Author Topic: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033  (Read 3043 times)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 1821
  • Likes Given: 1996
Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« on: 01/28/2017 10:13 PM »
Wired.com has a opinion piece today by Norm Augustine, Mark Kelly, and Scott Hubbard where they advocate that the U.S. should have a goal of "...NASA sending American's to Mars by 2033...", which they feel is "...a realistic goal consistent with the demands of both rocket science and political science."

I'll summarize their reasoning:

1.  Science - "Are we alone?"

2.  ROI on our economy - new technologies, goods, and services required for this effort would contribute to our economy

3.  Most importantly, competition - don't cede our lead in space to the Europeans, Russian or Chinese.

Thoughts and comments?

For a different recommendation for the same goal, our own member OpsAnalyst has a thread about her recent op-ed in The Huffington Post:

Op Ed: Why Mars? Because it will change our world for the better - NASASpaceFlight thread
« Last Edit: 03/04/2017 10:58 PM by Chris Bergin »
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline RonM

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1893
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 823
  • Likes Given: 654
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #1 on: 01/28/2017 10:37 PM »
Sounds like a good idea to me. Of course, the big question is how do we pay for it? There will have to be commercial involvement, but President Trump likes that sort of thing. Congress, not so much. Maybe a mix of NASA SLS, SpaceX, ULA, Blue Origin, etc.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7441
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4331
  • Likes Given: 2934
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #2 on: 01/29/2017 03:40 AM »
2033 is too timid.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3435
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 921
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #3 on: 01/29/2017 04:05 AM »
I think it should be the Moons of Mars 8 or 9 years after the kick off. That would be more realistic than timid or aggressive.
« Last Edit: 01/30/2017 02:39 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 1821
  • Likes Given: 1996
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #4 on: 01/29/2017 04:20 AM »
I think it should be the Moons of Mars 8 or 9  years after the kick off. That would be more realistic than tmid or aggressive.

I wanted to wait until someone else brought it up before I commented, but "...NASA sending American's to Mars by 2033..." is certainly open to interpretation by itself.

Certainly they think one of the goals should be looking for signs of life on Mars, so that implies landing humans on Mars.  But maybe the 2033 goal is to do a flyby, like Apollo 8 was for our goal of eventually landing on the Moon?  And then humans staying in orbit around Mars and eventually reaching the surface with humans would be after the 2033 date?

I'd believe sending humans on a Mars flyby by 2033 is possible, but I have less faith that without a MAJOR amount of funding that we'd be able to land humans.  Not the way that NASA works in any case - NASA of today is pretty cautious.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 721
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #5 on: 01/29/2017 05:04 AM »
Nothing like this will happen unless Donald Trump buys into the idea.  Most of Congress doesn't care too much.  Until they convince Trump and he publicly supports it and then gets NASA and industry to agree on a practical plan and then convince Congress to fund it, it just won't happen in that time frame.  I'm not holding my breath.  Too many hurdles for 2033.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3580
  • Liked: 2116
  • Likes Given: 2953
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #6 on: 01/29/2017 11:41 AM »
...

I'd believe sending humans on a Mars flyby by 2033 is possible, but I have less faith that without a MAJOR amount of funding that we'd be able to land humans.  Not the way that NASA works in any case - NASA of today is pretty cautious.

I believe that landing humans is possible, but we are not in the game to get there.

... 'strike one' and 'strike two' 
1. There won't be a MAJOR amount of funding, say 50-100% increase in NASA's budget.
2. Going to Mars by 2033 and the pretty cautious NASA of today are mutually exclusive...

'Strike three' will be Congressional intransigence on SLS/Orion being the exclusive transportation.

If Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard have a game plan, they should lay it out. 
Otherwise, 'you can't get there from here.'
« Last Edit: 01/29/2017 11:56 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1995
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #7 on: 01/29/2017 12:42 PM »
I'm disappointed by this.  Augustine had a chance to make a recommendation at the end of his commission and elected not to. That was the time to do this.  There was at least some level of interest and momentum.  Now, even the small head of steam then has disappeared.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7555
  • Maker of physicists and engineers…
  • Liked: 1946
  • Likes Given: 4454
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #8 on: 01/29/2017 01:29 PM »
I think it should be the Moons of Mars 8 or 9  years after the kick off. That would be more realistic than tmid or aggressive.

I wanted to wait until someone else brought it up before I commented, but "...NASA sending American's to Mars by 2033..." is certainly open to interpretation by itself.

Certainly they think one of the goals should be looking for signs of life on Mars, so that implies landing humans on Mars.  But maybe the 2033 goal is to do a flyby, like Apollo 8 was for our goal of eventually landing on the Moon?  And then humans staying in orbit around Mars and eventually reaching the surface with humans would be after the 2033 date?

I'd believe sending humans on a Mars flyby by 2033 is possible, but I have less faith that without a MAJOR amount of funding that we'd be able to land humans.  Not the way that NASA works in any case - NASA of today is pretty cautious.
I tend to see a  crewed Mars flyby as too much risk for little return. It would just leave the public asking why didn't we land. We live in a "instant gratification" society, this is not 1968 when we were simply amazed by Apollo 8 which I saw live. The public already has photos and videos from orbit and the surface and astronauts taking "selfies" with Mars in the window behind seems pretty lame IMHO...
“All engineering experiments generate valuable data, the failures are the ones that yield the most”
Rob

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #9 on: 01/29/2017 02:07 PM »
I'm disappointed by this.  Augustine had a chance to make a recommendation at the end of his commission and elected not to. That was the time to do this.  There was at least some level of interest and momentum.  Now, even the small head of steam then has disappeared.

I think it is more likely a recommendation would have happened if the former president had been more interested in space exploration.  The best plan with the new president is to convince him of the value of space exploration.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7555
  • Maker of physicists and engineers…
  • Liked: 1946
  • Likes Given: 4454
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #10 on: 01/29/2017 02:13 PM »
I'm disappointed by this.  Augustine had a chance to make a recommendation at the end of his commission and elected not to. That was the time to do this.  There was at least some level of interest and momentum.  Now, even the small head of steam then has disappeared.

I think it is more likely a recommendation would have happened if the former president had been more interested in space exploration.  The best plan with the new president is to convince him of the value of space exploration.
Cutting the CxP waste was the priority as well as serving the immediate need for supporting ISS logistics and crew rotation with commercial...
“All engineering experiments generate valuable data, the failures are the ones that yield the most”
Rob

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10492
  • Liked: 2109
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #11 on: 01/30/2017 02:16 AM »
From the piece:

"Third and most importantly, the European Space Agency, Russians, and Chinese continue to accelerate their human spaceflight programs."

"Accelerate"? I have seen no sign of acceleration for any of them.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10492
  • Liked: 2109
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #12 on: 01/30/2017 02:24 AM »
And how about "nations that fail to explore succeed in becoming stagnant." Is that actually true? Germany has not "explored" in 70 years (and let's not discuss whether invading Poland and France counts as "explore"). But Germany is not a stagnant nation. Japan's boom in the 70s and 80s was not due to exploration. China's boom in the 2000s was not due to exploration. So this seems like a claim that is refuted by actual evidence.

There are some really dubious statements in that op-ed.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2905
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 1821
  • Likes Given: 1996
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #13 on: 01/30/2017 02:28 AM »
From the piece:

"Third and most importantly, the European Space Agency, Russians, and Chinese continue to accelerate their human spaceflight programs."

"Accelerate"? I have seen no sign of acceleration for any of them.

- ESA has to contend with the possibility that the European Union is collapsing, and they have shown no real interest in going BEO on their own with humans.

- Russia's economy is in tatters, and they are barely maintaining their ability to field 60 year-old launch systems.

- China's space efforts have been pretty cautious, and I think they are more focused with accumulating land on Earth than away from Earth.

So I think you are right, the authors were probably somewhat guilty of crying "wolf!"
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #14 on: 02/24/2017 08:22 PM »
The phrase "nations that fail to explore succeed in becoming stagnant" is ambiguous. How do you define either 'explore' or 'stagnant'. Plus, what passage of time do you use as a reference point.

Still, historically nations have risen on exploration (and exploitation) and could be considered fallen when that route became blocked by other nations and circumstance.

Exploration today could be in nanotechnology or AI or so on. So you can 'explore', not be stagnant, and not be in space.

For me, the phrase is true, just not compelling. Space exploration needs to be compelling and rise to a priority before there will be any budget increase. That doesn't seem to be happening any time soon. Maybe never.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25682
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5805
  • Likes Given: 4315
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #15 on: 03/04/2017 06:23 PM »
From the piece:

"Third and most importantly, the European Space Agency, Russians, and Chinese continue to accelerate their human spaceflight programs."

"Accelerate"? I have seen no sign of acceleration for any of them.

- ESA has to contend with the possibility that the European Union is collapsing, and they have shown no real interest in going BEO on their own with humans.

- Russia's economy is in tatters, and they are barely maintaining their ability to field 60 year-old launch systems.

- China's space efforts have been pretty cautious, and I think they are more focused with accumulating land on Earth than away from Earth.

So I think you are right, the authors were probably somewhat guilty of crying "wolf!"
China's space program has accelerated, quietly but definitely. The others are stagnant.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10492
  • Liked: 2109
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #16 on: 03/04/2017 07:18 PM »
China's space program has accelerated, quietly but definitely. The others are stagnant.

The reference was specifically to China's human spaceflight program. And there I'd question what is meant by "accelerate." Do you mean the rate of human launches? Because here's what I found for the past few years:

Shenzhou 7--2008
Shenzhou 8--2011 (unmanned launch)
Shenzhou 9--2012
Shenzhou 10-2013
Shenzhou 11-2016
Shenzhou 12-2018 (planned)
Shenzhou 13-2019 (planned)

That's not much of an acceleration. They have taken a few bigger steps, but I could argue that their entire program has been like that for over a decade.

In general, I would characterize China's human spaceflight program as methodical and steady, and there's no indication of acceleration. In fact, there is some indication that they slowed down a little bit after the economic downturn.

Now when it comes to their military and robotic spaceflight programs, they do seem to have increased activity in recent years. But they are also doing what is called capability (or capacity) building, meaning that when someone is trying to develop an operational capability to do stuff, particularly when that requires building a constellation of satellites, they will have a period of increased launches, and then settle down to a steady state of only launching replacement satellites.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2017 07:19 PM by Blackstar »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25682
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5805
  • Likes Given: 4315
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #17 on: 03/04/2017 07:57 PM »
Tiangong-2, the automated refueling demo this year, Long March 5, and especially Chang'e 5 in August. Those are not /purely/ human spaceflight, but they represent developments that mean an acceleration of what the Chinese human spaceflight program is capable of. Chang'e 5 in particular, which is far from just a sample return mission but a full, subscale dress-rehearsal for a crewed Moon landing.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10492
  • Liked: 2109
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #18 on: 03/04/2017 09:57 PM »
Tiangong-2, the automated refueling demo this year, Long March 5, and especially Chang'e 5 in August. Those are not /purely/ human spaceflight, but they represent developments that mean an acceleration of what the Chinese human spaceflight program is capable of. Chang'e 5 in particular, which is far from just a sample return mission but a full, subscale dress-rehearsal for a crewed Moon landing.

But the article specifically referred to human spaceflight. And there's no real evidence that they're doing anything at a faster pace than before. As I noted, they did a human launch in 13, another in 16, and the next is scheduled for 18. That's not the kind of pace that is going to inspire a space race, as the authors seemed to imply.

Now I'll grant that the Chinese are acquiring improved capabilities. But there is as yet no indication that they're going to do anything other than what they have claimed, which is build a space station in LEO.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25682
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5805
  • Likes Given: 4315
Re: Augustine, Kelly & Hubbard - Mars by 2033
« Reply #19 on: 03/04/2017 11:44 PM »
Josh Hopkins‏ @SpaceJosh
"@Robotbeat I've heard Chinese officials at conferences say the rendezvous architecture of Chang'E 5 is for practicing future human mission."
Now actually look at it:


This is aimed directly at demonstrating a human Moon architecture.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags: