Comments to & Kraft article on returning to moon--last one best

editor note–last comment right on target–we will never convince Joe taxpayer that space is good for us and is needed regardless of all spin offs, etc. FEAR is the answer, we will have to play catch up to china, Russia or someone and FEAR is what is needed—just like the budget deficit.
Until things really go to hell and there is no food or gas–things will continue pretty much as they are.

Also, NASA should be moved to DOD, then we might get more done to improve our capabilities.

Chris has spoke up many times, but no one in adm is listening, just like shuttle, no one listened. To put it bluntly, adm does not want a preeminent USA in space or in energy for that matter. Be nice to hear NASA leaders speak out with bold new programs, but with this adm and lack of leadership, it wouldn’t matter. The adm could have kept shuttle flying until we got a replacement, but they didn’t want to. If the president worked with both parties and really wanted PREEMINCE it could have been and still can be achieved, but he doesn’t want preeminence.
Regarding education of Joe public, I tried to get The Case to Save the Shuttle on nationwide TV specifically FOX, but I was ignored. Tried to get some famous astronauts to help but no results. I believe educating Joe public on benefits of space and getting massive public support will be very difficult if not impossible. So, comes back to Fear and catch-up.

Credit: NASAWatch

Back To The Moon – Minus The Great Big Rocket
By Keith Cowing on December 20, 2011 10:08 PM 26 Comments
NASA Needs To Wake Up to Reality, Chris Kraft, Space News

“So come on NASA, wake up! Take the lid off and turn loose the human resources you already have in place. Most of these bright people came to NASA excited about the future, about going back to the Moon to stay and becoming a part of what could be another renaissance in space. Building a great big rocket is not a necessary expenditure at this time. In fact, the budget that will be consumed by this big rocket will prevent NASA from any meaningful human exploration for at least the next decade and probably beyond. We don’t have to march in place while we wait for the powers that be to cancel it. Let’s be innovative; let’s wake up the sleeping giant and have at returning to the Moon right now.”

Categories: Commercialization, Exploration
Tags: Chris Kraft, exploration, Moon, SLS
ARTICLE TOOLS Print

26 Comments

| Leave a comment
enginerd | December 20, 2011 10:22 PM | Reply
The thing is, NASA has to listen to the boneheads on capitol hill. As long as Congress is forking over the dough, NASA has no choice. We might as well be positive with what we are stuck with and hope that the SLS managers can get this program to work side by side with the private sector and do something worth the rediculous investment that comes with it.
bassplayinben | December 20, 2011 11:25 PM | Reply
The flight director says GET BACK IN!
Astropat | December 21, 2011 2:04 AM | Reply
FINALLY!
I have thought about this very thing for years!
Dennis Wingo | December 21, 2011 2:10 AM | Reply
Thanks Kris, this needed to be said.
majormajor42 | December 21, 2011 6:26 AM | Reply
We’ve been hearing similar arguments for the past couple years. Mr. Craft certainly adds a new influential voice to the debate. We’ll see. I think the less expensive, more sustainable and viable, non-BFR options won’t be politically acceptable until after the cheaper commercial alternatives have a better track record (even though EELV is also available today). Right now it is still too easy to say the things that are said in committee, such as “not proven”. That’s my take. Hope I am wrong and Mr. Craft can make certain lawmakers rethink their position, such as Texas Senators.
skinny | December 21, 2011 7:08 AM | Reply
YES! The Moon is accessible with our current technology. Mars is a pipe dream for the next generation to work on. Delta IV Heavy with a J2X upper stage. This is where NASA should be able to put some seed money and let ULA make it happen. NASA’s involvement should be as small as possible…
Space Act Agreement now!!!
Matt_in_TX | December 21, 2011 7:42 AM | Reply
Thank you Dr. Kraft. What I most appreciated about this article, was that rather than concentrate on inspring the “next generation” it actually acknowledged that there is a current generation that is ready to move forward now.
Waxing poetic about the ability of the next generation is surely important, but tends to be most of what the previous generation seems to talk about these days. I try not to take each succeeding article as a slap in the face by my generation’s idols, but sometimes it’s hard to ignore.
The current generation was inspired by Apollo. We too know that youth can make great strides in space – because we did it as young engineers also. We worked the one or two in-a-career actually flying-in-space programs the shuttle or station budgets let slip by, or shuttle and station themselves. And waited to move forward.
We aren’t going to be here forever, either. Lost 3 to other industries that I have worked with this quarter. None of whom were at retirement age. I have already done my time away from aerospace. So I’ll be here as long as I can. Contributing at my full potential, or polishing critical national test hardware if necessary, and waiting to move forward.
I’m at the point in my life and career, however, where I see that I can’t wait forever. Nor do I care to wait until the administrator’s grandchildren can help us to do great things. I’m ready now.
eventhorizon | December 21, 2011 9:13 AM | Reply
Question for you Rocket Boys: Is it technically possible to boost the space station into lunar orbit and/or onto the lunar surface once it reaches the end of the money train, as opposed to just de-orbit it as junk?
Bryan R replied to comment from enginerd | December 21, 2011 9:23 AM | Reply
You’re talking like a defeatist.
I can tell you that in 1961, NASA was the one that did the study and told Lyndon Johnson that if the goal was to show technological prowess, then we should land a man on the moon. The idea did not originate with Kennedy, Johnson or with Congress.
In 1969-72, NASA decided they needed a reusable winged fly-back booster. We needed it because if they did not have it, they had no other launch vehicles and we’d be stuck on the ground without it. Saturn production had been turned off in 1968. They sold the idea to Nixon and Congress bought into it.
From 1976 through 1984, NASA decided that a Space Station was the next logical step, and Reagan agreed, over the heads of several of his advisers, and Congress agreed to fund it. Jim Beggs did not sit around and wait for Casper Weinberger or James Stockman to tell him what he needed to be doing.
Now, our NASA ‘leadership’ and many of you like enginerd, seems to be saying ‘woe is me’ we better let someone else figure out what we need to do because after all we are only nerds, engineers and rocket scientists and why do you think we would know what to do….these people are pathetic.
The message Chris Kraft is sending is that NASA had better figure out what it needs to do and what it wants to do, and go after it. If you wait for Congress to tell you what to do, you’ll be running in circles.
Dennis Wingo | December 21, 2011 10:12 AM | Reply
You want us to get back to the Moon? Gingrich has it right, $10 billion dollars to the first U.S. organization to get three people to the lunar surface and keep them alive there for one year.
Another 15 billion if they produce 50 tons of lunar oxygen and deliver it to the space station.
Add another $20 billion to deliver 100 kg of Platinium group metals.
Watch the world change,
And all for less than the price of the SLS.
noofcsq | December 21, 2011 1:02 PM | Reply
Hate to be critical to someone I’ve agreed with for decades, but Chris this would have been more effective a year or two ago if you’d spoke up then.
The BFR long overstayed its welcome. Worse yet, the skills we need to build upon for exploration mean massive dollars in spacecraft not launch vehicles. Many of those who can do so were fired, to make way for those to “re learn” how to make BFRs instead. Reminds me of the military – turn the best cook into an auto mechanic in the pool, and turn the best mechanic in a KP cook.
Dennis Wingo | December 21, 2011 1:23 PM | Reply
noofcsq | December 21, 2011 1:02 PM | Reply
Hate to be critical to someone I’ve agreed with for decades, but Chris this would have been more effective a year or two ago if you’d spoke up then.
Yes it would have, say just about 24 hours after the infamous astronaut testimony for SLS last year.
There are a lot of the old timers that see the disaster here but don’t want to speak up because they hope against hope that somewhere, some how we can make lemonade from a lemon.
It is not going to happen. We have the opportunity of a generation here, space has been put into the presidential campaign and it was not laughed off and was actually supported by people who would ordinarily never support a conservative republican.
I wish our side would wake up to what is at stake here.
Brian Bernhard | December 21, 2011 1:53 PM | Reply
“You want us to get back to the Moon? Gingrich has it right, $10 billion dollars to the first U.S. organization to get three people to the lunar . . .”
I support manned missions to the Moon. Anything would be better then nothing. I propose putting out prizes for robotics first followed by manned missions. The Google Lunar X prize is a good first step. Need more opportunities and follow on, leading to the manned missions.
newpapyrus | December 21, 2011 4:08 PM | Reply
I agree with Mr. Kraft that the SLS will not get people to an asteroid or too Mars since such adventures will still require major breakthroughs in radiation shielding or require simple heavy mass shielding combined with super fuel efficient nuclear or advanced light sail technology. Vehicles capable of producing artificial gravity may also be a requirement for interplanetary travel.
But the SLS is going to be a remarkable machine with a large variety of heavy lift and sub-heavy lift configurations once the expendable RS-25E engines are starting to be produced. Boeing has already studied such sub-heavy lift configurations for SLS type of vehicles that don’t require any side mounted boosters at all which would require four RS-68 engines or five or six RS-25E engines. I also suspect that the RS-25E might be attractive to private commercial spaceflight companies like the ULA that might want to use a single core Delta IV heavy as a man-rated launch vehicle. Such a man-rated Delta IV would probably require two RS-25E engines.
The primary focus of the SLS program should be on deploying habitat modules and other necessary components for a manned lunar base for studying long term human health under a hypogravity environment and for manufacturing water, air, fuel and hydrogenous interplanetary mass shielding.
It would be rather difficult for the SLS to eat up an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight budget (the annual manned spaceflight budget President Obama inherited from the Bush administration) once it is completed by the end of the decade— especially under some of the silly scenarios where several years go by with no launches at all. And it would also be difficult to see how the SLS annual operational budget would hurt a lunar program if it was specifically used for a lunar base program consisting of four to six launches per year.
And we’re still only talking about relatively tiny manned spaceflight expenditures that represent less than 0.3% of total Federal expenditures. So these manned spaceflight expenditures are hardly a burden to the US economy.
Marcel F. Williams
Steve Whitfield replied to comment from Bryan R | December 21, 2011 4:48 PM | Reply
Bryan,
I don’t disagree with you on any of your examples.  In each case, NASA did provide the answer.  The difference is, if I’m not mistaken, that in the examples you cite, the President (or VP) first asked NASA what they should be doing, and was genuinely interested in the answer.  These days, nobody in power is asking.
Steve
Bryan R replied to comment from Steve Whitfield | December 21, 2011 7:02 PM | Reply
First, when an opportunity like last week’s Newt – Romney debate came up, NASA and industry should have been ready to jump in and make some points.
The arguments need to be presented in terms that the President, Congress and the American people cannot help but be interested, whether it is in the context of education or the economy, or international cooperation. NASA has not put together a coherent and meaningful story. The current emphasis in ISS is on the biggest most complex machine in the sky [which no one can see] and on the great achievement of assembly operations [which was largely finished years ago and which most people do not relate to]. The emphasis all along should have been on American technological investment and utilization, including use as a steppingstone to further planetary exploration.
Steve Whitfield replied to comment from Bryan R | December 21, 2011 11:47 PM | Reply
Bryan,
Again, I certainly don’t disagree with NASA developing plans, but there’s still the question of opportunity, basically being invited to say your piece.  Candidate debates do not include a place on the stage for NASA (or any other non-candidate party) to stand and be heard.  Even if NASA had the best ideas and intentions, until they (or anyone else) is asked to participate and speak either publicly or privately, there’s absolutely nothing they can do, except write letters to their representatives just like everybody else.  Government programs and spending are not decided by consensus, and never have been.
I would be very surprised if nobody from the current NASA senior management has ever put forth proposals and national space goals for the White House and Congress to consider.  As I’ve said in other posts, just because we weren’t told about it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  Absence of evidence, etc…
Steve
Dennis Wingo | December 21, 2011 11:49 PM | Reply
First, when an opportunity like last week’s Newt – Romney debate came up, NASA and industry should have been ready to jump in and make some points.
You are absolutely right Bryan, a major missed opportunity. If space gets turned into a laughing stock we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Paul451 replied to comment from Dennis Wingo | December 22, 2011 1:09 AM | Reply
Dennis,
“You want us to get back to the Moon? Gingrich has it right, $10 billion dollars to the first U.S. organization to get three people to the lunar surface and keep them alive there for one year.”
Start smaller. Scale up. $2b for first man on the moon. Then $2b to stay for a full lunar month. $2b for 3 months. Then $4b for a year. Each prize begins only when the last has been collected.
(Then switch to a standing $500m per person per year.)
“if they produce 50 tons of lunar oxygen and deliver it to the space station.”
These are better done as (optionally) robotic missions. And, again, starting small and scaling up. $500m to deliver a kg of non-terrestrial water to the ISS. Scaling up to $2b for a tonne delivered using ISRU fuel. And then contract delivery of air/water, however much the ISS actually uses, at whatever NASA currently spends.
I’d also like to see a set price for returning core samples from asteroids and comets. Relatively cheap, low risk way to get a bunch of science quickly. Like $100m-per-meter-depth of standard 100mm (4″) core.
And in your area of interest, I’d like to see scaling prizes for the use of ISRU in construction. Regolith blocks. Regolith sand-mould cast nickle-iron parts. Scaling up to structures built from those parts.
I think that single prizes don’t stimulate enough development. I always compare the Ansari X-Prize with the DARPA robot driving challenge. There hasn’t been a single follow up flight since the X-Prize was won. Meanwhile the DARPA challenge leapt ahead each year. I’ve wondered what would be achieved had the Ansari X-Prize been an annual event. (Perhaps someone could even suggest that to Spaceport America? It’s only $10m per year. (Highest flight wins.))
Spacelab1 | December 22, 2011 2:01 AM | Reply
The problem is, people will ask: “Why should we be doing human planetary exploration? Robots can do that, and are already doing it.”
The majority of people I come across with almost always ask me these questions when I express my fascination in human space exploration. I go on to explain about how it is important to continue to explore, inspiration etc. They are not convinced. Most people either want to make money or solve problems on this planet before going on to other planets.
I believe that human spaceflight’s worse enemies are the lack of public interest and distance from the general public as well as a lack of true goals. I do not even see scientists calling for a need of a manned outpost on the Moon or Mars.
Most of us here on NASAWatch would agree that we should explore for the sake of expanding our knowledge of the universe–the usual reasons. Unfortunately, human spaceflight is very expensive and “desire to explore” and “inspiration” are not good enough reasons to spend so much money for most people. There are several articles on the internet trying to address this issue.
Before we even consider what engine or core booster NASA’s next vehicle will or should be using, we must first address the true issues affecting human space travel. We must have a solid goal that will sell with the public at large–especially those not interest in space.
Any ideas?
Dennis Wingo | December 22, 2011 1:27 PM | Reply
They are not convinced. Most people either want to make money or solve problems on this planet before going on to other planets.
To me this one is quite easy. Just ask the question. Do you think that the resources of the Earth will be adequate to support a global civilization of 9 billion people who will be alive in 2050?
Steve Whitfield replied to comment from Spacelab1 | December 22, 2011 1:49 PM | Reply
Spacelab1,
I agree completely with your post, and I think you have a good part of the answer in your question.
“Most people either want to make money or solve problems on this planet before going on to other planets.”
Almost from day one, space exploration, human and robotic, have contributed significantly to both making money and solving problems on Earth.  The catch is that people aren’t aware of the many examples.  NASA’s annual Spin-Off publication doesn’t help much because it tries to show every “spin-off” as some sort of product, and unfortunately most of these products are irrelevant to the lives of most people.
If you looked no further than the industrial processes that have been developed for producing space equipment that have then gone on to greatly benefit everyday industries, then space “exploration” has put us way ahead of where we would have been in terms of both making money and solving problems.
Now add to that the new materials and materials manufacturing methods that have been developed for the space programs and then adopted by other industries and you’ve added more billions to the world’s economy.
And, of course, there’s the jobs and pork aspect, too.
What I see missing is that all of the above is not explained to the public in any meaningful way.  You can’t express it as products.  You can’t show it as a picture plus a paragraph in a glossy handout.  You can’t get the message across by listing equipment that Joe Public isn’t familiar with and in a vocabulary he doesn’t understand.  It would take careful wording and well thought out presentation to begin to “educate” the average non-space-fan as to why the space program has made money and bettered life on Earth.  And I’ve yet to see that attempted.
I think that once you did start to make Joe Public actually understand how the space program has benefited us and how it does pay for itself, you would find it a lot easier to get him to listen to and give credence to the exploration, science and other “inspiring” aspects.
I think the ammunition is there, but nobody has yet put it into the right presentation.
Steve
dogstar2 | December 22, 2011 3:30 PM | Reply
Unfortunately the value of spinoff is vastly exaggerated. Many of the commonly mentioned examples are apocryphal (velcro, pacemakers) or non-NASA (GPS). The money would produce far more progress if used directly to produce practical advances; ask anyone who submits proposals to other agencies how much they get and what they are required to produce. As it is, NASA cannot do any useful research except as an inadvertent byproduct of human spaceflight.
Human spaceflight is worth a lot, but it is not worth nearly as much as it costs, with either Soyuz or SLS. NASA should concentrate on reducing the cost of flight to LEO by at least an order of magnitude before even thinking about going farther.
dogstar2 | December 22, 2011 3:33 PM | Reply
What Kraft has said is not that he “opposes” SLS, but that it will be cancelled because America cannot afford it. Consequently the money spent on it will be wasted. A Republican administration would slash budgets for federal projects like this even farther.
The Obama administration recognized this and tried to cancel the program but so far Congress has forced them to continue.
Spacelab1 | December 22, 2011 5:28 PM | Reply
Great replies everyone.
I actually have explained how human spaceflight and the possible terraforming of other planets could solve the overpopulation problem. Unfortunately, the persons I have discussed this with find “population control” more practical–and this was coming from astrophysics students at a major university!
I strongly agree that we must explain how human spaceflight has and will benefit us in a meaningful way. NASA should have this as one of its top priorities. Unfortunately, all NASA seems to enjoy doing is trying to convince elementary school children to become astronauts, and doing powerpoint presentations of SLS–which is just a load of pork having nothing to do with advancing human spaceflight.
Jim Bates | December 22, 2011 11:10 PM | Reply
I fully agree with Chris on this. However, we will probably have to wait until the Chinese bring back some of things our NASA astronauts left on the moon before we get directed by our leaders to play ‘catch up’ again.
Thanx,
Jim Bates NASA / JSC 42 yrs (now retred)