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.
Exploration

Noticeable Shift In Interest From Mars (Back) To The Moon

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 15, 2016
Filed under ,
Noticeable Shift In Interest From Mars (Back) To The Moon

Opinion: How Trump Should Restart U.S. Space Momentum, Scott Pace, Aviation Week
“And the Obama administration continued to push away partners, telling Europe to go to the Russians for its next robotic science mission. Plans for human missions to Martian orbit and a distant asteroid failed to find international partners. Mars in the 2030s is not a practical basis for managing a global space enterprise, and our partners are making separate plans. It is increasingly hard to hold the International Space Station partnership together when no one knows that is supposed to come next.”

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

51 responses to “Noticeable Shift In Interest From Mars (Back) To The Moon”

  1. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    First we have to decide if we are going to remain in LEO. If we plan to let the ISS deorbit than going farther makes little sense.

    We already know it is possible for humans to go to the moon. We should return after we have developed the technology to make it practical. When we have practical technology to support a long-term manned lunar base, then it will make sense as a first step beyond LEO.

    I don’t see this as a major phylosophical battle, the problem is one of cost. Right now a permanent manned lunar base would not be any more affordable or scientifically productive than a permanent Mars base. However we have a substantial number of robotic systems at various stages of development including subsurface drills, rovers, etc. that could be utilized on the Moon, and it makes sense to gather information and develop technology first.

    That said, realistically the Moon is simply a more feasible goal for the first human exploration beyond LEO than Mars. I personally feel the shift in goals from the Moon to Mars during the Obama Administration was not realistic and may have been motivated by Congressional insistence on a specific goal for the SLS/Orion program. The lack of any immediate funding for landing systems made it temping to propose a more distant goal to avoid having to commit even more funds and thus undermine efforts to maintain ISS with Commercial Crew.

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      “substantial number of lunar surface robotic packages”

      I’d like to see some more high power stuff like what we have on Mars. i.e. rovers to examine Apollo landing sites to see how solar radiation effected materials (and some snazzy HD photos), rovers to examine potential PGM from asteroid impacts, rovers to venture into sunless south pole craters digging around to get better measurements of ice.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Yes, and the proximity of the Moon will allow them to cover ground a lot faster while transmitting near-real time 3D HD to Earth. It will put to shame what we are getting from Mars.

        Mission suggestion, a Rover in the high lunar latitudes that will circumnavigate the Moon in 29 days so it always has the same Sun angle. A relay satellite in a Earth-Moon L2 Halo orbit would make it feasible.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        I always wanted a spacecraft I called the “tourist” that would “fly” around the landing and crash sites on the moon. Mars would be a great place for that as well.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      The ISS itself will determine how long its in orbit. When a major system breaks that is unable to repaired it will have to be dropped into the ocean on pure safety grounds. But as long as it works it will be supported.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        The pressure hull will last for decades at least. Many of the mechanical systems should be replaced now. The good news is that the construction is quite modular and with a reasonable budget almost any of the major systems could be removed and replaced.

  2. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    And once again the pendulum swings with the breeze. No one has or even attempts to answer the question of WHY with any of these proposed goal changes. And Mars yet again moves 25 years down the road. And in case anyone has not noticed, doing science alone will never induce sustainable colonization by humans off Earth. And there is as yet no proven resources that have been found (Mars is the best candidate) that would be needed for supporting such a move. Why doesn’t anyone see this?

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      The pendulum tries to swing to ‘lunar only’ to justify decades old expendable, shuttle derived launch vehicles that failed to meet its original goals, with no way of fixing the approach.

      The 2000s Congress, not current POTUS, pushed aside IPs by dictating *solely* shuttle derived architecture for LEO,BEO–even the US DOD fleet could not apply! Otherwise, it would truly be an LV independent architecture. Oops (our) past transgressions need to be forgotten, only looking ‘forward’.

      The 2000s Congress failed to authorize $3B/yr to provide missions for the super HLV as well, as did ‘just say no’ to BEO missions and commercial crew–‘lunar’ fits ‘better’ with HLV–can you not clearly see, no costs given, its ‘better’?

      The asteroid mission was an attempt to give the capsule and rocket something to do, but they could not. Told to believe “Together, these two vehicles combine to provide America a practical, affordable, and achievable means to realize missions to the Moon and Mars.” Whole world laughs.

      One does not see this because one only picks and chooses facts to fit their narrative. Since asteriods brought all the resources to Earth, asteroids from Mars and beyond would be fabulous destinations to examine, and likely more economical due to the insignificant gravity well. Not on ‘our’ dime.

      Thankfully, NASA has dedicated, experience PMs who understand the challenges and programs it will take, likely with less than 100% success, to economically explore. I wonder if they will ever given the chance to lead (not the vision-less)?

      Its time to shift to a launch vehicle independent architecture, with the goal of reuse and new markets.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Forgive me for pointing out my own commenting but I’ve been writing about this for some time now, mostly in the context of comparing settlements off Earth to the patterns we’ve observed in siting settlements on our own planet.

      In other words, there’s really no settlement cognate that would suggest a permanent settlement could actually take root without (very) long term external support; Antarctica comes to mind.

      There is real reason to see low-grav settlement happening in resource-rich parts of the solar system, parts that have available modes of transportation analogous to rivers on earth.

      It’s the asteroids, of course.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      re: pendulum: indeed. If we were currently on some sort of JourneyToLuna craze currently we’d see a switch to Mars.

  3. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    Duh!

  4. Christopher Miles says:
    0
    0

    Scott Pace. That’s all I needed to see.

    Humph.

    Was that “1930s” his typo, or Aviation Week’s?

    In any case, wouldn’t Musk have planned a mission to the Moon (a hell of a lot easier) if there were really a practical (and not Pork based) reason to go?

    I would imagine Boeing and Lockheed are buying a lot of lunches and dinners for Scott at GW.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      Ya, that should be illegal…..because it sure is not ethical.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      My typo

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      My typo.

    • jamesmuncy says:
      0
      0

      Sir,

      You owe Dr. Pace an apology. Scott may be more favorable to the conventional approaches to human exploration, but I have known him for 30 years and the notion that his beliefs are shaped by finances is just ludicrous. It would be more accurate to say that Scott is “conservative” in his skepticism of new approaches to spaceflight. I would say he is sometimes “wrong” in his skepticism. But he comes by his views honestly. And he’s right that the Moon is an easier organizing destination for commercial and international partners than Mars. The challenge is how do you keep NASA from thinking they need to do the Moon the same way they did ISS.

      – Jim Muncy

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Scott Pace is an honest, dedicated, true believer. I seriously doubt Boeing, LockMart or any other contractor would ever be able to change that by buying him lunch or offering him any favors.

      • muomega0 says:
        0
        0

        The challenge is the Abilene paradox: lunar not dinner, + LV independent architecture, not expendable HLV

        Honest views are part of Congressional Testimony;

        “we need to align our policies …with enduring national interests. This means looking beyond individual missions…” … you mean like the lunar surface? like dedicated rockets to BEO single surface destinations?

        “the lack of support during the present Administration for a program to return to the moon” – because there is no budget for hardware and it totally ignores the Space Grand Challenges, like earlier POTUS?

        “should there be a ‘bad day’ on the station, this would put an end to the near-term market for the commercial crew and cargo companies”
        – *or* IPs and the DOD fleet simply provide supplies for Exploration missions to LEO/L2 rather than the lunar surface? A steady demand to LEO/L2 regardless of its final destination would lower com. launch costs… 70% is dirt cheap Class D propellant allowing risk taking/cost reduction with reuse.

        “in addition to the flawed policy direction of focusing on an asteroid mission in the near term and an unknown path to Mars in the long term, the Adminstration’s unstable budget requests for NASA have created immense challenges for the Agency” Scorned because they tried to increase the number of missions above 0?

        https://elliott.gwu.edu/sit

      • numbers_guy101 says:
        0
        0

        If we did the Moon like ISS, we’d be ahead. The problem is we’d try to do the Moon like ISS, and certainly fail. Reform is the requirement. As well, honest men need to speak up. Otherwise the silence or diplomacy and reasonableness of honest men is certain to be manipulated by dishonest men up to no good.

    • Bob Mahoney says:
      0
      0

      And Elon Musk is the sage of all space wisdom?

      • TerryG says:
        0
        0

        No, and Elon Musk wouldn’t claim that, but he does move us some way out of the era of dependence on the do-nothing self-serving authors of NASA appropriations bills being the only ticket for HSF beyond LEO,

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Elon Musk fell under the influence of the Mars Society in the 1990’s and still buys into the view of Mars as a second Earth, not a very hostile world.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      I would think that Musk was going the Mars route because that’s what the Obama administration was saying we were going to do. No reason why SpaceX couldn’t keep on with their Mars lander. Getting a return sample from Mars has repeatedly been put off because of weight and cost. Seems a perfect area for SpaceX to help with.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        I would think that Musk was going the Mars route because that’s what the Obama administration was saying we were going to do.

        That’s just ridiculous. SpaceX was founded in 2002. Prior to that, and the reason he founded SpaceX, Musk wanted to land a greenhouse on Mars as an “inspiration” for colonisation, using money he received from the Paypal buy-out, and found out how ridiculous current launch prices were.

  5. Dr. Malcolm Davis says:
    0
    0

    I think the Moon makes more sense than Mars at this point. Firstly, the Moon is much closer than Mars, so the technological risks are considerably less. Depending on alignment of Mars and Earth it could take up to 300 days for a spacecraft to reach the Red Planet, assuming a typical chemical-rocket based spacecraft, with minimal prospect of a rescue if something goes wrong. The Moon is only 3 days away, and as Apollo 13 demonstrated, a free return rescue is much more possible. The Moon is a harsh environment – no atmosphere, extremes of temperature, and lower gravity, but Mars is also not habitable. You can’t breathe the Martian atmosphere, and there is still essentially the same radiation risk as on the Moon, given Mars’ thin atmosphere. Mars is an empty, irradiated desert, so notions that somehow its easier to survive on the surface are not convincing.

    The Moon is also a natural stepping stone to exploiting Cislunar Space, the Lagrange Points and accessing the Near Earth Asteroids, and the Moon itself is a frontier that we’ve barely begun to explore. Twelve men have stepped on its surface for a brief period of time – there is so much more to explore there.

    Establishing a space infrastructure that extends from LEO through to Cislunar Space, and out to Near Earth Asteroids, and which allows a permanent and expanding, and ultimately, self-sustaining human presence off-planet to me is just as ambitious and bold as sending two or three manned missions to Mars. More importantly, an Earth-Moon focussed program can be achieved sooner than a Mars-focused program.

    Finally, lets not forget that Mars will still be there, and we can probably go there quicker, cheaper and safer from the Moon or Cislunar space in twenty years given the potential stimulus such a program would give to spacecraft technology. The private sector, such as SpaceX can still focus on Mars, and Elon Musk’s Interplanetary Spacecraft can run in parallel to a NASA-led Earth-Moon program. I don’t see this as ‘either Mars or the Moon’ – I see the potential for both the Moon and Mars.

    Nor should we stop at Mars. Musk and Trump are right – our gaze should be further out, and our long-term goal should be a human presence across the solar system by 2116. If we do this right, that can be achievable.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, the Moon is doable within current budgets and technology. Mars is not.

      • Odyssey2020 says:
        0
        0

        Sending humans back to the moon would most likely cost over a hundred billion dollars.

        It’s not within our current budget but it would be money well spent.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          That is about the same as the ISS and would indeed be well spent. But I think SpaceX and Blue Origin will find ways to lower that amount.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          but it would be money well spent.

          Why?

          • Odyssey2020 says:
            0
            0

            Because we waste trillions of other dollars on stupid stuff, we can afford to spend an extra one or two hundred billion dollars to put humans on another world and explore.

            Right now the U.S. doesn’t have any ability to launch humans into space.

            5+ years and counting…

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            we can afford to spend an extra one or two hundred billion dollars to put humans on another world and explore.

            Why is putting humans on the moon “money well spent”?

            “Not as bad as some other crap we’ve wasted money on” is not an answer. Nor is “we can’t do it at the moment”.

            Why is it valuable to send humans back to the moon?

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      NASA continued to send men to the moon long after the public lost interest, so the infrastructure is so, so important to avoid the lunar sinkhole. The Space Grand Challenges require new technology maturation and a careful balance of operations and R&D. Zero BEO missions however with SLS/Orion. Significant more market potential to Mars and asteroids than lunar. Only special interests will shift to the one legged stool lunar.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        The market potential of Mars is far less than the Moon. Too distant, the curse of a deep gravity well with atmosphere and the problem of many of the most interesting areas being off limits due to planetary protection needs. The Moon by contrast opens up the entire inner Solar System to economic development. Time to leave Mars to the scientists and their billion dollar rovers.

        • Mark Friedenbach says:
          0
          0

          Planetary protection “needs” are non-binding, thankfully.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, and the best way to understand the risk is to study the impacts on the Moon. Are there swarms on impacts in some time frames? What were the composition? What is the frequency of the smaller ones? A station at the EM L1 could also keep spacecraft in storage for quick activation to study a NEO that is interesting.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          I was following your argument until the assertion that the moon opens the inner solar system.

          What do you envision would drive economic development? Aside from the occasional tourist, I mean? How does the economic engine work?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You start simple. NASA offers $40,000/gram for 25 kilograms of lunar rock. That is enough to get a commercial industry going. Then add a complex based on BA330 and other commercial space station modules at EM L1 that could be used to assemble and test larger spacecraft in space. LOX from the Moon could be used as part of their propulsion systems. Regolith could also be used for shielding the crewed craft. Then see where the markets good from there.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I see the headlines: Taxpayers Scammed Buying Moon Dirt!

            How much is useful, anyway? Samples from different parts of Luna, sure, but in totality? Not nearly enough and anyway it could be mined remotely far more cheaply.

            And what does the base actually do? Research? Fine. Still supported by NASA or NIH or whatever. How does it feed itself? This is not a settlement.

            Show me any sort of model beyond ‘see where markets go from there’. Doesn’t exist because there’s nothing to exploit, nothing to sell, and no place to sell it and even if there were there’s no way of getting to market. No trade, no farming, no nothing but a black hole.

            I depress myself because I am a True Believer. It’s possible that we will find ores left near the surface from astroid collisions that can be exploited, I suppose, but why not just go to the source?

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            If we can develop the technology to reduce the cost of a seat to LEO to $1M and a seat to the Moon to $10M, there will be people willing to pay, both funded researchers and tourists.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Except that is how real markets develop. The Virginia Company was formed to look for Gold/Silver in Virginia and found Tobacco instead. Steve Jobs couldn’t afford the parts to build his own home computer so made a deal with a San Jose electronic store to build a few extra if he got the components he wanted in exchange. The Home Computer Revolution followed.

            This is how free market economics is different than government planning. Government planning has to close all business models first. Economic Development is not about closing business models, but creating an environment that generates business models, the exact opposite.

            If you want to develop the space economy you need to ditch the micromanage planning that NASA uses and go to an economic development approach.

            A lunar sample bounty program will do that. What will NASA do with the 25 kilograms? It doesn’t matter if they give them to researchers or to foreign governments that didn’t exist when it gave away the Apollo samples or use them as paper weights. The key is it encourages private firms to develop systems for returning lunar samples to Earth. And then markets take over. Who knows maybe the “killer ap” is mixing lunar material in with plastic and selling a million “lunar smart watches.” The market will determine it.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      Going to the moon first extends the time to solve the radiation and micro gravity problems as well as it’s likely to happen sooner as a result of lower costs.

      I’d like to see private companies such as SpaceX make lunar landers and other hardware such as habitats and machinery and see how low cost they can make it compared to NASA.

      • Odyssey2020 says:
        0
        0

        John, I wholeheartedly agree with what you say. To me, going to the moon is so much fascinating than going to mars. If we’re honest, we know nobody is going to Mars by 2050 as it’s a half trillion dollar mission and we know the SLS/Orion are just jobs programs.

        Somebody could go to the moon, it’s hard, very hard, but it’s at least doable. Moon-3 days away, poles to explore, 1/6th gravity, radiation test bed, etc.

        Alas, Elon wants to go to mars, which seems very, very unlikely to me.

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          Moon-3 days away, poles to explore, 1/6th gravity, radiation test bed, etc.

          Remember that by the time Constellation was cancelled, it had been reduced to a small number of 4-man, near-equatorial, short-stay lander-only missions.

          No bases, no polar missions (let alone the ISRU-refuelling which was Bush’s entire justification for going to the moon), no infrastructure, no long term plan whatsoever.

          SLS/Orion is merely the surviving parts of Constellation. There’s nothing about them that is any more capable, nor less expensive. Therefore a “return to the moon” focus by Trump will not deliver the things you are imagining.

          There won’t be any new funding, so merely to meet the bare minimum of “landing on the moon”, they’d need to splash ISS early (and hence cancel commercial cargo/crew) to fund the development of an expendable lander. They’d be able to pay for three landings per decade. And that’s it.

          • Odyssey2020 says:
            0
            0

            Please keep on spreading the truth. It is incredibly rare these days, but it needs to be heard.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            If they use SLS/Orion that is probably true. It they go a commercial route they could easily fund it by dumping SLS/Orion.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        I’d like to see private companies such as SpaceX make lunar landers

        ITS is perfectly capable of landing hundreds of tonnes on the moon. Musk has no interest in the moon, but has said he has no objection selling flights to any paying customer.

  6. Bernardo de la Paz says:
    0
    0

    Good.

  7. Upward and Outward! says:
    0
    0

    So much for “…boldly go…”

  8. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    I wonder if the Moon will become a focus, which provides a purpose for SLS and Orion (can these be ready for Apollo 8 repeat on that 50th anniversary in Dec 2018?). Some perceive Constellation was cancelled because it was created during Bush II administration. Current goal (ARM, then maybe Mars) was created during Obama administration. With this logic gotta do something different! However, will need a lander, EVA suits, etc. so NASA budget needs another $3B (the extra amount is always $3B, the meme that’s been kicking around the past 10 years).

  9. Dr. Malcolm Davis says:
    0
    0

    I think its simplistic to be thinking NASA either has to go to the Moon, or has to go to Mars. Those goals are too narrow. Surely a more worthwhile objective is to establish a viable, expanding, and self-sustaining human presence off-Earth by 2050? That means developing the spaceflight technologies – whether its from the commercial sector, through NASA, or through a partnership of both – that makes that possible. It could involve a lunar base, lunar orbital facilities or platforms at Lagrange points, expeditions to Near-Earth Asteroids, and eventually, expeditions to Mars with the objective to establish a permanent base there. Develop cost-effective commercial space transportation systems from Earth to LEO, and ultimately work to overturn the traditional expendable booster rocket paradigm and replace it with a suite of reusable launch capabilities, including winged aerospaceplanes.

    It would see NASA work with commercial companies as well as foreign partners to make space travel cheaper, faster and safer, and allow more people to go to work in space, or ultimately, live in space on colonies. Instead of sending six people to Mars maybe by the 2040s to plant flags and leave footprints, lets put 300 people on the Moon by the late 2020s, and from there exploit the Cislunar environment, mine asteroids, and build advanced nuclear-powered spacecraft that remain in space, rather than coming back to Earth, and enable us to travel pretty much anywhere within the inner solar system. Mars will always be there, but actually getting there may be quicker and safer if we take a series of preliminary steps first over the next two decades to develop infrastructure and the means.

    Second half of the century we focus on expanding our presence on the Moon, on Mars, and our ability to exploit asteroid and lunar resources, whilst making our first crewed voyages to the moons of Jupiter. Speed and safety are essential – we can’t take years to get to Ganymede or Callisto. So we need more advanced nuclear-electric propulsion to cut travel times. The ultimate goal in my view should be human exploration of the solar system by 2116.