This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

NASA Officially Admits It Has Not Figured Out #JourneyToMars Cost

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 14, 2016
Filed under , ,

NASA Advisory Council Human Exploration and Operations Committee Meeting
“In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC. Monday, November 14, 2016, 9:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m., Local Time.”
Keith’s note: After 7 years of all the #JourneyToMars happy talk someone at NASA finally admits the obvious – and they do so with perfect timing: just when a lot of people who want to go back to the Moon instead are looking for reasons to change NASA’s goals.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

19 responses to “NASA Officially Admits It Has Not Figured Out #JourneyToMars Cost”

  1. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    Not surprising at all… Same as it ever was.
    Not answering the question WHY = No big picture understanding = no vision = no sustainable goal = no short term attainable goals = ongoing loss of capability, time and resources = SNAFU.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      The problem is not “why”. The problem is the execution. Starting with SLS/Orion was not the way to go. Working on actual technologies which will be needed (like landing big payloads on Mars, Mars EVA suits, in space refueling, and etc.) would have been far more useful.

      Following up commercial cargo and commercial crew with commercial HLV, commercial LEO fuel depots, and etc. would have made for a more sustainable, redundant, transportation architecture than the fully expendable monstrosity that is SLS.

  2. dbooker says:
    0
    0

    Well, at least Musk provided a number in his talk. May be way off but at least it shows he is thinking about it instead of how many jobs are created/maintained in Alabama.

  3. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    That’s a great picture. It’s also why I’ve become more and more convinced that the Moon people will eventually overpower the Mars folks in NASA and Congress and redirect it back to the Moon. It’s just easier.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Only because the politicians will assume the moon will be cheaper. They’re most likely correct. But if NASA runs the moon program like they’re running the Mars program (pretty much a given), the cost won’t drop one dime. SLS/Orion will still suck up just as much money under either program.

      The only way to make a moon program cheaper would be to cancel SLS/Orion (not really needed for a lunar program anyway) and go “commercial HLV” for the launch vehicle coupled with commercial crew for the capsules. This lets NASA spend the money freed up on a lander, HAB, rover, spacesuits, and etc.

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        Agreed, although I don’t think they’ll cancel SLS – it has too much congressional support, and we’d need to figure out a replacement that keeps the lights on in the places where it’s being currently produced.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          If SLS/Orion isn’t cancelled, there won’t be enough money to go back to he moon. It will be just as unreachable as Mars.

          • TheBrett says:
            0
            0

            We just won’t be able to land. But we might be able to do a Moon flyby!

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            woo

          • TheBrett says:
            0
            0

            Yep. We can do what we did nearly 50 years ago, except this time without it being a stage to anywhere!

            Oh, it sucks.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            Which we did in 1968 with Apollo 8. Apollo 8 was a “stunt” for two reasons. First and foremost, the LEM wasn’t ready (even for a non-landing test). Second, Apollo 8 would put another “first” in the history books for the US. A repeat of Apollo 8, fifty plus years after, would be the most uninspiring beyond LEO mission that I can think of short of going out to some arbitrary distance away from earth in the middle of nowhere. There is absolutely zero reason to send people into orbit around the moon if they’re not going to actually land.

          • TheBrett says:
            0
            0

            I was being sarcastic, but I like your answer anyways. And you’re right – it’s the type of thing that doesn’t inspire anyone. In fact, it highlights NASA’s constraints.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            I was being a bit unfair to Apollo 8 on purpose. It did achieve some significant engineering test goals which helped move the program forward. But without a LEM on the flight, it’s not at all clear to the layperson how going around the moon helped with a program whose goal was to *land* on the moon.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Apollo 8 was a test of the CSM propulsion, operations beyond low Earth orbit, navigation to a lunar orbit, etc. It was quite a bit more than a stunt. I suspect the Apollo 11 landing would not have been successful if they had tried to directly to the surface without the earlier Apollo missions. But there was quite a bit of public appeal over a “first”. Repeating Apollo 8 might be worthwhile if you needed to test new hardware (not a bad idea), but it certainly wouldn’t have that public appeal.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            I suppose the alternative would have been to wait until the LEM was a bit more ready, meanwhile letting a CSM sit on the ground and do nothing. So, from the “waste anything but time” philosophy used to beat the Russians to the moon, it made some sense to test the CSM in the vicinity of the moon even without the LEM. But to repeat the very same mission 50+ years later won’t be terribly inspiring, at least to me. I’d like to see manned spaceflight go beyond what we did during my lifetime, before my life is done. I’m not getting any younger!

  4. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    It’s frustrating, that “collective state of denial”. I’ve probably spent too much time trying to figure out co-workers, convince them, and see where they’re coming from. There’s a lot here beyond just denial.

    For one, I see just plain disinterest. A sense from people that they didn’t come to NASA to get their hands dirty, you know, with money. I’m not a “bean counter” (pronounced with disregard), I’m an engineer, a scientist (pronounced proudly).

    Second, I’ve been fed back a sense of entitlement, even privilege. Costs? If this nation didn’t waste on X, Y or Z we’d have lots of money. We are deserving of a blank check, but not “those people”. I’ve actually blocked emails from people who’ve gone full blown rant on this last one, with racist overtones.

    Then there’s probably the one I’ve seen first hand the most, just wanting to be comfortable. Working technical matters is comfortable, and you will be rewarded. “Space is hard”, but what a coincidence that staying technical is also so …comfortable. Actually, “space” is easy compared to “costs”. Costs are hard. Go there and you better be fine with being uncomfortable fast, any cost job being thankless; quickly, you are seen as part of the problem, an enemy of progress, for even saying what needs to be done, for even having an interest in costs.

    Our leadership, they like comfortable. It used to be we called that type of leader a “manager”. The leaders looked for what was hard, uncomfortable.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      You have my respect. Kelly Johnson once said (as I recall) that an aerospace project manager should always know exactly what his aircraft would weigh and what his project would cost, and shouldn’t let anyone add to either one.

  5. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    wasn’t $500 Billion floated a few years ago?

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Not just floated, but rather within the estimated cost ($260B-$600B) for the Human Exploration Initiative as proposed by the first President Bush. Presented with a reasonably unbiased cost estimate he made a rational decision and abandoned the plan.