Congress, NASA

New bill would redirect NASA back to the Moon

Just days after NASA admininstrator Charles Bolden said that a NASA-led human return to the Moon would not take place “probably in my lifetime,” a group of mostly Republican members of the House introduced a bill that would require NASA to do just that, and within a decade.

The “RE-asserting American Leadership in Space Act,” aka “REAL Space Act” (HR 1446) was introduced this week by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) with eight co-sponsors, all Republicans except for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). Most of the bill outlines the various benefits of space exploration and general and returning to the Moon in particular, including technological, economic, and even military (“Space is the world’s ultimate high ground, returning to the Moon and reinvigorating our human space flight program is a matter of national security,” it states.). Only at the end does it offer specific policy direction:

…the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall plan to return to the Moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, in order to promote exploration, commerce, science, and United States preeminence in space as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The budget requests and expenditures of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be consistent with achieving this goal.

“Last year, the National Research Council committee charged with reviewing NASA’s strategic direction found that there was no support within NASA or from our international partners for the administration’s proposed asteroid mission,” Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), one of the bill’s co-sponsors and chairman of the appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA, said in a press release about the bill. “However, there is broad support for NASA to lead a return to the Moon. So the U.S. can either lead that effort, or another country will step up and lead that effort in our absence—which would be very unfortunate.”

The bill has been referred to the House Science Committee, on which Posey serves. (He introduced a similar bill in the last Congress, but it did not leave committee.) Typically legislation like this doesn’t pass as a standalone bill, but could serve as a way of laying out members’ views as Congress takes up a broader NASA reauthorization bill later this year. However, previous indications from Congressional staff, including during a panel session at last week’s Space Studies Board meeting in Washington, have been that they don’t anticipate major changes in policy in the new authorization bill—and this would certainly qualify as a major change.

The release announcing the bill’s introduction came out the same day as NASA unveiled its 2014 budget proposal, which includes funding to begin work on a mission to retrieve a small near Earth asteroid. Posey, ironically, has indicated some interest in such a mission. “I’m intrigued by the concept,” he told the Orlando Sentinel earlier this week. “I think it has merit to it.”

44 comments to New bill would redirect NASA back to the Moon

  • Posey doesn’t say a word about how he’d pay for a program likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. His press release claims it “sets a clear course for NASA toward human space flight while keeping within current budgetary constraints.” Oh really?! How do you find $200 billion “within current budgetary constraints”?!

    Just more posturing by Posey. Pretty much all the co-sponsors (including the lone Democrat) represent districts with NASA centers and/or contractors. It’s shameless porkery and nothing more.

    He introduced the same bill in 2011. It went nowhere. The same fate awaits this one.

    • A single stage lunar lander shouldn’t cost more than $6 to $12 billion to develop ($1 to to $2 billion a year over a six year development period). The Altair two stage lunar lander was estimated by the CSIS to cost about $12 billion to develop. Such a single stage vehicle could also be reusable if lunar fuel resources are utilized. And such a single stage vehicle could also be used to land humans on the surface of other airless worlds like Phobos and Deimos.

      SLS launch cost plus the vehicle should be around a billion. Add a $500 million launch of the MPCV, then the recurring cost should be around $1.5 billion per manned lunar flight. Constellation Moon missions were estimated to be around $1.3 billion for the dual launch of the Ares V and Ares I if there were two missions per year.

      The Shuttle/ISS program cost around $5 billion a year. With a similar rate of annual funding, at least 3 manned flights to the Moon would be affordable per year.

      Costs of an International Lunar Base
      Johannes Weppler, Vincent Sabathier, and Ashley Bander September 23, 2009
      Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

      • JimNobles

        Marcel said,

        “A single stage lunar lander shouldn’t cost more than $6 to $12 billion to develop ($1 to to $2 billion a year over a six year development period).”

        Are you seriously suggesting that someone goes to congress and asks them for $6 – $12 billion dollars to build a moon lander? Not to launch it or anything but just to build it? What do you suppose their reaction would be?

        Would it make more sense to write up the specifications and put it out for bid? Presuming the quotes were less than the $6 – $12 billion we might feel more confident with approaching congress with the idea.

        Space cadets have to start taking money seriously…

      • @Earth to Planet Marcel
        “SLS launch cost plus the vehicle should be around a billion. Add a $500 million launch of the MPCV, then the recurring cost should be around $1.5 billion per manned lunar flight. Constellation Moon missions were estimated to be around $1.3 billion for the dual launch of the Ares V and Ares I if there were two missions per year. “
        Nope. See http://hobbyspace.com/Blog/?p=1406
        Where Clark Lindsey points out:
        “Say the SLS program averages one to two flights per year. If the cost is $3B per in the years with one launch and $3.5B in the years with two launches then NASA will claim that a SLS flight costs $500M (i.e. the marginal cost, which is the cost to produce one more unit output). This is obviously ridiculous. The meaningful cost is $6.5B/3 = $2.17B per flight. For low production numbers, it is only the average cost that is significant, not marginal cost. (Usually NASA just guesses how much one more flight would cost but I used this year to year comparison to make the marginal cost more explicit.)

        Of course, unlike normal enterprises, the development cost of the SLS, which will be around $20B for the initial 70mT version, should also be spread over the launches but NASA ignores development costs just like it ignores annual infrastructure/fixed costs.”

        Wanting something to be real does not make it so. What is it with you and this constant denial of reality?

      • Robert Clark

        Actually a lander could be done for a fraction of that cost. The largest cost of a new rocket or rocket stage is the development cost of the engine. But we already have the necessary engines in the shuttle OMS engines if using hypergolics or the RL10 engines if hydrogen fueled.

        Bob Clark

      • That lunar outpost study Marcel mentioned is here:

        Costs of an International Lunar Base.
        Johannes Weppler, Vincent Sabathier, and Ashley Bander September 23, 2009
        Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
        http://csis.org/publication/costs-international-lunar-base

        It estimates 17.6 mT cargo per year delivered to the lunar surface. The Early Lunar Access proposal delivered 8.5 mT to the lunar surface per launch. So two launches would be about at the yearly amount of this CSIS lunar colony proposal.
        The Early Lunar Access proposal would only require a 52 mT to LEO launcher which could be done by the Falcon Heavy. SpaceX says they will offer the 53 mT Falcon Heavy for $120 million. This would result in sharp cut in the yearly launch costs, perhaps by a factor of 5 to 10.

        Bob Clark

  • A M Swallow

    In reply NASA could issue a short report containing a list of items needed for a sustained human presence on the Moon. Include their current state with estimates of the cost and time to develop.

  • Grandpa Dave

    Well, I never did like Buzz (Light-year) Adrin’s selfish statement: “Been there, done that.” Buzz has flown around with President Obama and has his right ear at times which is scary. IMHO, the Constellation program was going in the right direction until the Norm Augustine commission turned directions. Even that commission indicated that more monies were needed to be spent on manned exploration. With the current economy and the near future in doubt IMHO “that ain’t going to happen”. The SLS program is going to keep a lot of public workers working (aka, white collar welfare) with no real mission.

    LET’S GO BACK TO THE MOON.

    • The SLS program is going to keep a lot of public workers working (aka, white collar welfare) with no real mission.

      Just like Constellation was. The program was so out of control that there was no funding for a lander.

    • Hiram

      the Constellation program was going in the right direction until the Norm Augustine commission turned directions

      That’s a diplomatic way to put it. The Constellation was never going to get where it was going, but at least it was going in the right direction!

  • JimNobles

    Interesting article out of Las Vegas about how NASA and Bigelow might be up to something on the moon.

    http://lasvegascitylife.com/sections/opinion/knappster/george-knapp-infinity-%E2%80%94-and-beyond.html

    (I’m sorry, I don’t know how to make a proper hot-link.)

  • Mark R. Whittington

    This push back was inevitable after Bolden’s arrogant assertion of no Americans on the moon in his lifetime.

    • JimNobles

      Americans are going to the moon. It’s just not going to be NASA led. And it shouldn’t be. NASA does the exploring not the real estate developing.

      Thanks to the way NASA has embraced commercial space and private enterprise things are finally starting to happen again in the space program. Now all we have to do is work to keep the government and politics out of it as far as reasonably possible.

      Things don’t get really hard until the government gets involved. In the case of the space program that means Congress.

      • Mark R. Whittington

        So you are suggesting that the Russians or the Chinese are going to take an American or two on their lunar efforts that Bolden so kindly promised to help out with? I suspect that such a thing would be so politically toxic that it would be unthinkable and whomever proposed it would be consigned to the fringes.

        As for a NASA supported commercial effort, while that is certainly interesting and could be supported (I once proposed such a thing in he early 1990s) Bolden didn’t mention that.

        • JimNobles

          Mark said,

          “So you are suggesting that the Russians or the Chinese are going to take an American or two on their lunar efforts that Bolden so kindly promised to help out with?”

          Haha, what the hell are you talking about? Put the bong down.

          • Mark R. Whittington

            Bolden did reference other national space agencies in his statement. Russia and China have both lunar aspirations and space agencies. The inference is obvious.

            • JimNobles

              Well I was talking about American private enterprise partnered with NASA. And maybe with international partners. Russia has made some moon noises lately. I’m not advocating trying to partner with China though, the politics aren’t right for it. May never be.

              • DCSCA

                “Well I was talking about American private enterprise…” dreams Jim.

                “American private enterprise’ has failed to even attempt to launch orbit and return anybody from LEO. And that’s nearly half a century after NASA’s Apollo lunar landings. Sober up, Jim. Getting people to Luna is hard. Go back and review the details. And private enterprise is motivated by financial profit, not political projections of power, and there’s low ro no ROI to justify capital invetment. Your ‘private American enterprise’ is going no place, fast and certainly not going to the moon anytime soon.

    • Robert G. Oler

      There is no support for A NASA government return to the Moon. There is not even any support for it inside the GOP

      BTW I have been scarce here (yeah from many) due to learning a new airplane…and I am off to Boeing factory school on it…today) so will be even more scarce. (yeah from many)

      It is the “heavy” RGO

      • DCSCA

        “BTW I have been scarce here (yeah from many) due to learning a new airplane…and I am off to Boeing factory school on it…”

        Start with the batteries.

    • Matt

      Agreed, Mark. Pushback was going to come: the only question was when. Some form of this will make it into the next NASA authorization act, one way or another.

    • Coastal Ron

      Mark R. Whittington opined:

      This push back was inevitable after Bolden’s arrogant assertion of no Americans on the moon in his lifetime.

      Even the Constellation program, which was planning on absorbing the ISS funding and hoping for a big budget boost from Congress, was not going to make it back to the Moon until sometime in the mid-2030’s.

      I wish Bolden a long productive life, but he is 66 years old, and there is far less funding available for any future Moon return effort than Constellation had. I think he knows that short some recognized urgent need to return to the Moon (and a corresponding boatload of money), that we won’t in fact return to the Moon during his lifetime.

      Bolden is a realist. I think you rely too much on fantasy.

      • Matt

        Fantasy, Ron, is NASA flying a commercial vehicle on an exploration mission (which some here cling to as an example for a lunar mission under commercial auspicies). That scenario is politically impossible.

        Remeber the D.C. adage: “The Administration proposes, The Congress Disposes.” See NASA’s original FY 11 budget proposal for an obvious example.

        • No Matt. You have it wrong. What we would like to see is a NASA developed deep space vehicle (similar to Nautilus X) assembled in space with parts brought up via commercial rockets. You never did understand that even before you took your hiatus. Building SLS is a waste of NASA’s talent and resources.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ellen and the attackers “we are going nowhere but we are going no where fast…”

    This bill is a time waster…RGO

  • alex wilson

    They honestly think a mission back to the Moon can be done with the nickle-and-dime budget they’re giving NASA now? If a group of Democratic politicians put a bill like this forward, the Republicans would be howling to the heavens about ‘unnecessary political micro-management’. I guess when they’re doing the ones pushing it, that makes it different.

  • Miya

    So they’re going to end up mandating that NASA’s primary focus be launching a lunar mission… then not fund it?

    At this point I’m no longer surprised by the kinds of stupid ideas getting dumped on NASA by Congress.

  • JimNobles

    Miya said,

    “At this point I’m no longer surprised by the kinds of stupid ideas getting dumped on NASA by Congress.”

    As Jeff pointed out the authors of this bill have NASA interests in their districts, and this isn’t the first time they have produced a bill like this. Which went no where.

    It’s probably all just theater.

  • Dave Huntsman

    I agree with Rick. I think these particular Congresspeople seem to not understand at all that the mere existence of SLS and the giant sucking sound that accompanies it automatically prevents doing what they say they want to do. They are truly clueless on this. There are intelligent and knowledgeable Republican ex-staffers, lobbyists, etc.; can’t they help with the education process here?

  • DCSCA

    “…the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall plan to return to the Moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, in order to promote exploration, commerce, science, and United States preeminence in space as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations.”

    Is this supposed to be the elusive, long sought, culturally inspiring, philosophical rationale for HSF in the 21st century by the United Ststes? Nah.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA opined:

    Is this supposed to be the elusive, long sought, culturally inspiring, philosophical rationale for HSF in the 21st century by the United Ststes?

    I’m not sure why you’re criticizing this government “project of scale”, but it’s mainly being promoted to give your unneeded “geo-political” rocket something to do besides weighing down the Earth for years and years.

    • DCSCA

      You’re far behind the core argument, ron. This is another ‘fitrs and tarts’ pitch. this perios of ‘free drifyt’ is actually a crossroads for U.S. space policy. You clamor cor commercialism which is inevitably doomed to LEO ops. But for projects of scale, the need for the United States to articulate a sound rationale for HSF is needed. It has nver had one and given the natire of it’s quixotic society and short term attention span, it may never take root.

  • hmm

    No bucks, no buck rogers. This is just kooky rhetoric without an effort to fund a mission.

  • Grandpa Dave

    Say… Is Flash Gordon still kicking. He, Buck along with Buzz (Light-year) Adrin might be able to work out a plan.

  • Chad Overton

    You can tell NASA to go anywhere you want. The Moon, asteroids, Mars, L2. But if your not going to back it up with funding you are just wasting everyone’s time. In my estimation (admitedly I am cynical) NASA will continue to go nowhere, regardless of which party is in office. You can underfund every plan, change direction every 4-8 yrs and expect something to happen.

    Btw, Constellation was THE most expensive way to do anything. Definitely not the right way to go.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>