The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources. Space operations are among the most demanding and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans. It really is rocket science. Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match aspirations. Such is the case today. The nation is facing important decisions on the future of human spaceflight. Will we leave the close proximity of low- Earth orbit, where astronauts have circled since 1972, and explore the solar system, charting a path for the eventual expansion of human civilization into space? If so, how will we ensure that our exploration delivers the greatest benefit to the nation? Can we explore with reasonable assurances of human safety? Can the nation marshal the resources to embark on the mission? Whatever space program is ultimately selected, it must be matched with the resources needed for its execution. How can we marshal the necessary resources? There are actually more options available today than in 1961, when President Kennedy challenged the nation to "commit itself to the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." First, space exploration has become a global enterprise. Many nations have aspirations in space, and the combined annual budgets of their space programs are comparable to NASA's. If the United States is willing to lead a global program of exploration, sharing both the burden and benefit of space exploration in a meaningful way, significant accomplishments could follow. Actively engaging international partners in a manner adapted to today's multi-polar world could strengthen geopolitical relationships, leverage global financial and technical resources, and enhance the exploration enterprise. Second, there is now a burgeoning commercial space industry. If we craft a space architecture to provide opportunities to this industry, there is the potential-not without risk-that the costs to the government would be reduced. Finally, we are also more experienced than in 1961, and able to build on that experience as we design an exploration program. If, after designing cleverly, building alliances with partners, and engaging commercial providers, the nation cannot afford to fund the effort to pursue the goals it would like to embrace, it should accept the disappointment of setting lesser goals. Can we explore with reasonable assurances of human safety? Human space travel has many benefits, but it is an inherently dangerous endeavor. Human safety can never be absolutely assured, but throughout this report, safety is treated as a sine qua non. It is not discussed in extensive detail because any concepts falling short in human safety have simply been eliminated from consideration. How will we explore to deliver the greatest benefit to the nation? Planning for a human spaceflight program should begin with a choice about its goals-rather than a choice of possible destinations. Destinations should derive from goals, and alternative architectures may be weighed against those goals. There is now a strong consensus in the United States that the next step in human spaceflight is to travel beyond low-Earth orbit. This should carry important benefits to society, including: driving technological innovation; developing commercial industries and important national capabilities; and contributing to our expertise in further exploration. Human exploration can contribute appropriately to the expansion of scientific knowledge, particularly in areas such as field geology, and it is in the interest of both science and human spaceflight that a credible and well-rationalized strategy of coordination between them be developed. Crucially, human spaceflight objectives should broadly align with key national objectives.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is widely admired for astonishing accomplishments since its formation in 1958. Looking ahead over a comparable period of time, what can the nation and the world expect of NASA? What will be the agency's goals and objectives, and what will be the strategy for achieving them? More fundamentally, how will the goals, objectives, and strategy be established and by whom? How will they be modified to reflect changes in science, technology, national priorities, and available resources? In late 2011, the United States Congress directed the NASA Office of Inspector General to commission a "comprehensive independent assessment of NASA's strategic direction and agency management." Subsequently, NASA requested that the National Research Council (NRC) conduct this independent assessment. In the spring of 2012, the NRC Committee on NASA's Strategic Direction was formed and began work on its task. The committee determined that, only with a national consensus on the agency's future strategic direction—along the lines described in the full NRC report—can NASA continue to deliver the wonder, the knowledge, the national security and economic benefits, and the technology that have been typified by its earlier history. NASA's Strategic Direction and the Need for a National Consensus summarizes the findings and recommendations of the committee.

More than four decades have passed since a human first set foot on the Moon. Great strides have been made in our understanding of what is required to support an enduring human presence in space, as evidenced by progressively more advanced orbiting human outposts, culminating in the current International Space Station (ISS). However, of the more than 500 humans who have so far ventured into space, most have gone only as far as near-Earth orbit, and none have traveled beyond the orbit of the Moon. Achieving humans' further progress into the solar system had proved far more difficult than imagined in the heady days of the Apollo missions, but the potential rewards remain substantial. During its more than 50-year history, NASA's success in human space exploration has depended on the agency's ability to effectively address a wide range of biomedical, engineering, physical science, and related obstacles-an achievement made possible by NASA's strong and productive commitments to life and physical sciences research for human space exploration, and by its use of human space exploration infrastructures for scientific discovery. The Committee for the Decadal Survey of Biological and Physical Sciences acknowledges the many achievements of NASA, which are all the more remarkable given budgetary challenges and changing directions within the agency. In the past decade, however, a consequence of those challenges has been a life and physical sciences research program that was dramatically reduced in both scale and scope, with the result that the agency is poorly positioned to take full advantage of the scientific opportunities offered by the now fully equipped and staffed ISS laboratory, or to effectively pursue the scientific research needed to support the development of advanced human exploration capabilities. Although its review has left it deeply concerned about the current state of NASA's life and physical sciences research, the Committee for the Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space is nevertheless convinced that a focused science and engineering program can achieve successes that will bring the space community, the U.S. public, and policymakers to an understanding that we are ready for the next significant phase of human space exploration. The goal of this report is to lay out steps and develop a forward-looking portfolio of research that will provide the basis for recapturing the excitement and value of human spaceflight-thereby enabling the U.S. space program to deliver on new exploration initiatives that serve the nation, excite the public, and place the United States again at the forefront of space exploration for the global good.

Over the next 10 years, NASA is scheduled to devote $99 billion to the nation's human spaceflight program. In recognition of the magnitude of these planned expenditures, coupled with questions about the status of the current human spaceflight program, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, as part of the due diligence of a new administration, called for an independent review of the present and planned effort. Two conditions framed this request: all ongoing human spaceflight work by NASA and its contractors was to continue uninterrupted during the review process; and the review team's findings were to be available 90 days from the Committee's formal establishment and a formal report be published thereafter, in recognition of the demands of the federal budget preparation cycle. The Committee established to conduct the review comprised 10 members with diverse professional backgrounds, including scientists, engineers, astronauts, educators, executives of established and new aerospace firms, former presidential appointees, and a retired Air Force General. The Committee was charged with conducting an independent review of the current program of record and providing alternatives to that program (as opposed to making a specific recommendation) that would ensure that "the nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human spaceflight-one that is safe, innovative, affordable and sustainable." Initially, the directive to the Committee was that it conduct its inquiry with the assumption that operation of the Space Shuttle would terminate in 2010 and that the 10-year funding profile in the FY 2010 President's budget would not be exceeded. In subsequent discussions between the Committee chairman and members of the White House staff, it was agreed that at least two program options would be presented that comply with the above constraints; however, if those options failed to fully satisfy the stated study objectives, additional options could be identified by the Committee. No other bounds were placed on the Committee's work.

The United States has publicly funded its human spaceflight program on a continuous basis for more than a half-century, through three wars and a half-dozen recessions, from the early Mercury and Gemini suborbital and Earth orbital missions, to the lunar landings, and thence to the first reusable winged crewed spaceplane that the United States operated for three decades. Today the United States is the major partner in a massive orbital facility - the International Space Station - that is becoming the focal point for the first tentative steps in commercial cargo and crewed orbital space flights. And yet, the long-term future of human spaceflight beyond this project is unclear. Pronouncements by multiple presidents of bold new ventures by Americans to the Moon, to Mars, and to an asteroid in its native orbit, have not been matched by the same commitment that accompanied President Kennedy\'s now fabled 1961 speech-namely, the substantial increase in NASA funding needed to make it happen. Are we still committed to advancing human spaceflight? What should a long-term goal be, and what does the United States need to do to achieve it? Pathways to Exploration explores the case for advancing this endeavor, drawing on the history of rationales for human spaceflight, examining the attitudes of stakeholders and the public, and carefully assessing the technical and fiscal realities. This report recommends maintaining the long-term focus on Mars as the horizon goal for human space exploration. With this goal in mind, the report considers funding levels necessary to maintain a robust tempo of execution, current research and exploration projects and the time/resources needed to continue them, and international cooperation that could contribute to the achievement of spaceflight to Mars. According to Pathways to Exploration, a successful U.S. program would require sustained national commitment and a budget that increases by more than the rate of inflation. In reviving a U.S. human exploration program capable of answering the enduring questions about humanity's destiny beyond our tiny blue planet, the nation will need to grapple with the attitudinal and fiscal realities of the nation today while staying true to a small but crucial set of fundamental principles for the conduct of exploration of the endless frontier. The recommendations of Pathways to Exploration provide a clear map toward a human spaceflight program that inspires students and citizens by furthering human exploration and discovery, while taking into account the long-term commitment necessary to achieve this goal.

Space technology has an important role to play in shaping a sustainable future, employing both human and robotic spaceflight capabilities. But the U.S. civil space program focuses the majority of its resources on the traditional paradigm of sending humans to increasingly distant targets (the Moon, Mars, and beyond). Rather than picking the destinations first and figuring out the goals later, the book suggests that NASA’s spaceflight programs should primarily target the creation of advanced capabilities, especially space infrastructure in the Earth-Moon system, and facilitate a greater role for the commercial sector in this endeavor. This will bring direct benefits to Earth more quickly and at the same time enable steady progress in the exploration and development of the solar system. The narrative begins by examining space in the context of today’s globalized world. Globalization has been a good news/bad news story, and space technology has been an important factor in this process. New wealth and international collaboration have been generated, but so have new problems and old problems have accelerated and spread. If we make the right choices, space development can do more to provide solutions in the decades ahead. The work of noted space futurists of the Cold War era is reviewed, with particular attention to the question: Why have things turned out differently from what most experts predicted and most advocates expected? The NASA exploration program finds itself locked into the “Von Braun paradigm” of the 1950s, which focuses on human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars without adequately explaining the reasons for doing it. This situation is not well suited to the political, economic, and societal environment of the 21st century. At a time when long-term strategic thinking is needed to address enduring global issues, many forces drive us to short-term thinking. The most significant of these forces for the nation’s top decision-makers come from the election cycle, the budget cycle, and the news cycle. Their effects on the presidency, the Congress, and the bureaucracy are examined using examples from recent history and current practices. The emphasis is on the need to change the incentive structure to promote long-term thinking since big technology projects have multi-decade life cycles and are aimed at problems that are national and global in scope. This shift in thinking leads to a revised rationale for spaceflight for the coming decades that is more directly tied to societal needs and ambitions. Space development will require more resources than NASA—or even all of the world’s civilian space agencies combined—can devote to the effort. Partnership with the commercial sector will be essential. Will space commerce be the stimulus for moving out into the solar system? If so, will it contribute to improvement of life back on Earth at the same time? Space commerce is growing fast, but is still small compared to other major global industries. Possibilities and pitfalls are discussed, along with examples of the checkered history of public and private sector attempts to promote space commerce. Making wise choices that have implications lasting decades is a daunting challenge, even when there’s broad agreement on a course of action. The book includes a chapter that warns: be careful what you wish for. Real-world examples (including the space shuttle and space station) demonstrate the difficulties of long-term strategic planning, and two futuristic thought experiments provide further illustration. The chapter concludes by demonstrating the long-term repercussions of poor choices, citing a current problem that has proven hard to fix despite widespread recognition that it needs fixing: export control for space technologies. If 21st century reality is driving us toward a course of action different from that of the Apollo/Cold War era, what should it look like, and what rationale should drive it? Voices of authority and advocacy for space ex

This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. Contents: (1) Intro. and Legislative Context; (2) What is NASA for?; (3) What Should NASA Do?: Human Spaceflight: The Vision for Space Exploration; Current Program to Implement the Vision; Cost and Schedule; Why the Moon?; ¿The Gap¿ and Utilization of the Space Station; Human Spaceflight: The Augustine Comm.; Balancing Competing Priorities; (4) Space Shuttle Program: Why the Shuttle Program is Ending; Possible Extension of the Shuttle Program; (5) Internat. Space Station; (6) Future Access to Space: Orion and Ares; (7) Destinations for Human Exploration; (8) Alternatives to Human Exploration; Robotic Exploration; (9) Other Space Policy Issues; The U.S. Commercial Space Industry; (10) Legislation in the 111th Congress. Charts and tables.