.jpg)
NASA Orion in Lunar Orbit
One of the options for space exploration beyond low Earth orbit that the Augustine Committee is considering is called Deep Space. Deep Space would send astronaut explorers to various destinations, such as Earth approaching asteroids, the moons of Mars, and so on without actually landing on any planet or large moon in the Solar System. Astronauts might “dock” with relatively smaller bodies such as asteroids or the Moons of Mars.
Deep Space could be more accurately called the “Look but Don’t Touch” Option. Deep Space is not really a path to anywhere.
The idea behind Deep Space is that the United States would gain experience and develop technology for true, deep space transportation. Money would be saved by deferring the developing of landing craft that would actually take astronauts to the surfaces of various worlds, such as the Moon or Mars to the indefinite future.
Visiting Earth approaching asteroids certainly has potential for great benefits. Asteroids are a potential source for resources that would be useful for future space settlers. The nightmare scenario of an asteroid colliding with the Earth, wiping out the human species, could be averted by the close study of the structure and behavior of Earth approaching asteroids. Techniques could thus be developed to divert asteroids should they be on a collision course with Earth.
Embarking on Deep Space might lead to the development of true, interplanetary space craft. Deep Space, however, would not allow astronauts to do what they do best, which is to explore the surfaces of other worlds. Deep Space would not allow humans to develop the experience and technology to live on other worlds, such as the Moon and Mars.
Deep Space, or Look but Don’t Touch, is only half a space program of exploration. Flexible Path would take astronaut explorers tantalizingly close to the Moon and Mars but would not actually take them all the way to the Moon and Mars.
While the kind of science that Deep Space would enable, mainly real time remote sensing, has its virtues, the argument will be made by some that robots could do the same thing, only for far less money and at far less risk of human life. The kind of science that humans excel at, taking rock and soil samples and running real time experiments on the surfaces of other worlds, would be eschewed to the indefinite future.
It is also unclear what benefits the Deep Space would have for the nascent space commerce industry. The development of ships capable of crossing interplanetary distances will likely remain in the purview of governments for the foreseeable future. There would be little if any hope of such space craft being developed commercially in the near term, especially if landing on the Moon and Mars were to be deferred indefinitely. Without actual places to go, the market for commercial space flight would be limited to low Earth orbit and, perhaps, Earth approaching asteroids.
Of the other options being considered by the Augustine Committee, the lunar base—the one now being pursued—seems to have the best chance for near term benefits for the United States. A lunar base would be a tangible commitment of the United States not only to the exploration of space, but also the long term expansion of the human species into space.
A lunar base would provide a place for astronauts to explore the world closest to Earth, not only for the value of uncovering the Moon’s secrets, but as practice for exploring and living on other worlds, such as Mars. Private companies would have opportunities to sell services to the lunar explorers, such as power, consumables such as air, water, and food, and even shelter in the form of commercially built habitats. Private companies could even provide transportation to and from the Moon, in the fullness of time, much as the COTS program envisions for the International Space Station.
The same technology that can take people back to the Moon could also be used to visit Earth approaching asteroids, the only part of Deep Space that seems to have any tangible near term benefit. An asteroid expedition would provide ample practice for eventual deep space voyages to Mars and beyond.
In considering options like Deep Space vs a lunar base, the Augustine Committee must consider the following question. Do we want to actually explore and eventually settle space, or not? The answer to that question will have profound consequences for the rest of this century.
Comments
Thank you for having the good sense to call Deep Space what it is. Choosing Deep Space would be the worst decision short of scrapping NASA altogether. In light of the recent passing of Senator Kennedy, I beg the Commission, take a page from his brother - set a challenging, ambitious goal for the space program like Mars Direct, something the public can be excited about and throw their support behind. If next month Bolden were to walk into Obama's office with a clear plan on how to get to Mars by the end of the next decade, I guarantee you NASA would get whatever support it needed to make it happen.
- "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." - Kennedy, Rice, 1962
Go forward with Deep Space. By the time we get this going, Jeff Bezos will be able to lease NASA a lander.
.
are you curious to know WHAT you can do (in Space) with the ($35 billion) Ares-1 "price"???
well, you can find NINE options here:
ht
tp://ww
w.ghostnasa.co
m/posts2/051ares1price.ht
ml
.
.
are you curious to know WHAT you can do (in Space) with the ($35 billion) Ares-1 "price"???
well, you can find NINE options here:
ht
tp://ww
w.ghostnasa.co
m/posts2/051ares1price.ht
ml
.
I think comparing the deep space option to "look but don't touch" is a bad characterization. Saying that we shouldn't land people on the Moon in the next twenty years because it would bust the budget is a far cry from saying that we shouldn't ever land people on the Moon because it's not worthwhile, or it's morally wrong to pollute the Moon with our presence.
Sorry but your characterization doesn't jive with things the committee actually said during their public meetings. The Committee never said "never land", just that the thrust of the next 20 years from a budgetary stand point is to figure out how to get there alive first, and then figure out how to land. Enough of the technological/economic landscape will have changed by then to warrant putting that last very difficult bit off until you can actually get there.
How you go somewhere is infinitely more important than where you go. In this case the Commission is suggesting we build an infrastructure that allows us to go anywhere. Once we get that figuring out how to land becomes a manageable problem.
The private aerospace industry is growing by leaps and bounds. Virgin just broke ground on a ****ing spaceport, Bigelow is set to launch the first commercial space station within 2-3 years. If NASA doesn't stop worrying about budget issues, and instead focus on setting ambitious goals and convincing people to fund them - pretty soon NASA will be the one's playing catch-up with the private industry.
The writer of this post is terribly misinformed. The Augustine Committee has all along stated that missions to asteroids or the moons of Mars would be landings. For example, see:
blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/07/31/will-nasas-next-step-be-an-astronaut-rendezvous-with-an-asteroid/
In which a member of the committee, Ed Crawley, discusses asteroid landings.
Or see:
blog.taragana.com/n/asteroid-visits-could-prepare-astronauts-for-mars-landing-137302/
In which Crawley discusses landings on Phobos/Deimos.
To characterize these missions as "look, don't touch" demonstrates a high level of ignorance. Astronauts would clearly "touch" these objects. The poster should do their homework before writing on this subject again.
"Deep Space, however, would not allow astronauts to do what they do best, which is to explore the surfaces of other worlds."
That might be true of some astronauts -- those who happen to be field geologists -- but most astronauts are not field geologists. They are pilots, doctors, engineers, etc., and what they do best is flying, treating patients, repairing the Hubble space telescope, etc.
I invite you to walk into a bar full of pilots and tell them they should spend their lives crawling around on the surface of a dirt ball because it's "what you do best."
NASA's job is to explore space, not to build a retirement home on the Moon where astronauts can "settle" because we've given up exploring. It should work with private enterprise to explore space right now, not "in the fullness of time" (which is government-speak for "never").
But AJK, I'll ask you the same question Congress would ask NASA, "What's the point of spending tens of billions of dollars to send a manned crew to Mars' moons, to stand only a few thousand miles from Mars only to turn around and come back without ever setting foot on the planet?"
Hell, that sounds like the cruelest thing you could ever do to an astronaut. It'd be like having Apollo 12 only go as far as the Moon's orbit only to turn around and come back without landing.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!