Impressive PR campaign by Doc to minority media outlets. Shame NASA doesn't do as well with it's Constellation pitching....

Jewish astronaut launches petition to save NASA chief

http://www.jewishjournal.com/geekheeb/item/jewish_astronaut_launches_effort_to_save_bush_appointee_20081231/

I known this is sad.
Do not fear, it will change for the better.

Mike may well change his manners. Time will tell.

Please give it a rest and have a safe and happy new year

Under Bush's direction, Griffin is intent on wasting taxpayer dollars on a drawn out effort to re-reach the moon. NASA should never have dropped its plans to visit Mars so it can make a redundant publicity run for the moon.

Like Bush, Griffin is short sighted yet fails also on long term goals. He's politicized NASA and dodges accountability as his outbursts this year have shown. The bottom line is Griffin doesn't understand that he works for America, not the other way around.

I have a lot of mixed feeling about Griffin, I'll admit, but my take on this campaign is a little different from Keith's. I admire the guy for doing this. He has something that he really believes in, some things he wants to accomplish, and he is peddle-to-the-metal to find a way to achieve it. I admire his efforts.

I say that his efforts deserve our respect. An appointee who simply believes strongly in his mission. That's what we all want, after all.

I'm a lousy speller and typist myself, but "peddle to the metal" made me laugh. "Peddle" is exactly what he's doing! But the thing you press to the metal is called a "pedal."

I just marvel at the efficiency of Horowitz's petition moderation. The few times I checked it out posts disappeared (or had the message blanked out, while keeping the vote!) within half hour. Of course it's completely fine to delete anything posted in a personal petition and I absolutely have no problem with it as such. But either Horowitz personally monitors his petition 24/7, Griffin's wife (or entire Dr. Griffin's family?), or there is a full time staff (hired at whose expense?) policing it. I just found the deletion efficiency strange. Not a big deal, just weird.

Mars orbiting station is easier than Lunar surface base - the technology exists and is emerging as commercial products. Within a decade Bigelow will offer a complete human station as a product. Expensive? Yes but cheaper than the alternative and delivered to the orbit of your choice. Run real-time robots on Mars surface for whatever purposes, guided by people upstairs. It could be put together with existing parts (DOS9, ICM, Progress/Soyuz, ATV) and Bigelow modules or follow the "MarsPost" concept from Energia or be all new craft. It's much easier than a surface base and could be flown within 8-10 years of starting the project.

Establish a growing base in Mars orbit, deploy hundreds of robots to the surface and explore Phobos and Deimos.

Hey Josh, I like your idea of an orbital station around Mars. Also, I'm a big fan of the Space Elevator concept. It's really hard to do on Earth, but because the smaller Mars mass (~.11 Earth mass), maybe it would be feasible with today's technology there? Who knows. Anyway, orbital element + space elevator down Mars is a cool sci-fi idea. Dreaming allowed, right? ;-)

Sci-fi Dreamin'

Regarding a Mars orbital station: isn't that what Phobos was put there for? 8-)

"Regarding a Mars orbital station: isn't that what Phobos was put there for?"

We wouldn't actually gain anything by trying to bolt the station onto Phobos. It's not a structure. It probably doesn't have enough gravity for the thing to safely stay on. We don't have the hardware (or need in this case) to utilize the resources on it.

_Maybe_ you could acquire oxygen or something from the dirt but the added cost would be more than the savings.

And if you want it's resources you could probably do it without actually attaching a manned space station.

After all, the suggestion is for a manned space station that can have real time control of complex robots on the surface. You can send them to Phobos too.

It also wouldn't offer any more protection from radiation than a Low Mars Orbit.

A base on a planetary body cuts down radiation, bulk of planet or moon blocks radiation from that hemisphere, more if you tunnel down. No small advantage to a manned base.

I think that Goldston is right about this. This very public effort by Griffin's supporters makes it seem that they expect significant changes if he leaves. But if Griffin is really making the right decisions, then another technically competent administrator probably wouldn't change things so much, unless the administration wants to make a significant change in NASA's priorities. The substance of the reported discussion with Lori Garver seems to send the same message.

If Griffin wants to keep his job, he'd be well advised to welcome the questions of the incoming administration, and just explain why he is making the right decisions. Obama has certainly come up with a high powered science team, and if Griffin can't convince them that he is doing the right thing, it probably means that he isn't.

The counter-petition is available here:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/RemoveMikeGriffinNow/

It's a well-written argument and worth signing if you agree that Griffin should go.

Hey, RocketScientist, as a follow-up to your email...whoever is overseeing Horowitz's petition may be efficient but they're not very bright. Check out #1052 - Connie Lingus signed it. This is great. I may now sign it under the pseudoname I.C. Weiner.

Most of the comments I heard about Mr. Griffin is that he behaves badly in meetings and doesn't really value input from the scientific community. I think we should look closely at someone who tries to forward his own agenda despite the pleas of others to stay more open-minded. I think we need change at NASA too, not necessarily to get to Mars, but to focus efforts on restoring Astrobiology funding ... where the future NASA missions seem to be headed anyway.

"A base on a planetary body cuts down radiation, bulk of planet or moon blocks radiation from that hemisphere"

Right, but you'd almost completely get that from being in a low orbit over Mars, at a fraction of the cost. You've got a planet almost totally blocking one hemisphere.

Josh: Mars orbiting station is easier than Lunar surface base - the technology exists and is emerging as commercial products. Within a decade Bigelow will offer a complete human station as a product. Expensive? Yes but cheaper than the alternative and delivered to the orbit of your choice. Run real-time robots on Mars surface for whatever purposes, guided by people upstairs. It could be put together with existing parts (DOS9, ICM, Progress/Soyuz, ATV) and Bigelow modules or follow the "MarsPost" concept from Energia or be all new craft. It's much easier than a surface base and could be flown within 8-10 years of starting the project.

Establish a growing base in Mars orbit, deploy hundreds of robots to the surface and explore Phobos and Deimos.

It is a good idea, and could be part of a broader strategy that ties human spaceflight more strongly with space science beyond LEO. The strategy would abstain from, at least over the next several decades, the goal of placing humans on the surface of the Moon and Mars. Rather, and would focus on deploying crews of scientists in orbit about Mars and other planetary bodies within the inner solar system. By eliminating the up to 40-minute round-trip communications delay with Earth, teleoperation would give scientists real-time control of rovers, aerobots and other sophisticated instruments, thus greatly expanding the scientific return at these destinations. This approach to exploration would be akin to how modern-day oceanographers in submersibles use telerobots to explore inaccessible regions of the ocean.

The main advantage is that the propulsive energies required to go to many destinations within the inner solar system, such as Mars orbit, Lagrange points, near Earth asteroids and even Venus orbit, are quite similar. This means that a single interplanetary vehicle design could be used for missions to a variety of destinations. Although this strategy would bypass NASA’s near-term plans to return astronauts to the lunar surface, it opens the door to many new destinations that may be better candidates for future resource utilization and human settlement. It should be viewed as a first step, one that takes humans to exciting destinations beyond LEO while solidly expanding our ability to conduct science within the inner solar system. In fact with appropriate advancements in propulsion and life support technology, it is reasonable to consider extending the approach to missions into the main asteroid belt and destinations in the outer solar system.

Mike Griffin is enough to make one long for the "good old days" when Dan Goldin was in charge. Goldin had a smaller ego, better business instincts, better long term vision, and more management skills.

'Nuff said.

Management skills and understanding what is going on beyond the technical realm are critically important.

On Mars-orbiters - radiation is not an issue if you live inside a meter-thick water wall. (yes it's heavy but it's perfect shielding and we all need water) The advantages are exactly that of oceanic ROV ops - you get to study the environment extensively in realtime. Send people to the surface as needed at a later date. Constructing a base in Mars orbit creates a base-camp for later surface expeditions. Creating a base with growth in mind from the start creates the kind of conditions for actually opening a real frontier someday sooner than later.

I discount all "real soon now" technology such as space elevators, RBCC engines, Fusion Power and others. The advantage of a Mars orbiter is that it uses proven, existing technology and existing or near-term space products.

Your Martian space station could also give crew real time control over more dexterous robots and could actually build that ground base. Build a greenhouse, or acquire water from the surface and bring it to orbit for fuel or oxygen or whatever.

This is all just so typical...can we just get on with the exploratin?

Frapster: Your Martian space station could also give crew real time control over more dexterous robots and could actually build that ground base. Build a greenhouse, or acquire water from the surface and bring it to orbit for fuel or oxygen or whatever.

Not sure if Keith is averse to long posts, but here is a summary of the non-surface, orbital-oriented exploration strategy described earlier. This one was posted on change.gov, but I've seen others. Another that is particularly intriguing was developed by some Ames folks and emphasizes establishing an orbital base on Phobos or Deimos.

A New Science-oriented Strategy for Human Space Exploration

Problem with NASA’s Current Approach

Prior to the end of the Apollo program, NASA’s approach to space exploration took two distinct paths. A debate over their comparative merits has raged ever since. One path sees the extension of human presence into the solar system – regardless of whether it is done for science, economic development, national prestige or sheer destiny – as the overarching goal of the space program. The German rocketeer, Werner Von Braun, aggressively promoted this view, and it has become the rallying cry for human spaceflight ever since, most recently with President Bush’s 2004 Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). The other path embraces robotic, unmanned missions as a more practical, less costly way of exploring space. This view was reinforced by the tremendous successes of these missions (e.g., Hubble, Voyager, Galileo, Cassini) and their unprecedented contributions to our understanding of the universe. Although many advocates of this path recognize the value of hands-on field research on the surfaces of other worlds, they see human spaceflight as being too difficult, risky and expensive for exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) at this time.

The debate would be moot if NASA’s budget could increase and accommodate the desires of both communities. This is obviously not the case, and NASA’s limited resources will continue to force a balancing that inevitably leaves one camp feeling short-changed. Now with the advent of an Administration that values new ideas, it makes sense to ask the question: is there an approach to exploration that mitigates the competition between these two visions – a new strategy that (1) increases the scientific return at destinations of interest to the space science community, (2) contributes to the more visceral goal of extending human presence beyond low earth orbit (LEO), and (3) fits within the limitations of NASA’s budget?

A New Strategy for Human Exploration

We propose an exploration strategy that does this by combining the best features of human and robotic spaceflight into a single architecture. Called Integrated Robotic and Human-based Architecture for EXploration (IRHAX), the strategy abstains from placing humans on the surface of the Moon or Mars, at least in the near-term. Rather, it focuses on deploying crews of scientists in orbit about Mars and other planetary bodies within the inner solar system. From this vantage point, the science teams would conduct extensive exploration of the surface using telerobots and remotely controlled systems. By eliminating the up to 40-minute round-trip communications delay with Earth, teleoperation would give scientists real-time control of rovers, aerobots and other sophisticated instruments, thus greatly expanding the scientific return at these destinations. Upon completion of a mission, the crews would return to Earth, and with appropriate maintenance and outfitting in LEO, IRHAX spacecraft could be reused for later missions. This approach to exploration is akin to how modern-day oceanographers in submersibles use telerobots to explore inaccessible regions of the ocean.

The main advantage of IRHAX is that the propulsive energies required to go to many destinations within the inner solar system, such as Mars orbit, Lagrange points, near Earth asteroids and even Venus orbit, are quite similar. This means that a single interplanetary vehicle design could be used for missions to a variety of destinations. Surprisingly, the conventional approach of sending crews all the way to the Mars surface would nearly double the mission’s total energy requirement. In addition to requiring more propellant, such a mission would be complicated by the need for robust man-rated ascent and descent stages, habitats, surface power units, communication systems and support infrastructure, all of which drive up cost. The IRHAX approach avoids the need for these additional elements, and frees up resources to augment science activities on the surface, such as development of robotic landers, long-duration rovers and mobile laboratories, and sophisticated instrument packages.

IRHAX also allows scientists to be much more interactive and involved at the research site, while still maintaining planetary protection standards. This is particularly important for Mars exploration, where detecting signs of indigenous life is a key science objective. Avoiding crew presence on the surface, at least until several missions have thoroughly evaluated the environment, protects the planetary environment from contamination by hearty Earth-originating microbes, and prevents human exposure to potential alien pathogens.

IRHAX offers considerable benefits to space science. In addition to providing direct real-time control of operations on the surface, it opens the way for missions of much greater capability. One example is the Mars Sample Return Mission, which could be conducted as part of an IRHAX deployment. The only unique hardware for this mission would be a small ascent vehicle that could take samples from the Mars surface to the orbiting IRHAX spacecraft, where the material could be evaluated, discarded or kept for further study on Earth. Another is a long-duration Venus rover mission, which could be facilitated by offloading temperature-sensitive electronics, which provide high-order control functions, to the crew and computers aboard the orbiting IRHAX spacecraft.

A key benefit of IRHAX is that it enables the use of much more sophisticated robotic systems and remote-controlled laboratories on the surface. Many of these designs could be standardized, and multiple units could be deployed at different locations on the planet. Finally, the “hands-on” field research desired by some scientists would be possible at near Earth asteroids, the Martian moons and small planetary bodies, since their negligible gravitational fields make their surfaces readily accessible to IRHAX spacecraft.

IRHAX is a departure from the conventional view of human exploration, and does represent a compromise. A common response by skeptics is, ‘why wouldn’t you go to a planet’s surface, when you’ve spent so much time and energy to get there?’ This is certainly not true for Mars, since traveling to low Mars orbit requires only half the energy as traveling to the surface. IRHAX missions also offer a big advantage in terms of safety. The crew stays aboard a single vehicle for the entire mission, and it is likely that the orbital phase of most missions could be completed in a three-month period. This would enable use of faster, opposition-class missions that would last only one year – within the human duration limits demonstrated on Mir and the International Space Station (ISS). In fact, much of the knowledge gained from the ISS program would be directly applicable to IRHAX, and ISS would be an important test bed for the development of IRHAX spacecraft systems and equipment.

Although IRHAX bypasses NASA’s near-term plans to return astronauts to the lunar surface, it opens the door to many new destinations that may be better candidates for future resource utilization and human settlement. IRHAX should be viewed as a first step, one that takes humans to exciting destinations beyond LEO while solidly expanding our ability to conduct science within the inner solar system. In fact with appropriate advancements in propulsion and life support technology, it is reasonable to consider extending the IRHAX approach to missions into the main asteroid belt and destinations in the outer solar system. Finally, advocates for human exploration should understand that IRHAX does not replace eventual human missions to the surfaces of other worlds. The technologies developed for IRHAX are directly relevant to later human surface missions. When the nation decides to develop the systems needed to send crews to the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, a good portion of the technological infrastructure will already be in place.

Thank you for that very interesting post sc220. This sounds like a very solid workable solution to interplanetary exploration. It integrates both manned and unmanned exploration, while preparing to one day walk on these worlds. The best part of all, is that it sounds not only affordable, but SUSTAINABLE also.

The Huffington Post is so tainted with "Hate Bush" it isn't worth the time I spent looking over the posts.

Editor's note: but they are also voters. Compare their comments with those on NASA Watch and on Doc's petition page. The truth of overall voter opinion is obviously somewhere in between these extremes i.e. it is not an outright condemnation of Griffin by any means. Nor is it an outright affirmation.

keith,

Your site isn't like the H. Post.

If you did I wouldn't read it.

WeLL eXCELLENT SC220
Rather, it focuses on deploying crews of scientists in orbit about Mars and other planetary bodies within the inner solar system.

the only minor issue is the the human will likely morph into something that cannot function as we know humans now.

I could care less, lets create a morphed human. Maybe the robot can help the Muman, I hope the astronaut office is interested in such a mission.

LOL
excellect thinking.

@Flash

Mumans?

Now that's just silly. Tool use is an important part of being human. It has been since the dawn of civilization. It will continue to be for the forseeable future. It will continue to be even if the end of the world comes, killing all but 15 people who happen to be in a bomb shelter at a bomb shelter shop in Kansas, thinking about buying a bomb shelter.

Case in point, the program described is basically what we're already doing, except we'd be physically closer so we can control complex robots in real time.

We'd morph into nothing. The humans working there would come home at the end of their term, then get on with their normal lives, running around playing football and humping their wives.

Except, we'd know more about Mars, and that'd be cool.

Except, we'd know more about Mars, and that'd be cool

i agree, this is what the idea is.

I hope you we can think more about space travel in all aspects
I hope you are correct that it is silly, Humans can only try and see what happens, there is nothing wrong about trying to travel to mars, venus or any place in the solar system or universe

It may helpful that the scientist husband & wife travel together with some robots so human procreation can take place.

happy 09

sc220: I'd be interested in a comparison of IRHAX to the Constellation approach to returning astronauts to the Moon in areas like the ones below. I'd also be interested in comparisons in these areas of IRHAX to alternate implementations of the VSE (in particular returning astronauts to the Moon) besides Constellation.

- Does IRHAX offer on-ramps for commercial participation (i.e. NASA use of private systems in the architecture that are also used for non-NASA business) or commercialization (eg: economic spin-offs)?

- What are the opportunities with IRHAX to address the VSE goals (contribute to the national economy, security, and science using commercial and international participation in an affordable way) using different destinations? Of course your post spells out some of the science opportunities.

- Are there other nationally important goals besides the VSE ones that IRHAX capabilities can address? These might include energy, environment, health/medicine/biology, education, or various other areas, possibly emphasizing areas that are likely to be of interest to the incoming Administration and Congress, and that are widely acknowledged as important "current event" types of national issues.

- How does IRHAX fit in with other NASA requirements (such as maintaining the ISS)?

- How does the IRHAX approach compare in terms of returning at least some results and benefits early?

- How does IRHAX fit with the early stages of the Planetary Society's new Roadmap that starts with astronomy spacecraft servicing at Lagrangian points, and then goes to Near Earth asteroids?

- Does IRHAX fit in well with other potential NASA missions, like satellite servicing in LEO or GEO, SPS demo work, or work on commercial space stations?

I'd also be interested in whether or not the IRHAX approach would leave enough funding available for lunar ISRU and similar demos, lunar science, NASA use of Google Lunar X PRIZE robots, and so on, with the idea that even if NASA would be focused on the IRHAX for the near term, some time later there might be (NASA or commercial) astronaut missions to the Moon.

In response to red’s comments:

sc220: I'd be interested in a comparison of IRHAX to the Constellation approach to returning astronauts to the Moon in areas like the ones below. I'd also be interested in comparisons in these areas of IRHAX to alternate implementations of the VSE (in particular returning astronauts to the Moon) besides Constellation.

- Does IRHAX offer on-ramps for commercial participation (i.e. NASA use of private systems in the architecture that are also used for non-NASA business) or commercialization (eg: economic spin-offs)?

There should be many opportunities for this. The basic thrust for IRHAX is to place crews in close proximity to destinations of interest, while avoiding the large investment needed to develop crew-rated systems for orbit/surface/orbit transportation and surface habitation/operations. But there will still be a significant need for robotic landers and surface systems. Many of these systems could be developed by commercial entities funded by themselves, NASA or other sources. In either case, the real-time control of these surface elements from orbit increases the sophistication of operations that could be performed on the surface, compared to the current, more autonomous systems.

Commercial involvement could also extend to the crew itself. Similar to Shuttle payload specialists, commercial astronauts could fly on IRHAX missions and would operate company-deployed assets at the destination. This would be akin to company geologists who often accompany missions to the Arctic and remote regions in search of new oil reserves and resources. The bottom-line is it greatly expands the ability of commercial entities to do non-scientific exploration outside of earth orbit at a lower cost than sending their own crews to the surface.

This approach should also provide a significant stimulus for development of new technologies that could have significant commercial applications. One obvious spin-off is robotics and virtual presence technology. More immediate control of robot explorers would spur development of more dextrous, faster moving machines, along with enhanced sensors and human controls.

- What are the opportunities with IRHAX to address the VSE goals (contribute to the national economy, security, and science using commercial and international participation in an affordable way) using different destinations? Of course your post spells out some of the science opportunities.

Much of the commercial and international participation could be in the development of telerobotically controlled systems used for commercial and/or scientific exploration on the surface. These elements would be deployed independently and then operated once the crew arrives in orbit. This greatly reduces the number and complexity of interfaces that would have to be considered. In fact, the interface control would center on ensuring compatibility in the communications and network architectures, a fairly straightforward task.

The economic contribution would come from the greatly expanded operations possible on the surface. In fact, it is reasonable to consider a commercial operation on the surface, which would be effectively man-tended through use of telerobots.

I don’t really see how the approach would support national security. But then again, I don’t see how the current implementation of VSE does this either, except from the standpoint of national pride and prestige.

- Are there other nationally important goals besides the VSE ones that IRHAX capabilities can address? These might include energy, environment, health/medicine/biology, education, or various other areas, possibly emphasizing areas that are likely to be of interest to the incoming Administration and Congress, and that are widely acknowledged as important "current event" types of national issues.

Environment: A strong planetary science program greatly contributes to our understanding of Earth’s past, present and future. By expanding our ability conduct science at Mars and Venus, IRHAX enable completely new perspectives of Earth’s environment within the context of planetary evolution, a much more powerful paradigm for addressing climate change and human-induced impacts on the environment.

Health/Medicine: IRHAX involves long-duration missions in 0-g, and for this reason, accelerates the need for better understanding of human health and countermeasures. It also pushes the need for developing new approaches to diagnostics, preventive medicine and non-specialist remediation, even the requirement to treat extreme situations far away from Earth (i.e., surgery). I’m sure that many of these techniques would have spin-offs for use on Earth.

Energy: In-space propulsion and extended duration missions in space will always benefit from advancement in energy technology. Whether it’s in the form of solar power, nuclear power or some other source, IRHAX would pull the development of new technologies that could have application on Earth.

- How does IRHAX fit in with other NASA requirements (such as maintaining the ISS)?

ISS is a critical, if not foundational, element in this architecture. The most obvious “fit” is as a base for integration, maintenance and crew staging of the IRHAX spacecraft. This is probably necessary, because I doubt that you could justify the investment in the IRHAX approach without a mostly reusable spacecraft. This application harkens to the original purpose of space station as a staging base for missions beyond LEO.

Another connection with ISS is in hardware and technology. In a way, the IRHAX spacecraft could be viewed as small space stations that would be temporarily deployed around other planetary bodies. It is likely that derivatives of the major ISS building blocks, such as hab modules, nodes, truss, solar arrays, external systems would form the basis of the payload/crew portion of the IRHAX spacecraft. This would also pertain to the life support systems and other technologies needed for long-duration human spaceflight.

Finally, the human research side of ISS would be more critical than before. It is doubtful that a spinning artifical-g approach could be developed in the near-term, much of the work on long-term human survivability in 0-g will be directly applicable to IHRAX, particularly physiological countermeasures, etc.

- How does the IRHAX approach compare in terms of returning at least some results and benefits early?

Focusing on sending crew to the surfaces of the Moon and then Mars demands a considerable investment in additional systems. This results in a very serial approach to exploration that can be stretched out to the point of being unsustainable. The need to develop a complex architecture of integrated systems slows things down, and with a limited budget detracts from providing near-term results and benefits.

IRHAX is a more parallel approach. It enables expansion of exploration opportunities at several destinations in the near-term. By avoiding the need for crew-rated landers and surface systems, the complexity and development requirements should be less burdensome, and easier to implement.

- How does IRHAX fit with the early stages of the Planetary Society's new Roadmap that starts with astronomy spacecraft servicing at Lagrangian points, and then goes to Near Earth asteroids?

It actually fits quite well with the Planetary Society’s recent strategy. The IRHAX design should consider in-space operation at a variety of destinations. Thus, it leaves the door open as to which destination you go to first. It is entirely reasonable to first conduct missions to the Lagrange points and NEOs, and save missions to Mars orbit, Phobos, Deimos and possibly Venus until later.

- Does IRHAX fit in well with other potential NASA missions, like satellite servicing in LEO or GEO, SPS demo work, or work on commercial space stations?

IRHAX would certainly share some common technology with these potential missions, most notably in the areas of power and propulsion. The remote telerobotic technology may be directly applicable to satellite servicing and construction of orbital power beaming facilities. I see the greatest commonality being with commercial space stations. The habitats, environmental control and life support systems and other supporting systems for long-duration spaceflight could be picked up and used by commercial entities for commercial space stations and orbiting tourist destinations.

I'd also be interested in whether or not the IRHAX approach would leave enough funding available for lunar ISRU and similar demos, lunar science, NASA use of Google Lunar X PRIZE robots, and so on, with the idea that even if NASA would be focused on the IRHAX for the near term, some time later there might be (NASA or commercial) astronaut missions to the Moon.

I think we should consider the Moon as a destination for potential IRHAX missions. In fact, it may prove to be the ideal destination for the first set of missions to prove out spacecraft systems and the operation of surface telerobots on a planetary body. The propulsion stage would not have to be as advanced as that used for interplanetary missions, and could be a derivative of an existing system (i.e., multiple upper stages).

As far as funding goes, I’m not sure what the impact, if any, this exploration approach would have compared to the current situation. My gut feel is that it would expand the ability to perform space science by not worrying about the development of crew-rated systems for the lunar surface.

A final note, IRHAX does not shut the door on eventual human surface exploration. In fact through the use of telerobots, one could entertain the construction and development of much of the surface infrastructure well before humans ever travel to the surface. In other words, future astronauts could find a red carpet waiting for them that would greatly ease their ability to live and perform in these harsh environments.

sc220: Thanks for the details answers.

I was expecting the Planetary Society Roadmap to point out more advantages of their approach over Constellation, and it did to a point. However, it never followed through, at least as far as I was concerned. For example, in early articles about that Roadmap, there was talk of major commercial participation such as Bigelow modules perhaps being used in the Lagrangian point spacecraft. The Roadmap that was actually released barely hinted at such possibilities, though.

You've pointed out a lot of advantages of the IRHAX approach. I'm also more convinced of some of the advantages of the earlier phases of the PS Roadmap than I was from the actual Roadmap document, even though IRHAX is different, since it seems like they could be complimentary. Hopefully your points don't get too lost at the bottom of this thread that's going dormant. Maybe there's some way to get more people discussing the pros and cons of these opportunities. I wonder if the PS people would be interested in it (both the IRHAX approach and the justifications)?

With limited budgets, I could see this type of effort starting with maintenance and servicing of Earth environment satellites using new vehicles but at an abstract level following Shuttle precedents. It could gradually progress to GEO and L-points. Somewhere along the line (perhaps the Moon) it could switch from satellite servicing to the IRHAX exploration missions. Perhaps each step would be achievable in politically useful timeframes (eg: within 4 years per step). It would be good if maintenance of earlier steps could be left to commercial operations.