Poll Results: U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee Final Report

How about a Poll:

Ares V
Are V Lite
Direct SDLV or
Side Mount SDLV

I figured that with the launch of an Ares you would see more support for it. Its now a "real" rocket compared to the other options. Likewise going to the moon is a "real" mission that people understand. They see something specific that they want.

People lean towards the devils they know. Flexible path has too many variables and mars seems damn far away from where we stand now.
I don't think this poll or the next one contain many surprises.

How many folks that voted one way wouldn't really have a problem if we went in one of the other directions?

For instance, I would vote "flexible path" however that doesn't mean I'm totally opposed to "moon first" or "mars first". I will admit that there is some real upside to going with Moon first if we can start using water to create a fuel depot in lunar orbit. Moon first would also make sense if research with He^3 based fusion works out.

Frankly, my problem isn't with WHICH objective we choose. I think the bigger issue is HOW we've been going about trying to reach that objective.

FWIW, I am opposed to Mars first on the grounds that the technical challenges put it too far off. I am enough of a cynic to believe that, in order to retain public support, you need a regular diet (at least one per Presidential cycle) of 'spectaculars', a mission that reminds the voters, and those who seek their support, of HSF's existance.

Flexible Path is, in many ways, ideal for this purpose. It enables us to get moving on beyond-LEO quickly. It also allows NASA to develop beyond-LEO experience without the cost of a lander. However, it does not prohibit the development of a lander once the beyond-LEO program is underway and NASA can start looking to future phases of the program. So, in some ways, my idea is for 'Flexible Path/Moon Second'.

The basic archetecture and equipment of Flexible Path will also allow NASA to develop the tools and carry out the necessary research to allow very long duration (more than 180 days) beyond-LEO missions. It leads logically and ultimately to either an integrated Inner Solar System exploration plan or to a one-off 'grand tour' grand gesture mission.

For the record, I voted for DIRECT in the new poll. I think that it is the best compromise available between various competing priorities. As well as meeting the political priority of 'shuttle-derived', it also is a good compromise of cost, schedule, proven reliable components and capability.

Just to be clear, I don't think it is the best option possible. Rather, it is the best option for getting quick and useful results from what we currently have on the table, recognising all the pressures guiding the choice.

I'll vote for whichever path works. I like flexible path, if it's a way that works to get the infrastructure in place and start getting humans beyond Earth orbit in incremental steps; but I'd be happy to see voyages to the moon-- there's a lot of moon we haven't explored yet-- and, yes, if we had the budget to go directly to Mars (in a way that's more than just flags and footprints and forget it), that would be great. Any path that works is a good one.

Well, that isn't exactly fair - there is an option to vote for EELV Heavy (not shuttle-derived) so, it isn't as limited as you suggest. The point is that these are the HLVs suggested by the Augustine Report. So, barring the President having an unexpected joker up his sleeve, the HLV will be one of those, presuming that HLV goes ahead at all.

So, of those four options... which one do you want?