NASA Needs New Vision, No Agreement on Specifics

space.com ^ | 18 Dec 03 | Jason Bates

[RightWhale]

NASA Needs New Vision, No Agreement on Specifics

By Jason Bates

NASA needs a vision that includes a specific destination. That much a panel of space advocates who gathered in Washington today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of powered flight could agree on. There is less consensus about what that destination should be.

NASA needs to determine where it wants to send humans next and commit to that goal, the advocates agreed, though there was a difference of opinion on what the next target should be. According to the participants in the "Symposium on the Future Human Space Flight" sponsored Dec. 18 by Aviation Week and Space Technology, the two most likely destinations for a future manned space mission are Mars and a return to the moon. One panelist even suggested the creation of a base on the Martian moon Deimos.

"The problem with NASA is there is no coherent vision or purpose," said Paul Spudis, a planetary scientists at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Baltimore. "… For the first time in the agency’s history there is no new human spaceflight mission in the pipeline. There is nothing beyond" the international space station."

Spudis is a proponent of returning humans to the moon and setting up a permanent outpost that will be used to study the universe and to learn more about surviving in space as humans look to move beyond the moon. "The moon has value," he said. "It is close and accessible."

While the cost of any major space undertaking seems daunting, a return to the moon could be accomplished with existing expendable rockets and the space shuttle or shuttle-derived systems, Spudis said. We don’t have the money to do a manned mission to Mars," he said. "I don’t think that is in the cards, but the agency is looking for a challenge."

Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, disagreed and argued that Mars is the next logical goal for human spaceflight. "It has been staring us in the face since 1973," he said. "… It is a critical test to determine whether man can become planetary travelers."

Mars can be reached within the next 10 years, Zubrin said, but the United States will need to develop a heavy booster with capability similar to the Saturn 5 rockets that carried Apollo astronauts to the moon or a derivative of the space shuttle booster rockets that will be capable of carrying 40-ton to 50-ton payloads.

Fred Singer, a former director of the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, agreed that reaching Mars within the next 10 to 15 years should be the goal but that a base should be set up on its moon Deimos rather than on the surface of the planet. From that, astronauts would control robotic probes that would travel to the red planet and collect and return samples to Deimos for analysis, he said.

The Martian moon base could be accomplished for about $30 billion, money that could be found within the existing NASA budget once major space station expenditures begin to tail off, Singer said. "The whole project builds on the [space station] experience," he said. "We can show that we have not thrown away $100 billion."

The effort will prepare humans for more ambitious missions in the future, Singer said. "We need an overarching goal," he said. "We need something with unique science content, not a publicity stunt."

NASA officials disagreed that the agency’s current operations are not part of a long-term vision for future human spaceflight.

Gary Martin, NASA’s space architect, said the agency is redefining its approach to space exploration and is developing a method that mixes human and robotic missions to move science research forward. "We’re looking for building blocks to lay out a long-term vision," he said.

NASA’s new strategy would use Mars, for example, as the first step to future missions rather than as a destination in itself, Martin said. Robotic explorers will be trailblazers that can lay the groundwork for deeper space exploration, he said.

"We have changed NASA," Martin said. "We put it on a new course with a stepping stone strategy for increasing exploration, both human and robotic."

Jim Garvin, NASA’s lead scientist for Mars Exploration Science, said current robotic missions are doing science not even thought of during the Apollo era, but ultimately humans will need to be inserted in the process. "If the answer is to understand the cosmos, we need to be in the cosmos ourselves," he said.

[RightWhale]

A base on a moon of Mars seems an excellent and sane way to begin colonization of Mars.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Privatize it.

[July 4th]

From what I have read, many in the space field feel that the moon is all NASA's going to get right now, and that Zubrin needs to shut his piehole or we'll never get anywhere.

[RightWhale]

Zubrin can talk all he wants since he is outside the decision loop. It will make no difference at all. Did decision-makers ever listen to outsiders? It is good to see Phobos or Deimos mentioned, even if only at an industry seminar.

[WOSG]

Singer said. "We need an overarching goal," he said. "We need something with unique science content, not a publicity stunt."

There is almost no additional scientific benefit to sending humans versus sending robots and probes. The only think that makes sense from a scientific point of view would be to put a space telescope on the moon. Think Hubble, but bigger and better and placed on the far side (or near side) of the moon.

I frankly dont think it is worth it though. Anything they do needs to be focussed on actual value (scientific) and not 'because it's cool' or for PR value. WE dont need to spend $10 billion on PR.

[RightWhale]

WE dont need to spend $10 billion on PR.

Misses the point. We need to jump-start the youth into taking an interest in technical education. You can't tell a scientist what to discover, but you can tell a student to study and try to become a scientist. Or even better, make the student consider some serious education by awakening the scientific senses.

[Rebel_Ace]

A manned mission to Mars is an unrealistic and unsupportable project now. Any such mission would exactly mirror the "flag planting stunt" that Apollo turned out to be.

Long term human presense in space will take place in a fashion similar to the colonization of our own planet. When sailing ships were just barely able to cross the Atlantic to the "New World", was the very first thought of those aboard, "Hey, let's see if we can make it to Australia?"

No, it wasn't. You spread out by learning to live off the land you occupy, then once stable and secure, others push on. We need to go to the Moon and establish a permanent base there. We will develop in space Earth-Moon transportation facilities, learn to smelt Moon ore, deal with constant radiation, harvest/recover volatiles from the Lunar environment, establish manufacturing facilities and THEN launch a trip to Mars from a gravity well that is 1/6th that of the Earth.

THAT would represent REAL progress of Mankind into space, not some one shot wonder to Mars. If you're going to go, do it like you mean it.

[Bob J]

Click Here for the RadioFR website!

ON 7/10pm! “UNSPUN” with AnnaZ and Diotima!

It's our last show of the year,
and we're going out with a bang...
Special Guest

Kenneth Timmerman
will be discussing his latest book!

Click HERE to listen LIVE NOW while you FReep!

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Send an email to radiofreerepublic-subscribe@radioactive.kicks-ass.net!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Radio FreeRepublic is sponsored by the FreeRepublic Network.

[Doc On The Bay]

"WE don't need to spend 10B on Publicity...."

AGREED

Spend the Money on a Moon Colony, & on to Mars; ENOUGH "PR," Let's Just "Get ON with It," (we Will--Eventually) & GET IT DONE!!

There is NO WAY "Humankind" will NOT "go to the Moon--Mars--The Asteroids--& the Stars." So Let's just "get On With It!"

& IF the "Politicians" are "Smart," They will "Take Credit for" our pending "Leap Into Space!"

If America "Wimp's Out" in the near Future Colonization of the Moon & Mars, we will have to learn Chinese, Japanese, or Russian (or an Indian Dialect) to visit what SHOULD HAVE BEEN our OWN COLONIES!!

WHAT a TERRIBLE FATE--That we should have to wait for "Permission" from out OWN GOVERNMENT to Colonize our Neighboring Space!!

If "NASA" "Screws This UP," GENERATIONS of Americans will CURSE our own Government.

The "Hiatus" is OVER; we are NOW OBLIGED to "GO ON!!"

IMHO

Doc

[WOSG]

Misses the point. We need to jump-start the youth into taking an interest in technical education. You can't tell a scientist what to discover, but you can tell a student to study and try to become a scientist. Or even better, make the student consider some serious education by awakening the scientific senses.

Or even better, instead of spending $10B on a moonshot, spend it on science education by giving science scholarships to American citizen students - would go a long way to filling in those PhD slots with American citizen students! I know from personal experience (PhD Computer Sci, 1991; our NSF and other programs are not geared towards getting more American students involved).

[RightWhale]

A manned mission to Mars is an unrealistic and unsupportable project

You are correct. We should have done it 20 years ago when we were still surrounded by men who knew how to fly in space and to the moon, and while we could still afford such foolishness.

-Miserable Surface Dweller

[RightWhale]

Probably not much can be done to give American citizens preference in school admissions and scholarships these days. First of all, it's probably illegal for some some obscure reason. Second, American students don't focus so well on a technical discipline--can't choose and settle down. The playing field is even, so it is up to the students to develop a will of their own. This is where a robust space exploration comes in. When it is seen that we are going places and doing things, the young people can go with that. It's a bit of certainty--something that is missing from American life these days.

Specialization is actually not a survival trait in times of pelosian uncertainty led by the nine dadaist dwarves. We should choose a direction and a goal and get to work.

[WOSG]

"Second, American students don't focus so well on a technical discipline--can't choose and settle down."

That is specious nonsense akin to racism. Hundreds of thousands of American students contradict your biased assumptions. My goal is to make it more, through encouraging scholarships.

What I am talking about is taking the billions we already give to college students for loans etc. and target highly qualified studnets in technical studies with scholarships at the BS/MS level. And yes it can and should be on US residency/citizenship basis and it can and would be legal and fair. Check the provisions for Pell Grants - no difference... except we require the students study science, math or engineering and we require the students to do WELL.

[RightWhale]

Money is the least problem for American students. They come to school with all the toys that they shouldn't be able to afford until they are 30. America is awash with money. Money doesn't do it anymore. The foreign students come to America funded by their families back home. The typical Chinese grad student has 100 family members behind him in the village--most likely Beijing--and he does well because he is honor-bound to do so. American students show up with big-wheel Silverado pickup trucks and an intro to a Teamster warehouseman job. Student loans cover everything that parents didn't, and the student has a zillion years to pay it back or be forgiven.

Study physics? Forget it, not relevant to life. Study EE? Darn hard, too hard to end up working for the power grid, forget it.

It is all about money in the USA, but $10 billion isn't money. Most people have no feel for the size of the American enterprise. $10 billion is barely a sneeze.

[WOSG]

Your flippant prejudices of Americans and others are tiring.

[RightWhale]

Doesn't change the fact that American students opt for general education and not specialized tech. When the advanced math classes filled up after WTC911, it was foreign students making up the difference. There is no shortage of money for American students, they have every opportunity.