
Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin's proposed "Plymouth Rock" mission would target a near-Earth asteroid. Our planet and the moon are in the background of this artist's conception.
To the moon? Or to an asteroid? Both destinations have been in NASA's sights — the moon during the George W. Bush administration, and a near-Earth asteroid during the Obama administration. Now a "Global Exploration Roadmap" being drawn up by NASA and its counterparts around the world lays out a 25-year scenario for each of the two paths leading beyond Earth orbit.
Both of the paths are aimed at the same eventual destination: Mars. And some observers are suggesting the best course is to aim directly at the Red Planet, rather than starting with closer destinations.
The moon vs. asteroid debate was brought back into the spotlight during the deliberations of a panel known as the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, or ISECG. The group, which includes representatives from Britain, Canada, the European Space Agency, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States, was established as a coordination forum for space exploration back when NASA was aiming for a return to the moon by 2020.
Over the past year, the group has retooled the long-term global strategy for space exploration. "It begins with the International Space Station and expands human presence throughout the solar system, leading ultimately to human missions to explore the surface of Mars," NASA said today in a news release. "The roadmap flows from this strategy and identifies two potential pathways: 'Asteroid Next' and 'Moon Next.'"
NASA said "each pathway represents a mission scenario over a 25-year period describing a logical sequence of robotic and human missions." That scenario would be consistent with the plan that President Barack Obama laid out two years ago, with a goal of sending astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025 and pushing out to Mars and its moons by the mid-2030s. The new twist is that the moon is back on the table as the initial destination beyond Earth orbit.

NASA
An artist's conception shows NASA's Orion exploration vehicle and a lander docked in lunar orbit.
Senior space officials gave their go-ahead to the two-pathway plan today during a meeting in Kyoto, Japan, NASA said.
"NASA is confident that the release of this product, and subsequent refinements as circumstances within each space agency evolve, will facilitate the ability of space agencies to form the partnerships that will ensure robust and sustainable human exploration," said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations.
Gerstenmaier is the outgoing chair of the ISECG. The incoming chairman, Yoshiyuki Hasagawa of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, said the group's members were "very happy with the progress of the Global Exploration Roadmap."
NASA spokesman Michael Braukus told me that the roadmap was not yet available for public release, but space officials agreed that an initial version of the document would be issued sometime in the next few weeks. Based on viewgraph presentations prepared in advance of this week's meeting in Kyoto, both paths would eventually get to the moon as well as asteroids. It's more a question of which destination is targeted first.
One suggested strategy would start by sending a deep-space habitat to an Earth-moon gravitational balance point known as L-1. Later missions would go to the moon, as preparation for eventual Mars trips. Another scenario calls for reaching the lunar surface first. The lessons learned there would be applied to asteroid missions, and then to Mars-bound missions. A variant would focus on testing the deep-space habitat, then taking trips to the moon, then going to an asteroid, and finally flying to Mars. It's not yet clear how all these possibilities are wrapped up into the ISECG's "Asteroid Next" and "Moon Next" scenarios.

NASA
An artist's conception shows the Orion exploration vehicle and habitation modules in Martian orbit.
Are these 25-year plans necessary, or is it possible to send humans to Mars on a shorter, more direct timetable? SpaceX's millionaire founder, Elon Musk, says a 10-year plan could suffice for a mission to Mars. Rocket scientist Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, made a similar case for an early Red Planet rendezvous last week in a Washington Times commentary:
"We’re ready. Despite its greater distance, we are much better prepared today to send humans to Mars than we were to send men to the moon in 1961, when President Kennedy started the Apollo program - and we were there eight years later. Contrary to those seeking indefinite delay of any commitment, future-fantasy spaceships are not needed to send humans to Mars. The primary real requirement is a heavy-lift booster with a capability similar to that of the Saturn V launch vehicle employed in the 1960s. This is something we fully understand how to create.
"The issue is not money. The issue is leadership. NASA’s average Apollo-era (1961-73) budget, adjusted for inflation, was about $19 billion a year in today’s dollars, just 5 percent more than the agency’s current budget. Yet the NASA of the '60s accomplished 100 times more because it had a mission with a deadline and was forced to develop an efficient plan to achieve that mission. If NASA were given that kind of direction, we could have humans on Mars within a decade. If not, as the rudderless agency continues to drift into the coming fiscal tsunami, we may soon end up with no human spaceflight program."
Gearing up for missions to Mars would likely require a significant boost in space spending, as well as more serious efforts to solve the problems of interplanetary spaceflight, including radiation exposure and zero-G health hazards. The ISECG's deliberations are a sign that deep-space exploration is too expensive for any one country to take on by itself. But the latest reports about the roadmap suggest that the path beyond Earth orbit is not yet set in stone — which means there's still ample opportunity for you to weigh in on the debate.
Click your choice in the poll at right, and feel free to weigh in at length in the comment space below.
In related developments:
- Caltech's Keck Institute of Space Studies has invited students from around the world to participate in a competition to design a mission that would send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid and return a sample. The team exercise will bring at least 30 students to Caltech from Sept. 12 to 16. The Caltech Space Challenge was created by two Caltech students, Prakhar Mehrotra and Jon Mihaly. "We have more than 275 applications from exceptional students at 100 universities worldwide, including all the top-rated schools," Mehrotra said in a Caltech news release. "Selecting is going to be very hard."
- China's Chang'e 2 spacecraft has left lunar orbit and traveled about a million miles (1.5 million kilometers) from Earth to settle into orbit around the sun-Earth gravitational balance point known as L-2. Chang'e 2's new location was announced today by China's State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense. China's Xinhua news agency said Chang'e 2, which spent about eight months orbiting the moon, will carry out exploration activities around L-2 during the coming year. L-2 already serves as the locale for the European Space Agency's Herschel space telescope and NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. It's also the intended destination for the James Webb Space Telescope, which is currently under construction and due for launch around 2018.
- Instead of sending astronauts to an asteroid, how about bringing the asteroid to us? In the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, scientists at Tsinghua University in Beijing say "it is possible" to nudge an asteroid into temporary Earth orbit, and they provide a list of near-Earth asteroids that just might serve. One possibility is the 10-meter-wide (33-foot-wide) asteroid 2008 EA9, which could be placed in an orbit about twice as far away as the moon for study or for mining over the course of a few years. "Interesting idea," Technology Review's arXiv blog notes. "What could possibly go wrong?"
More about deep-space exploration:
- Gallery: Seven out-of-this-world destinations
- Europe and Russia take aim at Mars
- Counting down to a mission to Mars
- NASA retools spaceship for deep space
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.


If Mars is our target, let's look at how NASA went to the Moon. They didn't just start shooting rockets up there, they created the Gemini program. It was a low-Earth orbit program that gave them a place to test things like maneuvering, and the various technologies that would be needed around the Moon (like EVA, rendevous, docking, etc). If we really want to go to Mars, it makes sense to go to the Moon first, and test all of the technology we'll need. How many Mars probes were never heard from again because something went wrong on landing, and we're too far away to figure it out? Test all of that on the Moon, which is closer, easier to track, and we can recover rubble and bring it back to Earth to study before we go rocketing off.
Come back to Earth, kids. This is the Age of Austerity, and it will be this way for the next 20, 30 years. No government on Earth is going to fork over funds for this.
To get to Mars we need to first revamp the culture of NASA to get the costs under control. We just are not getting enough flight time for the dollars expended.
It seems to me NASA has a much higher ratio of bureaucrats to engineers/techs than it did in the 1960's. Not enough of the budget goes to people and materials that directly build and fly hardware.
I believe in NASA and hope to see our country continue to fund the agency at appropriate levels.
The reason to proceed with taxpayer funded space exploration is the advancement of technology and human understanding. EVERY major technological advancement in the past 50 years has been an outgrowth of research performed and technologies fielded to meet government needs, peaceful and military. If we're not moving forward we're moving backward. If we entrench and lick our wounds because we take a short-term or self-serving view of our limitations, we will rapidly devolve back into cave dwellers. Man has progressed because we dream and strive, not because we snivel and cower.
As with most of the history of human exploration and colonization, we'll go into space in a big way when someone figures out how to make a lot of money doing it.
Remember Columbus was looking for a new spice trade route.
Get on with it !!
Time to first build real ion-propulsion spaceships that are based at the ISS.
Then we use these spaceships to ferry landers and crews to Mars.
And we always have one crew going out and one on the surface and one coming back.
.
I can understand the caution about going straight to Mars from a safety standpoint. We don't have any human experience involving deep space exploration and while we have landed on the Moon before, our technology (and approach to the problem) is different and probably should be tested out first. So why not kill two birds with one stone instead of taking the either/or approach.
We could visit a NEO and then land on the Moon on the way home.
It could go like this; Send the lunar lander to the Moon. (Like sending the lander to Mars ahead of the astronauts) Then send the astronauts out ahead of Earth orbit to catch a NEO and follow it back towards the Earth/Moon system, jumping off when they got close and meeting up with the lunar lander. Land, do some rockhounding, play golf, etc. Take off and come home.
It's ambitious and it would answer the questions about deep space travel and allow for the testing of the hardware for a trip to Mars while keeping the mission time frame down.
Robert Zubrin is correct in pointing out that NASA's budget in the 60's for Apollo when adjusted for inflation isn't much more that it is now. But to get the same results would mean that NASA would have to drop everything else that it's currently doing, which is A LOT, and concentrate solely on this next program.
I sincerely doubt you're going to get much interest in that approach - inside or outside of NASA.
That is not necessary rob NASA's budget of other programs. The Mars Direct mission architecture only requires that we spend about $3 billion per year on the program over ten years - almost exactly the same amount we spent annually on Space Shuttle operations in low earth orbit. Read the plan! You will find it detailed on the web site of The Mars Society and also in the latest edition of Dr. Zubrin's outstanding book "The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must."
I personally prefer the short step to the moon followed by the big jump to Mars approach. Prove/disprove the theories and technology 250k miles away before attempting Mars.
Off topic, but the thing that concerns me most at the moment is that the planet is but 1 more failed Soyuz launch away from not being able to put humans into orbit at all. While off topic, James Webb is sitting there at 98% completed and to my knowledge there hasn't been a decision made on whether or not it will go.
Pick a big asteroid. Hollow it out like a tube and spin it. Nuclear reactors on the outside. Magnatetic accelerator cannon on the inside. Blast smaller asteroids through it for propulsion or to send them to desire destination (lagrange points). Fly around the solar system in a giant Sister Ray cannon city gathering resources for O'Neill structures. Also works to deflect objects on an impact course with earth.