US Needs New Deep-Space Agency, Apollo Astronaut Says

[Buster's Uncle]

US Needs New Deep-Space Agency, Apollo Astronaut Says
By Mike Wall | SPACE.com – 16 hrs ago.. .

 
SAN FRANCISCO — The United States should create a new agency dedicated to manned exploration of the moon, Mars and other destinations in deep space, a former Apollo astronaut says.
 
Human exploration of such far-flung locales is a challenging proposition, so it would benefit from the type of laser-like attention that NASA gave its Apollo moon program back in the 1960s and early '70s, said Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the lunar surface on the Apollo 17 mission in 1972.
 
"You need to have an agency that is focused on that, and almost nothing else," Schmitt said here today (Dec. 6) at the annual fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union. He recommends that the government "create a new agency that can indeed learn the lessons of Apollo and apply them."
 
Having a singular purpose is just one of those lessons. Most of the engineers and scientists who made Apollo such a success were young people in their 20s, whose ideas and optimism were allowed to bubble up to the highest levels of NASA, Schmitt said. [NASA's 17 Apollo Moon Missions in Pictures]
 
Schmitt, who later served as a one-term U.S. senator, suggests the new agency be called the National Space Exploration Administration. He first put forward the idea in an online proposal published in May 2011.
 
The new deep-space agency should "stay young, and develop a management structure that is not so hierarchical — that is actually a flat, level management structure so young ideas can reach the top very quickly," added Schmitt, who was the 12th and final person to set foot on the moon, and the only trained geologist to do so. "That happened in Apollo."
 
Schmitt was speaking on the eve of the 40th anniversary of his Apollo 17 launch, which blasted off Dec. 7, 1972. Since that mission, no human has been back to the moon.
 
Schmitt thinks a new deep-space exploration agency should have an open portfolio and consider a wide variety of destinations. But he believes strongly that the moon is the first body astronauts should target beyond low-Earth orbit.
 
"My feeling is, by going back to the moon, you accelerate your ability to go anywhere else — both in terms of experience and in terms of resources, and testing new hardware and navigation techniques, communication techniques and things like that," Schmitt said. "And it's only three days away."
 
Schmitt stressed that his recommendation is not meant as a rebuke of any kind to NASA, which he said "is doing an absolutely remarkable job with the missions it's been allowed to proceed with."
 
NASA had been working toward sending astronauts to the moon by 2020, under a program called Constellation that was initiated during the George W. Bush administration. In 2010, President Barack Obama cancelled Constellation after an independent review panel found it to be significantly behind schedule and over budget. 
 
Obama instead directed NASA to get humans to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025, then on to the vicinity of Mars by the mid-2030s. The agency is currently developing a huge rocket called the Space Launch System and a crew capsule called Orion to make all of this happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-needs-deep-space-agency-apollo-astronaut-says-224409002.html

[Unorthodox]

My only problem with that is ANOTHER government body means a lot of wasted money. 

It's nice for someone to notice the age problem, which is real. 

The problem STARTED with the Apollo missions (or rather the military applications of similar technology) in that we hired all these engineers all at the same time.  So, we have cycles where all the engineers get old together and a new crop of young ones all come in at the same time.  This cycle needs to be broken somehow, and would be a cost benefit as much as any thing else, and a preservation of knowledge.  I don't think "young" engineers are neccessarily any more idea people than older ones.  But a stead turnover rather than steep cycles would be beneficial. 

We're approaching a rash of new hires again, in fact Space X just went through that, others will follow shortly.


And yes, NASA is organized moronically.  But what Govt agency isn't?

[Green1]

Chris Bergin on NSF said he had a secret "game changing" announcement he was keeping secret - until now that directly relates to this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/12/golden-spike-phase-a-commercial-lunar-landing-missions/

For those too lazy to click over and read the article on this gem of a space nerd paradise site: A company called Golden Spike is serious about a commercial moon base. Now normally, I would consign this to the pipe dreams like Mars One. But - this effort has some heavy hitters behind it like Alan Stern (former NASA director of projects and PI of New Horizons), Squires (Mars Rovers), and a bunch of others.

They will be using existing tech. Only thing they lack that would need R+D is the lunar lander. We foolishly threw away that tech when Nixon axed Apollo.

[Unorthodox]

They will be using existing tech. Only thing they lack that would need R+D is the lunar lander. We foolishly threw away that tech when Nixon axed Apollo.

You sure about that?

[Buster's Uncle]

Spill yer guts, Uno.

[Green1]

Supposedly according to the materials. Coming from a respected industry site like NSF, it seems serious.

The forum thread says they will be using man rated Atlas or Falcon Heavy for launch. Capsule will be Dragon.

The lander... they are in trouble. The closest guys who are even close are armadillo from what I have read.

There is a link on L2 showing all the science papers, but L2 is an industry info paid content site that is pretty hefty to subscribe to. However, there is a discussion thread on NSF about it where folks that can read it are being critics/advocates.

I still say wait and see, like all these space ideas. Still, it would kick NAsAy in the balls if a private company has folks on the moon the same year SLS is only repeating Apollo 8 at 10 times the cost in the same year if this flies.

[Unorthodox]

Spill yer guts, Uno.

NOTHING is ever LOST. 

All the tech data and drawings would be SOMEWHERE.  Depends on the specifics of the contract where that would be though.  My guess would be they are the property of the prime contractor (Northrup IIRC).  The trouble here is this is a commercial venture, not a NASA one, and some of that may be potentially classified still, depending on how hyper-secure we decided to rate the stuff at the time. 

So, the tech is still there, but I could only say with certainty that it's available to the US Govt, but maybe not a private firm. 

[Unorthodox]

Supposedly according to the materials. Coming from a respected industry site like NSF, it seems serious.

The forum thread says they will be using man rated Atlas or Falcon Heavy for launch. Capsule will be Dragon.

None of which exist at the moment.  They may be in the works, but no human rated versions of either exist, and with the Dragon already showing problems with radiation, it's got some serious hurdles before it makes it to the moon. 

Sounds like they are launching module and lander separately, which is smart. 

The ESA was working on a robotic version of a lander, but it has since been abandoned, it very well might be very capable of being modified for this if they could partner with the contractors on that (Astrium).

[Green1]

I was under the impression Dragon took a lot of the Orion tech for shielding. I was also under the impression that all the BEO plans for Dragon involved some sort of link up with ESA's heavier shielded HTV.

hey, could be wrong.

Will be interesting if this is not vaporware. Still, if it is on NSF, there has to be some teeth behind this.

[Buster's Uncle]

Huh.  I was assuming when I saw about it yesterday that it was a pipe dream...

[Unorthodox]

I really haven't read the specs on the Dragon, just know that several of the problems on it's last cargo trip have been attributed to radiation.  That doesn't bode well for human flight. 

It's entirely possible the cargo flight just went cheap and quick with the shielding for more capacity.   

[Green1]

Huh.  I was assuming when I saw about it yesterday that it was a pipe dream...

If you see something on NSF, take notice. Those guys are actual policy makers, scientists, and engineers. Some of those flora, you actually have to pay heavy to even be able to post.  Unlike space.com, they report stuff, it happens. And, they do not report lightly.