Poll

Should NASA ditch asteroids and Mars to help lead the strong international interest for Lunar missions?

Stay with the current Mars plan
18 (17.5%)
Go to Mars but on a new plan
17 (16.5%)
Go to the Moon solo
21 (20.4%)
Join in an international Moon quest
47 (45.6%)

Total Members Voted: 102

Voting closed: 02/12/2016 08:01 pm


Author Topic: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?  (Read 128927 times)

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 3853
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #300 on: 01/04/2017 03:59 pm »
Returning to the Moon requires that the US gov will (Congress willingness to budget) intersects with the NASA cost projection of a return to the Moon.

Currently, the will is too low and the costs are too high. The level of will is unlikely to change. This leaves changing the cost to fit the level of will. A COTS like Public/Private partnerships could do it, but not a full NASA cost+ directed program. What this basically means is that while SLS/Orion exist there will only be sporadic Lunar missions probably of only limited robotic probes to the surface. SLS/Orion is sucking up all the gov will. We saw this with the budget conflicts of SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew. Because overlaps were perceived the budget will went to  SLS.

I think the argument is different than the will of congress and cost projections.  I think the argument is, whether NASA is doing something tangible or just designing paper rockets and spacecraft that don't fly.

Congress has jobs in their districts to protect, most American's and world public think NASA does great amazing things, China and Europe are open about want to go to the moon.

One SLS flight every 3-4 years is not sustainable, either the vehicle goes or flies more often.

I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection. 

Finally there is a point of pride.  Does America, does Trump, want to see China or Europe walking around the moon while America pontificates here on earth?

Trump, no matter what one thinks of him, seems to like action.  He likes things happening or getting built and I'd bet he doesn't accept the status quo on prices and schedules. 

I think it's very likely that the Moon becomes NASA's stated goal very soon.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12048
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7331
  • Likes Given: 3744
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #301 on: 01/04/2017 10:19 pm »
Returning to the Moon requires that the US gov will (Congress willingness to budget) intersects with the NASA cost projection of a return to the Moon.

Currently, the will is too low and the costs are too high. The level of will is unlikely to change. This leaves changing the cost to fit the level of will. A COTS like Public/Private partnerships could do it, but not a full NASA cost+ directed program. What this basically means is that while SLS/Orion exist there will only be sporadic Lunar missions probably of only limited robotic probes to the surface. SLS/Orion is sucking up all the gov will. We saw this with the budget conflicts of SLS/Orion and Commercial Crew. Because overlaps were perceived the budget will went to  SLS.

I think the argument is different than the will of congress and cost projections.  I think the argument is, whether NASA is doing something tangible or just designing paper rockets and spacecraft that don't fly.

Congress has jobs in their districts to protect, most American's and world public think NASA does great amazing things, China and Europe are open about want to go to the moon.

One SLS flight every 3-4 years is not sustainable, either the vehicle goes or flies more often.

I think the Moon is the only logical choice as a destination for the next several decades at least.  It's close for both travel and communication times, it's a stable platform, it has mineral resources that can provide oxygen, metals, water and protection. 

Finally there is a point of pride.  Does America, does Trump, want to see China or Europe walking around the moon while America pontificates here on earth?

Trump, no matter what one thinks of him, seems to like action.  He likes things happening or getting built and I'd bet he doesn't accept the status quo on prices and schedules. 

I think it's very likely that the Moon becomes NASA's stated goal very soon.

I have *always* been a "moon-first" guy.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25223
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #302 on: 01/05/2017 01:33 am »
Problem with Moon-first is it will inevitably push off Mars instead of being a springboard (as proponents claim) if it becomes the Agency's priority.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2017 01:33 am by Robotbeat »
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 Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #303 on: 01/05/2017 01:47 am »
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5399
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3105
  • Likes Given: 3853
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #304 on: 01/05/2017 02:06 am »
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...

Because SpaceX is going to be funded by NASA, in the same way that ISS Cargo and Crew are funding the development of F9 and Dragon.

SpaceX's plans are going to cost so much more and take much longer than anyone thinks.

Going to Mars is a pretty big deal.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6806
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3978
  • Likes Given: 1674
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #305 on: 01/05/2017 02:22 am »
Problem with Moon-first is it will inevitably push off Mars instead of being a springboard (as proponents claim) if it becomes the Agency's priority.

More to the point, whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible. I'm a pretty strong advocate of lunar development, but I'd rather see NASA HSF keep its focus on Mars, while throwing lunar advocates a bone in the form of a Lunar Cargo COTS. Think of that as "hedging your bet". The main bet is a direct to Mars focus, but the hedge is throwing enough money at lunar cargo to enable people to investigate lunar ISRU (and if Europe actually funds Moon Village, Lunar COTS can be the NASA contribution, much like ATV/HTV is ESA/JAXA's contribution to ISS).

I've probably already made this point, but I'm still worried that a NASA focused solely on the Moon is just going to devolve back into Griffin-era NASA, with not enough money to do a useful lunar program "the NASA way", but with it being their focus so trying to do that anyway (and gutting everything else in the process).

~Jon

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25223
  • Likes Given: 12114
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #306 on: 01/05/2017 03:09 am »
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...

Because SpaceX is going to be funded by NASA, in the same way that ISS Cargo and Crew are funding the development of F9 and Dragon.

SpaceX's plans are going to cost so much more and take much longer than anyone thinks.

Going to Mars is a pretty big deal.
Well, lots think SpaceX will go bankrupt and never reach Mars, so I wouldn't say "anyone." :)
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 Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2514
  • Likes Given: 2177
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #307 on: 01/05/2017 03:24 am »
More to the point, whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible. I'm a pretty strong advocate of lunar development, but I'd rather see NASA HSF keep its focus on Mars, while throwing lunar advocates a bone in the form of a Lunar Cargo COTS.

The point of COTS and later CC was to provide lower-cost services for a major program (ISS).

If NASA was going to the moon, I could see a COTS model being used for second-tier activities while the major missions (humans and habitats) are flown by the Pork Express. But if NASA is going to Mars, what major program is Lunar-COTS supporting?

You did suggest...

if Europe actually funds Moon Village, Lunar COTS can be the NASA contribution, much like ATV/HTV is ESA/JAXA's contribution to ISS).

But I don't see Congress supporting a NASA program where the US is a minor player.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #308 on: 01/05/2017 07:56 am »
I doubt Trump will want to spend money on another Constellation, especially as they won't be landing anybody in his term.

Robotic missions using XPrize landers and rovers could be done in next few years and not cost billions.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2017 07:56 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1666
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 1177
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #309 on: 01/05/2017 08:00 am »
To put it simply: Yes, NASA should refocus on returning to the Moon. A meaningful human spaceflight exploration program in the current geopolitical climate would have to be international. Russia and ESA are both interested in the Moon. NASA should be included, too, and the construction of an outpost in Lunar orbit should be a priority.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #310 on: 01/05/2017 10:06 am »
... whatever is NASA's priority is going to milked by Congress for all the pork possible.

Milked for pork?  Though I agree with the statement, I cringe at the mixed metaphor! :)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #311 on: 01/05/2017 10:31 am »
To put it simply: Yes, NASA should refocus on returning to the Moon. A meaningful human spaceflight exploration program in the current geopolitical climate would have to be international. Russia and ESA are both interested in the Moon. NASA should be included, too, and the construction of an outpost in Lunar orbit should be a priority.
Agreed. The short term goal should be a Salyut-analog in high Lunar orbit - not an ISS scale venture - and eventually on the Lunar surface; one or even two 'Surface Salyuts' or even a 'Mini-Mir'. By that, I mean not grandiose $150 billion dollar Moonbase taking 15 years to build. But man-tended, semi-permanent stations where extended operational experience can be gained, life support systems and recycling technology in a low-G environment and solutions for managing deep space radiation concerns, dust mitigation and medical issues - all within just a few days travel from Earth. And the crews would get to do geophysical sciences, geology and Astronomy, too in partnership with robots.

Phase in ISRU technologies and multi-mode power systems. Build on the operational and Commercial Space legacy of ISS - and with operational experience on the Lunar surface for a decade or so, become worthy of 'putting on the Big Boy pants' that will be needed for Mars. Decades of Earth Orbital and more Cislunar operational experience will make mankind almost ready for operations in high Martian orbit or near/at the Martian Moons. Maturity and experience gained on the Lunar surface and related operations will make mankind almost ready for Mars. Apollo needed Mercury, Gemini and the Surveyor programs accomplished first. Cislunar and Lunar surface operations can be the 'Gemini' needed before Mars. Say I'm over-simplifying things if you like, but...
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12048
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7331
  • Likes Given: 3744
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #312 on: 01/05/2017 11:52 am »
Moon First for one basic reason: getting experience in developing, deploying, maintaining, fixing, upgrading and operating ISRU on a massive scale. Anything we do on Mars that is bigger than boots and flags is going to require ISRU on a massive scale. And anyone who believes we can do that with first generation untested in the real world ISRU prototypes is simply not being honest with themselves. Yes, ISRU on the lunar surface will be fundamentally different than ISRU on Mars, but what we learn and develop on the moon will be lessons-learned that are worth their weight in gold for Martian ISRU plants. We need to learn how to do full production scale ISRU. The best way to do that is somewhere only 3 days away, not 6 to 9 months away. We will need to start with ISRU know-how that has been thoroughly tested, proven and certified, not arrive with untested, will probably work equipment.

I am fascinated by SpaceX's Mars plans, but to date I have seen nothing from them that indicates to me that they have any idea what it is going to take to actually survive there. Going to Mars is not like the analog 3-month missions to an Artic island where you can get airlifted out in a matter of hours. Figuring out how to survive on a planet that is doing its level best to kill you by any means possible is imperative to do before you go there. So far SpaceX has shown no indication that genuine research on that is happening. And once you've succeeded in landing there is not the time to start.

All of that is going to take a huge sum of money. SpaceX does not have that much money. So yes, as the groundbreaker agency, NASA should go back to the moon for the specific purpose of perfecting all the many different ISRU techniques and devices that will be needed to survive on an alien world - any alien world. That will take a LOT of groundbreaking research and groundbreaking research is what NASA is really, really good at.

The one common denominator between the Moon and Mars is that both places will kill you in a heartbeat for the slightest misstep. There are no safe havens on either world. There is no margin for error. Boy Scout camp in pressurized and heated tents will not suffice. We need to learn how to do this - in a place we can get away from quickly if needed.

We have an awesome laboratory only 3 days away that is fundamentally perfect for these types of experiments. We need to use the Moon as our laboratory. We need to have a NASA research station on the lunar surface where ideas can be tested, run in an alien environment for months at a time to make sure they work, where the next great idea generated by that running experiment can be turned into equipment and tested. So what if it takes a little longer to get to Mars because of it? So What? It will still be there. It's not going anywhere. Don't be so impatient. Be smart. Take the time to do it right.

Too many people just don't seem to understand the scale of what it is going to take to survive on Mars. Getting there safely in a pretty spaceship is the really easy part.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2017 01:10 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #313 on: 01/05/2017 12:19 pm »
Too many people just don't seem to understand the scale of what it is going to take to survive on Mars. Getting there safely in a pretty spaceship is the really easy part.

Too many people just don't seem to understand what it means to have an ITS scale spaceship to throw resources on the task. No more from me as this seems OT in this thread.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #314 on: 01/05/2017 12:30 pm »
Why can't we do both? NASA can shoot the Moon and SpaceX can shoot for Mars...

Because SpaceX is going to be funded by NASA, in the same way that ISS Cargo and Crew are funding the development of F9 and Dragon.

SpaceX's plans are going to cost so much more and take much longer than anyone thinks.

Going to Mars is a pretty big deal.
"Going to Mars is a pretty big deal"... Obvious... The sole reason the private corporation SpaceX exists is for "Elon's Mars dream...
NASA, a federal agency is a multifaceted-multitask insitution directed by the executive/legislative branches to do as instructed by the elected...
« Last Edit: 01/05/2017 01:13 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #315 on: 01/05/2017 09:18 pm »
Find asteroids to get to Mars  8)                          Lunar..no thanks.

Moon First for one basic reason: getting experience in developing, deploying, maintaining, fixing, upgrading and operating ISRU on a massive scale.
1) The lunar ISRU fallacy --'Nothing' -- is that all the resources came from asteroids, which is where, after surveys, ISRU on a massive scale offers the most potential --propellant is needed near Mars, the surface of Mars, and beyond, not in a dusty gravity well.

Rather than looking for a needle in a haystack in a great big dust bowl, extract resources from their asteroid source 'in-situ'.

2) Propellant/deep space tech demos and missions can be launch much cheaper than all the lunar infrastructure and the MW+ power required

3) The ISRU equipment is pretty much independent of its destination.  One does not need lunar nearby to develop ISRU...  Tech maturation can occur on the (Earth's) ground.. much cheaper too.  The SLS programs *promises* that the ISRU flight demo will be funded as soon as Orion is certified.... ::) No really, promise!

But what if your LV (SLS/Altas/Delta/Vulan v0) has limited reuse ability from the ground and cost more than other reuseable LVs?

Propose a business of staging expendable Vulcan with solids and Aces and Zeus to L1 and mining propellant from the lunar surface as proposed in Cislunar 1000

Even better, build a plan of LV apartheid that only includes SLS and perhaps ULA for inspace refueling with an excessive amount of LV capacity and no $ for payloads.
« Last Edit: 01/24/2017 06:43 pm by muomega0 »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #316 on: 01/05/2017 09:24 pm »
NASA going to Mars with SLS and a whole bunch of not-yet-invented or built modules, spacecraft, launchpads and technologies is going to require a major ramp up in funding for development and implementation. Since another $5 billion (optimist) to $10 billion (pessimist) per year will be needed by NASA to do all this - do not hold your breath. That is the core issue of people's skepticism about NASA's 'Voyage To Mars' memes and near-propaganda. We were all warned of this during the last Augustine Commission - and back then, the primary goal was still 'only' the Moon, not Mars.

The Moon - for these and other points brought up by Chuck and others - could be accomplished with or without SLS for only a relatively small increase in NASA's budget. But Orion would probably have to be retained at this point because to scrap it and start again almost from scratch would waste more billions and more years. It could launch on other rockets but Landers and other vehicles and equipment still need to be developed. Bringing in Europe, Japan and other International partners would be sensible - even if the enormous SLS funds could be directly converted to developing Lunar modules and equipment.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #317 on: 01/05/2017 09:44 pm »
In partial reply to muomega0: I too have always been skeptical about using the Moon to fuel other deeper space missions such as to Mars from Lunar LOX/LH2. I'd always thought, or advocated, that Lunar ISRU was for use on the Lunar surface by the crews for general living or for vehicles to ascend from the Lunar surface. I'd always wondered if cutting out the 'middle man' delta-v of launching expensively produced and ascended propellants from the Lunar surface could be done instead by having pure water launched from Earth by reusable vehicles and creating cryogenic LOX/LH2 with solar-powered H20 splitter/cryocooler depot facilities.

A L.E.O. water/propellant depot can have it's equipment manufactured prefab on Earth and launched to L.E.O. or any Lagrange point, DRO, halo orbit or eventually; asteroid/cometary bodies. Setting up very large scale ISRU on the Lunar surface will cost a great deal of money. But a much smaller set for use by the crews and their vehicles for ascent needs, need not be massive and therefore scaled-up expensively.
« Last Edit: 01/05/2017 09:45 pm by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #318 on: 01/05/2017 11:15 pm »
see also

https://www.facebook.com/jurvetson/posts/10158035904590611

commercial moon settlement for 5B USD. All in. Not dependent on NASA

Probably not the right place for this, will try to find a better one.
"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 savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Should NASA refocus on returning to the Moon?
« Reply #319 on: 01/05/2017 11:25 pm »
see also

https://www.facebook.com/jurvetson/posts/10158035904590611

commercial moon settlement for 5B USD. All in. Not dependent on NASA

Probably not the right place for this, will try to find a better one.

Quote
Cost drivers include: SpaceX every-day-low-prices posted online for planning, abundant water (especially at the poles, for life support and hydrolyzation into fuel), areas of near-continuous sunlight (for PV) and shade (for thermal management), 3D-printing of structures for ISRU (in situ resource utilization), inflatable habitats, a rail gun to send water to LEO, and various other advances in commercial space price points.

Also, Sasquatch, Loch Ness monster, and other mythical figures would surely pitch in. None of this stuff is something that is demonstrated to exist, function, or be attainable, today. From here to there its a much longer road than 5 billion dollars will get you.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0