Space leaders work to replace lunar base with manned asteroid missions

Atomic_Piggy

Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,485
Reaction score
2
Some of the most influential leaders of the space community are quietly working to offer the next U.S. president an alternative to President Bush's "vision for space exploration"--one that would delete a lunar base and move instead toward manned missions to asteroids along with a renewed emphasis on Earth environmental spacecraft.

Top U.S. planetary scientists, several astronauts and former NASA division directors will meet privately at Stanford University on Feb. 12-13 to define these sweeping changes to the NASA/Bush administration Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).

Abandoning the Bush lunar base concept in favor of manned asteroid landings could also lead to much earlier manned flights to Mars orbit, where astronauts could land on the moons Phobos or Deimos.

Their goals for a new array of missions also include sending astronauts to Lagrangian points, 1 million mi. from Earth, where the Earth's and Sun's gravity cancel each other out and spacecraft such as replacements for the Hubble Space Telescope could be parked and serviced much like Hubble.

The "alternate vision" the group plans to offer would urge far greater private-sector incentives to make ambitious human spaceflight plans a reality.

There would also be some different "winners and losers" compared with the Bush vision. If the lunar base is deleted, the Kennedy Space Center could lose additional personnel because there would be fewer Ares V launches and no lunar base infrastructure work that had been assigned to KSC. On the other hand, the Goddard Space Flight Center and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration near Washington, along with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in California, would gain with the increased space environmental-monitoring goal.

Numerous planetary managers told Aviation Week & Space Technology they now fear a manned Moon base and even shorter sorties to the Moon will bog down the space program for decades and inhibit, rather than facilitate, manned Mars operations--the ultimate goal of both the Bush and alternative visions. The first lunar sortie would be flown by about 2020 under the Bush plan.

If alternative-vision planners have their way, the mission could instead be flown to an asteroid in about 2025.

Participants in the upcoming meeting contend there's little public enthusiasm for a return to the Moon, especially among youth, and that the Bush administration has laid out grandiose plans but has done little to provide the funding to realize them on a reasonable timescale.

Planners say the Bush plan is beginning to crumble, with only companies that have won major funding still enthusiastic about the existing plan.

"It's becoming painfully obvious that the Moon is not a stepping-stone for manned Mars operations but is instead a stumbling block," says Robert Farquhar, a veteran of planning and operating planetary and deep-space missions.

The prospect of challenging new manned missions to asteroids is drawing far more excitement among young people than a "return" (as in going backward) to the Moon, says Lou Friedman, who heads The Planetary Society, the country's largest space interest group.

The society is co-hosting the invitation-only VSE replanning session with Stanford. A lot of people going to the meeting believe "the Moon is so yesterday," says Friedman.

"It just does not feel right. And there's growing belief that, at high cost, it offers minimal engineering benefit for later manned Mars operations."

Under the alternative VSE, even smaller, individual lunar sorties would be reduced, or perhaps deleted entirely, says Noel W. Hinners, who had extensive Apollo lunar science and system responsibility at Bell Laboratories before heading all of NASA's science program development. He also led Lockheed Martin Spaceflight System.

Hinners believes the group should examine dropping all the lunar sorties to accelerate the human push to Mars in the revised VSE proposal to the new administration.

The James Webb Space Telescope, with a 21.3-ft.-dia. mirror, will be launched in 2013 to one of these "L" points. With little fanfare, it was recently approved to carry a lightweight Crew Exploration Vehicle docking system just in case a manned CEV has to make a house call a million miles from Earth for emergency servicing.

A growing corps of scientists, engineers and astronauts are emerging to argue for this chance to accelerate manned spaceflight operations outward well beyond the Moon--faster toward Mars than can be done by using the Moon as a stepping-stone only 240,000 mi. away.

"The notion that the Moon could serve as a proving ground for Mars missions strains credulity," says Farquhar, who holds the Charles A. Lindbergh Chair for Aerospace at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. He also was mission director for the Applied Physics Laboratory's Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous mission that was the first to land a spacecraft on an asteroid.

A return to manned Moon operations has become "a bridge too far" in the Bush administration's VSE, says Wes Huntress, another former planetary mission manager.

Huntress is director of the Washington-based Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory and had a long career at JPL and NASA headquarters, where he led NASA space science development and operations--including the highly successful Discovery planetary mission series. He's also helping to organize the Stanford workshop that will have about several dozen participants, including several top NASA and contractor exploration managers.

"There is little left of the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration except the real need to retire the space shuttle," he says. "Even this goal is being pursued with great sacrifice from all other parts of the agency because the administration has simply not put its money where its mouth is."

"Inadequate NASA budgets are leading to collapse of the VSE Moon focus and to incredibly slow progress for the Moon," says Hinners.

"The nation's space enterprise is under great strain even to build Ares I and Orion CEV," Huntress stresses. "There are alternate destinations for human deep-space missions that do not require building a lot of new hardware to [come and go between Earth and the Moon]. These are missions to near-Earth asteroids or to scout the Sun-Earth Lagrangian points for future space telescope construction and servicing," he notes.

The Earth-Sun Lagrangian points (also called libration points) are at the very edge of the Earth's gravitational well, and a mission would represent a first excursion to the limit of Earth's influence in the Solar System--a significant step beyond Apollo, says Huntress.

Missions sent to "L" points can stop just there, orbiting only above and below the ecliptic plane without any significant use of station-keeping fuel. Also, L points offer a much cleaner option for advanced astronomy than the dusty lunar surface, where you have to land everything in addition to launching it.

"As the nation seems to be turning to environmental threats to our own planet, a mission to a near-Earth asteroid to assess their nature for good or ill would also seem to be a real winner," says Huntress.

These stepping-stones would allow for the development of a broader vision of human spaceflight than simply reinventing Apollo.

Major lunar-related contracts for the Constellation Crew Exploration Vehicle Orion command ship, a lunar lander design and Ares V launcher have yet to be awarded, giving the next administration some breathing room in post-Bush administration VSE contracting.

Some basic asteroid mission design work--part of it volunteer--using the CEV hardware is already underway at the Johnson Space Center (AW&ST Sept. 25, 2006, p. 21). Other, more in-depth and long-standing manned asteroid analysis is underway under International Astronautical Assn. and Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum sponsorship.

Scott Hubbard, consulting professor in the Stanford Aeronautics and Astronautics Dept., conceived the reassessment meeting. Hubbard was previously the director of NASA Ames Research Center and, before that, NASA Mars program director. "We have planned this invitation-only workshop to elicit frank and open discussion about the future of the 'vision' as the administration changes," he says.

"The Stanford workshop will address a broad range of issues touching on many elements of space exploration. The attendees will discuss the balance between space science and human exploration, the need for continuing and enhancing Earth science observations, the relative utility of humans and robotics, and progress or impediments to human exploration of Mars, asteroids and the Moon," says Hubbard. "In addition, the workshop will discuss the status of access to space and the emerging entrepreneurial space industry.

"This is the kind of debate that will go on--beyond whether a lunar base really makes sense. But manned asteroid missions first--ahead of a lunar base--are drawing strong attention," he says. Hubbard and Friedman are co-hosting the event, along with former astronaut Kathy Thornton, associate dean of the University of Virginia's Science, Technology and Society Dept. Thornton flew on four space shuttle missions, including the initial critical repair of the Hubble Space Telescope in 1993.

The alternative vision would also include far greater private-sector incentives for participation at all levels, an area public surveys cite as very important. Missions to asteroids and Lagrangian points, for example, are likely to carry along Bigelow-type commercial inflatable modules. A recent informal space program survey by The New York Times found substantial public frustration about NASA's doing what entrepreneurs could do better.

Under the alternative concepts, astronauts using an upgraded CEV would initially be sent on long-duration missions, not to the Moon, but to land on asteroids where they would sample terrain perhaps more ancient than the Moon's. These visits would also help develop concepts for diverting such near-Earth objects, should they threaten a potentially devastating impact on Earth.

Although it may be hundreds of years before used operationally, an emergency asteroid diversion would be "the ultimate 'green mission'--one that could save a large portion of the Earth from impact destruction," says Friedman.

To reinforce that point, he notes that on Jan. 30, a 150-ft.-long asteroid will pass close to Mars. The asteroid visit and Lagrangian mission concepts would use much of the same CEV Ares I and Ares V heavy-lift booster infrastructure, but in ways that would be much faster stepping-stones to Mars than developing a manned lunar base. Asteroid and Lagrangian point missions would each last several weeks or months. Both the libration points and asteroids would be about 1 million mi. from Earth, requiring operations more like much longer trips to Mars at least 40-100 million mi. away.

Robotic options for all mission elements also will be reviewed, and one working group will be devoted to better defining manned versus robotic tradeoffs.

Another issue is international participation.

Aviation Week discussed an unrelated European International Space Station topic with NASA Administrator Mike Griffin last week, who in comments aside also addressed the basic Moon/Mars issues between the U.S. and Europe.

"A large portion of the scientific community in the U.S. also prefers Mars over the Moon," he acknowledged. But "interest in the Moon is driven by goals in addition to and beyond the requirements of the science community. It is driven by the imperatives that ensue from a commitment to become a spacefaring society, not primarily by scientific objectives, though such objectives do indeed constitute a part of the overall rationale.

"We continue to experience intense international interest concerning our plans for lunar exploration," Griffin told Aviation Week.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/18avweek/

Hmmm...moonbase or asteriod mining?
 
tl;dr

The "alternate vision" the group plans to offer would urge far greater private-sector incentives to make ambitious human spaceflight plans a reality.

So is this the plan? Space trips for the wealthy?
 
The idea is that it would accelerate development in space thanks to commerical influence.

I actually believe the Lunar base first, followed by mars, then asteriods.

And of course, orbital habitats.
 
Hmmm...moonbase or asteriod mining?

Sigh.... I don't know why they are even considering this now. A moon base is the obvious choice. There are so many more benefits than just mining.

For one thing the moon is much easier to get to then some asteroid.
An asteroid would be unstable.

Benefits of having a moon base:
-lunar mining
-scientific research
-massive solar panels that could collect solar energy 24/7
-telescopes placed on the dark side of the moon
-the potential of having shuttles made on the moon for easyer acces to the rest of the solar system without having to break free of Earth's gravity every single time.
 
Ugh, this is why NASA being linked to the bureaucracy is a bad thing. We can never get anything done, because every election offers new budget cuts. Science should not be regulated by the polls.
 
I actually believe the Lunar base first, followed by mars, then asteriods.

Becaue that IS the logical choice. But NOOO they have to go for the asteroids first...

picard-headesk.jpg
 
Agreed. I'm a staunch Republican, but Bush should have pushed some more funding NASA's way. I am a believer in space privatization (I mean seriously, that's how Europe colonized the New World), but NASA has stuff to do before that can really become a reality.
 
Becaue that IS the logical choice. But NOOO they have to go for the asteroids first...

It's cool how you know better than NASA which space exploration options are most logical.
picard-headesk.jpg



I'll put my faith in the rocket scientists, if after discussing it they think asteroids are the best option... well they're the bloody experts, right?
 
It's cool how you know better than NASA which space exploration options are most logical.

:rolleyes: I already explained why the moon base is the better option

Benefits of having a moon base:
-lunar mining
-scientific research
-massive solar panels that could collect solar energy 24/7
-telescopes placed on the dark side of the moon
-the potential of having shuttles made on the moon for easy access to the rest of the solar system without having to break free of Earth's gravity every single time.

I'll put my faith in the rocket scientists, if after discussing it they think asteroids are the best option... well they're the bloody experts, right?

picard-headesk.jpg
 
It's cool how you know better than NASA which space exploration options are most logical.

I'll put my faith in the rocket scientists, if after discussing it they think asteroids are the best option... well they're the bloody experts, right?
That's what we call technocracy, my friend.
 
Build shuttles on the moon? Mining? I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen. With ten times the current budget NASA might have a chance, but right now they can hardly afford a single module on the surface. What exactly would be done with massive solar arrays, except to provide power to said module?

The only thing valuable with a moon base would be science, and that would actually not be that much. Once you've explored the surrounding area there's little science left to do at low costs. Having several landing Apollo-style would be much better scientifically. You want to sample many areas, not just one.
 
Build shuttles on the moon? Mining? I'm sorry, but that's not going to happen. With ten times the current budget NASA might have a chance, but right now they can hardly afford a single module on the surface.

Yeah... Yet somehow the "experts" think it's well within their budget to send astronauts to an asteroid an mine there...:rolleyes:

What exactly would be done with massive solar arrays, except to provide power to said module?

Well now gee I don't know maybe build massive solar farms and beam the electricity back home, maybe? :|

The only thing valuable with a moon base would be science

Wrong, the only thing valuable with a moon base would be mining, and I don't know maybe MINING.

I mean what the hell is the point to send a few rovers on the moon (again), sample some more moon rocks?:rolleyes:
 
:rolleyes: I already explained why the moon base is the better option

Your magical "beaming solar electricity" fairytales mean nothing.

You still fail to understand that NASA is full of people who can come up with much better ideas than your simplistic fantasies, and they seem to be leaning away from the Moon option.
Seriously, show me you work for the European Space Agency or something then we'll talk but you clearly don't understand the difference between a layman and an expert working in such an in-depth field.
 
NASA isn't sending astronauts to mine the moon, they haven't even said they're going to build a base. What they have said is that they COULD do it, with enough funding. The media picked it up and said NASA IS going to build a base. Not the same thing. And mining in any significant amount has never been on the table.

Currently I and many other (more educated and knowledgeable than any of us here) consider the moon to be a dead end, with a moon base as just another Iss that will drain the life out of the space program for another decade. While asteroids might not be very exciting, the science will be more valuable than that on the moon.
 
Your magical "beaming solar electricity" fairytales mean nothing.

Yes MY fairytailes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_solar_power

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/moon_return_020723.html


Beam scheme

A Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System can create a power bridge between the Moon and an increasingly energy-hungry Earth, said David Criswell, Director of the Institute for Space Systems Operations at the University of Houston.

The scenario: Sets of solar arrays planted on the lunar surface could beam energy back to Earth. On the receiving end of energy-carrying rays, a crowd of some 10 billion people on our planet demand an estimated 20 Terrawatts of power.

Given that the Moon receives 13,000 Terrawatts of power from the Sun, Criswell said, by harnessing just one percent of that solar power and directing it via microwave to Earth, fossil fuel power plants could be replaced. "Clean, safe, low-cost commercial electric power can be dependably delivered to receivers on Earth," he said.

"The LSP System will establish material industries on the Moon, in cis-lunar space, and on Earth that will produce a growing range of products and services," Criswell said.

Also, such a power-beaming scheme could direct focused energy to an incoming, hazardous comet - one with Earth's name on it. A concentrated beam could heat up the comet's icy surface, causing a burst of gas to jet out of the object, nudging it ever so slightly out of harm's way, Criswell told SPACE.com.

You still fail to understand that NASA is full of people who can come up with much better ideas than your simplistic fantasies
.

MY simplistic fantasies are actually theirs

Seriously, show me you work for the European Space Agency or something then we'll talk but you clearly don't understand the difference between a layman and an expert working in such an in-depth field.

Neither you or me are qualified in the field of aerospace research. I'm stating my personal opinion on the matter. And I still stand by what I said : Sending astronauts to asteroids = waste of money and resources.

If they can prove to me that these asteroid missions are indeed more cost effective than a lunar base, we actually get something of value from it (not more rock samples:|), and of course will spark a boom in space exploration, then I'll shut up.
 
Neither you or me are qualified in the field of aerospace research. I'm stating my personal opinion on the matter. And I still stand by what I said : Sending astronauts to asteroids = waste of money and resources.

If they can prove to me that these asteroid missions are indeed more cost effective than a lunar base, we actually get something of value from it (not more rock samples:|), and of course will spark a boom in space exploration, then I'll shut up.

But you are contradicting them already, saying they've made the wrong decision. who's in a better position to know you or them?
 
Your magical "beaming solar electricity" fairytales mean nothing.

You still fail to understand that NASA is full of people who can come up with much better ideas than your simplistic fantasies, and they seem to be leaning away from the Moon option.
Seriously, show me you work for the European Space Agency or something then we'll talk but you clearly don't understand the difference between a layman and an expert working in such an in-depth field.

Well this is the thing, when I was working for NASA over the summer everyone was very gung-ho about the lunar missions. They had posters everywhere, they were publishing pamphlets for all the employees over what had to be done for the lunar mission, and alot of effort was going into planning for the newest lunar missions. Mars and the asteroids were not even on the table.

However, and I heard this a lot from the engineers, there was quite a bit of derision towards Bush taking funding away from scientific endeavors, such as space telescopes and Martian probes, and putting it into the lunar mission. The fact is, they felt like they were wasting money on the whole lunar project, yet they were very dutifully working on it, and very excited about sending more people to the moon.

There are many unanswered scientific questions that still need to be answered about the moon, and many new systems dealing with space colonization that can be best worked out on our little local planetoid first, yet I believe NASA thinks that it is not worth the cost or time involved.

Whatever they plan to do next, they had better stick to it, because all of this changing of plans is really rather confusing for NASA engineers and scientists, and without a properly funded mission plan, the research sort of meanders around, and loses funding.
 
Ugh, this is why NASA being linked to the bureaucracy is a bad thing. We can never get anything done, because every election offers new budget cuts. Science should not be regulated by the polls.

I concur with the above post.
 
There is also some problem about a comet that will be coming in the next few years, and if it doesn't hit us the first time it will swing back again with like a 100% chance of impact
 
...I'm a staunch Republican, but Bush should have pushed some more funding NASA's way. I am a believer in space privatization (I mean seriously, that's how Europe colonized the New World), but NASA has stuff to do before that can really become a reality.

concur
 
The idea is that it would accelerate development in space thanks to commerical influence.

I actually believe the Lunar base first, followed by mars, then asteriods.

And of course, orbital habitats.

Agreed. Having a solid permanent offworld base for lack of a better erm does more to keep space flight and exploration going then grandiose Arthur C Clarke-esque sci-fi novelist mastabatory fantasies.

Asteroids aren't going anywhere, but were still down here in one egg basket.

I personally think NASA needs to be fired and replaced by commercial interests. I know, it sounds worrying, but perhaps greed for resources to exploit will get us up there faster then a government organization of purely scientists in their ivory tower scheming and dreaming but getting nothing done between their daydreaming and government control.
 
I think NASA should be the governmental overwatch.

That is, begin private companies headed by NASA guys.

Best wat to start.
 
NASA isn't supposed to make money. You don't give NASA 10 billions and expect it to pay back, it's like demanding that the military should find a way to pay back their budget. NASA isn't a mining company, it's a research agency which discoveries might be economical valuable.

I simply don't understand people who want "cost efficiency" and money-making schemes from NASA's projects and that demand "valuable things" and no more rock samples. Then you're talking about the wrong organization. NASA does science, not colonization and mining. If it does carry out some amounts of mining or colonization it's because it supports some other goals, not because mining is the goal in itself.

And if you believe firing NASA is going to "get us up there faster", you're not really making any sense. Those day dreaming scientists and engineers took americans to the moon, send space probes to every single planet and beyond our solar system, carried out enormous science projects in varied areas. In less then 50 years humanity went from suborbital rocketry to landing on Titan, building a gigantic space station and countless other achievements.

The large aerospace companies live on government orders and support. The independent private firms have done... pretty much nothing. They talk alot, but in the end they achieve little. It's easy to laugh at scientists and their ivory towers, but at the end of the day they're the ones who has made progress. This doesn't mean that there's no place for commercial interests. I actually believe the task of moon settlement will be done by private companies. It's not NASA's mission. It might pave the way, but when the first private miners begin their work NASA has already moved on to a new goal.
 
Well Mat, commercial turn over is the current way of thinking.

And people think firing NASA will make it faster because they need someone else to blame for their impatience.
 
NASA isn't supposed to make money. You don't give NASA 10 billions and expect it to pay back, it's like demanding that the military should find a way to pay back their budget. NASA isn't a mining company, it's a research agency which discoveries might be economical valuable.

I simply don't understand people who want "cost efficiency" and money-making schemes from NASA's projects and that demand "valuable things" and no more rock samples. Then you're talking about the wrong organization. NASA does science, not colonization and mining. If it does carry out some amounts of mining or colonization it's because it supports some other goals, not because mining is the goal in itself.

And if you believe firing NASA is going to "get us up there faster", you're not really making any sense. Those day dreaming scientists and engineers took americans to the moon, send space probes to every single planet and beyond our solar system, carried out enormous science projects in varied areas. In less then 50 years humanity went from suborbital rocketry to landing on Titan, building a gigantic space station and countless other achievements.

The large aerospace companies live on government orders and support. The independent private firms have done... pretty much nothing. They talk alot, but in the end they achieve little. It's easy to laugh at scientists and their ivory towers, but at the end of the day they're the ones who has made progress. This doesn't mean that there's no place for commercial interests. I actually believe the task of moon settlement will be done by private companies. It's not NASA's mission. It might pave the way, but when the first private miners begin their work NASA has already moved on to a new goal.

I agree, but you have to remember, capitalism in space would accelerate development, as it always does.
 
Quick, someone recall Bruce Willis from that oilrig
 
I agree, but you have to remember, capitalism in space would accelerate development, as it always does.
In economically viable areas of interest. Other scientific pursuits would stagnate. Science must not be commercialized (completely).
 
I'll put my faith in the rocket scientists, if after discussing it they think asteroids are the best option... well they're the bloody experts, right?


Don't forget that half the time they don't know to what scale they are supposed to be working at
 
I personally don't think we've the ethics to really privatize space yet, sadly.

NASA should become to private space companies as what the FDA is to private food/drug companies.
 
I agree, but you have to remember, capitalism in space would accelerate development, as it always does.

In certain ares yes. Particularly in human spaceflight there's lots of room for private contractors, especially in regards to transport. Currently many space agencies are spending billions designing and building automated transport thugs to haul supplies to ISS. If they would pay a few hundred millions to a private company doing it, they would save time and money that could be spent much better.

Thats what I mean with NASA and other space agencies leading the way, first they explore and establish a presence in the form of a base or system, then move on while letting private firms handle the maintenance of old stations/systems.
 
Phobos and Demios ... rings a bell.

Oh yeah, they're full of demons from Hell. Don't go there y'eejits!


I was kinda looking forward to having a permanently-manned moon :( Beats landing on a random spinning rock anyway. Who wants to go there for a holiday??
 
Eh, I've got too much of the Earth to see to vacation in space.
 
I personally don't think we've the ethics to really privatize space yet, sadly.

NASA should become to private space companies as what the FDA is to private food/drug companies.

I don't live in USA, so excuse me if this is ignorant, but from Americans I have talked too, the FDA is a lump of shit.
 
There is also some problem about a comet that will be coming in the next few years, and if it doesn't hit us the first time it will swing back again with like a 100% chance of impact
Bullshit.
 
I think this is a good idea. We've already been on the moon, and traveling to asteroids and libration points are cool because 1) it'll be more productive than the VSE's Apollo sequel, 2) it could introduce privatization/commercial spaceflight and operations, which is very cool, and 3) it's further than humans have ever gone in space, and opens the horizons a little more.

The Moon would be a waste of money in comparison. Gogo spaceflight!
 
Yes it's good stuff. The sooner we start mining Asteroids, the sooner we can drop them on the earth to punish those whose souls are weighed down by gravity. SIEG ZEON!
 
Back
Top