Panel: NASA Shouldn't Shoot for Moon

(CBS/AP)  NASA needs to make a major detour on its grand plans to return astronauts to the moon, a special independent U.S. panel has told the White House.

NASA has picked the wrong destination with the wrong rocket, the panel's chairman said Thursday. A test-flight version of the new rocket, Ares, is on a launch pad at Cape Canaveral, awaiting liftoff later this month. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should be concentrating on bigger rockets, the panel members said.

Norman Augustine, chairman of the White House-appointed panel reviewing the agency's spaceflight plans, said it makes more sense to land on a nearby asteroid or one of the moons of Mars. He said that could be done sooner than returning to the moon in 15 years as NASA has outlined.

The White House called the report a "thoughtful and comprehensive review of where we have been and where we could be headed in low Earth orbit and beyond."

"Against a backdrop of serious challenges with the existing program, the Augustine Committee has offered several key findings and a range of options for how the nation might improve its future human space flight activities," White House Spokesman Nick Shapiro said. "We will be reviewing the Committee's analysis, and then ultimately the president will be making the final decisions."

The exploration plans now under fire were pushed by then-President George W. Bush after the 2003 Columbia space shuttle disaster. The moon-Mars plan lacks enough money, thanks to budget diversions, the panel said in a 155-page report. Starting in 2014, NASA needs an extra $3 billion a year if astronauts are going to travel beyond Earth's orbit, the panel said.

The key is where to explore space. In a report, the panel outlines eight options and leaves the choice to President Barack Obama. Three options are part of what the panel calls a "flexible path" to explore someplace other than the moon, eventually heading to a Mars landing far in the future. Augustine said the flexible path option, which includes no-landing flights around the moon and Mars, makes more sense from both a physics and finance standpoint.

Landing on the moon and then launching back to Earth takes a lot of fuel because of the moon's gravity. Hauling fuel from Earth to the moon and then back costs money.

It would take less fuel to land and return from asteroids or comets that swing by Earth or even the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos, Augustine said.


"The president has on numerous occasions confirmed his commitment to human space exploration, and the goal of ensuring that the nation is on a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving our boldest aspirations in space," said Shapiro.

[amitorian]

I'm against this expenditure unless it's 100% peaceful, and includes other countries such as China and Russia. Space should not be militarized, at least not on my dollar. Why don't we work together as humanity, not, let's see who can get there first and point weapons down on the other guy. I think it's a typical Bush era blind check to the defense contractors.

[hungry1968-16]

How about we start worrying about EARTH first, specifically America and OUR problems?

[licht1]

But why is NASA really seeking water on the Moon?

see:


http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/water-on-the-moon/

[TooComplex]

I'm curious as to the value that landing on a comet or asteroid would bring. I think that neither would provide a big benefit toward getting man's presence permanently into space. And I would think that both would require a longer journey to and from, costing precious dollars and requiring a greater sacrifice from our brave astronauts. And why would we think about going to one of Mars' moons if we don't even occupy our own. At a time when the world's only space station is endangered due to funding, all of these concepts are pipe dreams.

[pensacola8-2009]

I highly disagree with the panel. I have been following NASA for over 40 years. The moon has many things to offer. It has the same side facing the earth always. Many things are possible on those more distant locations, but that will require development. We could develop robots and launch them independently towards the moon and have them meet and assemble themselves into larger robots with more capabilities. One grand scheme calls for a cluster of robots that excavate and build a rail system around the moon. Later, we launch a space telescope similar to Hubble, and larger and able to ride the rails around the moon and provide more stable deep space observations. Then the robots can build habitation shelters for people to occupy. A power generation station on the moon is essential for occupation...give the job to the robots. If we can do something impressive on the moon and make it seem easy, then we can go to Mars. Going to Mars is just too far of a stretch for manned flight. Our track record for the unmanned space vehicles have gotten better in recent years, but they are not good enough to risk humans and we can't rescue anyone so far away.

[searingtruth]

"Those who do not invest in the future must live in the past."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave

[rwsmith29456]

I don't see us as being anywhere near capable of pulling off a Mars or asteroid trip and a LOT of technology has to be developed and put on line before that can happen. The moon is an ok target for shakedown to a longer trip but what we really need now is something very reliable and capable of operating in earth's orbit. Without that, I don't think we are going anywhere.

[billpl-2009]

yes...go back to the moon or something big like that

keep challenging our technologies


...we have to find a way to keep all those programmers in India employed

[Noval53]

NASA has developed a bloated beuracracy that is fat, lazy, complacent, and happy to continue doing as little as possible without astronauts. Astronauts will speak out and complain if things are screwed up. NASA can easily hush up & cover up dead equipment failures; not going to happen with astronauts. Real men ran NASA in the 60's & 70's. Now we have politicians and bean counters running things that are incapable of repeating the moon landing. They ran a bus route with the shuttle. For them to attempt a moon landing would expose their incompetence.

[wdh3007]

Correct it should shoot for Mars and further!

[RobertSugg]

With full implementation of the moon, we have the solar system. Get it?