AirSpaceMag.com

Too bad the current administration can’t seem to understand the simple logic that John Marburger was advocating.

And its also too bad that Mike Griffin chose the most difficult and expensive architecture to attempt to achieve that vision:-)

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — July 30, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

“Too bad the current administration can’t seem to understand the simple logic-”

I think that simple logic was and is a little too simple.

It is fine to pay tribute to those who have passed on. But there always seems to be a reason behind the tribute having to do with the agenda of those paying tribute.

No person is without sin. We know this from many of the figures of recent history such as JFK, MLK, Von Braun, and others.

Even Ghandi sent a telegram to Hitler congratulating him on conquering France. People’s lives are more complex than what has been written about them in a few books or magazine articles.

I want to point this out because I have to say that Dr. Marburger’s economic reasoning concerning space has many flaws.

“Sustainable and affordable” are fine terms to bandy around but they have little meaning by themselves.

What is sustainable? What is affordable? In my opinion Space Flight is inherently expensive, there is no cheap. As for sustaining funding of this expensive activity some events make this a moot question. Would any effort be considered unsustainable if a long period comet came swinging around the back side of the sun and suddenly we needed to lift some 130 ton payloads quick- or die? Or if an engineered 100 percent lethal virus began sweeping the globe and it became obvious the human race was going to go extinct?

The Bush Science adviser was not dealing with these questions. However, the small percentage of human beings on this planet who have the ability to think critically do worry over these questions. These issues and the questions they raise exist beyond the political and economic factors that seem all important. Concerning the survival of the human species, in a single moment those factors would be rendered meaningless.

I also salute John Marburger, and I do so while pointing out the work that is before us and the actions that must follow.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 30, 2011 @ 3:15 pm

A good eulogy and a good description of what Dr. Marburger actually supported.

The second is important in these politically charged times, but the first is also important this soon after his passing.

I did not know Dr. Marburger, but I was much impressed by his talks at the Goddard Space Symposium. My condolences to his family and those who were lucky enough to know him.

Comment by Joe — July 30, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

Gary,

What is sustainable? What is affordable? In my opinion Space Flight is inherently expensive, there is no cheap.

In the context of the VSE and what Marburger was advocating, ‘sustainable” means lasting through multiple Congresses and administrations. In that sense, NASA’s implementation of the VSE was not “sustainable.” Note that sustainable does not necessarily equal “cheap” (which is a relative term and cannot be evaluated with objective criteria in any event.)

I have to say that Dr. Marburger’s economic reasoning concerning space has many flaws.

In your opinion. In mine, he was articulating a long-range strategy that is valid now as it was when it was advanced seven years ago.

The Bush Science adviser was not dealing with these questions.

No, he was dealing with the issue of what to do with an agency that gets ~$ 20B per year. The proposition on the table was that for such an expenditure, we should get something in return. Returning to the Moon to create a permanent, “sustainable” presence was the direction chosen. And that direction was abandoned by the current administration.

As to whether their “idea” is a better one — time will tell.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 30, 2011 @ 3:23 pm

Of course these days, a $20 billion NASA seems beyond the dreams of avarice.

Comment by Mark R. Whittington — July 30, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

Mark,

a $20 billion NASA seems beyond the dreams of avarice.

Order of magnitude estimate. After the dust settles, it will be around this number, give or take a few billion. The question is, will we get any value for that expenditure?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 30, 2011 @ 3:36 pm

“As to whether their “idea” is a better one — time will tell.”

Hello Dr. Spudis,
If you think a long term strategy of bringing our space exploration activity into the economic sphere is valid, then you are intimating the “flexible path” is the better one.

I am, as you and our little community are aware of, completely opposed to the profit motive being the prime mover of space exploration. I believe it is toxic to any growth and expansion in human space flight and off world colonization. It is my opinion and time will tell if my views prove true. I understand that completely.

As for 20 billion- I recently read 105 billion on weapons research in 2011. Just research.

Fortunately such research has often had applications to space travel. And much research masquerading as non-military while actually being covert weapons development also ends up as useful for space applications.
But this vast treasure spent on death dealing devices has always been a blinding light to me that others take no notice of.

My question is why the DOD will not accept any kind of planetary protection mission- and by extension colonization as a national defense priority. What is this firewall between BEO-HSF and the military?

Does the Military simply want nothing to do with deep space because it is not considered a valid theater of operations?

Or is it because the military industrial complex does not want the smaller profit margins and would rather develop the money makers?

I think space is hard money and this will spell the eventual doom of private space schemes. Likewise unless there is some event such as a small impact or spectacular near miss- or even some kind of revelation concerning other threats of extinction such as engineered organisms, there will be no money for HSF-BEO.

So there are several different paths being presented but in the end there will probably be just a dead end unless the correct path is chosen.

I am not hopeful at this point in time but there is always something new. Anything can happen- and often does.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 30, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

Gary,

I’ve let you have your rant (once again) but I do not want to go into this with you again. You clearly do not understand where I am coming from and I do not choose to repeat myself endlessly. Please take this conversation elsewhere.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 30, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

Jack Marburger was indeed a wise and creative man, and his thoughts about the rationale for human space flight were more compelling than had ever been voiced. The idea that the purpose of human space flight might be to actually incorporate the solar system into our economic sphere was inspired. Unfortunately, that sentiment never really came out in the VSE, which was introduced by President Bush largely with what you’ve properly called the “usual cliches”. What happened? To this day, our formal space policy doesn’t refer to the importance of space to our economic frontier (except perhaps in making jobs here on Earth), nor does it consider human space flight to achieve more than the “usual cliches” — exploration, inspiration, and all that. Maybe human space flight should be all about settlement and colonization. But our formal space policy never dares to refer to those things.

Marburger really did have the clearest and most “visionary” articulation of a future in space ever given. It was indeed nothing less than the declaration of a new paradigm for spaceflight, one in which we go and do in space whatever jobs we can imagine or need. But it was never really incorporated into formal space policy for this nation.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — July 30, 2011 @ 5:13 pm

Unfortunately, that sentiment never really came out in the VSE, which was introduced by President Bush largely with what you’ve properly called the “usual cliches”

Not true. If you read the original VSE speech [HERE], he lays out the primary mission of the VSE, which was to learn how to create a sustainable human presence. He specifically says “we will undertake extended human missions to the Moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods.” Moreover, he goes on to state:

“Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth’s gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air.”

Exactly how are these words “the usual cliches”? He is outlining something that has never even been attempted in space, let alone accomplished.

In contrast, the current line of inane blither goes like this:

Bolden said NASA has followed up with a series of pioneering firsts that will continue under the roadmap for future space exploration laid out by President Obama. Obama has redirected NASA to abandon a return to the moon in favor of extending the life of the orbiting space station and building a heavy lift rocket and deep space exploration capsule that can land astronauts on asteroids by 2025 and to orbit Mars by 2035. Commercial spacecraft rather than NASA spacecraft will service the space station in the meantime. “With the same spirit of innovation and grit of those early days of space flight, we now move out on an exciting path forward where we will develop the capabilities to take humans to even more destinations in the solar system,” said Bolden. [SOURCE]

So who’s the “cliche” generator?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 30, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

Sorry, but I don’t see those words as being quite the same as bringing the solar system into our economic sphere. Those words are about how we do more ambitious missions. They’re very good words, but it’s not what we’re talking about. Processing lunar rocks into rocket fuel and breathable air? No, those things aren’t an important part of our economic sphere. Making breathable air on the Moon to export down to the Earth sounds a bit dumb, doesn’t it? I guess they’d be part of our economic sphere if we were talking about MAJOR colonization of the solar system. But, for better or worse, he wasn’t.

Again, those are very good words, and better than I’ve heard from other administrations, but they’re not Marburger’s words. That was my point.

It is also the case that VSE was announced with those usual cliches. That’s forgivable, because those cliches are like habitual tics to space advocates. One says them uncontrollably without thinking about them. Exploration! Inspiration! Geseundheit.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — July 30, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

Processing lunar rocks into rocket fuel and breathable air? No, those things aren’t an important part of our economic sphere.

Yes they are. They permit routine access to cislunar space by people and machines and that has economic value. In fact, by creating a space transportation system enabled by the production of lunar fuel, you are in effect creating a “transcontinental railroad” in space.

And that does have enormous economic value. You don’t have to “colonize” space to need to routinely access and use it.

President Bush was aware of these ramifications at the time of the speech.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 30, 2011 @ 9:27 pm

No, that still doesn’t work. Rocket fuel and breathable air have economic value IF routine access to space has economic value. President Bush didn’t explicitly make the statement that routine access to space had economic value, though he did list a few spinoffs that I suppose had some economic impact.

He said lunar resources would help us “support more distant travels”, and that we might find resources that will “boggle the imagination”. and perhaps “vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration”. He even speculated that “our efforts will be repaid many times over”.

But he didn’t say what Marburger said.

I believe that VSE was truly an inspired and far reaching vision. One far better than we’ve ever heard coming out of a President. My point is that President Bush could have taken the logical extra step that Marburger did, which was to connect space exploration to our economy. But he didn’t.

This is not to detract from Marburger’s wisdom, or the power and creativity expressed in the VSE, just to point out that VSE could have met Marburger all the way, and didn’t quite.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — July 30, 2011 @ 10:09 pm

If our investment in space is a burden to US economic growth then in these hard economic times, it should be cut back like any other Federal program.

However, the statistical evidence continues to show that our investment in space has helped to grow the US economy and create jobs while advancing our technology. In fact, I think its obvious that the US would be a much poorer country without the satellite revolution all by itself. So I guess you could argue that our investment in space is inherently sustainable since NASA expenditures tend to create more wealth than they consume.

Is a $15 to $20 billion a year budget enough to sustain a manned program that could help us establish a permanent presence on the surface of the Moon and then Mars and beyond?

I think so– if such manned programs are prioritized within the NASA budget. The fact that NASA hasn’t done these things since the end of the Apollo program is not because they couldn’t be done but because expensive LEO programs like the Space Shuttle and the ISS were the priority– not beyond LEO programs.

I’m a strong proponent of both Federal and private commercial space programs because I believe that both are mutually beneficial to each other.

However, we don’t need these private companies to replace NASA or to become integrated with NASA. We need NASA to do its own thing and for private spaceflight companies to do their own thing! And both NASA and private industry will benefit from developing their own technologies and ways of doing things while borrowing technologies from each other when necessary for their mutual benefit and for the benefit of the American economy.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — July 30, 2011 @ 10:31 pm

[...] Visions Don’t Pass Away – A Tribute to John Marburger | The Once and Future Moon Recently deceased John H. Marburger, former Science Advisor to President George W. Bush and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, had a long and distinguished career as a scientist, an administrator and public servant. His passing is a loss for America. Source: blogs.airspacemag.com [...]

Pingback by Visions Don’t Pass Away – A Tribute to John Marburger | The Once and Future Moon | New Space: A New Era In Space Exploration | Scoop.it — July 31, 2011 @ 3:43 am

“the statistical evidence continues to show that our investment in space has helped to grow the US economy and create jobs while advancing our technology”

That’s correct, but it was not NASA’s investment in space that did it. It was the DoD investment in space that created the launchers and the communication systems that constitute what I think you’re referring to as the “satellite revolution”. In fact, the DoD investment in space surveillance led to technologies that revolutionized our capabilities for storm tracking.

The “inspiration” argument is another one entirely, which NASA human space flight leans on pretty hard as linking to the U.S. economy. It is, as noted here, one of the reflexive clichés of the enterprise. The argument may have some validity, but statistical evidence certainly isn’t compelling. Was the inspiration from Apollo from exploring space, or was it from beating the Russians technologically? Competition is strongly inspirational.

Marburger was gutsy enough to actually paint a vision for space that was more than inspiration, exploration, and competition, and he did this on the national stage.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — July 31, 2011 @ 10:14 am

There was a study published in Nature back in the 1990s that demonstrated NASA’s impact on the US economy:

http://thespaceadvocate.blogspot.com/2009/12/you-want-economic-impact-you-cant.html

While I guess you could argue that the USSR invented the satellite and the first US satellites were launched by the military before there was a NASA, the first commercial satellites launched utilized NASA to launch the Telstar into orbit.

As far as manned spaceflight is concerned, there are already indications that space tourism has some economic validity. For some reason space tourism is not taken seriously as a viable enterprise even though– terrestrial tourism- is nearly a trillion a year industry worldwide. There are about 100,000 people currently on the planet that are rich enough to actually afford to fly into space aboard a Russian spacecraft.

If NASA can extend a permanent human presence all the way to the lunar surface then there is no doubt in my mind that space tourism will also follow NASA all the way to the lunar surface.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — July 31, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

[...] Marburger died recently at the age of 70. But as Paul Spudis states in his moving tribute to the man, his vision has [...]

Pingback by John Marburger and His Vision for Space Exploration (ContributorNetwork) | Breaking News Today — July 31, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

“In contrast, the current line of inane blither goes like this:

Bolden said NASA has followed up with a series of pioneering firsts that will continue under the roadmap for future space exploration laid out by President Obama. Obama has redirected NASA to abandon a return to the moon in favor of extending the life of the orbiting space station and building a heavy lift rocket and deep space exploration capsule that can land astronauts on asteroids by 2025 and to orbit Mars by 2035. Commercial spacecraft rather than NASA spacecraft will service the space station in the meantime. “With the same spirit of innovation and grit of those early days of space flight, we now move out on an exciting path forward where we will develop the capabilities to take humans to even more destinations in the solar system,” said Bolden. [SOURCE]”

I think Bolden is required by law to make a hvy lift, the senate launch, and therefore is restrained politically and legally. The fact that Bolden was marine and astronaut [and black] are major considerations involved with him being appointed as NASA administrator.
I doubt whether Bolden has any interest in going to the Moon. It’s doubtful doing his term in office he can do anything that could regarded as successful in regards to going to the Moon.
So whether Bolden or Obama has any clue regarding Jack Marburger vision of space exploration, is an interesting question, though neither has support for this view publicly. Though I can’t much political advantage for either of them to publicly support it. Any time any political talks of going to Mars or the Moon they can expect attacks from congress and the MSM- and with the debt problem, it seems better not to bring up the topic.
But Obama space adviser and current deputy administrator, Lori Garver, has, in my opinion, been rather outspoken in supporting Jack Marburger vision.

Comment by gbaikie — July 31, 2011 @ 8:50 pm

But Obama space adviser and current deputy administrator, Lori Garver, has, in my opinion, been rather outspoken in supporting Jack Marburger vision.

The key to the economic development of space in Marburger’s view is using off-planet resources, starting with the Moon (read his Goddard speech). Garver is apparently happy to abandon the Moon (the only place where we could possibly start learning how to extract and use resources in the next few decades) for a program of PR stunts and faux accomplishment

So her “outspokenness” is irrelevant — actions speak louder than words.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 1, 2011 @ 4:05 am

Google: Lori Garver + Moon
“Date: 30 September 2010
“NASA’s deputy chief told reporters today (Sept. 30).

NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver, the space agency’s second-in-command, said the moon has a role to play in the new space exploration plan set by President Obama and approved by Congress this week. NASA, she added, won’t turn its back on Earth’s nearest neighbor.
…
Obama’s plan cancels NASA’s moon-oriented Constellation program set forth by former President George W. Bush, which sought to return astronauts to the moon by 2020, but was found to be underfunded and untenable during a White House review last year.

But Garver said the moon is a symbol of inspiration for many people on Earth, in part because of NASA’s manned lunar landings of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The moon is also the most visible of off-world destinations to the public, she added.
…
In the nearly 49 years of human spaceflight, only a handful of missions ? the six successful Apollo
moon landings ? have sent humans to walk on the moon’s surface.

“Of course, we have been there with 12 humans. We will be going back with humans. We will be going back with robots,” Garver said. “And the fact that we are charting the next destination as an asteroid is nothing against the moon.” ”
http://www.space.com/9237-moon-exploration-dead-nasa-official.html

I can’t argue that Obama is pushing lunar exploration- if anything he has expressed no interest in going to the Moon. I don’t expect Garver to push policy which isn’t supported by the President

Comment by gbaikie — August 1, 2011 @ 6:23 am

Garver said the moon is a symbol of inspiration for many people on Earth, in part because of NASA’s manned lunar landings of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The moon is also the most visible of off-world destinations to the public, she added….“Of course, we have been there with 12 humans. We will be going back with humans. We will be going back with robots,” Garver said. “And the fact that we are charting the next destination as an asteroid is nothing against the moon.”

These comments essentially prove my point — she doesn’t understand the Moon’s role as an enabling asset. She continues to push the Moon as a “symbol of inspiration” and “visible to the public.” This is the antithesis of Marburger’s exegesis of the Vision, which emphasizes lunar return for resource utilization and capability creation.

As I said before, what she says is irrelevant; what she does is not.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 1, 2011 @ 8:57 am

Marburger also warned against Apollo-style programs for doing things in the future, since he felt Apollo was an aberration, not a model to be used in all cases. The Constellation program seems to have proved that point, and I know the Spudis/Lavoie plan is one of many that seeks to create a more gradual lunar build up.

But I guess I’m always leery about plans depending on resources from the Moon when competition from other sources is ignored. Unless there is a government mandate that lunar resources have a monopoly on air and fuel supplies in space, it’s hard to see how a government-run lunar resource extraction enterprise will be able to compete with terrestrial sources.

And that begs the question. It’s one thing to explore and test out ISRU techniques, but shouldn’t ramping up production of supplies from the Moon be based on competitive reasons (i.e. it’s less expensive from the Moon) than blind faith (i.e. we HOPE that we can compete with prices from Earth)? It would be a huge waste of money to spend $Billions of scarce NASA dollars building a resource system that can’t compete with the private marketplace.

This gets back to the roll that NASA should play in space. Should it always be on the edge of exploration, clearing the way for others to follow? Or should it be spending it’s time doing the things that are not part of it’s skill set (exploitation), and that rely on a government subsidized marketplace?

As Marburger said in a 2006 keynote, “As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not.”

An economic sphere is not government doing what the private marketplace should be doing. Government works best when it does things that no one else can do (i.e. exploration), and paves the way for economic expansion (i.e. exploitation). How quickly that expansion happens is dependent on the demand for it, and creating supply without demand is a waste of capital.

With the direction NASA’s budget numbers are going, we don’t have too much to waste.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 1, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 1, 2011 @ 4:09 pm
“Marburger also warned against Apollo-style programs for doing things in the future, since he felt Apollo was an aberration, not a model to be used in all cases. The Constellation program seems to have proved that point, and I know the Spudis/Lavoie plan is one of many that seeks to create a more gradual lunar build up.”

“But I guess I’m always leery about plans depending on resources from the Moon when competition from other sources is ignored. Unless there is a government mandate that lunar resources have a monopoly on air and fuel supplies in space, it’s hard to see how a government-run lunar resource extraction enterprise will be able to compete with terrestrial sources.”

I know it is pointless to ask for anything vaguely resembling logic from you. But if we are only going to use resources from “terrestrial sources” to do whatever we are going to do in space, what do you think we are supposed to be doing? I thought that you felt ‘flags and footprints’ was a waste of time.

Why is a program, even if it uses Space X and Fuel Depots (from all terrestrial sources), any different than Apollo? It uses an entirely ground based supply chain to do a series of ‘one off’ expeditions that will last only as long as political support remains.

I know you will give the usual ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ answer (that is if we just give the ‘New Space’ companies – primarily Space X – enough money everything will be OK), but it would be nice if for once you could give a serious answer instead of an infomercial.

Comment by Joe — August 1, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

“Garver said the moon is a symbol of inspiration for many people on Earth, in part because of NASA’s manned lunar landings of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The moon is also the most visible of off-world destinations to the public, she added….“Of course, we have been there with 12 humans. We will be going back with humans. We will be going back with robots,” Garver said. “And the fact that we are charting the next destination as an asteroid is nothing against the moon.”

These comments essentially prove my point — she doesn’t understand the Moon’s role as an enabling asset. She continues to push the Moon as a “symbol of inspiration” and “visible to the public.” This is the antithesis of Marburger’s exegesis of the Vision, which emphasizes lunar return for resource utilization and capability creation.

As I said before, what she says is irrelevant; what she does is not.”

Ok, but it’s not a complaint against this administration or this NASA administration.
I not aware of any world leader or US president which has held this view. Nor any NASA administrator.
If a president and or any member of congress held this view I would be surprised. And none have bothered to mention it, as far as I know.
Which btw is evidence to me that they aren’t as bright as they want people to regard them as.
Obviously, this isn’t a earth shattering revelation.

Perhaps, President Bush was had a very slight “infection” of this idea. But I am quite dubious of JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, or Clinton getting a whiff of it.

In summary, Garver isn’t Saint Garver. Nor is she going to lead us to the Promised Land.

And I am not sure what is meant exactly by the Moon being an enabling asset.
The Moon is a gateway to this solar system. It is the gateway to our future. The Moon has a huge amount of untapped resources. Opening space will [has to-can not be avoided] transform the human species.

But to politicians, it’s far crazier than buying Alaska.

Comment by gbaikie — August 1, 2011 @ 10:02 pm

@Coastal Ron,

Reducing the cost of pioneering the Moon will require NASA to exploit polar water resources for the manufacture of air and fuel (hydrogen and oxygen) and for hygiene, basic drinking water, and for growing food.

It will also require the utilization of lunar regolith to protect permanently manned facilities from the deleterious effects of cosmic radiation.

The development of all of these lunar technologies by NASA should be mutually beneficial for private companies thinking about exploiting lunar resources for reusable space tugs for transferring satellites from LEO to GEO and for private commercial companies thinking about expanding space tourism all the way to the lunar surface.

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — August 2, 2011 @ 2:16 am

I not aware of any world leader or US president which has held this view. Nor any NASA administrator.
If a president and or any member of congress held this view I would be surprised.

I have mentioned in the comments above and in numerous prior posts on this blog that President Bush articulated the VSE for exactly these reasons. Just because the current leadership can’t understand it doesn’t mean that the previous one didn’t.

And I am not sure what is meant exactly by the Moon being an enabling asset.

If you won’t read what I write, why do you insist upon commenting on it? I have said repeatedly that the Moon offers extractable, usable water, which can be made into rocket fuel to power a reusable, extensible, maintainable cislunar space transportation system. That is how it’s an enabling asset.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 2, 2011 @ 4:25 am

“If you won’t read what I write, why do you insist upon commenting on it? I have said repeatedly that the Moon offers extractable, usable water, which can be made into rocket fuel to power a reusable, extensible, maintainable cislunar space transportation system. That is how it’s an enabling asset.”

I think that probably fair number of politicians including even Obama know that on the Moon there may be extractable and usable water which can be made into rocket fuel.
But I doubt any of them understand the true significant of what that means.
So if you did a poll of congressman and ask them if they were knowledgeable that was water discovered on the Moon. Or if there is enough water on the moon to extract and make rocket fuel. I would guess a more than half of them would indicate they were aware of this- perhaps as high as 90% of them. But this doesn’t translate to an understanding that this is particularly important.
An example would be if there was a large quality of diamonds on the Moon, they would regard this as far more important. Diamonds would seem important to congress because they know there is a market for diamonds- they know diamonds are valuable. They don’t understand that water on the Moon is valuable. They don’t understand that there could market for water in space, or even that there could a market for rocket fuel in space.

Many knowledgeable people may imagine that lunar water would enable NASA to do it’s job- help NASA explore space.
But that isn’t even particularly true, but even if true, it is of little importance. What is far more important is that NASA could explore the Moon and enable a market of rocket fuel in space. And that if a market for rocket fuel is establish in space the direct result will be the opening of the space frontier.

Comment by gbaikie — August 2, 2011 @ 5:42 am

“There was a study published in Nature back in the 1990s that demonstrated NASA’s impact on the US economy:”

This study comes to the excellent conclusion that spending money benefits lots of people. There is a multiplicative effect in any dollar that the federal government spends.

But the study refers to the “space program”, and then to NASA, and ends up totally confusing the two. NASA is NOT the U.S. space program. It’s actually a small piece of it. So this article makes an excellent case for the economic benefits from the U.S. space program, and then slides the NASA acronym in as representative of that. This actually plays well to the public misperception about the U.S. space program — that it’s all about launching people and taking pretty pictures of far away places.

No, NASA’s impact on the economy has never been that well established, especially from a value perspective.

—

I really don’t want to get into an argument about Lori Garver, but when it comes to off-world resources, it can hardly have escaped her attention (and I’m sure it hasn’t) that the Moon is probably a good place to go to get them. The issue is whether we’re ready technologically and fiscally to start mining and using off-world resources in a big way. She and the agency think not, and on the basis of Mr. Marburger’s testimony to the Augustine Committee, I suspect he came to feel the same way.

He said

“A balanced approach would prudently build capability for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit, while avoiding premature commitment to specific large scale operations. By careful planning we can make each step a foundation for a range of next steps, so with time our investments mount, costs and risks diminish, and we keep options open to exploit the right one when we are ready to make a big move.”

Sounds like flexible path, no? Visions don’t pass away.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — August 2, 2011 @ 2:40 pm

Sounds like flexible path, no?

No.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 2, 2011 @ 3:22 pm

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — August 2, 2011 @ 2:40 pm
“I really don’t want to get into an argument about Lori Garver, but when it comes to off-world resources, it can hardly have escaped her attention (and I’m sure it hasn’t) that the Moon is probably a good place to go to get them.”

Exactly what is that makes sure it hasn’t “escaped her attention”?
Even if it hasn’t, what makes you think she cares?

Comment by Joe — August 2, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

Comment by Joe – August 1, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

I’ll address your last point first:

“that is if we just give the ‘New Space’ companies – primarily Space X – enough money everything will be OK”

I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space. I also support competition, and believe that NASA could stretch their exploration funding the furthest by concentrating on the things that the aerospace industry can’t do, either because the technology doesn’t exist or the market to profit outside NASA work doesn’t.

I’m not alone in this view, as it seems to be a fairly bright dividing line in the debates about where NASA should be spending it’s ever decreasing budget. Also notice that I didn’t name any particular companies, because what may be today’s low-cost leader could be tomorrows high-priced one, and I will change my support to whoever is lowering costs, not raising them.

“But if we are only going to use resources from “terrestrial sources” to do whatever we are going to do in space, what do you think we are supposed to be doing?”

My point was to use competition to determine where the resources should come from. If you have a lunar colony and it’s less expensive or logistically better to source locally, then great, that’s a competitive win for lunar resources. I just don’t think the Moon will be able to export consumables at a price anywhere near what can come from Earth, but I want to make sure that the marketplace can determine that, not some government program.

“I thought that you felt ‘flags and footprints’ was a waste of time.”

Re-doing flags and footprints is a waste of NASA’s money. Once they have demonstrated a capability, they should hand off that capability to U.S. companies and move on to the next challenge. That said, I do see the value in government exploration for the accumulation of knowledge, but not exploitation.

I have stated previously that the robotic exploration part of the Spudis/Lavoie plan looked pretty good to me, and that likely would be mostly government funded. But once people start talking about resource extraction for a market, then that’s where companies need to come in and take over. And if you think about it, it makes sense, since NASA’s skill sets are not in doing resource extraction, but more on the technology side of exploration.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 2, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

Comment by Marcel F. Williams – August 2, 2011 @ 2:16 am

“Reducing the cost of pioneering the Moon will require NASA to exploit polar water resources for the manufacture of air and fuel (hydrogen and oxygen) and for hygiene, basic drinking water, and for growing food.”

Why NASA? Does NASA have the ability to lower the cost of anything? Is that a skill that NASA does better than U.S. Industry? Why not have NASA put out an RFP for something like “deliver 50mt of water to Lunar Colony 1 every year”? Let the company decide where the water should come from.

I guess this gets down to your belief of who is better at managing resources – the government or the free market. I don’t think the government does a very good job, but maybe you do.

“The development of all of these lunar technologies by NASA should be mutually beneficial for private companies thinking about exploiting lunar resources for reusable space tugs for transferring satellites from LEO to GEO and for private commercial companies thinking about expanding space tourism all the way to the lunar surface.”

Space tugs going from LEO to GEO would more likely be supported from Earth, not the Moon. Can you show any economic comparisons to support your idea?

And regarding tourism, I have been fairly vocal in saying that tourism will be an outgrowth of our expansion into space, but not a primary driver. People want to go to destinations, and the initial destination will be places of work, not hotels and amusement parks. I see the higher levels of passenger traffic in support personnel, which is what I think will surprise people with the ISS when commercial crew systems start running.

For instance all of the commercial crew systems hold 7 people, so each time they launch for a 2-person crew rotation mission they could do what the Shuttles did when they visited the ISS – allow extra people to visit the ISS for short periods of time, for whatever reason. But most likely those seats to the ISS will be filled by people NASA wants to visit the station, not tourists. Tourists will only be able to fit into existing flights, and only if the seats have not already been spoken for by the entity paying for the flight – and I think there will be few seats they won’t be able to fill. Don’t count on space tourism to be the economic engine for initial lunar expansion.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 2, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 2, 2011 @ 4:23 pm
“I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space. I also support competition, and believe that NASA could stretch their exploration funding the furthest by concentrating on the things that the aerospace industry can’t do, either because the technology doesn’t exist or the market to profit outside NASA work doesn’t.”

You left out the part where I said “it would be nice if for once you could give a serious answer instead of an infomercial.” Your answer explains why.

“I just don’t think the Moon will be able to export consumables at a price anywhere near what can come from Earth”

Then from what do you believe your ‘private’ space program will make its required profit on the moon?

Why would they participate?

Perhaps for governments payments?

Why is that different from what you call a ‘government’(as opposed to ‘commercial’) program?

That is the frustration I have with ‘New Space’ supporters. You talk (incessantly) about your love for capitalism and the free market, but you never present a real case for where all this free market capitalism (you claim to love so much) will turn out a useful product on which to make a profit (other than supporting government operations – the ISS, or rich space tourists). When somebody proposes a program (government run) that might eventually produce a potential market for a real commercial space industry you not only want no part of it, but attack it.

Comment by Joe — August 2, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

“Exactly what is that makes sure it hasn’t “escaped her attention”?
Even if it hasn’t, what makes you think she cares?”

Re Lori Garver, try http://www.space.com/9237-moon-exploration-dead-nasa-official.html, in which she says “And the moon is part of any long-term sustainable presence in space”. That’s what makes me sure.

Are you saying that she doesn’t care about a long-term sustainable presence in space? On the basis of many many other tracts by her, I suspect that isn’t the case.

No, she isn’t head over heels about a near-term return to the Moon, but I gather that she cares, and that she associates the Moon with sustainable presence in space. Going to NEOs (which I think is a pretty silly idea) is what she needs to defend, but I don’t think she credibly associates NEOs with such a sustainable presence.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — August 2, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

The problem with Lori Garver is that whatever else she believes in she believes first and foremost in Lori Garver. Right now that means hewing to the Obama party line, which is that the Moon if off limits.

Comment by Mark R. Whittington — August 2, 2011 @ 6:38 pm

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — August 2, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

I am very (might even say painfully) aware of what Ms. Garver says. But as Dr. Spudis has already noted, what she actually does far outweighs what she says.

Comment by Joe — August 2, 2011 @ 7:03 pm

Comment by Joe – August 2, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

“Then from what do you believe your ‘private’ space program will make its required profit on the moon?

- Why would they participate?
- Perhaps for governments payments?
- Why is that different from what you call a ‘government’(as opposed to ‘commercial’) program?”

Maybe the issue here is that you haven’t articulated what your vision is for how this will work. I’ve provided mine, and I could keep providing further detail about how supply and demand works when the government is a prime customer or a secondary one, but I don’t want to get too far off topic for our host.

Usually you’re loath to provide details, but I think it’s time for some quid pro quo, especially since the other readers can’t compare and contrast our views if I’m the only one providing them.

Comment by Coastal Ron — August 2, 2011 @ 7:59 pm

As a DA for NASA, her ultimate boss is Obama. So yes, hewing to the Obama party line is what we should all expect from her. Of course, Obama’s party line came largely from Lori, so it isn’t that hard for her to hew to it.

Obama declaring the Moon off limits? Certainly in the sense that with regard to federal monies likely to be available for the task, it’s way off the limit. Well said.

Comment by Heinrich Monroe — August 2, 2011 @ 10:46 pm

Usually you’re loath to provide details, but I think it’s time for some quid pro quo, especially since the other readers can’t compare and contrast our views if I’m the only one providing them.

This is not a general discussion board, but a space provided by A&S for comments about my posts. Take this conversation elsewhere.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 3, 2011 @ 4:28 am

Obama declaring the Moon off limits? Certainly in the sense that with regard to federal monies likely to be available for the task, it’s way off the limit

Wrong. The administration plan is to spend the same amount of money on space that NASA would have gotten in any event, only now, it is to be thrown away in worthless widget making (technology “investment”) and subsidies to New Space contractors. There is no “threshold” amount that allows or forbids us from going to the Moon — we set the goal and pursue it in an incremental manner. It’s the abandonment of the goal that demonstrates that they do not understand its value.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 3, 2011 @ 4:33 am

Yes, Obama stopped & blocked the new path to the Moon. We can only hope that there will be a new person in the Oval Office come January 2013, and that he/she will ultimately see the great value & potential of renewed manned Lunar exploration. When a newer cast of federal executive branch government characters finally takes hold, on this theater stage, I predict a novel silver opportunity will have arrived. The chance to move things in the correct direction again.

Comment by Chris Castro — August 3, 2011 @ 5:59 am

Technically, the 2005 Authorization Act specifies that we must return to the Moon by 2020. That clause was never superceded by a further Authorization Act, so technically, it still remains in force….

Comment by Warren Platts — August 3, 2011 @ 11:43 am

As for the wisdom of not having deadlines, I know Marburger himself didn’t like them, but deadlines do have the virtue of there being a definite schedule against which progress can be judged. With no deadline, when questioned about going to the Moon, people like Bolden and Garver can always respond with “We’re working on it!”, and technically not be lying.

On the other hand, I can see if things got over-rushed, they might have to resort to a quick and dirty architecture that might be ill-advised compared to more sustainable designs.

Comment by Warren Platts — August 3, 2011 @ 11:51 am

deadlines do have the virtue of there being a definite schedule against which progress can be judged.

You don’t have to have a deadline in order to have a schedule. I agree that a strategic plan, laid out with specific milestones so that progress toward the goal can be measured, is essential. That’s not the same as stating that the end point must be reached by a certain specified date (a deadline). I contend that the dates associated with the VSE are guidelines, not deadlines, and were introduced to prevent the bureaucratic stasis that you allude to from setting in.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — August 3, 2011 @ 1:24 pm