I have to admit that I was a little surprised at the level of media attention NASA’s lunar exploration announcement Monday received, since it had been clear since the beginning of the Vision that part of the overall plan included establishing a base of some kind on the Moon. That coverage included front-page articles by the Washington Post and New York Times, the latter of which attracted the attention of none other than Stephen Colbert. (“That’s right, a giant project with no blueprint, no budget parameters, and no timetable. That means there’s only one person who can make this thing work: Donald Rumsfeld.”)
The announcement attracted its fair share of editorial reactions, most of which fell into two predictable camps: many approved it, saying there was “abundant justification” for the venture, while others worried about the cost of the project and suggested the money could be better spent elsewhere. Yeah, you could see that coming.
A few editorials do stand out: yesterday USA Today ran a pro-and-con pair of editorials on the proposal. The “opposing view” piece, by NASA administrator Mike Griffin, called the overall exploration effort “a down payment on our future” and drew parallels to Lewis & Clark and Seward’s purchase of Alaska. “Our great-great-grandparents accepted the challenge of their frontier. Will today’s generation do less? And if so, why? To save 15 cents per day?” The “pro” piece, by the newspaper’s editors, admits that NASA’s vision is “compelling” but argues that technology and cost issues argue for an alternative approach: “That approach might use off-the-shelf rockets, such as those that launch commercial satellites and military and scientific payloads, to save money. It might also take a look at the low-budget operations of space pioneers such as Burt Rutan to see whether they might be tweaked to advance beyond suborbital space tourism.” As the editorial also notes, “The human inhabitation of space in any significant numbers won’t happen until someone can tackle the costs of getting astronauts the first hundred miles up.”
An editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal also proposes an alternative that is music to the ears of many commercial space advocates. The editorial requires a subscription, but here’s the key paragraph:
Say NASA believes it can build a permanent moonbase for $100 billion in today’s dollars. Why not take half of that and offer it as a bounty to the first private company to build the station and man it. A prize in the neighborhood of $50 billion is bound to attract plenty of interest — and that number is probably much less than a realistic guess of what it would cost NASA in the end. The taxpayer would save 50% of NASA’s cost to build the base, and the result would be much more likely to be attractive to the private interests that NASA wants to draw to the project.
So, should NASA focus on space transportation versus exploration, even though previous efforts by the agency to reduce the price-per-pound of reaching orbit have failed? Is $50 billion enough to lure private interests to develop a lunar base—and if the $50 billion alone isn’t enough to the venture to be profitable, could a base eke out revenue elsewhere? What about alternative mechanisms, like a 25-year tax holiday for the first company to establish a lunar base, as has been proposed in the past by the likes of former Congressman Robert Walker and others?
I often don’t agree with the WSJ editorial page, but I like that idea. Combine it with the tax holiday, and let’s see what happens.
JEFF FOUST SAID: Is $50 billion enough to lure private interests to develop a lunar base—and if the $50 billion alone isn’t enough to the venture to be profitable, could a base eke out revenue elsewhere? What about alternative mechanisms, like a 25-year tax holiday for the first company to establish a lunar base, as has been proposed in the past by the likes of former Congressman Robert Walker and others?
Intriguing question Jeff.
I think a $50 Billion Moon prize, combined with Zero G, Zero Tax policy, would have a tremendous impact. I think $50B is sufficient for a lunar base — Zubrin proposed a $30 Billion prize for Mars. I would vote for a President who proposed something audacious like this. I might even join his campaign team.
Short of a visionary President, I do think the USA Today proposal is more practical, if less audacious. There is a large existing constituency, in the government, in industry, and on the Hill, which could get behind a major effort to promote Cheap Access to Space as the number 1 near-term priority.
I also like the USA Today article for what it hints at — that the goal should be the large-scale settlement of space. In that context, spending $100+ Billion to put 4-8 government employees on the Moon (in a system that is too costly) is not that compelling.
– Al
Lots of good ideas. The thing that could derail the whole thing is the current emphasis on CLV/Ares I. This is a waste, if you ask me. Better to go with an existing booster for crewed access and focus NASA Marshall efforts on Ares V development.
Instead of offering $50 billion for a private space venture to the moon, let’s just offer more incentives to get them into orbit.
Really, I’d like to see NASA go back. I think it’s wonderful for science reasons. If we back private only, how long would it take to get there? Even if the payout was incremental…
Enough grumbling already, all these years of , “Nasa is going nowhere”, it doesn’t have a destination. Now it defines a tangible destination. And more grumbling now about costs..
Name one major project, that has completely been costed out for 20 years down the road. I can’t even think of a highway project for instance that has that level of detail. There are just two many unknowns with a space effort.
For the first time I think that there actually is a chance this might work.
The shuttle will be retired in 2010, no one wants to keep flying it. Congress, Nasa , nobody. Imagine if Congress Killed the constellation project and Nasa decided to keep flying the shuttle and there was another accident!
There will be a 4 year gap, thats a given.. I used to be worried about that gap.. But what does it hurt, we might or might not have something from cots .. or just have to keep buying from the russians or whoever else might be flying.. So What.
Bruise our ego, national prestige, not if we are actively testing and preparing for a major moon effort.
International Partners won’t sign on ??? Yea, heard that one too.
Dispite a lot of negative rumblings , I think the english for instance will use this to energize there declining science culture, I Think russia will most definitely sign on (because I don’t think dispite all the talk lately they can pull a lunar effort off on their own). The key is a different formula than used with the ISS project.
There are no indications yet that congress will kill the Aries I, if aries I flies , aries V is a direct evolution from Aries I. So there’s a good chance it might make it too.
Take care of problems at home first???
Reality check, there WILL ALWAYS be problems at home. We can only rob our science endenvours to support social programs so long and than it comes back to haunt you in the form of lost leadership in technology.
Look as a civilization , we need to decide if we want to be explorers or just sit on our asses and drink bear and watch football games until some nice chunk of space rock comes crashing into our little home.
I don’t see congress allocating twice NASA’s budget. I think it would need to be broken down into smaller bites. This could have been used for Orion but we are too late in the game since the US can’t be without access to space for an extended amount of time. I doubt that Burt Rutan (the closest Entrepreneur to an orbital vehicle) could have an orbital vehicle ready by even 2010. I don’t see why we can’t have multiple paths to space that ensures if one does fail that the other might succeed. It would be really nice if both succeed than we would have something really special. This also doesn’t mean that the paths can’t cross and leverage each others strengths.
We still don’t have any real viable commercial reason to go to the moon. The only true reason to go to the moon and beyond is exploration, DOD and science. There is nothing you could propose in a business plan that would excite company share holders at this time. I think something between Centennial Challenges and the $50 billion incentive is needed with very clear goals for each deliverable.
I think the time might be right for international participation.. I think as long as we can offer something better than the ISS arraignments , that might happen.
Why?
Welll, for one, I think there is some signs that the english want a manned program but can’t do it on their own.. and don’t see ESA as the solution. The English are losing scientific prestige and they know it.
Russia, russia is putting out more and more press about programs that exists only on paper. If there are any moon efforts from them they will most like be financed from foriegn money, but I think the government wants a real national space effort again. .. Again if the deal is like the one like the ISS its doa. but if the formula is different??
Commericial, commercial always follows national.. Look at the bigalow habitats.
Well, it’s good to see that there are some people out there who agree with my overall outlook on this subject.
My answers to Jeff’s questions:
So, should NASA focus on space transportation versus exploration, even though previous efforts by the agency to reduce the price-per-pound of reaching orbit have failed?
Been there and done that. There is still no market beyond the Space Station, so the outcome beyond the Space Station is unlikely to be different. More importantly, NASA is not the right organization to do this. NASA should push the far frontier (VSE) and develop technology that folks like Kistler can use to lower costs.
Is $50 billion enough to lure private interests to develop a lunar base—
Interesting question. My initial answer would be “possibly yes,” but it would be a gamble and should be done with the VSE, not instead of. I would suggest a smaller amount for some specific sub-goal like a working oxygen factory on the lunar surface.
More importantly, this idea is probably a non-starter in Congress. Look at how difficult it is to get them to sign off on the pennies being asked for now. More likely is some bazillionair, or set of them, caughing up the prize money.
and if the $50 billion alone isn’t enough to the venture to be profitable,
It doesn’t need to be profitable, at least in the short term. Was SpaceShipOne’s flight profitable? No, but it might lead to a profitable industry. Are the Russian tourist flights profitable? Maybe. They certainly do not return the costs of the infrastructure, but that was deployed for other reasons and they do defray some of the costs of operating that infrastructure. Contrary to the opinions of too many of my “free market” friends, simple “profitability” is far too simple a measure.
could a base eke out revenue elsewhere?
We’ll never know until we try it, but I would suggest yes, cf. my article on the “Oxygen Road” in Space News.
What about alternative mechanisms, like a 25-year tax holiday for the first company to establish a lunar base,
Probably more realistic in Congress, but still likely to be a hard sell in a Congress that really doesn’t care what happens as long as it isn’t a complete withdrawal from human spaceflight.
— Donald
For that space freak wg cannon…
…you took the words right out of my mouth.
When we get to the moon, I propose we elect wg cannon (or any future descendants) as space czar since he (or is it a she?) knows exactly what they are talking about.
How long have we been sitting here, twittling our thumbs, going no where except around our own globe?
Either we get serious about space now, or when a nice ice rock comes floating near by.
Space may not solve our problems on Earth, but it will provide more opportunities for us down below.
Technically, the later option of sitting on the moon twiddling our thumbs is also ‘going nowhere except around our own globe’. You’re just going in a slightly more energetic nowhere.