Yeah, the airless Moon… just the perfect place to “demonstrate” vehicles intended for operation in an entirely different planetary environment. It’s like testing a new swimsuit design in the middle of Antarctica.

Or a new rover design on Ear…wait.

You’re taking the the old saw about how the best scale to test at is 12 inches to the foot to a ludicrous extreme.

If the goal is Mars, a return to the lunar surface in the way described is an unnecessary distraction, a delay and waste of money, or in short the best way to make sure we won’t get there before the second half of the century.

You’ll live.

“If the goal is Mars, a return to the lunar surface in the way described is an unnecessary distraction, a delay and waste of money, or in short the best way to make sure we won’t get there before the second half of the century.”

Agreed. That’s not to say I don’t think we shouldn’t settle down on the Moon at some point as a separate activity, but the road to Mars doesn’t go through the Moon.

Thanks for the link, Ron.

The “Asteroid Next” pathway calls for an initial piloted mission to a Deep Space Habitat in the 2025 to 2028 time frame, followed by a pair of four-person expeditions to yet-to-be-selected asteroids between 2028 and 2033. The “Moon Next” approach calls for five extended-stay missions on the lunar surface for a crew of four between 2020 and 2030, followed by missions to a Deep Space Habitat at an Earth-moon Lagrange point and a Near Earth Asteroid during the following decade.

The lunar missions would focus initially on polar exploration. They would feature demonstrations of long-distance rovers under development for the Mars expeditions, which could follow in the mid-to-late 2030s.

Yeah, the airless Moon… just the perfect place to “demonstrate” vehicles intended for operation in an entirely different planetary environment. It’s like testing a new swimsuit design in the middle of Antarctica.

If the goal is Mars, a return to the lunar surface in the way described is an unnecessary distraction, a delay and waste of money, or in short the best way to make sure we won’t get there before the second half of the century.

“But keep in mind that Lord Musk is not the Messaiah when it comes to HSF, Space X is not run by gods, and there’s several other companies”

What is a messiah? It is not a god, but a messanger. If you are using in a religious term then there is no way he could be. If you are using it in a non religious term then define what a spaceflight messiah would be?

What are the requirements of a spaceflight messiah? Someone who brings the good news? A redemer?

Is Musk bringing good news for human spaceflight? Like costs can be a lot cheaper than the government would have the taxpayer believe? That development does not have to be billions but millions?

Come on Matt, define your spaceflight messiah? Tell how we need someone preaching the good news of Big Government rockets.

Why don’t you go over to some other forum (probably in some other universe), and argue with people who actually believe that Elon Musk is the Messiah and that SpaceX is run by gods, and are unaware that there are several companies in the running for commercial crew.

Actually, you must believe yourself that SpaceX is run by gods, because you keep calling him “Lord Musk.” I don’t know any of rational people who do so. You really make yourself look foolish and illogical with these ridiculous straw men.

“But keep in mind that Lord Musk is not the Messaiah when it comes to HSF, Space X is not run by gods, and there’s several other companies (Boeing, Orbital, Sierra Nevada) in the running for commercial crew.”

It’s funny that only detractors of Elon Musk and SpaceX refer to Musk in that way. I see him as a savvy businessman doing the one thing I think needs to happen if we’re ever going to leave LEO – lowering the cost to access space.

You support the exact opposite of that. You support things that RAISE the cost to access space.

You also support the political reasons why NASA can’t keep a long-term HSF program going, which is politicians spending money on things that benefit their constituents, but not the nation’s efforts in space.

The SLS is the product of politicians of both parties coming together to keep money flowing to their constituents, not some sort of bipartisan support for NASA HSF. They have even said that in press announcements, so anyone that has open eyes (hint hint) will see that Matt.

“Again, a real “space summit””

When was the last time someone held such a thing? Never, as far as I can tell. But yet you blame Obama for not doing it. Uh huh.

What about Congress? When was the last time they summoned current experts from NASA, industry and science to see what they recommend Congress fund? How come the people responsible for providing the money don’t get any of your anger?

You know they could commission a study to recommend different approaches to human exploration – find out what the industry could support, and what could be done affordably to reach the Moon, asteroids and ultimately Mars.

You know why they haven’t done any of that? They don’t care.

And that, my friend, is why the SLS is yet another program that will fail, and NASA will have to wait for our space industry to develop (slowly) on their own the transportation and systems NASA will use for leaving LEO.

What a wasted opportunity.

Now, where we disagree is on HOW NASA goes BEO. You’re forgetting that NASA is beholden to Congress, as Congress writes the checks, and Congress is not a rubber stamp-the Administration found that out the hard way with the pushback to that piece of crap that was FY 11. They really did expect that their proposal would be hailed to the skies, that pushback would minimal to none, and that Congress would rubber-stamp the proposal. WRONG on all three. The 2010 Authorization Act is the end result. Congress has told NASA to build a crew vehicle and a heavy-lift launcher, and has voted funds to do so. NASA has to comply, just as any other government agency. It cannot pick and choose which laws it will follow and which it won’t (which some here in previous threads seem to believe). Now, if you want Congress to tell NASA to use a strategy similar to what ULA has proposed, good. Write your Congresscritter and Senators and see what happens.

Again, a real “space summit” would blend those who favor the Administration’s approach and those with reservations and alternatives, and see if some common ground is possible-not just an event where everyone’s singing from the same song sheets. Is some of the acrimony directed at the Administration political? Some is: given the climate in D.C. these days, but when there are Senators and Congresscritters from BOTH PARTIES critical of the Administration’s approach to NASA, it shows that the Administration still hasn’t recovered from that botch of a rollout a year and a half ago, and it’s still playing catch-up. Having a real “meeting of the minds” might just lay out an approach that both sides can live with.

“Again, it won’t be what’s technically possible, but what’s politically possible. Something people here need to remember.”

We know it all too well Matt, and anyone that has followed NASA thru the decades have always known that decisions for NASA are fraught with politics. This is nothing new. Politicians aren’t interested in doing things in space, they are interested in spending money where it benefits their constituents.

And it’s precisely for that reason that “space summits” like the one that just happened don’t change the political equation. You even admit as much:

“Moon first and Asteroid first. Expect the usual acrimony if one strategy is picked over the other.”

Yet you still cling to the idea that “if only we had a summit here in the U.S., it will magically pull people together.”

As long as politicians decide what we’re doing in space, “space summits” don’t matter, since it’s the politicians that decide where we’re going, not those that attend the summit.

The SLS proves that, in that it won’t be mission ready for a decade and leaves no money for an actual mission – we could be back on the Moon within a decade using existing rockets if we needed to, but (and this is important) we don’t need to.

Until the politicians let NASA use affordable rockets for exploration, we will have to be content in not going anywhere.