station serves, much less flying to Mars. Just so some Yank can stick a flag in it, dammit?

[qazplm]

12. practice and knowledge

eventually humans will settle on another planet. We have no choice long term. We also eventually will mine asteroids for resources.

So might be nice to learn how to spend extended periods in space, or how to protect astronauts on the way to Mars or other places.

[Kolesar]

17. NASA should go to work on climate-protection-solutions for the next 20 years

And then shift their focus back to lofty goals when that problem is solved. If it takes us a millenium to to get to the stars, I think we can afford a delayed start.

[qazplm]

22. Why would NASA?

They dont have the scientist trained in those areas. There are plenty of other agencies that do.

The only utility NASA would have is launching the occasional satellite for someone else to study the atmosphere or the global environment or such.

So that's not a valid reason. Got any others?

[Kolesar]

23. Ok, then fire them and their contractors

the public money should be prioritized for something important. Spy satellites and missile defense need to be cut also.

The space program has always been a subsidy for the weapons industry.

[qazplm]

26. PetScans

MRIs, laser surgery, advances in computing...all are in at least some part derived from the space program.

We are talking probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of lives saved, made better, and if you are talking computing, darn near the whole planet.

I'd consider that pretty important.

NASA has little to do with spy satellites or missile defense. The military has it's own launch vehicles.

So far you've clearly indicated your disdain for NASA but given little logical reason why others should feel the same.

[caraher]

28. I used to work in PET

this is the very first time I've seen the PET scan credited to the space program. (Ditto for MRIs, laser surgery...) What's the story that leads to that spinoff claim?

On one hand, I am sympathetic to the notion that investing in something like space travel has innumerable unanticipated (and unforeseeable) benefits resulting from the innovations necessary to solve difficult technical problems. But the flaw in the spinoff justification is that there's little reason to believe that same investment directed to other difficult technical challenges would not have similar (or possibly much greater) payoffs.

[qazplm]

29. here is a link

http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home/hospital3.html

There are tons of info out there like this.

[caraher]

31. Thanks

So there's really nothing specifically related to any particular imaging modality; it's just that the image processing technology is generically useful to medical imaging. That makes more sense to me.

That is the actual history... but it should be acknowledged that there's nothing unique to the technical demands of space exploration that makes possible these developments. That is, one could have chosen to specifically fund imaging science for other reasons, and possibly get the same outcomes in that field for comparable expenditures. Historically many of these advances came under the umbrella of space exploration, but it's not that there's something special about space science beyond the fact that it was the only multibillion dollar science program underway for years.

It's a bit like arguing that particle physics should be lavishly funded because it gave us the World Wide Web. CERN scientists did develop what became the backbone of the modern web, but it was the confluence of creative people and resources rather than the fact that they were studying high energy physics. And more to the point, it shows that "spinoffs" can occur as a result of all kinds of research endeavors. It's not the exclusive province of sending things up in rockets. How many advances that had nothing to do with telephones came out of Bell Labs and other industrial research groups? NASA is just the first organization with the resources and institutional need to collate their spinoffs and make that a big part of their sales pitch.

And I'm not one to say NASA is something that needs cutting - far from it! We could fully fund NASA with fraction of the cost overruns of weapons programs we don't need. But we could fully fund lots of other science as well.

[qazplm]

33. other science isnt going to get funded like NASA

unless it comes from private sources and good luck with that in this economy.

Sure I suppose, eventually, someone else would have come up with what NASA started in imaging.

Of course, how much later given the vagaries of private (and government) funding? 2 years? 5?

NASA is a guaranteed source of at least some funding, every single year. It is also comparatively a very small slice of the budget. quantum physics will in fact one day lead us to new computers, quantum computers, which will have a host of benefits and advantages so yes it should in fact be lavishly funded, in part for that reason and of course there are others.

Few other places will have to push the envelope on human physiology in getting their astronauts to survive in space. Few other entities are working on growing crystals and other things in zero-g. Just like in the late 60 and early 70s, few other places were working so hard to get more computing out of less than NASA and the DOD.

[YOY]

3. If they had a DOD budget...

Oh wait...we nee that DOD budget...not for veterans or good armor or anything...but for a new destroyer or superiority fighter...to fight religious fundementalists with boxcutters and AKs.

[liberal N proud]

4. A near-Earth asteroid?

This really is the twilight zone

[IDFbunny]

6. If it's either/or I'd rather have a moonbase

and keep sending robots to mars.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. I'm with you, in the short term.

I believe we NEED to colonize space - and that will start with a permanent moon base. We could do it in ten years. Ten years after that, Mars. Unless the space station is in geosynchronous orbit it's just a waste of resources - we keep putting them up there, they keep falling down. This thing called gravity - who knew?

[joshcryer]

18. Robots are hopelessly inadequate for Mars exploration. It is *paramount* that we send humans there.

Not only for scientific but for habitation purposes. The information gathered by MER could have been gleaned in about 30 minutes by a geologist on the ground. Yes, a 5 year mission in about 30 minutes. That's how much more capable a human being is on Mars.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Getting the human there would take a bit more time and effort, though

[joshcryer]

25. Once you're capable of going the subsequent missions are a lot easier.

[Johonny]

21. what a joke

The history of space exploration is the history of robotic space exploration. People have spent nearly all there time in low earth orbit. The scientific output from robotic missions vastly exceeds that of manned missions. It's a joke to say a person in 30 minutes could gather the amount of information a robot could on Mars in 5 years. People will not ever live "on" Mars. In the Martian surface... maybe, but there isn't much point to it.

[joshcryer]

24. A human couldn't achieve satellite mapping, but no robot can excel where a geologist would.

Even then, when you do get results from a robot, the results are often ambigious and are argued and debated for years (see the Viking results for an example).

MGS MOLA gave us the most accurate heightmap of any body in the solar system, that's something robots do good, and well.

Mars Odyssey GRS gave us extremely accurate mineral maps, far beyond that of any other body in the solar system except for Earth. Again, something a robot is very good at doing.

But MER, Pathfinder, and Viking took several years to achieve what a scientist on the ground could do in, yes, 30 minutes of walking around. Yes. 30 minutes. It is not an exaggeration.

[Johonny]

20. there is no scientific value in sending people to the moon

It's great PR and very expensive but the scientific output is ugh. I love to see man missions ended and the focus on the unmanned spacecraft vastly increased.

[kestrel91316]

7. I'm ok with a moon base. I'm NOT ok with a manned Mars expedition.

Maybe if we get through the next century alive. But not now. We've got more pressing concerns.

[joshcryer]

27. Why? They cost the same.

A moon base offers little in the way of scientific advancement. They both offer similar technological advancement.

[rcrush]

8. I think we can do it.

Considering we just flushed 10 trillion dollars down the toilet why not throw some more money at NASA? At least we'll get something for it.

[tridim]

10. I agree. It's impractical until we have a working space elevator..

and we discover a good way to protect humans against the very real problem of cosmic radiation.

[Orrex]

13. I'm holding out for a space escalator

'Cause you just know they'd call it the Stairway to Heaven!

[krispos42]

30. A working space elevator would solve many of our problems with space flight

If we could make it about 60,000 miles long... hell, we could just move our Martian spaceships to the end of the tether and let them go at the right millisecond... I think at that distance we'd easily get escape velocity!


Long-range space probes launched once a week towards every planet and moon in the system. Dumping toxic waste into the Sun.

If we put a linear accelerator at low earth orbit we would have an ultracheap way to put stuff in orbit. 10gs of acceleration for about 115 seconds gets you to orbital velocity if my math is right.

We could build stations on the tether for people to live in, with gravity decreasing the higher up you went. Excellent places to live as you got older.

And the industrial applications of low- or zero-gravity, endless vacuum, natural temperature extremes, and no need to worry about pollution can be impressive.

[Phoonzang]

11. It would be nice if we could get some leadership from Obama on this. At the least NASA needs

some direction. I don't know what's taking so long.

Too me, it doesn't really matter what the next destination of human exploration is as long as we make plans to STAY there. Putting bootprints in the dirt and taking pictures isn't enough. We need to learn to live elsewhere...it will produce technologies that will help us back on Earth and give humanity a "backup plan". Money be damned...we waste tons of money on other, less important things.

Also the "we need to fix stuff here before we go out there" argument makes me want to tear my eyes out. We'll never make things perfect here. We can't stop all progress because of that. Thank god the majority of the public is supportive of human spaceflight.

[Orrex]

14. Then can someone tell me who all our base are belong to?

[and-justice-for-all]

15. Its those damn Aliens on the Moon, is'nt it?!

We need a moon base as a launching point...regardless of what those aliens think.

[caraher]

16. I'd like to see a focus on developing technologies for deflecting near-Earth asteroids

There really isn't much value in sticking a flag on Mars or going back to the moon when robotic craft can do it better (and if you think there's life on Mars nothing will mess up the science of studying that faster than sticking Earth life on the surface, so if anything that's a reason NOT to go).

Better to invest in a planetary insurance plan. It's the kind of thing that will take at least decades to properly develop, and I'd hope that would be a major focus of any near-Earth asteroid visits.

[Phoonzang]

32. More articles on the leadership vacuum

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/commitment-is-needed/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/science/space/04nasa.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


If Obama doesn't care about space exploration and would rather look down instead of out, he should just come out and say so. The silence isn't helping anyone.

I thought he was waiting because he wanted to announce some big space initiative. It's become clear that it's just not a priority to him. Looks like another 20 years of stagnation is awaiting us.

[joshcryer]

34. He needs to nominate Neil Tyson.

[Phoonzang]

35. That would be awesome. nt

[TheMadMonk]

36. Bad move. A lunar base is the first step to sustainability.

A lunar base that offers a little something for everyone. Somewhere to safely test out "maintenance free"/"inherently safe"/"tamperproof" nuclear reactors. Somewhere to use all that power to refine raw materials from lunar ores and to manufacture basic modular items such as solar panels and structural members. And to launch it all with an electromagnetic launch system that is already an engineering reality. All for a sustained price about 1/10th (and better) that of launching similar loads from earth.

Industrial development of the moon is a must. And it is not a terribly expensive proposition. 100 billion would easily cover it.

With that 100 billion it would be possible to create a low earth orbit to geostationary shuttle service that does not require fuel. Enable development of orbital housing and construction services. To create all the infrastructure needed to make a sustained push into the solar system. To explore near earth objects and exploit them if they have value. To test the feasibility of transmiting power to Earth.

All the pieces are in place or in the pipeline to get this and more underway and all for far less than the war in iraq.

[caraher]

37. It's certainly the best spot for raw materials

I'm not sure I'd especially trust reactor designs tested in 1/6 g on Earth though. While I'd agree that investing $100B in the moon beats spending it on unnecessary wars in the Middle East, I'm skeptical that $100B is a realistic price tag for the ambitious (if worthy) projects you outline. If you adjust for inflation that's less than the cost of Apollo. We'd have a head start on a lot of technologies, but even if we'd not seen NASA experience a brain drain we'd still be looking at an enormous (Earth) infrastructure expansion to support it.

Now maybe there's a way to convince someone that this would provide a home for technical and manufacturing talent currently praying for more F-22s...

[joshcryer]

40. Make robot factories on the moon.

They don't need carbon or water, humans do.

[TheMadMonk]

42. Best repairman is a man.

Of course any factories on the moon would be robotic. However, such factories need to be maintained. They also need to be assembled. There is only so much that self assembly and self repair can do.

And if we're serious about Mars the Moon is the first logical baby step. If we want to give power from space a trial the Moon is the currently the only place where raw materials can be economically sourced. If they can. The Moon is the logical forward base, it's the logical place for a great deal of research and for maunufacturing.

[joshcryer]

44. The first step is a heavy lifter that can take us out of the Earth-Moon system, imo.

I think the Planetary Societies "Beyond the Moon" initiative is the right step. Basically if you focus on the moon you may not build the capablity to easily leave the Earth-Moon system and you're stuck. I can back a moon base, but if we build a heavy lifter that can take us to Mars I'd prefer to go there, especially, since, as I like to say, a moon base is ISS 2.0.

[joshcryer]

39. No water + no carbon = unsustainable!

OK there might be small pockets here or there (which of course hasn't been discovered yet despite M3 and Lunar Prospector having observed for nearly a decade cumulatively).

If the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter finds nothing ISRU (in situ resource utilization) will be non-existant on the moon, and Mars automatically is the best destiniation for humans in space.

[TheMadMonk]

41. That's what the asteroids are for.

Actually the real killer pretty much anywhere we go is nitrogen.

Sustainable is a slippery concept. Virtually every city on this planet is unsustainable.

[Araxen]

38. Exploration and Branching out is a must for the survival of the human race

You don't put all your money into one stock and we certainly shouldn't keep all the humans on one planet forever. Something will happen to the Earth eventually and we shouldn't be caught with our pants down when the time arrives.

Exploration is human nature and without exploration the USA wouldn't be around today. It is a must we continue to explore.

[Phoonzang]

43. NASA Fiscal Year 2010 briefing later today.

Maybe we'll learn something about what plans they have, if any.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=28140

[shireen]

45. damn!

and i was all ready to purchase some prime real estate along the Sea of Tranquility while land prices were still low.