This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nrc-human-spaceflight-report-says-nasa-strategy-cant-get-humans-to-mars/2014/06/04/e6e6060c-ebd6-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
NRC human spaceflight report says NASA strategy can’t get humans to Mars NRC human spaceflight report says NASA strategy can’t get humans to Mars
(about 2 hours later)
A sweeping review of NASA’s human spaceflight program has concluded that the agency has an unsustainable and unsafe strategy that will prevent the U.S. from achieving a human landing on Mars in the foreseeable future.A sweeping review of NASA’s human spaceflight program has concluded that the agency has an unsustainable and unsafe strategy that will prevent the U.S. from achieving a human landing on Mars in the foreseeable future.
The 286-page National Research Council report, the culmination of an 18-month investigation mandated by Congress, says that to continue on the present course under budgets that don’t even keep pace with inflation “is to invite failure, disillusionment, and the loss of the longstanding international perception that human spaceflight is something the United States does best.” The 286-page National Research Council report, the culmination of an 18-month, $3.2 million investigation mandated by Congress, says that to continue on the present course under budgets that don’t keep pace with inflation “is to invite failure, disillusionment, and the loss of the longstanding international perception that human spaceflight is something the United States does best.”
The report makes a case for sending astronauts back to the moon. That’s an idea that has been vocally opposed by President Obama. Obama killed the Constellation program, which had been backed by President Bush and would have included a return to the moon. The report makes a case for sending astronauts back to the moon. That had been a key element of NASA’s strategy under President George W. Bush. But President Obama and his advisers explicitly opposed another moon landing (“I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before,” Obama said in a speech on space policy in 2010).
The key argument against the Constellation program was that it didn’t pencil out — that there wasn’t nearly enough money dedicated to the program to achieve the lunar landing it envisioned. But now the NRC committee has delivered essentially the same assessment of the Obama Administration’s current NASA program of record. If the goal is Mars, the committee said, the current strategy isn’t going to work. A major argument against a return to the moon was that it didn’t pencil out — that there wasn’t nearly enough money dedicated to the program. Now the NRC’s Committee on Human Spaceflight has come to the same conclusion about the Obama Administration’s vision for NASA. If the goal is a human landing on Mars, the current strategy isn’t going to work.
“Absent a very fundamental change in the nation’s way of doing business, it is not realistic to believe that we can achieve the consensus goal of reaching Mars,” committee co-chair and former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said Wednesday morning in an interview.“Absent a very fundamental change in the nation’s way of doing business, it is not realistic to believe that we can achieve the consensus goal of reaching Mars,” committee co-chair and former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels said Wednesday morning in an interview.
NASA spokesperson David Weaver said the agency welcomed the report, and characterized it as being “consistent with the bipartisan plan agreed to by Congress and the Administration in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and that we have been implementing ever since.” A 2009 committee appointed by Obama urged NASA to keep its options open while investing in spaceflight technology and letting the commercial sector handle routine trips to low Earth orbit. But the NRC reviewers argue that NASA and its international partners should focus on the “horizon goal” of Mars and do whatever it takes to get there, step by step, avoiding changes in strategic direction.
Weaver added, “NASA has made significant progress on many key elements that will be needed to reach Mars, and we continue on this path in collaboration with industry and other nations.” NASA officials are aware that critics see the agency as adrift. In recent months, NASA has been emphasizing that the human spaceflight program is targeting Mars, just as the NRC report now demands. “All this work will eventually enable astronaut missions to Mars,” NASA administrator Charles Bolden said in a recent NASA white paper.
The NRC’s Committee on Human Spaceflight also probed the philosophical question of why we send humans into space to begin with. That question incited the formation of the $3.2 million review effort, which was funded by NASA. NASA spokesperson David Weaver said Wednesday that the agency welcomed the NRC report, and said, “NASA has made significant progress on many key elements that will be needed to reach Mars, and we continue on this path in collaboration with industry and other nations.”
The committee concluded that the purely practical, economic benefits of human spaceflight do not justify the costs involved, but said that the aspirational nature of the endeavor may make it worth the effort. The NRC committee probed the philosophical question of why we send humans into space to begin with. The committee concluded that the purely practical, economic benefits of human spaceflight do not justify the costs involved, but said that the aspirational nature of the endeavor may make it worth the effort.
The committee unsurprisingly identified Mars as the “horizon goal” of the agency. The report said the U.S. should pursue international collaborations that would include China — currently treated as a space rival and not as a potential partner. NASA officials are not permitted to speak to their Chinese counterparts, a policy the committee criticized. The report said the U.S. should pursue international collaborations that would include China — currently treated as a space rival and not as a potential partner.
The report sees three potential pathways to get to Mars, two of which involve a return to the moon. A lunar landing and habitat would help develop technologies that could later be used on a Mars mission, the report said.The report sees three potential pathways to get to Mars, two of which involve a return to the moon. A lunar landing and habitat would help develop technologies that could later be used on a Mars mission, the report said.
“This committee found a number of compelling reasons to include the moon as a stepping stone on the way to Mars,” co-chair Jonathan Lunine, a planetary scientist at Cornell, said in an interview. “From the point of view of a destination — scientific, technical, and also in terms of our international partners – it is attractive.” The third pathway, which doesn’t involve a return to the moon, is essentially the one that the Obama Administration has chosen, which includes the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM).
The third pathway, which doesn’t involve a return to the moon, is essentially the one that the Obama Administration has chosen, which includes, as a major step, the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). The NRC report is not bullish on the idea. The plan, still being studied, would use a robotic spacecraft to grab a room-sized rock that is orbiting the sun and passing close to the Earth. The spacecraft would tug the asteroid to a new orbit around the moon. Astronauts would then visit the rock and take samples. The mission architecture would take advantage of big-ticket NASA projects already underway; most notably, it would provide a destination for the Orion capsule being developed by NASA in tandem with a heavy-lift rocket called the Space Launch System (SLS).
NASA wants to grab a small rock passing close to the Earth in its natural orbit, and then redirect it to a new orbit around the moon. Astronauts would visit the rock and take samples, a mission that could double as an early shakedown cruise for the Orion capsule being developed by NASA in tandem with a heavy-lift rocket called the Space Launch System (SLS).
The asteroid mission has been politically controversial — Republicans in Congress tried but failed last year to forbid NASA to do it — and it has technical challenges, not least of which is the difficulty in identifying an asteroid that could be plausibly captured by a robotic spacecraft.The asteroid mission has been politically controversial — Republicans in Congress tried but failed last year to forbid NASA to do it — and it has technical challenges, not least of which is the difficulty in identifying an asteroid that could be plausibly captured by a robotic spacecraft.
The NRC report says that mission involves the creation of a large number of “dead end” technologies that don’t get the U.S. closer to a Mars landing. The NRC report is not bullish on the idea. The report says the mission involves the creation of a large number of “dead end” technologies that don’t get the U.S. closer to a Mars landing.
There is also a safety issue in play. The current plan calls for long gaps between launches of the SLS — four years in some cases. There is also a safety issue in play. The current plan shows very few launches of the SLS, with gaps in between launches stretching up to four years. That’s not safe, in the estimation of the NRC committee, because the launch teams could become rusty with such long lags between missions.
“The current program to develop launch vehicles and spacecraft for flight beyond LEO [low earth orbit] cannot be sustained with constant buying power over time, in that it cannot provide the flight frequency required to maintain competence and safety, does not possess the ‘stepping-stone’ architecture that allows the public to see the connection between the horizon goal and near-term accomplishments, and may discourage potential international partners,” the report states. The program “cannot provide the flight frequency required to maintain competence and safety,” the report states.
The committee did not delve deeply into what the private sector, operating commercially, might accomplish independently of the government. There are many space buffs, including SpaceX founder Elon Musk, who have said they want to land on Mars. But committee member John Sommerer said Wednesday that it is unrealistic to expect a commercial company to spend the money and take on the risk necessary to achieve human exploration on the Martian surface.
“You need to develop a very substantial armamentarium of really high tech stuff to get humans on Mars,” He said. “Mars is very hard.”
John Logsdon, professor emeritus of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute, said the report had a familiar ring to it.John Logsdon, professor emeritus of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute, said the report had a familiar ring to it.
“They go through all this negative analysis and still conclude we ought to go to Mars. No one ever says ‘let’s lower our ambitions’. It’s always ‘increase the budget,’ not ‘lower ambitions’,” he said.“They go through all this negative analysis and still conclude we ought to go to Mars. No one ever says ‘let’s lower our ambitions’. It’s always ‘increase the budget,’ not ‘lower ambitions’,” he said.
As for going to Mars: “It’s a dream. It’s been a dream forever. And will remain a dream unless something changes.”As for going to Mars: “It’s a dream. It’s been a dream forever. And will remain a dream unless something changes.”
More from The Washington Post:More from The Washington Post:
Kepler telescope finds a ‘Mega-EarthKepler telescope finds a ‘Mega-Earth
NASA explores a possible mission to MarsNASA explores a possible mission to Mars
Gallery: When NASA and space travel were youngGallery: When NASA and space travel were young
This is SpaceX’s new Dragon V2 spacecraft. And it is gorgeous.This is SpaceX’s new Dragon V2 spacecraft. And it is gorgeous.
Why do American spy satellites rely on Russian rocket engines?Why do American spy satellites rely on Russian rocket engines?
Does the future of space travel lie with NASA or space entrepreneurs?Does the future of space travel lie with NASA or space entrepreneurs?
Billionaire plans manned mission to Mars with possible 2017 launchBillionaire plans manned mission to Mars with possible 2017 launch
Big Bang backlash: Gravity waves discovery greeted with questionsBig Bang backlash: Gravity waves discovery greeted with questions
Should we send a Torah and other artifacts to the moon for safe keeping?Should we send a Torah and other artifacts to the moon for safe keeping?