November 18, 2008
Another “Roadmap”
Considerable buzz was generated in space circles last week when The Planetary Society, the keepers of Carl Sagan’s flame, released a report that recommended a re-orientation of the Vision for Space Exploration. This report was based in part on the results of an invitation-only workshop held at Stanford University last February. The object of that workshop was to examine U. S. national space policy with the specific aim of determining whether goals intermediate to a human mission to Mars other than the Moon were feasible and desirable.
Anyone who knows the history of Sagan and The Planetary Society (TPS) could probably guess what the conclusion of this workshop was going to be. Carl was famous for his opinion that our Moon was “boring” whereas Mars, as a possible cradle of early primitive life, was a fitting object for intensive scientific exploration. This premise in fact has guided most of the robotic exploration of the Solar System by NASA for the past 30 years. While lunar scientists couldn’t convince NASA to send a polar orbiter to the Moon until the ultra-cheap Lunar Prospector in 1998, Mars has seen a flotilla of spacecraft probe its secrets, measuring and mapping every quantity known to man both from orbit and the surface.
Wonder of wonders! The new report recommends that exploration of the Moon be “deferred.” In favor of what? Human missions to the Lagrangian points (areas in space that are fixed relative to large bodies, such as the Earth and Sun) and a near-Earth asteroid. So instead of the “boring Moon” – a little planet with a complex history closely tied to the origin and evolution of the Earth – they want human missions to empty points in space and to investigate the abundant and varied problems posed by large orbiting rocks.
A lot of the chatter about the Planetary Society report has focused on whether the report missed the point of going to the Moon – the “we-must-learn-to-crawl-before-we-can-walk” argument of using the Moon as a training ground for Mars. Some point out that we have very little experience in living and working on other planetary surfaces. We do not have the long-lived, ultra-reliable subsystems needed to fly missions of very long duration and limited abort capability. By going to the Moon, we can develop those technologies and learn those skills needed to live, work on, and explore any planet.
I submit that their counter-arguments miss the point. The basic assumption of the TPS report is that the purpose of the space program is scientific exploration and that academic scientists should determine where and how program money is spent. This worldview (called “Saganism” by space advocates) has long prevailed among space scientists, the Science sections of NASA, and portions of the space community. A corollary of Saganism is that the Quest for Life Elsewhere is and ought to be the principal mission of NASA. Former Administrator of the agency Dan Goldin, for one, subscribed to this view.
One of the most interesting (and little-known) aspects of the Vision is that its object is much greater than exploration alone. A startling aspect of the original Vision was making the use of lunar and space resources a key objective of lunar return. Almost everyone ignored both the intent and purpose of such an inclusion. Fundamentally, it’s about expanding the economic sphere of mankind from low Earth orbit to cislunar space and beyond. In other words, we hope to use the material and energy resources of space to create new markets, new capabilities and new opportunities. This aspect of the Vision was brilliantly illuminated and elaborated upon in an overlooked speech by Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger at the Goddard Symposium in 2006.
Space is a big place and ripe with many possibilities. The Planetary Society wants to keep it a sanctuary for science, regulated and ruled by scientists for scientific purposes. The Vision is about expanding opportunities in space for many different and varied parties, including scientists. The Moon is included because it is the first place near the Earth that has the material and energy resources to allow us to understand if using space resources is possible and if so, how difficult that might be. This objective is not merely designed to lower the costs of future space missions, but to understand what it takes for humankind to live off-planet. If people are to have a future in space, we simply must learn how to extract and produce what they need from what’s already there; we cannot drag everything we need with us from the deep gravity well of the Earth.
Science or settlement? The Quest for Life Elsewhere or the Quest for Prosperity Here? Policy and direction set by an elite priesthood or by a free market? Those arguments are at the root of the policy debate initiated by the TPS report.
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
Right on! The Planetary Society has basically become a cult full of elite space wannabies, all paying unchanging homage to their leader who died over a decade ago. Ironic, considering that Sagan was an atheist. Now he is a minor deity with a group of followers who don’t want to share or change a thing. The Roadmap issue is a major case in point.
While Sagan was portrayed (largely by himself, no less) as the scientist spokesman for the people, in truth he was always about educating the elite few while throwing scraps to the masses to placate them. The priesthood of science was his domain. He did not hesistate to trash on anyone who thought differently from him and his little cabal of followers.
How much of a planetary scientist was Sagan if he could actually call the Moon “boring”? This just shows he had another agenda in mind, one that had nothing to do with science. Read the Sagan bio by Keay Davidson to get some clarity on the true motives behind this man.
They weren’t all scientific, that’s for sure.
Way too much has been made about Mars. The Moon is our first logical stepping stone. Let us hope as Sagan’s memory fades into the past that his outdated agenda will as well.
In the meantime, let us stop supporting groups like TPS that do not care about science and the public. Hit them in their bank accounts.
Comment by To the Moon Alice — November 18, 2008 @ 11:29 am
“we cannot drag everything we need with us from the deep gravity well of the Earth.”
And then put it at the bottom of another one!
Phobos First! (But only after L1, L2, Moon, ESL2, an assortment of NEOs…)
With regard to your critique, Henry agrees and so do I http://tinyurl.com/6ogow5
BTW Nice to hear of your involvement with Chandrayaan.
Looking for independent confirmation that the impactor hit Shackleton!
Can you oblige?
Comment by Vacuum.Head — November 18, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
A fascinating response to an otherwise unpublicized event. I took away two key points here:
1. To overlook the Moon as a point of exploration is akin to saying that all scientific exploration of the Moon has been exhausted. And yet, we know very little about this planet, the closest neighbor to our own, and, as the article points out, one with a “complex history closely tied to the origin and evolution of the Earth.”
2. The Vision for Space Exploration was, and is, intended to benefit a broad range of people. Indeed it seems fortuitous that NASA would go so far as to write a proposal benefiting not only NASA scientists, but private space as well. For humankind to benefit, we need competition AND collaboration. We cannot limit ourselves to the larger, sexier targets, but we need to open up markets and possibilities beyond the scope of pure science.
Comment by Mike Fabio — November 18, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Very well put, Paul, but I must take issue with your terminology re: priesthood.
True priests try to keep their minds open to newly revealed wisdom and always question, with thorough deliberation and consideration of potential new insights, if the precepts of their subscribed religion conform to a greater more accurate truth.
TPS has always struck me as more akin to a Mars-obsessed cult, self-appointed keepers of an exclusive vision based on a “superior” knowledge.
Describing them as an elite priesthood is insulting to many priests.
The greatest irony here remains the fact that it was a TPS-sponsored study, co-chaired by the current NASA administrator, that begat the ESAS architecture (Big Stick & all) that is currently hobbling the original, grander purpose of the VSE that was articulated so well by both the President and Marburger. How ridiculous it is that they themselves would now seek to derail its foundational premise of lunar return as a stepping-stone to the rest of the solar system.
Comment by Bob Mahoney — November 18, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
“they want human missions to empty points in space and to investigate the abundant and varied problems posed by large orbiting rocks.”
Hey! Why are you dissing asteroids? You are making both a scientific case for understanding the origins and evolution of the solar system, and for the use of space resources to expand our economic sphere. Surely you would agree that asteroids are essential targets for both of those areas. They provide information about the original building blocks of the solar system that has been obscured in the Moon’s very complicated and possibly massively violent history, and they have abundant resources that are not trapped in a deep gravity well like the Moon’s.
While the Moon is a very worthy and under-appreciated target both scientifically and economically, I think you do your case disservice by trying to cast aspersions on asteroids as targets simply because they are advocated by a report you didn’t like. It seems to me that your stated interests in a human expansion into space and the understanding of the evolution of the solar system would lead you to strongly advocate both Lunar and asteroid missions.
Comment by Mark — November 18, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
3 cheers for Paul Spudis, the Scientist for the rest of us! I’ve cancelled my membership with TPS and urged all my friends to do the same. Although some of their sponsored projects have merit (e.g. solar sail, SETI at home, asteroid search), their management has lost their way. You’d think that their tumbling membership numbers over the past few years would give them a clue. But apparently not. This time they have crossed the line. They need to get off their elitist academic haunches and realize that space exploration is not just for scientific weenies who worship Carl Sagan. They have a valid role to play – but not by burning the current precariously built bridges exemplified by VSE. They need to get in sync with NSS, SFF, Moon Society, and the industrial space advocacy partnerships. These are the groups that will advocate space exploration for the rest of us!
Comment by enb_48 — November 18, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Mr. Spudis,
Thank you for the post. Well done. I was a member of TPS years ago… let my membership lapse. The lapse will continue.
Comment by Jim Rohrich — November 18, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
The question is not Moon Or Mars…it’s the first step…getting into space. It the human launch issue the next NASA administrator must address…buy foreign or fly shuttle…issue addressed in my webpage…appreciate comments.
Comment by Don Nelson — November 19, 2008 @ 9:37 am
In support of Carl Sagan
Ah, as a famous politician once said: “There you go again” Dr. Spudis. Despite a recent NRC report supporting the scientific importance of returning to the Moon, the arguments for spending huge sums to send US robots and astronauts back to the Moon can not be justified upon close examination notwithstanding such an illustrious endorsement. (See “A Critique of the NRC Report: The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon-Final Report,” Space Times, Sept/Oct 2007 issue By Donald Beattie) If placed in a priority list of what are the most important programs and questions that should be addressed with NASA’s limited resources, studying the Moon would be low on the list. We are not in a race with other countries to land on the Moon despite what some proclaim. If they want to spend the huge sums needed to repeat what we accomplished 40 years ago, so be it.
Even NASA says it is not a top priority but would be done in conjunction with other objectives NASA has listed for returning, also of questionable importance. NASA space exploration should not be dominated by one objective, a priority that I doubt will be embraced by the next administration and congress. Consider the April GAO report that estimates to complete Constellation will require $230 billion, and that does not include Ares V or other requirements to put an outpost on the Moon. ALL NASA programs must be placed in priority, including aeronautical research, and then probable future budgets applied accordingly. Respectfully, Don Beattie
Comment by Don Beattie — November 19, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Mark,
My comment in regard to asteroids was only in the context of Carl Sagan’s famous opinion that the Moon is “boring.” If he thought the Moon boring, how is it that asteroids could be “interesting” as they display fewer planetary processes than the Moon does.
I am not against asteroid missions, but think that we have work to do on the Moon first. Moreover, the materials processing experience we get on the Moon is directly applicable to asteroid mining.
Comment by Dr. Paul D. Spudis — November 20, 2008 @ 7:44 am
There are Jupiter-size potholes in The Planetary Society’s Space Exploration Roadmap.
Quoting from the press release: “The Planetary Society today outlined a vigorous new approach to space exploration for the consideration of the new U.S. Administration and Congress.” Right. It’s so vigorous that it almost completely ignores the fundamental source of vigor that will be necessary if the Roadmap is to be achieved. Not to mention two other significant flaws.
While the Roadmap makes some good points about interplanetary flight, the need for international commitment and cooperation, and for letting capability drive the timeframe, it is still too mired in the ClassicSpace paradigm of national space programs. I simply do not see enough evidence to believe that any nation’s government space program, or collective multi-national programs, can maintain the consistent political and funding support required to achieve the Roadmap’s goals. The best solution is to use a wise combination of public-private efforts that take advantage of the competitive nature of the emerging NewSpace industry. Unfortunately, there is barely a breath about the emerging entrepreneurial space industry (NewSpace) in the Roadmap, and certainly not to any degree that reflects an understanding that NewSpace must be the fundamental underpinning rather than a mere supporting player.
The Planetary Society’s solution for insufficient funding leads to another significant flaw. Again, quoting from the press release, the plan calls for “deferring humans landing on the Moon until the costs of the interplanetary transportation system and shuttle replacement are largely paid.” What kind of vision is this? It makes no sense to bypass what will become humanity’s first celestial economic subsidiary.
I can only assume that the proposed deferring of human lunar landings is a direct outcome of The Planetary Society’s inability or unwillingness to move beyond the ClassicSpace focus on exploration. And therein lies the third flaw in the Roadmap; the complete exclusion of the word “settlement,” which also occurred in the very useful June 2004 “Report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Sace Exploration Policy” (aka, The Aldridge Report). Note that “Exploration” is in the title of both documents.
Whether it’s President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration or The Planetary Society’s Roadmap, neither offers the economic sustainability and New World excitement that settlement would provide, which will only occur with the private sector leading the way.
Comment by Jeff Krukin — November 21, 2008 @ 7:41 am
[...] As I have discussed previously, the VSE was an attempt to give a long-term strategic direction to our national space program after the tragic loss of Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003. It called for the return of Shuttle to flight, completion of the International Space Station, retirement of the Shuttle, development of a new manned spacecraft, a return to the Moon and finally, human missions to Mars and other destinations. Unlike President Kennedy’s Apollo challenge to reach the Moon “before this decade is out”, the motivation for the VSE was to create a long-term, continuing commitment to human spaceflight. Toward that end, it specified what we were to do beyond low Earth orbit – to understand and use the resources of space to create new spacefaring capability. Such an expansion of capability was the purpose for making the use of local resources a principal activity of lunar return in the original Presidential speech. [...]
Pingback by The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) and Project Constellation | The Once and Future Moon — December 12, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
I think TPS is partly right. I just think they don’t go far enough. NASA should get out of the transportation business altogether. So, fine. Concentrate on science. Concentrate on finding life elsewhere. If we’re talking about letting the free market dictate policy, then let’s let NASA move out of the way and allow private companies settle on the Lunar surface. Let private industry shoulder the burden of funding trips to, from, and stays on the Moon. It would be safer, cheaper, and faster than anything any state program could come up with. All they need to do is get out of the way. Let them have their science. Let them further not keep us from reaping the benifits of going ourselves.
Comment by guthrie — December 20, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Salutations. Project Constellation was, and still could be our one golden opportunity for leaving earth orbit, finally after 40+ years. The Mars zealots killed this thing! Pure and simple. They have been completely inflexible with their demands for NASA’s space future: “Mars first, Mars now, plus anywhere-else-but-the-Moon-is-okay-by-us.” I loathe their contempt for the efforts of putting astronauts elsewhere. (i.e.—their contempt for continued Lunar exploration.) What in heaven’s name were they thinking, when they set out to finish off with future lunar flights?!?! Without a clear out-of-earth-orbit mission, what possible motive would there be for a heavy-lift launcher? Do they really believe that some private/ commercial firm is going to single-handedly deliver to NASA a huge multi-stage rocket like the Aries 5? This kind of La La Land dreaming will get you nowhere! (Kinda like “Flexible Path”…) Only a government agency can coordinate & deliver such a Saturn 5-type capability launch system. Commercial business will at best, deliver us some teeny-tiny space-plane, plus a minor-league rocket to get it to the ISS. But that’ll be it, folks!! Without an earth-escape stage to get a spacecraft out of parking orbit, you basically CAN’T go anywhere!! Constellation was all slated to bring us that: a heavy-lift, heavy-payload launch system, which would’ve had plenty of applications—-sending landing vehicles to Mars included. The Zubrinites just could not see beyond their hard-headed, dead-set goals, to realize that the Orion-Aries architecture was just what the doctor ordered, or would’ve ordered, to later advance their agenda. Don’t they remember Project Gemini, from the mid-60′s, which tested out the bugs in the flight systems & plans, before commiting to the bigger enterprise?? Intermediate goals have always aided well, the subsequent, larger objective. I say for all of us in the space advocacy community to make a strong effort,from this moment on, of lobbying & petitioning Congress into restoring funding for Constellation. We must try to re-start this program, even if it awaits a delay, and gets begun again in the next year’s federal budget. Let’s put on a vibrant campaign. LET’S SAVE PROJECT CONSTELLATION!!!
Comment by Chris Castro — March 21, 2010 @ 4:29 am