House introduces NASA authorization bill that emphasizes Mars over moon

[Elderberry]

Space News by Jeff Foust — January 24, 2020

The leadership of the House Science Committee introduced a NASA authorization bill Jan. 24 that seeks to significantly alter NASA’s current plans to return humans to the moon and make them part of an effort to send humans to Mars.

The bill, designated H.R. 5666 and introduced by Rep. Kendra Horn (D-Okla.), chair of the committee’s space subcommittee, seeks to put a human return to the moon within the context of a larger “Moon to Mars” program that would no longer have the goal of returning humans to the surface of the moon by 2024, as Vice President Pence announced in March 2019.

“The Moon to Mars program shall have the interim goal of sending a crewed mission to the lunar surface by 2028 and a goal of sending a crewed mission to orbit Mars by 2033,” the bill states.

NASA’s current plans for returning to the moon call for the development of a lunar Gateway in orbit around the moon, which would serve as a staging area for expeditions to the lunar surface. The bill would instead call this facility the “Gateway to Mars,” and allow it to be based elsewhere in cislunar space. The Gateway would also not be required to support lunar landings.

More: https://spacenews.com/house-introduces-nasa-authorization-bill-that-emphasizes-mars-over-moon/

[sneakypete]

NASA’s current plans for returning to the moon call for the development of a lunar Gateway in orbit around the moon, which would serve as a staging area for expeditions to the lunar surface.

Sounds like an excellent plan to me. What's wrong with it,not enough money being spent?

The bill would instead call this facility the “Gateway to Mars,” and allow it to be based elsewhere in cislunar space.

"Elsewhere",as in WHERE,specifically?

And how much more will this alternative site cost to develop,and who gets paid to do the research and the development?

Last time I checked,which was last night,the moon is still sitting there and still available,for free.

"The Gateway would also not be required to support lunar landings.

What is it a "Gateway" to,other than government contracts?

[Elderberry]

Insane Waste of the Lunar Gateway

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/11/insane-waste-of-the-lunar-gateway.html

The Lunar Gateway that NASA plans to build will end up costing about $40+ billion. It is being built to justify $60+ billion for the Space Launch System and the Orion capsule. The two together will be well over $100 billion. We have already spent about $30 billion on Space Launch System and the Orion manned vehicle.

Its the Logistics Stupid

Going to the Lunar Gateway adds 17% to the fuel cost for the trip to the moon.

The claim is that the Lunar Gateway will only cost $2.7 billion up to 2023. However, that is for the first module or two. Space Launch System (SLS) will not have its first test flight until 2021. Each SLS launch is about $1 billion. The International Space Station cost $150 billion. Even at one fourth the scale, the Lunar Gateway will easily cost $40 billion.

You will spend $100+ billion to not add new capability and to make it harder and longer and more costly to do things on the moon. Lunar Gateway, SLS and Orion costs need to be added together because they are all justifying each other. Build SLS to launch and build Lunar Gateway. If we are building Lunar Gateway then we need the SLS.

Moon Direct Plan and Mining the Moon

Instead we should use the Zubrin Moon Direct plan. This involves using existing SpaceX Falcon Heavies.

Does the Gateway make sense?

https://thespacereview.com/article/3502/1

The Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOP-G), despite its inelegant name, has been described by its proponents as the next reasonable step in human exploration of the Moon and Mars. We have been to the Moon before without a gateway station, so it isn’t an absolute must for returning to the Moon. Several practicable Mars mission architectures have been proposed leaving from low Earth orbit, so it is not an indispensable option to put humans on Mars.

 LOP-G, if it goes forward, will live in the political reality that SLS, Orion, and the International Space Station do. All three have become large jobs program in addition to any other benefits that they provide. It is unlikely that any of these three programs are going away soon. The Senate is balking at ending or commercializing the ISS in 2025. The programs provide a lot of very good jobs in the states and districts of very powerful members of Congress. It would be political suicide for members from these places to allow these programs to end. Their existence leaves limited money for developing new systems.

When making any tough decision it is useful to make a list of pros and cons and then weight them to come up with a good opinion. I am going to go through what I consider to be valid factors in such a decision.

Orbit

The proposed orbit for LOP-G is a Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit (NRHO). A NASA paper on the rationale for selecting the orbit includes a table on page 8 that spells out the reasoning behind the choice. The ideal choice, if the only factors for landing and returning to lunar orbit were delta-V requirements for the lander and access to any landing site, is a polar low lunar orbit. This is ruled out because the Orion spacecraft and service module can’t reach it due to the limited delta-V capability of the service module. Given the constraints of requiring the use of SLS/Orion the NRHO is the only feasible choice for now.

If constraints on spacecraft delta-V change either through design changes or access to a fuel depot, the orbit of LOP-G can change. The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) would give it the capability to move to whatever orbit is deemed ideal at the time.

SLS/Orion

Many people question the need for Orion and SLS given other options being developed that will probably be much cheaper and may end up being far more capable. Until these alternatives are in operation, though, Orion and SLS are continuing forward; end of story. Orion and SLS have strong political support for many reasons, including the large number of high-paying jobs supported by the in states with powerful members of Congress. There are also those who don’t believe that SpaceX and Blue Origin will be able to deliver on what they are promising, despite what they have done to date.

If BFR is developed within a reasonable timeframe and delivers on what Elon Musk says it can do, then the political pressure could reverse and could ultimately force the cancelation of SLS/Orion and LOP-G. Until SpaceX delivers, I don’t believe NASA, Congress, or the President will consider it in their decisions.

[kevindavis007]

The bad part is that the House wants NASA to rely on Boeing more.

[sneakypete]

Insane Waste of the Lunar Gateway

LOP-G, if it goes forward, will live in the political reality that SLS, Orion, and the International Space Station do. All three have become large jobs program in addition to any other benefits that they provide. It is unlikely that any of these three programs are going away soon. The Senate is balking at ending or commercializing the ISS in 2025. The programs provide a lot of very good jobs in the states and districts of very powerful members of Congress. It would be political suicide for members from these places to allow these programs to end. Their existence leaves limited money for developing new systems.

@Elderberry

Yeah,that's what I thought.

Not that it will actually happen. At the rate we are allowing US corporations to send American techs to China to teach them what those corporations learned under government contracts,by the time this starts to happen the jobs will all be in China.

[sneakypete]

The bad part is that the House wants NASA to rely on Boeing more.

@kevindavis

Is there an actual good part about it? The professional criminals we call "politicians" are robbing us blind!

[Elderberry]

NASA Authorization Bill Update By NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine

spaceref.com 1/27/2020

I would like to thank the Committee for producing a comprehensive NASA authorization bill. I am particularly encouraged that the bill is proceeding on a bipartisan basis, reflecting a consensus on a Moon to Mars approach. Maintaining a bipartisan, consensus approach is critical to constancy of purpose and supporting a long-term national commitment to the human exploration of the Moon and Mars. The bill envisions a destination of Mars while supporting missions to the Moon as the most effective strategy to achieve that critical, shared goal. NASA would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee in a bipartisan way, as we did with the Senate Commerce Committee, on some modifications.

I am concerned that the bill imposes some significant constraints on our approach to lunar exploration. As you know, NASA has successfully fostered the development of a rapidly expanding commercial economy for access to space. We would like to continue building on this success as we develop the most efficient mission architectures and partnership approaches to accomplish our shared goals.

NASA seeks to expand the sphere of economic activity deeper into space by conducting space exploration and development with commercial and international partners. Without the dynamic participation of commercial partners, our chances of creating a sustainable exploration program are significantly diminished. In particular, we are concerned that the bill's approach to developing a human lander system as fully government-owned and directed would be ineffective. The approach established by the bill would inhibit our ability to develop a flexible architecture that takes advantage of the full array of national capabilities – government and private sector – to accomplish national goals. NASA would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee to develop language that would support a broader national and international effort that would maximize progress toward our shared exploration goals through the efficient application of our available resources.

More: http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=53232