how ESAS is strangling lunar exploration already ..

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

no_way

Guest
Let me be clear, i have nothing agains VSE, i have nothing against NASA exploring or anything like that. But i do think that ESAS ( as in, implementation of VSE ) is the most braindead and wrong way to go about it.<br /><br />Proof:<br /><b>NASA Urges Closing Lunar Robotics Office (Source: Aviation Week)</b><br /><i>Among the actions NASA recommends in its FY-07 operating plan is shutting down the Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program Office at Marshall Space Flight Center, where a whole generation of unmanned orbiters, rovers, hoppers and penetrators was under consideration as scouts for a human landing on the moon. Management of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), a piggyback pair of impactors to be carried on the 2008 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), will be pulled into NASA headquarters, but the rest will be dropped in keeping with the agency's decision to focus on replacing the space shuttle with the Orion/Ares I stack.</i><br /><br />Space.Com article on the same topic:<br />http://www.space.com/news/060316_nasa_moonlander.html<br /><br />So, NASA wanting to build and operate their own launchers is basically killing the actual exploration itself already. <br />Regardless of what VSE outlined ( we will send a robotic mission to moon each year, beginning in 2008 .. )
 
N

no_way

Guest
More on this over at NASAWatch<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One look at comments made by Mike Griffin and Scott Horowitz (see below) is clear evidence of their lack of interest in any precursor lunar robotic missions. Indeed, they feel that all NASA needs for human missions is a "map" (of the moon).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /> And on space.com forums .. no reaction. Space EXPLORATION fans, huh ?
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
There is some logic in seriously reducing the number of robotic precursor missions...assuming these missions aren't necessary.<br /><br />I can see the necessity for a survey type mission to characterize potential landing sites, but LRO should handle that.<br /><br />In a time when money is tight, some difficult decisions must be made. Every time I read a post where a poster is crying (not saying this is you, no_way) about some program cut I have to wonder if they understand the budget process. NASA must use what they get from Congress.<br /><br />Not saying that it isn't OK to criticize their decisions. Just saying that I can see where Drs. Griifin and Horowitz are coming from on this one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
cutting of the precursor program basically means, that there will be NO lunar exploration (by NASA) happening between LRO and the next manned NASA moon landing.<br /><br />As the date for this keeps pushed back we are basically looking at a decade-long gap in actual _exploration_. <br />Vision for Space What ?<br /><br />There are couple things that robotic precursors could do, that could have very high potential payoff, not just for NASA plans but for others, intending to to something on moon. <br />For example, getting the ground truth on the hyphotesis of ice on poles, ISRU tech shakeouts and so on.<br /><br />Pushing these out at least a decade, is just disastrous IMHO, and leaves the whole implementation of VSE relatively pointless.
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"cutting of the precursor program basically means, that there will be NO lunar exploration (by NASA) happening between LRO and the next manned NASA moon landing."</font><br /><br />That's a fair point, no_way, but from what I read in the SDC article, it seems like NASA feels that the instruments on LRO, particularly the LCROSS, will provide them with the information they need to characterize the resources at the Moon's South Pole and prepare for human landings. I also got the impression that the expiration of the APL contract was expected and planned for all along. Furthermore, the article suggests that this move doesn't close the door on future decisions concerning Lunar exploration using robotic craft.<br /><br />I agree that it would be useful to do some robotic ISRU and technology demonstration missions, but the bottom line is that NASA just doesn't have an unlimited supply of funds. Complaining about how NASA allocates its meager resources is "relatively pointless."<br /><br />Frankly, with all due respect, I hardly find this "disastrous." Just disappointing.<br /><br />Besides, private enterprise will be welcoming NASA back to the Moon <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
I don't see this as being a hard decision or particular disapointing, but almost inevitable and quite justifiable. Over the next 10 years there is going to be a plethora of lunar data from multiple orbiter missions. These will be followed by manned landings which will do more than any robotic mission could ever do.<br /><br />We know already how to land on the Moon and the engineering surface properties. We don't need unmanned landers to tell us this. ISRU is not essential for initial missions and will require a range of specific data that the manned missions will acquire before we given know if it is feasible.<br /><br />Given the typically 10 year lead time for a mission that means that any robotioc surface mission would only happen a couple of years before the manned ones anyway. Unless there is a very specific site scale issue that is needed before human missions (unexpected solar surface properties indicated by the orbiter missions) or must be carried out independently of them (long range ground reconnaissance perhaps) it would be better to circumvent the surface robotic step for the presence.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">I don't see this as being a hard decision or particular disapointing, but almost inevitable and quite justifiable. Over the next 10 years there is going to be a plethora of lunar data from multiple orbiter missions.</font>/i><br /><br />Although, getting ground truth is almost always a good thing (e.g., the MERs and MRO combination). I am sure that, budget willing, NASA would love to put some unmanned probes and landers on the ground. While ESAS can put humans anywhere on the Moon, NASA appears to be planning on launching all their missions to the pole to establish an outpost.<br /><br />However, in tight budgetary times (e.g., NASA's exploration program got cut $500-600 million from this year's budget alone), something has to go. unmanned probes/landers (especially since humans would be there fairly soon) are the most expendable items. I also think unmanned probes/landers could be ramped up fairly quickly again if sufficient money becomes available. It could even be part of an X-prize.</i>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Don't to forget that some of those missions will have US instruments on them.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Ground truth is great - but we already have ground truth from 5 Surveyor, 2 small Luna, 2 Lunokhod, 3 Luna sample return and 6 Apollo sites. Eighteen sites in all - would that we had such data from Mars! Sites of special interest identified by LRO and other missions could be visited once the Orion mission if justified. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
oh, what a bunch of excuses.<br /><br />like i said, there are a few things that impact our future plans for moon in a big way<br /><br />1) is there water ice ? <br />2) does oxygen extraction from rocks, i.e. lunar ISRU work ? <br /><br />These two questions affect the future plans and possibilities in the biggest way, and LRO and all the orbiters are not going to answer them.<br /><br />VSE outlined a intensive robotic program to moon, now they dont even want to send a lander. By NASA's plans, its going to be at least a decade before they actually get something down on that ball of dirt.<br /><br />ESAS is turning Vision for Space Exploration into Vision for Aerospace Jobs Preservation.
 
D

docm

Guest
Does anyone else get the feeling that VSE will really be implemented by the private space companies, at least as far as the (extremely shortsighted) US is concerned? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
No. They private companies will be doing well if they have their own space station and servicing flights by the time VSE returns to the Moon. The one exception might be luna swing bys by space tourists in a modified Soyuz.<br /><br />Jon <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Where did VSE outline a detailed robotic exploration program.? LRO was the only one formally committed to. Others missions were possibilities, that';s all.<br /><br />Neither of the questions you list can be easily addressed by unmanned mission. if you have a series of manned missions there is no point have unmanned ones I can see.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"ESAS is turning Vision for Space Exploration into Vision for Aerospace Jobs Preservation."</font><br /><br />I guess the <b><i>reasonable</i></b> arguments fail to impress you <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /><br />Hyperbole is so much more exciting. Ask Jeffrey Bell how that works.<br /><br />OTOH, it woudn't hurt NASA to pare down its workforce...keep the engineers and technicians and get rid of the surplus managers and bureaucrats. <br /><br />I know. It's guvmint. It can't be done. <Sigh /> Now, <b><i>there's</i></b> an excuse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Neither of the questions you list can be easily addressed by unmanned mission.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />A lot of people actually designing missions and machinery for that, seem to think that they can. <br />See, for example<br />http://www.isruinfo.com/<br />http://www.isruinfo.com/index.php?page=srr_8<br />Look at the credentials of the people actually involved in these efforts.<br />And the Eighth Continent Project was started by these same research teams for the very reason that they arent being supported by NASA.<br /><br />
 
N

no_way

Guest
Just FYI, there is a thorough and well-reasoned thread on this over at SpacePolitics:<br />http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/03/16/dissecting-orion-delays/#comments<br />I tend to align with what our mr. "anonymous" is saying there:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just to be clear, my use of the phrase “actual exploration” refers to the difference between ESMD’s LEO projects (Ares 1/Orion ISS variants) and ESMD’s lunar projects (Ares V, LSAM, Orion lunar variants, LREP, and some technology). Of course, ESAS and Griffin’s poor selections on the former are sucking up all the resources, time, and political opportunity for the latter — even to the point of cancelling a relatively modest, multi-hundred million dollar line of robotic missions, which is a sign of very poor planning and management in an agency with a budget measured in the tens of billions.<br /><br />The phrase has nothing to do with robotics versus humans. That’s what you’re reading into it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>
 
C

cuddlyrocket

Guest
You have to remember that the word 'Exploration' in Vision for Space Exploration really means exploration by human beings, not by robotic instruments.<br /><br />Missions simply to characterise the properties of the Moon (or anywhere else) are scientific missions, unless they have some direct purpose in support of manned missions. The missions that were originally mooted, and now cancelled, were only to happen in order to directly support the return of US astronauts to the Moon. A recent review has obviously concluded none of them other than the LRO are necessary for that purpose.<br /><br />What I suspect happened is that when the VSE was orignally announced and it was said that there'd be robotic precursor missions, every man and his dog who had a pet project etc tried their damnedest to suggest it was 'necessary' for manned return. When budget pressures meant these were eventually considered from a <i>strict</i> 'necessity' point of view, they all got cancelled.
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> You have to remember that the word 'Exploration' in Vision for Space Exploration really means exploration by human beings, not by robotic instruments. </i><br /><br />If NASA was willing to develop the architecture around 10-30t payloads they could be building the cislunar and lander hardware now. A proper platform would allow for both piloted and robotic landings and ISRU as an earliest possible demonstrator. Refuelling in orbit and planning for high flight frequency would help drive the whole emerging market. The EDS stage is projected to mass just over 19 tonnes, well within the range of current ELVs, if we use orbital refuelling. The architecture already includes onorbit assembly (docking), why not go a step further, do it so that the initial effort provides a synergistic effect later? <br /><br />They are reinventing the wheel instead of taking a road trip. (not to gloss over the necessary parts of VSE implementation)<br /><br /><i>> What I suspect happened is that when the VSE was orignally announced and it was said that there'd be robotic precursor missions, every man and his dog who had a pet project etc tried their damnedest to suggest it was 'necessary' for manned return.</i><br /><br />This is what sunk the Space Exploration Initiative in the early 90s. Everything including the kitchen sink was proposed at once, so it went nowhere. I think the ESAS as response to VSE is going to turn out like the Shuttle: extremely expensive to operate, way over-budget and late, and compromised do to political reality. <br /><br />I think Dr. Griffin is aware of the situation, even to the extent of playing "biz as usual" for a couple of years. He may be biding his time for more of the Shuttle workers to reach retirement age before announcing a different launch strategy and faster route to the moon. He'll promise and deliver a 2012 Dragon lunar flyby and a 2015 landing using in-space assembly and fuelling to fast-track it. In 2008 or early 09 he will announce an extended <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>word 'Exploration' in Vision for Space Exploration really means exploration by human beings<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Where did you pull that from ? Dont send a human to do the job of a robot, and the other way around. Robots are good for certain purposes, humans for others.<br />Doing an ISRU pilot plan is _certainly_ a job for a robot. Testing colar cell production on lunar surface is _certainly_ a job for a robot. <br />RLEP2 mission was designed to go to lunar south pole craters and dig for ice, and assess the lighting conditions there.<br />Both could have been a very high payoff tasks, and doable by a robot. So humans can go later and make use of its findings.<br /><br /><br />EDIT: See the LEAG reports on RLEP2 for thorough analysis of its purposes and payoffs:<br />http://www.lpi.usra.edu/leag/reports.html
 
J

j05h

Guest
NASAWatch is reporting that Red Planet Capital is cancelled for FY08, and NIAC (NASA institute for advanced concepts) is also going the way of the dodo. Cuts all around.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Red Planet Capital is a venture capital exercise. I don't see much point in NASA being involved in something that is a private industry task. So I applaud NASA pulling out.<br /><br />NIAC is a virtual institute of university researchers. Loss of funding here is a bit more disapointing but the universities will still develop advanced concepts regardless of whether the institute it continues in its present form. Space exploration and R&D will still continue in other forms and other places.<br /><br />Besides, all this is based on a rumour at NASAWatch, hardly an unbiased source of information.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
D

dreada5

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>like i said, there are a few things that impact our future plans for moon in a big way <br /><br />1) is there water ice ? <br />2) does oxygen extraction from rocks, i.e. lunar ISRU work ? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I too think ISRU is important. See here<br /><br />But NASA has to go back to the moon anyways to learn how to live on other worlds, whether water ice exists or not! If ISRU works great, if it doesn't (then we won't be staying their long). ISRU may work on NEOs or on mars (or its moons) in which case, if it is feasible, our moonbase may end up being supplied by these sources.<br /><br />We don't need to send expensive robots to the moon now to experiment with ISRU. LRO and other international orbiters may possibly provide all the data we need from now until the fly-bys/landing circa 2015/20.<br /><br />I would much rather see Griffen use that tight budget wisely to ensure the US gets the Ares family of launchers on-line to schedule ... otherwise the US may find itself suddenly without the bare essentials of national space program!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts