“A human landing and extended human presence on Mars stand prominently above all other opportunities for exploration. [...] Mars is unquestionably the most scientifically interesting destination in the inner solar system. It possesses resources which can be used for life support and propellants. If humans are ever to live for long periods with intention of extended settlement on another planetary surface, it is likely to be on Mars. But Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment in resources.”

The Commission then extensively examined options for human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit, settling on the Flexible Path option, which at a minimum preserved the Orion aspect of Project Constellation.

Under President Obama’s proposal, Orion, along with the rest of Project Constellation, would be cancelled.

It is worth noting that the cancellation would change NASA’s direction yet again despite substantial developmental costs already expended toward implementation of Project Constellation. Although it said that sunk costs can only be one factor to be considered, the Commission warned against constant changes in NASA’s objectives:

“Significant space achievements require continuity of support over many years. One way to assure that no successes are achieved is to continually introduce change. Changes to ongoing programs should be made only for compelling reasons. NASA and its human spaceflight program are in need of stability, having been redirected several times in the last decade.”

The Commission warned that changes to Project Constellation carried significant risks, and, among other consequences, entail the loss of existing workforce resources and human expertise. Significantly, despite its concerns about the escalating costs of Ares I, it flatly noted that terminating Ares I would cause programmatic disruption.

Alternatives to Project Constellation?

The Commission’s report emphasized that a super-heavy lifter with a rating similar to Ares V would be required. By contrast, the President’s proposal omits any programmatic funding for any such lifter.

The Commission’s recommendations on commercial spaceflight made no mention of private provision of such launchers, and for good reason: Most of those knowledgeable in the field admit that commercial spaceflight cannot operate beyond low-Earth orbit and, moreover, have no generally recognized investment interest to in doing so. Development of an Ares V-class launcher would have no basis in private industry. Even the claims of a private industry lobbying group draw the line at going beyond a few hundred miles beyond the Earth:

“We have a tremendous opportunity here to jump-start private activity in low-Earth orbit that will further lower the cost of access to space and unleash the economic potential of space long promised.”

Use of commercial options for low-Earth orbital operations, the Commission noted, should be pursued only if there is accelerated development toward a heavy-lift vehicle such as the Ares V.

Contrary to the Commission’s findings, the Administration’s proposal for NASA, however, contains no such acceleration and in fact would terminate the Ares V without providing for any substitute.

The Commission also noted that a commonly cited alternative to Project Constellation, reliance on the Defense Department’s Delta IV and Atlas V vehicles (also known as Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, or EELV’s), incurred significant costs:

“Because of these realignment costs, the EELV-heritage super heavy does not become available significantly sooner than the Ares V or Shuttle-derived families of launchers. The transition to this way of doing business would come at the cost of cutting deeply into a the internal NASA capability to develop and operate launchers, both in terms of skills and facilities.”

Nor does the Administration’s proposal contain any funding for even this alternative.

Not Worthy

In short, President Obama’s budgetary proposal would cancel NASA’s means to achieve the goals cited by the Augustine Commission. It would seek private means of achieving low-Earth orbital operations but essentially delay programmatic commitment toward any human spaceflight beyond that threshold.

If the Administration had its way, NASA would no longer have in mind the objectives the Commission saw were worthy of a great nation.

Sources consulted:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?cat=27

See: http://hatricksblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-nasa-would-not-be-worthy-of-great.html

This is completely wrong. Mars is much easier for us to get to now than the Moon was in 1961 when Kennedy issued his challenge, and we went to the Moon in only 8 years. In fact we are still coasting on the infrastructure developed by the Apollo program. The worst part is that in inflation adjusted terms NASA’s budget has not been cut since the Apollo era.

Clearly having a tight deadline and a clear specific destination is what produces results. Whereas the past 30 years of aimless floundering and pursuing random technical projects has accomplished nothing.

As for “free space” – that is perverse. Space is not a destination, it is mere emptiness between worlds, which themselves should be the destination. Columbus did not sail 300 miles out from Spain, drop anchor and take notes for years on the effects of long sea voyages on sailors, in the hopes that someday a leadership with vision would charter and fund an expedition to actually GO somewhere.

A trip to Mars would take 6 months with conventional Apollo-Shuttle era technology, no more than a trip from England to Australia in the 1780s, or a standard cruise for a modern US nuclear sub crew.

The Moon is a bleak and barren world, devoid of much interest. Despite the recent hype over water, that proportion of water is lower than in the driest deserts on Earth; by contrast Mars has areas of over 60% water by weight.

Mars has an atmosphere, enabling aerobraking to slow down and be captured by the planet’s gravity, and enabling parachute descent. This is a huge savings on fuel which saves weight, which in turn saves fuel, etc. Mars’ atmosphere also provides some radiation shielding. Furthermore it eases temperature extremes – the Moon has both rock-baking heat and deep-space cold, whereas Mars’ worst temperatures are little colder than the worst in the Antarctic, while its hottest are like a mild Earth spring. Finally, Mars’ atmosphere enables us to make water, oxygen, rover fuel, and rocket fuel for the return journey right there on-site, using simple low-energy 19th century chemical reactions. This also drastically reduces the resources that need to be brought along.

Unlike the Moon, Mars has a complex geological history, giving it ores of useful and precious metals. Unlike the Moon, which lacks carbon, nitrogen, and other vital resources, Mars has, in abundance, all the elements needed for industry and agriculture.

Unlike the Moon with its 2 week cycle, Mars has, in a fantastic coincidence, a 24 hour day night cycle like ours, enabling greenhouse agriculture.

The Moon is like Greenland, and Mars is like North America. Western explorers got to the first one first, but only the second was resource rich enough to allow a self sustaining large scale settlement and the founding of a new branch of our civilization.

All the wars, intrigues, bankruptcies, and dynastic politics of 15th century Spain seemed of tremendous importance to its political class then, but the only leaders remembered today are Ferdinand and Isabella, who had the vision to open up a new world. Will our leaders today be as farsighted?

Read Dr. Robert Zubrin’s book “The Case for Mars” or visit the Mars Society website at MarsSociety.org for more info.

Now, given how nervous you are about all things defense related, I’d expect this to make you nervous as well. But perhaps you have more faith in the free market to always do things in America’s best interests than I do.

My concern, as I noted, was that while Columbus taking his ships over the horizon didn’t threaten the safety of Europeans outside those on his boats … human beings launching larger and larger payloads into the air most certainly threatens everyone on earth … particularly those people who live proximal to launch sites. There certainly is some reason to call for regulation and oversight.

You make it sound as if space travel today is much riskier than Columbus mission. But the risks of Columbus’ mission, as perceived at the time, were very high–as high as space travel is today:

Remember that in Columbus’ time, it was popularly believed that the Earth was flat–and if you sailed too far, you would fall off the edge into Hades. The families of the men who sailed on Columbus’ ships were sure that their husbands and fathers were going on a suicide mission.

Scholars knew the Earth was round, but they also knew (ever since Eratosthenes) that the circumference of the Earth was around 25,000 miles. Columbus fudged his calculations. He basically lied about the distance he would have to travel, making it sound much shorter than that.

Scientists at the University of Salamanca pointed out to Columbus that his theory that he could reach India by sailing westward all around the world meant that he would be sailing for years (as Magellan did later), and that his ships and supplies were inadequate for the undertaking. They were right and Columbus was wrong. Had Columbus not stumbled into the Americas which no one in Europe yet knew existed, he would have failed.

The main difference between Columbus (his original intent to reach India or his accidentally discovering America) and today’s space travelers, is that there isn’t yet livable land at the end of the destination!

When Columbus landed in the Caribbean, he and his men disembarked, breathed fresh air, drank rain water, ate the local fruits, and met up with local inhabitants.

When astronauts will land on the Moon or Mars, they will find NOTHING except a few drops of water as ice (unless they land at the poles). No flora. No fauna. No fresh air. And certainly no inhabitants.

Any settlers who land on Mars are going to have to create a livable environment for themselves–air, plant and animal life will have to be brought with them. No settlers on this planet had to do that.

Having said that, our technology is more than equal to that task. We know how to get to Mars. The question remains: When will we have the will to commit to doing so?

Another good point … if the people who designed/built Columbus’ ships had done a really bad job, that would have meant the demise of he and his crew – but would have been unlikely to have killed anyone else. When you’re launching things into the air, there are extra layers of liability to deal with because they can come down catastrophically.

The meteorite fragments will still be large enough that the chance they will burn out is small. They’re composed of nickel and iron, which doesn’t ablate quickly.

We’ve had meteorites enter our atmosphere. Many didn’t burn out. Meteor Crater in Arizona was formed by the impact of a meteorite only 150 feet in diameter.

Finally, the pieces of the meteorite would drift apart from the center of mass–but they would still be on mostly the same trajectory. They wouldn’t smash into the Earth all over the Earth. They would still hit in mostly the same area–but over a wider area.

As for a meteorite strike in the ocean, it would kick up enormous tidal waves that would come crashing onto the nearest coast and obliterate what’s there.

Christopher Columbus was also funded by a government.

I’m trying to wrap my head around this, but intuitively I think you’re wrong.

Why? Because the smaller the pieces are, the more surface area to mass as they enter the Earth’s atmosphere, and thus the greater opportunity for pieces to burn out at higher altitudes, reducing the potential for any one piece to carry enough mass to cause the size of explosion we worry about.

Plus, because of composition of the earth’s surface, there is always a higher percentage chance that any one piece will hit water. One huge meteor hitting water stands to create a much bigger wave than a lot of smaller meteors … and the larger the wave, the further it will travel in a form large enough to destroy a coastal city.

No, I think I’ll take my chances with the smaller fragments, thank you.

To the rest of you (so far): Too bad you weren’t around to tell Columbus not to go in the ocean.