E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
An artist's conception shows astronauts walking up to an early lunar habitat. Five years ago, NASA was considering the deployment of such a habitat in the 2020s.
GOP hopeful Mitt Romney says that he’d fire anyone who suggested spending hundreds of billions of dollars to build a moon colony — but what about tens of billions of dollars? A former NASA adviser says he and others at the space agency drew up an approach that could put astronauts on the moon for $40 billion, as a “Plan B” for future exploration.
"We figured out at NASA how to do it in about 10 years for $40 billion," said Charles Miller, who recently left his position as NASA Headquarters' senior adviser for commercial space and is now president of NextGen Space. "The question is, would Mitt Romney fire me for a proposal to return to the moon for $40 billion?"
For a few years, NASA was following a plan to return to the moon by 2020 for $104 billion, through the Constellation program set up under President George W. Bush. But Constellation was canceled by President Barack Obama, and the space agency currently is gearing up for an effort to put astronauts on a near-Earth asteroid by the mid-2020s.
Last week, Romney's chief rival for the GOP nomination, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pledged to put an all-American settlement on the moon by 2020 if he was elected president. But Gingrich's initiative runs into the same problem that killed Constellation: federal budgets that are too tight to match lunar ambitions. Obama had to scale back what was once envisioned as an "inspiring" space program due to the economic downturn, as described by The New Yorker in an insider report last week.
The moon-shot cancellation was in line with an independent panel's conclusion that the plan was "not viable," considering the realities of the federal budget. But that panel was working under the assumption that a whole new deep-space infrastructure would have to be developed, including a heavy-lift vehicle then known as the Ares 5. That assumption was carried over into the post-Constellation plan, in the form of a heavy-lift Space Launch System that would cost $35 billion over the next decade or so. Billions more would have to be spent preparing for trips beyond Earth orbit — to an asteroid, to the moon, to Mars or other destinations.
Plan B for outer space
Miller and his colleagues on a NASA task force drew up an alternative plan, which they said would provide a less expensive and faster path to deep-space exploration. Rather than building an entirely new type of heavy-lift rocket, NASA would use a series of tried-and-true rockets — perhaps including the U.S. commercial Atlas, Delta and Falcon rockets as well as Europe's Ariane, Japan's H2 and Russia's Soyuz and Zenit rockets — to deliver propellant to an orbiting fuel depot.
After a series of low-cost fuel delivery flights, the high-value components for trips to the moon would be sent up and assembled in orbit. Once the lunar transfer vehicle was ready to go, the astronauts would climb aboard, head out of orbit for the moon, conduct their mission and return.
NASA would still have to develop a lunar lander, as well as the Orion deep-space capsule it's currently working on, and perhaps a habitat module as well. But it wouldn't have to build the heavy-lifter.
A preliminary version of the plan was leaked to the SpaceRef website last October, amid calls from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., for the report's release. At the time, the report suggested that missions to the moon could begin in 2024, but Miller told me that he challenged his team to optimize their cost and timeframe estimates. "They went from landing on the moon in 2024 to 2021," he said, at an average cost of $4 billion per year for 10 years. Such funding levels would be in line with NASA's current budget, with adjustments for inflation in the latter five years, he said.
NBC News space analyst James Oberg talks about whether Newt Gingrich's vision of a colony on the moon contains any benefits, and what the price tag might look like.
Miller said the plan could conceivably be revised to reduce the time frame even further, from 10 to eight years. "It's ready when our national leadership decides it wants something more affordable," he told me. "I consider it to be Plan B."
NASA has not released the current version of the plan, but the agency's top executives have not been as bullish as Miller is about Plan B. During a congressional hearing last summer, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said the alternatives to building a heavy-lift rocket were "not as economical, nor as reliable."
Miller contends that the plan didn't get a proper "apples-to-apples" comparison from NASA's top executives or from the Human Exploration Framework Team, which drew up NASA's Plan A.
Reality check
It may well be technically possible to send astronauts back to the moon by 2020 — but even if NASA successfully implemented the Plan B outlined by Miller, there wouldn't be a full-fledged moon colony by that time. Then there's the bigger question of whether it's worth spending tens of billions of dollars to put astronauts back on the moon, even if the experts agree it's possible to do it within a $40 billion budget.
"That's what you hire presidents to decide," Miller said.
Obama decided years ago that it would be better to go to a new destination in deep space, such as a near-Earth asteroid or the moons of Mars, rather than returning to the moon. "We've been there before," Obama said when he announced his space goals in 2009.
It's possible that Gingrich's pledge to build a moon base by 2020 has hurt him in the polls — even in Florida, where the aerospace industry has suffered a heavy blow due to last year's retirement of the space shuttle fleet. On the eve of Florida's primary, surveys suggest that Gingrich is lagging by double digits behind Romney, who has been far less specific about his space aspirations. In effect, Romney wants to conduct another round of soul-searching about NASA's vision, retracing the process that Obama and his aides went through three years ago.
For now, NASA's big-ticket priorities in human spaceflight are to continue developing the Space Launch System and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, while commercializing operations to send supplies and astronauts to the International Space Station. The Space Launch System in particular has strong support in Congress — so much so that critics have dubbed it the "Senate Launch System." Any effort to change course at this point would probably run into significant opposition — unless the SLS project became totally unworkable and/or unaffordable.
In that case, Plan B ... or Plan C, or D ... might well get another look, regardless of who's in the White House.
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why the Newt Gingrich vision for space is too grand of an idea.
Cosmic Log's Alan Boyle, Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait and other space commentators discuss moon-base politics during the Weekly Space Hangout on Jan. 26.
Update for 7:50 p.m. ET: Over the past week, there's been a lot of debate over Gingrich's moon-base pledge, and over the justification for spending anything at all on space exploration. I've tried to step around the questions surrounding the rationales for spaceflight in this item — but Wayne Hale, who used to head up NASA's space shuttle program, provides a provocative perspective today in a posting to his blog, titled "What Would Rick and Gus and Dick Want?" The title is a reference to the anniversaries of the Columbia tragedy (helmed by Rick Husband), the Apollo 1 fire (with Gus Grissom as commander) and the Challenger explosion (commanded by Dick Scobee). Here's some of what Hale says:
"It is impossible to build a business plan on exploration of the unknown; some decisions aren’t amenable to the quarterly profit and loss statement. Seward’s folly, Jefferson’s gamble, Teddy’s canal – they were all the butt of jokes and sarcasm. Yet, America, the land of opportunity, was not built by skeptics. America was built by people who were willing to risk everything on a dimly perceived future. Facing the unknown frontier changed Americans and made us what we are. We would be a lesser people if our great-grandparents had not chosen those challenges. The cost was high and many did not live to see the results of their gamble. But as a nation we continued on and became great.
"Now where is our frontier? Making corporate profits on Wall Street by moving money around? Now what will inspire our children? Playing video games that are made in overseas sweatshops?
"You know better than that. Without the challenge of a frontier, stagnation, mediocrity and decline is our guaranteed future."
So what would Rick and Gus and Dick want? Read the full posting for Hale's conjecture.
More moon-base blasts from the past:
- Russia calls for international moon base
- Will China take over the moon?
- Billionaire shoots for the moon
- Wanted: Home-builders for the moon
I discussed moon-base politics and much, much more with Dr. David Livingston on "The Space Show" today. If you missed the program, check the "Space Show" home page for the archived audio. Science and politics will also be on the agenda for my "Virtually Speaking Science" chat with Shawn Otto at 9 p.m. ET Wednesday. Otto is one of the organizers of Science Debate 2012 and the author of "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America." I hope you'll join us, either on BlogTalkRadio or in Second Life.
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Oh...to the person who said we should start mining the moon....that's such a dangerous idea because the moon's current mass and orbit is what keeps the Earth from turning into Mars.
You do know that the moon is slowly receding from earth's orbit every year by approximately 4 cm/year.
Oh yeah, it is looney. What about our national debt ? What about our failing infrastructure. The list goes on. And when they do get a moon base, before the colony, what all will be in it. An observatory, research and what else is going to cost and get expensive plus the cost of maintaining all this. Loony newts air headed vision has not been sensibly explored practically. Why is it that politicians never see the cost and expense of so much, only an air headed dream. By the way, the ideal of living on the moon is far older than i am, nothing new.
Humnnn..........
So Is the Moon made of Cheese?...................
NO?
Then would u wanna spend ur hard earned money to go and live on a waterless, airless and grassless place?
Absolutely. Air and water actually can be found there, at the poles. Grass we can bring with us.
Sure Joe,
............and then you'll be hopping around after that grass that will be hopping around after the water and the both of you will be hopping around after the air to get a whiff and get high on the whole ethereal experience!
WOW MAN!
Think how many real jobs will be created not to mention the presteige(PR) that it brings.
i find it funny that the candidates/president say, we will be back on the moon by such year when they will not be in office, 2020? why so late? a chance you might be elected but if your not then nxt president can cancel it like obama
Constellation needed better budgeting than Medicare Part D. Unfortunately, not budgeting for lofty expenditures was a mainstay of the Bush Administration
Obama put that program out of its underfunded misery. Read up on the reports as to why it was cancelled.
While you're reading, you may want to read up on how Bush killed the X-33 program
In all, it seems to be the order of business for every new president to kill the NASA programs that his predecessor put in place, and replace it with something of their own.
NASA needs more autonomy and not be subject to the whims of one political hack or another.
Oh... IF only.... IF only!!
If that was the only stupid thing he supported he would still have a chance. Flying laser's on jumbo jets, lasers in space, all the other things he's said he'd support over the years. He's a career politician and spends money like a career politician. We Americans can't afford that.
A colony on the moon is a stupid idea. If we can't even figure out how to populate Antarctica on our own planet, why would we want to try to populate the moon? And what really would be the great advantage to that? I can think of better ways to spend trillions of dollars.
Because Antarctica is a dead end, whereas the Moon is the stepping stone to a solar system trillions of times bigger (and richer) than the entire Earth. And we're talking about spending billions, not trillions here.
Nonsense. Gingrich was simply pandering to Florida's Spacecoast voters. He actually reminds me of Clinton: "What town are we in, what do they want to hear?"
If the U.S. has any hopes of regaining its lead in technology and space exploration, it needs to set to work to actually do something. And a moon base is a logical "something". Unmanned probes are all well and good, but without humans involved, it is all pretty irrelevant. Man must challenge the frontiers of space and must be involved in space exploration. A moonbase is the next logical step forward. How else do we really prepare to step further into space?
AH!!! Sanity!! thank you for stating the obvious Jim!! some of these neandertals just can't see....
So many Moonbase comments and opinions are encouraging! A Lunar outpost will be established as soon as Earthly societies can affor one! Return on investrment is a century away, at least, yet the potential for realtime commerce and profitable development is huge. NASA top brass and Obama admin have already decided on and committed to a 'lunar bypass' strategy in favor of a Mars landing by astronauts, perhaps mid 2020's. The reason in not scientific not a question of technology or engineering, but pure prestige. IF China, alone or partnered w Russia, or a Euro consortium was to make the first expedition to Mars, U.S. national psyche and space race prestige would be severly damaged, second rated, and humiliated. Those responsible would be pilloried. I well remember the shudder of disbelief that went through the nation when Sputnik was launched in the Fall of 1957! Those of you born since would not believe its pervasiveness. The nation's abilitiy to perform as engineers and scientists was directly confronted by an agressive, very hostile adversary. NASA was created expressly to counter the Soviet accomplishments in rocketry. JFK's 'missile gap' warning and subsequent Men to the Moon declaration became the focus of an effort driven entirely by fear! The theory then was:IF the Soviet Union gained superiority in space, U.S. national defenses would be totally compromised. That very same fear runs through the Pentagon and NASA today. The Soviet Union is no more, a shadow of the past filed away in the archives of the History Chanel. But any adversary in space forging ahead where the U.S. dares not is a challenge the nation cannot accept. As for The Moon, I have said many times that it is the nearest, most accessible rock out there and the most logical next step. But logic is not involved where psyche and prestige rule. So much is to be learned by establishing an active, permanent outpost on the Lunar surface. Moonbases will serve to test our resolve and our technolgies in accomplishing an obvious destiny that encompasses OUR solar system. We are still in the kindergarten years of space exploration. There is no lack of time, we are not running out of anything. It may well be that the early colonies on The Moon are entirely NGO. In a hundred years or so.
Personally I think McNeil cylinders would be a better alternative for colonization. Imagine a pop can a mile in diameter slowly spinning to produce "artificial gravity". several could be used as farmlands, others producing products from raw materials mined from asteroids etc. Corrections in orbits could happen using solar sails. Carbon nano-tubes could be used for the construction and some say the carbon could be obtained from skimming the atmosphere of Venus.
Just a thought....
Good Ideas all, but just how do we develop that tech?? By STARTING off ON THE MOON!!!!
I think the moon would be needed as a manufacturing base and waypoint but not as a long term colony. The McNeils would provide the needed gravity and sustainable food sources via farming (and the plants will produce oxygen). I'm looking at the long term as far as colinization goes.
The moon would be excellent for manufacturing and processing raw materials mined from asteroids. I could see factory crews living in the McNeils and swapping out at regular intervals to prevent and adverse affects from the low gravity of the moon. Kind of like you would see with an offshore drilling crew.
Stephen, Also the moon base makes sense since moving the massive pieces needed to make my McNeils would be much easier in the lower gravity. The lower gravity could lend itself to completely new manufacturing techniques, too. Would be great if I could see it all in my lifetime...
I dont see spending Billions of taxpayer money on going to the moon.I think in the near future we will have invented some type of Anti Gravity propulsion and were better off spending our money on that type of technology.The ONLY good thing about getting to the moon would be to build a Launch Pad for future exploration but the cost for building even THAT would be astronomical.I see NO reason to spend money on going to the moon.That is just common sense. If we have that kind of Taxdollars to just thro away then thow it towards getting the economy back on track. Obama wants to do the right thing but his hands are tied by our congressional BS.Bunch of no good Bickerers that could give a crap about american citizens.They only care about thier wallets once they get into office.Get rid of Democrats and Republican and have just one small group of decent people (if you can find them) (doesnt include wealthy people who only want to get richer) This country needs a BIG change for sure.Get rid of Lobbyists would help..I have a lot more to say but I would have to write a book.Oh one more thing ..NONE of the Candidates currently running for President are going to change things for the better.They are just puppets on a string like all the presidents after JFK..Its just a power/ego thing for them...WOW my Face is going to be on the 5 dollar bill..I am the @!$%# lol
Between solar power and the readily available H3, a lunar colony would have a surplus of energy. The cost of mining raw materials to make whatever they need to build whatever they want, would basically be the cost of labor.
"I think in the near future we will have invented some type of Anti Gravity propulsion and were better off spending our money on that type of technology."
Physics as we know it, doesn't seem to allow that. Until you know something is at least theoretically possible, you don't throw serious money at it. We know rockets work. They're the only thing we know that works in a vacuum.
Wow... this shouldn't be our plan B; this should be Plan A. Just think: rather than building yet another too-expensive government-run launcher, we would be supporting the commercial space industry, AND building up important infrastructure in cislunar space. I'm talking in particular about the orbital fuel depot, and facilities to support on-orbit assembly, which would enable all sorts of new missions and capabilities. Then there's the infrastructure we could land, in turn, on the Moon.
But... sigh. It will never happen. It's far too sensible, and doesn't employ large armies of constituents in key congressional districts.
May be Moon could be used for building (and testing) more nuclear warfare without polluting the Earth after all!
Yea!
chad, I'm not taking your, "comments out of context." I'm saying you sound like a ten year old boy. Migrate my ass we don't even know for sure if any planets within reach are habitable. Never mind the current science seems to indicate that we are incapable of living in peace with ourselves or other species. And take a close look around you suppose we found a habitable planet and thru the miracle of "warp drive" or some other science fiction it was suddenly in reach. Would you really want to do to that pristine planet what the human race has done to earth?
Maybe we'll get it right, next time.
holy crap this is a good idea. Mrs. Clinton should get to work on a draft treaty proposal immediately! Russia and China wont wait for us!