"Having been there and stood on its surface, I can tell you that the Moon is a dead end for NASA"

[bananas]

Buzz Aldrin at the recent ISDC conference:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1386/1

<snip>

Later in the day Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin expressed similar sentiments about what the ultimate goal of NASA’s exploration plans should be. The panel, he believed, would only look at the plans for the return to the Moon. “The commission probably won’t consider why this goal for the space program has failed to inspire our youngsters and what to do to galvanize public support for a reinvigorated space program.”

The solution, Aldrin said, was to avoid going “back to the future” and potentially getting entangled in another race to the Moon. “Having been there and stood on its surface, I can tell you that the Moon is a dead end for NASA,” he said. “We won’t honor Apollo 11 by repeating its mission.”

Like Zubrin, Aldrin believed that NASA should focus on human exploration of Mars, advocating for a first human mission by the 60th anniversary of Apollo 11. “Mars, for America’s future, is where we should be headed,” she said. “That’s the best way to commemorate Apollo 11.”

<snip>

The Augustine Panel members have been announced:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/06/augustine_20_me.html
June 1, 2009
Augustine 2.0 Members Formally Announced

"NASA announced Monday the members of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. They are:

- Norman Augustine (chair), retired chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corp., and former member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
- Dr. Wanda Austin, president and CEO, The Aerospace Corp.
- Bohdan Bejmuk, chair, Constellation program Standing Review Board, and former manager of the Boeing Space Shuttle and Sea Launch programs
- Dr. Leroy Chiao, former astronaut, former International Space Station commander and engineering consultant
- Dr. Christopher Chyba, professor of Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs, Princeton University, and member, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
- Dr. Edward Crawley, Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT and co-chair, NASA Exploration Technology Development Program Review Committee
- Jeffrey Greason, co-founder and CEO, XCOR Aerospace, and vice-chair, Personal Spaceflight Federation
- Dr. Charles Kennel, chair, National Academies Space Studies Board, and director and professor
emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
- Retired Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles, chair, National Academies Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, former Air Force vice chief of staff and former commander of the Air Force Materiel Command
- Dr. Sally Ride, former astronaut, first American woman in space, CEO of Sally Ride Science and professor emerita at the University of California, San Diego"

The panel charter is at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/353935main_RUSHSFPC_charter.pdf

[lapfog_1]

1. I, for one, think that the "new" space capsule thingy

and rocket is a huge waste of money.

The Shuttle was a prototype and the fleet should have been retired long ago.

The ISS (or whatever it is called at the moment) is another huge money sink that isn't producing science anywhere near the investment.

The missions that HAVE captured the public imagination have been the Mars rovers and the Hubble. And the other mission that has been critical to our planet and our species has been the MTPE ( Mission to Planet Earth). That mission is why we HAVE so much data on climate change.

Give a contract to Virgin Galactic to build something to shuttle people to the Space Station. Give them all the parameters. Let them operate it like a rich asshole amusement park. Or a space sex hotel... or whatever.

Start planning and building a assemble in space Mars vehicle. Use the Russian BDB rockets to lift the pieces into orbit. Involve or don't involve the ISS (I vote for not involve). Assemble the Mars exploration vehicle and go to Mars. Take the Russians, Chinese, and Japan and maybe India or Europe with us. We can't afford it ourselves.

Do it in 20 years.

For the next 10, send a robotic rover mission every year. Or every other year. Keep the interest up and the pictures coming.

Maybe think about making the Mars trip a one way thing... with enough "stuff" to colonize. Well, maybe not... I think that would make it another "Jamestown" experience. Hmmm. Would we have enough knowledge in 20 years to land and sustain a colony on Mars, making US the martians? Don't know. Even with an "Apollo" like focus. Maybe too ambitious.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. I don't hate to disagree. I STRONGLY disagree.

It is man's destiny to expand our reach, to scratch that curiosity-based itch, to truly go where no one has ventured before us. If we don't, our futures are pretty much as dead as those who opposed Columbus, those who counseled the Chinese Emperor to burn his huge seafaring fleet, and those others who closed their minds to new ideas.

Space is just one more frontier, and the only thing stopping us is naysayers and closed minded folks who fail to grasp just how investment in exploration gives us far more than we can quantify in this small space.

Once we start a hard core investment in the future, we cause every aspect of our lives here to improve. We find better ways to house, feed, educate, and provide opportunities for our poor. We give hope and goals to those who have none. We learn just as much about ourselves as we do about the vast beyond, that huge space around us, that outer space, which is just waiting for us to reach out to it.

Only saying no will stop us. And saying no destroys the very thing that makes us human.

[lapfog_1]

27. Did you read my proposal?

I want to go to Mars, not back to the moon. And I am thinking that when we go, it's not just to visit, but to live. I don't know if we are ready for that, but we might be in 20 years. To do a real "manned mission to Mars" is going to take 20 years at the current budget constraints.

And we build anticipation and interest with more robotic missions to Mars.

I think NASA should send a rover that is "just for fun". Have contests and let grade and middle schools compete to win the right to drive the vehicle for a day or a week. Let them drive it where ever they want (so long as it wouldn't damage or lose the vehicle).

But the new Orion / Constellation is a huge step backward. It's Apollo done with 2006 technology. Yawn.

You want lift capability to high or low earth orbit... get the Russians to build either an Energia or UR700M Big Dumb Boosters. They were almost as good (or better) than the Saturn-V but a lot cheaper to build. The Energia could deliver 32 tons of payload to lunar transfer point (for a Moon mission). Since the payload is unmanned, you can cut a few corners on safety and tolerances, just be prepared to replace the payload and launch another one if you have a failure.

We are in agreement on the need to go... it's just the commitment and where we are going that we disagree on.

[Johonny]

14. Right on the money

Although I think Space X is probably going to get the ISS contract.

[zipplewrath]

2. I hate to disagree

I understand Aldrin's point,but I think it is based upon a false premise. The purpose of going to the moon is to establish the basic infrastructure to go to Mars. Fuel storage mostly I suspect. But also potentially a position from which to "assemble" the vehicle to travel to mars. You probably don't want to do that in low earth orbit. Departure from the Moon would be much easier, but still give you SOME gravity with which to work. Some have suggested it be used to "rehearse" for Mars landings, but I suspect the lack of an atmosphere would limit that utility.

[Orrex]

3. I have a question about that

In order to build the manufacturing facility on the moon, won't we need to send it to the moon? Your idea about fuel storage makes sense, but unless you're building the ship from scratch (mining and smelting ore, fabricating the components, etc.) then wouldn't it take approximately the same amount of fuel to get the pieces to the lunar surface and then to Mars as it would take to go to Mars straight from Earth?

I might not be articulating this effectively, but if someone knows what the heck I'm talking about, I'd appreciate any insights.

[lapfog_1]

5. It's a WHOLE lot easier to

build the Mars vehicle here and put it into high earth orbit and assemble it there, than it would be to build some sort of moonbase with manufacturing capability.

Or, another group is proposing the Mars direct route. Build it here and go.

In any event, GW Bush wanted NASA to waste it's funding on Moon missions and a brand new shiny Apollo redeux so it wouldn't HAVE the money to fund more climate change studies (MTPE). Declare that climate change needs "more study" and remove the funds to enable the study. Now who does that sound like???

[zipplewrath]

12. It's a calculation

It depends heavily upon, well, weight. The cost will be the weight. We probably can't launch a single vehicle capable of going all the way to the moon and back. So we are probably talking about launching a few modules, assembling them, then fueling them and continuing on. That could be done in earth orbit, but then whatever vehicle you have will need to break earth orbit after assembled. Alternately you can do the assembly on the moon, where breaking orbit will be much easier. Also, how many missions are you discussing? If it is just one, then some fairly direct process might be more efficient. But if you are discussing multiple missions, a base, either in very high orbit (like one of the L points) or on the moon could be reused for each mission allowing you to leverage the infrastructure and reducing the amount of launch weight required for each mission. There is also the tantalizing possibility that there is water on the moon. That water could be used to fuel missions, and provide supplies for the trip that wouldn't have to be launched from earth.

That's why some folks push for a moon base. Because it can be a launch pad for alot of missions to many different places, not just mars, and not just manned missions. And it'd be a great place for a telescope too.

[Catboater]

13. Aldrin Book

I read an autobio of Adrin. Very complex individual. Years after the mission was completed, he battled mental illness, alcoholism, and a failed marriage. I think it was titled "Fall to Earth" or "Return to Earth".

[Lint Head]

4. Until there is a more efficient form or method of propulsion real space

travel for humans with a large payload is a fantasy. Solar power is an option but is not apparently has not been perfected and is not very powerful. If that were so solar powered cars would be common.
:dem:

[lapfog_1]

6. Why do humans have to travel with a large payload?

People might need to travel relatively energy inefficiently (boost out to midpoint, flip and decelerate to Mars)... but their "stuff" sure doesn't have to. We could easily start shipping things to mars via robot landers anytime. Even if they take over a year or more to get there, we aren't likely to go for 20 years yet. Lots of time to build up a large store of stuff before the humans are sent.

[Phoonzang]

9. We could build a 4,000 ton spacecraft on Earth and launch it

into space with a technology that's existed since the 50s. It could could reach Mars in two weeks and the outer solar system and as far as Saturn in 7 months. It's just that the takeoff stage would probably bother a few people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

So, it's not like we don't have the propulsion systems that could easily scoot us around the solar system right now, we just choose not to (because of perhaps good reason, though it's not as though we couldn't build it in orbit).

[Posteritatis]

26. Or a beanstalk, which doesn't involve nuclear explosions on the surface (nt)

[struggle4progress]

28. Mars isn't a two week trip: it's months. 500 days is a typical roundtrip estimate

[leveymg]

8. Why not lash together some reeds and vines, and see if we can raft across the Pacific? Oops,

that's been done.

Why not take the money and do something new with some potential for other uses, such as building a workable fusion-reaction drive?

[Phoonzang]

10. The problem is if we cancel the Moon mission for some nebulous,

for some nebulous, future mission to Mars, it just pushes back the deadline for us to do ANYTHING in space besides fly to the ISS. It hands the baton to someone 20 years down the road, during which time it will probably be forgotten, or canceled. Who knows, in 20 years they may cancel the Mars mission and decide to go back to the Moon. We need to do something now, all we keep doing is waiting and waiting and pushing back deadlines.

[Ganja Ninja]

16. I think we need to concentrate on saving this planet ..

and leave the Moon and Mars missions to future generations if they can survive the damage we're doing to the environment.

[Phoonzang]

17. No....just no. I'm sorry, I can't take this attitude anymore. I can't argue with

people who have it anymore either. I'll just leave it at, "we'll just agree to disagree."

[Nihil]

18. Awww ... there, there ...

> We need to do something now, all we keep doing is waiting and
> waiting and pushing back deadlines.

Somewhat reminiscent of the general attitude expressed by wannabe
"rocket scientists" to environmentalism isn't it?

:nopity:

[Phoonzang]

20. Yes, because you can't do two things at once.

Like how when someone needs to eat, they stop breathing.

[Nihil]

21. Funny how the tables sometimes turn ...

> Like how when someone needs to eat, they stop breathing.

Strange ... that is exactly what people do but I doubt you
meant it in that way ...

:shrug:

You just seem to be stamping your feet because environmentalists
are trying to persuade people to do the right thing for the planet
(as opposed to a shiny new rocket project "because it's a challenge").

I have no problem with many space projects (and, FWIW, would prefer
that we get back to the Moon in five years rather than to Mars in
twenty or more). I just wanted to poke your little deperambulation
of toys when someone mentioned actually *doing* something about the
planet *now* rather than in twenty or fifty or a hundred years.

We have achieved some amazing things in space over the last few decades
and should be (justifiably) proud of them. I'm suggesting that it would
be a good idea *now* to pick up some of the things that were put to one
side in the past for the sake of "mankind's voyage into space".

But I know you can't take this attitude "any more" so never mind.
:hi:

[Phoonzang]

23. No, what you did is make an assumption as to my

reasons for being frustrated with the "we've got to fix things here" attitude. I don't see where in the two sentences that I posted, you could get the idea that I don't want to help the planet *now* and am opposed to "environmentalists." My frustration is with the view that we're faced with a binary decision: Save the Earth or go into space? We're not. We can do both and if anything, the technology we use to live in hostile environments like Mars and the Moon will help us in saving the environment.

Oh and yes, I'm aware that people stop breathing when they swallow. Thanks. :hi:

[Ganja Ninja]

22. I'm not against robotic exploration or more space telescopes.

I just don't think we have the money to waste for a stunt flight to Mars or the Moon. If we make some advances that will allow us to go and return, establish a long-term working presence and do useful things then I'm all for it.

I was in my mid-teens when we landed on the moon. It was as if once we landed and collected the rock samples there was nothing left to do. You could feel the air go out of the space program. We had no more capability other then to repeat the stunt over and over. After five times it was over, been there done that. I think the money is better spent on a wider scope of projects, seti included.

[Phoonzang]

24. I'm not interested in more photo ops like Apollo.

I think we should go there (wherever there is) and stay there. As I mentioned in another post, if anything, the technologies developed to allow us to survive in these hostile environments will aid in an effort to heal the environment. We've got the tech right now to go to the Moon and Mars and live there, so we don't need to wait around for future technologies to be invented. In fact if we sit around waiting for these techs to be invented...they wont' be. It'll be 40 years from now and we'll still have the same basic propulsion systems and designs. Kind of like between 1969 and 2009.

Besides...why cut manned space flight when there are so many other things to cut. Let's see...flight to Mars or a brand spanking new aircraft carrier? Moon transit vehicle or a couple of B-2 stealth bombers?

[Posteritatis]

25. Someday I might run into a zero-summer who actually understands what they're talking about

Today is clearly not that day. What you're saying is just code for "I never want this to happen ever ever ever until we have a Star Trek-like perfect utopia."

[joshcryer]

30. ESAS makes the "moon mission" a money sinkhole without any space development being done.

It's basically ISS 2.0. Not that ISS is bad, mind you, but we need to get out of LEO.

[BeFree]

11. So

The moon is useless? Lets see if we can destroy it, blow it to smithereens. We have the weapons and the tech-no-logic wherewithal and it will be fun. Shoot, we destroy things on Earth, why not send all that to the moon and leave us earthlings safe and sound?

We won't be safe until that evil moon is no longer hovering above us!!

[moggie]

15. It would be crazy to destroy it

Establish a livable base there, and send all the right-wingers. "Hey guys, you like Heinlein, right? So you'll love what we've got lined up for you!"

[BeFree]

19. But just imagine...

...the fireworks show. We Americans love fireworks, eh?

We could have a whole new independence day celebrations. Every year we shoot the moon and declare our independence from it.

Given a choice between destroying earth or the moon, I pick the moon.

[struggle4progress]

29. A manned Mars mission is a dead-end, too. Robotic payloads are orders of magnitude cheaper

[joshcryer]

31. Robots on Mars are very slow and can't do much. On the moon they'd be better.

They can be teleoperated in near real time on the moon. Mars, not so much. Mars needs a human presence (or advanced AI) to explore adequately.

[struggle4progress]

32. Similar objections hold for manned missions. An Apollo-type "Houston. We have a problem"

phoned back from a Mars mission is a very sad message indeed. The life-support issues are substantial, and so is the problem of keeping the astronauts from going batshit crazy on the trip. If one wants information about Mars, there are probably many opportunities to improve orbital mapping with remote sensors; and if one actually wants geological samples, a collect and return robotic mission should be much easier than a manned mission

[joshcryer]

33. The ISS and its water reclimation have shown us the way.

As Aldrian says, it's probably easier to go to Mars with what we know now than was to go to the moon in the 60s. Back then we were winging it, now we have a good idea how to do things.

My main gripe is that VSE went from this ambitious "explore the moon with robots and develop ISRU technology on the moon so we can actually build bases there" to the ESAS program which says "send peiople to the moon Apollo-style, send large ISS-style modular habs to the moon, abandon the moon base for a Mars mission somewhere around 2035."

Pretty messed up isn't it? If we had moon industry, which can only be done affordably with robots, then we can build a moon base effectively, maglev launches and the like.

And the tech universities of the world can usher in a whole new generation of kids who know advanced robotics and industrial techniques! It's a triple win for humanity.

Robotics on the moon is the way to go!

[xchrom]

34. moon base first -- then mars --

it's a learning curve that can't be replaced.