Draft NASA Funding Bill Cancels Asteroid Mission For Return To the Moon

MarkWhittington writes "A draft version of the 2013 NASA Authorization Bill nixes any funding for President Obama's asteroid retrieval mission and instead directs NASA to return astronauts to the lunar surface as soon as possible, funding of course permitted. The NASA bill is currently working its way through the House Science Committee. Thus far the Senate has not taken up NASA authorization. However the cancellation of the asteroid retrieval mission and an insistence on returning to the moon, which both President Obama and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden have opposed, would place Congress on a collision course with the White House should that version of the bill be passed by both houses of Congress."

Comments

The important word is "should"

[mbone]

...would place Congress on a collision course with the White House should that version of the bill be passed by both houses of Congress.

.

This will not get through the Senate.

Re:The important word is "should"

[I'm New Around Here]

This will not get through the Senate.

Yeah, this does seem like political games just to make Obama look bad somehow. While I would love for this country to get back to the moon, we won't get there anytime soon. A mission to an asteroid seems like it would be much cheaper and quicker to accomplish. Let's get that done first. Worry about a lunar lander and re-launch vehicle later.

Re:The important word is "should"

[Anonymous Coward]

And it shouldn't. Going back to the moon is sexier and great for the ego, but working on capturing asteroids is more useful. But most Americans prefer things very simple. They think the moon is a planet and full of resources while an asteroid is a ball of sand like you see at the beach. It doesn't matter that that sentence contains many wrong things; it's simple and aligns with an ignorant masses level of common sense. The bottom line is people will say Republicans want to go back to the moon and reap the great benefits while Obama wants to visit a stupid rock. Never mind that "stupid rock" could contains trillions of dollars worth of resources and even some unknown/unavailable/rare materials.

Re:The important word is "should"

[Rockoon]

No, because it doesnt make sense. There is no way to cheaply get those "trillions of dollars" that an asteroid could contain into a low earth orbit, let alone down to the surface... that sort of delta-v for that sort of mass just doesnt come cheap.

The moon is a bad idea as well.. why trade one gravity well for another?

Space station technology is what they should be working on, in particular self-sustaining environments.

Re:The important word is "should"

[Anonymous Coward]

If the stupid rock might contain trillions USD of rare earths (or rare whatever), then the private sector will step forward and fund the mission. It looks like some are organizing to do just that. Meanwhile, NASA should spend taxpayer money on broader goals (keeping in mind that the asteroid mining may be a failure), such as reducing the costs of human space travel and determining human capacity for travel to/living on planets w/o atmospheres.

Re:The important word is "should"

[jythie]

And, when it comes down to it, politicians do what maximizes their chances for re-election, not what has actual value for their country or districts. It is all about doing what the people you represent THINK is a good idea, not what some ivory tower domain expert (who has actually done the work) says would benefit.

Re:The important word is "should"

[Gamer_2k4]

But most Americans prefer things very simple. They think the moon is a planet and full of resources while an asteroid is a ball of sand like you see at the beach.

I don't think most Americans believe that at all. I think it just boils down to what you said in your second sentence - putting humans on the moon is way sexier. WE want to be the ones doing the exploring, not some computerized device.

Re:The important word is "should"

[khallow]

Space station technology is what they should be working on, in particular self-sustaining environments.

Where are they going to get the mass for those "space stations" from? Asteroids remain one of the better sources of material for anything we do in space. Might as well figure out how to mine them.

Re:The important word is "should"

[loufoque]

I find going to an asteroid to be far sexier. That's like catching a bird in flight, while going to the moon is just like catching a cow.

Re:The important word is "should"

[khallow]

There's a lot more chance of well, getting his by micro meteorites up to big ones.

Not really. LEO is worse for that due to the higher relative velocity of LEO junk (and the considerable quantity up there). Now, if you blaze by a good sized asteroid at a few km/s, that could be a different story - though our unmanned probes have fared well when they do that.

Re:The important word is "should"

[mbone]

> A mission to an asteroid seems like it would be much cheaper and quicker to accomplish.

Can you elaborate? It's farther. It's more dangerous (less is measured/known/visible, I believe). There's a lot more chance of well, getting his by micro meteorites up to big ones. Sample collection is going to have to be via new method(s)...I'm just trying to figure out what's the easier part. I agree it would give better return value. But if it was done quicker and cheaper, I'd be very pessimistic about anyone coming back.

OK, energetically, there are asteroids that we could could reach for roughly the same delta-V as going to the Moon, and coming back. (To put it another way, that Apollo could have reached with the Saturn V.) So, energetically, it's a wash, at least for the NEO we would be going to first.

In terms of technology, we are more or less there for an asteroid - we have demonstrated long duration flights on the ISS, and you don't land on a small asteroid, you dock with one, and that we have technology for. We just need a launch vehicle. For the Moon, we HAD the technology (the Lunar Module), but lost it, and estimates to get it back are in the billions of dollars. Advantage, asteroids. Plus, it turns out landing on the Moon and on Mars are rather difficult, so there is no synergy advantage in terms of going to Mars if we develop a Lunar Module first. Again, advantage, asteroids.

(I believe that avoiding that LM cost/development time was the "cheaper and quicker" the OP was referring to.)

Sample collection is well in hand, and not really a problem for either Moon or asteroid. That's a wash.

Now, going to an asteroid for 9 months is indeed more dangerous than going to the Moon for 9 days. No doubt. However

- if we are ever going to get to Mars, we have to develop the capability to do long duration deep space missions. Going to an asteroid is no more dangerous (or not much more dangerous) than just going out there and coming back, with much more return.

- When we do go back to the Moon, we are likely to go to stay. It is by no means clear that going to an asteroid for 9 months is more dangerous than going to the Moon for 9 months.

So, for the danger aspect, I regard as a wash, except that the asteroid mission would have real synergies.

So, IMHO, the advantages for the Moon are week and iffy, while the advantages / synergies for an asteroid are real and solid.

Also, there is a LONG history of commercial development riding the back of initial government investment. NASA going to an asteroid would jump-start commercial asteroid mining.

Re:The important word is "should"

[dpilot]

It's the Obama administration's idea, so it must be wrong. Just like when Obama has picked up old Republican ideas and tried to push them, they become wrong.

Sometimes I wonder it Obama's support of NSA domestic spying is just a clever way to get Republicans to come out in favor of personal privacy. It wasn't that long ago that the Republicans clearly stated that there was no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution. Now because it's against Obama, they're thumping the privacy tub really hard. (Though I'll bet they still don't think any right to privacy applies to gay conduct, even in one's own home.)

But unfortunately I've lost sufficient faith to think that that's what he's doing, The "mini-me" cartoon seems scarily accurate, and makes today's Republican Congress-critters seem all the more buffoon-ish.

Re:The important word is "should"

[__aaltlg1547]

How is that sexier? We put men on the moon in 1969. A repeat of that trip doesn't show new capability. Capturing an asteroid is much more ambitious. We're talking solar system engineering here.

Re:The important word is "should"

[__aaltlg1547]

If it contains trillions of dollars worth of "rare Earths" we're going to need a new name for those elements.

Re:The important word is "should"

[hawguy]

If the stupid rock might contain trillions USD of rare earths (or rare whatever), then the private sector will step forward and fund the mission. It looks like some are organizing to do just that. Meanwhile, NASA should spend taxpayer money on broader goals (keeping in mind that the asteroid mining may be a failure), such as reducing the costs of human space travel and determining human capacity for travel to/living on planets w/o atmospheres.

http://www.planetaryresources.com/ is one of them.

Re:The important word is "should"

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You are part of the problem. You are comparing an idealized version of the best part of your side

I think the NSA part of his comment was suppose to be humorous due to the meat of his argument being:

It's the Obama administration's idea, so it must be wrong. Just like when Obama has picked up old Republican ideas and tried to push them, they become wrong.

Which couldn't be any more obvious.

Re:The important word is "should"

[deadhammer]

Asteroid capture and mining is potentially lucrative but completely unknown in terms of economy, safety, proper technique, etc. Generally what governments excel at is exploration of unknowns. You think there would BE private space flights and planned space stations if NASA and the USSR hadn't gone up first to see if, oh, people could even survive in zero-G, let alone get up there and back? Is it inefficient? Sure. But governments can take risks that private agencies, with shareholders that demand risk prevention, can't. Once the maps have been made, so to speak, then you can get the massive influx of private sector enterprise.

In other words, it's an investment.

Re:The important word is "should"

[MightyYar]

The value of the material in the asteroids is only high when compared with the cost of launching the same materials to orbit. Private industry won't go after asteroids unless someone is building big stuff in space. You can't build big stuff in space affordably without materials. Chicken and egg.

Re:The important word is "should"

[imikem]

Indeed. Maybe we could call them Lanthanides, instead.

Re:The important word is "should"

[__aaltlg1547]

Indeed. Maybe we could call them Lanthanides, instead.

scandium and yttrium are called "rare earths" but they aren't lanthanides.

Re:The important word is "should"

[LifesABeach]

Putting money on Moon related projects has helped everyone, and accelerated human achievement better than any program that uses money to subsidize greed.

Re:The important word is "should"

[dpilot]

If you've followed Jon Stewart more, you'd know that he's painfully aware of this. On several occasions he has rather angrily taken the mainstream media to task, primarily with the tune, "I'm a comedian, why aren't YOU covering this stuff the way it ought to be!"

Jon Stewart is the Court Jester of our day. (Which is a bit more than one might think, if you look up more of the role of the Court Jester in medieval times.)

Re:The important word is "should"

[mill3d]

+5

Re:The important word is "should"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Comedy Central is not that it's "left leaning" or that it's "pretending to be comedy", it's that the real news is so fucking piss poor that a fucking comedy show actually looks like real news to you.

Re:The important word is "should"

[ganjadude]

why not? we have been building rockets that can get us back to the moon for some years now. bush started a program that would have us backthere by i believe 2019 (i may be off, its been a while since hes been out of office, eventhough it doesnt seem like the admin changed much) so it shouldnt be to hard to go back to the orion program and get back on track.

Re: The important word is "should"

[Jane Q. Public]

I see one of my detractors has gotten mod points again. Clarifying my previous statement is "flamebait"??? Give me a fucking break.

Re:The important word is "should"

[WindBourne]

While I fully support NASA going to an asteroid, the US will be back on the moon around 2020. Count on it.
Bigelow Aerospace is working with NASA on this. And instead of wasting 20B building the SLS (which will not be ready until 2022 or later), SpaceX and BA will humans launching to a space station no later than 2016. Then another second space station around 2018, and finally a mission to the moon, with putting a new base on it. How much will it costs NASA? Probably about 2B spread out over 5 years.

Re: The important word is "should"

[WindBourne]

Thats because you are wrong with your 'facts'.
First off, Russia is not an enemy. Get over it. We won.
Secondly, Russia space budget is not going up 7x more than NASA's, let alone 17x. Russia said that they would spend X amount, but, in small print, it came out that it was over a very long time. IIRC, Roscomos will spend ~170 billion rubles (about $5.5B). In 2015, they will have raised it to around 200 b rubles (less than $7B).
To be fair, that is a lot of money for Russia. However, it still does not approach what we will Spend. In addition, Russia wants to stay as a partner with us for going to the moon. So do the other ISS partners. And since private space is going, hopefully, we will see loads of work on-going in about 2 years.

OTOH, you have every right to be concerned about China. China's space program is a PURE MILITARY project. In addition, they are working hard to keep it all closed.

Re:The important word is "should"

[tsotha]

No, because it doesnt make sense. There is no way to cheaply get those "trillions of dollars" that an asteroid could contain into a low earth orbit, let alone down to the surface.

This. Recovering "trillions of dollars" worth of minerals at the cost of trillions of dollars makes much less sense than doing the same for far less money using conventional mining techniques. Also, you would never be able to recover trillions of dollars worth of minerals. The market for those minerals would crash.

Re:The important word is "should"

[tsotha]

We already need a new name. Rare earth elements aren't actually rare.

Re:The important word is "should"

[WindBourne]

Uh, no,
W started constellation, which consisted of 4 main parts:
1) a human launch vehicle. Ares I. It was designed to take 25 tonnes to LEO
2) a human-rated capsule. Orion. It was designed to take 7 ppl to LEO, or 4 ppl to the moon.
3) a large cargo , Ares V. It was designed originally to carry 188 tonnes to LEO.
4) a lunar lander.

We spent 5B on Orion and it still needed a couple of more billion.
Ares I was the launcgher that was to be ready by 2013, then kept slipping. Just before cancellation, it had slipped to 2017.
Ares V was originally to be ready by 2019, and according to Agustine's committee, it would not be ready until 2030, and that assumed that we would spend another 30B on JUST THAT.

Constellation was another fuck-up by you neo-cons, just like the SLS.

We need private space to do this so that you ppl can not kill any more space programs.

BTW, Orion was morphed into Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, which is still on-going.

Re:The important word is "should"

[rtb61]

Wrong. A permanent moon base gives the US technology to sell to other countries as long as it is a multi-national moon base. Especially when it is permanent enough and large enough to accommodate tourists. Want to sell it on being self funding then, tourism will be a must. Why because it is a sight better bloody goal than war and can more readily cycle money through the economy than war and leave a tangible result.

So going back to the moon now can trigger a global effort for a quite large permanent moon base, which then can support trips to elsewhere in the solar system.

Re:The important word is "should"

[mbkennel]

Doing exactly the same thing again does not get +5 more.

Re:The important word is "should"

[__aaltlg1547]

They're called "rare earth" elements because they can only be economically mined from "rare earth" minerals that actually are pretty rare to find in industrially-useful quantities. Other than those uncommon minerals, they are found in tiny concentrations that are impractical to refine.

I don't know what explains anyone's idea, however, that they would be easier to mine from asteroids. Are they more abundant in meteorites than in the Earth's crust?

Re: The important word is "should"

[Jane Q. Public]

"Thats because you are wrong with your 'facts'."

Excuse me, but being wrong does not justify a "flamebait" mod. That's not what flamebait mods are for.

"First off, Russia is not an enemy. Get over it. We won. "

I never said they were. Whether Russia in particular is a friend or an enemy has exactly zero to do with my point. I think you read more into my words than what I actually wrote.

"Secondly, Russia space budget is not going up 7x more than NASA's, let alone 17x"

Did you read the part where I wrote "I'm having trouble finding my original source"??? That's called an admission that I could have been wrong. The comment about the typo is a completely separate issue.

Re:The important word is "should"

[RicktheBrick]

I am tired of reading about all of the Chinese advancement and almost nothing about US advancements. 1. China send 3 people to their orbiting station. 2. China builds fastest supercomputer. 3. Chinese firm plans to build the world's tallest building in 90 days. 4. Chinese firm plans to build new canal in Nicaragua. Even these two projects are many years in the future. I just wish the US was doing something a little bit more positive than fighting or supporting fighters in 4 mid eastern countries

Re:The important word is "should"

[tsotha]

You'd have to be sifting through some pretty darn small concentrations to make going to space worthwhile. We spent $100bn putting a glorified can into LEO, fer chrissake. You can do a lot of refining for that kind of money.

Re:The important word is "should"

[delt0r]

No it didn't. It was a cold war pissing contest and nothing more. It achieved little long term value and at the time was just another expensive cold war endeavour. The money could have been used far more effectively with a more scientific and logical program. The microchip was not invented for Apollo, Velcro was already being made etc. The missile program is where most of the technology came from and what most of it was developed for. Not for Apollo.

All it did was put a few "elite" military pilots on the moon before Russia could. Doing that again will do nothing for the general case of ubiquitous space access if that is important to you either.

Oink oink oink

[alen]

Pork barrel for the 21st century
I'm sure the work will be spread out among every important congress person's districts

Re:Oink oink oink

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

China's making movements, so I'm sure they don't wanna get caught flat-footed...like they did 60 years ago with the Russians.

Yes, it is a waste of money. But not of domestic politics.

Re:Oink oink oink

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes, it is a waste of money. But not of domestic politics."

It's no more "a waste of money" than the Cold War was. Granted, the money could have been better spent elsewhere, if it hadn't been absolutely essential to the freedom and safety of our country to spend it.

So it is with the moon. It's strategic importance cannot be overemphasized. Letting other countries dominate it would be a strategic mistake of epic proportions.

Re:Oink oink oink

[Jane Q. Public]

s/It's/Its

Damn Saturday Morning typographical errors.

Re:Oink oink oink

[MightyYar]

I completely agree that this will turn into a big pork fest. That said, I feel that it's worth it because it will eventually boot-strap the private sector.

Re:Oink oink oink

[khallow]

That said, I feel that it's worth it because it will eventually boot-strap the private sector.

It hasn't yet and they've been doing this for more than half a century.

Re:Oink oink oink

[mbkennel]

Go ahead and emphasize, and while you're at it, explain the strategic importance of the Moon.

Re:Oink oink oink

[MightyYar]

How can you say that when there are hundreds (thousands?) of commercial satellites floating around? When we have private companies starting to engage in space tourism? "Half a century" is not even a single lifetime. My dad can remember Sputnik, to say nothing of my grandfather, who had fought a World War by then. Many (most?) of the bridges you drive over are from the same era, depending on where you live.

Re:Oink oink oink

[khallow]

How can you say that when there are hundreds (thousands?) of commercial satellites floating around?

And what else? That's not much to show for half a century of activity.

When we have private companies starting to engage in space tourism?

They could have started in 1980.

"Half a century" is not even a single lifetime.

A lifetime, let us note here, is a very long time for us.

Re:Oink oink oink

[MightyYar]

A lifetime, let us note here, is a very long time for us.

So this discussion is about the definition of a "long time"? I think 50 years is not that long to establish a completely new industry in a completely new place. How long did colonization of the New World take? And that was on Earth, with people already living there. Give it time.

And what else? That's not much to show for half a century of activity.

It's not like it has been 50 years with no commercial exploitation. Most launches now are commercial. There are several space tourism companies now chugging along. There is a private enterprise trying to mine an asteroid. There are more and cheaper space launch companies springing up. Just because you consider 50 years to be a long time does not mean we should give up.

Re:Oink oink oink

[khallow]

So this discussion is about the definition of a "long time"?

Not on my side. I though it was well accepted that 50 years was a long time especially when it comes to human technology development and industry.

I think 50 years is not that long to establish a completely new industry in a completely new place.

OTOH, we went from putting something into orbit for the first time to putting men on the Moon in about twelve years. The world currently spends the entire budget of Apollo (excluding Skylab) on space activities every five years or so. NASA and the US Department of Defense alone might spend that much on space activities.

Just because you consider 50 years to be a long time does not mean we should give up.

Nothing I have said, implies we should give up. Instead, my view is that our standards are way too long. We're complacent and willing to squander vast sums of money on negligible space activities which don't get us anywhere.

Consider this, until 1984, NASA had a monopoly on commercial space launch. That's twenty years of the fifty year period where no one outside of NASA could legally launch private payloads. They didn't actually help a business develop any significant launch infrastructure until they funded Pegasus launches in the early 90s, that's getting towards thirty years. And the real progress has been SpaceX which didn't start till about 11 years ago.

Suppose during the build up to Apollo, the US government had encouraged private orbital launch development. I think the same launch capability we have now, could have been in place in the mid-70s! There are technological advances that have helped SpaceX build a cheaper and more reliable rocket, but as most people have noted, the basic technology is fifty years old.

Re:Oink oink oink

[MightyYar]

And the real progress has been SpaceX which didn't start till about 11 years ago.

Agreed - and I'd add the stubborn refusal to rethink the shuttle was even more wasteful. I mean, they built a whole fleet of those darned things even when it was clear that they weren't going to perform as originally hoped. I give NASA a pass on the 50s and 60s, though - that was more of a pissing match and less of a "let's boot an industry" thinking.

I take issue with your characterization of funding, though - NASA spending went way down compared to the rest of our spending. It's clearly not the priority it was for us in the 60s.

I think the way NASA is encouraging these newer non-defense space companies is a refreshing change of pace. I hope they continue with that strategy. I'd like to see more goal-oriented funding. Even just throw stuff out there that seems crazy - like another Hubble servicing mission. Make the rules very open - who cares how they do it, manned or robotic - if you successfully service Hubble, here's a half-billion dollars... have at it!

Re:Oink oink oink

[khallow]

I take issue with your characterization of funding, though - NASA spending went way down compared to the rest of our spending. It's clearly not the priority it was for us in the 60s.

It's a correct characterization, so there's not much point to taking issue to it. It doesn't have to be at Apollo levels as a percentage of GDP in order to be spent well.

Re:Oink oink oink

[MightyYar]

It's not anywhere near Apollo levels - it took an enormous dive after Apollo and has trended down ever since.

Re:Oink oink oink

[khallow]

It's not anywhere near Apollo levels

Adjusted for inflation, it's greater than 50% of the peak spending for NASA. I consider that close enough. NASA just doesn't operate anywhere near as effectively as it did in the 60s.

Re:Oink oink oink

[MightyYar]

I'm sure that there is room for improvement (it can't help that they change direction every administration), but they do a lot more pure science than they did in the 60s. And the pound-your-chest stuff of the 60s is mostly gone, with even the manned program going in the direction of "jump start the private sector". I'm much happier with the Space X style contracts than I am with the 60s model of in-house development, even if that might have been necessary to achieve the goal of beating the Soviets.

NASA's mission

[It doesn't come easy]

Not sure how any serious engineer or scientist works at NASA these days. NASA's mission changes quarterly (or more frequently), subject to political whim. I think our only real hope in the practical exploration of space lies with commercial enterprise. Which, truthfully, isn't that bad a deal. Of course, we still don't have any viable commercial enterprise working yet (lots of startups but nothing concrete at this point). A friend of mine is a scientist who worked at NASA for 12 years. He bailed about 10 years ago because of the political interference and now works at a university on the west coast. Smart man.

Re:NASA's mission

[alen]

the original space program was political as well
kennedy's made the speech because his poll numbers were dropping after the election. only after he was killed did congress really provide the funding. even then the work was split among so many congressional districts that it was the pork barrel of the decade. the economy was good and the government was spending it all

the last decade was spent on a lot of defense programs, but mostly data mining type software. once the war spending dies down all the people working for the NSA and other agencies will go into civilian life and we will have another huge tech boom

Re:NASA's mission

[jasnw]

Simply put, they stick around because it's a good-paying job in an economy where there aren't that many available. Your friend bailed 10 years ago, back when jobs for people in these fields were a lot more plentiful. NASA became a giant jobs-and-pork operation years ago, and was one of the original "welfare for whitecoats" agencies (whitecoats as in lab coats). Any engineer or scientist with a NASA job these days hangs on as long as they can. Mortgages gotta be paid, and kids gotta be fed.

Re:NASA's mission

[PsychoSlashDot]

I think our only real hope in the practical exploration of space lies with commercial enterprise. Which, truthfully, isn't that bad a deal.

Commercial R&D and exploration serves one purpose: to enrich the stockholders' portfolio. Yes, there's a trickle-down effect in that any technological or intellectual advances will become available to the public eventually, but at a cost whose primary concern is profit. That profit will be a margin applied to the research phase and the manufacture.

Public investment in R&D and exploration is to the direct benefit of the entire nation and its allies. Derivative products will eventually be sold for a profit but the profit margin will only be expected to cover the manufacture costs, not the research phase.

Ultimately we pay for everything we have, at the store or via taxes. The question is: do you want to pay profit mark-up on the research?

Re:NASA's mission

[khallow]

What can you explore in a mostly empty vacuum anyways? And how many times can you take pictures of desolate rocks that all look the same and still call it "exploration".

If "space" is a mostly empty vacuum, then it doesn't have "desolate rocks" or even pictures of "desolate rocks". You can't keep your troll straight.

Re:NASA's mission

[AmiMoJo]

You should run it more like the EU runs projects like the LHC or ESA.

Re:NASA's mission

[Chris Mattern]

the original space program was political as well

Yes. Yes, it was. And it achieved its goal of getting us to the moon in such an unsustainable fashion that we haven't been back in *forty years*.

Re:NASA's mission

[Zontar The Mindless]

The oceans are mostly water. Nothing of interest there, I'm sure.

Re:NASA's mission

[SteveFoerster]

No kidding. I always figure these "why don't they just..." suggestions are from people without families. Seriously, that changes everything.

Re:NASA's mission

[Immerman]

Heck, all matter is mostly empty space. To scale, the vast empty reaches within an atom make the solar system look positively crowded. Cleary nothing of interest exists at all.

Re:NASA's mission

[Immerman]

Don't forget the importent part - it let us show off the capabilties of our ICBM techology without actually starting a shooting war.

Re:NASA's mission

[__aaltlg1547]

Who else got a chance to land a rover on Mars? Who gets first crack at data from those rovers?

Re:NASA's mission

[Immerman]

Public research has the advantage that it can explore areas that may have no obvious short-term economic benefits (and no company will be interested ininvesting in any research with only non-economic benefits), or that are simply too expensive for any single individual or corporation to fund, with many/most of the actual benefits being rather unexpected. There was no driving need for transistors on Earth, vacuum tubes had become pretty reliable, but were far too heavy and fragile to put in a space ship, so transistor research got a major incidental push from the space race. But computers as we know them could never have been built with vacuum tubes. Sure, we probaby would have moved to transistor-based computers eventually, but what do you suppose the economic value is of getting them a decade or three sooner. For that matter computational climate models are probably going to be a major factor in giving us a fighting chance to mitigate and adapt to climate change without civilisation completely collapsing, and if the Apple II was only now reaching the market we wouldn't be able to even begin to build those models until it was too late.

Re:NASA's mission

[benevixit]

Not sure how any serious engineer or scientist works at NASA these days.

I work at a NASA research lab, and find it a rewarding way to spend my time... I've seen exoplanets through the eyes of space telescopes. I've invented AI algorithms and then flown them on smart satellites. My code has run on a rover traversing the surface of Mars. I agree that commercial enterprise has a role to play - but for all its imperfections, NASA is still a pretty remarkable institution at this particular moment in human history.

Re:NASA's mission

[Kjella]

Not sure how any serious engineer or scientist works at NASA these days. NASA's mission changes quarterly (or more frequently), subject to political whim.

Because private companies are totally not flip-flopping based on quarterly performance and managers playing musical chairs. Most of this is simply political theater because none of these missions are funded, so nobody really cares how often they change except to make other politicians look bad. NASA's got plenty more mundane missions which will continue.

Re:NASA's mission

[PsychoSlashDot]

In other words, commercial R&D has to be useful. And the profit "cost" yields a strong incentive to insure that the R&D has positive return on investment. These are huge advantages over government R&D which neither has to be useful or provide more benefit than cost.

In other words commercial R&D has to be obviously profitable, in a short-to-medium term. It can't be tentative or exploratory, curious or inquisitive. It must be about earning, with no regard for learning.

In other words, tremendous costs, paltry returns, and the real R&D gets disguised as "derivative products".

You made that up. There is ZERO requirement for public-funded R&D to be more expensive than commercial, less productive than commercial or in any way shady.

Of course. The real question is why do you think public research has any advantages at all? For example, when I pay at the store, I pay directly for the R&D and other costs that go into the stuff that I use. If I pay taxes, then they get burned on whatever the elite who controls that spending happens to decide is most useful for themselves with a modest portion used for face-saving stuff like NASA's high profile missions.

The real question is why you trust corporations, which have absolutely no pretense of benevolence. Ask yourself, if drug companies could cure serious ailments, would they? I don't assume there's a conspiracy and that cures are literally avoided so long-term expensive treatments can be sold, but I don't assume there isn't such a conspiracy. I can't tell. Because they people directing, funding, and reviewing the research are the people who have the most to lose if cheap options are found. Non-profitable options. The only reason for a company to seek cheap alternatives is in a competitive market, where some other company is eating a slice of the pie.

With government R&D there's separation (ignoring lobbyists for a moment) of the direction of research relative to the results. The fact that companies do lobby government is pretty strong evidence that said companies are determined to influence outcome.

I have no say on what NASA spends money on (or more accurately, I can say plenty, but no one in charge of the spending listens). I have plenty of say on what I buy at the store. My money there speaks louder than words. The store is far more democratic and responsive than the space-industrial complex fueled by unaccountable public funding can be.

Your ability to dictate company behaviour is an illusion, citizen. It's the identical illusion to "you tell NASA what to do by writing to your congresscritter and voting". Identical. You as an individual have an irrelevant influence on both situations. You think your buying habits matter. They don't. Take a look at glorious situations like... EA. They crap out the latest SimCity and... too bad. Sure, some folks boycott them, but it doesn't actually register on the PowerPoint presentation for quarterly earnings. Take a look at Apple. "You're holding it wrong." Seriously? But the masses keep buying the fondleslabs no matter that you kick and punch and hold your breath like a three-year-old in protest. These companies are screwing us around. And we - as individuals - have no influence on them. Only when freak moments of mass unity happen is there any hope for influence. Like... voting.

NASA's job is learning. No making your taxpayer/shareholder wallet fat from selling more widgets. I don't trust you to influence them, frankly.

Re:NASA's mission

[khallow]

In other words commercial R&D has to be obviously profitable, in a short-to-medium term. It can't be tentative or exploratory, curious or inquisitive. It must be about earning, with no regard for learning.

There are two things to note here. First, you clearly don't any experience with commercial R&D. It can be more farsighted and considerably more effective than the publicly funded equivalent (in large part because they have a goal other than burning a certain amount of public funding).

Second, commercial R&D is not the only sort of privately funded R&D. The Keck Telescopes in Hawaii, for example, are privately funded, but they aren't for profit.

In other words, tremendous costs, paltry returns, and the real R&D gets disguised as "derivative products".

You made that up.

Maybe you ought to research NASA's "spinoffs" some time and see how much work is actually done by the private side.

There is ZERO requirement for public-funded R&D to be more expensive than commercial, less productive than commercial or in any way shady.

There's no requirement for this R&D to be more useless, it just is.

The real question is why you trust corporations

Nope. I don't trust business. It's just an observation that they do R&D better than government does. And there's a simple model of self-interest that explains why that happens.

Ask yourself, if drug companies could cure serious ailments, would they?

Yes and no. If the business has huge income now and in the future from a treatment for a serious ailment, they won't be so interested in killing that golden goose for a cure. But if they don't and they can take out a competitor's cash cow, then sure, they would. Not every drug company has such indefinite treatments for every disease. Small businesses in particular don't have this problem.

So perhaps you ought to look at what obstacles there are to small businesses developing cures. First and foremost is a complex regulatory process that can cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars per eventual successful drug to navigate. That's not imposed by corporations but by various developed world governments.

Your ability to dictate company behaviour is an illusion, citizen.

I merely note that this is routinely observed phenomena.

Take a look at glorious situations like... EA.

I have no dealings with EA, but their customers continue to buy EA's products. If you buy crap, you get crap.

These companies are screwing us around. And we - as individuals - have no influence on them.

Except the obvious - don't buy their stuff. All this crap doesn't matter to the people who don't own their stuff.

NASA's job is learning.

Sure it is. But if their job is "learning", then they have a long way to go. I recommend starting with some lessons on economics.

I don't trust you to influence them, frankly.

I don't trust you to buy an Apple product much less recommend anything for NASA, but that's not my problem. When NASA or other government agencies squander my money, then it becomes my problem.

Re:NASA's mission

[tsotha]

We had already demonstrated ICBM capability long before we went to the moon. The Russians never went to the moon... did we doubt they could nuke us?

Re:NASA's mission

[Immerman]

The Russians weren't that far behind, if they hadn't imploded we'd probably have bases on the moon and maybe even Mars by now. And/or have a lot of glassy craters decorating the landscape.

Neither side had effective countermeasures against ICBMs, yet both had far, far more nukes than necessary to eradicate the other as a global power.

We were in the mother of all dick-waving contests - actual sanity and logic need not apply.

Re:NASA's mission

[khallow]

Public research has the advantage that it can explore areas that may have no obvious short-term economic benefits

In other words, public does things which have no obvious benefits - economic or otherwise, near or far term. When scientists have to face limited resources, they pick and choose which research to do usually on the basis of what sort of results they expect to obtain. Why should governments do things differently than the scientists themselves?

There was no driving need for transistors on Earth, vacuum tubes had become pretty reliable, but were far too heavy and fragile to put in a space ship, so transistor research got a major incidental push from the space race.

I see no evidence of that. Military spending. which incidentally was much larger, might have had such an impact, but it is worth noting that even in the complete absence of support from the federal government, there would have been widespread and rapid development of transistors and integrated circuits.

Sure, we probaby would have moved to transistor-based computers eventually, but what do you suppose the economic value is of getting them a decade or three sooner.

I doubt it's even five years sooner. And due to governments' propensity to hire lots of people and have them do unproductive things, government might have obstructed such progress over the long term by hiring significant fraction of scientists and engineers who would otherwise have assisted in IC and computer development.

Re:NASA's mission

[tsotha]

Right, but the point is we didn't actually have to land people on the moon to show we could nuke the Russians. A missile test into the South Pacific works just as well.

Re:NASA's mission

[Immerman]

Yes, but there's only so many of those you can do before you start giving your opponent an itchy trigger finger. And showing you can do it once is materially different than showing you can do it repeatedly and that your tech just keeps improving. Snarkyness aside, ritual combat plays an important role in how our species resolves conflict, and you can't exactly embed a nuclear spear in the ground at your opponents feet to show your combat prowess. Not without seriously risking actually starting a fight neither of you will be able to walk away from.

If people had their priorities straight...

[kk49]

We would do both...

Re:If people had their priorities straight...

[gmuslera]

Can't, all the available money is needed for more important things

Re:If people had their priorities straight...

[kk49]

Building Skynet is also a priority.

Re:If people had their priorities straight...

[PPH]

Given the current funding levels for science, our space programs are devolving into something akin to a bunch of hobos fighting over the last off-ramp.

Re:If people had their priorities straight...

[amiga3D]

I'm not sure we can do either. My feeling is we've been to the Moon. Time to move on.

Meh, SLS marches on

[khallow]

Looks like Congress continues to have myopic space policy. I can't tell how much the bill "authorizes" (authorization is a lot weaker than appropriation which actually allocates money) for the Space Launch System (SLS), but any positive amount is too much IMHO. The proposed (which the bill would cancel) asteroid recovery mission sounded very promising as a technology demonstration, but at least that is something that private enterprise can do on a relatively small budget at a future time.

COTS (the program to supply the International Space Station via private vendors) is still chugging along for now, but I expect a number of congresspeople consider the proper number of COTS participants to be zero (they've been steadily whittling the number down from four). I see that they're proposing here to make Orion (which is Lockheed Martin's vehicle these days) the "backup" vehicle in case COTS doesn't work out.

As to the science portion, I'm not particularly enthused. The asteroid mission would probably, despite its reliance on manned activity (and the fact that zillions of meteorites fall on Earth every day), been more substantial in terms of science produced than most of NASA's missions. Someone has to collect climate data from space (that seems by far the best quality large scale climatology data out there) and NASA seems to be the one in charge of that. The authorization bill would continue to authorize that.

Re:Meh, SLS marches on

[Anonymous Coward]

We have to build the SLS. Nobody else is going to buy the solid-fuel rocket engines made in Utah and Alabama. None of the commercial companies are stupid enough to make the unreusable part of your rocket be the expensive part and the reusable part the cheap one. Republicans in congress are that stupid, though. The general public doesn't know any difference so you might as well secure your pork now.

Re:Meh, SLS marches on

[jonwil]

If I lived in the USA (and in the right district), I would specifically vote AGAINST any politician who supported forcing NASA to use ATK systems products.

If ATK systems cant come up with a new product to build and a new use for all those workers, they deserve to go out of business. And yes those workers would then not have a job anymore but hey, that's life, people loose their jobs all the time because the company they work for doesn't need em anymore.

This is not the way

[ildon]

Scientific missions should not be determined by political whims.

Re:This is not the way

[symbolset]

When were they not? This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:This is not the way

[Anonymous Coward]

"Political whims" as you call it, definitely do come into play when you're talking about tens of billions of dollars (at least) of taxpayer money used for discretionary spending. As it should.

Re:This is not the way

[taiwanjohn]

As "NewSpace" startups like SpaceX, Masten, Bigelow, etc. continue to bring down launch costs, the range of players in the space science game will continue to expand. We are rapidly approaching the tipping point where space-based enterprise is no longer the sole province of governments. With cube-sats, we're already getting to the place where even some university research budgets can afford the access. This trend is set to continue (and accelerate) over the next few years. This is a GoodThing[TM] no matter how you look at it.

Re:This is not the way

[tsotha]

Yes, in fact they should be determined by political whims. The taxpayers are funding these missions, so the taxpayers should decide whether or not they go forward.

I don't understand the reasoning...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why return to the moon surface? Developing asteroid mining technology could provide a new source of rare elements. Humans have already landed on the moon. Humans have not mined an asteroid. It seems like a simple decision to me. I am going to speculate that it is about somebody's ego/political advancement rather than scientific/economic reasons.

Hmm

[koan]

Base on the moon for the 1%, virus on Earth, it all makes sense...

Re:Hmm

[craigtollting]

Where's the (-1, Idiot) mod point when I need it?

Re:Go for the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

His point is that the technology to get to Mars (6 months is too long for manned travel we'll need something different) is the benefit you want. Going back to the moon doesn't net any new technology. As I recall, Republicans downed SpaceX for not doing anything different than NASA in the 60s (never mind the huge cut in costs, increase in reliability, dependability, and the chance for an actual fast turnaround time). But, for a reason that's obvious, Republicans in congress want to force NASA to go back to the moon just like NASA in the 60s! To summarize, SpaceX very bad even though they've made significant modernizations to the technology to make space travel more feasible, but the Republican plan for NASA is wonderful because they want to actually recreate the 60s cost and all!

This is awful

[onyxruby]

Going to the moon is one of the greatest things the United States ever did. The impact in terms of net benefits for science, technology and any number of things is amongst the best in history. However that has all been done decades ago and we have largely reaped the benefits from doing so. I'm not sure what real benefit we could gain by sending manned missions back to the moon at this time. Remember there are good reasons the Apollo program wrapped up.

Taking things to the next step, asteroids, and tackling everything involved, from science to mining needs to be the next great step. Working through the technological challenges involved in doing this would have tremendous benefit to society. The bottom line is there is far more to gain from taking things to the asteroids than the moon.

The moon, we've been there, nice place, time to move on to the next big thing.

Re:This is awful

[WindBourne]

Between Chinese gymnast, Chinese female swimmers, and American Bicyclists, new records are being set all the time.

Re:This is awful

[WindBourne]

Actually, no. We can send man back to the moon, and it will help. However, there is no reason why NASA has to do it all. Bigelow and SpaceX intend to be there by 2020. The problem is that neo-cons want the money to flow into their districts for a job's bill. We have WT like Shelby, Wolf, Hatch, Hutchinson, and my wonderful rep, Coffman, that are fighting against private space, even though it would cost us a FRACTION of the money to go to the moon, all because they want to flow the jobs to their areas.

Those ppl are nearly as damaging as Snowden and Manning are to America.

Re:This is awful

[EdgePenguin]

Actually, no. We can send man back to the moon, and it will help. However, there is no reason why NASA has to do it all. Bigelow and SpaceX intend to be there by 2020.

They can intend all they like. All they do is manufacture hardware (and externalise a shitload of their R&D costs to NASA and its traditional contractors.) They don't fund missions themselves, and certainly couldn't fund a manned one to the Moon.

The problem is that neo-cons want the money to flow into their districts for a job's bill. We have WT like Shelby, Wolf, Hatch, Hutchinson, and my wonderful rep, Coffman, that are fighting against private space, even though it would cost us a FRACTION of the money to go to the moon, all because they want to flow the jobs to their areas.

So spending government money on space somehow prevents private companies from doing the same? WTF?

Those ppl are nearly as damaging as Snowden and Manning are to America.

Oh, you are one of those...

Re:This is awful

[WindBourne]

One of the nice things about private space, is that they are far far cheaper than what you neo-cons develop. Your ghoulash SLS will costs us taxpayers 20B to develop and 1.5-3B per launch to send 70 tonnes into LEO. OTOH, falcon heavy will be ready early next year and will send 54 tonnes to leo for .1B. In addition, dragon rider will be ready in under 2 years, and it will cost .13B to send 7 ppl into space. SO, for a fraction of the costs of 1 SLS launch, we can send up over 100 tonnes and 7 ppl.

Likewise, private space IS going to the moon and mars. The difference is that they will be getting money from many different companies, though the hope is that NASA will be a big one. And for less money than what a single launch of the SLS (and only going to LEO) costs, private space, can put 3-5 ppl ON THE MOON.

I prefer for us to NOT waste money, but we have to contend with those who INSIST that we throw good money after bad. And it looks like you are one of them.

Re:The House Science Committee

[baKanale]

What about fluoridation of water, the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we've ever had to face?

NASA needs 10 year goals that can't be changed.

[asm2750]

As much as I would love to see NASA establish a colony on the Moon or capture an asteroid and move it to Lunar orbit, Congress and the President are constantly changing NASAs goals every year or two or slashing funding, and thats hurting the agency. NASA needs goals and funding that is locked in and cant be altered until the primary objective is achieved. Take the Apollo program which lasted 10 years or so and got us to the moon. Ever since then every president or congress session has changed NASAs goals and slashed funding that it makes it impossible to get anything fruitful done like the SLS and returning to the Moon and the eventually Mars.

Re:NASA needs 10 year goals that can't be changed.

[WindBourne]

Exactly right. My believe is that the best way to do that, is to have a panel with 15 ppl on it. These ppl would then run for 15 years, but staggered so that each year, one person would run out (that also means that when initially set-up, all of them would have a different time-frame.
The reason for this, is to have the president appoint, and Senate approve that person. Ideally, they would be pre-approved (say, up to 1 year before, as long as same president is in office), so that we do not have the same situation that we have today.

BTW, the same should occur with our all of our sciences. It is insane that politcial parties are in control of all of this. To this day, I will not understand why Clinton did not do more to stop the IFR shutdown. Horrible mistake.

let me guess...

[Black Parrot]

This is supported by the same people who are outraged at wasteful government spending, right?

Re:let me guess...

[WindBourne]

pretty much. The problem with the neo-cons that currently control the republican party is that they object to DEM's spending. The vast majority of debt has been incurred by these same neo-cons. We desperately need to clean up CONgress. That is why I continue to support root strikers.

Re:let me guess...

[ganjadude]

i love how you on the left ignore that the neocons have infiltrated your party as much as they have the republican party (note i didnt say my party). If you think obama is anything other than a neocon like bush i dont know what to tell you. Long story short, the neocons have taken over america, and they have done so in both the democratic and republican parties.

Re:let me guess...

[WindBourne]

Actually, I am Libertarian. I despise both libs and you neo-cons (and yes, I have flipped through your answers; you are a lover of the current republican leadership which are the neo-cons). The difference is that we are currently talking about SPACE, not other issues. You neo-cons are pushing for SLS that will cost 20B for 1 launch vehicle, while Obama, dems, and tea* are pushing for private space that will cost us around 2B for 3.

Yet, we continue to see you and others try to confuse the issues.

BTW, if you look through my postings here from about 8-10 years ago, you will see that I worked on the USA PATRIOT act. I have seen abuses. What is happening today, is NOT abuses. What happened when some of the initial work was done, WAS abuse. Back in 2005.

Re:let me guess...

[WindBourne]

You can blame me, but i was a software engineer running some interesting equipment.

In addition, when the BS over Snowden is done, I think that we will find that not only is this legal, but the way that it is being conducted is legal. And to be honest, we needed this. To the best of my knowledge, unauthorized spying on Americans was not going on. So, what made it authorized? When somebody is talking actively to a terrorists, OR to a somebody that is talking to a terrorists (or spy). I will say that for the first 2 years, I read some interesting things in the press that made me think of this (and leads me to believe that it WAS being abused). However, I have not seen anything interesting since.
The usefulness of this against terrorist (and spies) is now debatable. Hopefully, snowden burns in hell, since he has really harmed the NSA.

Re:let me guess...

[ganjadude]

you are for spying on americans... yet you call me a neo con?? wow

Re:let me guess...

[WindBourne]

No, I made equipment and designed code. In addition, the ONLY ppl being spied on, are those with connections to spies or terrorists and with a warrant.

Sadly, lots of assholes have made loads of assumptions and accusations without a single bit of intelligence behind it.

Realistic?

[mlookaba]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_cost:

"The final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973"

According to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ that would be $129.47 in 2012. Now obviously we have the benefit of relatively inexpensive technology to help offset that. However we also have the burden of stricter safety standards and more expensive "available" technology as opposed to "required" technology. Hopefully the government would be pragmatic enough to select the "appropriate" level of safety. That means quantifying the numeric value of a life (factoring in all the publicity involved, future projects, etc) which is something people don't seem willing to do. I suspect that NASA is very gunshy about repeating a shuttle type disaster, and would not be able to give an upper bound to that number.

All it all, it seems pretty farfetched that this will happen to me.

Re:Realistic?

[mlookaba]

oops... $129.47 billion in 2012.

My ancestors apologize to you for birthing a pathetic moron who can't properly proofread.

Re:The House Science Committee

[Type44Q]

The House Science Committee is currently run by guys who think that evolution, climate science and bike lanes are all commie plots.

You can be quite sure that they either don't actually think that or else they simply have no thoughts on those subjects whatsoever. However, they certainly know what their constituents want to hear and that definitely matters to them. Remember, these are politicians.

Re:The House Science Committee

[Kohath]

Names please? Exactly who on this committee holds these views? What have they specifically said?

Change is good

[hawguy]

It's great that missions that take decades of planning change every few years - keeps those rocket scientists on their toes and ensures that they'll never make any progress! Besides, if anyone knows how to use non-political fair and balanced criteria to set scientific priorities, it's Congress!

Why the moon?

[Immerman]

Going back to the moon seems pretty pointless unless we're prepared to actually establish a colony/fuel refinery/etc.(which I believe that would run afoul of an international treaty) Otherwise it's just rehashing old territory for some new photo-ops that could be photoshopped much more cheaply. Capturing an asteroid on the other hand is a step towards harnessing the massive mineral wealth in asteroids and letting us actually start producing cost-effective infrastructure in space.

Re:Why the moon?

[ZankerH]

>(which I believe that would run afoul of an international treaty) Not really. The Outer Space Treaty says anyone is allowed to settle other celestial bodies and use their natural resources, it just prohibits signatories from annexing or otherwise claiming sovereignty over extra-terrestrial territories. Signatories are also not allowed to drag nuclear weapons along, and that's the gist of it. It's for the best, really - why bother colonising space if we're just going to use it to prolong capitalism, nationalism and hate?

Re:Why the moon?

[Immerman]

Heh. Then we should be planning to establish a moonbase, not just another photo-op mission. Just making the trip is pointless - we know how to do that with 40 year old technology. And any such base will likely need to be in operation for at least decades before it reaches the point of not needing constant support from Earth, so we'd better get busy because we're going to start having some major distractions down here well before WWIII breaks out. There would be some benefit to landing a serious recon team to scout out a good base location and get a better idea of exactly what sort of local resources will be available, but that's going to call for a *very* different mission profile than "go to the moon".

Also, I'm sensing some hostility in your post, but think of it this way - the wealthy people are going to need a lot of smart, competent people along to give them any chance of surviving. And if things really do go to hell on Earth then how long do you think now-useless people will keep getting charity handouts in a tightly constrained ecosystem where every person is a significant resource drain? Sure, they'll likely take some hired mussle along to enforce their position, but it's hard to buy continuing loyalty when your money has become worthless and your opponents are the ones keeping the air flowing.

Re:Why the moon?

[Immerman]

For radio telescopes certainly, the moon acts as a shield against Earth's emissions. Less so for imaging telescopes - moonquakes and atmospheric distortion (the moon does have a very thin atmosphere) would make it an inferior choice. More importantly is the fact that long exposures become impossible - the Moon rotates at about half a degree per hour, and any mechanical tracking system is going to introduce enough vibration to render the telescope useless. In orbit on the other hand you simply point it where you want to look and it stays perfectly aligned until you change targets. (with a little gyroscopic help to compensate for tidal effects)

There's also the fact that getting to the moon is MUCH more expensive than getting into even a high Earth orbit, and even if you never have to refuel your telescope is still going to need periodic maintenance. And incidentally ion drives are rapidly making refueling much less of a consideration anyway.

For imaging telescopes the sweet spot is actually an orbit around the Earth-Sun L2 point, where the telescope will remain perpetually in Earth's shadow. It's a long way out if it needs servicing (though I think still less energy-intensive than getting to the much closer but faster-moving and gravitationally expensive moon), but it dwells in a perpetual darkness the Hubble can only dream of. I think the next major space telescope (the name escapes me) is actually slated for just that location.

Re:Why the moon?

[Immerman]

Oh, yeah, the main point: A mission to go to the moon has almost nothing to do with this. We know how to do it already, repeating the trip without actually planning to do something significant while there is just a chest-beating waste of resources. And if we plan to do something there then *that* is the mission, not going to the moon.

Re: new capability

[TaoPhoenix]

Yes it does.

We put men on the moon in 1969 and it "almost killed us". Why isn't anyone tapping into Moore's Law for the moon? The MoonBase is the next "leap" in the process. That requires capability - but of a different kind. By now the math should be cake. Materials durability, etc is the next easiest part.

The *really scary* part is how we manage our "Terrorist Meme" when something like a MoonBase has to be protected! And no, don't tell me a MoonBase is "hard" - just haul a big rectangular metal/whatever allow box up there and plunk it down. Voila. Instant Moonbase. Then you can have a staging zone for all kinds of fun stuff.

But it's the social aspect that we have to really get a grip on, and I believe it will take some "doing stuff" for the social-political flashpoint to show up in actual conversation.

Space is Full of Energy

[DanielRavenNest]

What hardly anyone understands is that space is full of abundant energy.

The world's fossil fuel (oil, coal, and natural gas) reserves are equal to 7 trillion barrels of oil, and one barrel contains 6 x 10^9 Joules. Thus we have 42 x 10^21 Joules of fossil fuel energy. The area within the Moon's orbit (384,000 km radius) has 38 x 10^21 Joules of sunlight passing through every minute, nearly as much....Every Minute!

Asteroids and the Moon are sources of raw materials, but the energy is what enables you to do something with it, and solar energy in space is easily extracted.

Re:Space is Full of Energy

[Kjella]

The area within the Moon's orbit (384,000 km radius) has 38 x 10^21 Joules of sunlight passing through every minute (...) solar energy in space is easily extracted.

But building a pi*(384,000 km)^2 = 463,000,000,000,000,000 m^2 solar panel is not, the effective energy density per m^2 is just that of Earth minus the atmosphere and cloud cover. When it reaches earth sunlight is 1366 watts/m^2 and 75% of that reaches ground level. In the best areas for solar panels you get 25-30% effective sunlight so in total you get about 20% of the effectiveness of a space based 24x7 solar panel. What do you think costs more, setting up 5 m^2 in a desert or sending 1 m^2 into space - or building it in space? Make that 20m^2 and you've covered most populated areas on the globe. Not to mention that with cosmic radiation, micrometeorites and such space is actually rather nasty, maintenance is a bitch and recycling impossible. Outside of space probes space-based solar power makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:Space is Full of Energy

[ganjadude]

Thus we have 42 x 10^21 Joules of fossil fuel energy.

i find this highly skeptical. Plain and simple every few years new "reserves" are found. I am not saying that oil is renewable (in human terms, it is renewable in geological terms) but i find it highly unlikely that we have tapped it all. It is in the oil companies best interest to keep people convinced that is it more valuable than it actually is.

Re:Space is Full of Energy

[WindBourne]

Even if we could beam all of that energy, I suspect that would be the last thing that we want to do. Adding more energy to the earth, will raise temps VERY quickly.

Re:Space is Full of Energy

[WindBourne]

Nor would it be in our best interest to tap it all and then use it for energy.

Re:Space is Full of Energy

[khallow]

So you're telling me that the infrastructure for intercepting and using as much energy as is present in the world's fossil fuel supply every minute (or rather every 5-10 minutes after efficiency losses, I suppose) is going to be difficult? Who knew?

What do you think costs more, setting up 5 m^2 in a desert or sending 1 m^2 into space - or building it in space?

That depends. But there's no reason to expect space relative activities to remain expensive. For example, if you can get a self replicating factory onto the surface of the Moon, then the cost is the R&D, launch, and the cost of supervising the resulting infrastructure which is built (which might just be monitored by a few people on Earth remotely). Materials and land are free for the taking - while on Earth, they form a firm floor for how cheap you can get solar power. It might be a high price tag to get it started, but you can end up with infrastructure capable of covering the entire Moon with solar cells (though perhaps over a considerable period of time, like many human lifetimes) for far less than the equivalent infrastructure would be on Earth (assuming it were even allowed to that extent).

Re:Space is Full of Energy

[khallow]

Even if we could beam all of that energy, I suspect that would be the last thing that we want to do. Adding more energy to the earth, will raise temps VERY quickly.

Depends on the amount of energy you're talking about. Adding that much more energy (which is roughly 3600 times more than the Earth currently receives from the Sun) probably will be vaporizing crust (depending on how fast the heat dissipates to space).

Logic:

[J05H]

Asteroid retrieval is about $1-2 Billion spread over a decade. Single moon landing is at an order of magnitude higher at $10-20 Billion with unknown duration. This is what happened with Shuttle and Station and appears to be happening with SLS: they eventually sucked cash out of other NASA programs while legislators direct even more resources into those single projects as if 10,000 people working together can't manage more than one task.

We should go back to the Moon but that should not prevent us from also snagging an asteroid. The funny thing is that the returned asteroid was planned to go into Lunar or very eccentric high orbit, either would have been a great shake-down cruise for Orion before going to the Moon.

Re:Logic:

[gl4ss]

well the thing is that going to the moon would be if funding permitted.

so either they would find a way to go there for 1-2 billion.. or they would spend 30 million trying to find that way and not find it and get another goal in few years. that's a lot of savings and not having to do anything.

Re:Logic:

[robertinventor]

Yes and asteroid retrieval actually combines well with telerobotic exploration of the Moon. The asteroid woud be returned to an L1 or L2 position around the Moon if I understand right, From there, you can do good telerobotics control of missions on the surface of the Moon, which is a cost effective way to explore the Moon if you are interested in the science return.

We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[WindBourne]

First off, this nightmare that is ongoing with NASA, is NOT NASA's fault, but the fault, of the God Damn neo-cons that are running the house.
The majority of those shits are looking to keep NASA as a Job's bill. They do not care whether we go to the moon or not. THey want to spending our money on SLS which is mostly situated in neo-con districts( I note that a few dems back this as well, but they are pushing for both SLS and private space; spend, spend, spend).
So, what is insane about this? We will spend 20B for a launch vehicle that is mostly based on 60's/70's technology and design and will give us exactly ONE launch vehicle (though with several different designs). Since this vehicle will launch so infrequently, it will cost us 1.5-3B PER LAUNCH. Yes, it will cost as much or more than the shuttle did ( 1.5B per launch was the final price that we paid to send 7 ppl and 24.5 tonnes into LEO; that included the .750B per launch and then another .750B rebuilding the craft for another launch ). It is INSANE that we spend that kind of money.

So, what is the sane Alternative? The one that Obama, dems, and even the tea-party is pushing: We need PRIVATE SPACE.
If we spend less than 2B over the next 2-3 years, we can have 3 launchers that will carry 7 ppl into leo (dragon rider/f9, atlas V with either cst-100 or dreamchaser). With this, we are guaranteed that we will NEVER lose cargo or human access to space again.
BUT, it gets better. Bigelow Aerospace has a SSA with NASA that both are working on getting private space to the moon BY 2020. It will costs less than the 20B that neo-cons are trying to force on NASA. Most importantly, by allowing NASA to pursue the asteroid AND help private space, we gain:
1) multiple launch vehicles so that we never lose space access again.
2) multiple tugs/fuel depots, that will include electric tugs (suitable for moving equipment/sats) and chemical tugs (suitable for moving ppl, or starting missions to extra solar).
3) multiple space stations at various altitudes in orbit, along with friendly nations helping to fund this.
4) a lunar base by 2020, again, with friendly nations helping to fund this (by paying the private companies money to put ppl on the surface).
5) Man on Mars by 2025.
6) learning on how to move asteroids around, and hopefully, prevent a large impact on earth. In addition, this technology will then allow private space to mine other asteroids.

And if we do this smart, we will then create a COTS-SHLV, in which we hold a contest for 2 launch systems to carry a minimum of 150 tonnes to LEO, for which we give 5B each to develop it. In addition, later one, we offer up 2 competitive contracts in which company will carry a minimum of 150 tonnes to LEO for no more than .5B / launch, and they will get 2 launches/ year for 3 years. Also, whoever has the lower amount will get 3 launches/ year. IOW, you can get 50% more launches by being a GOOD low bidder (i.e. has to be realistic). You will note that we will spend 2.5B/year on sending up equipment for 3 years.

You will note that the above spends just about the same as what the neo-cons want to spend on just building a rocket. BUT, if we do the above correctly, we will have NASA focus on just going to an asteroid, but also helping private space get BEO, and hopefully, NASA will be able to R&D new tech, such as nuke engines (we lead the world on this and our tech from the 60s is STILL ahead of what everybody else has).

With above approach, we convert NASA back into what it was before neo-cons turned them into a jobs program for themselves, get private space from being a cost center into a taxable item, and get ourselves BEO.

BUT, these god-for-saken neo-cons need to be stopped.

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[stenvar]

First off, this nightmare that is ongoing with NASA, is NOT NASA's fault, but the fault, of the God Damn neo-cons that are running the house.

No, its the fault of the god damn progressives, who waste all of our tax dollars on entitlements, crony capitalism, Keynesian stimuli, and interest payments, so that there is less and less left for infrastructure and science.

The majority of those shits are looking to keep NASA as a Job's bill. They do not care whether we go to the moon or not.

Whereas the progressives and Democrats have everybody's best interest at heart? Get real. Democrats are as corrupt as Republicans, if not more so.

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[dfenstrate]

BUT, these god-for-saken neo-cons need to be stopped.

It's not neocons telling NASA that their primary mission is to reach out to Muslims- instead of, say, completing projects related to Air & Space.

But then again, your tribe (that is to say, Leftists) needs to have folks out here on the internet screaming about 'Neocons' to distract from a president who is expanding on Bush-era policies most hated by the left. Your tribe needs to try to divert attention away from the endless stream of scandals that show the administration to be both malicious (the IRS) and incompetent & mendacious (Benghazi).

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[ganjadude]

the problem with your post is simple. its that you havent realized that the neocons have taken over the democratic party as well.

think of everything bush did that you dont like... now think of how obama handeled it.... not much different right? the big difference between the 2 is that bush cut taxes while obama raised them. in all other meterics, they have done everything almost exactly the same, or obama built upon the bad programs bush started making them worse.

but you(not personally but on your side) will continue to eat the farts out of obamas ass, while ignoring that he is doing damn near nothing different than bush.

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[ganjadude]

seriously, how much will it cost to hire the 50 THOUSAND IRS agents (you know, the IRS who targets people it doesnt like??) 50 THOUSAND IRS agents hired to enforce a fine on americans who dont buy a product. Do we really want to be spending more tax money on "jobs bills"??? Sure we will have 50K more people working but for what?? to attack other americans??? bullshit is what it is

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[WindBourne]

You do realize that we are talking about the spending on the SLS vs. private space, and not about your political views?
Please explain why we should support you neo-cons to blow 20B on the SLS, rather than 2B for 3 launch systems.

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[WindBourne]

First off, please show me where NASA's primary mission is outreach to Muslims.
And how much money has been spent on that program?

And so far, I have not seen any scandal, just a bunch of wild neo-con accusations that are no different than the birther and all of the rest of your accusations.

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[WindBourne]

Sigh.
It is neo-cons like yourself that are attached to W's zipper that are destroying America. We are busy having this discussion about the SLS and private space and politicians. I point out that the neo-cons that control the republican party are the ones pushing the SLS, and trying hard to kill off private space. OTOH, you would rather attack me personally, than acknowledge that those ppl are doing the damage.

Get your GD mouth off W's zipper. Then you will be able to see around you.

BTW, on a side note, I can tell you that there is a LOT of difference between O and W. I do not agree with either, BUT, as one that has worked on various TLA's projects, there is one hell of a difference.
And even now, looking at NASA and what both O/W did, again, a big difference.

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[antdude]

Go ahead and restart U.S. government. :P We need to get off this planet called Earf and start a new colony.

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[ganjadude]

sigh, go back to my posts while W was in office, you will see ive never had love for the man....

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[stenvar]

Does your reply have anything to do with what I wrote?

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[stenvar]

I responded to WindBourne's false claim that this is "the neo-cons" fault, so he dragged politics into this. If the federal government wasn't wasting so much money on entitlements and stimuli, NASA funding wouldn't even be an issue, and we could do a kick-ass space program with public funds, wasteful as that is.

And it isn't the "neo-cons" that turned NASA into a "jobs program" for themselves, both parties are misusing it for that, as both parties are doing with every program, and as is unavoidable if you give politicians a large chunk of tax dollars to do with as they please..

And I do think that private space exploration is the answer, but neither party is interested in that. Private space exploration means no handouts from Congress, but simply a repeal of excessive restrictions and regulations, and maybe some tax exemptions.

WindBourne isn't interested in private space exploration, he's interested in playing politics with NASA, just like the neo-cons.

Re:We need to wipe out CONgress and restart

[ganjadude]

I was simply jumping on the bandwagon agreeing with you

Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

the cancellation of the asteroid retrieval mission would leave an asteroid on a collision course with Congress.

you can count on logic being left out

[bussdriver]

The congress and especially the morons on the science committee don't do anything for sensible reasons.

Other than thinking the moon is the 1st step before mars, I can't see why so many are bent on a moon base - other than some OLD military nuts who think there is a strategic advantage to a moon base.

Doing something old IS a waste of money; it would be better to work on cheaper space access or advancing robots - especially since robots already completely outperform humans in space exploration and by the time a human can go to Mars the robots will have evolved by decades (just think of what they did 20 years ago vs today.)

Re: new capability

[__aaltlg1547]

Why isn't anyone tapping into Moore's Law for the moon?

Maybe because moon bases and rockets mostly aren't made of transistors.

Re:The House Science Committee

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the OP, but I'll play, although just for part one (evolution), and I'll take "lies from the pit of Hell" instead of "commie plot."

Here's Paul Broun (R-Georgia), of the House Committee on Science, speaking about Evolution and the Big Bang Theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Im5-M_9po

God's Word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang theory: all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a Savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I have found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth.

The Bigger Challenge...

[ArmchairGeneral]

...is no longer scientific, it's political. Money and resources are thrown away on useless endeavors such as NSA projects, Piracy, bailouts, etc while humans sit here on our apathetic asses and can only dream of our former dream of space exploration that was actually going somewhere at one time.

It's dead Jim

[Sperbels]

This is exactly why NASA will never again accomplish any significant long term projects ever again. Politics. Any project running longer than the initiating president's remaining time in office is going to be killed.

Re:It's dead Jim

[Sperbels]

Hi there NSA! How was your weekend?

Don't know about the NSA, but I'm pretty sure you just lit up the Secret Service's radar screen like a zeppelin though.

Re:It's dead Jim

[ganjadude]

are you recommending that obama be assassinated???? because..... well i wont say anything else, im sure the NSA already knows what I am thinking...

Re:It's dead Jim

[WindBourne]

I seriously doubt that NSA knows or even cares what you are thinking. The only way is if you are connected with terrorism.

Re:It's dead Jim

[ganjadude]

woooosh

what should NASA do?

[bzipitidoo]

I'd like to see this:

• James Webb telescope, plus telescopes at L4 and L5
• orbiters for Uranus and Neptune
• rovers on every big rock hospitable enough for them to last a few months. Maybe Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, and Mercury for starters.

Also, let's cancel the ISS. Not sure about Biosphere 2 style research. We will want to do that eventually, but right now I don't think we really know enough to know where to look. We also know about a lot of problems for which we don't have answers, such as cosmic rays. But if we could concoct a way to turn Mars regolith into soil, perhaps by introducing mixes of appropriate bacteria, then grow plants in that environment, that would be a step towards eventual colonization.

I'd love to see an interstellar probe launched, but that is far beyond our current technology. We just can't do it.

Re:what should NASA do?

[Chelloveck]

I'd love to see an interstellar probe launched, but that is far beyond our current technology. We just can't do it.

Technically, we already have. But yeah, unless we count on it coming back as V'Ger in a couple centuries, we're not going to get a lot of interstellar data back from it.

Re:what should NASA do?

[bzipitidoo]

You're right. I meant, a probe to another star of course. Be awesome to get a close look at the Alpha Centauri system. That's what is way beyond us at present. Should launch the probe at something like 10% of the speed of light, which we simply can't do. Even if we could, would have to wait about 70 years. Making a probe capable of functioning for 70 years is doable, but a stretch. Greater longevity, such as the 100s or 1000s of years needed for a slower probe, is not only technology we haven't purposely attempted, it's a big gamble that our descendents will be in a position to receive and use the data when the probe finally does arrive. If civilization should fall during the centuries that the probe is underway, no one may be listening when it finally has something to show us. And that's still far faster than our current capabilities. To reach the nearest star at the speed of Voyager 1 would take about 80,000 years.

People don't think about how incredibly young we still are. Civilization has existed for less than 10,000 years. What will society be like in another 10,000 years? I think we will evolve to work better in groups than we now do. We will be more subtle in working with nature. Many of us are very controlling in our attitudes towards nature and each other. Cattle must be fenced in, employees must be pushed and driven, soldiers must obey orders and not do any thinking, information must be owned. We do this in the face of many examples and studies showing that we would profit more if we empowered more and controlled less. In our workplaces, we beat the spirit out of people, then complain about lack of initiative. It doesn't make for a stable enough society to have good hopes of seeing a 10,000 year long project to completion.

Jag Off Republicans

[curmudgeon99]

If President Obama announced a desire to cure cancer, the Republicans would take the side of cancer. Jag offs.

Re:Jag Off Republicans

[ganjadude]

the fact that you think that, shows how big a jag off you truly are. You are so blinded by your side being "right" that you think the "otherside" is somehow trying to derail your side. eventhough yourside is doing a good enough job of that all on its own, with the NSA issue, the IRS issue, the DOJ issue the AP issue etc. etc.... but no, its the republicans who are the bad guys....

Re:Jag Off Republicans

[curmudgeon99]

Oh? So what possible benefit can we derive from going to the moon AGAIN? If you read the article, it's clear the only reason they want to go to the moon is for a jobs program. Having followed politics for years, I can clearly state that the Republicans care about nothing but getting their money. They are all about cashing in and this is yet another example. So, douche bag, I stand by my comments.

Re:Jag Off Republicans

[ganjadude]

having followed politics for many years I can clearly state that BOTH democrats AND republicans only care about 2 things. money and power. so douche bag, i stand by my comments.

Titan

[MichaelSmith]

Lets go to Titan. Build a habitat like Skylab. Fit it out with a bunch of fission reactors and a big array of ion drives. Plan for a ten year cruise and aerobrake the cruise stage into orbit around Saturn. Then send down manned landers derived from the Dragon capsule. The difficulty of a Titan mission is roughly the same as the difficulty of a Lunar mission in the 1960s. Nothing will get done unless a hard target is chosen.

Take to funding the NSA

[Stan92057]

Take to funding the NSA is using to illegally collecting, storeing data from spying on US citizens

Re:Ugh.

[ganjadude]

can we really send obama into space? can he bring biden reid peloci mccain with him??

Re:The House Science Committee

[craigtollting]

He got down-modded for going off on a tangent that was part of his own anti-Obama-birther-Tea-Party mania, not for the quote. What part of that quote has anything to do with anti-science evolution-denying assholes on the House Science Committee?

I mean, okay, it's a terrible thing that Obama wanted NASA to help in making Americans less repugnant to the Muslim world because.... wait, why is that a bad thing again?

Re:The House Science Committee

[ganjadude]

its bad because NASA is about science, it should have nothing to do with muslims, or christians, or jews, or buddists etc......

Re: new capability

[pgpalmer]

But being in space and having no atmosphere... perhaps vacuum tubes are involved somehow.

Re:The House Science Committee

[Kohath]

That's at least some actual information about one guy (out of 39), on one issue. I'd say he's entitled to hold his choice of religious beliefs. And his district can choose him or someone else to represent them.

Thanks for providing genuine information.

Cooperation

[Rangelus]

In my opinion, the solution is not opening up space to private profiteering. It is a coordinated effort by a multi-national space cooperation. Let different countries vie for funding on their design of launch vehicle, space suit and engines. That's fine. But IMHO we need to get real, an understand that space exploration and development benefits everyone, and so everyone should participate in making it happen.

Re:AC Troll

[WindBourne]

good point. Still it gets old with some of these posters.

the real reason for Congressional interference

[mbkennel]

NASA wisely cancelled the poorly performing Contstellation project and went to the new and lean private industry vendors, Space X and Orbital.

Constellation and the lunar program was expensive funding for deep red-state MSFC and conservative-friendly traditional military-aerospace contractors (Lockheed et al). Space X and Orbital are in California and Virginia, and are much smaller.

Consequently House Republicans hate the change.

We choose!

[CHIT2ME]

We choose to go to an asteroid. Not because it's easy, but, because it's hard! Also, it could be very lucrative in the future!!!

Stealing from unmanned missions to fuel PORK

[Squidlips]

This has everything to do with the political pressure that Houston exerts to fuel their pork-express Space Launch System (SLS), the rocket to nowhere. It is being built (to enrich the Houston contractors) with no mission objective. The moon is the mission they need to keep spending. Meanwhile they keep stealing from the highly successful unmanned missions...Carl Sagan created the Planetary Society to stop such funds poaching, but Houston is at it again...