BIG QUESTIONS: Five space-policy leaders, along with moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson [left], weighed in on NASA's future for manned exploration.
Image: JOHN MATSON/SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
On complex issues, as is often said, it is possible for intelligent people to disagree. That was certainly the case March 15 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, when five leaders of the space exploration intelligentsia met to discuss NASA's plans for human spaceflight.
The topic of the event, the 10th annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, could hardly have been more timely, given the February budget request from President Obama that sought to drastically change NASA's direction for human spaceflight and the way the agency does that business. If the budget survives Congress, NASA could start hiring private corporations to launch U.S. astronauts into orbit rather than use its own hardware; Obama's plan would also scrap the existing Constellation Program, including the Ares rockets being developed to lift humans beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since the 1970s.
Effectively, Obama's budget would abandon the Constellation goal of returning to the moon in the next decade. (As many have noted, that timeline may not have been realistic anyway.) With the immediate goal of a moon landing stricken, it remains unclear where NASA astronauts would go next, and various panelists in the debate spoke up on behalf of Mars, the moon and asteroids.
Firmly in the Mars camp was an animated Robert Zubrin, founder of The Mars Society, who said the president and his advisers of "have basically endangered the human spaceflight program." (The Constellation Program was not ideal, he said, but at least one could call it a plan.) Zubrin likened an approach to manned spaceflight that lacks a destination to a couple who wants to build a home and "cruises garage sales every weekend and finds house parts that appeal to them" before asking an architect to incorporate all the parts into a coherent whole.
That gibe earned laughs from the crowd but drew a rebuke from retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles, a member of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka the Augustine Commission), the group that recently advised Obama on NASA's options for manned spaceflight. "I vehemently disagree with what Bob said," Lyles responded, defending Obama's plan. "It is not going to be the willy-nilly approach that was described by my colleague." Lyles conceded that he was somewhat concerned about the lack of a destination in Obama's proposal but said that NASA's overarching goals of inspiration and exploration would not change. Kenneth Ford, chair of the NASA Advisory Council, also communicated a desire to see a destination and a timeline for the agency's exploration but maintained that NASA must first set goals and then let those directives guide the choice of destination.
Like Zubrin, lunar scientist Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute expressed disappointment—albeit in a more measured way—in the proposed relaxation of NASA's lofty goals to reach the moon and beyond. Just weeks before, Spudis had presented findings showing that the moon's north pole is rich in ice deposits, which would be a boon to establishing a long-term lunar presence. "My feeling is that the moon is a logical destination because it has the resources we need," Spudis said.
Even the token "robot guy" advocated for an aggressive plan for manned exploration. "You can't send humans out to explore the solar system fast enough for me," said Cornell University's Steve Squyres, the principal investigator for the Spirit and Opportunity rovers, which are still doing science at Mars more than six years after landing there. "The best exploration and the most inspiring exploration will be done by humans." Squyres advocated for returning to the moon as a way to flex NASA's "deep-space muscles" before moving on to what he called more interesting destinations, such as near-Earth asteroids. Many people favor such a mission because a spacecraft could simply rendezvous and dock with an asteroid without requiring the complex landing systems needed to negotiate the Martian atmosphere or the gravitational fields of Mars or the moon; and because, unlike the moon, astronauts have never visited an asteroid. (Spudis noted that asteroids have their drawbacks, too—they often rotate rapidly and tend to be much farther away.)
Zubrin passionately argued that the space agency must aim for a more ambitious target, asserting that with "gutsy leadership" a visit to Mars could be closer to reality than a moon landing was at the dawn of the Apollo program in 1961.
But Spudis countered that, in the post–Cold War world, it isn't proper to frame a discussion of NASA's current situation in the terms of Apollo. The political environment is different now, as is the involvement of the military complex that helped win the space race. On the other hand, there are now a number of private entities, such as satellite television providers and GPS vendors, that rely on access to orbit for their financial well-being. Spudis said one of the driving forces in future space missions will be in developing an infrastructure that can support exploration as well as the creation of wealth. After all, he said, invoking a famous adventurer motivated by economics, "Columbus didn't come to the New World to catalogue the plants there."
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add Commenthate to be a killjoy but look around at the economy, war and other bad things. I fully support NASA but manned missions are WAY to expensive for the returns. Unmanned missions are the way to go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe exploration of space is a task for adventurers. We all look to who climbed the mountain and told us what he or she have seen. Our next goal has been, and probably always be, our determination to find an answer to another question. "What's higher than the mountain top?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy question is: What's out there? My answer is: Let's go find out.
It is my opinion that NASA has enough funding to get the job of funding adventure well on the way. The trouble is that NASA does not have the courage to do it.
Given reality and politics, the best bet for a program that's useful, not too much more expensive and keeps the general public engaged is: Accelerate heavy lifter development and keep a version of Orion. Start flying to lunar orbit by 2016-18. Keep doing tougher missions over ten years (asteroid), while the deep space propulsion and vehicle design is researched. Get to Mars orbit/moons by 2025 or so. Land by 2030. Fly the early mission series with sample return rovers. Let commercial continue to take a crack at LEO. You have a complementary backup capability that can be stripped down for LEO use, just in case. This also gives US many options to divert to the moon, use partners. (Have a partner build a lunar orbital lab/hab module to go with the early missions, maybe a lander too.) Scientists get science and the public gets a little Buck Rodgers for its bucks, along the way to Mars. My version of this scenario with objectives, results and timelines is here: www.spaceprogress.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we don't go to Mars and beyond, someone else will eventually. Then we will no longer be the country that has shown an amazing leadership in space exploration. Despite the expense, I think we need to continue to lead the world. I would rather give my tax money to NASA than most other government expenses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNASA astronauts need to be our pioneers in order to make it easier for the privateers and settlers that follow them. Once we establish a permanent base on the Moon then the tourist and tourist companies will quickly follow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. We need to increase the annual NASA budget by $3 billion as proposed by the Augustine Commission in order to have a sustainable manned space program.
2. We need to keep the shuttle program going until the next manned space craft are ready
3. We need to immediately fund and develop a shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle and an EDS (Earth Departure Stage)
4. We need to fund a manned space plane (HL-20) type of vehicle instead of the Orion. Space capsules are a move backwards, IMO.
5. We need to develop the Altair descent stage as both a lunar cargo lander for a lunar base but also as a single stage ascent/descent booster for a light weight crew transport module.
6. We need to terminate funding for the ISS ($2 billion a year) by 2015 in order to fund an NSS (National Space Station) program using our heavy lift vehicle to launch large instant space stations in orbits appropriate for US launch vehicles so that these stations can be used as way stations to the Moon and Lagrange points. An NSS program should also use heavy lift vehicles to deploy the first one kilometer to 2 kilometer in diameter rotating artificial gravity space station. We need to finally find out if humans can remain healthy under a simulated gravity environment.
7. Heavy lift vehicles should be used to deploy the first 2 kilometer in diameter lightsails at a Lagrange point in order for these sails to be utilized to capture small NEO asteroids 10 to 100 tonnes in mass and return them to a Lagrange point in order to extract hydrogen and oxygen from these asteroids for fuel depots.
Wow not much remains to say after the Asimov debate, andyw847 and newpapyrus. Seems to me the Austine panel collection of so-called experts (like Lyles who I'm now lossing all respect for) was missing a few cylinders. Certainly applaud the A-panel for bringing focus on commercial option. However the way they hatched it was bizzare and pudknocker-ish!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes programs and projects need worthy goals, milestones, accountability to maintain focus and reduce waste.
Look but don't touch with 2030 landing goal is to far removed. We must land moon,Mars, Astriod etc... within 10-12 years. Let commercial take over LEO, establish cyclers etc...
What ever we do it must include commercial involvement, at reduced cost but dirt cheap as in Splash down capsules is not the answer. C'mon this is the 21st century we can and must do better than splash down!!! Extend the shuttle as Buzz has suggested to minimize the gap. And allow the commercial sector time to develop a worthy LEO human and cargo replacement.
Do it cheap and dirty with a modernized Dyson's Orion. I'm sure the Chinese will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this3000 tons at $10 a lb. Fedex to the moon!!
www.nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/150-kiloton-nuclear-verne-gun.html
We can launch a few nuclear engines from updated Nerva designs and be flitting around the Solar system in no time.
"I'm sure the Chinese will" So am I… and I would ride a capsule to the moon any day just don't "splash me down" on the return. I would ride a capsule back down to terra firma if it could offer a low-G re-entry profile and land me close to the point of departure via parasail like “Big Gemini concept” and/or retro-rockets like Soyuz. Just don't drop out in the vast ocean miles from the point of departure. Puking, sea-sickness, and drowning, not to mention the effort to return to home base and wring out all the salt water just does not appeal to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLots of fine concepts like Nerva are out there waiting for someone to dust-off the papers, data base, build and fly. They were forward thinking many of them well tested and innovative then as they still are today. Some of those “old timers” are still around better to use that experience than to lose it to the grave. We spent decades and billions doing a mountain of white papers, SBIR, STTR, AIAA etc... I would much rather see us dust some of those off, resurrect, fabricate, test, fly and develop than to go back and do more paper and lab studies. For the most part the technology is there and has been for decades we just need to be willing to put forth the effort to select the right technology and go forward with it.
The laughable fact, is that After 30 years of Republican Economic treason, Americans will soon not be able to afford food, and yet they think they are going to the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompletely delusional.
gotta tell you this thing with nasa is crazy - we have an 110 billion lab up in space and only 12 people can fit in there sorry dont you think we could have done better than that. and all these billions to fly to where ? just saw on the news that we just gave haiti 110 million - ok - than i saw that they ran out of money in washington dc for snow removal - and nasa wants how much stop - get it together regroup and ask when the economy is better
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think what is missing from the argument here is the fact that NASA has one mission: to get us into space cheaply and safely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have failed in that mission. Like most federal agencies, it is inefficient, pays their people way to much money, and cannot get past the politics.
By stepping back and allowing the private sector to launch rockets in support of the space station, NASA can focus on what it is supposed to be doing. Pushing the boundaries of technology to make space travel cheap (at least cheaper) and safe.
The Shuttle is 40 year old technology. Ares is just more of the same. Boeing is making planes out of carbon fiber and titanium for heaven sake......
Let them drop the million and one side projects they have and focus them on a new launch vehicle and their core mission.
It seems to me that NASA has a clearer goal and vision than nearly all other govenment agencies and programs. I think it's a shame that many people's short-sightedness continues to impede the possibilities and opportunities which NASA has the ability to lead us toward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, Vendicar, I agree completely. We are so far behind, resource wise, debt wise, etc. compared to the 1960's that I don't know where to begin. We can't even improve our rail system or update our electrical grid at this point, we can just talk of it. I knew we weren't going to the moon a week after Bush suggested it - the cultural resolve wasn't there. Now, at this point, with the energy required to create jobs & run our society harder & harder to obtain, we have as much a chance of collapsing as a society as reaching Mars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmericas glory days in space are over. Consider: Between 1969, when we landed on the moon, and 2009 NASAs budget went from 4.2 billion dollars and 2.1 percent of the federal budget to 17.8 billion and .55 percent of the federal budget. Thats a 414 percent increase. Heck, NASAs budget last year was less than one third of the money that was stolen from the Medicare program. In the same forty years, social programs (social security, Medicare, welfare, education, etc.) went from 66.4 billion to 1.89 trillion dollars. Thats a 2,746 percent increase. Social spending went from 35.2 percent to 66.5 of the federal budget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese numbers show that the people, or rather the politicians the people elected to represent them, have decided that Americas future is benevolent socialism, not technical excellence. Or perhaps these representatives have discovered that it is much easier for them to stay in power by spraying out government checks to anyone and everyone than by spending taxpayers money on scientific and technical programs that few people understand and most people see providing little benefit to them. So all of this talk about this space program or that program is just so much wishful thinking as long as the wishers look to a bankrupt federal government for funding. Maybe in the future, Chinese astronauts may walk on the moon or Mars, but Americans will not.
Nasa was offered the technology of the Flying Saucer, which could have been applied to the Shuttles and fly and land them on the Moon (VTOL).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Propulsion Engineers were: " Not Interested"
Which country should I sell the technology to now?
(Invention was originally evaluated by Dr. Kahn of the Hudson Institute at $600 Billion, if the US would have it before Russia. My Patent Lawyer predicted the Nobel Prize..)
It would not cost one Billion, that Nasa wants for a rocket to Mars and it would not take 39 days..
Brains? What brains?
Nasa was given the opportunity to use the Technology of the Flying Saucer. They decided that the Cleveland, Ohio, Nasa Propulsion Lab should have the information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI sent it, advising them to contact me before experimenting with it.
There they were: "Not interested, thank you for the copy of your Patent!"
After the Space Disasters they decided to experiment with it, did not contact me, did not know anything about High Voltage Electronics and screwed up masterfully. It caused a big Black-out in North America. A poor little tree was blamed!
With some real competent people in charge, it could have been used to power the Shuttles. It would not have cost One Billion Dollars for a set of thrusters. You would have reached the Moon in a few hours and land there with the inherent VTOL technology. Astronauts would have visited the Lander and Moon buggy , have a picnic and go on to Mars. Back for the weekend . No osteoporosis and hardly any barfbags would have been used, there would have been a nice G all the time.
Just who is waiting for the Golden Handshake in the Nasa Organisation before we can switch?
Hurry, time is short!
Most of the technological developments of the last forty years have been a direct offshoot of the technological needs of the space program and of the military. I would much rather put our research into space exploration than weapons systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur current economic maliase is a terrible excuse for not moving forward. We spent our way out of the Great Depression and built an infrastructure for America like no other in its day.
Since then, we've let our once great infrastructure crumble.
Competition with the Soviets took as to the Moon but since then, Congress has let our spacefaring capabilities flounder.
The Space Shuttle was a compromise that left us in low-earth orbit and with its impending retirement, and no plan to put humans permanently on the Moon or on Mars, we run the risk of falling behind the Russians. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians, and even the Indians are developing aggressive manned spaceflight programs. Allowing the rest of the world to pass us by wold be a terrible mistake.
so sad...i used to believe in a lot of the things that nasa was doing with manned space flight...apollo...the moon...turned out to just be a race.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe shuttle was going to be something great...easy cheap access for manned access to space...turned out to be neither.
joined the planetary society..then ad astra...even helped with the setiathome...cancelled out of them in the early 2000's.
it's not that i don't believe that we will be living in space(or at least alot of people will) it just all these unsustainable activities.
for us to explore space, we need permanent structures/factories there. to do that we need very(very...) cheap access...no more of all this throw away stuff.
with cheap material there is no reason why we couldn't build rotating space stations with artifical gravity, and travel cheaply to other planets.
nasa needs to continue to send probes to monitor the earth/sun/planets/etc...and even maintain human occupation on the iss...
but...half the funds should be put towards finding/funding ways to put material very very cheaply into space.
with out this manned space flight is going no where...
I am a big dreamer when it comes to manned space flight and the eventual colonization of other planets. I long for the day when these things are reality, knowing full well that even though I'm only 30 years old today, I won't live to see any of this come to fruition. Obama's plan concerns me deeply, as I feel that every generation has a responsibility to continue this research and exploration. Sooner or later our species will either be a space-faring species or extinct - it's a fact. In 5 billion years the Sun will run out of hydrogen, and in a comparatively short 250 million years, the continents will have converged back into a new Pangea. We will be off the planet or dead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said all that, I can't help but feel that commercializing the industry is, ultimately, a positive step. All true innovation has come from commercial ventures seeking profits and fame.
On a side note, I am curious as to why it's considered unrealistic to return to the moon in the next decade, even though we did it for the first time ever in less than 9 years. We could do this with 1960's technology in nine years, but we can't to it with 2010's technology in ten? Seems fishy to me.
Space exploration is important. It drives knowledge and advancement. However, perhaps this is a good time to look toward the private sector to continue that exploration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that aiming at the private sector for space exploration will not only boost the economy but also allow for more detailed observations of space itself. Plus there is a lot more that you could learn from a manned flight than an unmanned flight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd rather see the DoD disappear in favor of a rebooted and refocused NASA anyday. I'd also like such a reboot to include open sourcing a lot of it to the "private" sector (standards, technologies, access to materials) as a co-operative venture. I bet in the process of that, we'd find enough cash left over to make sure everyone has a job paying a livable wage and universal single payer healthcare. Solutions for all manner of things abound, but for the malfeasance and stubborn myopia of the Troglodytes that constantly seem to enjoy running things into the ground and making us pay for their special brand o'stoopid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive the Propulsion Engineers their Golden Handshake and go with the Flying Saucer Technology, it was offered to them and they rejected it as it would make them obsolete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the new Technology we can fly to the Moon in a Shuttle, land there (with the inherent VTOL Technology), visit the Lander, try the Moonbuggy, have a picnic and fly on to Mars. It should not take more than a day.
Not 39 days and not costing $1 Billion either.
Either that or some other country will hang the USA out to dry.
Patent 4,095,162 is elapsed but I did not write all the nitty gritties in the Patent.
Vendicar9,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know if it was only Republicans who stuffed your economy, but the national debt that America now how is truly astronomical.
Spend and hope is what is what politicians have been doing, and that will end in a very big bubble bursting.
Your debt would be almost be manageable if your previous President had at least half a brain,
and not listened to God telling him to attack your
former Iraqi ally , and your other former alley , the Taliban.
NASA, as with all other un-constitutional government departments'functions/operations should be disbanded. All assets that can be should be sold, The rest should be scrapped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere's NASA headed? No where far from here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first group that gets to an asteroid or the moon,public or private,manned or robotic,and does the mining,and brings back large amounts of rare elements will end the debate about going to space.And the United States without a space program will be left behind.Anybody who thinks NASA will still be around in 10 years needs to think again,and in 20 years it will be but a distant memory.With many groups saying it never was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. Mars Direct costs only $5B per year, well within NASA's current $19B budget.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, and posthumously prosecute the Founding Fathers for treason for founding the US Marine Corps, because that is nowhere specifically mentioned in the Constitution either. And give the Louisiana Purchase back to Napoleon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this