Panel: NASA Shouldn't Shoot for Moon

Independent Panel Tells White House an Asteroid or Mars Moon Would be Better Destination for Rocket

(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.

[Void_Master]

I tend to push for space exploration with great urgency. The reason is simple. It is a statistical fact that sooner or later Earth will become uninhabitable. Whether that comes to pass by natural phenomena, human influence or a combination thereof is irrelevant. It will happen sooner or later. Our species faces a choice. Either we become well established somewhere else by then or we will cease to be.
That said, I believe it goes beyond foolish into pure stupid for us to blow off the moon and start shooting for Mars. And even limiting our explorations to known NEOs is beyond us just now. Forget the asteroid belt for at least a couple of centuries.
The problem with exploring near Earth asteroids is that we don't actually know where most of them are. We've seen only a few of the big ones. It's the ones we haven't yet seen that still pose a collision hazard; and enough of one to destroy anything we even *think* we are capable of deploying.
As for Mars; not even an option until we know for a fact that upon arrival, we can establish some kind of habitat we can sustain for at least two years. Right now we don't even know for a fact that there is usable water on the planet. We *will not* live there unless there is. The cost and logistics of hauling water to Mars makes it a non-option.
The moon is a logical, naturally available body upon which we practice off-world living. Coming to terms with just that will take us decades -- and that's if we get off our butts and get to it. Only once we actually know what the hell we're doing out there have we any business even looking to Mars. I believe we are talking at least a century of lunar practice before we are ready -- *just* to start planning a manned mission to the next planet.

[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?

[wheresmycountry]

No more manned missions! The Mars rovers have been taking pictures and gathering information on the Martian surface for more than 5 years. They haven't complained once, and they don't care that they won't make it back. The entire Mars robot mission has cost $850 million for almost 6 years. A single space shuttle launch to repair a toilet cost $500 million.

[starman2009]

You can fool most people some of the time

[kenhamlett]

There are too many problems with going to Mars than I can get into here. The moon is a proper platform for building a station to use as a launch site for further exploration eventually. First we need to return to primarily in house talent at NASA. While we are achieving that we can learn how much water we need to transport for a manned colony. Domestic sources will not be enough for many years. We need to divert our space junk to one area on the moon for initial raw materials. We need to design a refinery for aluminum and oxygen to take there. ETC extreme.All of this can be done with the moon as a destination but improbable on mars. As for asteroids, we can mine them especially if we get a nice juicy water and iron type. What fool would want to ride one if we can't even prove we can conquer the moon?
Our Prez need to kick butt at NASA until the comittee brains start functioning again.

[ToolMangler1]

Well said and true.
We have no business going to Mars or any where else until We have a 'Low gravity launching platform' and renewable resources to work from.
Just to 'GO' there is not the best reason..
Besides that, the way the nuts in the Mideast are going, (nukes for nutz, etc) The Moon may be the only place where we can live in a few years...

[RobertSugg]

Hehe. A lunar junkyard. Recycling is good. There must be a dog there for full effect. Aside from that, a cis-lunar infrastructure is desired for sunsat manufacture (97% cost savings opportunity vs. earth-launched sunsat industry) and manufacture of a large 1-g Mars ship for the Mars Eventually fans. An electromagnetic mass driver on the moon can get raw lunar regolith to processing plants in space, where the stuff can be separated into oxygen, silicon, metals, and glass for construction of the large structures which are our future.

[RobertSugg]

The title and thrust of this story is not correct. Augustine is fine with lunar return, etc. They would like a $3B bump in NASA budget. Take a look at the space.com and spaceref.com treatment of today's report. These are the space guys.

[djberson]

Of course we went to the moon in 1969 more easily than we can today. We were a much more advanced civilization then, just as we were in ancient times. Try building the Parthenon today... it cannot be done!

[SocietysNightmare]

(LOL) Still believe in the Easter Bunny too?

[Wolf1944]

They built an exact replica of the Parthenon in Nashville.

[ToolMangler1]

by October 22, 2009 10:21 PM EDT
(LOL) Still believe in the Easter Bunny too?


I do, cuz I'm him. ;)

[rf35]

No no, he said "Easter Bunny," not "Ether Bunny."

[Virgil-1]

You can fool some of the people some of the time!

[brian1920]

the stupidity being written here reminds me of the other blogs on CBS. The idea is to go someplace where you have some water. You have a nuclear reactor on board and from the water you can obtain hydrogen and oxygen. This can be used for fuel to go to MARS and you don't have to carry it from earth. Continuous acceleration for 1/2 the distance and then deceleration for he second half of the trip is the best method to get there. Landing on meteors or other places with no fuel means you have to carry it and the rocket needed to monstrous.

[xmissile]

Yes, and you are quite the savant. Do you have any idea of the size and number of tanks req'd to hold enough fuel for six months of continuous burn unless you plan on using a propane torch as an engine? You know you have to heat and periodically stir them, right? These systems are complicated and inherently unsafe. This is why we achieve travel velocity using a booster and then carry only enough fuel for decel plus reserves. I don't even want to discuss the massive complexities of mining, refining, and material fabrication in micro-gravity when we can't even build a reliable loo.

[SocietysNightmare]

Wow! It's hard to believe that so many people STILL believe the Apollo Moon Landing was real. Technology in the 60s was no where near what we have today. In modern times it would prove to be a daunting task both physically and financially. There is NO WAY that it has already been done. The Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax.

[brian1920]

I was part of it and proud to have done so. I can tell you that anybody subscribing to any theory that it didn't happen, it an absolute NUT!!!

[stuart-johns2]

by October 22, 2009 8:05 PM EDT

I'll bet you are one of those lunatics that debates whether he's really here or not.

[ToolMangler1]

by stuart-johns2 October 22, 2009 9:04 PM EDT
"I'll bet you are one of those lunatics that debates whether he's really here or not."



Nah!!!!
He is just a figment of my imagination. He looks like my belly button....

[wyodutch]

I agree... There is just no way man had the technology to navigate to land on the moon in 1969.
.

[ToolMangler1]

by wyodutch October 22, 2009 9:33 PM EDT
"I agree... There is just no way man had the technology to navigate to land on the moon in 1969"



We relied on our brains back then. We wrote the book on how to do it, then we did it. We still have the book even if we rely on PC's and Mac's for our thinking. We would have to be very stupid not to do it again..

[daffy64]

Yes, we stilllllll believe it. Those recent pictures of the Apollo landing sites taken by Lunar Prospector, complete with footprints and LEMs confirm it. Why would a whole new generation of scientists go along with a forty year old hoax? Why?

And at the height of project Apollo, it was consuming 10% of the US GDP. That's much much more than NASA is funded with now.

And yes, it's a daunting task to return to the moon. But fortunately, dimwitted naysayers with outlandish conspiracy theories aren't in charge.

[wyodutch]

Lemme see if I understand this.... It will take 15 years and untold dollars to put a man on the moon?
.
Come on now! Jack Kennedy proposed the same thing on May 25, 1961 and we did it on July 20, 1969. (Or we're supposed to believe we did it.)
.
Point here is... Do you really think that our 1960's technology took us to the moon in 8 years... When today... with technology 40 years advanced... it will take us 15 years to do the same thing?

[us_1776]

You forgot to factor in all the GREED that has to be spread around today. It takes time to do that.

[rwsmith29456]

In the 1960's, space and getting to the moon was job #1 for a great industrial nation that was willing and excited to put forth the time, effort and money. Today space is almost on the back burner, at least in this country.