NASA's budget focus: Moon, Mars, or ISS?
Should we be going to the Red Planet next?
(Credit: NASA)If you had to choose the subject of NASA's attention over the next decade, what would you pick? Would you want to push the space agency to go back to the moon? Would you want it to devote its budget toward a human mission to Mars?
The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, a panel ordered to chart the future of the U.S. space program, is trying to narrow those possibilities. So far, the group has come up with several ideas for how NASA should focus its resources (PDF).
For starters, one option the panel has suggested would see NASA focus on maintaining the International Space Station through 2020, rather than shuttering its ISS operations at the end of 2015, as planned. Another option is to get astronauts back to the moon for the first time since the Apollo program.
Another choice calls for astronauts to explore deep space, eventually traveling to Mars' moons. The panel also crafted an option that would see NASA maintain extended stays on Earth's moon. It would enable astronauts to travel to different areas of the lunar landscape, rather than stick to one location.
But perhaps the most compelling option the panel made public is an astronaut-attended trip to Mars. It said that if all of NASA's focus and government funding is allocated to going to Mars, it might be possible.
CNET News Poll
Budget costs are an obvious concern and a key determining factor in what plan NASA will follow, going forward. Panel member Norman Augustine, the former chief executive of Lockheed Martin, told The New York Times that none of the options would feature "an exorbitant price tag."
That should make legislators happy. But that alone won't determine NASA's future.
Moon or Mars?
The idea of going to the moon is interesting. On one hand, astronauts have already explored the moon somewhat. On the other, there is so much about the lunar landscape that we just haven't seen or learned.
Mars is the great unknown, at least when it comes to actual astronaut exploration. Speculation abounds over its importance to our understanding of Earth's existence. Was it once inhabited? Does it hold secrets to our past? Those are questions that likely can be more easily addressed through human exploration than by rover visits.
So as NASA enters the next chapter in its storied history, its fate will soon be known. Will it plug away in low orbit? Will it have a renewed drive to go to the moon? Or will it decide to focus on Mars?
At this point, we don't know. But we can have our voices heard. So, where would you like to see NASA go? Is the moon for you? Or would you rather head to Mars? Let us know in the comments below and in the poll above.
Check out Don's Facebook profile, Twitter stream, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
- Remove legal barriers which make it hard for commercial entities to get into space
- Fund and give technology to companies which will encourage a market and reduce cost of getting items into space
- Help all efforts to get a continued large (10,000+) human presence in space (even if just orbiting).
After these are hit, then they can consider items like Mars.
The only caveat would be a big legal requirement to not generate space junk if at all possible. Not for any tree-hugging reasons, but for safety.
Come to think of it, a second caveat would involve the Moon - it's a great place to get materials, and the gravity well is nice and shallow. If they go, it should be (and IIRC may already be) with a priority and efforts towards establishing a permanent presence there.
I agree with removing legal barriers for commercial entities to get in space that would naturally get your other 2 points to happen.
Nasa cannot do it alone! They need to include Europe, Japan, Canada,Russia,India and China to make Mars our next home, doing so will be a jump forward all mankind.
They should organize themselves into a space & version of NATO or something Headed and funded by Richard Branson :)
Keep politicians on a leash and let corporations do the competing i.e. Panasonic vs. Sony, not USA vs. Russia or China.
Resources aside, two other benefits to colonizing space would be more room for the population, but that's not going to help much if we're still living off of only Earth's resources. The second would be for more scientific research, which I'm all for, but not sure its worth the cost (at this time).
That said, since we won't find water on the moon (or the ISS for that matter) any colonization of the moon would be totally dependent on us for water (at the very least). This might not be the case with Mars, so it's probably a better place to try and support an actual human colony, and would get my vote for their funding.
If there is any reason at all that such efforts should be pursued, it is for the long-term technological benefits (for humanity no matter the location) in such things as water/air production; clean and sustainable energy production; even propulsion and vehicle technologies for long-distance travel. What came from the work in the 60-s and early 70's has immeasurable value...imagine what could come of a project like this today.
It seems hasty to say "we won't find water on the moon" before the results are even in from the Lunar Reconnaissance Observer launched several weeks ago. Since looking for polar ice deposits is its primary mission.
And there are at least five other (international) lunar missions tasked with such missions due for launch over the next few years.
But Mars is also a lot farther away ? 35 million miles away even at closest opposition - and presents its own unique challenges. A Mars mission would almost certainly require over a year (or more) in space round trip, and that will almost certainly require artificial gravity for the astronauts? health. Radiation shielding will also be necessary for extended exposure to cosmic rays outside the Van Allen belts. And above all there is the lesson of Apollo ? most everyone realizes that if you are going all the way to Mars, it had better not be just to stay a few days and plant a flag. We ought to go to stay. And even making maximum use of in situ resources, it will require a lot more infrastructure and earth resources to make that happen.
2. But the Augustine Commission has to consider more immediate practical concerns ? what do we do right now to prepare for that? What can we afford? A general answer is emerging: 1) Stretch out the shuttle manifest and add a handful more flights at a low tempo to 2015 to close the gap until Orion or commercial vehicles are ready; 2) Keep the space station up until 2020 if possible ? the international partners will not stand for de-orbiting only a few years after completion; 3) ditch the problematic and expensive Ares launchers for more directly shuttle derived heavy launch systems such as Direct's Jupiter (ideally) or shuttle-C to ensure a quicker and more affordable return to beyond LEO missions, starting with the Moon and progressing ultimately (once the technology permits) to Mars ? and 4) leave low earth orbit operations to commercial entities as much as possible.
And hope that Congress will make adequate funding available for NASA and commercial award contracts going forward.
There is no purpose for humans in space. Robots do it cheaper and better.
All (and yes, I do mean ALL) of the major astronomical discoveries involving space flight in recent years have been made by robotic spacecraft -- the Hubble, Chandra, Spirit and Opportunity, Kepler, both Voyagers.
Meanwhile, the occupants of the ISS have spent their entire time (and yes, I do mean pretty much all of it) simply keeping themselves alive. Their major accomplishments have been fixing bits of their life support systems that broke. Why do we want to pay for that? After all, the stated goal of building the ISS is to complete it on time for dumping it safely in the Pacific.
Manned space flight is stupid and wasteful. It produces no benefits. It does no science. It is the world's most expensive PR stunt. Kill it and put the money in robotic spacecraft.
Also, from what I have gathered from going to several lectures at one of NASA's centers, Mars seems to be a good place to research b/c it is believed that Mars could have possibly been earth-like at one point in time and could give us answers about our own planet and what we could in order to prevent/delay the earth becoming inhabitable.
I understand the risks of traveling to the Mars though. I takes 7 months to get there and the way its orbit is one would either have to return within a few stays or stay for several months. Many more tests and training needs to occur before this can happen, They have plenty of time though because Ares I, as of now, will not be ready until at least 2020.
As for the moon and the ISS, I am undecided. I do not know enough about the pros and cons in order to make a decision.
And for those of you who think NASA is useless, check out their budget estimates for 2010 (keep in mind there is still a lot of delegation happening, as mentioned in the article)
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
Also, remember that NASA's total budget is less than 2% of the the Govt's total budget. And you'd be surprised as to how much work NASA does for private industry and vice versa...
You bring up a lot of really good points. It is truly amazing what NASA has accomplished on such a small budget. I agree that there would be tremendous benefits in going to Mars. Any major goal that NASA undertakes will inevitably bring about technological advances that improve the quality of life on Earth. We can credit NASA for many improvements in transportation, communication, medicine, clothing, etc. that affect each of us every day. Going bold is the way we will maximize these innovations in the future.
In my opinion, NASA's program of record is the best program that could be undertaken. It is bold and enables us to meet all of these destinations in the least amount of time. Most immediately we support the ISS, then when Ares V is ready, we go to the Moon, and then to Mars.
Ares I has been in development for four years and has been through countless reviews to ensure the safety of the crew members that will be launched upon it. If we drop the Ares program, we lose all of that--especially if we rush to qualify some other vehicle that is inherently less safe, like Direct or Shuttle C. The greatest threat to NASA's continuation is another fatal mission, something no one wants to have happen. Hands down, Ares is safer than any other option being considered.
Also, from what I have gathered from going to several lectures at one of NASA's centers, Mars seems to be a good place to research b/c it is believed that Mars could have possibly been earth-like at one point in time and could give us answers about our own planet and what we could in order to prevent/delay the earth becoming inhabitable.
I understand the risks of traveling to the Mars though. I takes 7 months to get there and the way its orbit is one would either have to return within a few days or stay for several months. Many more tests and training needs to occur before this can happen, They have plenty of time though because Ares I, as of now, will not be ready until at least 2020.
As for the moon and the ISS, I am undecided. I do not know enough about the pros and cons in order to make a decision.
And for those of you who think NASA is useless, check out their budget estimates for 2010 (keep in mind there is still a lot of delegation happening, as mentioned in the article)
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
Also, remember that NASA's total budget is less than 2% of the the Govt's total budget. And you'd be surprised as to how much work NASA does for private industry and vice versa...
The ISS and/or the Moon could be used as a staging point for a Mars mission. For example, Instead of launching directly from Earth to Mars, Astronauts could get set up on the ISS then go from the ISS to Mars.
Plus the ISS is the only place we have which can provide an astronaut with experience and practical knowledge of living in zero g environment for an extended period of time. I would not send someone to mar with out them having at least spent a month on two in close orbit.
Saying that launching mission to the moon could be use as training for extend voyages out.
Yet orbital flight in the near Earth environment was undreamed of until the last century, and for human purposes it is far more valuable than Moon flights, much less costly, and brings far greater numbers of actual witnesses to see the Earth from space. Skilled professionals and persons of great rank, highly respected throughout their nations and even throughout the world, always bring vital new understanding back to Earth when they return. That must continue indefinitely.
It might make sense to set up a base on the moon and then Mars to gain valuable knowledge about how to live on a foreign body before such a planet is found, but the more difficult thing will be the transportation from Earth to a planet outside our solar system.
We should allocate money to:
1) Finding extra-solar habitable planets
2) Learning how to live in space and on foreign bodies
3) Extra-solar space travel
- by Dr_Zinj August 10, 2009 10:39 AM PDT
- NASA needs to get out of the space flight business.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(30 Comments)It worked fine for the manhatten-style Apollo program. We got their first, mission accomplished. Should have disbanded and disassembled the agency then. However, like most organizations, it took on a life of its own and just keeps gobbling resources to sustain itself with no other purpose.
As others have suggested, I think NASA needs a complete change of mission.
1. Work to promote a legal and political environment to encourage commercial and private space flight.
2. Act as a clearing house for space flight technology; atmospherics, vaccuum, propulsion, radiation, closed environmental, closed recycling, etc.
3. Reduction and elimination of space pollution (hazardous debris generation).
Robots and telepresence are fine for places that are of extreme hazard; but are not satisfactory alternatives to actually being there. You cannot colonize by only sending robots. Waiting to turn Earth into a sustainable society is a futile endeavor. It will never happen. Space is where the "unlimited" resources are, not Earth. Space will not reduce the population problem on Earth. It will allow us other places to populate and provide a failsafe for the human race/
The ISS is not a complete was of time and resources. It has had one overarching purpose. To demonstrate and test our ability to sustain a habitat in space for long periods of time. Fixing things that are broken, keeping yourselves alive, finding out what it takes to stay there are all major, vital accomplishments. You can have the most sophisticated simulation programs in the universe, but there is no substitute for actually doing something.
And let's end this with a wild proposition. Instead of deorbiting the ISS; how about we attach landers, fuel tanks, and a nuclear engine to it and use it as the crew module for the Mars venture?