Obama's Space Plan Revealed

[Sam Fraser]

http://www.space.com/news/obama-space-plan-fact-sheet-100415.html

It includes an asteroid visit by 2025:

http://www.space.com/news/obama-nasa-asteroid-mission-100416.html

[JohnHunt]

There is really only one reason why Obama wants to send astronauts to an asteroid. Because nobody has done that before. The rationale is Glory / National pride. This is also why he no longer wants for us to go to the moon. "We've already been there before". Yes, but we haven't developed lunar resources yet. But there's not much glory in developing resources. In fact, developing asteroidal resources isn't in the plan either. We have to then go on to Mars because, "Nobody has done that before". It's glory top to bottom.

This is a real tragedy. The moon has so much to offer. Now that water ice has been confirmed, the moon offers a close-at-hand source for LEO water, oxygen, and rocket fuel. If we could master the extraction of lunar water then the entire solar system could be opened up.

Now, besides the argument for Glory, the argument for visiting an asteroid also includes Science -- namely, asteroids are primordial remnants from the early solar system. Fine. But we can get asteroidal samples using robotic craft for far, far less expense and at no risk to human life. Science isn't the real reason for going to an asteroid.

OK, how about going there so that we can learn how to divert an asteroid in case we one day find out that one is heading directly towards Earth. Every year that goes by makes this rationale more lame. We are rapidly cataloguing the largest asteroids. For those over 1km, I believe that we know about 90% of them. With WISE, we're going to find a whole lot more. When we detect one heading for Earth, we'll like have years, even decades to slowly (very, very slowly) evacuate from ground zero or along the coasts. No one should have to die. The smaller ones that we are now detecting with only 1-3 days notice are small enough that they are nothing close to civilization killers. But at any rate, a manned mission to a NEO is really not necessary anyhow.

The moon is the logical next step in terms of human space flight. Hopefully someone will effectively make a compelling the case for the moon so that we can get NASA back on track. If the US doesn't develop the moon, some other country (or company) will.

[moonus111]

I like what you have to say about Obama John, but I have to bring up a good point.

All we have to do is spread the word about the amazing potential that Moon Colonization and Space Power Satellites. This will force politicians to align. These concepts have the ability to save the environment, economy, and the third world. Not to mention Life itself! In other words it can unite conservatives and liberals (possibly even libertarians and green party members). Once that is part of the political landscape the president will no longer have the authority to cancel projects that are necessary for sustaining life on the planet.

I am a little upset that Constellation was canceled, but I would have rather NASA just had Boeing dust off the old original Saturn V plans. If we spread the word I have no doubt that the public will demand a rocket bigger than Both Ares and Saturn ever were.

It is fairly obvious that politicians do not see the merit in space due to NASA's "explore" philosophy. We need to instill a positive plan that has market share in the public discourse that is based on use of known resources. Then we can really gripe about the lack of leadership...

btw I'm thinking about starting a video blog about the subject.

[JohnHunt]

Hey Logan, I'm going to start a separate thread about your video blog. I think that it is an idea that deserves its own consideration.

[JohnHunt]

That new thread re: Logan's video blog is here: http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/showthread.php?p=1301#post1301

[platinumwolf]

Maybe I'm being naive here, but it seems like with the rate at which companies like Virgin Gallactic and SpaceX are attaining LEO, that they're likely to be obtaining capabilities for moon landing and development soon as well. Perhaps not as soon as the government might, but it seems like he's pushing for NASA to be the bleeding edge, and the moon doesn't seem to be that far fetched anymore.

I'm not saying that there aren't good and sufficient reasons to pursue the moon, but if private industry is likely to push for it, wouldn't our government money be better spent pushing into other areas?

Just a thought.

[JohnHunt]

Hi Platinumwolf,

> ...the rate at which...SpaceX are attaining LEO, that they're likely to be obtaining capabilities for moon landing and development soon as well.

A couple of things. First, these companies are spending a lot of capital up front to get to where they are. I saw Elon Musk being quoted as saying that he can afford about 4 failures of the Falcon 9 before he has to thrown in the towel. He says that he can't keep putting in his own money forever.

Without the COTS money from NASA, SpaceX would be in a much more difficult position than it is now. Those government contracts may well have encouraged several companies to sign up for launch with SpaceX because it then appeared as though it now had a future. SpaceX is trying to make a success of it in the same market where companies such as Sea Launch went belly up. So NASA contracts are extremely critical for keeping such companies in the game.

Also, it is not at all a given that these new companies will find lunar development to be all that profitable in the near future. Remember, all of that technology (e.g. lunar lander) has to be paid for up front before the first gram of He-3 is returned. This is a considerable business risk.

I am not all together confident that the market for lunar tourism is sufficiently large. As far as I know, Virgin Galactic is not aiming for LEO but rather, just suborbital. A lot of people might be willing to spend $200,000 to poke briefly into space and become bona fide astronauts. Far fewer would be willing to pay $20 million to get to LEO. Yet far fewer would be willing to spend $50 million to go around the backside of the moon. And yet far fewer would be willing to spend, what, $100 million plus take the risks of landing and blasting off from the surface of the moon. And who would want to be the second, third, and fourth ones to do that. Plenty of adventurous people would be willing to risk landing on the moon, but how many are able and willing to pay $100 million to take that risk?

So, in my opinion, there has to be a compelling business model other than tourism for SpaceX to risk all that money up front. However, if NASA is willing to fund that development then that is the business model. My hope is that Obama will consider that a lunar COTS will be so cost effective as to bring the moon back into NASAs vision while opening up the moon for American development.