Returning to the moon before this century is out

A federal government committee assigned to independently review plans for manned spaceflights has released a summary of its first report. It is not encouraging.

The report makes it clear that NASA's current plans are unachievable.

The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee was established in May by the Obama administration to perform an "independent review of planned U.S. human space flight activities with the goal of ensuring that the nation is on a vigorous and sustainable path to achieving its boldest aspirations in space." Its summary report was released Tuesday. The full report is set for release later this month.

Here's the worst of it, all in one paragraph from page 10:

The Committee has found two executable options that comply with the FY 2010 budget. However, neither allows for a viable exploration program. In fact, the Committee finds that no plan compatible with the FY 2010 budget profile permits human exploration to continue in any meaningful way.

In short, the committee concluded that without additional money, Americans won't be going anywhere in space anytime soon. And even with another $3 billion per year, it'll be a long time before the U.S. can get back to the moon, never mind Mars.

It's commonly said that what took us about eight years to get done in the first place--starting from President Kennedy's famous statement to Congress in May 1961...

I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

...and ending with the successful return of Apollo 11 on July 24, 1969--couldn't be done again today because the U.S. lacks the will to commit comparable resources to the project.

But you know what? The Apollo program, start to finish, cost less than $150 billion in today's dollars (after accounting for inflation). NASA's budget request for 2010 (PDF) is well over $18 billion. And I just realized that eight years and two months of that spending adds up to just over $152 billion.

So we're already spending enough to get back to the moon, even if we had to start from scratch.

Which we don't, of course. We have the space shuttles, and it wouldn't take much to turn one into a heavy-lift cargo vehicle that would do the job.

We have the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, which are in service and certainly enough to lift a moon rocket in pieces for assembly in orbit.

At the same time, SpaceX, a private spaceflight company, is preparing to launch a Falcon 9 rocket in that same class.

Our Russian partners in the International Space Station have inexpensive and ultra-reliable man-rated rocket systems; if you want to, you can fly in one yourself.

And if we needed to, we could put the Saturn V rocket back into production, along with the old Lunar Module. NASA still has all the plans for these vehicles on file.

In short, we could go back to the moon pretty darned soon if we wanted to, and without spending nearly as much as the original Apollo program cost.

So why don't we? Because NASA is already committed to doing a thousand other things. I'm not saying that's wrong. Most of NASA's programs are worthwhile. Someone ought to be doing them, and I don't mind that it's NASA. What I do mind is that NASA is spending $18 billion a year to do them.

NASA is overstaffed, overly cautious, and overly protective of what it regards as its rightful monopolies. Perhaps NASA envies the U.S. Postal Service--but that agency actually does have a constitutional mandate, and as far as I can tell it operates with reasonable efficiency. Whatever NASA wants to do for the people of this country, it ought to do in the most efficient and expeditious manner possible.

I'm sure that at some level, NASA is reacting to the tragedies in its past by creating additional layers of management and oversight to stop future tragedies from occurring. If so, NASA is way past the point of diminishing returns. At some point, more bureaucracy makes failures more likely--not to mention making successes less frequent.

I don't suppose it would be politically practical, but I'd like the Obama administration to cut NASA's 2010 budget by half and insist that it continue to do everything it has planned. Even if that means laying off a lot of good hard-working employees in NASA and its contractors, and even if it means accepting slightly higher risks in future NASA missions, I think that would be a giant leap in the right direction for our country.

[c60chemist]

NASA's success in unmanned exploration far outweighs the highlights of manned spaceflight, even when the Apollo program is included. Manned spaceflight has to take second place to unmanned missions, and there just isn't enough money to go around. Something has to be sacrificed and manned missions are a reasonable loss.

[lancewes]

I couldn't disagree with you more c60chemist. You are engaging in an apples vs. oranges comparison. For example, if we were to send a person to Mars with the required ghiz and he spent as much time on Mars as Spirit/Opportunity have, I'm sure he would have discovered far more then a few (possibly) muddy spots. Not to take away anything from Spirit or Opportunity, but it is ludicrous to compare their successes with a manned program since, conspiracy theories aside, we have yet to send a person to Mars! In the long run, all unmanned space flight has gotten us is reasons to send more robots. Let's finally send a person there so we can answer these questions. At this rate, we won't know anything for another hundred years (if ever). Once has to wonder: if all of the money wasted on sending robots to Mars had been spent on sending a person to Mars, would we already be there?

NASA's #1 goal should be aiding private enterprise to get into space (in terms of giving the technology and removing regulatory barriers). After that is should be unmanned missions. After that, it can dissolve.

[pentest]

Yeah just what we need, corporate interests controlling space explorations.

[Cru09]

In 30-40 years, we'll be able to put our minds into machines and make the trip. It's virtual reality, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. The humanoid machine that serves as your avatar made the trip months ago, you just transfer your senses to it and visit remotely. If we continue to expand technology in senses, and continue developing articulate robots, manned and unmanned missions will be one in the same.

[odubtaig]

Did someone just invoke the 'singularity'? Quick, someone shoot him.

[biffhenerson]

Financing a trip to the moon has little return on the investment. In other words, its a waste of money. Billions of dollars for a small gain in scientific advancement. The money would be better invested simply performing the research in space rather than have to land on a planet.

[compbry15]

The moon isn't a planet.

[pilot55a]

What about all the technological benefits that the Apollo program contributed? The space shuttle program has been a disaster in more that one way, and more that 25 years later we're still patching up the heat shields and applying band-aid solutions to keep the thing aloft. What has that really contributed to, except for putting more junk into the earths orbit only to endanger future departures.

[Random_Walk]

Wow - I like the fact that we're doing unmanned exploration and all, but all it takes right now is for one good-sized asteroid, one heavy pandemic, a well-aimed solar Coronal Mass Ejection, or one really large thermonuclear war - and all human life is pretty much dead, period.

While I don't expect any of these to happen this year, or even in the next 100 years, the sooner we can get up a permanent human presence in space, the better off we all are. Thing is, it will likely take us 100-200 years of hard work to get up there permanently, at least to do so in sufficient and self-sustaining numbers. The more we fart around down here in not doing it, the harder it will be to actually do get up there when something does come along to threaten us all.

Long-term, we're going to have to all leave anyway. In about 250,000 years, the Earth will likely be uninhabitable anyway. Why? Well, the Sun keeps expanding, the magnetic poles are weakening, and we're way overdue for a dinosaur-ending-sized smack from one of the thousands of miles-wide chunks that orbit nearby.

[jboyce]

You are significantly overstating the risks. Over a 0.25 million year span, it is quite unlikely an ends-most-life-as-we-know-it event will occur. These apparently happen roughly every 50-100 million years, if one is to judge from the geological record and surveys of potentially Earth-impacting asteroids.

While I agree with your sentiment that eventually life will need to get off this planet, the elephant in the room is that the incredibly expensive technology we have now makes it completely impractical. If it costs $200-300 billion dollars to get a single pair of boots on the ground on Mars, imagine how much would be required to build a self-sustaining colony there. Comparisons to the Oregon Trail are not apt; we are not moving into an ecosystem that can support us. We will be moving into dead space, and will have to create that entire ecosystem around us.

We need to invest more in developing ways to radically improve the economics of accessing space. Unfortunately research on useful ideas like nuclear rockets basically stopped in the 1960s. It's telling that the Space Shuttle engines are not appreciably better than the F-1 engines used forty years ago in the Saturn V.

[mctroyd]

Point taken on the alternative living arrangements. But, I must say, that outlook there is what I call the very definition of optimism. :)

Oh, did I mention I have a bridge in San Francisco for sale? Slightly used, recently renovated...

[myles taylor]

I agree wholeheartedly. NASA spreads itself too thin and doesn't reuse older, but reliable technology. Also, the private sector is doing amazing things in those fields and NASA needs to team up with some of them. Finally, when it comes to space, we don't need to be competing; we need to be working together and pooling resources. China, the US, and Russia need to be working together to get to Mars. I wish there could be an international version of NASA which could be completely free of any political ties. Maybe it would be a private, profit based company or maybe it would be funded by the nations that take part in it. The thing is, this is something that benefits humanity and we need to work together on it.

[pentest]

Problem is if countries fund it, there will be politics and the biggest bully on the block: the US will insert politics into it.

If it is run by a profit based company you can kiss the idea of having it benefit humanity good-bye. Nothing that for profit(and many non profits) companies do benefit humanity.

[fotostuf_dotmac]

NASA seems to have no idea why it is going into space in the first place. Going into space just because:
1. it's there
2. it's impressive tech
3. some day (choose one):
a) the earth will melt
b) the sun will explode
c) the killer comet is coming
d) the evil Emperor Zerg will dominate Earth
is an absurd waste of tax dollars!

NASA... give us a substantial, well thought out, scientifically based reasoning behind the need to explore space. What can we do NOW... not what can we do in some far distant future? Mining asteroids, creating interplanetary bases, and exploring distant stars is great stuff for pulp magazines (or pseudo-scientific blogs!), but has no basis in reality. Prove that these things are attainable in the near future, and we may have something to talk about, otherwise stop wasting money and instead spend tax dollars on renewable energy sources, improving waste management, creating well planned self-sustaining communities, lowering crime rates, and maybe (just maybe!) educating children!

[compbry15]

It's views like yours that WILL keep us grounded on Earth for everyone's lifetimes. If you can't see the benefits of reaching the stars, then what is the point in explaining? The Universe is practically/literally infinite, and it is almost impossible to even dream all the things that may lay out there waiting for us. You think the Universe is filled with millions upon millions of barren wasteland desert/rock planets with nothing that we can use or learn from? Even if they ARE all desert/rock planets, there are most likely valuable minerals that we could use to fuel our endeavors on our own planet.

Yes, most of this may seem "science fiction", but when you think of the scale of the raw numbers of planets and try to calculate the possibilities of just one ground breaking thing being out there it must be impossible to deny there will be some good. I know we will probably never get out of our solar system in my life time, but it is these narrow minded views like yours that will make it so that we don't get out of here in the next 10 lifetimes.

[lancewes]

Um, crime rates have been dropping for decades.

[masonx]

Actually, you missed the most probable cause and most current threat likely precipitate an earth based annihilation of the human species. Nuclear war, pandemics, social chaos are all likely to be symptomatic - follow as the result of major food shortages that many food production scientist are predicting in next 25-50 years or sooner. They calculate that we are not able to feed the generation that is being born today. Why? Because current food production levels are 95% dependent on fossil fuels. Take way fossil fuels and we will necessarily die back to a sustainable human population similar to the late 1800s. If the shortage creates the kind of civil orderl breakdowns anticipated - the "every man for himself" chaos that would result could be the end of the species - either through mal-nutrition enhanced pandemic diseases, or someone with nuclear weapons who has no food.

I don't see the human population growth ever shrinking short of these disaster events. Yes, I know some countries population decline, but those declines are immediately more than offset through immigration. The global population is growing far faster than our puny census efforts can estimate. The only viable solution to this problem is manned space flight and near earth colonization and terraforming. Equally as unfortunate as our overpopulation situation, is our populations' and leaderships' general scientific ignorance and inability to grasp the significance of the food shortage problem - or the lead time that any possible solutions will take. The next time you want to elect a key politician that you might like to have a beer with, unless you are a rocket scientist - you might want to think about it again.

[Random_Walk]

"What can we do NOW... not what can we do in some far distant future?"

I'm sure that we can just whip it all up out of thin air when we need it, right?

Let me clue you in: It took 100 years to go from a 60-yard hop with the Wright Flyer to globe-girdling aircraft... wanna guess at how long it's going to take before we can get sufficient technology to help get folks into space and ease up on population, ecological, and similar pressures?

If that's not reason enough, then dude - your short-sighted thinking is going to condemn us all to death.

[Sam Papelbon]

imagine if people like christopher columbus thought like that... yikes

[iptofar]

Well, if wouldn't have bailed out chrysler, gm, and the unions, we could afford this since that alone cost us half the price of going to the moon (and employing people in high tech jobs developing new technology).

Interestingly though, price per pound to go to the moon is likely 50% what it was in the 70's.

[patent_attorney_9]

Although manned spaceflight may not be as economically efficient as unmanned spaceflight, its value as a mechanism for increasing human spirit and demonstrating human triumph is unmatched. It's a sad day for Earth's children when they no longer have astronauts to emulate.

[admoore]

Well put; I have four kids, and I can tell you that very little inspires them to excel in math and science like the thought that, within their lifetimes, we might just reach Mars -- and if they work hard enough they might share a part in that. How many of you parents can tell me your kids are thus inspired by "green jobs", or a new round of standardized testing?

Maybe the time is right for private industry to take the lead in space exploration.

[pentest]

What is this insane idea about private industry leading space exploration? Everything they touch turns to crap.

[Random_Walk]

"Everything they touch turns to crap."

You mean things like technology, right?

H3 - all the reason to go to the moon. its a mine... we can have power here on earth by mining the moon. I agree with the journalist. NASA needs to trim the fat and start using the money for exploration and less for payroll etc... Funding and repairing the Hubble should have never been questioned. thank god someone came to their senses about that.

[popa pineapple]

I agree. Helium 3 is the key, but it's not just for providing the Earth with a source of energy. We should establish a manned H3 mining base on the moon with the ultimate goal of creating a colony that is self-sufficient from Earth. Why? Because one day, for any number of reasons, human occupation of the Earth will end, whether it's by asteroid strike, super volcano or any number of reasons. The goal of space exploration should be to eventually put an end to the eggs-in-one-basket, precarious position of humanity. Mining helium 3 on the moon is a logical, affordable first step in achieving the goal of survivability of the human species .

[willdryden]

You do realize that any children born on the moon would not be able to come to earth because of the difference in gravity. They would not have the bone mass to keep them standing.

[chuck_e_g]

Thanks for a great, to-the-point article Peter. NASA has gone from the leading edge initiative of the 1960s to a typical bloated federal agency.

There's a simple way they could achieve all of their goals, within their current budget, and stimulate the economy as well: Privatization. For the manned programs, they could allow SpaceX, Scaled Composites, and other companies to lead the way, and to get funding from NASA in exchange for non-intrusive oversight and approvals. Frankly, both companies are already technologically ahead of NASA, and are much leaner-running.

[ronburley]

The H3 effort will likely not be by NASA, but rather by private enterprise. As has always been the case in past exploration, whether Columbus or the American West. Government funds the initial effort, proving viability, then private enterprise takes over. To the "what's it good for?" folks... there were naysayers about opening the American West, naysayers to the Louisiana Purchase, and naysayers to Columbus voyage. Would you say those were bad investments. Government does not get the payback; the people do, through increased jobs, new markets and technologies.

[qwertyasdfghjkl]

The International Space Station was a great start to the full cooperation between countries to build and maintain a type of settlement where all groups involved and some groups not could get research and other benefits from. It's kind of beautiful in a way, having developed countries work together for a common goal to further out knowledge in space. It's just a shame that we have to stop there. It is a shame we are treating this lunar mission as another race against time for America to land once again.

It would be more cost effective for everybody if China, Russia, Japan, India, the European Union, Canada and the States would all work together. By pooling funds, technology, workers, explorers, we would all have a better chance at succeeding in these missions, and doing so very cost effectively.

But then again, I see space and extra-terrestrial exploration as more than just a flag planting mission. More than just science or history too. I see it as the first steps to ensuring the survival of the Human race. Our planet is doomed, like all others out there, and if we're going to survive longer than just a few million years, the work we do now will be important.

[djskipp50]

For the US it's "been there, done that". They've moved on. I believe that China will be the next nation to land a man on the moon, and not just for the reasons that the US did, proof of technological expertise and the international prestige that goes with that, but with a goal of establishing a permanent lunar base and, quite likely, a storage facility for all of their nuclear waste. They are a pragmatic nation and have embarked on a massive nuclear power plant construction plan and will need someplace to store their waste. This will justify the expense and, at least temporarily, solve that thorny problem to their own satisfaction, if not that of the international community.

[knowles2]

Why would they store nuclear wast on the moon. Why not just launch it into the sun and get rid of it for good.

[pentest]

That would be foolish.

A load of nuclear waste blowing up in our atmosphere would pretty much end life on earth.

[hugh_bothwell]

First, I think you vastly overestimate the amount of nuclear waste around. I believe that I've read that all the nuclear waste on Earth could be fit into a cube 200 meters on a side.

Second, why throw away fuel? Build a couple of breeder reactors instead - increase your fuel supply by a factor of 50, recycle your waste, and end up with 1.5% as much *actual* waste in isotopes with much shorter half-lives.

[darkzone09]

MOON?? we need to go to MARS we already landed on moon and played golf next stop Maaaarsss yea....

[shootfirst]

This is all assuming that the US really landed on the moon at all in the first place. Unmanned missions in space are critical because it allows us to explore and get data before we actually go anywhere. However we have decades of data now that weren't available to the first alleged moon landing. Privatizing space exploration is kind of a bad idea because we already have tons of trash above our planet and once a private company gets up there, there will be no stopping them because the EPA isn't in space. Human triumph if space exploration is privatized will just be replaced with greedy capitalists trying to further their own agendas and you can forget anything being done for the common good of mankind. There isn't much triumph to be gained by exploring the moon or planets that cannot sustain life. I agree space exploration should be a priority, but do we really want to let humanity off this rock the way we are now?

[odubtaig]

Sorry, for a moment there I thought your first sentence read "Hello, nutter here, don't bother paying attention to me."

Oh, it did.

[LordSnotrag]

Your comment might've been good. Unfortunately, you had to muck it up with idiotic "alleged" label for the moon landings. I swear, the conspiracy nut jobs that think the moon landing was a hoax need to have their collective heads examined.

If you seriously think the moon landings were faked, and can take some time to pull your head out of your arse, check out the following link:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Hopefully that will help you wake up and find reality.

[ronburley]

"Assuming the US really landed on the Moon in the first place." You're a wacko. There were five flights to the moon. Not one. Many tens of thousands of people would have to be in on the largest conspiracy ever foisted on humanity, except for organized religion. It's only your lack of science knowledge that doesn't realize how easy it really is to send something to the moon... it's expensive, but not that difficult. A lunar landing is simply much easier to achieve than a half-century silence of tens of thousands of workers, scientists and government officials, particularly that if just one "conspirator" were to sell his story, it would be worth a fortune.

[cnetpre]

You have a really good point. The average inflation rate during the first moon landing was 5.46%. Last year the average inflation rate was even less at only 3.85%. There should be no reason why NASA could not repeat what had been already done 40 years ago. With our exponential advancement in technology from 4-bit processors to today's 64+bit processors, improved combustion technology, and advanced nanotechnology materials, going to the moon should be cakewalk today. Especially when the whole mission to the moon landing was virtually flawless. NASA should have all the data and records with 40 years of improvement to repeat the same mission flawlessly today.

It makes no sense at all. Unless of course, US really never landed on the moon at all in the first place.

[odubtaig]

You mean apart from there being no Soviet Union to bankrupt, no public support and the eensy weensy point that there was no space based industry to support which, as the article pointed out, means that NASA requires as much funding just to do what it currently does as was spent on the Apollo programme when there were no satellites to launch, no telescopes and no space stations to maintain and run experiment in.

Way to not think, pre.

[odubtaig]

In short: NASA's budget would have to _double_ to do the Apollo programme again. Did you even read the article?

[workingman2]

I remember the moon landing in 1969 and remember being glued to my TV set at the time, it was incredible. Today NASA does not get all the hype they used to get, the news would rather show us some kid OD on drugs or man being chased down by the police.

NASA had the Phoenix mission and barely anyone knew about it and you really had to dig to find out information about it.

NASA needs a few things:
- A good PR department so the public can see the things they are doing and get excited about it again. Hiding in the back ground is getting them no where.
- Using PR to also demonstrate the new technologies they have created, yes most are "secret" but slipping something in during a PR briefing without totally giving all the details will go a long way.
- Trim the fat, sorry but a top heavy company does not really work. When rowing the boat if everyone is standing there with a bull horn then no one is rowing.

It is time to stop asking for more money and beginning to figure out where the money is being spent. Auditing whether they can get a manned expedition to space is one thing but what about auditing NASA itself? I am not an isolationist, I want to see us on Mars and further, but big paychecks and bonuses won't get us there.

I think either NASA finds a way to manage the budget they are given and apply it to space exploration or turn it into a private organization and let it compete with other private space companies. If NASA had to compete on a private level you may see a change in the way they do business.

[cowlquape]

I can't believe that you would cut NASA's budget. They already pay most of their workers 1/2 of the average wage for their job titles. And they cant cut jobs because congress forced NASA to build a research facility in each state in the continental US. Do something congress, this is you mess.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Let's just say it's a codependent relationship.

[stepyourgameup]

I say we blow up the moon.

[knowles2]

Then we will regret that we never sent a mission to mar an establish a colony. An all humanity have achieve will be for nought and it will fade into the dark an no one will remember us.

[BrucePerens]

Peter,

You haven't established what you actually know about this subject. No background was stated in the article.

Doing a little simplistic math to compare the current NASA budget to the Apollo program budget isn't a good start. That was a crash program meant to beat the soviets without doing much science or establishing any permanent facilities on the moon.

It was sort of like the laying of the first train tracks crossing the continent. Ever wonder how they laid 10 miles of track in a day, and we can't do that today? It wasn't very good track. It was ripped out and done over once work trains could get down the line.

What they're talking about now isn't a moon shot. It's a mars-capable vehicle that starts with a moon shot. People will have to live in it for most of a year, eventually. So, a much bigger job.

[cowlquape]

right on, the purpose of going to the moon is to prepare for traveling to mars and final testing for the system

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Mmm, what does it matter what I know? I don't argue from authority. The argument stands on its own or it doesn't.

[Random_Walk]

Heya Bruce! How's tricks in the wide wonderful world of FOSS? :)

You have a valid point, but there's a lot missing from it - the Apollo shots were lashed together, and I doubt they would pass scrutiny in today's quadruple-check-everything-in-triplicate NASA environment (which partially explains why a Space Shuttle shot costs upwards of a half-billion dollars, in spite of being resuable).

I believe though, that the upcoming planned Moon missions are allegedly a vanguard for a permanent moon presence/base/etc, and only the Earth-to-orbit rocket/lifting tech will really transfer to future Mars missions (the reason why is easy enough - two radically different environments, in spite of both being hostile, and two very different-sized gravity wells).

As far as cost? I don't see why we can't use a simple comparison, with liberal stuffing to account for the different nature of the new missions vs. Apollo. Even still, it shouldn't (just speculating here) account for a higher percentage of GDP than Apollo did. Even the environments are similar, money-wise: Apollo competed with Vietnam for money, and today NASA gets to compete with Afghanistan. (forgetting all politics here - we're just talking about the fact that we have a big war-related expense in play both then and now).

[RayTheGeek]

I have always been a supporter of manned space flight ever since I was a child. I grew up during the height of the space race and like every other boy my age, I wanted to fly in space too when I grew up. I was raised in Oradell New Jersey and went to the same school as Wally Schirra. I even got to meet him when they dedicated a park to him on Oradell. But let?s face it, of all the things going wrong in this world today, spending hundreds of billions of dollars to safely put a man back to the moon or trying to go to Mars before we have overcome the myriad of complex issues we face on the planet we live on seems a little wasteful. I know man has the overwhelming need to explore and understand the cosmos, but the cost of building a sustainable environment for man to live in space and travel the vast distances with our current technology is staggering. We need to carry oxygen, water, food and fuel to return along with the added mass of the humans themselves. Then you have to contend with zero/low gravity and its effect on the human body, exposure to cosmic radiation and the psychological stress of prolonged spaceflight. That is a lot a baggage when you consider we can easily attain the same results and do it less costly with unmanned missions. BTW NASA still has a pretty dismal success rate if in the last 30 years if you look at how many failed missions we have had both manned and unmanned and how much it has cost in money and human life. Some would say that losses like Columbia and Challenger are expected cost of manned spaceflight, but I think that is too high a cost. We can?t feed all the people we have on the planet, provide adequate healthcare, end global warming, nuclear proliferation and develop sustainable energy. Why do we need to put a man in on another planet when we can?t even fix the one we have!

[WilliamHam1]

You write:
"And if we needed to, we could put the Saturn V rocket back into production, along with the old Lunar Module. NASA still has all the plans for these vehicles on file."
In his book, A Short History of Nearly Everything (2003, p. 205), Bill Bryson writes,
"...we no longer possess a rocket powerful enough to send humans even as far as the Moon. The last rocket that could, Saturn V, was retired years ago and has never been replaced. Nor could we quickly build a new one because, amazingly, the plans for Saturn launchers were destroyed as part of a NASA housecleaning exercise."
Who is correct on this point: you, or Bryson?

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Me, naturally. I hardly ever publish a factual statement without checking on it first. This was my reference:

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html

I will note that this article contains statements from reputable persons who believe that recreating the Saturn V is impractical in spite of the availability of the blueprints. I understand where they're coming from, but I don't agree. My plan wouldn't be to recreate every detail of the Saturn V, but to use the plans as a starting point, using more modern technology where appropriate for cost and weight savings. I expect there would be a lot of reuse and a lot of new technology development.

I didn't bother going into all this detail because I don't really believe that recreating the whole Saturn V is useful; it just formed part of the proof of concept: if we did it once, we can surely do it again more cheaply the second time.

I would rather see us use the Atlas V or Shuttle-C (or its modern equivalent, the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle) to punt a few big pieces into orbit (something like the S-IVB or Constellation's Earth Departure Stage, plus a reusable lunar lander along the lines of the DC-X project), fuel them, and make them available for repeated trips back and forth to the moon.

The astronauts can get to orbit by any convenient means, including Soyuz. There's really no reason to man-rate the entire launch stack.

. png

[solitare_pax]

Convert the shuttle into a heavy-lift vehicle? Yeah, right, I'll just take Grandma's rusty 1967 Oldsmobile and convert it into a clean, fuel-efficient hybrid. Fact is, using expendable rockets with capsules is a lot safer and easier than tuning up a project that was stripped to the bones back in the 1970s.

[jprescott]

The orbiter would be retired. However, new engines based on the orbiter's engine design could be retrofitted to the shuttle fuel tank along with a cargo module that would sit on top. With the current external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters, the system would be able to haul an impressive amount into orbit at a pretty reasonable cost. And, the SRBs could also be increase to give the system more boost increase. It wouldn't be man-rated, but, the system could be used to put pieces into orbit for assembly, or to replenish the ISS. And, most of the design has already been proven.

This is one of the options that the Augistine committee looked at and found to be pretty reasonable.