14 thoughts on “Confused On Space Policy”

  1. I was there and was at the time, sitting at a table with the NASA COTS guy.  I turned to him and asked if “going to the Moon” meant an L2 mission.  He seemed to confirm that.  So, in a way, everyone’s correct.  NASA plans for HSF “to the Moon” if L2 is considered to be going to the Moon.  But Whittington is right to be confused because Garver’s choice of words (probable intentionally) would have the default impression of going to the Moon as in going to the surface of the Moon.

    I believe that it is a huge distinction since there are valuable resources on the Moon in the form of polar volatiles.  What I wish the administration would do is to start a program to develop a full-sized lunar lander at COTS prices for telerobotic mining purposes but also be able to be manned- rated so that contractors or even strictly private companies could land people on the Moon in support of those operations.

    1. There is nothing in the policy preventing a return to the lunar surface, either, other than the lack of a funded lander. But that was true with Constellation as well, and can be remedied whenever anyone decides to do it, instead of wasting money on rockets to nowhere.

      1. Rand,

        When I was at Earth and Space 2012 in April I recall some folks at lunch discussing that a Red Dragon without chutes and heat shield could probably put a ton on the lunar surface. So we may be closer to a lander than folks imagine.

        The problem of course would be returning to lunar orbit, but refueling on the Moon’s surface would probably enable a “Moon Dragon” to do so.

        1. Returning the capsule to lunar orbit is not a problem. You simply leave it on the lunar surface and use it as a habitat. Once you’ve gone to the trouble and expense of landing a habitat on the Moon, why would you want to send it back to Earth?

          During the build-out phase of a lunar base, transportation requirements will be dominated by down-mass. Up-mass will be pretty much limited to returning crew and some samples. For that, you don’t need a Dragon. A smaller, open-cockpit vehicle would do. (Everyone is going to have a spacesuit anyway.)

          1. Edward,

            Or you may recycle some Moon Dragons to lunar orbit while leaving others as habitats and avoid having to develop a second vehicle.

            There are many near term possibilities if Elon Musk would only move pass his long term fixation on Mars.

  2. What is it? NASA has Moon as a destination as you describe, but SLS is a rocket to nowhere? You are very confused in your logic as Newspace paupers are inclined to do.

  3. Of course what Lori Garver thinks only matters if President Obama is re-elected. If Governor Romney gets in both Ms. Graver and General Bolden will be gone from NASA in a few months as he does his reboot of government. It will be especially ironic if Governor Romney puts Michael Griffin on his transition team…

    The good news is that if Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016 Lori Garver will probably be the NASA Administrator.

  4. The president’s remarks about by-passing the moon are in the official text, so I’m pretty sure that Rand is wrong about they being “off-hand and off-teleprompter.” However I do admit to a little confusion about Obama space policy, something that is shared by just about everybody, including Rand, Lori, and the president. But if one thinks that the real policy is not to send Americans beyond LEO any time soon, then perhaps the confusion is cleared up.

  5. “In fact, we just recently delivered a comprehensive report to Congress outlining our destinations which makes clear that SLS will go way beyond low Earth orbit to explore the expansive space around the Earth-moon system, near-Earth asteroids, the moon, and ultimately, Mars. Let me say that again: We’re going back to the moon, attempting a first-ever mission to send humans to an asteroid and actively developing a plan to take Americans to Mars.“

    That is a bit of a cop out. You can say we are going anywhere, might as well say we are going to Pluto. This is especially true if the time horizon for any mission is so far out that the only thing certain is the uncertainty of anything being realized.

    Having an opinion like this isn’t undermining our nation’s goals. I am sorry but I need something more concrete than promises.

    I like Garver and they way she advocates for NASA, just happen to disagree with her about this.

    “The truth is, we have an ambitious series of deep space destinations we plan to explore, and are hard at work developing the hardware – and the technologies – to get us there.”

    From an outsider’s perspective, it looks like they are focusing on the technology development and ignoring what comes next knowing that there could be several changes in leadership that could lead to changes in missions or destinations. That may be the smart way to look at things and if that is what is happening they should be up front about it. I would respect that more than someone doing their best Howard Dean impression, “We are going to an asteroid, and L1, and the Moon, and Mars Yeeeah!”

    1. Wodun,

      Of course what is key to the statement is that its based on the SLS. So it appears NASA plans to go beyond LEO, be it to the Moon or elsewhere are dependent on the SLS. So when you combine this with President Obama’s fact paper on space the Administration does seem to view the SLS as part of NASA’s future.

  6. I don’t care if the government goes to the moon or not. It’s time for private industry to go to the moon.

    The first step is a real general purpose space ship in orbit with a standing order for water (with enough solar panels to convert that to fuel.) Now you have a market for lunar ice.

    That ship could of course be a government ship. It’s the standing order for water that matters. …and you don’t need SLS to put it in orbit. Falcon Heavy will do.

Comments are closed.