Will NASA return to the moon first?

[Yuri_Armstrong]

The way it looks now I'd have to say no. NASA's budget is long and incomprehensible, and Constellation looks like it is going to be cancelled. That may end up being a good thing, but the other major space programs are all planning on returning to the moon, India and Japan plan to go in 2020 and start building a base. The ESA wants to go in 2024 with Aurora and China and Russia are each planning their moon landings. I fear that NASA will be left behind by the competition in returning to the moon.

What are your thoughts? Will NASA get to the moon before the other space programs? Or should we not even focus on the moon and head straight to Mars?

 

[SteveCNC]

Unless something changes (still very possible) NASA won't be the next one to put a person on the moon it will be Japan . Although I know how the US is and when the next president comes into office (less than 3 years I hope) things may change drastically at which point I would bet a go ahead would be given to Bigelow to produce a set of base modules for use on the moon .

 

[menellom]

None of the above. Private companies will be the first to return to the Moon. NASA meanwhile will be going farther.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

None of the above. Private companies will be the first to return to the Moon. NASA meanwhile will be going farther.

Which private companies are planning a moon base before 2020?

 

[DarkenedOne]

None of the above. Private companies will be the first to return to the Moon. NASA meanwhile will be going farther.

Which private companies are planning a moon base before 2020?

Oh comon!

No one is going to do a manned mission to the Moon any time soon. If NASA does not have the money to do it your can sure as hell bet that these space agencies with a quarter of the funding do not have it. At the same time most of the other countries have little interest in manned spaceflight. They also do not nearly have the experience and expertise to do it.

The only real possibility is China if they really decide to go after it, however I doubt it.

 

[raptorborealis]

None of the above. Private companies will be the first to return to the Moon. NASA meanwhile will be going farther.

Which private companies are planning a moon base before 2020?

Oh comon!

No one is going to do a manned mission to the Moon any time soon. If NASA does not have the money to do it your can sure as hell bet that these space agencies with a quarter of the funding do not have it. At the same time most of the other countries have little interest in manned spaceflight. They also do not nearly have the experience and expertise to do it.

The only real possibility is China if they really decide to go after it, however I doubt it.

Agreed. China might do it by 2030 or so 'if' it's a goal. But, that's only 20 years away...the infrastructure only exists in the USA to get a man on the Moon by 2020...but...won't happen.

As for 'companies'...No. Too many 'tens of billions' of dollars for a big YAWNER for most of the world. Those amounts of private dollars in science investment will be in medical technology, energy technology, communications. Puting a man on the Moon is way, way down the glory list...and way, way down the profit list.

'Maybe' 2035 or so if someone comes up with a compelling reason.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

None of the above. Private companies will be the first to return to the Moon. NASA meanwhile will be going farther.

Which private companies are planning a moon base before 2020?

Oh comon!

No one is going to do a manned mission to the Moon any time soon. If NASA does not have the money to do it your can sure as hell bet that these space agencies with a quarter of the funding do not have it. At the same time most of the other countries have little interest in manned spaceflight. They also do not nearly have the experience and expertise to do it.

The only real possibility is China if they really decide to go after it, however I doubt it.

All the agencies listed have moon plans in the 2020-2030 time range. What makes you say that they will not get the funding and support for these missions that have already been planned? Do you know the workings of their governments and space agencies? China actually sticks to their plans and I wouldn't be surprised if they stayed on their timeline to return to the moon.

 

[SteveCNC]

I still think Japan is in the running , they have the best machines for production (I use japanese machines at work) , cheap labor and no beurocratic nonsense . Look how cheaply they did the last set of missions , venus climate orbiter and the sail , huge accomplishments . They are far more like private business than a government the way they are run so it's no wonder they can do more with less than us .

 

[DarkenedOne]

Oh comon!

No one is going to do a manned mission to the Moon any time soon. If NASA does not have the money to do it your can sure as hell bet that these space agencies with a quarter of the funding do not have it. At the same time most of the other countries have little interest in manned spaceflight. They also do not nearly have the experience and expertise to do it.

The only real possibility is China if they really decide to go after it, however I doubt it.

All the agencies listed have moon plans in the 2020-2030 time range. What makes you say that they will not get the funding and support for these missions that have already been planned? Do you know the workings of their governments and space agencies? China actually sticks to their plans and I wouldn't be surprised if they stayed on their timeline to return to the moon.

I do not understand why so many people attach so much meaning to these empty promises. "A man on the moon by 2020." "A man on Mars by 2030." Hell you could say "A manned mission to Alpha Centauri." They are only words. Words are cheap.

What really matters is technology and infrastructure. Those are the things that cost billions of dollars and many years to establish. Once you have that actually deciding to go is the easy part.

When I start to see China building Saturn V class rockets than I

Honestly I just do not get it. When Obama proposes investing in advanced technology to make manned spaceflight better and cheaper, and everybody goes up against him because a lack of fixed dates for targets.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

We were building the infrastructure and technology before Obama cancelled Constellation. A mediocre program that gets the job done is better than a good program that doesn't get anywhere. I don't know enough about the other space agencies and their infrastructure, but they wouldn't announce such lofty goals if they weren't planning to develop what's necessary to achieve it.

 

[SteveCNC]

I see your point Yuri and would agree but only because due to beurocratic nonsense that's the only way anything ever seems to get done with NASA . With NASA over the years I have heard many things and the only thing that has been constant about it all is direction always seems to change when there's a change in political power and I am guessing this november there will be a "disturbance in the force" and potentially a even bigger one two years later . So IMO the future is so up in the air it's not funny and nothing can be counted on to continue as is .

 

[neutrino78x]

Unless something changes (still very possible) NASA won't be the next one to put a person on the moon it will be Japan . Although I know how the US is and when the next president comes into office (less than 3 years I hope) things may change drastically at which point I would bet a go ahead would be given to Bigelow to produce a set of base modules for use on the moon .

Bigelow is eventually going to have a hotel on the Moon with or without US Federal Government funding.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

NASA, perhaps not, but Americans, yes, Americans will return to the Moon first.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

things may change drastically at which point I would bet a go ahead would be given to Bigelow to produce a set of base modules for use on the moon .

Plus, the current Administration is far more friendly to Commercial Space than was the last one. So this is far more likely to happen under Obama, and if doesn't, it will happen as a result of Obama's policy of supporting commercial space.

--Brian

 

[DarkenedOne]

We were building the infrastructure and technology before Obama cancelled Constellation. A mediocre program that gets the job done is better than a good program that doesn't get anywhere. I don't know enough about the other space agencies and their infrastructure, but they wouldn't announce such lofty goals if they weren't planning to develop what's necessary to achieve it.

No we were not. Constellation was destined to accomplish nothing. I knew it was going to be too expensive to execute when it was first announced years ago. I knew because I realized it was merely Apollo on steroids as the Mike called it. It was modeled after a program that was unsustainable and thus it was unsustainable. No new technology. Same old methods.

What Obama has proposed is to invest in critical technologies and methods that will improve human spaceflight and make it more affordable. These technologies include VASIMR, closed-loop life support, ISRU, fuel depots. He also proposes using commercial crew in order to deliver human LEO capacity at a far cheaper cost than Ares I.

I'm sorry, but human spaceflight is dying. It is dying not because humans have nothing to contribute in space nor because people are not interested in going. All of the critics of human spaceflight cite one thing, cost. It is dying because it is astronomically expensive. That is why Apollo was ended. That is why Constellation was cancelled. That is why we do not have bases on the moon and Mars right now.

We can change that reality through innovation and technological advancement. We need to start innovating around these problems of cost. Figure out how to do things better and cheaper. There are tones of ideas and many areas we can improve in. We have done it before with so many other industries and technologies we can do it in space.

I have no doubt that we can do it if we invest the time and money to develop these methods and technologies. The only thing that stands in our way are all these impatient people who somehow think Constellation is workable, and want to cancel all of NASA's efforts into advanced technology in order to fund rockets that no longer serve any purpose.

 

[rcsplinters]

That's just wrong to me on several levels. First, all this innovation, where's it supposed to come from? There is one successful commercial enterprise to date for HSF. Russia. Now look at Soyuz. Point to the innovation? It has not changed substantially in years. There's a reason for that. Change is expensive and not profitable for this market. Soyuz is stuck in LEO and the Russians have zero ambition to change that. Musk himself has publicly stated that his designs in LEO and not beyond though he has some pipe dreamers in his company. There is no avenue to innovation in commercial HSF. They'll build what NASA agrees to buy in such a manner as to maximize profit, no more, no less. No market, no business and there is no market beyond LEO. So - we ride NASA for BEO missions or we don't go.

Second, the physics and logistics of BEO missions isn't about to change. That is going to be a massively expensive and dangerous proposition. Accept that or campaign against it. Its pointless to pretend otherwise. There will be no moon, Mars, asteroid or Lagrange point mission on the cheap.

Third, the thing that killed ARES was lack of commitment. Comparing ARES to Falcon/Dragon or Soyuz is simply not logical. They were never designed to do the same thing and the ARES family is far more capable for its mission. The administration changed and the program changed. This admistration will likely have the dubious honor of having its own proposal rejected by its own party. Depending on the next administration, commercial could fall out of favor in 2012 due to lack of commitment. This is why we don't make progress. We will either commit billions over decades to HSF BEO or we might as well raise the while flag and become a nation of quitters. I say spend the money and lay off the pipe dreams. The irony is that we are quite likely to end up with HLV that will be very ARES V like and a variant that will push Orion into orbit while looking back and realizing we wasted 18 months in development. This national debate and waivering commitment will not be our finest hour.

 

[neutrino78x]

That's just wrong to me on several levels. First, all this innovation, where's it supposed to come from?

Private enterprise, motivated by fun and profit.

There is one successful commercial enterprise to date for HSF. Russia. Now look at Soyuz. Point to the innovation? It has not changed substantially in years. There's a reason for that. Change is expensive and not profitable for this market. Soyuz is stuck in LEO and the Russians have zero ambition to change that.

Soyuz is not a commercial enterprise system. It is a government program. When we speak of Commercial Space, we mean that all the government is doing is regulating and providing stimulus funds, and the Vision and Innovation are coming from Private Enterprise. We mean that there are multiple small companies competing in the market. We mean that most ships in space will be privately owned and operated, with NASA/USAF/USN ships being the minority. We mean people going into space every day, on reliable SSTO space planes, and cargo being flung into space with railguns, maglev catapults, maglev assisted rockets, etc.

Change is very profitable for this market. Given a profitable destination, the market will force innovations, over time, to make getting there more efficient. North America was a profitable destination, so you had sail driven ships, then steam powered ships, then diesel powered ships, and now airplanes to travel there from Europe. At first, the profitable destination will be tourism in LEO, such as space hotels. Eventually it will be going to asteroids to mine them, as well as going to Mars to live there, and beyond.

Musk himself has publicly stated that his designs in LEO and not beyond though he has some pipe dreamers in his company.

He said he wants to retire on Mars, and Bob Bigelow is the other provider of Vision in New Space. Bigelow intends to put a hotel in orbit.

There is no avenue to innovation in commercial HSF. They'll build what NASA agrees to buy in such a manner as to maximize profit, no more, no less.

Right, that's why the government needs to stimulate the market initially, just as they did for the aerospace industry with the Air Mail program.

So - we ride NASA for BEO missions or we don't go.

I would argue that if the mission BEO is science only, then humans should not go. Humans should only go if (1) the mission is to prepare an area for future civilian colonists, or (2) there is a national security reason to send humans. The reason we sent humans to the Moon in the 60s was (2).

Any BEO program for HSF, on the part of NASA/the government, should be designed to fit on commercial rockets, which regularly go into space to launch satellites etc. That means modules, orbital assembly, etc. That's Obama's Plan, and it is the right one, in my opinion.

Third, the thing that killed ARES was lack of commitment.

The Constellation program was intended for science only, that was the problem. We did not go to the Moon in the 60s for the science. If you want to set up a profit motive for people to go to Mars, such as the ability to buy land, and you are sending humans on a Lewis and Clark mission, designed for civilian colonists to follow, then yes, send NASA humans. Otherwise, for science, all robots.

Depending on the next administration, commercial could fall out of favor in 2012 due to lack of commitment.

lol Commercial Space does not need national commitment. Union Pacific is still around, 100 years after the federal gift of land has been used up. Commercial Space is how you have a sustained human presence in space that is not affected by the political party in power in the Federal Government. Obama's Commercial SF policy will accelerate the exploitation of space, and it will change the course of history for the better. He will be remembered as the man who put HSF back on track.

This national debate and waivering commitment will not be our finest hour.

lol, yeah okay. I guess my question is, to what purpose do you expect The Nation to commit? Science? That can be done with probes. This is 2010. Something has been invented, since we went to the Moon in 1969, that made it a lot easier to use robots: the microprocessor. The solar powered rovers are doing just fine exploring Mars, at a fraction of the cost required to send humans.

Colonization? That would be done by private actors. Fun and Profit? Again, private actors.

National defense? Now you're talking, but we don't have a need for humans in space for that purpose yet. We did briefly, in the Cold War, but that's over. Hopefully it will be a while before it becomes necessary, although eventually, yes, there will be spaceships built in orbit that say "US NAVY" on them. Just not yet.

--Brian

 

[DarkenedOne]

That's just wrong to me on several levels. First, all this innovation, where's it supposed to come from? There is one successful commercial enterprise to date for HSF. Russia. Now look at Soyuz. Point to the innovation? It has not changed substantially in years. There's a reason for that. Change is expensive and not profitable for this market. Soyuz is stuck in LEO and the Russians have zero ambition to change that. Musk himself has publicly stated that his designs in LEO and not beyond though he has some pipe dreamers in his company. There is no avenue to innovation in commercial HSF. They'll build what NASA agrees to buy in such a manner as to maximize profit, no more, no less. No market, no business and there is no market beyond LEO. So - we ride NASA for BEO missions or we don't go.

"Change is expensive and not profitable for this market"

First of all this statement is false. It is true that change is generally expensive. Building stores, production lines, advertising, employment, and etc. Of course companies and investors spend money on these things in order to create a CHANGE that will make them money.

In human spaceflight you have a number of new and old companies investing in human spaceflight because they see the the chance to make money. There is Space Adventures, Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Boeing, Bigelow just to name a few major players. The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of money to be made in human spaceflight. There is a huge fascination with spaceflight. There are thousands of scientists and researchers who are always looking for ways to get their experiments in space. There are millions of people who would love to travel in space on day, myself included. The only thing that stops it from being a hundred billion dollar per year industry is the high cost.

Second, the physics and logistics of BEO missions isn't about to change. That is going to be a massively expensive and dangerous proposition. Accept that or campaign against it. Its pointless to pretend otherwise. There will be no moon, Mars, asteroid or Lagrange point mission on the cheap.

There is nothing in physics that says that manned mission cannot be conducted cheaply, or at least far cheaper than what we are currently capable of.

There is nothing in physics that says that we cannot utilize better forms of propulsion to transport mass cheaper. There is nothing in physics that says that we cannot use ISRU like in the Mars Direct proposal. There is nothing in physics that says better life support technologies cannot significantly reduce the need for shipment.

Third, the thing that killed ARES was lack of commitment. Comparing ARES to Falcon/Dragon or Soyuz is simply not logical. They were never designed to do the same thing and the ARES family is far more capable for its mission. The administration changed and the program changed. This admistration will likely have the dubious honor of having its own proposal rejected by its own party. Depending on the next administration, commercial could fall out of favor in 2012 due to lack of commitment. This is why we don't make progress. We will either commit billions over decades to HSF BEO or we might as well raise the while flag and become a nation of quitters. I say spend the money and lay off the pipe dreams. The irony is that we are quite likely to end up with HLV that will be very ARES V like and a variant that will push Orion into orbit while looking back and realizing we wasted 18 months in development. This national debate and waivering commitment will not be our finest hour.

Economists have known for mullienia of the inversely proportional relationship between cost and ones willingness to pay. As cost of a product or in this case manned spaceflight missions goes up willingness to commit to them goes down. You can ask any scientist who has ever sent a robot explorer to the moon or Mars whether or not they would use robots if humans could perform the same mission at comparable price. I can guarantee they will choose humans in fact I have heard many of them say they would go themselves. They will also tell you that humans are more versitle and thus more capable. So you might ask why send robots, and they will say because of the COST.

"The irony is that we are quite likely to end up with HLV that will be very ARES V like and a variant that will push Orion into orbit while looking back and realizing we wasted 18 months in development."

Yes because that is exactly how we felt during Apollo or with the Shuttle. Everyone of these huge, immensely expensive vehicles were canceled. We built them then regretted building them and then cancelled them. Other countries learned from our mistake and did not even start. Fact of the matter is that big government, single purpose, human rockets are a thing of the past. The more money we spend on them the more money we waste. They will never be developed and if they are we will not have the money to maintain them.

If you want to know the future of human spaceflight look at the Soyuz. The Soyuz is cheap, reliable, safe, and simple spacecraft that is launched from an man-rated version of an inexpensive satellite launcher. Developing a similar launch systems these days costs at most two billion dollars, not the 40 that Ares I is asking for. Launching humans on these systems costs only a few tens of millions per person or $100 -$200 million total, not the 1+ billion of the Ares I. Costs so low that the first ever privately funded astronauts have been launched on them, and to this day they are the only crewed vehicles that the private sector would even consider using.

Just look around the world and you will find that practically every nation interested in human spaceflight is using or developing a similar system to the Soyuz. No one is even considering vehicles like the Ares I. It is also the concept the SpaceX and Boeing are pursuing with their vehicles.

 

[rcsplinters]

I don't know what to tell you my friend. You are just dreaming for a cheap solution that will take humans anywhere their hearts desire. That's not about to happen. I've not read or found a single credible plan sanctioned by anyone that has to resources to actually field a BEO mission which suggests the bargin basement option is remotely plausible. I wish you were right but there is zero chance of that. Our activity outside of LEO will come only at great cost, national commitment and tremendous risk. Websters would classify that as a frontier, not a marketplace. I think the best possible expected outcome would be a thready market to deliver humans to LEO in 2015 competing for 20 - 30 seats per year of business. Even if that doubles or triples by 2020 (remember BEO missions are likely 4 seats every 1 - 2 years AFTER 2020), there will be zero funds to perform drastic changes in commercial delivery, particularly when Soyuz will remain unchanged with fixed costs. To control costs, work forces will be minimized to operational necessity. They'll do these things or the Russians will flatten them. I've got this great fear that we are replicating AMTRAK just so some can make political hay by waving the commercialization flag a decade or more prematurely.

I think where you have gotten lost is comparing systems that are intended to loiter around LEO to those designed to go far beyond. Yes you are correct, ARES is more expensive than Falcon/Dragon or Soyuz or other lesser options which have no aspiration beyond the ISS. ARES was designed to deliver a heavier and far more capable capsule to dock with systems to leave LEO. Its folly to compare costs of those systems to a minimalist approach where ISS is the ultimate goal. Interestingly, I'm also not sure why you choose to compare to ARES I since that is off the plate. Most likely we'll be looking at a DIRECT or other SD HLV option to place Orion in orbit wishing for a lower cost option like ARES I. So be it, I suppose. I'll also remind you that currently HEFT projects that a commercial launch of humans to dock with an unmanned Orion to be more risky and complex than just launching the humans in Orion to begin with.

Regarding settlements. Please. 100 - 200 years down the road. That clock doesn't even start running till we have a operational HLV option and a program which doesn't change at the whim of a presidential publicity stunt. We can't even settle Antarctica save for a few scientific outposts. We can't settle the ocean bottoms more than a few 100 feet down. Those are garden spots, cheap to reach, teaming with life with NO thriving settlements. What objective analysis would lead us to believe we are going to settle Mars or even the moon beyond establishing scientific bases for a 100 and quite likely many more years. Any thought of colonization within the next generation is simply a flight of fancy. Musk is infinitely more likely to retire to an island in the Pacific than a resort on the red planet. Believe me, he's keenly aware of that.

 

[bdewoody]

My choice would have been none of the above but lacking that I chose NASA. Obama won't be President for long and I hope by that time someone in authority with balls at NASA will come out and affirm that a manned mission to ANY asteroid is not feasible. Also a serious effort by China or Japan will open up all kinds of black funding in the USA for a major encampment on the moon. Forget the space treaties, the first to establish bases on the moon will get the best real estate and will defend said bases with force if necessary. Just look at the history of the new world in the 15th and 16th centuries.

 

[csmyth3025]

...Also a serious effort by China or Japan will open up all kinds of black funding in the USA for a major encampment on the moon. Forget the space treaties, the first to establish bases on the moon will get the best real estate and will defend said bases with force if necessary. Just look at the history of the new world in the 15th and 16th centuries.

I have to agree - whoever gets to the Moon first and stays there is going to stake out their claim. Treaties be damned. If they actually come up with something economically viable or strategically advantageous everyone else will cry "foul!", but all they can really hope to do is rush up there and stake out their own claim. Fighting over turf will come later, I'm sure.

Chris

 

[vulture4]

Return to the moon?

With what technology? At what cost? For what purpose? Why did we go to the moon? Why was Apollo canceled? Why did we build the Shuttle? Why is the Shuttle so expensive? When I ask these questions of people who actually work in the space program the most common response is "I never thought about it." We abandoned going to the moon with giant throwaway rockets in 1974 because it was much too expensive to be practical. It still is. Unfortunately George Bush and Mike Griffin apparently were apparently unaware of this. This isn't to say it would be impractical if we had the technology of "2001". But we don't.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - Santayana
We learn from history that we never learn anything from history. - Hegel

 

[bdewoody]

Return to the moon?

With what technology? At what cost? For what purpose? Why did we go to the moon? Why was Apollo canceled? Why did we build the Shuttle? Why is the Shuttle so expensive? When I ask these questions of people who actually work in the space program the most common response is "I never thought about it." We abandoned going to the moon with giant throwaway rockets in 1974 because it was much too expensive to be practical. It still is. Unfortunately George Bush and Mike Griffin apparently were apparently unaware of this. This isn't to say it would be impractical if we had the technology of "2001". But we don't.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - Santayana
We learn from history that we never learn anything from history. - Hegel

Going to the moon is the only real alternative to just going up into LEO again and again. Whether we have the resources ie. money to do it soon is another question. It all depends on our priorities which for a government agency tend to change every four to eight years. I and many others believe that setting up a base on the moon that is continuously manned over a long duration is a prerequisite to going deeper into our solar system whereas a stunt trip to an asteroid even if doable returns very little for the dollar spent.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I don't know what to tell you my friend. You are just dreaming for a cheap solution that will take humans anywhere their hearts desire. That's not about to happen. I've not read or found a single credible plan sanctioned by anyone that has to resources to actually field a BEO mission which suggests the bargin basement option is remotely plausible. I wish you were right but there is zero chance of that. Our activity outside of LEO will come only at great cost, national commitment and tremendous risk. Websters would classify that as a frontier, not a marketplace. I think the best possible expected outcome would be a thready market to deliver humans to LEO in 2015 competing for 20 - 30 seats per year of business. Even if that doubles or triples by 2020 (remember BEO missions are likely 4 seats every 1 - 2 years AFTER 2020), there will be zero funds to perform drastic changes in commercial delivery, particularly when Soyuz will remain unchanged with fixed costs. To control costs, work forces will be minimized to operational necessity. They'll do these things or the Russians will flatten them. I've got this great fear that we are replicating AMTRAK just so some can make political hay by waving the commercialization flag a decade or more prematurely.

First of all I have no delusions that I will wake up tomorrow, and be able to buy a ticket to Mars for the same price as a bus ride. Far from it my friend. I realize that changing the economics of manned spaceflight will take a great deal of time, money, patience, and innovation. However significant advances are on the horizon. You have Bigelow's inflatable space modules, you have VASIMR, you have better life support systems being developed and tested on the ISS.

Fact of the matter Apollo left a bad legacy in the sense that people expect NASA to just set short term dates for certain locations and fulfill them. That methodology worked when NASA was given a blank check, however that is not the fiscal reality today. Today NASA will get a relatively fixed budget of at most $10 billion a year.

At the same time we must ask ourselves what is our goals. Are we out to just get to one location as quickly as possible without worrying about the sustainability of the program, or are we trying to establish a sustainable program and industry. The latter requires a dedicated long term effort to improve the technology of human space travel.

I think where you have gotten lost is comparing systems that are intended to loiter around LEO to those designed to go far beyond. Yes you are correct, ARES is more expensive than Falcon/Dragon or Soyuz or other lesser options which have no aspiration beyond the ISS. ARES was designed to deliver a heavier and far more capable capsule to dock with systems to leave LEO. Its folly to compare costs of those systems to a minimalist approach where ISS is the ultimate goal. Interestingly, I'm also not sure why you choose to compare to ARES I since that is off the plate. Most likely we'll be looking at a DIRECT or other SD HLV option to place Orion in orbit wishing for a lower cost option like ARES I. So be it, I suppose. I'll also remind you that currently HEFT projects that a commercial launch of humans to dock with an unmanned Orion to be more risky and complex than just launching the humans in Orion to begin with.

Robert A. Heinlein's once said "Get to low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system." He is correct in practically every respect with regards to human spaceflight and spaceflight in general in terms of both risk and cost. Yet after 50 years of human spaceflight NASA has yet to build a relatively inexpensive, safe, and reliable human to LEO system. The only real system at our disposal for this task is the Russian Soyuz.

Fact of the matter is that the US needs a Soyuz like vehicle. Once you have that then you can work on building spacecraft on HLV to go beyond LEO.

Regarding settlements. Please. 100 - 200 years down the road. That clock doesn't even start running till we have a operational HLV option and a program which doesn't change at the whim of a presidential publicity stunt. We can't even settle Antarctica save for a few scientific outposts. We can't settle the ocean bottoms more than a few 100 feet down. Those are garden spots, cheap to reach, teaming with life with NO thriving settlements. What objective analysis would lead us to believe we are going to settle Mars or even the moon beyond establishing scientific bases for a 100 and quite likely many more years. Any thought of colonization within the next generation is simply a flight of fancy. Musk is infinitely more likely to retire to an island in the Pacific than a resort on the red planet. Believe me, he's keenly aware of that.

First of all how long it takes I believe is up to us. However manned Mars missions, manned Moon mission, manned asteroid mission are not bringing us any closer to any real manned spaceflight. These are stunts with little purpose.

Second of all, we have not settled Antarctica and the bottom of the ocean because there really is no reason to do so.