NASA's New Space Race Needs Life Support
Houston, we have a problem: According to a blue-ribbon panel, the U.S. space program is on an unsustainable trajectory.
This past week, the Human Spaceflight Plans Committee released a report saying that unless NASA receives more money fast, the space agency will have to scale back its near-term ambitions.
Former President George W. Bush had laid out a vision to send a manned spacecraft back to the moon, and then eventually to Mars. So NASA developed a plan to make it happen.
The idea might have been great, but the execution — well, that's another matter.
It turns out, if NASA continues on its current path, the agency will end up building rockets to nowhere — because it'll run out of cash.
So the panel, led by Norman Augustine, presented the White House with a few alternative options.
One would be to go for it — to accelerate work on NASA's most powerful rocket — called the Ares V — and start thinking about getting back to the moon fast.
Another option is to focus more on trying to land manned spacecraft on things like asteroids, as well as sending manned flights beyond the low-Earth orbit into deep space.
But both of those proposals would require more money — to the tune of at least $3 billion a year. Is it worth it?
Why Send Humans Instead Of Robots?
Former astronaut Leroy Chiao, a member of the Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, tells NPR's Guy Raz that it's important to keep manned missions in the program.
"Just as a species, we're explorers," he says. "It's exciting for us to see humans exploring, because we can identify with those people."
While Chiao acknowledges that robots are capable of plenty of the exploration part, he echoes the report's call for balance between manned and unmanned missions. Practically speaking, he says, you need humans in space because they're far more adaptable than robots.
"The human is much more adaptable and can assess the situation on the spot and take action," he says. "Missions have been saved because of human intervention.
"There's no question it's more expensive to send human beings, but at the same time, it offers operation flexibility that you can't get otherwise."
What Makes It So Expensive?
Part of what makes sending a manned mission to Mars so expensive is the stops along the way. We'd have to start with sending humans back to the moon. Chiao says that's because we need to relearn how to land and operate on other planets.
"The last Apollo mission was 37 years ago, so all the people who executed that program are long since retired from the industry or moved on," he points out. We'd more or less be starting all over again.
Then, we'd need to know how to operate in a deep space habitat for extended periods.
"One-hundred-eighty or more days — that's something we've never done," Chiao says. "So those two things we need to build up in order to be able to go and send a human mission to Mars."
To build that knowledge, Chiao says, an asteroid flyby might be interesting.
"We would learn a lot about the engineering that went into a departure stage, and the operations, the navigation," he says. "All that gets us to the nearest object."
"Landing, of course, would have its own set of challenges," Chiao says, "but no question — we would be learning and building infrastructure to go explore farther on to Mars."
He's realistic about the possibility of a manned mission to Mars, though. Chiao says he was 8 years old when Apollo 11 landed, and as a young adult, he expected humans to make it to the Red Planet much sooner. "But I am optimistic," he says, "that we will go to Mars in my lifetime."
9(MDAyNzUwMDI2MDEyNTA3MTU5NzcyNTQyNA004))
GUY RAZ, host:
From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Guy Raz.
Unidentified Man: Houston, we have a problem.
RAZ: And the problem is that the U.S. space program is on an unsustainable trajectory.
This past week, the U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee released a report. It's known informally as the Augustine report. Among its findings, unless NASA receives more money fast, the space agency will have to scale back its ambitions.
Now, five years ago, then-President George W. Bush envisioned sending a manned spacecraft back to the moon, and then eventually to Mars. But now, the agency risks building rockets to nowhere. So, is the solution to send more money to NASA?
Well, Leroy Chiao thinks so. He's on the Human Spaceflight Committee, and a former astronaut. Chiao says space travel speaks to the nature of what humans do.
Mr. LEROY CHIAO (Former Astronaut; Human Spaceflight Plans Committee): Just as a species, we're explorers. We are curious by nature. We need to know what's there. It's exciting for us to see humans exploring, because we can identify with those people. An analogy would be people who climb Everest or who explore the ocean depth. It's much more interesting when there's somebody there.
Scientifically speaking, of course, unmanned probes and robotics are capable of doing a lot of different exploration, collecting scientific data. And so, I think the key is balance. You know, you need both programs. And that's one thing the report emphasized.
RAZ: But I mean, what practically do we gain from pouring a lot of money into the possibility of a manned flight, let's say, to Mars, rather than continue to send robots?
Mr. CHIAO: I mean, from a practical standpoint, you know, humans are much more adaptable than a robot. And so, you've seen numerous examples in space and in other areas, too, where missions have been saved because of human intervention. There's no question that it's more expensive to send human beings, but at the same time, it offers operational flexibility that you can't get otherwise.
RAZ: Tell me, what would be the advantage of sending a man back to the moon?
Mr. CHIAO: Well, there are two things that need to happen for us to be able to send a human mission to Mars. The first thing is we need to relearn how to land and operate on another planet. The last Apollo mission was 37 years ago, so all the people who executed that program are long since retired from the industry. So we really need to relearn how to land on another planet, and we need to learn how to operate, if we're going to operate a habitat and rovers and kind of be there for an extended stay.
The other thing we need to learn how to do is operate in deep space: that is farther than low Earth orbit for a sustained period, say, 180 or more days. That's something we've never done. So those two things we need to build up in order to be able to go and send a human mission to Mars.
RAZ: I've read that one possibility would be to try and land a spacecraft on an asteroid.
Mr. CHIAO: Well, you know, just even a flyby would be an interesting thing to do because, as I said, we haven't operated outside of low Earth orbit for many decades with a crew. Landing, of course, would be its own - have its own set of challenges. A near-Earth object, a NEO, would have a very much reduced gravity, so it'd be a new set of challenges of trying to land on the thing and stay on the thing. No question, we would be learning and building infrastructure to go explore farther on to Mars.
RAZ: Leroy Chiao, do you think in your lifetime or in the lifetime of your children - you have young children - that we will eventually get to Mars, that humans will land on Mars?
Mr. CHIAO: I have no doubt that eventually humans will get to Mars. Will it be in my lifetime? I think so and I certainly hope so. Something, of course, that we thought back in the '60s, I was 8 years old when Apollo 11 landed, and I certainly hadn't in my mind as a kid, and even as a young adult, I thought we would land on Mars much earlier, at least to have returned to the moon before now. So I am realistic. But I am optimistic that we will go to Mars in my lifetime.
RAZ: Leroy Chiao is a former astronaut and a member of the U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee. He joined us from his home in Houston.
Thank you so much.
Mr. CHIAO: Oh, it's been a pleasure. Thanks. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright National Public Radio.
