Dear Mr. Augustine

You might as well hand out coloring books and Mad Libs to keep people busy for the next 90 days as the blogosphere comes to accept that it's a venue for narcissism, distraction and self-indulgence rather than a tool for affecting national space policy. Churn away.

Two questions:

1) Why should US citizens' assets continue to be confiscated to support a federal jobs program for engineers?

2) Why should we assume that a small number of people in the federal government can allocate resources better than the free market -- especially when it comes to picking winning resources?

3) What constitutional responsibility does the civilian space program address?

Thank-you.

The press release states that: "NASA will review US post-shuttle human space flight activities this summer,"

If that turns out to be reality, it doesn't really matter who is on the Board because the results are predetermined - Constellation wins. Talk about the wolf guarding the hen house!

Save the cost of the "review" and apply it to the program, which needs it badly.

NASA's mission is not much different from the US Navy's. If we accept that the United States of America is a "Seafaring Nation", so too, are we a "Space Faring Nation"; and as such, we must maintain our supremacy in Space just as we now do on the Earth's Oceans.

To accomplish this policy and effort we must provide the will, money and people to support Human Spaceflight just as we do for the Armed Forces.

Ron Holland, 35 Years,
NASA Contractor/Engineer
Retired

Dear Mr. Augustine:

For your “Review of Human Space Flight Plans”, please consider the following options:

1) The NASA’s STS shall complete the retirement in 2015.
2) The ARES I shall be cancelled ASAP, so the funding would transfer to the STS 2011-2015 space operation cost and the rest ARES I funding should transfer to the ARES V R & D budget.
3) The ISS shall complete the retirement in 2015 from NASA’s management and let commercial company take over the operational management.
4) “Return to the Moon” shall be the mainstream for the NASA’s new human space flight plans in the period of 2010-2020.
5) NASA should develop the international cooperation RFP, so qualified partners can apply for the lunar village’s facilities as the cooperation development. NASA shall develop the ARES V as the main transportation system to and from the Moon and the partners shall develop the facilities for the lunar village from the mutual agreement. NASA leads the lunar village development.
6) The one booster to the Moon in each mission should be in the selection plan as the Saturn V did in the great 1960s.
7) Please read my book “Human Space Exploration” which published in 2002. It may help you in some ways.

Best wishes,

H. S. Chen

I think Doug Comstock should be assigned to the commission. He is the director of NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program. He works with all sorts of partners to develop technology for NASA and also transfer it for public benefit.

How NASA technology is transfered to benefit the public should be an important topic during the Augustine Commission. General public and those that are unaware think that NASA is only about exploring space and spending dollars on orbit. They feel that we could better spend those dollars on Earth in charitable causes that support democracy on top of the billions already assigned to that purpose.

People need to learn how NASA technology impacts their daily lives and that many of their loved ones are alive and well, because of technology developed at NASA. There should never be a discussion about whether funding should be available to further the space program. The health of the Earth, the Human Race and our way of daily living is priceless and would not exist without NASA.

Someone like Doug Comstock with expertise and knowledge of how NASA impacts the general public would be a great asset to the Augustine investigation. He could build public awareness of NASA Spin-offs. That alone justifies all funding that should be secured for NASA's future endeavors.

Here goes:

1) Overall Mission - Explore and survey the solar system, with emphasis on early warning against NE encounters and resource survey, period. Nothing more, nothing less. The goal is an on-going, real-time orbital reconnaissance/early warning system surveying the sun, the moon, and every planet, moon, and celestial body in the system by 2030, with human exploration of those targets where the operational flexibility of boots on the ground is a force multiplier - geological survey of the terrestrial planets and inner system moons is the obvious exception to the unmanned rule.

2) Organization - Use a target-focused and task-oriented sub-group organization that focuses on the assigned MISSION - exploration and survey of 1) the Moon; 2) Mars; 3) NEOs; 4) the Belt; etc., including both robotic and manned missions only when appropriate. NASA should become the NOAA/NAP or (using a historical example) the Corps of Topographical Engineers of the solar system; aeronautics, earth resource surveys, education, and similar missions should all go to other organizations, and with appropriate shares of the budget, from NASA AND other current departments, agencies, line tiems, etc - including DOD. Create real chains of command, with appropriate authority and responsibility; the organization should be a service, not an agency. Make the individual in charge a Director, with a capital D - not an administrator.

3) Procurement - Buy American via competitive bid (cost plus fixed fee) with dedicated and CAREER USG systems engineering & integration staff (NASA, OGA, and DOD) - no holdups by or for international partners, and no revolving doors into or out of industry. No back-door lobbyists, period.

4) KISS - use unmanned vehicles where effective (on-going, real-time orbital survey of targets); use manned vehucles where necessary, but keep them simple and efficient, based on past successes, using ballistic re-entry; ocean recovery (using a minimal force made up of existing USN, USCG, and MSC assets for the recovery force); solid fuel LVs for unmanned launches (if technically possible), but liquid-fuel LVs for crew to LEO, and liquid-fuelled LVs with SRBs for unmanned elements of deep space vehicles; Rendevous & Docking and orbital assembly, if necessary; in essence, the mission architectures and operational specialties the US had led in since the 1960s. Size all elements for existing or relatively minor upgrades of existing US HLVs (Delta IV+ as the baseline); Take advantage of economies of scale, existing systems and research, and common systems throughout, and begin looking at high speed propulsion options for planetary missions with an IOC of 2025.

5) Maintain the ISS as a USG-Russian-International facility and use every available spot for test flights, long duration experimentation, and EVA training; no tourists. If the Russians or anyone else has a spare seat, buy it and fly US personnel to ISS for EVA training, if nothing else.

6) Work toward common (with all space-going powers) designs for docking, atmospheres, etc. to facilitate joint operations.

General timeline:

2015 - shuttle retirement; US use of EELV and Block I Orion for ISS services and orbital R&D test missions, etc. 4 flights per year, at least three to ISS and one for in-orbit training, testing, etc.; FT orbital survey of Moon and Mars-martian moons using a COMMON satellite bus;

2020 - Manned lunar fly-by/orbital using Block II+EDS-type stage (using multiple EELV HLVs, as necessary, and oribital assembly) FT orbital survey of inner planets and sun using common satellite buses;

2025 - ISS replaced/augumented by new GEO station; lunar polar base); capability for rendezvous with NEOs;

2030 - Manned Mars missions begin (Mars orbital/Martian moons/Martian landings); FT orbital survey of outer planets/moons, using COMMON satellite buses.

2035 - Martian base;

2040 - Capability for belt, inner/outer planets missions in place;

2050 - US is leading the exploration and settlement of the solar system.

2100 - where to?

Stay on track. The best way to turn the Shuttle successors into yet another generation of Powerpoint spacecraft is to introduce a massive shift in the Constellation paradigm, damaging both credibility and schedules.

Suggestion for panel member: Tom Jones. He flew shuttle 4 times as a mission specialist, once to the space station and has a PhD in planetary science. He has intensively participated in studies of flying Orion to a near earth asteroid and knows well people who have walked on the moon. He knows his space history cold, has written probably the best book of the shuttle era, and has lots of ideas.

We need a commission consisting of individuals that have solid credentials and experience. Individual that won’t need to be brought up to speed on the issues and understand the challenges involved.

Pete Aldridge – headed the last study

Buzz Aldrin – Strong vision, experience on previous commissions and experienced in what it takes to get to the Moon.

Nick Lampson – Strong advocate of exploration and understands the challenge of building support in Congress

Paul Spudis – Lunar expert and previous commission experience

Craig Steidle – Led the roadmap studies for implementation of the VSE

Neil deGrasse Tyson – Previous commission experience and space science advocate

Pete Worden – NASA Ames, familiar with military space assets

John Young – Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle….

This would be a good start to develop a roadmap for moving forward and building broad support for the next step.

BIG NASA supporter – but scrap Ares I & V and adopt the Direct Architecture in part or in whole along with EELV’s – we have paid for most if not all of it already so let us use the assets.

Put the meat back on the bones of Orion.

Put a hut on the moon not a base, and add things when and as needed.

Proper fund NASA – not a blank check and not pie in the sky, for there are limits. The same technologies that build military items also build space hardware, and in space and related technology we certainly get more bang for our buck!

Start sending men (men and women) out to locations throughout the inner solar system and build up the infrastructure to the day when the thought of sending explorers out past the Asteroid Belt seems like a natural next step.

Foster private enterprise, but recognize that the future of mankind means all of mankind, not simply the capitalized few.

While the US should lead, international cooperation is also important.

As for the 10 appointees – I’ll have to think about that one a little bit. However, I am inclined to believe that if the group does not clearly appear to be unencumbered it will be in the end useless.

1) NASA should be working on Direct 2.0; Ares is a joke - no commonality left between Ares and SSTS. They've already had to downgrade Orion capsule from 6 to 4.
2) Make sure SpaceX gets sufficient $$$ so that Falcon 9 and Dragon space capsule are delivered on time - which will most likely be sooner than anything NASA can deliver. Falcon 9 is designed as man-rated from the start; upgrading Dragon from cargo to men has also been designed in from the start.

Good luck!

Blue Ribbon Panel

Craig Covault
Elon Musk
Tom Hanks
Bill Gates
Neil Armstrong
Malcolm Gladwell
John Logsdon
Scott Horowitz
Neil DeGrasse Tyson
James Oberg
Wesley T. Huntress, Jr.
Dale Winke - well why not, I would like to do something for my country!

Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Wouldn't you want somebody with a little more integrity in how he represents himself? At least Tom Hanks knows he is an actor.

NASA was aimlessly drifting until it was appropriately vectored after the Columbia tragedy. The VSE struggled its first year and a correction was made, it has now gone forward as Constellation a little over 3 years and made significant progress, despite its funding handicap. Is it due for some adjustment, probably, but lets provide it with the corresponding funding required to achieve the goal. It would be a greater tragedy if the redesign cycles that plagued the Space Station’s early years were to be repeated.

The goal for the civil huamn spaceflight program must be to open up the solar system for development and settlement. In short, the U.S. government shall expand the economic sphere of the United States beyond Earth orbit so that America can harness extra-terrestrial scientific and natural resources. In contrast with today's approach, the civil space program shall not just approach space as a domain only for a handful of civil servants to briefly travel to. Rather, the space program shall blaze a trail with an open architecture that leverages and nurtures the key strengths of the commercial and educational space sectors so that some day soon average Americans can travel to, work in and benefit from affordable access to space.

I'll offer second endorsements for the following panel members:

Pete Aldridge

Paul Spudis

Craig Steidle

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Elon Musk

And recommend two other guys who are investing their own fortunes, instead of taxpayer money, in human spaceflight

Jeff Bezos

Richard Branson

I laugh when I see the names being suggested in posts just above. Mr. Matula wants the same old folks who were the professional reviewers of yesterday. There are good people buet we need younger and fresher blood, not those who will give us the same old worn out answers. And Mr. Winke wants Scotty Horowitz, basicly the Father of Aries 1? Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. And we have already had enough spirals from Craig Steidle. Let's get realistic.

Extend Shuttle by 5 missions, to 2012.

Cancel Ares I/V.

Continue with 6-crew Orion. Launch Orion on EELV. IOC 2013.

Design in-line HLLV with maximum use of and minimum necessary modification to exiting hardware. 4seg RSRMs, SSMEs, 8.4m ET, RL-10 engined upper stage. IOC 2016.

Fully fund COTS-D, SpaceX (because they have some hardware well under way), and a backup competitor (because SpaceX might fail). Possibly fund t\Space as "wild card." As soon as at least one COTS-D vehicle reaches IOC, stop work on Orion-to-ISS.

Plan for Orion-only (or Orion with "orbital module") HLLV missions. Lunar polar orbital survey mission. Demo "servicing" mission to Webb (not to service it, but to demonstrate that such missions make human-tended Lagrange-point facilities possible, i.e., the next-gen space telescopes). Missions to increasingly remote NEOs, possibly ending with a manned flight to Phobos (obvious, a "remote" possibility).

Plan lunar surface exploration around mobile laboratories rather than a fixed base (modernized versions of the Apollo MoLab idea). This will require a cargo lander big enough to land MoLabs and resupply for them, and a mimimum capability personnel lander. When MoLabs are proven out, think in terms of leaving crews on the Moon w/o a return lander in place or an orbiting "rescue" Orion. Recognize the need to have autonomous operations, practiced in a realistic way, or you will never be ready for Mars.

@John B
"You might as well hand out coloring books and Mad Libs to keep people busy for the next 90 days as the blogosphere comes to accept that it's a venue for narcissism, distraction and self-indulgence rather than a tool for affecting national space policy. Churn away".

Congrats. You have made the only posting that the Commission needs to read.

1. Scrap Ares I, put Orion on Delta IV.
2. Accelerate Ares V development.
2.5 Use Dragon/Falcon 9 for personnel where feasible.
3. Lunar sorties.
4. Manned missions to NEOs.
5. Manned Mars expedition.

There are many outstanding and experienced individuals who could serve on the Augustine commission. For example (in alphabetic order):

Len Fisk: University of Michigan, broad university and NASA experience, former HQ AA for SMD, Chair of NRC Space Studies Board. --

Scott Hubbard, Stanford University, former director of NASA Ames, HQ "Mars Czar", lead role in Shuttle accident analysis. --

Charles Kennel, extensive relevant management experience at University of California, Scripps, HQ Earth Science, and private sector. --

Edward Lu, Google, physicist, former astronaut with ISS and Russian program experience, innovative thinker about space exploration. --

Neil Tyson, Director New York Hayden Planetarium, charismatic spokesperson for space science & exploration, previous commission experience.

Burt Rutan

The whole idea of the "Blue Ribbon" panel, if it is to really be a fair assessment, is to give credibility to NASA moving forward in human spaceflight. NASA has definitely lost some credibility based on the results of the last few years. If the panel is going to revisit where we're going or why, it's a waste of time because that needs to be decided by the President and Congress if they want to revisit those issues.

There are a clear number of options for getting from here to LEO and beyond in the near term. Many people, me included, don't trust that the decisions that have been made, have been made for the right reasons. That is why I like the idea of this panel. The panel may comeback that staying the course is the right decision. They may decide on Direct, EELVs, SDLVs or a combination of these options. If they have open hearings allowing all the key protagonists to state their cases and can logically justify their recommendations, then NASA will have the full support and backing of many more people in the space community.

A couple of my recommendations for the panel would include:

Larry Page or Sergei Brin - for fresh innovative thinking

Burt Rutan - for his engineering insights (Though I don't think he'd want to do it)

Steve Jobs - for his shear creativity and business savvy

Sean O'Keefe - Someone who has an idea on how the agency is run

Someone who has been the chief engineer on a project like the 787, the F-22 or the F-35

The rest of the panel should be people who are or have been mid-level engineering managers on complex engineering projects both in and out of aerospace who are capable of understanding the details they will be presented. These are the kind of people who would be the backbone of the assessment.

I like the idea of Bezos, he slipped by me the first time. I thought about Branson but already had Musk listed and did not want to load the panel one way or the other. As for Horowitz, I respectfully disagree that it would be the fox guarding the hen house. I am also inclined to believe that people are intitled to their opinions, but they are also allowed to change them - if given a chance to do so. If one person can shape the outcome of the panel, what is the panel really worth? Thought about Rutan but I am inclined to think he would find the nearest BFI bin an dump the whole of NASA into it, while some would find this a "positive outcome" I am left to wonder. While I do not bowl with the man, I think I know Tyson well enough to say he is a man of character who would serve honestly.

I will not waste the space to argue Direct's points. What I will say as a long time believer in NASA and its mission, knowing the history of the program fairly well, and not owing allegiance to anyone, I just do not buy the Ares concept. We started out with the idea of a 747 (speaking metaphorically) and I was thrilled with Mike - finally somebody who got it and was leading NASA and the vision to a bigger and better place, and we will be lucky, if Ares is the path followed, we will be lucky to end up with a Piper Cub. It really pains me - because I know - and I am sure that many share the belief - that we can indeed be a great spacefaring nation, and planet for that matter. It would be nice to start with a clean sheet, however that is not an option - or at least I do not think it is. So we do the best with what we do have. I think Direct makes a better end product, given the parts, and combined with our other assests, will serve us well for the next 30 to 40 years.

Respect you all!

1. Abandon the Ares 1. For ISS crew resupply, select a reliable existing commercial booster as the launch vehicle, and start a commercial procurement program for a capsule system for it. SpaceX Dragon and the Atlas 5 401 would be my preferred avenue, with the Falcon 9 qualifying whenever it gains the confidence of NASA. Other possible launch options would be the Delta 4 Medium and the Sea Launch/Land Launch Zenit 2.

For the launch of Orion in an eventual lunar mission, select one of the two Heavy EELV options for the task, as they are capable and reliable, or use the ISS transfer vehicle developed to crew on orbit an Orion launched unmanned on a then existing launch vehicle.

2. Abandon the Ares V, or any other heavy lift vehicle. Start a commercial procurement program for a LEO propellant depot, and the means to fill it. A near term option for this would be an upgrade to the second stage of the EELV vehicles as the fuel transfer elements and propulsion elements necessary in a lunar mission, with a propellant depot based upon the technology of those second stages. Since the vast majority of the mass of any lunar mission is comprised of propellant, by separating the fuel from lunar payloads and fueling those payloads on orbit, the launch mass of the actual lunar hardware falls within the capacity of present commercial launch vehicles, thereby eliminating the need for a NASA developed heavy lifter program, and the expense in time and money that entails. Allow for an open competition for the filling of the propellant depot, thereby serving as a new major market for the American commercial launch industry to compete to fulfill.

The synergy of this option due to the use of existing and enhanced second stage technology as the basis for the depot, the depot filling containers, and the major propulsion elements in a lunar architecture, like TLI and LOI, makes it the quickest means to achieve lunar missions, and the most ideal, as it creates a market that commercial launch vehicles can compete to fulfill, thereby sparking the drive for progress that has been absent in the American space program for the past several decades.

We can go the moon. We can close the manned spaceflight gap. Such a task does not require a heavy lift vehicle, it does not require NASA to be a builder of launch vehicles. The heavy lifter is a false road, and a lunar architecture without it offers more capability and a lesser cost of operation. A lunar mission without it calls on NASA to use the faculties of the American commercial launch industry, and to rely on the capitalist drive to compete to service NASA's launch needs in the establishment of competitive and capable launch systems. NASA would become a spacecraft and spacecraft architecture focused organization, the type of organizational change needed for it to become relevant again and for it to realize its missions to explore the moon and the solar system.

Thank you for reading this.

Dear Mr. Augustine,
Constellation today is morphing from "Apollo on steroids" to "Gemini with with four people." "Go as you can pay" is morphing into "Do what you can with an already-inadequte budget." This can't be allowed to continue.
The VSE goals made sense: for science, for American leadership, and (in the long run) for economics. Changes in the architecture, like the elimination of the marginal Ares I ("Estes on steroids"), must be done as needed. There can't be sacred cows. And we must look for a new level of international and public/private cooperation, creating a global megacommunity for space exploration.
Milestones and intermediate goals can be rescheduled, the order changed, etc. I submit, however, that only the overarching goal of long-term human exploration of the Moon and Mars makes the human spaceflight program worth the doing. Your commission must find a practical route, based on a grand vision but rooted in realism about economics, politics, and technology, to make us a true spacefaring nation again.

Mat Bille
Space writer/historian

Don't throw away what was good the last 5 years. Keep ISS for another decade, give it an interesting life-science mission with funding. Please find a way to keep the US heavy-lift capability alive, whether in Ares, Shuttle-c or Direct. we need this as a world, all nations got 20t, but 100t is what is needed for the real thing.

Set the next generation up for Mars in the 2020s. We can do it, even if we don't look like it sometimes.

I am not well enough informed to provide really meaningful suggestions as to where NASA should be going but there are a few things which are fairly obvious even to a dilettante such as myself.

1. Launchning cargo into orbit continues to be prohibitively expensive. NASA had launched a number of initiative all of which foundered. While initiating a new program for a reuseable 2 stage to orbit scramjet craft would be difficult, there has been enough basic research done in the propulsion department to be able to begin some long lead definition research with the goal being the ability to deliver 20-30 tons of cargo into low earth orbit for $1k/pound. Imagine the possibilities.

2. Once in space getting anywhere beyond the moon orbit is slow and dangerous by virtue of the fact that all current space ship schemes rely on the obviously inadequate chemical engines. It's time to seriously consider something with a little more oomph. NASA has done a substantial amount of research into nuclear thermal propulsion and I believe continues to do research into energy generation using nuclear reactors. This research needs to be expanded with the goal being the ability to build high power compact nuclear reactors with output on the order of megawatts as well as efficient energy conversion. In addition there should be a commitment to expanded research into nuclear thermal propulsion resulting in a fully functional practical engine. And attention should be paid to other methods of propulsion which would take us beyond nuclear thermal.

3. Finally, it makes sense to me that a permanent presence should be established on the moon with the eventual goal of gradually building up a local manufacturing base in partnership with private enterprises to enable the use of lunar resources in building of large structures such as solar electric power generation sattelites.

minimal change. cancel ares1. Crew-rate EELV and launch Orion on it. Extend shuttle to 2012 to help fill gap. Ensure ARES V uses existing shuttle components and infrastructure, including 8.4 m core, 4 or 5 seg SRBs, SSME's. Bring forward Ares V development to close workforce gap with intention of having fitment tests in 2013. Investigate two launch ares V solution and EDS using existing reliable engines such as RL10.
Lunar systems should be applicable to asteroid and mars missions where possible. Suggest we should design for mars but use for moon,mars,asteroid.

Dan Goldin.

Listen to what he says about Cheaper, Better, and Faster.

Then ignore him, and anyone who agrees with him!

Bob Shaw

Norm will give everything to the whinners at United Space Alliance!

He should ask the question what does NASA do that no other agency or private entity does? NOAA does earth and atmospheric research, and money for that should go to them. The NSF supports basic research in all sciences, and they should be funding scientific study of space and the planets. Private companies will soon be able to provide access to the already-explored low earth orbit. What none of those agencies do is explore and push the limits of human habitation, etc. These are things that private industry has no immediate interest in but the nation (and world) as a whole benefits from. NASA can provide its expertise to other agencies when they are engaged in space flight. But the NASA role should be unique to what it does that no other agency can do.

Dear Mr. Augustine:

Please don't waste your time thinking about the relevance of mountaineering by former astronauts to space exploration. Oh, you knew that ...?

Drew

Above all, the panel must be absolutely objective. I am concerned that if there are NASA civil servants onboard that their objectivity will be questioned (or worse). The panel must be undeniably independent.

Next, NASA should not be in the launch vehicle business, but if they are, the launch vehicle[s] acquired should be selected based on what is best for the next thirty years or so. In my opinion, that is the DIRECT architecture - not Ares-I/V. But, Atlas and Delta should be given a careful look, as well.

To be honest, I'd say just go ahead with Constellation. A manned lunar base is the only way to keep a program running. I wouldn't propose anything like sorties. It would be canned smaller than Apollo, especially when you consider the massive cost for each mission.

Of course, how to achieve this goal is what's up for debate. I think it's only a simple matter though: get a committee to find which is the best launch system for the cost. If switching away from Ares 1 is economically beneficial, then of course it should be done. If not, then keep Ares going.

But that's my 'realistic' suggestion. If I were to say what I really think would be best, is build a true space shuttle, SSTO. Like the Skylon. For getting hardware to LEO for pennies, the moon will seem a heck of a lot closer.

I was wondering how many launch vehicles that leave earth with one engine? I think just about every engineer would want to have at least two engines to control roll. Even ICBM's have two engines in first stage for this reason. The Ares I has little to no margin on thrust. Is this what we want to get stuck with? I think not. Now, I think Ares V is a viable launch vehicle on paper and we as a nation is in great need a heavy lifter to replace STS.

If Ares I is judged marginal at best, I say stop wasting money on it. I suppose that takes us into to roads (EELV or Direct 2.0). If I were running this committee I would look at the best of these two. IMO, based on talking with engineers working on Orion and Ares I, it has been a big disappointment. Having said that, I would still want to see Ares 1X to continue.

Also, nobody from MSFC should be on the committee since they are in Ares too much.

Pete Aldridge
Ken Davidian
Robert Farquhar
Lori Garver
Steve Isakowitz
Charles Kennel
John Lewis
Paul Spudis
Alan Stern
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Pete Worden

Yes, I realize that's not 9 people, but how could I cut any?

- strengths in commercial space, science, management, budget, policy, and engineering

As for the commission's approach, all it really needs to do is take seriously the commission's stated objectives, which I cut and paste from the press release posted on SpaceRef:

1) expediting a new U.S. capability to support use of the International Space Station;
2) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low Earth orbit;
3) stimulating commercial space flight capabilities; and
4) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities

That's it! What more could you ask for?

Unfortunately, the current NASA internal rocket-building adventure isn't doing 1, 3, or 4, and without those I doubt it will achieve 2 without a fundamental change.

If we could hit home runs on 1, 3, and 4, I'd even be willing to relax objective 2 to "supporting missions to destinations in low Earth orbit" if that meant great support for ISS, use of commercial space stations to complement ISS, and development and commercialization of satellite servicing capabilities (eg: refueling, tugs, reusable in-space transport vehicles). After all, those would be useful in and of themselves, and would also give a great foundation for a future astronaut exploration program. However, 1-4 are fine by me. In fact the VSE goals (economic, security, and science benefits in the context of commercial and international participation) with a strong emphasis on lunar missions to start are also fine by me ... just don't ignore the actual goals and pretend NASA was asked to build rockets!

Put the moon and mars on the back burner.
Retire the shuttle.
Focus on the Orion vehicle and returning to the Station.
Then and only then, start going to the Moon or Mars, but not both at the same time.

NASA needs to do one thing at a time and do it right with the money they currently have.

Three to add to the panel in this order:

Alan Stern
Paul Spudis
Richard Branson

Nineteen yerars ago I was a co-director of the Synthesis Group with Tom Stafford and George Abbey. We published a report: America at the threshold. Obviously nothing happened although our strategic thinking was pertinent then and is probably useful today. Then I spent 11 years as an associate adminisitrator at NASA HQ. Two of those years I was the AA for Code R. I recall the times that code M, human space flight, had to be funded from other enterprises because they used their priority as a counter balance to bad managent. Dan Goldin developed a distrust for anything from Houston and I sympathized with him in this thought. Is this still a concern?
I retired as senior advisor to the NASA Administrator at the end of 2002. Now, the only position that I hold that might be pertinent to the Augustine Commision is as a member of the Defense Trade Advisory Group (ITAR). In that role, I am unique in that the other members of the DTAG are in the role of getting licenses from State so are not vocally opposed to the dumb way we are treating exports. I don't have that conflict of interest. I am primarily concerned with ITAR with Category XV, Space. Can I be of service to your important tasking?

A couple of names come to mind for the panel (and some good ones are already listed, above).



- Henry Spencer

- Rand Simberg

- Burt Rutan

- Elon Musk

Don't retire the Shuttle, retire the Orbiter. Replace it on the stack with a cargo carrier that is adaptable to multiple objectives.

This has the following advantages:

1) Heavy lift capability
2) High flexibility
3) Much lower cost of operations than current Shuttle
4) Ready in relatively little time
5) Smaller disruption to work force
6) Great configuration for space based solar power development
7) Finally, it doesn't bet the farm on some new and unproven capability, where we would have to wait years to see if it even can meet its objectives.

NASA's funding is stable and relatively constant.
How many people are employed with these funds and in what capacities ? What kinds of things can be done with this number of qualified people ? How much more is required to pursue some of NASA's other ambitions ? Are there alternatives for the nation that might prove more expeditious and less expensive ?

Based on comparison with other technologies and industries, what should be NASA's/government's role ? Does/should NASA hold all of the cards in space DDT&E ? How about in space operations ?

Is ISS being run appropriatey with the 'science' organization headed by the engineering/program management organizations ?

Orion appears to be too heavy to launch with any meaningful payload, whether that be adequate number of crew or cargo, and it also appears to be too heavy to land with an adequate payload and with adequate safety margins. Can ocean landing a la Apollo ever be cost effective ? Is giving up five decades of hard-earned knowledge of hypersonic flight, starting with the X-Planes and continuing through to Shuttle, something NASA should be giving up in favor of a ballistic capsule approach ? Are we giving up key technologies and experience we cannot afford to lose ?

What is the likelihood an Ares V and lunar base could be developed on the existing NASA budget ? What kind of a timeframe is realistic, given the recent experience of $16 billion, five years, and an Orion/Ares I that appears to be as far away now as is was in 2005 ?

Are there more cost effective, schedule expedient ways to design and build spacecraft ? It appears the Skunk Works approach, with small teams of experienced, effective people such as was used on X-15, U-2, SR-71, and in the space program with Spacehab, NASA-Mir and X-38 is the right approach, as opposed to the large inefficient organizations NASA human spaceflight always tries to establish such as for ISS and Constellation,

Why has Constellation failed to date ? Was it inadequate inexperienced or unqualified leadership, or inadequate funding, or a poorly developed architecture, or inadequately developed requirements, or some combination of these. Why has Constellation failed to rally the American public behind the program ? Is this something that is necessary ?

Is there a problem with the Constellation Program structure as it was established ? In the past programs were assigned to meet specific mission requirements on a specific schedule. There were lots of programs that made up 1960s lunar exploration and use of the Apollo spacecraft. There was Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, Surveyor, Apollo, Saturn V, Apollo Applications (Skylab), and ASTP. Some used the same spacecraft but the programs operated independently. All of these listed programs operated independently. Yet today's ESMD and Constellation appear to claim ownership for all aspects of the Vision, and appear to bypass the long established NASA organizations. Is this advisable ? The current Constellation seems to be made up of a hodge podge of projects, programs, and people. Some like Orion and Ares 1 were supposed to have been near term on a recognized schedule to meet a specific need (ISS support). Other elements appear to be in a study phase, decades away, involving unmanned projects and programs, manned projects and programs, vehicles, rockets, new propulsion systems, habitats.....In the Apollo era, NASA had a Manned Spacecraft Center in which different programs and projects handled different vehicles and missions, and a Space and Rocket Center, where rockets were developed.....Is there something wrong with the NASA structure to support such a wide program ? Why the warped approach for Constellation ?

Several years ago, the Shuttle and ISS Program Managers shut down the subsystem manager/management approach that worked so well in Apollo. In this model, the technical expertise was helf throughout the center while the rogram held configuration management - the actual management of the vehicle configuration - not meeting support which is how ISS and Constellation evolved. The subsystem management approach has never been fully reestablished. If ISS is an example, they claim technical ownership of all functions and withdrew money from the institution so you now have functional experts in the institution who have no recognized role in the programs, and technical expertise is lacking in the programs, even though the program hold virtually unlimited authority since all funding flows through the programs. Is there a better way to run spaceflight ?

NASA have Constellation exactly right - stay on current course. Retire current STS when station is complete. Accelerate Constellation if funds are forthcoming.

Sammy Armstrong, I see you elevate yourself by putting others down. That chartacter flaw should disquailify you from any blue ribbon or any other colored panel. As for code R, it was the largest spender of funds that were dead end investments particularly when it came to technology. Good riddence to code R. At least code M had something to show for it, A real mission, apparently something that is lost on you.

One person needs to be involved..A true engineer with Moon-walking experience...JOHN WATTS YOUNG..,He will not give ANY political B.S. The commission will get an honest forthright answer on what is the correct engineering decisions that need to be made,it may not be what He may not say what Washington wants to hear but that is what should be done. If we want an honest reachable goal, we nee the best people involved!

Here is a great quote by Norm Augustine at the end of his congressional testimony in 2006. Maybe people need to read this rather than harp about how many different rockets can dance on the end of a pin.

*********************

It should be noted that we are not confronting a so-called “typical” crisis, in the sense that there is no 9/11, Sputnik or Pearl Harbor to alert us as a nation. Our situation is more akin to that of the proverbial frog being slowly boiled. Nonetheless, while our committee believes the problem we confront is both real and serious, the good news is that we may well have time to do something about it—if we start now.

Americans, with only 5% of the world’s population but with nearly 30% of the world’s wealth, tend to believe that scientific and technological leadership and the high standard of living it underpins is somehow the natural state of affairs. But such good fortune is not a birthright. If we wish our children and grandchildren to enjoy the standard of living most Americans have come to expect, there is only one answer: We must get out and compete.

I would like to close my remarks with a perceptive and very relevant poem. It was written by Richard Hodgetts, and eloquently summarizes the essence of innovation in the highly competitive, global environment. The poem goes as follows:

Every morning in Africa a gazelle wakes up.
It knows it must outrun the fastest lion or it will be killed.

Every morning in Africa a lion wakes up.
It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re a lion or a gazelle –
when the sun comes up, you’d better be running.

**********************

My problem is that none of the posters in this thread are addressing the why of space, only details of how, none of which tie to our greater societal needs.

More tomorrow

Dear Mr. Augustine, please read The Planetary Societies "Beyond the Moon" initiative, and take it to heart. Then, if you haven't already, please indulge in, "The Case for Mars," and "How to Live on Mars." The latter two are not entirely realistic (mass estimates, for one), however, they do have a lot of truth to them.

I love the moon just about as much as anyone, but I realize the difficulty of procuring a manned moon outpost (due to lack of ISRU for life support). If this changed with LRO/LCROSS I will change my position, but I don't see that happening.

Instead I would like to see a man on Mars before I'm 60 (or 70 by someone elses estimates here). I truly believe it can be done in 15 years if NASA changes direction and works hard at it.

Lastly, though I do not believe it belongs in the review, it may be prudent to look at NASAs past efforts to study building robot factories on the moon (cite: "Advanced Automation for Space Missions"). They can be remotely operated and, costwise, can cheaply usher in a new era of technically minded individuals in our society (not only traching our children about industry, but about robotics and technology at the same time). Abandoning the (manned) moon outpost in the short term can be justified in this way. Just something to consider.

Not 'the usual suspects':

Technical
---------
Fred Culick
George Wittinghill
Paul Dimotakis

Organizational
--------------
James Q. Wilson
Howard McCurdy

NASA Programmatics
------------------
Hans Mark
Pete Worden
Alan Weston
Pete Klupar

And, why not have the profs nominate some aero/astro grad students on the panel as junior members? They might not say what you want, but they could bring some important perspectives from a generation who it is proposed will operate and pay for this system.

1. Do not retire the space shuttle until we have a successor space craft that is fully functional. Having no American access to space for 5 years or more would be penny wise but pound foolish. No one really knows if the Ares 1 concept will work and if it will be safer than the shuttle until its actually operational. NASA should not put all of its eggs in the lone basket of the Ares 1.

2. Dramatically reduce US participation and funds for the ISS. Let the Russians, Japanese, and Europeans have and support this station.

3. Increase NASA budget to 24 billion a year!

4. Significantly increase funding for the Ares V so that the development of the heavy lift vehicle is ready for launch by 2015 or 2016.

5. Scrap the Constellation 'sortie' (Apollo redux) program and replace it with a dedicated lunar base program. Use the Ares V to deposit lunar base components on the lunar surface and assemble these base components by remote control from Earth so that a fully functioning and properly radiation shielded base is ready for our astronauts arrival. A lunar base will be the first step towards the expansion of human civilization off the planet.

6. Resurrect the Delta Clipper program and-- seriously fund it-- so that we can-- finally-- have a reusable manned space craft that will give NASA, the military, and private industry easy access to orbit.

7. After the moon base is established, start funding an interplanetary light sail program based on the Eric Drexler concept so that we can start manufacturing light sails in space. Light sails will allow us to easily capture small asteroids and allow us to cheaply transport massive manned and unmanned payloads-- rapidly-- through interplanetary space. Light sails will open up the solar system for human expansion and industrialization.

8. Use the Ares V to launch the first rotational simulated gravity space habitat in low earth orbit to see if humans can truly adapt to variable simulated gravity environments (0.1G to 1G). This should have been done way back in the 1970's using the Saturn V. O'Neil type colonies will only be a fantasy if humans can't adjust to simulated gravity. So we need to know!

9. After a lunar base is establish, permanently manned orbiting facilities should be established in Martian orbit in order to exploit mine the regolith of the moons of Mars for oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and mass shielding.

10. After manned Martian orbital facilities are established, permanent habitats should be placed on the Martian surface that utilize Martian resources for human survival. This would be the next major step towards human expansion beyond the planet Earth.

I believe that all of this could be done before the year 2025 with the larger annual NASA budget

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/space-frontier.html

I think a psychic would be useful. This commision has a mission that doen't have a clear goal IMHO. There are lots of ways to skin a cat but first you need a cat.

@ Commander Keen

If you are going to criticize Ares I, do it with facts.
"I was wondering how many launch vehicles that leave earth with one engine?"

All Thor based vehicles (more than 500 launches)
Thor Able
Thor Delta
Thor Ablestar
Thor Burner
Thor Agena

Delta IV
Falcon 1
Atlas V (one engine with two nozzles)
Vanguard
Juno

Dear Mr. Augustine:
As a 20 plus year shuttle worker, I love it! It is a wonderful vehicle that has a capability like no other. With that said. It must be retired. The only question is when. It is a very, very expensive program layered with oraganizational waste and inefficient processes. Can it bridge a small gap while the country's space program re-evaluates and re-tools - absolutely! It is safe and launched by many dedicated care takers.

I would like your team to be "staffed" mainly by the commercial and academic community. NASA should have no more than one representative.

Go COMMERCIAL AND GO QUICKLY. NASA must be forced to release its death grip on space transportation. Cancel ARES. DIRECT 2.0, EELV options, and newly sponsored commercial operators should be strongly fostered. Set the standard, provide the carrot and let commercial world do what it does best - innovate.

Mars ASAP.

After that, Mars self-sufficiency ASAP.

Everything else follows or is not necessary.

From reading the final report of the 1990 Augustine Commission and several other articles, Norman Augustine clearly supports a human exploration program to both the Moon and Mars. He also supports commercial space entrepreneurship where there are established markets like cargo and human transports to ISS. Based on his remarks, the main focus of the review is going to be on whether the current ESAS architecture and Constellation program is the best option for sending humans back to the Moon and onto Mars, the review will not be about whether a Mars focused exploration is worthwhile as some have intimated on this blog. And despite what others like Rob Coppinger over at Hyperbola may think, the review will not about reconciling different factions with an ISS centered space program.

Increase the performance of Ares I to address Orion's obvious excess mass.

Wish list for brave new world:

1. Adopt Direct 2.0 for all new mission plans.
2. Fund Space X for the Station upkeep.
3. Add the following folks on the team to plan/review mission plans and market the program:

John Young
Burt Rutan
Homer Hickam, Jr
Robert T. Bigelow
A Anson-Stoner Representative, (to get a marketing plan together).

Thanks,

Carl

1) Whatever course the space program takes we need to keep Ares V alive. The only way to have a meaningful space program in the long term (whether that is LEO solar power colectors, Lunar missions, asteroid deflection, Mars, beyond...etc) is to have a heavy lift capacity. Note ISS could have been launched with just 3 Saturn V (it would also have been lighter due to less need for nodes and supporting structure) instead of 20+ Shuttle missions and EVAs with their added human risk.

2) Take with a grain of salt anything said by the 'go commercial' crowd. There are notable commercial space failures such as Iridium and Globalstar, and even the 'commercial' EELVs which have long given up on the international launch market. Without captive government launches, forced to use their vehicles, they would have been out of business many years ago.

3) Conduct the Ares 1 test, decide after.

Anyone except me see something pretty significant missing in most of these lists?

Here are a couple of names to consider, for multiple reasons:

Lt. Gen. L. F. Kenne, USAF (currently DCoS, AFHQ)

Brig. Gen. (M.Gen-select) S.J. Helms, USAF
(currently J3, USSTRATCOM)

Some of the ideas crack me up.

Okay, here's a Canadian's perspective:

FACTS:

1. a) There's a $100B investment currently in LEO, with international partners willing to continue support.
b) Soyuz or some other vehicle will always be required to remove as many people as there are up there. That = 2x Soyuz, 2x Orion, 1xSoyuz + 1xOrion.
c) Shuttle is the ONLY vehicle capable of sufficient up-mass AND down-mass for ISS. We haven't even finished it, some more ORUs are required (Damaged radiator replacement, spare radiator, solar array blanket box, NTA, ATA, CMGs). We also have large science payloads (racks) only possible to be ferried up there & down by shuttle, until a COTS-D is flying.
d) We haven't even finished ISS, or crewed it to 6-persons. Things will break down, replacements WILL be required.

2. We have two very capable EELVs that are FLYING right now at $200M - $500M each that could loft Orion. Aside from a new PLF/transition adaptor & launch site changes they need (not comprehensive):
a) Atlas: only requires engine man-rating (no problem) and small avionics upgrade to be able to support Orion. The engines can easily be man-rated.
b) Delta IVH: Aside from a Russian engine (which is close to man-rated, this baby needs more avionics than Atlas.

3. Current architecture for Constellation is a nightmare.
a) Ares-IX flight is a joke. It is just a PR stunt. There will be nothing in common with it to the actual Ares-I vehicle.
b) Ares-I design suffers from thrust Oscillation (TO) near the end of flight. How much is only guessed at from computer simulations and testing on a horizontal static 4-segment motor. How this will change with a 5-segment motor in the vertical position is anyone's guess, but it has already required NASA to cut many safety systems from Orion.
c) The J-2X engine to push Orion to orbit (because Ares-I can't do it by itself due to all the shortcomings) will not perform as predicted. These issues have cost more capability from orion: now only 4-persons to ISS from 6. It is also behind schedule, so that puts IOC into question.
d) Ares-V is now so big to make up for the shortcomings of Ares-I that all new infrastructure needs to be built: new MLP, new crawlers, new crawlerways...$$$$ not budgeted.
e) Orion has already lost many safety features because of Ares-I issues: mmod shields, radiation shields, land landing capability, avionics reductions, quad redundancy...many more. Also as stated earlier, now only a 4-person ISS version instead of 6. The rumour is that a 3-person lunar version is on the horizon. They can't nail down a design either because all the issues that creep up with Ares-I.
f) Anything developed under the current plan is not workable for Mars, so it all has to be designed again. More $$$$ we don't have.

Here's my plan:

1. Continue funding shuttle with an extension until at least 2012, but not hard-set like it is now. Add a minimum of 3 flights for additional spares & science capability until a suitable cargo return vehicle is ready through COTS-D to return science to earth. Extension to 2015 should not be required and is probably unsafe & unworkable. Stretch the flights out so you can maintain the workforce and your capability.

2. Fund COTS-D, right now, and PROPERLY. $1B Contract award by this autumn. That's 3-crew and/or cargo return.

3. Cancel Ares-I. It's a dead weight. See if you can cancel the ATK contract for 5-segment motor, but if not consider its use for Ares-V variant. Continue J-2X development for use on Ares-V variant; many of our issues with rocket design stem from a lack of choices in production engines.

4. Use EELV to loft Orion. Fund BOTH. The costs come in at ~$1B each, but it's still cheaper than Ares-I. If one has issues, then the other gets to fly first. Any pad problems or deisgn issues, you still have an alternate.

5. Using true shuttle heritage components, develop a Direct-based Jupiter launch vehicle (v3.0 currently) to not only save the shuttle workforce during the transition to Ares-V variant, but to use existing facilities. The J-130 has enough extra capacity to ferry additional mass to ISS if required.

6. Using true shuttle heritage, develop the Direct-based Jupiter launch vehicle (v3.0 currently) at MSFC as the Ares-V variant by maintaining the existing tank diameter, thereby savings $$$ on existing shuttle fabrication facilities at MAF. Using the SSME to counter the base-heating issues that Ares-V designs are currently facing, you have a man-rated engine that is currently flying with a great flight history. Over time, cost cutting measures could be looked at to make this engine cost efficient in terms of it being disposable, but the numbers show it's almost even-money with the RS-68 currently baselined for Ares-V.

7. For the money that WILL BE SAVED going this route, you can look at lunar opportunities, or a NEO asteroid mission, propellant depots, or more robotic missions.

8. Extend ISS' life to beyond 2016: hopefully 2020 at the least, or until a major failure forcing it's destruction. We have it, we spent all this money on it, let's use it! It's a great way to expand our knowledge of long-during spaceflight & enabling technologies to one day go to Mars.

The Moon-Mars effort above all needs to be sustainable, so the public doesn't cut off funds when costs seem too high or perceived results fall short.

We need a strategy to drive down unit costs over time, so the perceived "results per dollar" go up. That's essential to a sustainable Moon-Mars initiative.

Declining unit costs can be achieved several ways. An architecture that builds in-space infrastructure is one. Introducing more commercial activities is another -- it builds demand to spread overhead over more flights, and it produces more competition among suppliers. A third way is to put far more money into commercially-executed robotic ISRU so explorers can live off the land from the start, not years after the return to the Moon.

I also admit to a bias toward Moon first. Those who like Mars -- a much more photogenic world, for sure! -- should consider the current state of the art. Whenever anything goes wrong on ISS, the crew heads for the Soyuz for an immediate return to Earth. Return from Mars upon an emergency may take almost a year, depending on conjunction. We need to solve the "emergency" issue on the Moon, where help is only days away. We don't have the right gear yet, nor even the right strategy for redundancy -- do we take redundant similar systems so crew can scavenge spare parts, or redundant dissimilar systems to prevent common weak points from dooming the crew?

So, while our ambitions might want Mars right now, let's focus on building an effort that is within our technological grasp and sustainable via declining unit costs.

Canadian -

Delta IV has US-built engines (P&W Rocketdyne RS-68, engineered/built in Canoga Parl, CA and Decatur, Alabama); Atlas V has Russian-built RD-180s (LM and P&W got a waiver to the original EELV contract based on their promise to build a RD-180 line in West Palm Beach, Florida, which has yet to happen)...

Regards

It should be noted that we are not confronting a so-called “typical” crisis, in the sense that there is no 9/11, Sputnik or Pearl Harbor to alert us as a nation. Our situation is more akin to that of the proverbial frog being slowly boiled.


Very well said, and we'd best jump now (if, indeed, we're still able to jump).

IMO, here are the three most important things that the commission needs to consider:

1. Engage the public.
2. Engage the public.
3. Engage the public.

Providing high definition images of astronauts walking and driving rovers on the Moon is not sufficient. And it can't primarily benefit just a few people (or just one industry).

Instead, an architecture needs to be developed, and populated with appropriate elements, that allows a large number of members of the public to actively and creatively participate in the exploration of space.

If this isn't done, the public will prefer playing Wii games to space exploration.

As you look at future lift vehicle architectures, consider the possibility that we will probably only be able to fund 1 base launch architecture - anyone that thinks we can do ARES 1 and then fund a rarely used separate ARES 5 heavy lift architecture - isn't looking at the big political financial picture our country will be in over the next decade, ARES 5 will not get the funding it needs.

Consider using some other architecture (direct 2.0 or EELV's etc.) that could cover (for the most part) both needs (earth to orbit & heavy lift) with one funding stream is the right track to go on - cause politics will limit it to one shot there. This will also allow sunk costs to be spread out over move vehicles as well.

Restore full capacity to the Orion capsule - including base lining its landing on land (not in the ocean).

With all of the suggestions from left field for panel members I can't help but offer my own dream team panel.

Buck Rogers (more flight experience then anyone)
William Shatner (Captain Kirk Starship captain need I say more)
Leonard Nimoy (Spock, no more logical choice then this one)
Ray Walston (My favorite Martian he knows a thing or two about Mars)
and last but not least
George Reeves (SUPERMAN another extraterrestrial)

America's best, they represent truth Justice and the American way
This set of panel members can be as innovative as any other set, they have come out of some of the most challenging positions anyone has ever had to face and have usually done it in less then 60 minutes. Give them 90 days and they can solve this NASA challenge, the economic debacle and any other problem thrown at them with time to spare.

I say try it, what do we have to lose. Please don't dismiss this without serious consideration.

@TF Smith:

Correct. Brain fart...mixed the two up. Sorry all.

Dear Mr. Augustine:

1. I'm confused about the safety claims of CxP vs. Shuttle architecture. In the early days at least, the Shuttle mantra used to be that Vehicle/Crew safety was only as good as it's weakest (mission critical) piece part & other design & implementation process controls to prevent human errors.

How are the CxP Architecture Safety claims/margins being implemented at the component/piece part/software/firmware lowest levels so that the weakest parts and production processes actually accomplish the advertised Architecture Safety claims?

Please address the "devil in the details" CxP issues & reconcile how any architectural safety claims jive with design & implementation requirement specs and if any legitimate part Safety analyses, FMEAs & such are in synch.

2. Agree completely with Moonman, CxP seems to be lacking for manned-spaceflight design & operations expertise (Shuttle, Apollo), particularly at the decision making ranks as well as the workforce in some areas. Something seems very wrong there. If it seems to be running a similar course to ISS, it's probably because ISS folks seem to have more influence than they should, due to lack of manned launch vehicle experience.

Please review the NASA CxP organization & workforce vs. prior successful organizational & workforce methodology.

3. Suggest Jay Honeycutt for the NASA rep (if his Odyssey Moon gig can set be aside).

Because he succeeded in NASA manned space flight, worked his way up in the NASA trenches at JSC & chaired some Level II Shuttle control boards for years, and has KSC Operations experience. He knows his manned-space-flight stuff from an insider perspective, can see through any BS offered up by engineering/technical folks from either CxP or Shuttle or EELV etc., and has unique long-time mission critical flight and ground operations software control experience as well.

@Dennis Wingo

I was under the impression that this thread was dedicated to people giving their thoughts and opinions of the currect architecture and who should be on the review committee. The review's main focus is going to be on the 'how' not the 'why'. Norman Augustine has supported manned missions to the Moon and Mars in the past. Lori Garver has explicitly endorsed VSE in a 2004 panel discussion. So you can be pretty sure that NASA's human exploration program will remain focused on Mars.

As for the 'why', you really have to look no further than human history. Our species has radiated across the globe over tens of millenia until the eastward and the westward expansion clashed here on the very shores of our nation and across the Americas. Over forty years ago humans leaped across the void of space to another world besides our own. The United States history and the two Americas history is one of exploration and immigration. We are descendents of a people who left their homes seeking out a new life and exploring a new world. The question here isn't really why, but rather is the United States going to be part of the new wave of human exploration and immigration into space. That is the gist of Norman Augustine's remarks from 2006 that you posted.

First of all NASA needs a budget that is in line with project requirements. The current project is under funded. Next, NASA needs to be tasked properly so that all of the excellent engineers at the various centers have something useful to do. A reasonable, novel, and relatively inexpensive NASA project would be to send some astronauts to an asteroid. They should staff up and do it quickly, within a political time constant, (~4 yrs) and partly as a temporary jobs program. This will be relatively easy, from a rocket standpoint, since you don’t need very much rocket fuel to land or take off from an asteroid. Be sure to bring an HDTV camera and lots of lights because the voters want good TV.

I see a lot of people recommending Elon Musk for the board. This is probably because they are pro-commercialization types, which is fine, and he runs Space-X.

Having some personal interaction with Elon, I would suggest that the same effect as his participation could be had for much less consternation and violent profanity by starving a wolverine in a box, hitting it with mace and injecting it into chambers.

Does not play well, let alone with others. A board of this type needs different leaders that understand the necessary business of compromise between competing forces. A cult of personality egoist isn't going to fly. Space-X is great, but if you sat on one meeting with this guy you would seriously consider the wolverine. Scouts honor.

Every single piece of the Constellation architecture seems to be driven ultimately by a single requirement which is entirely arbitrary as far as I can tell: namely, the "requirement" to put four astronauts on the Moon at a time. All other requirements derive from this one, including the number of people that can be sent to ISS, the number that can be evacuated (Orion as lifeboat), and the sizes and weight limits of all the launchers, EDS and LSAM.
Since all these things are over budget, the only sane response is to reduce the lunar lander requirement to three or even two astronauts. The cost savings will immediately flow down into all other parts of the architecture. Yes, some Orion engineering will have to be re-done. So what? Mr Augustine will be keenly aware that this expense is a pittance compared to the costs of sticking with an overly ambitious requirement that is such a huge cost driver.

Mr. Augustine,

Consider, above all, how to maximize NASA's benefit for the economy and people of the United States, whether that means tearing down, or maintaining, the status quo.

Sincerely,

Ed Kyle

Dear Mr. Augustine:

Do Not appoint anyone with NASA direct experience with employment.
dismiss yourself.

Appoint a new chair to proceed and appoint an ex-offico

all appointments must be approved by the WhiteHouse OSTP office.

the report will be addressed to yourself on behalf of the Whitehouse

-Extend the shuttle only to launch the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer(AMS). Completely built with 31 institutions and 15 countries, this experiment in particle physics for the ISS is generally believed by scientists to be the most interesting potential science on the ISS and yet right now will be nothing but a display in a museum.
-Retire the shuttle after delivery of the AMS. It is too expensive and two out of five have failed in flight.
-Retire the constellation and ARES. There is nothing new or cheap in the design. Indeed,it seems a step backward from the shuttle.
-Fully fund Space X in the near term for both astronauts and cargo.
-Since, as Heinlen said, low earth orbit is halfway to anywhere in the solar system, coordinate with other countries on better ways to get there, perhaps with the assistance of the Planetary Society.
-Get someone in NASA who is enthusiastic about space and will tell the truth when NASA is underfunded instead of having, as we have had for decades, apologists eager to please the President and congress who say it is all right to underfund NASA and that it will all be made up after they leave. The result of the pathetic NASA leaders we have had is almost half a century of being stuck in low earth orbit.

I was under the impression that this thread was dedicated to people giving their thoughts and opinions of the currect architecture and who should be on the review committee. The review's main focus is going to be on the 'how' not the 'why'. Norman Augustine has supported manned missions to the Moon and Mars in the past. Lori Garver has explicitly endorsed VSE in a 2004 panel discussion. So you can be pretty sure that NASA's human exploration program will remain focused on Mars.

That is interesting. NASA completely ignored the VSE in its implementation of the ESAS architecture so I guess revisiting how, within the context of the VSE why (which was an extremely good exposition of why), is not a bad thing.

In the earlier Augustine report the committee (which was influenced by none other than Dr. Mike Griffin), walked away from the earlier work in the 1980's represented by the "Lunar Bases in the 21st Century" and even the NASA 90 day study to embrace a heavy lift vehicle and what later became Dr. Griffin's First Lunar Outpost (FLO) architecture, which was never really fleshed out beyond the sortie stage. I don't know if he has changed since that time but the Mission from Planet Earth as that part of his report called it, was pretty much completely shut down in 1993 and even discussion about the Moon or Mars for human missions was forbidden at NASA for years.

There is a realization with many in the know in the administration as well as out of it that the Ares V is dead. There simply is no money for it, end of story. Therefore a different approach is required. Integrating ISS into the architecture will satisfy both our European, Russian, and Japanese partners who have all been completely uninterested otherwise in the VSE.

Which brings us full circle to why. If the why is a few sorties on the Moon and a few flags and footprints on Mars, then I say chuck it and put the money into alternative energy as that will support getting our nation off of oil. If however, you take the position that the VSE set the why, then the Bush speech of 2004 and the Marburger speech and the 44th Goddard dinner are wonderful expositions.

As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.

This is the most important statement of purpose that has ever been enunciated by a government official regarding space, more so than even Kennedy's speech. If it is our goal to incorporate the solar system into our economic sphere, then the Moon is the place to start, and an outpost is the way to do it. Following right behind is ISRU and ISFP.

Therefore if the how is to get NASA back on the track laid down by the why of the VSE then it will turn out well. Also, if you know Lori Garver, (I have known here since the late 80's), then you know what she is interested in. I leave that for your consideration.

Hello!

Are these questions really so difficult? You have an ISS, a political decision, not very effective, a little bit expensive, but nevertheless a space station. What do you want to do after the ISS? Another space station inside the Van Allen belt or a lunar base? May be space debris will give you an answer. The next question is how to stay on the moon, not how to go there most economically. Constellation resembles more to collection of interests than to a vision. There are more possible solutions, better solutions.

Best regards from germany and please excuse my poor use of your language.

H. E. Saenger

Focus on what is essential, not what seems glamorous or sounds good. NASA should focus first on a capsule that can get humans to space and back, and protect their lives in the event of an accident. Then stick that capsule on an ELV, because either Ares or conventional ELVs will explode eventually. Beware of decisions like making the capsule carry more crew members than Apollo so it seems like an advance - that indicates that the design is based on advertising not engineering. NASA investments should be on humans, and on space travel from LEO onward.

@Dennis Wingo

I could not agree with you more on the reasons 'why'. History certainly does. Spain, Portugal, England, and France all established outposts in the New World and consequently extended their economic spheres in the Western Hemisphere. Thus, these four European nations shaped the culture of the Americas. I have argued on this blog and several others that a part of any exploration program should be to establish permanent outposts not only on the Moon, but also more in Earth's orbit and at the La Grange points thereby creating markets on which commercial interests can thrive. With established markets, then the US can develop cheaper transportation systems through commercial innovation. Creating a true spacefaring society should be the aim of any exploration program.

You have said that Ares V is dead. So what can replace it? Because the absence of a heavy lift launch system is what has been hurting NASA the most over the last 37 years since the end of the Apollo program. Without a heavy lifter, establishing permanent outposts anywhere is cost prohibitive task.

No, I do not know Lori Garver personally. Though I would not mind meeting with her. I am curious to know about her experience working under Dan Goldin. One of the things I have noticed over the last few months is that she has been very tightlipped.

1: Scrap Ares 1 immediately and move a FULL-featured Orion to the man-rated, RS-68A-powered Delta IV-Heavy.

2: Utilise I.S.S. till at least 2020 and invest more heavily in attendant COTS programs.

3: Downscale Ares V (90-100 metric tons to LEO) to enable a proper 2-launch lunar mission architecture, using the existing KSC infrastructure and equipment.

4: Develop an Altair lander capable of full 14-day Sortie missions to anywhere on the lunar surface. Look forward to
Enhanced Altair for dual-lander 'Outpost-Lite' missions lasting for one month or more. 'Scar' vehicle design for possible upgrade for Mars missions.

5: Invest HEAVILY in technologies for developing In-Situ Resource Utilisation and nuclear power systems for the Moon & Mars. Without a working knowledge of how to 'live off the land' from the Solar System's resources, most manned missions may be doomed to 'Flags & Footprints'.

6: Propose eventual "One-Percent For Space" legislation, that may eventually provide a permanent, 1% percent of the Federal Budget for the taxpayer-funded portion of the U.S. Space Program. That way, during good economic times or bad, the U.S. would get a fair number of missions accomplished for a fair, fixed price -- boom or bust. And with the slow but sure growth in 'Private Space', we will see those technological investors and their private space programs eventually overtake the Government Space program.

"I see a lot of people recommending Elon Musk for the board. This is probably because they are pro-commercialization types, which is fine, and he runs Space-X."

I'm pro-commercialization in an number of space areas, including those Musk is working on. However, I wouldn't put him (or a number of similar suggestions above) on the panel because of the potential for conflict of interest.

Liberal Rocket Scientist: "The current project is under funded."

If anything I'd say that the current Constellation project is over-funded. Over $100B should be able to buy more than a lunar transportation system that's expensive to operate.

"Next, NASA needs to be tasked properly so that all of the excellent engineers at the various centers have something useful to do."

I don't think that's a useful requirement. It's probably not even politically wise. Such an approach will look like pork to the average, non-involved taxpayer. Not only that, but, from the Obama Administration's point of view, a great deal of the funding for Constellation goes to political districts that aren't competitive in terms of the next Presidential election (or if they are, the whole election isn't competitive): Texas, Alabama, and Utah. Switching NASA to more Science, Education, and Aeronautics, and emphasizing commercial space, allows Obama to shift funding to competitive areas like Virginia, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, and Ohio. Florida is a sticking point here, but a truly massive increase in EELV and commercial launches from Florida enabled by the above shift, plus a dose of extra non-launch funding for Florida, can offset a lot of the problem there. Getting a lot of launches from NASA Science, though, means reducing the number of highly ambitious science missions, so payload development costs are reduced.

"They should staff up and do it quickly, within a political time constant, (~4 yrs) and partly as a temporary jobs program."

I agree with the "quickly" part. Constellation is anything but quick. The HSF effort should have achievable and useful goals in shorter time increments, even if these smaller goals aren't as dramatic as the bigger ones. These goals could involve more robotic support missions, or smaller added capabilities to commercially-oriented HSF missions (eg: astronaut LEO access, astronaut point-to-point capability in LEO, ability to replace a satellite component, ability to refuel a satellite, ability to change a satellite's orbit with a tug ...) then gradually build this kind of LEO capabilities to allow transport and productivity beyond LEO.

Internationalization of VSE is not necessarily a bad idea, good enough, in fact, that even though I am something of a USA nationalist, I proposed it in my July 2004 essay for the BIS magazine "Spaceflight." The HLLV vehicle I proposed was an SDV that would today be equivalent to the Jupiter 241 proposal, with the J2-X EDS replace by one derived from the Ariane cryo core, with an air-startable Vulcaine evolution. I also suggested the CEV be devloped such that it could be launched by a variety of national launch vehicles, e.g. Atlas V, Delta IV, Ariane V, HIIB, Proton, etc. I still believe while not necessary for VSE, an HLLV is not necessary, but is sufficient, and will speed the program along at modest expense. If I were writing today, 5 years later, I might propose a more internationalized CEV as well, perhaps with a CSM that lacks its own SPS, which version would service ISS, launched by those national LVs, and a beyond-LEO version with the Galaxy Express Japanese-made LNG/LOX stage adapted for use as am SPS-add-on. National space programs would purchase the LVs and CEV from consortia of commercial vendors responsible for design and fabrication. The HLLV, by the nature of its first stage (RSRMs and SSMEs) would, of necessaity, have to be launched from Cape Canaveral, at least in the early years. It could work. As always, politics are the problem.

Two points: (1)Do everything possible to have a committed, focused and capable workforce; (2) Always keep in mind that whoever has the Moon has control over cis-lunar space and hence Planet Earth itself.

As far as reviewing the current approaches, that is probably a wasted effort. It is better to select a reasonable (not optimized) choice and then do everything necessary to make that choice happen.

I hope that you will include a space logistician with experience in human space flight on your committee. Looking at all the environments in which systems will be developed and used, life cycle constraints, strategies and infrastructure is a process that should be included in your review. Others have mentioned commercial space candidates, and I agree that is a perspective that should be represented, as long as you can identify someone who will not withhold their thoughts based on future interests (perhaps a subcommittee). The cost improvement based on commercial activity, especially logistics infrastructure, is appreciable (space tugs, fuel depots, in space repair depots, supply depots, reusable landers, etc). SOLE and AIAA have co-hosted two workshops, and MIT was principal investigator on a study that looked at interplanetary logistics architecture and supply chains. The included URL is one good source for information.

You have said that Ares V is dead. So what can replace it? Because the absence of a heavy lift launch system is what has been hurting NASA the most over the last 37 years since the end of the Apollo program. Without a heavy lifter, establishing permanent outposts anywhere is cost prohibitive task.

We have a heavy lift vehicle today that can lift in excess of 250,000 lbs to LEO, called STS. Swapping the current manned vehicle for a heavy cargo version can put 165,000 lbs to ISS or 175,000 lbs to a LEO 28.5 degree orbit. That is plenty for the Moon. Ares V was always for Mars. Remember the old saying, the pefect is the enemy of the good and with the Ariane V, Atlas V, Delta IVH, HII/HTV we have a killer way of getting payloads to ISS that are already in service! We go back to the architecture of the 80's that NASA fully blessed, which was to use ISS as the linchpin of the effort. We can build reusable space ships today and let them cycle between ISS and Low Lunar Orbit to meet up with a lander directly shipped up from the Earth via the Shuttle C directly. After ISRU gets up and running the lunar lander becomes reusable as well.

No, I do not know Lori Garver personally. Though I would not mind meeting with her. I am curious to know about her experience working under Dan Goldin. One of the things I have noticed over the last few months is that she has been very tightlipped.

And I am not going to say anything either other than that I do think that she is going to work to make the right decisions.

I would like to second the request to have John Young as a member of this panel. During his career, he earned a reputation as a "no bullshit" individual. I would expect that his concurrence on whatever the commission puts out should add immense credibility to their conclusion. He doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would go along with political pressure towards ANY result.

A main reason space is expensive is the cost of HLLVs, fast approaching $1 billion dollars per launch. We must look past the next decade and begin a parallel low cost space access R&D effort, not based on vertical launch rockets, with the goal of a factor of 5 reduction in $/kg.

My personal favorite is a reusable supersonic first stage based on turbojet engines, probably horizontal takeoff. A one-fifth scale version of one of these systems, using existing propulsion, could be built and demonstrated for 1% of the cost of a full scale system, i.e. in the $50 million dollar range.

Such a system would enable many space technologies besides human exploration that are currently just too expensive.

@ Dennis Wingo

You say: "We have a heavy lift vehicle today that can lift in excess of 250,000 lbs to LEO, called STS. Swapping the current manned vehicle for a heavy cargo version can put 165,000 lbs to ISS or 175,000 lbs to a LEO 28.5 degree orbit."

We at [then] Rockwell were already looking at Shuttle derivatives back in the latter 1970s when the system was still under development. See my paper: "Shuttle Variations And Derivatives That Never Happened - An Historical Review." AIAA Paper 2004-3734 presented at the 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Fort Lauderdale, FL, July 11–14, 2004. Some of that work came back later as Shuttle-C.

Gregory Kulacki

Chinese Expert for Nuclear & Space Matters. If China is to be brought into an international VSE the his insight would be invaluable.

Hear his views in this video called Space Race with China?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w0ijZEyKi8

+++

Dr. Alan Stern

Space Science expert, Principal Investigator of several missions,Constructive critic, Pro-COTS supporter with industry tied to Blue Origin & Odyssey Moon.

He has an updated bio on wikipedia that is quite interesting;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Stern

A main reason space is expensive is the cost of HLLVs, fast approaching $1 billion dollars per launch. We must look past the next decade and begin a parallel low cost space access R&D effort, not based on vertical launch rockets, with the goal of a factor of 5 reduction in $/kg.

I would argue that today it would take a very long time and a great deal of money to build such a system as it would be government money, it would be NASA doing the work and it is just too radical of a departure from current art. This is why I push the Shuttle C in that we already have 90% of the design and infrastructure needed to support it. It also plays into current politics of the Florida job situation as well as supporting ATK, Alabama, Texas, and other centers.

To me I would like to look at the problem differently. What are we trying to do? If we are trying to build a robust lunar outpost then we need some infrastructure on the surface that can leverage the in-situ resources to bootstrap to an industrial capability.

A heavy lifter (or any other vehicle for that matter), is using 80% of its lift capacity to lift the fuel to get it to orbit. If we are building things like the chassis for vehicles, buildings, roads, and other infrastructure out of local metals, the need for heavy lift goes away for the most part and supports a system whereby parts to assemble the rest of the vehicle or to outfit a building is the cargo. This is perfect for an RLV, but an RLV is a very low earth orbit system.

LEO is half way to the rest of the solar system, but only half way. We urgently need, and I would argue more than for an RLV, a Reusable Space Vehicle (RSV) that can carry humans and or cargo between LEO and Low Lunar Orbit. Such a reusable vehicle would dramatically cut the cost of transportation between LEO and LLO, especially after lunar oxygen production ramps up.

There is a virtuous feedback loop between RSV's and RLV's. RSV's increase the number of missions that you can fly and lower the cost. ISRU then drives a local economy that drives a demand for parts, which and RLV is much better suited for than an ELV or HLV.

On the cost of space: I think it is very interesting that talking heads on NPR can get away with saying that foreign aide is "OK" merely "one half of one percent of GNP" at 50 Billion dollars, while CNN pundits decry that expensive space program costing billions per launch to save Hubble. What has made space expensive since the Carter years is all the studies being done, and all the hardware building programs being started, then cancelled, and being restarted under some new political umbrella. I think Ron Paul was right. Drastically cut the size of the Federal Government, start with axeing NASA completely, followed quickly by the department of Education. But I would keep going until the Federal Reserve itself, and the private families that own it, are not allowed to raid my daughter's piggybank.

If the Constellation program continues, the most cost-effective path requires canceling both Ares launchers:

- Two new launchers to do the job of one is a pointless waste of resources; there is no chance that the flight rate will be large enough that a small launcher would ever pay back its development costs.

- The use of solid-rocket boosters increases development costs and operational risks.

The most cost-effective launcher approach is one of these two options:

* A space shuttle external tank with payload at the top and a thrust structure accommodating six space shuttle main engines at its base. A straightforward calculation from known engine performance shows that this can launch 25 tons of payload to orbit, with no solid boosters to explode and nothing that can be damaged by falling tank insulation.

* order Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V Heavy, and Falcon 9. They can be ready in three years.

It is true that use of a smaller launcher requires more launches and in-orbit assembly. These are less expensive overall than developing an enormous new launcher. Even assuming that a smaller derived launcher has the same failure rate as a large new launcher, the cost and program risk of losing a small number of small payloads are smaller than those of losing even one huge and hugely-expensive payload.

Exploration for explorations sake does not "cut it" anymore. Improving the life and well being of our fellows does. Human health and safety MUST be the priority of the national space agency.

-Do what is needed to support science for global warming mitigation.

-Do what is needed to support enhanced alternate energy tech. (space solar power!?).

-Enhanced NEA surveillance and planning for redirection / interception. This may include human missions that will facilitate development of a sustainable human deep space capability.

If we do not do these, we may not be around to do all the other stuff all ya'll suggest!

My Ten

1. Gordon Woodcock
2. Paul Spudis
3. Pedro Rustan
4. Pete Worden
5. Lori Garver
6. Marshall Kaplan
7. CEO of Anglo American Mining
8. Paul Allen
9. Roger Leonard
10. Me

:)

@Dennis Wingo

You should be selected Dennis! You present a consistent vision in a logical, fair & balance way. Your op/ed on the year 2100 was fun and inspired and represent to long view that is so often missing. I'll cross my fingers....

If you dont get on, you should submit a new op/ed to the New York Times or the Washington Times...

Not enough time to read all the comments and here are my very brief ones.

1. Close out the manned space program and shift funds to other areas of space exploration that provide more scientific bang for the buck and..

2. Use some of those funds to advance launch vehicle technologies for the time when manned space travel is more feasible and makes more sense.

The manned space program is its biggest enemy in that so much money is being spent supporting LEO operations and trips to the Moon and Mars and beyond, for now, seem to be better suited for probes, robots, satellites, etc.

I see more scientific missions and long term research and support for industry to get more involved as money better spent in the long run.

More investment in Earth Observation and aeronautics would also get part of the current manned space pie.

Mars exploration Rovers are just one example of more bang for the buck.

"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." (George S. Patton)

I'm NASA, but on the Aeronautics side, and I have been severly handicapped by the move of my dollars to space exploration. But the fact remains, it's the right thing to do (and if you need to ask "Why?", then you won't understand the answer).

Let's get on with it, or we will bury ourselves in the muck forever.

Here it is, short and sweet...

Humans have always expanded into new frontiers. Space is next. The proper role of government in this is to fund exploration and to build infrastructure. The next long range goal is to go to Mars and explore, but via the moon then nearby asteroids. Whatever is built to do this needs to be viewed as being permanent. Turn over the "easy" stuff to commercial ventures (ie buy services).

Just as the government opened the new world and the western frontier and was followed by commerce and settlers, so to will space in time.

I'd put John Carmack on that panel!!

I haven't had much time to review comments but as usual see plenty of helpful people out their with great ideas. I'll just throw out the fact I think NASA should split its organization in two as it has over-grown through the years.

There should be a ground operation organization and a flight operation organizaton. The human space flight folks are like all projects and involved with both discipline areas.

Today the NASA infrastruture is up for grabs as a program/project like space station is only responsible, but not accountable, for things outside the realm of their immediate needs. This form of government operation leaves two many danglers! As other writers have noted money goes to and fro from one program to the other to keep things going.

A second option would be to re-organize putting Safety, Quality, Sustaining Engineering, and Logistics as primary adminstrators for projects and programs. In this way budget numbers could be crunched by subject matter experts with appropriate requirement documents and configuration management administration with a long term approach.

National Space Transportation System (NSTS) documents will be the umbrella under which the programs/projects will abide to after the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) parent documents are dispositioned as the orbiters phasedown.

And third: I do not know the name of anyone to assist on this new committee but I would like to indicate that persons from those appropriate disciplines that I just mentioned would be an eye openner in reviewing present human space flight operational requirements and their justification. The big question this review board faces is where is the fleet of Orion spacecraft? Do we only need to train eight astronauts for Orion, 4 to fly it and 4 for backup? And will the present astonauts want to wait around for Orion to get off the drawing board! Were handing the baton to Russia to help with the space station operations which won't be helpful to the NASA budget or human space flight. I know the astronauts can get more involved with the younger generation and education programs but how motivated will they appear. So go back to section one and build an organized ground and flight NASA to go forward with human man-tended vehicles. President O'Bama would love to see this jobs concept.

P.S. In 2004 requirement documents indicationed that Constellation was THE program umbrella that everything else was budgeted under.

For those who think Ares I should continue development with "adequate funding", for the $10 billion that has already been spent on Constellation over the last 5 years we could have human-rated both Atlas V and Delta IV and could have been a couple of years from launching. Instead, we have a launch vehicle that doesn't pass the giggle test and we are years (6 to 10) from being able to get back to LEO.

To the Commission, we need to maximize the use of existing STS technology by freezing the design of and using 4-segment boosters and SSME's, redesigning the ET to be a liquid core, and minimizing the impact to KSC ground infrastructure. Use two variations of the same vehicle for crew and cargo. Basically, Direct 2.0. The other option is an STS-derived heavy lift for cargo and using commercial launchers for humans. It would be nice to have two options for assured access, both Atlas VI and Delta V (human-rated).

Basically, Direct 2.0.

Disposable SSMEs don't pass the giggle test either.

Ok, I'll bite, I predict Direct X.0 won't even make the cut. In fact, I'll go even further, Orion itself won't make it. The VSE has already demonstrated itself to be as fiscally unviable as the original Space Exploration Initiative was.

Think 2016, the limit of Mr. Obama's horizon, and a legacy that will leave the United States in good shape for the future, and advance an immediate recovery from the disaster that is Constellation and the VSE. That leaves the obvious :

1) Two EELV families.
2) Two COTS families.

3) ISS support starting from 2012. This will obviously require an entirely new approach to capsule space flight.

4) Reusable EELV and COTS derivatives using SSMEs, in a rapid response development and test flight program. In other words, putting the science back into rocket science. This program can start right away using the upper stages of the EELVs and COTS vehicles, and the recovery of core stages. In fact, this can salvage much of the work done on the Ares I upper stage, although the contracts will have to be redone.

5) A commercial equatorial spaceport to complement an International Space Station, designed to be a gateway to space telescope servicing, the moon, Mars, the moons of Mars, the asteroids, and the amazing and mysterious newly discovered fifth planet Ceres, scheduled to be visited in 2015 by the Dawn spacecraft. You want exploration, there it is, Pluto and Ceres - it doesn't get much better than that.

How many times does America have to fail to finally realize that shuttle derived SRB powered heavy lift will not be an affordable method of colonizing space. Obama is a trekkie.

Second generation reusable propulsion will enable all the things you people want to do, but can't afford to do, and are incapable of actually doing in any reasonable manner.

The failure is that great here, and Obama's team know that.

Dear Mr. Augustine,

Please support a launcher-neutral exploration program, the concept of "basecamps" to extend the architecture including propellant depots built from third stages that are going to be put in space anyway (recycling) and building a modular, expansive architecture from commercially sourced products.

Rod: A main reason space is expensive is the cost of HLLVs, fast approaching $1 billion dollars per launch. We must look past the next decade and begin a parallel low cost space access R&D effort, not based on vertical launch rockets, with the goal of a factor of 5 reduction in $/kg.

Dennis Wingo: I would argue that today it would take a very long time and a great deal of money to build such a system as it would be government money, it would be NASA doing the work and it is just too radical of a departure from current art.

And I would argue, assuming that a 1/5 scale supersonic air launch demo worked out, that it would cost a lot less over the long haul in $/kg. It would probably be better if NASA did not do the work. As for radical, Orbital and Scaled Composites are started on the technology. And besides, in their time, winged flight, clipper ships, steamships and nuclear powered ships were all radical. Nothing wrong with radical.

Dear Mr. Augustine:

For your Blue Ribbon Panel on “Human Space Flight Review”, please consider the following list for your reference.

Chairman: Norman Augustine

1) Director-Executive
2) Director-Technical Change
3) Director-Schedule Change
4) Director-Budget Change
5) Director-STS Change
6) Director-ISS Change
7) Director-Orion Change
8) Director-ARES Change to Saturn 2.0
9) Director-Policy Change-State Dept.
10) Director-DOD Input-Aerospace Corp

Let’s support President Obama’s CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN policy.

Best wishes,

H. S. Chen

I would like to propose four names for consideration for membership on the Augustine committee.

James R. Thompson, Orbital Sciences
John W. Thomas, Lee & associates
George B. Hardy, Hardy & associates
James Odom, SAIC

All of these individuals are knowledgeable of the Cx Program and it's many problems and were involved in the development of all past NASA developed launch vehicles.

I agree with Dennis Wingo's choice of Roger Lenard as one of the folks who should be on the panel. Of course most people would say, "Who?" but that's the point. No celebrities, no "big names," nobody with well-known vested interests in particular outcomes; just people with a thorough grounding in aerospace, economics, administration, science, and other disciplines who have their minds on the work.

Roger is one of those smart people that NASA is famous for, but few people actually meet. He's also a good one for making people question their assumptions, pointing out difficulties of particular approaches, and finding solutions that others hadn't considered.

Of course it won't happen that way, but one can hope.

Dear Mr. Augustine:

For your “Review of Human Space Flight Plans,” please consider the following human space program lessons learned review in your report:

1) Kennedy Administration’s new start: Apollo and Saturn V to the Moon by the Administrator James Webb.

2) Nixon Administration’s new start: Human Space Transportation System (STS) by Administrator James Fletcher.

3) Reagan Administration’s new start: Human Space Station by the Administrator James Beggs.

4) Bush Administration’s new start: Vision for Space Exploration-Return to the Moon by the Administrator Sean O'Keefe.

Human space flight is the mainstream in the NASA’s flight programs. The best is yet to come. Let’s continue the spectacular arc of human flight progress NASA has fueled for five decades.

Best wishes,

H. S. Chen

Some of these suggestions are comical. Maybe it should be some former NASA leaders who left because they understood the kind of systems engineering, risk management, program management, requirements definition and safety, reliability and quality that is needed to accomplish these things. I led a human rating requirements team and several smart folks tried to tell Griffin and his cronies there were many better designs than the Horowitz/ATK dangerous rocket. The commission needs to include some of us who have worked at the lowest levels and know what needs to be fixed. Otherwise, it will be another meaningless exercise in futility and another sad day for American Space policy and history.

Dear Augustine Committee:

1. Please restate the purpose of the US space program to include indeed what has been implied but not acknowledged: settlement of space by our nation is our long-term goal.
a. Shows US leadership on the international stage.
b. Gives every US taxpayer an understanding of why NASA risks lives to travel into space: they are exploring so that settlers can follow.

2. Please recommend that the US build a launch vehicle that has a high flight rate, designed-in robust reusability on the first stage, and a second stage that makes it to orbit to serve as habitable volume. I believe the design solution to these requirements will satisfy Constellation mission requirements while also opening up LEO to large-scale habitation.

3. Please hold hearings to explore space-based solar power.

Please enlist these good citizens to serve on or with your panel..

Current NASA...

Wendell Mendell
Pete Worden

Former NASA...

John Young
Harrison Schmitt
Ken Cox
Gene Cernan
John Glenn

Others outside NASA...

Gregg Maryniak
Jerry Grey
Ray Bradbury
James Oberg

Why? Because they have the knowledge and drive to pull the best advice together for you.

From the original Augustine report:

"The Committee, chaired by Martin Marietta chief Norman Augustine, also called for development of a new heavy lift vehicle and a phasing out of the Space Shuttle..."

[url]http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9227968.html[/url]

Gee now that sounds familiar--rather like Constellation doesn't it?

Norm--I expect you to stick with your original statment--and not sell out to the EELV lobby that even Elon Musk questions with regard to astronaut safety.
[url]http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration/85707-depressed-trajectory.html#post1478409[/url]

Dear Mr. Agustine:

I would expand on John Kavanagh's comments (May 9, 2009, 2:37 PM), as follows by suggesting 4 major NASA goals, followed by suggestions for supporting R & D. Four goals:

1) The goal for the civil human spaceflight program must be to open up the solar system for human and supporting biosphere development and settlement.

2) In view of depletion of earth's mineral and energy resources on a historical time scale, we must harness and harvest extra-terrestrial scientific, mineral, energy, agricultural and living space resources.

3) Many of earth's problems: population density, environmental degradation, energy depletion, phosphates for agriculture, etc, can only be resolved by a combination of recycling - and access to space resources.

4) Major human expansion into the solar system, will require the development of radical, new technologies for a) cheap, heavy tonnage access to space, b) fast interplanetary travel, c) major Terraforming / self-replicating machine technology, and d) advanced fusion energy technology.

5) Establishing U.S. space superiority, versus major future competition from rapidly developing, major nation-states.

In support of the above policy goals, NASA should pursue the following radical technology R & D programs, among others:

a)Low cost, large tonnage to near-earth orbit, via MHD E x B duct propulsion, excited at any atmospheric pressure by dielectric barrier discharge, and powered by rectennas driven by from-the-ground microwave sources.

b)High current density ion and MPD propulsion, driven by fission reactors, for near-term deep space missions.

c)John Slough's (U. of Washington Plasmadynamics) magnetokinetic fusion concept, the most practical of the advanced fusion concepts) for far-term fusion power.

d)Self-replicating-machine-system (SMRS) for deep space missions, and for eventual Terraforming application.

e)Detailed Terraforming studies for Venus, the Moon, Mars, some of the Jovian moons, and Titan: energy and SMRS requirements.

f) Bio-terraforming technology, for generating synthetic biospheres.

g)Feasibility study for a "Solar System Power Plant", based upon collecting solar energy at Mercury,its Lagrangian and Trojan points, and beaming energy to propulsion and Terraforming clients throughout the solar system.

h)The (g) concept would solve many bottlenecks in Terraforming concepts: boiling off the Venusian atmosphere, generating volatiles from the Martian regoligh, warming Titan into a higher greenhouse state, large tonnage transport of volatiles from the outer solar system, via the minimum energy "interplanetary highway", for use on the Moon, Mars and Venus.

All of the above is not new, it has been extensively covered in the literature.

Regards, Art Collins, Retired Aerospace Engineer

Ares I:

-Ares I probably should be scrapped because--

SRM's as strap-on-boosters are one thing. Stand-alone core rockets are another, with entirely different physics. The
strap-on-booster track record cannot be applied to a stand-alone core proposal.


Ares V:

-Should not be needed because--

There should be separate, smaller EDS's for lander and Orion. The lander should go directly to lunar orbit (or Lagrangian point).



Orion:

-Its Service Module should be expandable for varying capacities.

-It needs some auxiliary modules:

----There should be some kind of platform, like the Shuttle's Cargo Bay, for satellite repair or assembly.

----There should be some kind of reentry cocoon for recovering and returning satellites to earth.

-Non-toxic hypergolic fuels should be an abiding goal.