Obama space panel says moon return plan is a no-go (Update)
September 8, 2009 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer
(AP) -- A White House panel of independent space experts says NASA's return-to-the-moon plan just won't fly.
The problem is money. The expert panel estimates it would cost about $3 billion a year beyond NASA's current $18 billion annual budget.
"Under the budget that was proposed, exploration beyond Earth is not viable," panel member Edward Crawley, a professor of aeronautics at MIT, told The Associated Press Tuesday.
The report gives options to President Barack Obama, but said NASA's current plans have to change. Five years ago, then-President George W. Bush proposed returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. To pay for it, he planned on retiring the shuttle next year and shutting down the international space station in 2015.
All those deadlines have to change, the panel said. Space exploration would work better by including other countries and private for-profit firms, the panel concluded.
The panel had previously estimated that the current plan would cost $100 billion in spending to 2020.
Former NASA associate administrator Alan Stern said the report showed the harsh facts that NASA's space plans had "a mismatch between resources and rhetoric." Now, he said, Obama faces a choice of "essentially abandoning human spaceflight" or paying the extra money.
The panel, chaired by retired Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine, includes executives, scientists and ex-astronauts. It posted a summary report Tuesday on both White House and NASA web sites.
NASA can't get beyond low-Earth orbit without spending more, but space travel with astronauts is important, the panel found. That will cost an extra $3 billion a year and is "unquestionably worth it," Crawley said.
The question is where to go.
The Bush plan was to go to the moon, which would serve as a training ground for flights to Mars. The Augustine panel agreed Mars is the ultimate goal, but said going to the moon first is only one option and not the preferred one. Instead, the panel emphasized what it called a "flexible path" of exploring near-Earth objects such as asteroids, the moons of Mars, and then landing on the moon after other exploration.
"There's a lot of places in the neighborhood," Crawley said. "In fact, going to the moon is more difficult than going to a near-Earth object."
The panel also said the space shuttle should continue flying until early 2011 to finish all its space station work and that it can't realistically retire by Oct. 1, 2010 as the Bush administration planned.
The panel called "unwise" the Bush plan to shut down the space station in 2015 and steer it into the ocean, after 25 years of construction and only five years of fully operational life. The space station's life should be extended, the panel said.
Once the shuttles are grounded, it could be another six to seven years before the United States has its own transportation into space, the panel estimates. That's because it will take a few years to build and test the new Ares rocket. In the meantime, NASA will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz.
The panel also urged NASA to pay private companies to develop spaceships to ferry astronauts to the space station and low-Earth orbit. That may be riskier, but it would free up NASA to explore elsewhere, the panel said. Elon Musk, chief executive officer of SpaceX, said within a few years he could send astronauts to space for about $20 million a person, less than the $50 million Russia is charging. He hopes to launch his private rocket, Falcon 9, later this year or early next.
NASA should encourage other countries to join the U.S. in exploring space beyond Earth orbit, the panel said.
"If after designing cleverly, building alliances with partners and engaging commercial providers, the nation cannot afford to fund the effort to pursue the goals it would like to embrace, it should accept the disappointment of setting lesser goals," the report said.
The panel outlined Obama's options. In two cases, the federal government could choose not to spend extra money on exploration and thus wouldn't go to the moon or anywhere new in the next couple decades. The other plans involve spending more money.
The panel suggested that if NASA continues its current moon plans, to save money it should kill plans to make a smaller Ares I rocket to carry astronauts and go right to the bigger Ares V.
Other variations of going to moon plan could rely on a version of the space shuttle system that would use the boosters and external tank with a capsule attached.
NASA already has spent $7.7 billion on its current moon plan, including the design and construction of new rockets. The Ares I has a test of its key first stage scheduled for later this week and an overall test launch scheduled for Halloween.
---
On the Net
The report: http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press(underscore)release(underscore)files/Augustineforweb.pdf
The panel: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html
©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
May 07, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
why? recent corruption and greed has exploded. concentration of wealth in the rich has exploded. US was a bit more utilitarian before, but recently conservative interests have worked against that and weakened the country as a whole, while making a few people even more absurdly rich. Bad fiscal management by former administration has left little for NASA compared to more important issues, like healthcare. I'm all for NASA and the moon, but it may have to wait until we get things just a little better on track. Its up to each of us. Our lack of emphasis on education is the most depressing of all. People who argue that we cant afford to improve our education are either selfish or just plain short sided. If there's such a thing as a class war, the rich should be very embarrassed by the slaughtering they have handed to the rest of us. You have to get envolved, and vote democrat.
The cycle never seems to end because Americans keep voting for them....
But, then, with over 500 metric tons of yellow-cake uranium hidden in Iraq before we found it and got it out last year, we really needed to get in their anyway. Saddam was nuts and needed to go or his program to pay the families of suicide bombers as an incentive to send their children to blow up Americans and Jews would have been the least of our worries....
At any rate, I disagree with Obama's panel. I expected as much as what they did.
Can you please give us some references that will allow confirmation of this statement? Thanks.
In fact, shrinking the military could provide funds for a great number of domestic programs. Just bringing all our troops home from diverse places around the world would be a boon to our local economies.
Regarding the politics.. It's all been very disappointing for more than my lifetime. Welcome to the club.
While a more liberal site, here you go for starters:
http://www.cnn.co...uranium/
Nope. I did not vote for Obama....
http://www.defens...id=50430
By the way, the more accurate number is 550 metric tons or 606.271 tons (US).
And, thanks for the reactionary downrank... Much appreciated. :)
Jerry Grandey, President & Chief Executive Officer:
Greg, I'm not sure we got it fully. Did you ask whether we had been participating in the spot market in Q2?
* * * * *
George Assie, Senior Vice-President Marketing & Business Development:
Well this is the report of the purchase of the Iraqi material.
* * * * *
Jerry Grandey, President & Chief Executive Officer:
That 1.4 million pounds, Greg, that Cameco in conjunction with the Canadian and U.S. government procured out of Iraq with delivery actually taking place early in July, so that wouldn't quite qualify as second quarter, but it was all negotiated in the second quarter.
http://www.cameco...nscript/
Relic from a by-gone era
"Steer the ISS into the ocean" after only 5 yrs svc? Who came up with THAT truly bonehead idea? Look how long the rovers on Mars have lasted in svc! Why not put it up for sale instead?
It is disconcerting to think of this type of hazardous material located in Iraq, a country still very much in disarray. However, it's existence is no vindication for the second Iraq war.
http://www.msnbc....5546334/
http://www.nytime...raq.html
Seems to me that America's options are:
Fund it properly, and get to Mars first;
Kill it, and all the technology spin offs that America has thrived on since WWII, (IBM, Intel, Microsoft, for examples);
Share it, and let old enemies become close friends in the only project that ever truly united the people of this world in a single ambition ... to get off this rock and explore Our Solar System
Instead of continuing to pick the bones of this planet dry, lets spread to others while we have the opportunity ... and that means overcoming financial, political and social concerns with a 'dream' that can be shared and committed to by all contributors.
Reinstate and reinvigorate the United Nations; combine the ideas, skills, technology and resources under a single flag; invite all countries to participate regardless of their apparent capacities; and make sure that The Whole World benefits from the rewards.
Republicans have the most bizarre memory...
Anyway, IMHO I feel Mars should be priority #1. Not for the science, but to bring Americans back together and encourage a new generation to pursue science.
How to pay? Lotteries and private enterprise. (gambling was >$68B in 2002).
Lotteries are a great way to raise funds.
Couldn't agree more!
You'd think the overt corruption of the W-era would have put a bad taste in the Peoples mouth for the governments actual intentions. But no.
787 billion in a Stimulus that produces no product and very little industry? Awesome, we love it.
600 billion TARP taken from us to give to the banks to be loaned back to us with interest? Awesome, give em more.
Federal health care system? Awesome, this govt program will be different.
The government doesn't want you to feel safe, they don't want you energy independent, they certainly don't want you out of debt, they don't even want you to be healthy or educated. They want you to believe you need them to achieve any of these things. And of course to finance it, after financing them and their lobbies.
Actually, the Clinton Era benefited from the income stream that began coming in during the Reagan and Bush I years. If Clinton had been allowed to have been in office for another term the economy would have become unsustainable and crumbled earlier.
The Clinton Era as well as a previous Carter are responsible for some interesting legislation that led up to the failures of the economy this time around.
It is Democrats who seem to have no memory of how their legislation erodes at the economy and tends to hold recessions longer in the long run.
A more stable Middle East is in our best interests. It also is in our best interests not to have nations around or at least not the leaders of nations who support and fund terrorist activity.
Saddam was giving out money and writing checks for families of suicide bombers as well as his other various troublemaking. He had to go.
Unfortunately, a few stupid soldiers had to do some stupid things and end up prolonging things in both countries where we are fighting.
You don't rape 14 year-old girls and then burn houses down to hide the evidence. You don't do what Saddam was doing and torture people. And, you certainly don't use a Qur'an for target practice.
This all could have been shorter....
But, it was the stupid things that a few, stupid soldiers did on the ground that escalated anti-American sentiment. When the Americans went into Iraq soldiers were greeted with gifts and kisses. We had done the right thing and even the people of Iraq stated so.
Then, a few American soldiers did some really dumb things and destroyed our image of beneficence, escalating and prolonging the whole affair far longer than needed.
*Commercial* space can be privatized. Techs that many do, such as orbiting satellites can be privatized. But exploring Mars? As someone who has worked at NASA and in industry ... Public companies are utterly unsuited to exploration. They are peopled almost entirely those looking for profit and a comfortable lifestyle. Those motivations are at NASA, but not a common topic of conversation. Put exploration in the hands of comfortable, unscientific, incurious consumers ... nothing would ever get done.
Odd you defend the ISS in the same breath.
Many in NASA believe it was always a white elephant. Those rovers you mention were built by that faction, who believe that manned space flight is uneconomical for most missions. The value of the ISS is international cooperation, not science.
But, the Great Depression was prolonged beyond what it would have been as a result of legislation signed by a Democrat in the president's office.
It is important to study the entire legislative picture as well as look for economic signs across presidential administrations. One can also look at effective dates of various legislation.
For example, one can look at periods when drafts were legislated and can see a pattern of Democrats in office when they are first legislated.
I do not listen to either of these individuals, so now what, Mar Balls? I've come to hate talk radio of any kind over the recent years.
I read constantly, which is why I have come to the stance that I have on the matter. One thing that people tend not to do is examine the whole matter.
For instance, people love to talk of the economic crash to the last couple years. But, do they talk of the initial cause? Do they talk about the fact that Congress pulls the strings? Do they talk about the warnings Bush gave congress years previous and the fact that Congress did nothing until it was too late? Do they talk about the fact that even at the latter half of Bush's term that the jobless rate was the lowest in 25 years?
But, does anybody really want to talk about the 6.5 plus millions of jobs in the US lost during the last year? Or the campaign promises about no pork in the legislation and so-called "stimulus" packages that do not actually stem the net loss of jobs??? :)
Typical.
I wholeheartedly agree that NASA should receive more funding. Heck, since Obama was funding Pork anyway, he should have slipped some stimulus to NASA. At least that would have seen real results in the future!