Open letter to all Congress representatives from an Australian.
Re: House Authorisation Act NASA
It is necessary for the U.S. Government (NASA) to get unified consensus as to what the long-term goals of human manned missions beyond low earth orbit are. Without this vision we have seen projects begun and cancelled because there is no clear vision. We have had constellation cancelled after an expenditure of nine billion. The asteroid redirect program has been and gone. We had a 2028 lunar landing date, then it became 2024. Now the NASA Authorisation Bill suggests going back to 2028, making less use of commercial craft and placing emphasis on Mars, all crazy in my view. A massive amount of money is being spent and absolutely nothing being achieved due to the directionless meanderings as politicians keep changing the goals.
There are two competing visions as to the long-term direction. One is embraced by Elon Musk and is Mars colonisation focused. The second is embraced by Jeff Bezos and is moon and free-floating space habitat based. The second vision is as a consequence of a study by a Princeton Professor (Gerald O’Neill) and his post graduate students in the 1980’s.
The Gerald O’Neill vision was that it simply takes too much energy getting off planetary surfaces. The concept is to use space resources to build large rotating orbiting space habitats. It is believed that there are enough resources in the asteroid belt alone to support a human population of 17 trillion using this approach.
Both visions are very long-term concepts and I only mention them as looking to the long term can help formulate a near term vision for NASA.
Private enterprise is driven by commercial return. Nations must be driven by commercial return as this is what ultimately determines the wealth of nations. The free enterprise system and competition is what ultimately selects good ideas from bad ideas and drives efficiency.
The 2024 manned landing is achievable primarily because hardware will be staged at the moon by private sector launch providers. This sector is growing and has driven down launch costs through reusability. The keys to driving down costs are reusability, launch frequency, turn around time and economies of scale (production line economies of scale).
The 2024 manned landing concept relies on private providers delivering early gateway components and landers. It is all achievable and on track. I understand that in 2028 NASA has set aside an SLS launch so as to deliver the lunar asset to the surface (a habitat module, hopefully the first module of a permanent base). The House Authorisation Act will change everything.
My thoughts are that commercialisation and sustainability should be the goal of future manned space development. If a return is being obtained, then projects will be less expensive and more palatable. An example is NASA’s hope that the International Space Station (ISS) will be self-funding after 2024 (medical manufacturing etc). The strategy should be that NASA is a pathfinder, commercialisation follows.
Using the above approach with Artemis, sustainability could mean using lunar resources (water ice for fuel, using space-based resources is the strategy for making space more viable). Ultimately if the spacex starship, for example, is developed to the point where lunar landings can take place, transport costs will fall. I am hopeful (don’t know how much research has been done) that He3 and rare earth metal mining may become viable as a consequence. Lunar research could mean placing radio telescopes on the lunar far side where they are sheltered from earth radio chatter.
I am negative about changing the landing deadline to 2028. This simply means a shift in emphasis to using the very expensive SLS. Private sector involvement should be the priority from the start if the aim is sustainability and getting more bang for your buck. Space Launch System (SLS) usage should be primarily limited to getting the heavy manned Orion to the moon, it will be the only launch system capable of doing so for a while. Also chopping and changing means a lot of money is wasted. Nine billion was spent on the Constellation program before it was cancelled, sheer waste.
I believe one off space missions are a waste of resources, look at Apollo, went to moon then nothing has happened for 50 years. I suspect a Mars mission will be the same. We need sustainable development, don’t run before you can walk otherwise you will trip up. The idea of sending people on a two and a half year trip in a low gravity, high radiation environment and being hopeful that they will return alright is crazy in my opinion.
Due to the sudden involvement of the private sector, we are at the cusp of something large. Fifteen years ago no private sector company had launched a satellite into space, now they are even being launched from New Zealand.
Decisions made now could change human history. Never before have we been at such a pivotal time. NASA is a state-owned organisation. Its function should be as a pathfinder and to foster space-based industries. NASA cannot do what the private sector does. State owned enterprises do not build commercial Airliners nor Motorcars. I suspect eventually NASA may not be involved in rocket manufacture, instead simply hiring space on commercial transporters. This is the future. Look at what the private sector already has planned. Examples – Spacex’s starlink system and also plans for rapid point to point transport around the globe using starship to compete with Airliners (both concepts which give a commercial return).
The 2024 lunar deadline may be expensive in the short term, however makes better use of cheaper launch providers, gets the private sector more involved, gets to the moon faster, and fits in better with the concept of NASA as a pathfinder. By getting early infrastructure in place the private sector will likely follow. Without that infrastructure, there may be no follow-up.
Placing Australians on a Fast Elevator to the Future 