How about funding more HBO miniseries about outer space instead?
The International Herald-Tribune reports that the Bush administration has some ambitious ideas to revamp the space programme: The Bush administration is developing a new strategy for the U.S. space program that would send American astronauts back to the moon for the first time in more than 30 years, according to administration and congressional officials who ...
The International Herald-Tribune reports that the Bush administration has some ambitious ideas to revamp the space programme:
The International Herald-Tribune reports that the Bush administration has some ambitious ideas to revamp the space programme:
The Bush administration is developing a new strategy for the U.S. space program that would send American astronauts back to the moon for the first time in more than 30 years, according to administration and congressional officials who said the plan also included a manned mission to Mars. A lunar mission – possibly establishing a permanent base there – is the focus of high-level White House discussions on how to reinvigorate the space program following the space shuttle Columbia accident this year, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity…. While officials stressed that the White House had yet to sign off on a specific plan, they said President George W. Bush was expected soon to unveil a strategy that would include manned missions to the moon and to Mars. The idea is to motivate NASA engineers and researchers by aiming to explore deeper reaches of space than the current shuttle fleet is capable of visiting.
Sounds great — exactly the kind of soaring vision that led to Neil Armstrong broadcasting from Tranquility Base. However, I have some nagging questions:
A rudimentary, stripped-down Moon base and supplies might weigh 200 tons. (The winged “orbiter” part of the space shuttle weighs 90 tons unfueled, and it’s cramped with food, oxygen, water, and power sufficient only for about two weeks.) Placing 200 tons on the Moon might require 400 tons of fuel and vehicle in low-Earth orbit, so that’s 600 tons that need to be launched just for the cargo part of the Moon base. Currently, using the space shuttle it costs about $25 million to place a ton into low-Earth orbit. Thus means the bulk weight alone for a Moon base might cost $15 billion to launch: building the base, staffing it, and getting the staff there and back would be extra. Fifteen billion dollars is roughly equivalent to NASA’s entire annual budget. Using existing expendable rockets might bring down the cargo-launch price, but add the base itself, the astronauts, their transit vehicles, and thousands of support staff on Earth and a ten-year Moon base program would easily exceed $100 billion. Wait, that’s the cost of the space station, which is considerably closer. Okay, maybe $200 billion.
NASA enthusiasts suggest that the cost of reconstituting a moon shot might be even greater than that. According to the IHT:
“I think the idea is fine,” James Lovell, whose 1970 Apollo mission to the moon encountered mechanical problems and nearly ended in catastrophe, said in a telephone interview. “A challenge to go back to the moon and reinvigorate the space flight program would be welcomed by the public,” he said. “But the technology that we had in the 1960’s and 1970’s, such as the Saturn V heavy booster rocket, is no longer available. The actual people, the planning, the tooling, are gone. It would cost us. We’d be starting from scratch.”
One person consulted by the White House said some aides appear to relish the idea of a “Kennedy moment” for Bush, referring to the 1962 call by President John F. Kennedy for the nation to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth by the end of the decade. A senior administration official said that “a lot of simultaneous efforts have been launched” in a quest for such an idea, and that the efforts have been underway since at least late summer. The official said the planning was born of an effort to follow up Bush’s emergency plan for AIDS relief in this year’s State of the Union address, which called for spending $15 billion over five years to help African and Caribbean countries fight the pandemic. This official said Bush’s closest aides are promoting big initiatives on the theory that they contribute to Bush’s image as a decisive leader even if people disagree with some of the specifics. “Iraq was big. AIDS is big,” the official said. “Big works. Big grabs attention.”
You know, follow-through is big, too. Trying to convert the Middle East into an area where democracy and capitalism is pretty damn ambitious as well. Hey, curing AIDS is pretty big, and the rewards much more tangible.
I’d like to see a mission to Mars. I’d just like to see a lot of other things happen first. In sum, I’m with Easterbrook on this one:
NASA doesn’t need a grand ambition, it needs a cheap, reliable means of getting back and forth to low-Earth orbit. Here’s a twenty-first century vision for NASA: Cancel the shuttle, mothball the does-nothing space station, and use all the budget money the two would have consumed to develop an affordable means of space flight. Then we can talk about the Moon and Mars.
Yep. UPDATE: Patrick Belton links to this Buzz Aldrin op-ed in the New York Times. Aldrin’s proposal:
A much more practical destination than the moon or the space station is a region of space called L 1, which is more than two-thirds of the way to the moon and is where the gravity fields between the Earth and Moon are in balance. Setting up a space port there would offer a highly stable platform from which spacecraft could head toward near-Earth asteroids, the lunar surface, the moons of Mars and wherever else mankind decides to travel. Unlike the Moon and the International Space Station, which is in low-earth orbit, L 1 is not the site of strong gravitational pulls, meaning that spacecraft can leave there without using much energy. Thus L 1 would be the most sensible position for a base that would function as a test area and way-point for robotic flights as well as a support station and safe haven for human exploration of the solar system.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
