NASA review panel to deliver grim news to Obama on moon-landing goal

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Less than a month after the U.S. celebrated the 40th anniversary of its first moon landing, the country's space agency faces the dour possibility that it lacks the funds needed to be able to return there by 2020, a goal established by the Bush Administration in 2004.

The conclusion of the 10-member Augustine panel—formed in June and headed by Norman Augustine, a former chief executive of Lockheed Martin, to evaluate the direction of NASA's human spaceflight program—is that the space agency has some tough budgetary decisions to make if it wants to meet the 2020 deadline. This includes whether it should continue to provide funding for the International Space Station (ISS) or divert more money to its moon-bound Constellation program.

Under that budgetary scenario (which includes the ISS), according to the panel's just-completed analysis, NASA's current budget would not permit the launch of a new heavy-boost moon rocket, the Ares V, until 2028—and that doesn't include money for building "key lunar-base components," The Washington Post reports. The panel has proposed an alternative "Deep Space" option that would send astronauts to near-Earth asteroids and to "gravitationally significant" points in space, known as Lagrange points, that are beyond Earth's protective magnetosphere, according to the Post.

The panel, which presents its initial report today to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and White House science adviser John Holdren, is highly skeptical of landing astronauts on Mars anytime soon due to financial and technological limitations. Instead, it proposes sending astronauts on flybys as far away as Mars. Under that plan, according to former astronaut Sally Ride, there could be missions every other year in the 2020s past asteroids and Mars, and even a landing on the Moon by 2029 or 2030, The New York Times reports.

Whatever NASA decides, it will have a deep impact on the engineers, scientists, technicians and others employed by or contracted with the agency. The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) reminded the Augustine panel of this earlier this week with a letter recommending a $22 billion* budget for NASA beginning in 2011, a workforce hiring budget of about $100 million over the next five years, and a reining in of work outsourced to contractors.
Image of a 1963 model depicting an early Apollo lunar lander concept © NASA

* Correction (08/18/09): Thanks to the watchful eye of a reader this figure was amended from the $22 million originally reported.

Larry Greenemeier is the associate editor of technology for Scientific American, covering a variety of tech-related topics, including biotech, computers, military tech, nanotech and robots.

More by Larry Greenemeier

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe