AirSpaceMag.com

From the IAA report: “Four key destinations emerge as the most important targets for human explorers: the Sun-Earth
Libration Point L2 (SEL2), the Moon, Near-Earth Objects (NEO’s), and the planet Mars.”

Unlike the Obama plan, the Moon is a “key destination” in the IAA plan.

Obama broke his promise to support lunar missions:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/339/support-human-mission-to-moon-by-2020/

“With the release of his fiscal year 2011 budget, President Barack Obama dramatically broke one of his campaign promises.”

“Obama had said during the campaign that he would “endorse the goal of sending human missions to the moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.” But the proposed budget he presented to Congress would shift course significantly.”

Comment by Pete — June 27, 2010 @ 4:02 am

I think that Moskowitz, Oberg, and you all miss the point of the complaint about the new policy being developed “in secret.” It is not about the inputs or the overall debate in previous years, such as the Augustine Committee. Instead, the complaint is specifically about the FY11 budget formulation.

This complaint has been aired in some of the congressional hearings on the budget and it is specifically that NASA did not receive its budget passback in November 2009, when all other federal agencies did. The budget process normally involves OMB providing a final passback in November, giving an agency its top-line budget and general (and occasionally specific) guidance, and then the agency leadership develops the specifics of how the money will be divided up. This process includes the associate administrators and the center directors. But they were not involved in the budget process this time and instead they were merely presented with the end decision only a few days before the budget was made public in February. So it was “secret” to the agency leadership between November 2009 and February 2010. That is an unusual and generally unprecedented situation.

Now those outside of Washington, and those who support the new policy, may be forgiven for saying “so what?” But the lack of consultation with the agency prior to the release of a budget that altered a major portion of the agency’s activities resulted in the agency leadership (AAs, center directors, etc.) feeling like they had no input, and probably feeling like they have not been convinced why they need to support such a new policy. They were simply given new marching orders. The past five months have now been spent trying to add the kind of detail to the plan that is normally developed _before_ the release of a budget.

Comment by Dwayne Day — June 27, 2010 @ 9:24 am

Dwayne,

It is not about the inputs or the overall debate in previous years, such as the Augustine Committee. Instead, the complaint is specifically about the FY11 budget formulation.

Perhaps so, but only from a Beltway, inside-baseball perspective. The point in question about “lack of debate” in the linked article is Neil Armstrong’s quote from the May House Science Committee hearing and refers to the lack of widespread discussion about the new direction prior to its unveiling and more importantly, the casual and unthinking overthrow of a hard-won political consensus on national space policy.

The VSE had multiple public discussions, presentations at national professional meetings, Congressional hearings, and media debate and discussion. This public debate took place over several months and culminated with the passing of the 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization acts by two Congesses, each under the leadership of two different parties; both acts made the VSE our national space policy. It is the discarding of this policy consensus that was offensive to Armstrong and many others, including myself.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 27, 2010 @ 10:53 am

So why not send a robotic ISRU demonstration first?
In the meantime build the orbital “gas stations” (1st @ LEO & 2nd @ EML-1) where, if the ISRU demonstration is successful, the LH2/LOX can flow from newly-built Lunar surface ISRU plants to EML-1 and onwards to LEO.
If Lunar ISRU does not pan out, then ship LH2/LOX from Earth to LEO and onwards to EML-1.

What is wrong with this?

Comment by Alan — June 27, 2010 @ 11:34 am

So why not send a robotic ISRU demonstration first?

Where do I argue against that?

As for propellant depots, I think that they make sense if we can supply them with propellant made from space resources, in this case, propellant derived from lunar water. If we end up launching all the propellant from Earth, then nothing is fundamentally changed, except to eliminate the need for a heavy lift launch vehicle. But you still have to lift all your supplies from the bottom of the deepest gravity well in the inner Solar System. We know that will always be a costly task — the real leverage in space transportation comes from freeing ourselves from that necessity by using local resources. That’s where the biggest payoff and the largest, most significant unknowns are. Thus, that is where I think we should concentrate our research efforts.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 27, 2010 @ 12:02 pm

Paul D. Spudis said:

“As for propellant depots, I think that they make sense if we can supply them with propellant made from space resources, in this case, propellant derived from lunar water.”

I think ISRU will happen at some point after we start colonizing the Moon, but I differ from your viewpoint in that I think it will take far more resources to set up and run ISRU than it would take to set up and supply fuel depots from Earth. At least for quite a while.

Maybe I’m missing something in your ISRU thinking, but how many metric tons of mining & processing equipment are you thinking it will take to create a water extraction/fuel refinery on the Moon that can process enough lunar material to exceed local supply requirements?

And you want to do this with people, who require a colony infrastructure to be set up, supplies and replacement parts delivered, and crew rotation shuttles. All of this has to be in place BEFORE you get your first liter of exportable fuel, and that will be needed to power your tanker fleet.

How many years is it going to take to do this, and how much money?

United Launch Alliance (Lockheed Martin/Boeing) proposed their Moon colony plan called “Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″, and in it they use fuel depots as an enabler to getting to & from the Moon until an alternative fuel source is found. Their plan also uses existing launchers, and only spends $15B on launchers to support one year of building up in-space assets, and the 2nd year of landing and supplying a permanent colony (with 120 day crew rotations).

This plan could is also based on many of the features in the “Flexible Plan”, which is the basis for the proposed NASA budget.

I noticed that while blasting the proposed budget, you did not defend Constellation, so at least we agree that NASA has been on the wrong track with Constellation, and that the President had to make a change.

Comment by Coastal Ron — June 27, 2010 @ 1:48 pm

how many metric tons of mining & processing equipment are you thinking it will take to create a water extraction/fuel refinery on the Moon that can process enough lunar material to exceed local supply requirements?

Probably a couple of metric tonnes of equipment. You can start off small, with ~200 kg rovers and feedstock draglines. We need an oven to vaporize the ice and then radiators to cool it, tanks and piping to feed and store it. We can lay out an incremental approach that has distinct milestones: first water replacement and radiation protection for the outpost (few mT), then re-fueling for local use (ascent; 10′s-100′s mT), then export to cislunar (>100′s mT).

How many years is it going to take to do this, and how much money?

For a), I don’t care — however long it takes. Time is the free variable. For b), whatever the space budget is over the next 20-30 years.

you did not defend Constellation, so at least we agree that NASA has been on the wrong track with Constellation

I never defend a single-point solution. My point is different — that “Constellation” (or whatever name NASA gives to its beyond LEO spaceflight system) can be fixed to meet cost envelopes and technical performance specs. The Augustine report is simply wrong when they say otherwise.

The problem is, the President didn’t fix anything — his plan will result in the same amount of money spent over the same amount of time. The difference is that, with the Vision, we would have a functioning lunar outpost and ISRU system. With the new direction, we’ll end up with nothing.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 27, 2010 @ 2:09 pm

Paul D. Spudis said:

“With the new direction, we’ll end up with nothing.”

Being a little absolute there, aren’t we?

Lunar robotic precursor missions are nothing? Commercial crew capability to LEO is nothing? Keeping the ISS for space research is nothing?

I know you’re a “Moon or Bust” type of person, but you don’t see anything in the proposed budget that would support your ISRU goal? Yikes, what kind of glasses are you wearing?

Comment by Coastal Ron — June 27, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

Paul D. Spudis said:

“How many years is it going to take to do this, and how much money?

For a), I don’t care — however long it takes. Time is the free variable. For b), whatever the space budget is over the next 20-30 years.”

I guess this gets back to what your definition of NASA is. You apparently see NASA as a mining company, and I don’t. Why should the U.S. Taxpayer be funding a mining company?

Why don’t you want NASA out pushing the envelope of exploration, finding the ways for HSF to venture out past the Moon? You know, the hard stuff that private enterprises can’t afford and don’t have the resources to attempt.

The role of private enterprise is to follow into the newly opened wildernesses, and create viable businesses. Those businesses could include ISRU, if it makes economic sense, but you seem to have predetermined that ISRU is the number one product or service outside of LEO. That normally is a market decision, based on the prices of alternative supplies (like from Earth), and by forcing your economic solution on the marketplace, you run the risk of being wrong. And doing it with MY tax money.

I don’t buy into your vision of government-funded mining on the Moon. I think ISRU has a future at some point, but through market needs, not government (or your) mandates.

Comment by Coastal Ron — June 27, 2010 @ 3:07 pm

Frankly I think referring to the ’04 IAA report and implying it shows the Obama proposals is based on it, and all the study that went into it, is suspiciously disingenuous. I notice a lot of Obama plan supporters read between the lines to project a lot of depth and thought folks at NASA have never implied was ever there. If it was there, they would have thrown some of it out to congress – who appeared eager to grill them for dinner.

Comment by Kelly Starks — June 27, 2010 @ 3:36 pm

> The problem is, the President didn’t fix anything — his
> plan will result in the same amount of money spent over
> the same amount of time. The difference is that, with
> the Vision, we would have a functioning lunar outpost
> and ISRU system. With the new direction, we’ll end up with nothing.

Frankly worse then nothing. It could force decimating layoffs across the aerospace industry.

On a positive, if unrelated, note; it looks like the military is serious about wanting to field a RLV replacement for the EELV’s in about 15 years. one they want to drop per flight costs by a factor of 2 or 3, with much better on call flight ability. If they will drop costs that much with the mils flight rate, if any commercial market of any size starts up, or NASA really want to do a lunar base, this would make them much more doable in the 2020′s?

Comment by Kelly Starks — June 27, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

You apparently see NASA as a mining company, and I don’t. Why should the U.S. Taxpayer be funding a mining company?

You’re very good at missing the point. NASA’s role is to determine if the Moon can be mined, not to do the mining itself. The Vision directed the agency to return to the Moon to understand how difficult it is to use lunar resources to create new capability. NASA’s job is to return to the Moon with people and machines, characterize what’s there, how we might get to it and extract what we need, and demonstrate the feasibility of lunar resource extraction in an end-to-end systems test. Once developed, it is then possible to privatize it. How is that different from what you think the “new direction” is — government has shown Earth to LEO launch is possible and how to do it; now, it is time for the commercial sector to use this knowledge and construct their own capabilities.

Being a little absolute there, aren’t we?

Just making a prediction based on 30 years observing how the agency works, what it does well and what it does poorly. Reject it, disbelieve it, accept it as you will.

Anyway, this is the place where I give my opinion. It’s still a free country — put your opinions on your own blog.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 27, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

Kelly,

referring to the ‘04 IAA report and implying it shows the Obama proposals is based on it, and all the study that went into it, is suspiciously disingenuous.

Agreed, that’s why I wrote this piece. But the supporters of the new direction will grasp at any straw to promote it and denigrate their opponents. Check out this quote from OSTP Head John Holdren:

In an analysis of the White House’s proposed 2011 budget, the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program reported that Obama wants to end NASA’s Constellation program, which had targeted a return to the moon by 2020. The budget plan would save $3.1 billion by ending the return-to-the-moon mission and retiring the space shuttle. But it would increase overall NASA R&D funding by $1.7 billion, or 18.3%. Obama would invest $6.1 billion over five years to transition regular near-Earth orbit missions to private industry; increase funding by $812 million, or 35.1% over three years, for the International Space Station; and invest $559 million in “heavy-lift” and propulsion systems, including research into new engines, new propellants, and advanced combustion processes.

That shift has drawn criticism in Congress and from some sectors of the public—and recently from Neil Armstrong, who became the first man on the moon in 1969, and Eugene Cernan, who in 1972 was the last man on the moon.

In response to a question from the audience, Holdren strongly defended the administration’s decision, both on scientific and budgetary grounds.

After a close look at Constellation, he said, the White House concluded that, “notwithstanding its rapidly escalating cost, to three and four times the original estimate, it was still not going to able to land U.S. astronauts on the surface of the moon until 2030 or later.

“To get them to the moon by 2025 would cost an extra $60 billion over the next 10 years,” he said. “The president and his advisers, including me, made the decision that there are other destinations in deep space—destinations beyond low-earth orbit, that will allow us to do more science sooner, with more missions, more visits, more exciting discoveries—than going back to the moon 50 years later.

“It’s not real surprising that the American heroes who were the first people to set foot on the moon might think the most exciting thing we could do now is to go back there. But not everybody agrees with them. In fact, the second person to set foot on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, is a strong supporter of the president’s program. And a large array of other astronauts, including Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, Mae Jemison, the first African American woman in space, and John Grunsfeld, the Hubble [space telescope] repairman, who had five missions and 60 hours of spacewalking…all are strong supporters of the president’s program.”

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0521stpf_holdren.shtml

In other words, my “celebrity experts” are better than your “celebrity experts.” Appeal to authority is a classic tactic in theological debate and its use here by Holdren demonstrates that we are entering that realm of such discourse.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 27, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

So we are too dumb to “understand” Obama’s PowerPoint? Give me a break! I am a laid off Space Shuttle Worker and I cannot believe that Obama wishes to cancel our Human Space Flight Program for a Power Point.

You can read more of my thoughts at http://www.rv-103.com/?cat=98

Very good article and well done!

Comment by G. Cecil — June 27, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

Kudos to Paul, on another well-written article.

I spent all of my career on space projects, the majority of my career at JSC. Since college, I’ve been hoping I’d get to work on an exploration program. I finally started working on Lunar outpost preliminary design a few years ago. Now, as my retirement looms, all that has been yanked away, replaced with confusion and internal cannibalism (as people, labs, and branches jockey to find a source of funds for next year, and contractors scramble to have a job that will last past the layoffs).

Realistically, preliminary designs for human exploration beyond LEO won’t happen again for about a decade. Historically, cancellation of Lunar programs by Nixon (1970+) delayed human efforts to live off-world for 40 years and counting. President Obama now has the dubious distinction of adding decades to that sidelining. Since the Moon is such an obvious stepping-stone, we can only hope that some other country will take the step that President Obama has foolishly denigrated with his pronouncement “been there, done that”.

Although some of the creators and backers of the new plan have openly denigrated establishment of a Lunar outpost (John Holdren, Ed Crawley, Barack Obama, Buzz Aldrin), they can’t be so naive as to think that their FP2N (Flexible Path to Nowhere) will last beyond the next President. It may not even last beyond the next Congress.

And even if a crewed mission to a NEO survives all the budget cycles, how many taxpayers will be inspired by such a one-shot stunt; inspired enough to pour further billions into a future one-shot stunt to reach Martian orbit but not land? If they actually wanted to make a meaningful contribution to HSF, it should have been by setting achievable goals with near-term deadlines, not goals whose first meaningful action comes a decade after they leave office.

And if they aren’t naive, a cynic would say FP2N is a clever way to cause the US space program to self-destruct. The in-fighting in the space community is one example of that self-destruction. Another example: NASA’s budget may actually shrink as the years go by and ISS nears the end of its life. That’s because NASA may not be able to obligate the promised funds (so it won’t get them the next year), or because future Congresses (and Executive Branches) may find it even easier to claim NASA isn’t doing anything inspiring.

Unfortunately, the wheels of self-destruction are already in motion, and we are already losing our capabilities. Many of my colleagues have been reassigned, to protect them from layoffs. The most expert contractors are leaving or being moved away from NASA work.

Lucky people like me will retire, sadly taking our experiences away. The less fortunate will rebuild their lives, just as the thousands did after Apollo. Some opened grocery stores or motels, some pursued other professional lives; but few ever returned to aerospace, and only a few passed on their knowledge to the next generation.

It’s hard to say what we could have done then, or what we might have done now. Instead, we are on a path to becoming less relevant to space exploration. Best wishes to the next great empire.

Comment by John — June 27, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

Rocketman,

I am a laid off Space Shuttle Worker and I cannot believe that Obama wishes to cancel our Human Space Flight Program for a Power Point….Very good article and well done!

Thank you. And let me return the compliment — the piece on your blog posted last April about the Presidential speech at KSC was outstanding. You cut through the fog with crystal clarity — much better reporting and analysis than anything else I read in the media on it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 27, 2010 @ 5:49 pm

Rocketman, as I’m sure you’re aware, it was Bush/Griffin that laid you off, not Obama. Layoffs can be emotional, especially when you have worked at a place for so long like you. However Congress also decided to end the Shuttle, and did nothing two years ago when the program deadline to start shutting down suppliers was reached. However I see you’re turning lemons into lemonade, and are going to start RV’ing around the country, so you’re making the most of it.

The comment “Obama wishes to cancel our Human Space Flight Program” is always a weird one for me too, since the Constellation program would have ended the ISS, and our permanent presence in space. When Ares V finally was ready to launch, then we would have been out of space for 10 years or more. Is that a good thing? No astronaut corp for 10 years? And during that time, plenty of other nations would be gaining valuable experience in space, with hardware that we paid for – that was the worst part.

The other thing I find funny is when people talk about “commercial companies”, but conveniently leave out the two biggest – Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Why is that? Is it because then that invalidates the argument that “only NASA can launch people into space”? To think that only a government agency can launch people into space is also strange, as if only government personnel are smart enough – geez, this is 50 year old technology we’re talking about.

Blinded by the light…

Comment by Coastal Ron — June 27, 2010 @ 7:21 pm

Paul D. Spudis said:

“NASA’s role is to determine if the Moon can be mined, not to do the mining itself.”

In real life, mining companies pay for their own exploration and resource mapping. It’s one thing for NASA to devote some of their budget to determining the composition of the Moon and heavenly bodies, but you also stated ” whatever the space budget is over the next 20-30 years.” in regards to how much NASA should spend. That to me sounds like you want to do ISRU exploration as the exclusive program for NASA. Weird.

Also, considering that the current HIGH estimate for lunar water content is 5 parts per million, it’s going to take a lot of mining (and energy) to extract anything useful from the Moon. Just like fusion power, water on the Moon is a distant goal, not a near term reality. We need our current budget for hardware, not vaporware (get it, water vapor… see, I have a sense of humor).

“Anyway, this is the place where I give my opinion.”

And you allow comments, so you must want debate and discussion – unless Air & Space (who I subscribe to) requires comments…

Comment by Coastal Ron — June 27, 2010 @ 7:41 pm

“scientific objectives are used to determine the destinations for human explorers”

It is true that the plan presented in the IAA report is based around science alone, but the authors do explicitly state that it is not their opinion that science alone should be the guiding principle. It is a report written by a bunch of scientists addressing how the science part of an exploration program could be structured. They invite others to offer similar plans for commercial development of space.

Note that I don’t actually think the Obama plan is very good, the IAA plan was much better, as was OASIS and as was Steidle’s vision.

Comment by Martijn Meijering — June 27, 2010 @ 8:35 pm

“If we end up launching all the propellant from Earth, then nothing is fundamentally changed, except to eliminate the need for a heavy lift launch vehicle.”

You don’t believe in RLVs then? I totally agree that lunar ISRU can revolutionise space exploration and even if you had RLVs using lunar propellants might still be cheaper. Hard to tell what the economics will be so far in the future. But lunar ISRU does absolutely nothing for large scale space tourism, since that requires affordable transport to LEO. I think the major benefit of depots is that they could lead to development of RLVs in the early phases of an exploration program, long before ISRU was operational. Cheap lift helps everything, ISRU only helps exploration and more generally activity beyond LEO.

Comment by Martijn Meijering — June 27, 2010 @ 8:44 pm

Paul: Why do you and others keep saying that the Bush “Vision” was endorsed by both political parties? Apparently you do not know the difference between appropriation bills and authorization bills.

Modifying a quote from a famous Vice President, “Authorization bills aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit.” The rubber meets the road in appropriation bills. They tell you what the congress really supports. They never included the required funds for the “Vision” to be successful. Therefore, both political parties never supported the “Vision.”

Authorization language is designed for the mail-outs to the voters back home. “See, I supported what you folks want for the big fancy Post Office. It was all those bad guys that wouldn’t give you the money.” The mail-out doesn’t include: “I had to vote not to include the actual funds because that’s what my leadership told me to do.”

Cheers

Comment by Don Beattie — June 27, 2010 @ 9:51 pm

> In other words, my “celebrity experts” are better than
> your “celebrity experts.” Appeal to authority is a classic
> tactic in theological debate and its use here by Holdren
> demonstrates that we are entering that realm of such discourse.

Yeah – and thats the high road, low road just goes to name calling.

Assumptions taken as gospel and vicious attacks on nonbelievers and heretics who ask questions. Folks reading tea leaves to deduce the true meaning behind Obamas words.

Yeah, this is a great way to plan a space program.

Comment by Kelly Starks — June 27, 2010 @ 11:08 pm

There is no single reason to return to the Moon, there are multiple reasons to do so. We need to return to the Moon to:

1. Find out if a 1/6 hypogravity environment is inherently harmful or harmless to long term human occupation. In just one or two years, we could find out if colonizing low gravity worlds is possible for the human body .

2. Find out exactly how much lunar regolith, or water, or even hydrogen is required to effectively mass shield humans from galactic radiation. This has huge implications for interplanetary travel.

3. Find out how efficiently we can extract oxygen from the lunar regolith. Supply oxygen for space depots at LEO, GEO, and the Lagrange points could dramatically lower the cost of space travel

4. Find out how efficiently we can extract water and hydrogen from the lunar regolith. Again, supplying hydrogen for space depots at LEO, GEO, and the Lagrange points could dramatically lower the cost of space travel

5. Determine how much carbon and nitrogen are stored in the polar regions. Carbon and nitrogen are essential for growing food.

6. Find out if catapults or cannons can be used to cheaply toss lunar material into cislunar space. This could further reduce the cost of exporting oxygen and shielding material from the Moon.

7. Find out how efficiently we can mine and manufacture aluminum on the Moon that could be used for the manufacturing concentrating mirrors for geosynchronous solar power satellites which could potentially be a multi-trillion dollar a year industry. Lunar aluminum could also be used to manufacture interplanetary light sails that could completely open up the rest of the solar system manned interplanetary travel and the commercial exploitation of the asteroids.

8. Find out how efficiently we can grow food on the Moon and raise animals on the Moon. Astronauts, tourist, and colonist have to eat.

9. Find out how large we can build inflatable human habitats on Moon and well we can protect such structures from galactic radiation and micrometeorites. The larger such structures are the more tourist and possibly even permanent colonist are going to be attracted to the Moon.

10. Find out how comfortable, both physically and psychologically, can humans be living months or even years in artificial structures on the lunar surface.

11. Deploy solar powered robots, teleoperated from Earth could travel thousands of kilometers all over the Moon collecting samples and then they could return their samples to a Moon base for return to Earth.

The first nations to establish permanent bases on the Moon are going to dominate cis-lunar space and will also be the first to reap the stupendous economic benefits of utilizing the Moon’s resources. The pioneering of the Moon by governments along with the commercialization and colonization of the Moon by private industry is going to be one of the most important and exciting events in the history of our species.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — June 27, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

Thank you Paul. That is high praise to come from a professional space journalist. I am very humbled and flattered.

Over 10,000 people the world over have seen that post with only a few negative reactions. I know it has been seen and printed at the various NASA centers (and usually pulled down from the bulletin boards by management the next business day), and read by several congressmen/senator’s offices.

I would strongly suggest to your readers that they go to http://www.Congress.org and find out who their representatives are. Contact them and let them know where you stand in this debate over the future of our Human Space Flight Program.

Be safe and well.

Comment by G. Cecil — June 28, 2010 @ 12:11 am

The critical thing is to get the Moon back into NASA’s new direction. BUT…political face must be saved. On the one hand, I have heard Obama say “We’ve already been there”. On the other hand, I have heard Bolden say in congressional testimony that the Moon is still part of the plan. There is still a sliver of opportunity to get the Moon back in the picture. Here’s how.

Commercial space has had a very public and dramatic success in the form of SpaceX’s Falcon 9. Maybe Obama would be willing to keep the Moon in the picture if it doesn’t cost too much. Remember, the main reason that the Moon was taken out of the picture was because it would cost a lot of money to develop the Altair and the heavy lift rocket.

So, can we convince the administration to put the Moon back in the picture if it doesn’t cost so much as to jeopardize the stated goals of the Flexible Path (i.e. asteroid, martian moon, & eventually Mars)?

Yes, here’s how. Introduce a “new and bold” approach to enshrine commercial space within the NASA budget. Where commercial development of space makes sense, this is where NASA facilitates companies — namely cargo and crew to LEO AND cis-lunar space including the lunar surface.

There is practically no market for the glory seeking of footprint and flag expeditions to an asteroid, martian moon, or the Martian surface. But cis-lunar space has plenty of commercial potential including:
– orbital hotels,
– space tug,
– orbital refuel & maintenance,
– lunar water ice fuel to LEO,
– lunar metals to LEO / GEO,
– circumlunar tourism,
– lunar hotel, and
– SPSs.
Do we want to leave it to the Chinese to “own” cis-lunar space? Do we want our children to be watching the American Mars mission buying LEO fuel from a big red Chinese fuel depot? Oh my!

The bold new direction would confirm manned commercial flights to the ISS and would set percent (20%) of NASA’s budget would be dedicated to facilitating US commercial development of cis-lunar space (enabling technology for everything else). This would be done in a manner like COTS/CRS and prizes. Development of cis-lunar space would proceed at the pace that the 20% would facilitate. The glory seeking part of the new vision would not be jeopardized. And international partnerships would be more likely to support us if they could send one of their own to the surface of the Moon rather than be a junior partner of a martian mission. Obama likes international cooperation doesn’t he?

The money to facilitate commercial development of cis-lunar space would come from certain programs being axed or delayed. In my mind that would include Ares I (beyond an escape capsule although maybe a Dragon would make even that unnecessary), Altair and Ares V.

Can human exploration of an asteroid and martian moon be done without a heavy lift vehicle? Yes. Can lunar development (e.g. teleoperated equipment) be delivered to the lunar surface on medium lift launchers (e.g. F9H)? Yes. Can humans be delivered to the lunar surface without a heavy lift vehicle? I believe the answer is yes with two F9Hs (EDS & command/lander/resource modules), but certainly if fuel for EDS, landing and ascending comes from lunar water ice to LEO. Indeed, by my calculations, an F9H could carry all of the original Apollo upper stack to LEO if it were unfueled. Can a martian landing be done without a HLV? Maybe not although that normally wouldn’t come until after 2030 and, hopefully by then, the Moon would be providing the fuel, so maybe a HLV wouldn’t be necessary. There is no commercial market for HLVs so NASA couldn’t leverage company’s financial input.

If these are good ideas, they need to be considered by the administration very quickly before they politically lock themselves into some specific policy.

Comment by JohnHunt — June 28, 2010 @ 2:10 am

Coastal Ron,
Also, considering that the current HIGH estimate for lunar water content is 5 parts per million, it’s going to take a lot of mining (and energy) to extract anything useful from the Moon

From where do you get this number? It’s wrong — way off. The polar deposits hit by the LCROSS impactor indicate between 5 and 10 weight percent water, about 4 orders of magnitude higher than the estimate you give. Moreover, the radar data indicate nearly pure water ice (that’s on the order of 100%) inside some polar craters. I fully grant that these numbers need to be verified by ground measurement and that the physical nature of the polar deposits needs to be characterized, but there is abundant water there and in concentrations that make its collection and use feasible.

I know that terrestrial mining companies spend their own exploration money. But they know that the deposits they seek can be extracted and utilized. For the Moon, we do not yet have that knowledge and obtaining it is an appropriate activity for NASA.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 28, 2010 @ 5:01 am

Don Beattie,

Why do you and others keep saying that the Bush “Vision” was endorsed by both political parties?

Because it’s true.

Apparently you do not know the difference between appropriation bills and authorization bills.

On the contrary, I do know the difference. Not only was the VSE endorsed as a policy by both parties in two different authorization bills in 2005 and 2008, but Congress fully funded the administration’s request for development for Exploration in all five years of the agency budget after the Vision was announced.

They never included the required funds for the “Vision” to be successful.

That’s your value judgment, not an objective statement of fact. The Vision directed NASA to return to the Moon under the existing budgetary envelope and then provided that amount of money to them. They were not instructed to develop an unaffordable architecture and then whine about not having the money to implement it.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 28, 2010 @ 5:11 am

Rocketman,

That is high praise to come from a professional space journalist.

Thanks for the compliment, but I am not a journalist. My background is in geology but I have worked in the space program, studying the Moon, for almost all of my career.

Please keep calling them like you see them and I’ll do the same.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 28, 2010 @ 5:29 am

Coastal Ron,

“Rocketman, as I’m sure you’re aware, it was Bush/Griffin that laid you off, not Obama. Layoffs can be emotional, especially when you have worked at a place for so long like you. “

I had to reply. I knew the shuttle program was ending and had 6 years to prepare. I went back to school and obtained my Masters, saved my money, invested well, etc. I was and am at peace with that.

I don’t know why people try to muddy the waters when someone criticizes Obama’s new plan and say its sour grapes over the Shuttle program ending. It is not. We are criticizing Obama’s plan because of its lack of merit; He is ending our Human Space Flight Program and just dressing up the casket with flowery words he doesn’t mean. This has nothing to do with the Shuttle and everything to do with America’s leadership in HSF.

I’ve had 5 1/2 extraordinary years working on the Shuttle Program (22 years in the medical profession prior to that) and feel I have the education and experience to add my voice to the debate. It’s not hard to see Obama’s plan has no substance. Even the television show South Park agrees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjzggXBpRN4 (Well, you still have to keep a sense of humor don’t you?)

Be safe and well.

Comment by G. Cecil — June 28, 2010 @ 10:30 am

Paul: Sorry, you still don’t know the difference between authorization and appropriation bills. Appropriations are only good for one year. Sometimes congress permits carry-over if all funds not appropriated. A five year appropriation is a myth.

Waiting for a copy of your Apogee book. Cheers

Comment by Don Beattie — June 28, 2010 @ 12:13 pm

Don,

Appropriations are only good for one year. Sometimes congress permits carry-over if all funds not appropriated. A five year appropriation is a myth.

Now you’re starting to embarrass yourself. I never said anything about a “five year appropriation.” I said that the Congress funded NASA exploration activities in all the five remaining years of the Bush administration after the VSE was announced.

When I say that the VSE had strong bipartisan support, I backed that claim up by noting the authorization and appropriations actions of the Congress. So what is it about them that I do not understand (except for your erroneous claim it supports your viewpoint)?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 28, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

I wonder how much money NASA could make from selling some lunar regolith on ebay? If not for furthering human exploration then perhaps for the exfoliating qualities of the moon we should go back. Skin cream with real moondust. Mmmmmm…

Comment by Phil Thomas — June 28, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

@ Coastal Ron

Why should the U.S. Taxpayer be funding a mining company?

The USGS has funding mineral exploration for nearly two centuries. NASA would be merely continuing a long tradition of government sponsored minerals exploration.

Since you’ve read the ULA white paper, you know they estimate the cost of an aggressive lunar base at ~$7 billion USD per year. My own calculations suggest that such a base built near one of the “anomalous” craters discovered by Dr. Spudis and his colleagues could be fully self-sufficient for ascent and descent within 3-4 years of first landing. Removing the need for shipping 300 tons of propellant from Earth to L2 every year would save U.S. Taxpayer $3.5 billion USD per year at todays launch prices. If you truly respected U.S. Taxpayer, you would be onboard with the lunar ISRU mission.

Comment by Warren Platts — June 28, 2010 @ 4:50 pm

Phil, I know that your comment was made in jest…but allow me to take it seriously.

The market value of the stolen sample of ALH84001 was estimated at about $933,000 / kg or about a million bucks per kg or $1,000 per gram or just $125 per jewel-sized rock. Apollo missions brought back an average of 64 kg of lunar rock per mission. A commercial program focused just upon returning lunar rock for sell as collectibles could probably yield between $200 and $300 million per mission (until the market was saturated). Elon Musk offered to deliver 1,000 to 3,000 kg of cargo to the lunar surface for $80 million. If 1 out of 50 people in the developed world were willing to pay $125 for a moon rock “jewel”, then moon rocks by themselves would pay for about 12 missions before the market became saturated. With the profit from these missions, many more lunar missions could be financed. It seems to me that moon rock collectibles could play an important role in developing lunar commerce.

Comment by JohnHunt — June 28, 2010 @ 5:18 pm

Consider this:

NASA spent a boat load of money to build an incredible orbital laboratory (the ISS) and thereby spawned a promised new industry to deliver “stuff” (COTS) and ultimately people (COTS-D) to this fantastic destination.

This industry did not arise due to new discoveries in rocket technology (mearly enabled by vast sums of money from the DotCom boom), and are completely unrelated to the $10M lure of the sub-orbital X-prize. It is directly related to there being a destination (the ISS) needing to be supplied. And other orbital destinations will benefit too.

If NASA were to spend the necessary treasure and effort to begin a permanant Lunar presence, several things would logically follow.
- We would learn answers to questions we can now bearly ask.
- This new destination would need resupply, and “commercial” will eventually step up to the plate. CLTS, CMTS, “Fly stuff/me to the moon?”
- Support functions at such a base would also begin to be “outsourced” to “commercial”; cafeterias leading to restaurants, laundry service, recreation and perhaps guest suites for visitors (yes, lunar tourism – yes, a long time out). “Starbucks” could one day earn their name.

Sure it sounds like I’m smoking something without the required prescription; but there are McDonalds on overseas Army bases, the American West was tamed by the townsfolk not soldiers and cowboys, and the great benificaries of California’s gold rush wasn’t the miners but the shop keepers who followed to sell them what they would need.

Or we can hope that “Lucy” will hold the football for us.

Comment by No-Ordinary-Joe — June 29, 2010 @ 2:45 am

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by LPI_Library, James Cook. James Cook said: My hero. Dr. Paul Spudis responds to Space.com. "Malice, Mischief and Misconceptions," Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/cLCK45 Thank you. [...]

Pingback by Tweets that mention Malice, Mischief and Misconceptions | The Once and Future Moon -- Topsy.com — June 29, 2010 @ 11:31 am

From the 2030 NSP: All nations have the right to explore and use space for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity, in accordance with international law.

Will mining the Moon would require “somebody” to be in charge … the US? The UN? Who will grant permission and collect the taxes and fees (for all humanity) for a private company to mine?

Comment by LoboSolo — June 29, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

Lobo,

Will mining the Moon would require “somebody” to be in charge … the US? The UN? Who will grant permission and collect the taxes and fees (for all humanity) for a private company to mine?

Excellent questions all. I have no answers for them, but you should pose them to the administration and your elected representatives.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — June 29, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

@LoboSolo

Will mining the Moon would require “somebody” to be in charge … the US? The UN? Who will grant permission and collect the taxes and fees (for all humanity) for a private company to mine?

A follower of John Locke might suggest that all humanity is entitled to harvest the resources of the Moon (which lying outside of any sovereign jurisdiction exist in what Locke calls the “State of Nature”) without interference from any sovereign, provided enough is left behind for others to harvest, if they wish.

Thus, no taxes or fees should be due, except to the extent the government having jurisdiction over the miners chooses to impose such taxes.

It would seem the Isle of Man has recognized that there is opportunity, here. If the nation that “flags” the moon mining operation grants permission, what other permission is needed?

Comment by Bill White — June 30, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

An NEO mission will be NOTHING but a circus stunt! Hey!—instead of setting up building structures on the Moon, we’ll catapult astronauts like a human cannonball to a gigantic shard of rock 2,3, or even 4 months travel time away! We’ll cram them into a capsule tinier than an RV, and roll the dice with their life support system operating flawlessly that first time out! They might NOT EVEN be able to “land”, but heck, it’ll be 100% virgin territory! We’ll just fly in tandem with the humongous pebble! (One big stomp, and the astronaut in question could be tossed into a fatal new solar orbit, but nevermind THAT risk….) Look, people, why can’t we just leave NEO’s to robotic probes for now? These asteroidal stunt missions will NOT lead to bases NOR resource utilization. Manned asteroid missions will be just as big dead-ends as the ISS is right now.

Comment by Chris Castro — July 7, 2010 @ 1:55 am

[...] are the highlights: The space community has fractured since the disastrous roll out of NASA’s “new direction.” [...]

Pingback by Obama space policy ripped by Air and Space blogger « Once Upon A Time in Heaven — July 10, 2010 @ 1:45 pm