Partner With NASA And Go To The Moon - But Why?
    By Hank Campbell | February 3rd 2014 09:49 PM | 2 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    When President Obama took office in 2009, among his first priorities was to cancel the Constellation program, mostly because it had George Bush's name on it, though that was behind a veneer of 'too expensive' and would take too long. 

    The Apollo moon landing took almost twice as long as estimates too, Pres. Kennedy had grossly underestimated the difficulty, and it was far over budget, but the new president of the United States from the opposition party who took office in 1969 did not cancel the program so he could create one with his own name on it. I noted at the time that it should shock people that the new president had less respect for science than Richard Nixon.

    A few short years after saying it was a dumb idea to go back to the Moon, the administration is now saying we should...go back to the Moon. Like with the original NASA, this would rely on private companies to do most of the work. Unlike with the original NASA, companies today would be bound by all kinds of meaningless federal regulations, laws, restrictions and headaches - all for the opportunity what? If George Bush and the entire US government was unrealistic in its estimate for how much it would cost to do a soft landing on Luna, why would companies sign up for that blank check?

    If you think you smell panic in the program, you are not wrong. "As NASA pursues an ambitious plan for humans to explore an asteroid and Mars, US industry will create opportunities for NASA to advance new technologies on the moon," said Greg Williams, Nasa's deputy associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate in their statement.  

    Why do companies need NASA for that? If you read the document, NASA is basically offering civil servants, but the last thing a nimble company making a bold space endeavor wants is government unions. And why would companies want to do technology demonstrations or look for water on the Moon?  Then the government specifies that despite there being no commercial viability they know of, companies must provide a "Commercialization Strategy: Describe the long-term plan for operating a sustained and profitable commercial enterprise after completion of capability development". NASA is going to try and pick winners and losers for commercialization of the moon?

    Companies obviously don't need to do experiments on the moon and lunar orbiter missions are far better for science and have no risk, but like with the domestic solar panels subsidy boondoggle and then tariffs on imported solar panels, this policy is playing catch-up with China.  In December, Jade Rabbit landed on Luna, the first country to do a soft landing since 1976. Then NASA reacted a few weeks ago. 

    They could have waited. The China Academy of Space Technology has reported that the experiment has already died, though they haven't said why. Let's see if, in light of this new development, the administration quietly scuttles this program and just goes back to talking about how awesome Orion will be some day.


    I think commerce going after the mineral in asteroids is a far better prospect.
    A moon base will make a nice stepping stone to other places, but it will take a lot of time and work to make it more than a couple tents in a very desolate local. But doing all of this based on government regulations is a sure to fail strategy.

    But, this reminds me of a saying, To make a small fortune in racing, start with a large fortune.
    Never is a long time.
    >mostly because it had George Bush's name on it,

    Assumption. Not exactly a "science" based comment.

    >The Apollo moon landing took almost twice as long as estimates

    In 1961, Kennedy said we'll go to the moon "this decade". Apollo 11 was in 1969.
    (That's within the decade for the counters out there.)

    >but the new president of the United States from the opposition party who took
    >office in 1969 did not cancel the program so he could create one with his own
    >name on it

    Another assumption. Your assuming the decision was based on spite rather than an honest effort to balance multiple priorities. Could be either one or a bit of both, but speculating on this stuff is small. Science is big. Be big.

    Cutting Apollo and cutting a modern NASA program are entirely different things. No president, regardless of party could have cancelled the program after taking the oath in early 69. Apollo 8 had just encircled the moon. The program was making stunning progress and was very popular with the public. A few months later, Neil and Buzz were walking around on the surface. Still gives me chills.
    Now cut to modern NASA.... They can barely get the attention of the general public. It's sad, but the reasons are another topic. The key point in this context is that the comparison of cutting Apollo to cutting a recent NASA program is "apples to oranges". The programs were at different stages, different economic circumstances, different level of public support....and on and on.