Creature of Congress

Still from the suddenly-lonely, remotely-operated color television camera on Apollo 17's lunar rover, minutes after the launch and departure of Cernan & Schmitt, December 14, 1972. Recent Narrow-Angle Camera (LROC) images from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter demonstrate the Apollo-era artifacts on the Moon appear undisturbed [NASA/A17-ASJ].

The Authorized Version

Paul D. Spudis
The Once & Future Moon
Smithsonian Air & Space

NASA’s new authorization bill (S.3729) was passed by Congress before they cleared out of town and will soon be signed by the President, codifying into law the federal government’s formal abandonment of the Vision for Space Exploration. In its place is a mish-mosh of platitudes, entitlement programs, pontificating blither about “unique” missions, commercial aerospace welfare and most significantly, an utter lack of direction for our national space program.

I’ve already heard the reaction to the sentiments above, as the space blogosphere has hashed and rehashed space access, space direction and space pork and now is left with – what? Defensively, we’re told, “The new bill does too have direction!! We’re going to Mars! We’re going to a near-Earth asteroid!! We’ll develop new, “game-changing, leap-ahead” technologies to make spaceflight easier and cheaper – that will take us there sooner! The commercial sector will develop new, ultra-affordable launch vehicles to allow the movement of humanity into space!” They will just … “Make it so.”

A statement that “Mars is the ultimate destination” is not programmatic direction, but rather an exhausted platitude, unsupported by any facts in evidence. We do not now have the technology, the will or the national wealth to expend on a human Mars mission and will not for decades. The idea that some new “magic beans” technology will spontaneously arise to enable a human mission is technically illiterate. The quasi-religious belief by some in the efficacy of “New Space” efforts to provide routine and inexpensive access to LEO is touching, but unsupported by any evidence. It is certainly true that many NASA programs have cost more and taken longer then promised or planned, but that’s been the nature of the space business since its founding 50 years ago. At least NASA had a track record of building and flying spacecraft, under a variety of difficult technical and fiscal conditions. But for now, NASA’s manned space workforce has been told to make tracks for other employment.

The likely effect of the proposed new “direction” for NASA by this administration has been apparent to many of us for some time now – the end of human spaceflight by this nation. Although some of us suspect that this shattering of a national capability is all quite deliberate, motives do not matter at this stage. The new authorization bill makes some significant changes to the administration’s proposal. The only pertinent question is, can pieces of the space program be picked up and re-assembled again, sometime in the future after years of destructive non-activity? It is in this vein that I want to examine some of the language of the new authorization bill.

The most prescriptive part of the new authorization is its language dealing with a new NASA-developed heavy lift launch vehicle (HLV) and a Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), replacements for the now-terminated Project Constellation. The launch vehicle description reads as though the authors of the bill had some solution (or range of solutions) in mind, a surmise supported by the requirement that the agency use “existing Shuttle parts and infrastructure to the maximum extent possible.” The specific requirement is for a vehicle with a payload capacity of 70 to 100 metric tonnes to LEO, capable of growth to 130 mT, including a possible “Earth departure stage.” It is further specified that this vehicle be capable of launching the MPCV into orbit and to supply cargo and crew to the ISS.

The crew vehicle description is a little more vague, as befits a spacecraft with no defined mission. Although it is specified that the MPCV shall be capable of conducting missions beyond LEO, its primary mission seems to be crew and cargo delivery to the ISS. In addition, it must be capable of supporting “rendezvous, docking, extra-vehicular activity” and “servicing of assets” in “cislunar space” (interesting wording that). The bill goes on to define the intent of this provision in another section (804) related to making space-based telescopes (like the James Webb telescope at Earth-Sun L-2) serviceable by humans. But by using the term “cislunar,” it may well be that something else might be lurking in the background.

The prefacing language in the bill (the seven “findings” of the Senate) is even more interesting (Section 301a). Cislunar space is mentioned in 4 of the 7 provisions of the prefacing section; human lunar surface presence is mentioned in 3 of those 7 sections. Strange language for an authorization bill that “abandons the Moon as a destination,” as claimed in many press reports. What should we make of this unusual language and phrasing?

I think that the bill’s provisions for a NASA-developed HLV and crew spacecraft reflect a fundamental ambivalence on the part of Congress for the “new direction” adumbrated by the administration last spring. It would seem some healthy skepticism exists as to whether a purely commercial solution to human LEO access is possible or even desirable. In addition, although the President is now famous for remarking that a return to the Moon is pointless because “we’ve been there,” someone on the Hill fortunately recognized the lack of understanding embodied in that statement.

The bill’s wording about human access to “cislunar space,” as well as the mention of “in situ resource utilization” indicates that some in Congress are not blind to the wealth of knowledge recently acquired showing that the poles of the Moon contain abundant water – material useful to those countries willing to go after it in order to achieve affordable space faring capability and routine access to cislunar space, where all advanced countries’ satellite assets reside.

In short, I detect in the new authorization bill the hand of someone in the bowels of the committees – a staffer perhaps – who has perceptively salvaged a slender thread of capability for the use of some future national leader, one that supports a robust American space program. I note that the authorization calls for a report in 90 days on how the agency proposes to implement the new plan. Somebody will be watching them.

NASA needs stability and resources

Jeff Ashby, Michael Bloomfield, Bob Crippen, Roger Crouch, Jan Davis, Brian Duffy, Jim Halsell, Steve Hawley, Rick Hieb, Scott “Doc” Horowitz, Bruce McCandless II, Don McMonagle, Pam Melroy, Charlie Precourt, Ken Reightler and Kent Rominger
Houston Chronicle

"Our aerospace industry is the envy of the world, employing 650,000 Americans in high-wage, high-skill jobs. It is one of the few industries that actually enjoys a trade surplus with our foreign competition. Every time NASA accomplishes a great achievement, the interest of our young people in pursuing a career in science and engineering spikes upward. When they graduate from college, not all will end up working in the space program, but many of them will join leading technology companies all over America."

"We believe that America's space exploration program has positively impacted the world perhaps more than any single national endeavor during the last half century. Our space leadership is a projection of this country's technical capability leveraged to foster peaceful cooperation among nations in a politically uncertain world. Each of us has been part of this great space legacy — and continues to be committed to ensuring the safety, vitality, sustainability and excitement of the future space program. U.S. investment in space and technology generates tens of thousands of jobs, stimulates small businesses and entrepreneurship, drives innovation and inspires the next generation of engineers, scientists and explorers so critical to America's future."

Read the full editorial HERE

Mars Society: 'Junk cost estimates' delivered to Augustine Committee threaten to sink NASA's human spaceflight plans

Ares V Heavy-Lift successor to Shuttle & Saturn
(NASA 2008)

Robert Zubrin, on behalf of The Mars Society, has published a claim that Aerospace Corporation delivered highly inflated cost estimates for completing NASA's Ares V heavy-lift booster to the U.S. Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, headed by Norman Augustine.

The "Augustine Committee" is on deadline to deliver its "recommendations" to the Obama administration, August 31. Though NASA administrators do not expect to see the committee's full report before the end of September, the end of the present federal fiscal year, the committee membership has already hinted that there are no affordable manned spaceflight options within NASA's long-term budget.

The Committee may conclude NASA is $50 billion short, over the next decade and a half, according to some press accounts.

Aerospace Corporation's estimates, however, as to the cost of Ares V or Shuttle C configurations," Zubrin wrote, "have no scientific basis and have clearly been composed to make the case that human space exploration is unaffordable."

"Examining the Aerospace Corp's cost estimates," Zubrin wrote, "they claim an insane development cost of the Ares 5 heavy lift vehicle of $35 billion dollars and assign a development cost of $28 billion for a somewhat lower capacity Shuttle-C type launcher."

"Both of these incredible estimates are about a factor of 7 higher than what is generally believed in the industry to be necessary for the development of such systems," Zubrin wrote.

"In testimony delivered directly to the committee, SpaceX president Elon Musk offered to develop a heavy lift system for $2.5 billion," Zubrin wrote. "Lockheed Martin presentations estimate the cost to develop a heavy lift (150 tons to Low Earth Orbit) launcher at $4 billion."

Zubrin strongly criticises the methodology used by Aerospace Corporation to estimate the continued developmental and, eventually, the operational costs for Ares V, and he also makes his case for Mars as a singular goal of manned spaceflight.

Read Zubrin's Statement HERE.

Expect no surprises in Augustine report

By Frank Morring, Jr.
AviationWeek

The upcoming report of the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee will follow closely the options for NASA programs already discussed publicly, and will not march off in any new directions.

The panel is bound by federal open meeting law, and it already has discussed what will be in its report in a series of public meetings (Aerospace DAILY, Aug. 3, 6, 13).

Even so, the panel's report will add detail to its public discussion. NASA staffers on temporary assignment to the panel are hammering out a final report for submission to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, working under an Aug. 31 deadline.

The report will organize the various scenarios already discussed into four or five top-level options - ranging from the current lunar return program to a straight shot at Mars - with a few more previously discussed sub-options based on funding and launch vehicles. Estimates on its final length range from 100 to 200 pages.

Panel Chairman Norm Augustine is scheduled to testify on the group's findings in back-to-back House and Senate hearings Sept. 15-16, but the meat of the text already was briefed to White House science and budget officials on Aug. 14.

Read the full article HERE.

'Netscape moment' for commercial space?

Michael Mealling
VentureBeat

The commercial space industry has seen some interesting developments over the past weeks. Statements last week by members of President Obama’s human spaceflight review committee (The Augustine Commission) suggest that commercial providers may be taking a significant role in how NASA accesses low Earth orbit and how missions beyond low Earth orbit use orbiting “gas stations”. At the same time, two commercial space companies, Virgin Galactic and SpaceX, have received significant investments from well known funds (more on that below), suggesting that capital markets see a fundable new industry developing.

Some of these developments are reminiscent of the Internet industry in the early 90s. Prior to 1993, the National Science Foundation ran the Internet as an exclusive tool for university and government research (commercial speech was completely banned from the Internet prior to 1991). The NSF then decided to turn over the operation of the Internet to the private sector. Just two years later, Netscape’s IPO set records for first day gains. Despite the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, the Internet industry has been one of the largest economic drivers of the last 15 years.

The suggestions coming from the Augustine Commission are somewhat reminiscent of NSF’s decision. By relinquishing its domination of low Earth orbit and partnering with commercial providers for beyond low Earth orbit infrastructure, NASA can better accomplish its exploration goals and foster a whole new industry. While we won’t see a space startup in every garage the way we did with Internet startups, the returns for using and developing space resources can be very interesting.

Read the full article HERE.

Augustine formally cancels contingency meeting

Via LunarMark:

Doc Mirelson
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-4495
doc.mirelson@nasa.gov

MEDIA ADVISORY: M09-160
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT REVIEW COMMITTEE CANCELS MEETING

WASHINGTON -- The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee determined the Aug. 24 contingency meeting announced in the Federal Register is not required. The committee has no plans for any additional public meetings.

For committee information, materials, presentations and biographies, visit:
http://hsf.nasa.gov

For information about NASA and agency activities, visit: NASA.gov

NASA: 'Outlook Bleak'

Jim Garettson
ExecutiveBiz Bog

After just seven more missions to the International Space Station (ISS), the Space Shuttle will retire without a replacement. Ex-Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, chair of the United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee review, has published his committee’s findings, and NASA’s budgetary future looks bleak. Augustine told PBS “the human space flight program really isn’t executable with the money we have.” Augustine has given the “White House a dilemma” of accepting the necessary increase in spending or continuing on a path that leads to severely constrained and delayed space exploration.

To find alternatives, NASA has committed $500 million dollars in stimulus funds to help two private firms, Space Exploration Technologies (better known as SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corp (NYSE: ORB), deliver cargo to the station, but will only commit $50 million dollars for commercial human transport to the ISS. For perspective, “Fifty million is what it costs for one seat on the (Russian) Soyuz,” according to SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk.

But Lockheed Martin warns that commercial transit to the ISS would be costly and unsafe. John Stevens, director of business development for human spaceflight at Lockheed Martin Space Systems, said “we’re having a hard time affording the Orion program, which is designed to take humans to the station and the Moon, and now they’re talking about starting a commercial program to take humans [to the ISS]…If we can’t afford one program, how can we afford two?”

Bottom line: unless NASA’s budget gets some significant breathing room, the US may lose its edge in manned space exploration.

Human Spaceflight Review committee takes final recommendations to the White House

Robert Block
Orlando Sentinel

After spending all day Thursday holed up in one of Washington's plushest hotels, the members of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee -- better known as the Augustine Committee -- crunched numbers, sifted through last minute data and put the finishing touches on the presentation they will make to White House officials on Friday.

White House officials say the meeting with the panel this morning, chaired by former Lockheed Marin CEO Norm Augustine, will not be at the White House, but will be before senior members of the administration including Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren, NASA AdministratorCharlie Bolden, Deputy Administrator Lori Garver and top officials from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

According to White House officials, the group will go over the latest options drawn up by the committee after two-and-a-half months of running around the country gathering information from NASA and leading aerospace companies.

The recommendations that the panel will be presenting include NASA’s current Constellation moon program in various funded guises as both a reference and an option for President Obama to choose from.

The options finalized on Thursday that will be presented are:

1.) Constellation constrained to FY2010 budget projections (ISS closed in 2015).

2.)ISS +Lunar constrained to the FY2010 budget which uses a commercial rocket and capsule instead of Ares I to take crew to the station.

3.)ISS +Lunar less constrained to the FY2010 budget, which also uses a commercial rocket instead of Ares I to take crew to the station.

4.) Extend the space shuttle under a less constrained budget to 2015 to close the gap in U.S. human spaceflight and give NASA time to build a rocket from shuttle parts for lunar orbits and scouting missions on the moon.

5.) Three "Flexible" deep space exploration options all under less constrained budgets:

A) Uses a smaller version of the Ares V called Ares V lite and no orbiting fuel depots;
B) Uses an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle and fuel depots;
C) Uses a rocket made from space shuttle parts and fuel depots.

Less constrained means the program will need up to $3 billion dollars (and in some cases more) extra annually above the current projected budget – a tough trick in the era of trillion-dollar deficits.

Commercial rockets play a key role in every scenario except the first option where Ares I is responsible for carrying crew to the ISS. The ISS is extended to 2020 in all options save the first.

There were no details about how any of the costs might have changed since the panel’s public hearing on Wednesday when many of these ideas were first presented. There are also no details how they scored or ranked the various options.

The Constellation program in all of its guises is presumed to have scored very low, a sign that NASA’s work for the last four years on the Ares I and Ares V rockets and the Orion crew capsule may be stillborn.

Read the complete posting HERE.

Review of Human Space Flight Committee: NASA Constellation program unaffordable

Robert Block
The Write Stuff
Orlando Sentinel

The Augustine Panel re-examining NASA's human spaceflight plans has concluded that the agency's current Constellation Program to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 will not fit into the current presidential budget.

In fact, the panel has found that President Barack Obama's current budget does not allow for any significant human exploration program.

"We are on a path right now for a system on a close order of just double the budget to operate," said panel member Jeff Greason of Constellation, which stemmed from President George W. Bush's 2005 "vision" to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and then move on to Mars.

Greason added that if Santa Claus gave the program to the country fully developed, NASA would still have to cancel it because the agency could not afford to launch it.

Read the Post HERE.

Will President Obama keep or break space promise

John Kelly
The Flame Trench
Florida Today

A year ago this week, President Barack Obama came to Titusville.

Then, he was a candidate locked in a fierce battle for the White House. He needed Florida.

People packed the room at Brevard Community College. Many were space workers or people with ties to the industry.

They longed to hear him outline his plans for NASA. Until then, Obama's campaign had released conflicting policy statements, one cut NASA's budget by billions to fund education and the other boosted space spending and added one extra shuttle mission.

In light of coming decisions about NASA's future, it seems worthwhile to check back on exactly what the president said last August in Titusville.

Let me be clear," the president said, "we cannot cede our leadership in space. That's why I am going to close the gap, ensure that our space program doesn't suffer when the shuttle goes out of service."

His goal was "making sure that all of those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the space shuttle is retired because we cannot afford to lose their expertise."

He promised a space program that would "help grow the economy right here in Brevard County and right here in Florida. That's what we're going to do."

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and legendary astronaut John Glenn, stumping for Obama, reached out to reporters. Aides pressed the media to keep noting Obama's commitment to "close the gap" and save space jobs in Florida.

My point: The promise was neither ambiguous nor subtle. The campaign wanted voters here to know Obama was good for space and good for space jobs.

Read the Editorial Comment HERE.

Returning to the Moon:

At The Economist, the debate continues:

"This house believes that NASA should not
send humans back to the moon"

Along with 59 percent of those who had added their vote, the Lunar Pioneers voted (one time) very much AGAINST the resolution of "the House."

We also added the following comment to the on-going discussion:

"Aside from the political questions, questions of NASA's role as "a creature of Congress" and, thus, its concurrent accountability to the national budget and sometimes transient but passionate concerns during the biennial federal election cycle, the weight of science is especially clear.

The astounding technological achievement of the Apollo Era, quite literally, "barely scratched the surface" of Earth's Moon.

There is unfinished business throughout the surface area of this Rosetta Stone, upon which is recorded the long history of the Solar System, and more, the history of the neighborhood in the inner Solar System occupied by Earth.

Far from the desert many hastily concluded that it was forty years ago the Moon has upon it all the materials needed to construct the robust kinds of machinery and equipment needed for exploration beyond the neighborhood, already in Earth orbit, with neither the Gravity Well nor the resistance of atmosphere.

Volatiles, Rail Gun emplacement and materials necessary to both study and overcome the threat of deadly, highly challenging, ionizing interstellar cosmic rays.

The latter threat alone is a compelling reason to put lunar exploration high on the agenda of even a reluctant technological superpower.

(Little discussed is the well-published fact that, using present propulsion technology, a round-trip to Mars, for example, exceeds NASA's individually assessed absolute limit on the probability of Radiation Exposure Induced Death (REID); 4 percent, over any single astronaut's lifetime.)

Finally, there is the history of bombardment, which even the casual observer of the Moon, in long proximity to Earth, shows may not be completely removed to the distant past. Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, and the similar cometary encounter with Jupiter mere days ago, (demonstrate how) the shuffle of mass, along with the variable radiance of our modest star, right here where we presently spend our lives, is still underway.

If we are to survive, we must reach beyond our dependence on Earth and a deceptive perspective of its constant safety. That way goes through the Moon, our natural deep-water port to the Deeper Sea upon which we depend.

Join the Discussion and Debate HERE.

Shooting for More Moon Travel

Senator, Astronaut and NASA Advisory Council Chair Harrison Schmitt on "A Trip to the Moon," Pardee Center Conference, (Boston University, April 12, 2007)

Geologist and former U.S. Senator from New Mexico Dr. Harrison H. "Jack" Schmitt, former chairman of NASA's Advisory Council and a Director of Orbital Sciences Corporation, wrote to the Washington Post, July 30, and respectfully differed with the U.S. Space Policy direction strongly advocated by fellow Apollo veteran and lunar module pilot Dr. Buzz Aldrin.

(Full Disclosure: Dr. Schmitt's position on these matters, like that of lunar and planetary scientist Paul Spudis posted below, is essentially the same as Lunar Pioneer, sponsor of the Lunar Networks blog.)

My fellow Apollo astronaut and lunar module pilot, Buzz Aldrin, favors Mars over the moon ["Time to Boldly Go Once More," op-ed, July 16]. His vision for space policy, however, requires clear thinking instead of just "bold thinking," and Mr. Aldrin missed on several points.

The moon is hardly a "dead end." If that were true, China and other countries would not be so interested. Rather than being "a poor location for homesteading," the moon is ideal for that purpose. Its soils provide resources necessary to support settlements, including an economic base of exports of helium-3 as a potential fusion fuel.

The fact that the "moon is a lifeless, barren world" means that it is the only place with a scientific record of the early history of the solar system.

Returning to the moon gives the fastest path to Mars. Without lunar water resources, radiation protection may not be feasible. Without lunar operational experience, risk on early Martian flights greatly increases.

Without lunar oxygen and water, payloads to Mars may be prohibitively large. Without lunar rocket fuel resources, we might not be able to even land on Mars.

Mr. Aldrin stands correct on one thing: Geologists need to be aboard the first flights to Mars.

HARRISON H. SCHMITT
Director
Orbital Sciences Corp.
Albuquerque

The writer was a U.S. senator from New Mexico from 1977 to 1983 and was the last man to set foot on the moon as Apollo 17's geologist.

Next Step or No Step

The Once and Future Moon
Smithsonian Air & Space
Paul Spudis

The Moon versus Mars controversy has reared its ugly head yet again. For the newcomers, this is the perennial “debate” among space buffs about what the next destination in space should be. I do not mean to suggest that all possibilities are encompassed by these two options; it just seems that most advocates fall into one or the other of these two camps.

In part, this argument has arisen because the Augustine Commission, currently deliberating the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program, has resurrected the debate with an architectural option they call “Mars First” (a.k.a. Mars Direct, Direct to Mars, Apollo to Mars and Mars-in-MY-lifetime), beloved of the Mars Society and ex-astronauts everywhere.

Briefly, this plan calls for sending people to Mars as soon as possible – no Moon, no asteroids, no L-points: do not pass “Go,” do not collect $200.

In such a scenario, all pieces of the Mars mission are launched directly from the Earth; this roughly one-million-pound on-orbit mass includes all the propellant needed for the trip, which makes up about 85% of the mass of the spacecraft.

The Mars First option follows the “Apollo template.”

In 1961, faced by the political necessity to get men to the Moon and back within a decade, Wernher von Braun designed the biggest rocket he could imagine – basically a scaled-up, clustered V-2 – to lift all of the parts he needed into space. This super heavy-lift vehicle was actually a family of rockets (Saturn class), whose ultimate behemoth was the Nova, a vehicle with a lift-off weight exceeding 13 million pounds. Fortunately, the choice of lunar orbit rendezvous for the Apollo mission mode made Nova unnecessary and a self-contained mission was launched by a single, smaller (7 million pound) Saturn V.

The Apollo template makes use of maximum disposability. As the mission proceeds and each flight element is thrown away, unused and unusable, the vehicle gets smaller and lighter. For some items, such as fuel tanks and structural elements, this doesn’t introduce unwarranted penalties, but some parts of the vehicle are high in cost and value. Within the Apollo template, however, their loss is inevitable.

A significant part of the Apollo template is the lack of infrastructure legacy, i.e., the elements brought to a destination that are available for use by the next crew.

We need to develop an architecture that leaves equipment in place for future use and expansion by subsequent visitors. This is one reason why sortie missions are inferior to establishing an outpost or a base; sortie missions spread surface assets over a large area where they cannot mutually support each other.

Much of the support for Mars First comes from the belief of its advocates that we will get “stuck” on the Moon or somewhere else, sort of like we have been “stuck” in low Earth orbit for the last 40 years.

In their minds, Mars is THE destination. To hear the pitch, one might believe Mars has it all – atmosphere, water, a 24 hour day, and possible ancient fossil life. Adventure! Thrills! What else could a space cadet want?

Although the “Mars First” advocates vigorously present their position each and every time the direction of our space policy is debated, they have never won the argument. Why?

Is it some evil conspiracy to keep them from their Mars dream? Is it just the stupidity of policy makers? Some simple facts suggest otherwise.

We do not now have the technology we need to support multi-month, self-sufficient human space travel.

The International Space Station needs nearly constant servicing and re-supply from Earth. In fact, one of the missions of ISS is to learn how to live in space without such service and re-supply, closing the various life-support loops and thereby developing sustained human presence. This is experimental technology and not nearly mature enough upon which to rest the lives of a Mars mission crew. Regardless of claims, a Mars mission is at least one (and possibly two) order(s) of magnitude more costly than any alternative mission.

There isn’t the will in either the Congress or the Executive to significantly increase the amount of money allocated to our national space program. Spectacular claims about “exciting the public” with a human Mars mission, regardless of their veracity (which is doubtful), do not translate into higher budgets for NASA. To go to Mars using existing technology, with an Apollo-style business model, is both unachievable and unaffordable.

The Vision for Space Exploration makes Mars a goal – along with every other space destination – after we go to the Moon to learn how to live and work on another world.

Moreover, the VSE implicitly states that such is to be accomplished under existing budgetary envelopes. In contrast to the Apollo template, time rather than money is to be the free variable.

The Moon can be reached with existing launch assets; although NASA is currently bogged down in a debate about rocket development, the real issues are how you go back to the Moon and what you do there. The Moon offers the material and energy resources to develop the technology and skills necessary for sustained, long duration capability in space.

Mars First advocates worry about getting “stuck on the Moon.” In fact, it is their obsession for Mars that has kept us in low Earth orbit for the last 40 years. By relentlessly pushing for a space goal that is well out of our technical and fiscal reach, they have gotten an undesired (but not unexpected) result: stasis.

There is no choice. You use the Moon or you get nothing. Right now, Mars is a bridge too far – we need the stepping-stone of our Moon to reach it.

Editorial Note: In case there's any doubt, this has been, and remains, the position of the Lunar Pioneers, one to which we've adhered since 1976. The Moon is our manifest destiny.

Like everyone else, we are anxious to hear what alternatives the Review of Human Space Flight Committee has to recommend to the President, hopefully before Labor Day. Certainly, NASA will be holding its breath until the President decides what he will recommend to Congress, upon whom lies both the responsibility and ultimate decision, regardless of what the President recommends.

Regardless, the Lunar Pioneers are prepared with our own plan already, should the President decide to proceed with anything less than the timetable for manned and unmanned exploration of the Moon set forth, after far too long a delay, following the Columbia accident.

Moon option 'downplayed'

Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block
Orlando Sentinel

WASHINGTON - The presidential panel looking at NASA's human space program spent Wednesday narrowing nearly 900 exploration options into seven scenarios that will be refined for presentation to President Barack Obama later this month.

They range from budget-busting plans to fly straight to Mars to more-affordable plans to just orbit the moon and nearby asteroids. Some would extend the life of the space shuttle, now due for retirement in 2010, and the international space station, now slated to close in 2015.

There was no mention in any options of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020, which is NASA's current goal.

"The ones that are on that list of seven really do represent the possible options that the nation has," said Ed Crawley, an MIT engineer and one of 10 panel members. "What we tried to do is boil it down to (those options) ... that capture the spirit of how we would go forward and explore."

Read the remainder HERE.

Conservatives in Space

Andy Keiper, The Corner
National Review

Three months ago, President Obama appointed a committee to advise him on what to do with NASA’s manned spaceflight program. In a few weeks, the committee will wrap up its work, and the Obama administration will chart out NASA’s new course. What should conservatives and libertarians hope to result from this process?

There are at least four basic impulses that divide the Right on the question of the federal space agency. To oversimplify: Some strict small-government types want to reduce or even eliminate government spending on human spaceflight. Some conservatives are predisposed to think of space as inhumanly detached from everyday concerns or foolishly distracting from the national interest. Some who are concerned with American glory, strength, and vitality want NASA to take on bold new challenges. And some who are concerned with enterprise want NASA to help the private sector develop space and then to get out of the way.

The last impulse is exemplified by engineer and blogger Rand Simberg, who argues in a powerful new essay that NASA should build the infrastructure needed for a vibrant private space industry. He largely agrees with Derb’s assessment of the Apollo missions and thinks that the space agency’s new plan must be sustainable and must have the goal of making the United States “a spacefaring nation, and the leader of a spacefaring civilization.” Simberg argues that propellant depots — basically gas stations in space — are the key to making it happen.

Meanwhile, engineer and author Robert Zubrin, who testified before Obama’s space committee yesterday, makes the case for a NASA mission directly to Mars. The Red Planet, he argues, is scientifically interesting, poses a bracing and inspiring civilizational challenge, and could feasibly be home to our first colony on another world. (The president of the Mars Society, Zubrin has been advocating a Mars mission for years and, among other projects, has spearheaded a Mars-simulation research station in the high Arctic.)

Simberg’s and Zubrin’s visions for NASA each appeal to different impulses on the Right, but they are obviously in tension. (“It isn’t NASA’s job to put humans on Mars,” Simberg writes. “It’s NASA’s job to make it possible for the National Geographic Society, or an offshoot of the Latter-Day Saints, or an adventure tourism company, to put humans on Mars.”) Yet Simberg and Zubrin both agree that a large part of NASA’s failures in recent decades can be attributed to the lack of interest and resolution on the part of the political class. It is hard to see how Obama’s space advisory committee, whatever it recommends, can change that.

— Adam Keiper is editor of The New Atlantis and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Review of Human Space Flight Committee posts agenda for upcoming public meetings

Washington, D.C. will host the next two public meetings, and the meeting agendas are now available.

U.S. Review of Human Space Flight Committee

› View August 5 Agenda
› View August 12 Agenda
› View Meeting Information

U.S. Human Space Flight Review Committee: Videos of Houston Public Meeting

U.S. Review of Human Space Flight Committee chair Norm Augustine presides over public meeting in Houston, last week, in Houston, where committee members got an earful from public and private representatives of the host city of NASA's Johnson Manned Spaceflight Center.

The Committee has posted video presentations HERE.

Backers still shooting for the moon

Shelby G. Spires
Huntsville Times Aerospace Writer

Ares supporters say headaches normal part of exploration

Will NASA make its goal of landing on the moon by 2020?

That question hung heavily over the three Augustine Commission meetings held this week across the nation. The commission, which is studying options for the space program at the behest of President Barack Obama, met in Houston, Huntsville, then Cocoa Beach.

Space agency optimists say yes, the deadline will be met, provided the program is given enough money and people to do the job. Detractors point out that the Ares rockets, managed by Marshall Space Flight Center, are already two to four years behind schedule after $3 billion spent and four years of development.

Apollo veterans say development headaches are part of going into space.

"If you'll remember, we were behind at some point or another on Apollo until we landed on the moon," said Dave Christensen, who worked with Dr. Wernher von Braun's rocket team.

"We didn't have a lunar lander that could be flown, and that's why we did Apollo 8 to fly around the moon. The lander on Apollo 10 was too heavy to land on the moon, so they went down to about 50,000 feet and came back as a test.

"Schedules are goals, not historical record."

That NASA has Ares rocket hardware at Kennedy Space Center in Florida and that a test launch of the Ares I rocket is planned for Oct. 31 are proof enough to many at the space agency that the schedule is on track, said Steve Cook, Marshall's Ares manager.

"We are four years into Ares I, and we are at the truly exciting point in a development program," Cook said Friday. "Test articles are emerging, and we're getting data to drive design improvements. We are well under way and are on target for initial operating capability in 2015."

Read Mr. Shelby's full report HERE.

U.S. return to Moon in 2028?

General Lester Lyles and LeRoy Chiao, of the U.S. Human Spaceflight Review Committee continue to listen and consider, here as seen in Cocoa Beach by Red Hubers of the Orlando Sentinel. The Aerospace Corporation claims U.S. return to Moon within budget constraints "all but impossible before 2028."

Mark K. Matthews and Robert Block
Orlando Sentinel

NASA's goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020 is all but impossible to achieve, a presidential panel was told Wednesday.

An independent analysis concluded there is little hope NASA could replicate any time soon what Apollo 11 accomplished 40 years ago. And sources said an undisclosed part of the study showed it may take until 2028 — nearly 60 years after America's first moon landing — to get back.

"We can't see [the gap] closing," Gary Pulliam, an analyst with Aerospace Corp., told a near-silent audience in Huntsville, Ala., where engineers at the Marshall Space Flight Center have spent the past four years designing new rockets for NASA's Constellation program.

One NASA analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of NASA or the review panel, said astronauts might be able to return to the moon by 2028, although another source said 2035 was more likely.

Read the full Article HERE.

It's time for mankind to return to the Moon

Joe Culpepper
Editor - Gulf Breeze News

In this week's paper, I share with readers some of my impressions of a recent visit to the Kennedy Space Center that by design coincided with the 40th anniversary of man's first walk on the moon.

The space program always has fascinated me. I was but 10 years old as I sat on the living room floor of my house in Mississippi and watched on television as the Apollo 11 astronauts first reached the moon and hours later set foot on its dusty soil.

When I moved my family to Florida five years ago, one of the promises I made to myself was that we would travel to Cape Canaveral and witness a space shuttle launch. I've since realized that shuttle launches often are postponed, seemingly at the very last minute, due to unforeseen problems. If you want to see a launch in person, you must be prepared to stay a few days.

My visit to Kennedy Space Center on July 20 was a consolation of sorts. My family still was able to see many of the sights you see on TV before, during and after a launch. It baffles my mind that there have been 127 such launches through the years, and sadly there are only seven more scheduled.

Critics say the space program is too costly. Granted, it does cost billions to explore the heavens.

But mankind must continue to be challenged. There are frontiers to explore, much knowledge to be gained. We answered President John Kennedy's challenge by doing what only a few thought possible. Too much time has passed since man last walked on the moon in 1972. It's time to reenergize, return to the moon and reach further into the cosmos.