I did mention the Moon a lot, in part because the quote from Lane I started with was about the Moon, and also because the Moon is the centerpiece first destination of the VSE. I agree about the importance of science, security, and economic benefits in the VSE – not only are they in Marburger’s speech, but the VSE itself flat-out says that those are the goals. I don’t think NASA’s Constellation/ESAS has anything to do with those 3 goals, though.

On the other hand I think it is possible to have an emphasis on the Moon that does address those 3 goals. Dr. Spudis has described an approach with that seems to me like it would have a good chance, for example. Just focusing on Constellation alternatives, a Moon transportation system that’s based on commercial launch, refueling, and in-space transportation that can all be used for non-Moon purposes could be an example where all 3 of those goals are helped.

At any rate, it doesn’t matter to me whether our main destination is the Moon, LEO, Mars, asteroids, or whatever. It also doesn’t matter to me whether our expected benefits center around science, security, and economics, or other benefits like ones I was mentioning in the earlier post (Abbey/Lane’s environment and energy), or others (medicine, disaster monitoring/relief, education, etc) as long as they’re important enough and achievable.

I do think it’s pretty hard to achieve any of the others without that economic/commercial space one, though, since it can offer a sort of “multiplier effect” in capabilities and results returned. So, if we start with “science, security, and economics”, and develop a plan based on those 3 goals (rather than trying to somehow explain after the fact how something like Constellation delivers on those goals), we’d probably end up with a good strategy.

Red,

A friendly clarification (I hope). The VSE was not about the “Moon”. We need to understand this.

John Marburger, the former White House Director of OSTP, was clear about what the VSE was about. While others have mentioned the following, it bears repeating.

* “As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the solar system in our economic sphere, or not.”

* “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.”

* “The wording of this policy phrase is significant. It subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security and economic interests. Stated this way, the “fundamental goal” identifies the benefits against which the costs of exploration can be weighed.”

Now, the American people want economic, security and science benefits. President Obama wants the same. This Marburger statement has a longevity and clarity that crosses parties, changes in elected leadership, and decades of time.

The next question should be “What space development plan most effectively delivers these benefits”?

A closely related question — for the sustainability goal — is “What space development plan will generate the strongest & broadest support from the American public and its elected representatives?”

If Moon advocates can unequivocably demonstrate that Humans on the Moon is the most effective next step in a plan to deliver these benefits, great. But Moon advocates have tried for 4 years now, and I have not seen that argument (yet). Until we have a clear answer to the average person’s question “Why are we going back to the Moon?”, a focus on the Moon puts the VSE on a weak, and perhaps unsustainable, footing.

I think there are more effective strategies — at meeting the fundamental purpose of the VSE (and extending human presence beyond LEO) — that defer the Moon for awhile.

FWIW,

– Al

The VSE had some compelling reasons to go back to the Moon: security, economic, and science benefits, and development of commercial space and international cooperation. However, as far as NASA’s current human Moon program is concerned, I agree with Lane that “NASA’s flailing”. I don’t think the flailing has anything to do with the level of public support, though. NASA has come up with a program that simply doesn’t address the compelling reasons to go back to the Moon. Not only that, but it’s a very expensive program, and it’s not going to return any benefits until 2020 or so, if ever. It’s too big and too slow. Also, it doesn’t build up generally useful capabilities along the way to make the foundation more solid. We don’t need heavy lift for anything except NASA human spaceflight programs, if that. It also is still, in my opinion, not laying nearly enough groundwork in terms of robotic precursor lunar science and engineering missions to spark public and insider interest, and to prepare us for the human missions. Finally, NASA did come up with a huge list of other (or more specific) reasons to go to the Moon besides the VSE ones, but it hasn’t focused on them, picked the key ones to go after, figured out how to go after them, and publicized them. In that context, of course the public isn’t interested.

So … the result of all of this is that it seems like there’s no reason to go back to the Moon because NASA’s plan isn’t a good one. Is it possible to fix NASA’s plan, and go back to the Moon in a way that achieves some of the things I mentioned (security, economics, science, commercial space, international cooperation, useful infrastructure, faster schedule, lower cost)? I do, and I’d be for a NASA program that does even, say, half of these things. Lane apparently doesn’t think so – it seems he’s writing off the Moon because NASA is having trouble. That seems a bit harsh on the Moon, which isn’t responsible for NASA’s difficulties.

However, let’s take Lane’s conclusion for granted – that the public isn’t interested in the Moon, NASA’s flailing, so NASA shouldn’t return to the Moon. What should we do then? In that case, one reasonable option is to have NASA do something the public is interested in … if it’s in the context of NASA’s space and aeronautics mission and expertise. Dr. Spudis’s blog references a poll of 20 critical issues that cites global warming as being in last place. (Space isn’t on the list). The implication is that the energy/environment missions the Lane/Abbey proposal recommends isn’t supported by the public, either. However, that poll showed energy as #6 and environment as #16. A lot of the issues are mostly irrelevant to NASA (eg: Social Security, Immigration, etc), so #6 is fairly high. Space Politics had a post on a poll that focuses on desired technology breakthroughs, and energy and environment faired well there compared to space (so did medicine and security/defense):

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/04/18/another-reminder-of-the-importance-or-lack-thereof-of-space/

So energy and environment might not be a bad pair of choices as far as the public is concerned. Let me just pick the subset of Earth observations (which are easy to discuss because NASA already does them and we know what they’re like). These missions tend to have characteristics (launchers, satellite subsystems and instruments) that are very similar to military and security ones, so those key public concerns could be addressed at the same time. Economic concerns can be tackled concurrently, too. A much more substantial NASA Earth observation effort could help our space development goals if it had a few of the following characteristics:

– Keep the vast majority of NASA work in the space/aeronautics realms.
– Keep NASA on the cutting edge, with a wide-open pipeline to operational agencies like NOAA, DOD, intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, and USGS, and also commercial space (like GeoEye and Digitalglobe).
– Keep a wide data pipeline to commercial value adders (Google Earth, GIS, image processing, ACCUWeather, etc)
– Don’t blow all the funding on 1 or 2 giant programs NPOESS-style.
– Don’t make the mistakes of Constellation:
* Focus laser-like on goals like economics, security, and science.
* Fully engage with commercial space and international partners.
* Make the structure look like a food pyramid, with numerous small satellite projects, suborbital RLV missions, etc as the foundation.
* Deliver results quicker, on a sustainable budget.
* Use existing launchers, and encourage new commercial ones.
* Build or encourage useful infrastructure that can be used by later NASA missions, other agencies, or commercial space (eg: refueling, tugs, and stations for astronaut environment satellite servicing, improved satellite components, commercial suborbital and orbital launchers) … no HLVs or NASA rockets needed.

It seems to me that such an effort would be affordable if Constellation were shut down (as Lane recommends). I think it could even be done with funds left over to implement a good lunar robotic program, and in a way that builds the space infrastructure that would eventually enable a good human lunar program. Maybe Lane means something similar when he talks of building a “solid foundation”, but Lane and Abbey recommend keeping the Shuttle and doing a bunch of other things that seem too expensive to me, unless they’re proposing a schedule of multiple decades.

Paul,

As anybody who has read this blog knows, I am not an advocate of waiting another 20 years.

SPUDIS: It’s always left to the true believers to define policy and direction.

I agree with this.

One of the key objectives is “sustainability”, which was one of the key specific criteria that the Aldridge Committee report (that you helped write) specified.

The “Moon story” is not selling. From your post above, you clearly know this. I give you credit for acknowledging it.

SPUDIS Yes, maybe people don’t care about the Moon, but I don’t think they care all that much about space in general.

QUESTION: Since, we can agree that they don’t care about “the Moon” or about “space”, what do they care about?

There is a big hunk of cheese at the end of this tunnel.

FWIW,

– Al

FWIW,

Al,

FWIW — not much. Yes, maybe people don’t care about the Moon, but I don’t think they care all that much about space in general. It’s always left to the true believers to define policy and direction. NASA has spent 40 years trying to find out what people want from the their space program. There is no “magic answer.” The true believers have a thousand answers while most of the populace yawns.

The Moon is important because it’s the first step beyond LEO in creating new spacefaring capability. The Vision is about that, regardless of how NASA has (mis)interpreted it.

Go ahead and wait another 20 years for clear public direction for the space program. Let me know how that works out for you.

These thoughts developed at length on my blog here.

Cordially,
Paul Spudis

By any objective measure, there is little to no public support for spending >$100 Billion in federal tax money to go back to the Moon. It is Apollo Redux.

Most members of the public if asked, will say “haven’t we done that already? Why are we going there again?”

This is a serious issue.

Now, the readers of this blog can ignore what Lane is saying, or even violently disagree, but that does not change the practical reality of the underlying political situation.

If you want to change some minds, show us all the objective data for public support for returning to the Moon. (And arguments to authority to “ask Dr. Schmitt” or “ask Paul Spudis” are not effective either.)

FWIW,

– Al