A space solar power industry would naturally develop lunar resource utilization because of the physics. So long term without NASA this path would develop the Moon and Earth Orbit. The effect could work on a much shorter term by NASA feeling threatened by the competition and getting involved in actual space development.

It is possible that NASA might change its ways but currently it doesn’t look promising that it can. If NASA is forced to extend the life of the shuttle, a paradigm shift maybe impossible until after the next shuttle accident.

I also believe NASA “could” lead the way, followed by a transition to the private sector. But if they won’t, doesn’t a “Plan B” become necessary?

Even if Buzz Aldrin’s idea is not your first choice, how about as a “Plan B” alternative?

I think that NASA could lead the way, followed by a transition to the private sector. That’s what the Vision for Space Exploration was all about, although the agency misinterpreted it as a human Mars mission. Learning to use space resources to develop new space capabilities is the mission on the Moon.

Needless to say, many in the space business have never gotten and will never get this concept. But I know many who do, both inside and outside the agency, and are doing their best to educate their associates.

How do we go about changing the Paradigm?

Find some other agency besides NASA to do space development?

Pure commercial?

My point is that Buzz’s “new approach” does NOT carry to his preferred destination — Mars. If it makes sense to develop commercial lunar ISRU, why then does it make sense to do a big government Mars mission?

Buzz’s idea is simply a bone thrown to the lunar community to divert their criticism of his tenacious clinging to the old Apollo-template in his preferred humans-to-Mars flags-and-footprints program. Sorry — I will not be misled or diverted.

He calls for a public/private partnership “to build the communication and navigation satellites needed by future lunar travelers, develop fuel depots using lunar LOX — perhaps derived from the recently discovered lunar water — and construct habitats that will shelter space travelers while on the surface. It will enable a sustainable human presence on the Moon that will be accessible to all the nations on Earth.”

Lunar ISRU is central to this approach.

Also, as for a capitalist (free market) business structure he writes:

“Unlike the International Space Station (ISS), which is governed by complex treaties, the LIDC will have the same flexibility as an NGO in working with different nations and private entities to finance build and operate the facilities and equipment needed for lunar exploration. Using a corporate structure, the LIDC will allow nations to join through the purchase of shares and enable them to contribute at a level that is sustainable for their economies. Intelsat, the international corporation that bought the benefits of communication satellites to the nations of the world is an example of the potential benefits of a focused NGO in developing global space infrastructure.”

That sounds more “free market” than a NASA led program could ever be and if the Indians and Japanese and Europeans and Chinese are all participating then it will be far easier to demand a significant role for U.S. NewSpace ventures as well.

That said, perhaps the NGO/Intelsat model is not the best model and could be improved upon. But surely it is a better model than anything we can expect from NASA in the next few years.

Bill,

Two problems with what Buzz proposes.

First, not everyone shares our economic and political values, including the respect for contract law that for over 200 years has been largely responsible for creating the wealth that America now enjoys (and seems hell bent on destroying.) One of the principal arguments for America “leading” in space endeavors is to ensure that our values become the values of the new frontier.

Second, in the piece you reference, Buzz defends the existing paradigm — he simply wants to direct us elsewhere, specifically to Mars. If the idea of using space resources to enable new capability makes any sense at all (which you seem to acknowledge), why does it make any sense to continue the old ways of doing business with human missions using the Apollo template to destinations other than the Moon?

Given the realities of today’s NASA (as well evidenced by the Augustine Report) perhaps you and Buzz Aldrin could make common cause, at least to the extent of his October 12th call to develop the Moon – much along the lines you propose – but as a public sector & private sector partnership in cooperation with the entire world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/a-different-kind-of-moon_b_317786.html

Archimedes famously said that with a place to stand, he could move the Earth. If we are to move (change) NASA perhaps we need a fulcrum outside the United States if we are to obtain sufficient leverage to achieve that goal.

Both Senator Shelby (R-AL) and Representative Giffords (D-AZ) are representative of numerous staunch and influential defenders of the “Program of Record” and it appears so is much of NASA’s middle management. Should we attempt to batter down the Maginot Line, or go around?

Going forward, should we bemoan opportunities (and paradigms) lost or seek the most effective route for achieving the vision you (and Dennis Wingo) have articulated?

I believe Buzz Aldrin is 100% spot on, here:

“New space powers such as China and India have dedicated and complex space programs now under development, with the Moon as their target. Trying to “win” a Moon race with them would be foolish. They would eventually reach the Moon, with or without our help. What would be our policy then? Try to deny them access to the Moon’s bountiful resources in minerals — and maybe water as well? Such an attitude is more appropriate for the Cold War era that has been over for more than two decades.”

Bill,

We can afford to get to the Moon right now — robotically. Moreover, much of what we need to know, at least initially, can be done via robotic spacecraft and rovers, operated from Earth via teleoperations. This is one area in which NASA should be able to perform. This is also a program that doesn’t require significant new money, only the will to execute it.

You mention fuel depots. I expect that would be an element of the commercial/reusable paradigm I’m suggesting needs to come first. I guess what I’m saying is that what you envision as a single paradigm shift is really two paradigm shifts. The first step is to convince NASA to focus on defining standard interfaces and letting commercial contracts for spaceflight services. That in itself is a major paradigm change for space exploration. In fact, it’s too large for NASA as a politically driven organization to embrace quickly. After reading all the back and forth on the Augustine Committee over the past few months, I think about the best we can realistically hope for is a partial step in that direction. Perhaps NASA will be able to embrace spending $5 billion or so on commercial crew services as long as they get to keep building Orion and some big heavy lift vehicle. The latter two will be obscenely expensive and will provide cover for the former.

Bill,

We can start understanding how to do ISRU, what the feedstocks are like, how difficult it is, how to extract and store product all before the cost of launch to LEO is lowered. True, inexpensive access to LEO is a good thing, but once we’ve got refueling depots in space, you have a fully functional space transportation system, one that can access all of cislunar and whose existence will naturally increase flight rates to LEO.

I’ve heard about “lowering” launch costs for years, but it’s a “chicken or the egg” issue. We already know why LEO access is expensive — the “marching army” required to assemble, prepare and launch rockets. Automate most of that and you’ll lower launch costs.