Jeff Foust discusses the problems that NASA is having in communicating a purpose for its lunar activities. Understanding the "why" isn't just important in terms of maintaining public support. It also drives requirements.

There are implicit assumptions about why we're going back to the moon intrinsic in NASA's chosen mission architecture, though they've never been stated explicitly. I lay out several potential reasons for a lunar base in this post, in which I point out that NASA's architecture is actually ideally suited to a "touch and go" approach (i.e., the only reason we're going to the moon is because the president said so, so we'll build a system that's really designed for Mars instead, and just happen to use it for some lunar missions if the political establishment decides it still wants to do that in a decade or so).

If the purpose was really to enable settlement, rather than just setting up a tiny and trivial government base, we'd be spending a lot more money on systems that drive down the marginal cost of trips to the moon. Instead, NASA has chosen an approach that maximizes it.

Is the Moon a better place to settle than Mars?

Mars has three of the four elements of CHONs lacking only nitrogen. The Moon has oxygen.

Delta V needed to soft land cargo on the Moon is actually slightly higher than to soft land cargo on Mars if you use aerobraking and parachutes.

The Moon has strategic military importance to cis-lunar space which means settlers will necessarily become embroiled in Terran geo-politics. Mars? Not so much.

= = =

Okay, the Moon does have commercial potential. PGMs (perhaps) and Helium-3 (if we ever bother to invent fusion). It is a better tourist destination.

But for commercial purposes it is better if private-sector Space learns to close a business case for lunar activities WITHOUT the need for Uncle Sam's sugar.

"That leaves science standing alongside economic expansion, exploration preparation, and preserving human civilization"

Leaving aside the hypothetical "exploration preparation" ( methane propulsion .. huh ? ), how exactly do current NASA plans provide for "economic expansion" and "preserving human civilization" ?
Keeping the jobs in STS program is not "economic expansion" and calling four-men sorties to lunar surface "preservation of civilization" is a stretch at best.

Delta V needed to soft land cargo on the Moon is actually slightly higher than to soft land cargo on Mars if you use aerobraking and parachutes.

This makes the rather big (and often not-so-much-talked-about) assumption that payloads >>10 MT can be aerobraked/parachuted in the Martian atmosphere. Truth be told, we really *do not* know how to do this yet: something that usually gets hand-waved away by the most agressive advocates of Mars exploration, along with a few other important points.

I confess to being a Mars guy--but with the moon, you can get WAY better capital utilization out of your hardware--especially any reusable transportation systems. If the moon is difficult to make an economic case for, so be it; but I think that Mars is even harder in that regard.

Regarding Jeff's article: it's encouraging that the word 'settlement' has re-entered NASA's vocab at all. Setting 'settlement' as the overarching program objective drives requirements in a powerful way: something that almost everyone who had a chance to participate in NASA's GES workshops hammered at. At least, perhaps, the agency is beginning to listen a little bit.

Setting 'settlement' as the overarching program objective drives requirements in a powerful way: something that almost everyone who had a chance to participate in NASA's GES workshops hammered at.

Well, it certainly should, but if you look at the current architecture, it's hard to see how it has, which is the point of my post.

Grant, I'm handwaving here a bit, but I'd imagine if you had "big enough" parachutes, for some definition of the latter, you coudl do it. :)

Well, it certainly should, but if you look at the current architecture, it's hard to see how it has, which is the point of my post.

Touche.

I guess maybe my expectations are lower, and--in the context of where we were, say, 10 years ago--a space agency openly talking about lunar settlement seems not too bad for me.

The problem, as Jeff pointed out, is that there's too much that dilutes the overal Global Exploration Strategy. Strategy is about what you exclude... this sort of all-encompassing thing needs to be trimmed. The way this should be sold, in my opinion, is that settlement is the goal that enables all other objectives, regardless of whether they're stated in the agency's mandate.

But again--as NASA goes--maybe this isn't a bad start; especially if you saw where they were around end of July with this stuff.

Doing the Moon and Mars within the current NASA budget is problematic. Griffin is unwilling to do the Moon now and Mars someday far far away. Dr. Doug Stanley openly called the Moon a cul de sac.

To avoid this "either / or" fight the mission critical task is to get more money into space exploration, especially money that does not begin as tax revenue.

As an agency of the US government, NASA is not well situated to mine PGMs or sell tourist flights or operate space based fuel depots. But the private sector is.

IMHO, Lockheed & Bigelow should approach NASA now (like tomorrow!) about building a dedicated tourist facility adjacent to the NASA moonbase with funding to be primarily private sector. Congress would complain if Griffin gave this project cash assistance yet Griffin could provide intangible and technical assistance rather easily.

Tax dollars for billionaire frolics on the Moon? I can hear Nancy Pelosi screaming already! But data sharing that costs NASA nothing? Shared logistical support such as a lunar COTS for routine crew rotation and re-supply?

Yet such a project would require private players to pony up private money rather than merely screaming that they have a better case to siphon from the CEV budget.

The harsh reality is that all of this has only a tiny chance of mattering. Here's what seems most likely to me:

- NASA manages to do a couple of lunar landings way over time and at a horrendous price and with great difficulties (because they didn't really want to go to the moon and made everything aiming for Mars)
- Congress (all of it!) cancels all funds for manned exploration referring to the huge cost overruns and "imagine how bad it would become if we went to Mars!". NASA's funding gets cut in half under the moniker "more science for less money" and the "saved" money redirected into less visible pork projects.

This isn't gong to be "Apollo on steroids" it's going to be "aftermath of Apollo - redux".

Regarding "Settlement", the first order of business IMO is the study of the physiological effects of long-duration low gravity. We know 1 g and 0 g but don't know 1/6 or 1/3 g. Retired frollicking billionaires, and the professionals and staff to keep things running. A Lunar Retirement Village might be far more profitable than hotels for temporary visits, though those would likely flourish alongside the permanent homes. But we need hard data. How about a prize to the first group to have a colony of mice, with telemetered data, survive on luna for a year and a day?

"How about a prize to the first group to have a colony of mice, with telemetered data, survive on luna for a year and a day?"

Whatever happened to animal experiments anyway ? They were popular when space progam got going at first but .. I mean, whe have had a good 30 years to gather data on deep space radiation and low gravity effects on mammal organisms, but we havent done anything.
Ok, so, human exploration is expensive and all that but what has been preventing us from landing mice or chimps on the moon for extended periods ? They dont require a return ticket, plus of course, mice _do_ love the cheese.
I could understand the reluctance of sending animals to mars, with contamination fears and all that, plus they would steal some of the thunder of first eventual human landing .. but moon does not have these problems.

I am completely not surprised by how this train wreck is evolving. Nothing fundamental has changed in NASA's organization or the government's real reason for funding space (the funneling of federal money to special interests), so why should we be expecting anything sensible to emerge?

I am sure the Will to Be Stupid will overcome all the evidence in the minds of the ever-hopeful space fans, though. Don't blame the critics when your hopes are dashed again, guys.

"Regarding "Settlement", the first order of business IMO is the study of the physiological effects of long-duration low gravity. We know 1 g and 0 g but don't know 1/6 or 1/3 g."

Hear Hear!

We also don't know enough about long term radiation dangers beyond the protection of the Earth's magnetic field either.

In my opinion the NASA plan of establishing a lunar base as quickly as possible for six-month stays is an excellant lunar plan because it will provide answers to those gravity/radiation questions without needless duplication or delay of effort. So whether NASA remains on the moon or 'touches and goes' the NASA lunar base will provide invaluable information for human travel out into the Solar System.