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.
Policy

Hooray Yet Another Space Plan

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 19, 2019
Filed under , , ,
Hooray Yet Another Space Plan

Newt Gingrich: We’re in a space race with China – We must win to protect our economic and national security, Fox
“As our legacy space companies and NASA continue to fumble around and protect their prized projects, China is aggressively seeking to overcome the United States as the dominant space- faring nation.”
Newt Gingrich trying to sell Trump on a cheap moon plan, politico
“Newt Gingrich and an eclectic band of NASA skeptics are trying sell President Donald Trump on a reality show-style plan to jump-start the return of humans to the moon — at a fraction of the space agency’s estimated price tag. The proposal, whose other proponents range from a three-star Air Force general to the former publicist for pop stars Michael Jackson and Prince, envisions creating a $2 billion sweepstakes pitting billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other space pioneers to see who can establish and run the first lunar base, according to a summary of the plan shared with POLITICO.”
Keith’s note: I have not seen the plan (neither has NASA apparently) – and I am not aware that it has been published online (link please) so I can’t comment on it other than what other people write about it. If this is such a great plan then where is it? As best I can tell it was concocted – ad hoc – by a group of people (Space Development Steering Committee) who like to argue with each other – endlessly – on an email list. They can’t even tell us who their current members are. I have stayed away from this list since I got tired of some of its members sending me countless emails demanding that I publish whatever it is that their latest collective rant was about.
Oh yes, depending on who you talk to about this plan it is/is not about China and there is/is not a new space race. You’d think that this sort of basic notion would be necessary in order to build a new space plan for America – right?
Let’s be blunt about this. The current Administration has thrown in their total support plus some additional fire power to make the so-called “program of record” (SLS/Orion) work. They have accelerated the 2028 date for putting humans on the Moon by 4 years. And they have added a lot of new commercial aspects so as to engage the flexibility and ingenuity of the private sector. Alas, the budget to support this – or the previous – program of record is yet to be found. That said Jim Bridenstine has done his best to meld old and new, slow and fast, dull and inspirational together and make a big push to try and pull it off. Maybe we should at least try and make this one work?
Its not easy to pivot NASA and billions of dollars in space when the goals and goal posts are constantly changing. We have had many presidential marching orders in space. Since 2004 gone from Finish Shuttle and ISS, then Moon, then Mars; to Asteroid then Mars (skip the Moon); to Moon without ISS; to ISS then Moon; to ISS, then Moon, then Mars; to why the Moon – lets go to Mars before the end of my second term; then back to Moon (but quickly) to Mars.” We are in the whiplash era of space policy formulation.
If the 2020 election gives this Administration another 4 years then perhaps there is a chance to accomplish the singular goal of putting Americans back on the lunar surface – once – using a mixture of SLS/Orion and private sector assets as is currently envisioned. However the whole “sustainable” aspect of this program lies beyond any notional second term for this Administration.
For the current administration to simply drop their current plans and pivot to whatever it is this new space policy cabal wants to do would give them at a minimum 1.5 years and a maximum of 5.5 years (with a second term) to pull it off. Given the current polls and mood in the country a change in Administrations is highly probable. If so then whatever is being done by NASA now under the current administration will face tumult and rearrangement – as was the case when the Obama Administration departed. While no one knows who the Democratic nominee i.e. potential 46th President will be, it is a safe bet that there will be substantial pivots, edits, deletions, and other changes in the current American space policy that would make current and proposed space policies moot – including this one that people are emailing one another about.
In other words more whiplash.
To be certain Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are going to do whatever they are going to do on their own timeline and will be more than happy to accept NASA business. But they are going to go ahead with what they are doing undeterred even if the government does not buy a ride. America needs an actual plan for its space activities – one that is actually a “plan” i.e. one built outward from simple basic precepts (or directives), utilizing a consistent but adaptable strategy, with goals and objectives that everyone understands and works toward that transcend partisan politics. Absent that plan then all we are going to get are homemade space plans that bounce around email lists and evaporate every time the body politic shifts in its collective seat.
But – if the current “plan” actually gains traction and shows evidence of being able to work albeit not in the way everyone would like – maybe its worth supporting for a while longer. Besides, what would we all rather have: a bunch of proposed space programs that never got implemented; programs that were implemented and were cut short before they could succeed or fail; or one that was given a chance to succeed and has made some progress? We won’t know unless we try. Let’s try.
Either way this latest space plan from the space fans too shall pass.

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

28 responses to “Hooray Yet Another Space Plan”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    NASA makes plans like other folks make New Year Resolutions…

  2. MAGA_Ken says:
    0
    0

    We have had many presidential marching orders in space. Since 2004 gone from Finish Shuttle and ISS, then Moon, then Mars; to Asteroid then Mars (skip the Moon); to Moon without ISS; to ISS then Moon; to ISS, then Moon, then Mars; to why the Moon – lets go to Mars before the end of my second term; then back to Moon (but quickly) to Mars.

    ——————–

    It should be pointed out that SLS/Orion has been written into the law of the land since 2010 with work begun on it’s predecessor in 2005. None of those various mission goals had any appreciable difference that required SLS/Orion changes that delayed the project. Almost the entirety of the mismanagement of that program should be put at the feet of NASA management.

    While various administrations may have jerked NASA goals around, I think NASA bureaucrats may have been assisting them. It certainly seems like they use the shifting power between the political parties to their advantage, proposing programs that cannot be completed within a reasonable amount of time.

  3. Sam S says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like the Google Lunar X Prize, but doubling down (actually 100x-ing down) on what already didn’t work before.

    Also, I honestly feel like the reports of a new international space race are greatly exaggerated. If we were really in a space race, finding funding would be no issue.

    China is doing the absolute bare minimum to maintain it’s ability to send humans into space. Their grand statements about future space stations and lunar settlements are simply not matched by their actions, they are only launching people once every few years.

    Russia’s manned program is hanging on by a thread, and may well collapse once they finally lose the US as a paying customer, or if they actually lose an astronaut due to cutting corners. They have some drawings of what they might like to do in the future, but as far as I know, they’re not fabricating new hardware for any of those plans.

    I agree that the private US companies are going to keep moving even without this initiative, and $2 billion, while significant, is simply not enough for any of those companies to make significant changes in plans that they are already well into executing. $2 billion is probably not even enough to dump the raw materials for a base on the moon, never mind actually build and operate said base.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yes, and given how the various problems China has are coming to a boil they may not be able to keep up their current rate. Historically when China hits a breaking point it fragments very quickly into a civil war of warlords.

  4. MAGA_Ken says:
    0
    0

    A better idea would be to give exclusive grants of mineral rights to any company within a 100 miles radius of the landing zone.

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      That sounds like property rights granted by a government. IIRC the Outer Space Treaty prohibits such rights. Besides the fact who could legally grant and enforced such rights.

      Something will have to be done with the Outer Space Treaty if we wanted to avoid a free for all grab for resources.

      • MAGA_Ken says:
        0
        0

        I agree that a modification to the Outer Space Treaty may be needed. Ultimately it will have to addressed as any “sustainable” effort will have to encompass economic development which means property rights.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        “who could legally grant and enforced such rights.”

        Why, the Space Force, of course! Pay attention, Mr. Weasel! 🙂

        • Seawolfe says:
          0
          0

          I’ve heard that France wants a Space Force as well. Can someone verify that?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Sort of. President Macron announced he was creating one on July 13 (the day before Bastille Day, if that means anything.) But it will be a space command within their Air Force, not a separate branch of their military.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      Funny thing is that anything mined from the Moon will only be used on the Moon or near to the Moon. Nothing will be returned to Earth. And since there is no infrastructure either on the Moon or in space there is no economy and this whole argument is academic at best.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      Hmmm. I wonder how China and Russia would respond to the US unilaterally granting mining rights?

  5. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    Just exactly what does it mean to “win” a space race given all the political underpinnings? Is it just to do something first and boost the ego? Is it to ultimately “take control” of the high ground with historical military implications? The same goes for the simple taking of real estate, with resources intact. Does it mean taking the technology to the limit and running the competitors to the ground because they cant ultimately pay for the efforts (e.g., the first Moon race)? Or does that also include breaking the bank of a competitor nation such that it potentially dissolves or becomes insolvent (e.g., Star Wars and the fall of the USSR)?

    Obviously none of these examples are geared to the better angles of human nature (definitely not a Star Trek universe), or directed towards diversifying our species and its best off Earth in order to ensure our survival on whole. No long-term goals or plans are associate with this “winning” effort.

    Ultimately this “winning” just seems to be a poor and negative accounting for our species in general. Simply disheartening.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Actually a number of the wars in the Star Trek Universe were over rights to planetary systems as the various empires, including the Federation, attempted to maximize their territory. Many of the episodes could fit well in a Horatio Hornblower novel of the old British Empire. And let’s not forget episodes like the “Tin Man” where they literally were in a race to contact an alien starship that could be a weapon. It’s nice to think of space as some nice “Utopia” of pure science and logic, but that is only if the other nations play nice.

  6. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    “Lunar base” is too big a goal for that. Now, if they set the goal as “land a person on the Moon and return them safely to Earth”, they might be able to do it for $2 billion. $5 billion would make it easier for them to get funding and do a landing where the person can do some science goals on the surface, but $2 billion – as long as it is new funding and not taken from NASA’s existing funding – would be good and worth a try.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      Is that attainable “science” and the results really worth $2-5 billion? What does a $2-5 billion leap in scientific understanding look like and would just collecting more lunar samples. If the goal is not significantly more expansive an robust, than how is its worth measured?

      • TheBrett says:
        0
        0

        For the first mission, I think it is. Especially since any successor missions could be much cheaper, now that the development costs are paid for.

        I do think that if they did that, they need to have the promise of several follow-up missions in contract with NASA. Otherwise, they’ll maybe pull off the mission, receive kudos and collect the prize, then shut down and lose the capability to do it – again.

        It’s not my personal preference for prizes, though. I’d much rather have a prize for a group that can pull off a useful Mars robotic lander mission for $50 million or less. Or a series of useful landers, with a 25% failure rate tolerated (as fcrary has tirelessly pointed out here, requiring that the mission have super-reliability skyrockets the cost). Or maybe a Venus atmospheric mission, since Venus gets no space exploration love these days.

  7. Not Invented Here says:
    0
    0

    I think it needs to be pointed out that this new plan will not, I repeat, NOT, replace Artemis. It’s a parallel plan in case Artemis doesn’t work, Greg Autry made this clear when interviewed by Arstechnica. So the comment about whiplash doesn’t apply, $2B is a very small amount of money when compared to what Artemis needed ($20B), and this $2B doesn’t need to be paid out until somebody wins (the beauty of a prize scheme), so I don’t think it would compete with Artemis for funding.

    Overall I think this is a very good idea, people say it’s like Google Lunar X Prize which failed, but Google Lunar X Prize didn’t fail, if you check the companies in NASA’s CLPS program, several are former Google Lunar X Prize participants, the prize did what it is supposed to do which is give an incentive for companies to develop small lunar landers and help these companies to get investment, now NASA is reaping the benefits.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Not inclined to argue with someone who uses a fake name – but this is all smoke and mirrors. It requires more money atop NASA’s budget and NASA is already underfunded so … have fun with this.

  8. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    Keith,

    I don’t know where you get the idea that a change in administrations is probable…it isn’t. The predictors almost totally agree that…

    A) It is still too early to call.
    B) Biden can win the General election, but the Primary is still an ever steepening climb.
    C) Impeachment will not succeed in doing anything but damage Democrats.
    D) A strong economy in Autumn of next year reelects Trump.

    Also, I think that if Biden wins then he won’t change the current direction much. If one of these populist Democrats wins, and coattails a bunch of fellow populists into the Legislature, then the future of space will be impossible to predict.

    You are right also that once some version of the Lunar Mission flies rtemis flies Government innitiative on yhw Moon and maybe even Mars will become irrelevant to progress since Commercial Space is so woven into it.

    • Seawolfe says:
      0
      0

      Well, as I see it, the majority of the current pack of Dems running for the Oval Office would fit right in with the current proposed Lunar program……they seem to be Lunatics.

      • Bill Housley says:
        0
        0

        Well…I was trying to keep my remarks politically neutral here.

        Truth is, none of them have spoken notably about space and what they have spoken about would be very expensive to implement and I’m extrapolating that they’ll view space the way Trump used to when he said “that we need to fix the roads first”. Trump seems to have changed his tune on that and I’m pretty sure that Biden has enough Executive savvy by now to know better…and space policy isn’t that different now than it was under Obama anyway.
        I am quite sure that none of these candidates, including Biden and Trump, like SLS very much. I can hear the bell tolling on that score.

  9. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    NASA is so well connected politically that their entire Moon plan makes no sense at all. Gateways and Ferry and Lander and Orion and SLS and none flying, 3 out of 5 not on the books as approved, no real designs. Their best bet is probably to name the goal: a Moon landing, or a Moonbase, and get private/commercial industry to get it done. The it might just happen. The NASA plan, they’ll still be arguing who is in cart and what is the design, and noting will be ready for decades, an then e won’t be ble to afford it.

  10. DougSpace says:
    0
    0

    I have participated on the Space Development Steering Committee (SDSC) weekly telecon for some time now so I think that I can give some insight into their reasoning.

    They are fairly frustrated at the cost and the delays that the SLS has experienced over the years. In contrast, they see that public-private partnerships have been much more cost-effective and they view SLS as being primarily a jobs program being intentionally delayed by cost-plus contractors gaming the system to get more money. They also view the Gateway as being technically unnecessary to get to the lunar surface and back including using rendezvous or just a propellant depot to make the system reusable.

    So, given their views, and with a famous publicist as their chair, the SDSC typically puts out press releases and other efforts (such as this proposal) to get our space program on a more cost-effective, more commercial, faster, and more sustainable path. Given how long we have been working on a Shuttle replacement and how much has and will be spent before boots hit dirt, it’s not particularly surprising that space advocate groups such as the SDSC might be trying to get the decision makers to change direction.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      I just hope that they all do not descent upon NASAWatch comments section. A year or so ago a swarm of them pummeled me with demands that I denounce SLS, post something written by their policy guru/leader, and demand that NASA cancel SLS. I asked if they could name the leaders of the committee and no one could/would answer other than point to list of people (some of them dead) who used to be on it. Some of these SDSC people are simply loony. Not you though 😉

    • Seawolfe says:
      0
      0

      But NASA does some GREAT Power Point and CGI movies that keeps up to date on the latest change of direction! :o)

  11. Keith Vauquelin says:
    0
    0

    Agree with KC. Nailed the analysis of the situation, yet again. Bravo. Preach it, Brother.