Space Policy: Go Boldly

Jeff is a wise and good man whose counsel we should take carefully and seriously. Well written and well done, my friend. Much to absorb here...

Jeff,

You make some excellent points. Your criticism of the Von Braun Paradigm, which has more or less dominated our view of human space exploration over the last 4-5 decades, is right on. It is especially irrelevant now given the tremendous advancements in robotics and other autonomous systems.

However, I think that there is a solid rationale for sending humans into deep space. But it isn't driven by manifest destiny, xenophobia or a visceral drive for a human-led reverse panspermia. It is driven purely by science and the advantage of having human decision making and control near the object of study. Keeping humans in space (e.g., Mars orbit, Phobos) and relying on telerobots for surface exploration could greatly increase the rate of scientific exploration and return by reducing/eliminating communications latency between human and robot.

This is an important aspect of the Flexible Path strategy identified by the Augustine Committee. So, while I agree with most of your statements, I do think that this strategy offers an opportunity to utilize human space flight beyond Earth orbit in a productive way.

I have nothing against Jeff's views and largely support them. I just think they are naive.

One of those "smack you between the eyes" moments for me was when someone asked Edward "Pete" Aldridge why their final report didn't recommend closing some NASA field centers as had been widely talked about, and he replied that he was told the report would have been dead on arrival if they said that.

I am afraid NASA is part of the political system. It is a vehicle for politicians.

I have yet to hear one Constellation supporter (politician, NASA or contractor employee, or space enthusiast) honestly look at what Constellation could achieve over the next 20 years given its schedule slips so far, NASA's constrained budgets, and the additional costs of extending ISS until 2020, and then say that is something to be proud of.

Enjoyable read. Giving up on BEO for humans is still a bridge too far for me personally. Not that I'd go anyway.

The argument for robotic exploration will only grow stronger if MSL succeeds. Especially if runs for years beyond the warranty.

The fundamental problem is that NASA and the supporters of manned spaceflight are not honest enough to admit that what they really want is not manned exploration at all. What they really want is space colonization. But the concept just seems too fantastic! This is especially true for a species that just a few centuries ago believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. And most people today still have problems even believing that humans are animals that evolved from other animals. So we're still a species that is not honest enough to admit where we truly live and where we truly come from.

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935)said:

"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."

Well, I guess, the longer we keep thinking like infants, the longer we're probably going to continue to foolishly confine our civilization to this extremely fragile cradle called Earth.

Marcel F. Williams

oh yeah?

well I'm pretty dern frickin tired of whiny crybaby robotics types trying to lobby for more bucks for sats & bots by taking away from human spaceflight programs!

and it's all under the guise of characterizing 50 yrs. of real American government success in hsf as some sappy wistful bygone era of yesteryear -

if hsf had as many software and hardware failures (routinely referred to as "glitches") paid for by taxpayers too mind you, as sats and bots, there'd be more than Apollo1, Challenger, and Columbia.

anybody got a list of all of the sat & bot failures "glitches" from 50yrs (not to mention just in the past year)???????

yer full-o-crap!

"I mean no disrespect - but - I am tired of listening to Dr. Spudis, Dr. Griffin and all of the other, whiney, Baby Boomer, Cold Warrior, Manifest Destiny driven individuals who are still trying to live out their 1950's childhood dreams - at taxpayer expense."

Being a Gen-X'er, I find this common refrain to be really tiresome. It is this strange misconception that it is all some jingoistic jobs program, or that the air superiority aspects of space travel are somehow wrong to embrace. That's why NASA was created - to protect the skies and maintain excellence on what really is the highest ground. The Mission to Planet Earth stuff is duplication of effort, and just adds to the politcal nature of the agency.

But beyond that, there is something to be said for the traditional role of government in the expansion of a frontier, and that is to explore it and define it, and to next get out of the way of commerce to utilize the frontier. NASA *can't* do the former if Constellation is canceled in toto, and NASA most certainly has not helped the latter. We need BOTH, not either/or.

I want commercial space, relatively unfettered, to permanently expand our human existence in space. In my opinion, that will be better served if the Constellation slash-n-burn is reevaluated and properly adjusted, and not obliterated.

Let's start by saying it takes a lot for someone in my world to comment on something in your world. So please, read carefully as I surely know I am speaking for the silent majority.

You people are children in an adult's game. Mr. Volosin... I disagree. And I don't just disagree, I object. I object to having my brain suffer through the realization that you took time to write that down... and then post it for the world.

This bastardized version of Flexible path is pathetic and embarrassing. To boldly almost go somewhere and let the robots on the surface is an insufferable concept. Please.

Is this the "Catcher in the Rye" website? How long ago did you people fall off that cliff? Are you all bitter because you personally can't walk on the surface of another planet? This place is the fellowship of the miserable.

Some object that now is not the time. Could you spare me the, "Times are tough," talk? Does anyone remember Vietnam? As I recall we landed on the moon during some pretty difficult times - and it brought the world together in a binding achievement of humanity - yes, even the Russians.

But you don't remember or can empathize because you've never felt that. None of you. You've never known true victory or defeat, because you've never experienced either. That is what your Flexible path is, a call to give up, an Uncle. A call, no doubt, while in your underwear. You're in your underwear reading this right now, aren't you? Aren't you?

Yes, human space flight is a dangerous business. But those who support it, understand it. Those in the ring know what is happening. Those in the audience, who are trying to change the game, fear the ring. And they should fear the ring, that is why they are in the audience. Those are the ones who should be "tele-viewing." Your "tele-presence" is in aisle 4 row 17, don't forget your 3D glasses, your popcorn, and heart medications.

You speak recklessly of doing deals with DoD as if they have any interest in anything that doesn't kill. Simply put, there is a distinctly different design path one takes when one cares about which way a vehicle lands.

Is the cost too high? Are you serious? NASA asking for more money is akin to Dr. Evil wanting a million dollars - it is all political, Congress would give the money in a heart-beat if someone would make a political case. Anyone...? Anyone actually in Congress want to make a case? Ah, right, forgot about the Congressional 7% average approval rating.

Finally, I must admit that these last couple months have been difficult to stomach. Besides Keith's odd Avatar obsession, a complete misunderstanding of how PAO works in a government agency (they can't market themselves... it's illegal! Wouldn't every agency be doing that if it were legal? Obviously yes), and the sad group of comments, I've grown weary of people who believe space, of all things, is ready for commercialization.

Seriously? And the customer is... the Government? Oh, and a group of about one hundred people with a billion dollars (about 10 of which have the balls to fly). Have a hunch the market research is more geared toward the government payout. So now the game change is that space is supply side economics...? And as we've seen in the past year, what the hell happens when no-one buys?

I leave you with this thought: Mr. Volosin is right in one regard, human space flight is indeed born of a childhood dream, but it is transposed into the possible from academic achievement, solidified in adulthood by pioneering efforts; not from a foundation of destruction, but on defining principles of character, responsibility to the world and to those who follow, and the aspirations of all who vicariously live through these achievements in hopes of them becoming an actual, not virtual, reality for all.

Works both ways.

I mean no disrespect - but - I am tired of listening to, whiney, hippie, eco warrior, alternative energy, think they are smarter then everyone that went before, NASA bashing individuals who are still trying to live out their liberal college professors dreams - attacking the finest human space program in the world!

Like many of you, for the past 25 years as a private citizen I have contributed to supporting human spaceflight at NASA in ways the common man can. I have watched as NASA has struggled through adversity, disasters, a congress and presidents that starved it of funds yet still operate a robust space shuttle manifest and build the almost completed ISS that started as Reagan's Space Station Freedom. In addition, I have seen NASA greatly expand our view of the next human spaceflight goals, return to moon, Mars and even beyond with rebotic explorers that do much, but do not bring human presence with them. With the VSE and Constellation the means and machines to get us there were in place.

In contrast, in the blink of an eye human spaceflight at NASA for beyond low earth orbit has in the blink of an eye, been discarded by the white house and replaced with a delusion that private industry and some miracle new tech "Game changers"(propulsion unicorns) can somehow fill the void and change everything in a few years without any development problems, starved budgets, loss of human life that NASA has contended with for decades.

I say to them, if NASA was on such a sour path led by cold warriors with archiac rockets... Where is the indication that private industry is so much better?

Nobody was stopping them.

Why then didn't they pass up NASA years ago?
Where is the commercial moonbase?
Where is the commercial space station?
Where is the commercial spacecraft to LEO even?

Why didn't it exist years ago if they are such "game changers"?

Ad Astra Per Aspera?

LOL

Obama just walked away from it!

http://www.supportconstellation.com

Congress has the final say. NOT Obama.

If Mars or the Moon will never play host to humanity, there is simply no need for wave after wave of unmanned probe to study them. Much less spending money on a repair station to fix disposable machines.
The general public doesn't have much patience with spending money to do science for science sakes.

Half the reason we're losing constellation now is because no one pays attention to the wrench turning that goes on overhead. An entire program, where we do that exclusively, simply wont fly.

Interesting and thoughtful article.

One thing that sticks out though is the phrase "For those who have a passion for the human explorer". This is a real shibboleth for the debate. With human exploration, either people get it or they just don't.

I vote for sc220's compromise: teleoperation from orbit. Great idea.

Just because HSF has driven off a cliff in terms of development of new technologies and vehicles and also in terms of long-term planning isn't the fault of HSF. It is the fault of those charged with making the decisions.

In some ways, I understand the fundamental reasoning behind the current 'rush for commercial'. NASA has demonstrated that it is no longer capable of developing America's new human spaceflight system, so they are losing the leading role in doing so. Ultimately, they have no-one to blame except their own corporate culture, something that seems to have been behind all of its worst HSF failures.

If he's so concerned with climate change, he should quit NASA and join NOAA, and get the president to fund that more. NASA has no business in the climate change arena.

Finally, some common sense, intelligence moves into the forefront. Thanks Jeff !

See also Justin Kugler's Chron.com blog:

http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=jkugler&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ajkuglerPost%3abfa51352-b72f-4cd6-b117-cf64020b970d

I vehemently disagree with almost everything that Volosin says. The colonization of the Solar System is an end in itself. It requires no justification, any more than continuing to breathe requires justification. Indeed, if we aren't engaged in the conquest of space, why continue to breathe?

"NASA has no business in the climate change arena."

Other than launching and perhaps operating satellites to monitor climate change, that is exactly true. NASA is not NOAA, the department charged with this.

"They are tired of hearing about a vaporware commercial program."

That's funny, I seem to recall a ULA Atlas 5 rocket carrying NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory launching last week. It successfully placed an $848 million satellite on track to probe the sun after a picture perfect ride to orbit from the Cape. That wasn't exactly the first rodeo ULA had ever been to.

Manned flight would be a logical extension of what companies like ULA have been doing for decades. In fact, if you think it through, private enterprise has been providing hardware for manned flight nearly since its inception. NASA didn't build the Saturn V, for example, Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, and IBM were the lead contractors.

ULA is a Lockheed Martin and Boeing joint venture.

The current STS program has launch services provided by United Space Alliance, so there is experience already in outsourcing much of manned launch operations. This too is not new as a quick review of old NASA footage in the Space Race days will show white rooms filled with contractor personnel, not to mention ground and launch preparation crew.

All that said, while it is a new step to take to provide end-to-end manned LEO access, to say that commercial space is vaporware would be to disregard not only current activities but historical ones as well. Yes, this is change, but it is not something starting from ground zero...or even close to it.

Jeff's article provides significant food for thought. As a huge HSF proponent, I disagree with much of Jeff's vision for exploration, but I think he makes some very valid points that we must examine in order to have an intellectually honest debate on the path forward.

The sad fact is, shuttle provided us unparalleled capabilities in LEO that were never built upon nor expanded due to the high costs involved with simply maintaining the STS program.

As cliched as it sounds, HSF today is akin to the earliest explorers who left Europe to travel west -dangerous and costly. The advantage we have today is that we know what lays on the proverbial "other side" thanks to our robotic precursor missions.

That said, the one thing the robotic missions cannot account for is human ingenuity and creativity. Mr. Volosin asks 'what would we do when we get there?' but that's a narrow view to take. We can no sooner extrapolate what humans would accomplish on a lunar, martian or space-based station than did the explorers who crossed the Atlantic or the Great Plains in years gone by.

HSF is a bit of a leap of faith - but I think we need that galvanizing leap every now and then to prove to ourselves that we can do it, much in the same way that athletes push themselves simply to do better and to be better. It is a noble endeavor.

The ultimate issue at hand here: Is human spaceflight worth the economic and personnel costs? I argue that yes, it is. If it is, then how do we develop a sustainable human spaceflight program that does not weigh itself down and get stuck as we have been with STS for the better part of the last 15 years?

You will find no greater shuttle hugger than myself, but I am first to admit that we are stuck, we are burdened with a system overly complex and costly that is tying us down. Constellation became a lightening rod - more about the delivery vehicle than the program itself. I would argue that the debate over Ares' development (a very good one that I am happy we have had) is also indicative of NASA's insularity and dogma. Development of Ares would have eaten the entire Constellation budget and left little for the true mission of Constellation: permanent moon bases and onward to Mars. We would find ourselves in the same situation as today, burdened.

We need to push the boundaries of science, but in practicable terms, else we will end up with systems that are too costly to maintain. Shuttle pushed the very barriers of all our technical knowhow and we made it work - but at a cost. We developed a system so compex and delicate that we can barely afford to use it. Moving forward, surely we are in a far better position to explore the solar system thanks to our technological advances since 1972, but we must be careful not to overextend ourselves with systems that are so bleeding edge that they bleed us dry.

"NASA has no business in the climate change arena."

I beg to differ. Refer to the following policy documents and legislation:

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, Public Law 85-568

Goal 1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

Goal 5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;

(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency; (Climate Change is a significant national security issue)

National Space Policy, 2006

Sec. 3. US Space Policy Goals
Increase the benefits of civil exploration, scientific discovery, and environmental activities;
Sec 6. Civil Space Guidelines
The United States shall increase the benefits of civil exploration, scientific discovery, and operational environmental monitoring activities. To that end, the Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall: execute a sustained and affordable human and robotic program of space exploration and develop, acquire, and use civil space systems to advance fundamental scientific knowledge of our Earth system, solar system, and universe.
The United States will study the Earth system from space and develop new space-based and related capabilities to advance scientific understanding and enhance civil space-based Earth observation. In particular:
The Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall conduct a program of research to advance scientific knowledge of the Earth through space-based observation and development and deployment of enabling technologies;

The United States will study the Earth system from space and develop new space-based and related capabilities to advance scientific understanding and enhance civil space-based Earth observation. In particular:
The Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall conduct a program of research to advance scientific knowledge of the Earth through space-based observation and development and deployment of enabling technologies.

NASA Authorization Act of 2008

Sec 2 - Findings

(5) NASA should assume a leadership role in a cooperative international Earth observations and research effort to address key research issues associated with climate change and its impacts on the Earth system.

(6) NASA should undertake a program of aeronautical research, development, and where appropriate demonstration activities with the overarching goals of—

(B) protecting the environment;

Title 2 – Earth Science, SEC. 201. GOAL.

The goal for NASA’s Earth Science program shall be to pursue a program of Earth observations, research, and applications activities to better understand the Earth, how it supports life, and how human activities affect its ability to do so in the future.

In pursuit of this goal, NASA’s Earth Science program shall ensure that securing practical benefits for society will be an important measure of its success in addition to securing new knowledge about the Earth system and climate change. In further pursuit of this goal, NASA shall, together with NOAA and other relevant agencies, provide United States leadership in developing and carrying out a cooperative international Earth observations-based research program.

Looks like NASA is supposed to be engaged in this arena after all.

Jeff Volosin's article does not mention Dr. Van Allen who lobbied for this type of a space program during his career, but was always dominated and marginalized by the mythic desires of the script Volosin laid out succinctly.

When I saw the project manager of the Mars Rovers give a lecture on BookTV I was awed by the photographs from Mars and thought Dr. Van Allen has won and Dr. Von Braun has lost. For Van Allen's view see: http://www.issues.org/20.4/p_van_allen.html

Once again, if we want to be international in stature, we need to quit being cowards about using metric-only for ALL NASA work. I would be even happier if this nation would quite being a nation of crybabies about embracing metric.

Wow, now that was a polarizing article.

Couple of thoughts.

(1) Don't equate human spaceflight with Constellation. The last new rocket to put an American into space was a private operation. The last new American rocket to put something into orbit was a private operation. There is nothing preventing the EELVs from being upgraded to take humans into orbit.

(2) There will be an American in orbit continuously for another 10 years.

(3) One illustrative comment made during the Augustine Commission was that even if NASA was handed a completely operational Constellation program, they would have to immediately cancel it because NASA could not afford to operate it.

(4) If your interest is in human colonization, (a) Constellation will not achieve that, and (b) developing and operating Constellation would consume all available funds leaving no funds to develop new technologies that could lead to colonization -- that has been the problem for the last 30 years.

LOL, some of this is just so comedic.

I love Jeff's statement "These individuals didn't know how computer and robotic technologies would evolve." No duh, it applies to everything. For example "These individuals didn't know how xyz would evolve." Welcome to progress!!! And Jeff, please take off your blinders, it doesn't just apply to your world. Who knows, maybe 50 years from now "xyz" will be HSF.

At least one thing ISS has shown us is how to build something in space. And this ties into computer simulation. The evolution of computer technologies has done wonders for the analysis of physical and biological processes. And one day an analysis will come along which screams "manufacture this in space!" And I think it would be dumb to bet against this. Every 15 yrs the hardware required to perform these analysis gets 1000 times more powerful in regards to bang for the buck. And the companies which get to this point and patent the technology first, win. Think about that. A foreign company gets a critical mass of patented technologies which involve space manufacturing of something useful. And, for the competitors, that is a hard hole to dig out of.

As for why it's so expensive to go to the moon, geez, I have no idea. Seriously, what was the $100B for Constellation earmarked for? Or is this figure just some estimate coming out of some cost model which is based on limited historical records. Then organization xyz says, "this is what it will cost and how long it will take, so lets start spending the money". And it becomes so. Then later they go "We are behind schedule and over budget, so we need more." Then this overrun goes into the next version of the cost model. And lets not forget, the original cost model has already factored in schedule and cost overruns. And the cycle continues until the final version of the cost model says its just too expensive. Cost models are not the real world! Cost models do a very poor job of factoring in technology. So, applying them to technology is an iffy thing and requires expertize.

So, where did and was the money for the Constellation program going to go? And how was the development schedule determined? What made the program such a challenge? The detailed answers are out there. However, finding them takes determination, time, and technical knowledge. Geez, Apollo didn't have CFD, FEA, CAD/CAM, hand held calculators, nor the knowledge we have today. I'll make a bet that whatever project follows the Constellation will have the same issues. Whether it is robotics, HSF, or whatever. So, maybe the talking heads should focus on these questions if they really want a robust space program.

These are all good and accurate points.

While I may or may not agree with all of Volosin's comments, I think all of them are worth actively considering and I wonder why Constellation Program management and NASA management has failed to consider them heretofore.

There are some real truths in there.

For instance, we were building the ISS to learn to live and work in space long term, something needed for future planetary missions but people are ready to ditch it now. Yet for some reason people think that the moon would somehow be different. The moon was no different the first time, in 1969; I lived through that time period and almost no one, public, NASA, NASA management, wanted to continue Apollo. NASA management in particular thought it was too risky and wanted it ended before someone was lost on the moon.

In Norm Augustine's Laws, a couple of the laws:

XII It costs a lot to build bad products

XVI In the year 2054, the entire definse budget will purchase just one aircraft. The aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and the Navy 3.5 days each week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.

I think one study that is really required is a study of why it costs so much more, dollars and time, today for NASA to build a system, like Constellation, which is after all, making use of mainly mature hardware; almost no new technology.

Another study I would like to see is one concerning these probabalistic risk assessments. I think these are nonsense and the only people who want to believe them are the people being paid to generate them and the managers who are trying to prove something. Assuming the systems are built properly, according to their design specs, and if they were designed properly, the systems will perform reasonably and the risk is low. If, however, you have management who screws up, as in the cases of Apollo 1, Soyuz 1, Challenger and Columbia, in those cases you can make all the estimates of reliability you want but the hardware will not work if its not designed, built or used properly.

LOL, OK, I've got a challenge. I challenge the AIAA to organize a student team competition to design a system which takes us to the moon and back. The knowledge and software is out there (for free or a relatively low cost) to do a very good job. If the students know what to look for. So I bet the students could do a kick ass job. However, the legal department at AIAA will say, "watch out, rocket design is ITAR." So, you may not see such a competition in the US. However, such competitions in other countries is a different story.

I think that Mr. Volosin is being unfairly harsh in his criticism of the constellation approach to exploration. I admit that individual components such as ARIES-I were very ill conceived, but as a whole exploration with a destination is the right way to go and their is no tinge of manifest destiny in that approach.
First of all it seems no one is considering how politically stable this new direction is. Wether it be 3 or 7 more years Obama will eventually leave office and it is very doubtful that the next administration will accept billions of dollars of tech development with no clear goal. So it seems as if we are setting ourselves up for another program cancellation in 3 to 7 years that utterly led nowhere. Also speaking as someone who has worked as a research scientist and as an engineer, I firmly believe that giving technical types money to develop things with no end goal is dangerous. Instead of working towards engineering goals and building stuff programs will become bogged down in fundamental work that does not really benefit engineering goals and instead is nothing more than fundamental science.
While it may sound good to do fundamental science you have to understand how that plays into actually building something. IN recent days I have seen development on refractory alloys that was out of control. In my job alloys were developed that were adequate for engineering applications, but instead of testing the alloys at the right conditions, temperatures and pressures for the aerospace application of interest to see if they survived, all money went to investigations of the microstructure and diffusion of impurities through the metal, that had absolutely no benefit to the engineering application. When all was said we wasted all of the money on this one topic and when the costumer asked if it would work in the application all we could say was we do not know because we never tested it in the right environments even though we could have at a fraction of the cost. IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO RESEARCHERS WITH NO GOALS OR DEADLINES THEY WILL SPEND EVERY CENT OF IT ON THEIR PERSONAL RESEARCH GOALS AND NOT ON AN ENGINEERING APPLICATION. In short I think this new direction is little more than a politically untenable money pit.

Like most of the posts I read now on NASAWatch, this one is again polarizing, and it pains me to see this community get so ornery in discussions like this. Personally, I have always embraced both HSF and robotic exploration, and see the value of each toward achieving our goals in space. I also see a value in balancing government and commercial involvement. I'm a roboticist by most recent training, but got an Aero/Astro undergrad degree in the early 90's in the hopes of one day becoming an astronaut (I've applied on every cycle since graduation and will continue until they just tell me to stop). I was just involved in LCROSS - a robotic mission staged to prepare the way for a human return to the moon. So, it troubles me that we can't seem to agree on a common balance when in my view these approaches aren't mutually exclusive and are mutually beneficial.

I have to agree with Mr. Velosin that we need to re-examine our motives for robotic and human spaceflight, and employ each where they best contribute. However, I think he also he underestimates the value of HSF and how it inspires, and over-estimates the long-term inspirational value of automated colonies.

The robotic space community has made tremendous strides with projects like the Mars Exploration Rovers, Cassini, and many others. Technology in that arena is developing by leaps and bounds (if only NASA were a little more risk-averse, we might actually get to use some more of it). There's no question we'll be able to explore the Solar System far more *broadly* (not necessarily deeply) with robots than with humans in the near term, for reasons of cost and risk. True, they've had their problems too (Mars Polar Lander, Climate Orbiter, etc), but they cost FAR less and the public can tolerate the loss of a robot. Despite the excitement that robots and their photos generate, I have to admit I'm not sure a robot colony would inspire the public. It might be a great idea, but if we're looking for public impact, I'm not convinced that would be the right path. I say keep robots going to the most horrendously difficult spots in the Solar System (Europa, Enceladus, Venus, etc) and to act as precursors for near-term human exploration (lunar south pole, NEO's, Mars, etc).

On the human spaceflight side, I think there is strong, current justification, but a strong need to re-focus on more inspiring tasks. To those claiming that no one cares about robotic missions, I suggest that the same goes for missions to the ISS at this point. The public is moderately interested in it all, but is no more interested in HSF than any other space endeavor (you will find pockets in each "camp", of course). Personally, I was in favor of seeing humans return to the moon. But the Augustine Commission's Flexible Path presents a lot of very interesting missions for future astronauts, and I believe there is strong rationale for the government to drive those kinds of missions. Humans excel *way* beyond robots in some applications, like surface exploration or in-orbit repair. The challenge is getting them there, keeping them safe, and getting them home. And in the context of a NEO landing, operations from Phobos, or landing at the rim of Shackleton, HSF takes the cake for inspiring the public too. Would the public be inspired by satellite repair? Not beyond one or two missions. Just like the robotic colony concept, it's a great idea and very useful, but not necessarily inspirational (unless you're the one going up). If you look purely at the facts, I think the division of labor between robots and humans seems pretty clear. The biases seem to come from emotional arguments in either direction.

On that note, the proposed Constellation cancellation has raised complaints from supporters of HSF that ring with entitlement, jealousy and an air of superiority (just take a look at some of the posts here). And I'll admit that perhaps there's an air overconfidence coming from the commercialization side, without the evidence to prove that it's going to work.

HSF vs. Robotic funding (e.g. post from AnObamanaut):
I laugh when someone from the HSF community complains about how robotic programs stole money from Shuttle/ISS/Constellation. HSF has dominated the NASA budget for decades. The robotics community is constantly revising what it can afford to do, based upon how the wind is blowing in HSF. Since when has NASA embarked on a $100 billion dollar robotic program? You could fly 30-50 Cassini and MSL missions for that kind of money. On the other hand, there's no way to do the great things HSF has done without lots of money. Bottom line, let's stay away from this emotional morass. Sadly, much of the robots vs. humans argument stems from the argument of one "stealing" money from the other.

Pot Smoking Greenies (the Blue north) vs. Gun-Toting Hicks (the Red south)
(e.g. post from CessnaDriver)
These kinds of cut-downs really get me going. The minute we start stereotyping each other based on some general notion of geographical upbringing and political stance, we head straight for the gutter. This is all BS and worthless in our discussions. We are all space enthusiasts, it is *our* NASA (just as much Ames' as JSC's; what would the agency be without JPL?), and care pretty deeply for the industry, the dreams and the future. Please let's stay to rational discussions of how to best explore and discover.

Dreams vs. Dire Predictions:
This seems to be the general source of frustration between the Constellation supporter (to paraphrase: "...this is the death of NASA...", "we're giving space to the Chinese...") and the supporter of commercialization ("commercial entities are ready to take the keys from NASA", etc). The fact is that no one yet knows how this is going to turn out. But if we embark on this path, let's stop whining and wringing our hands, and have some guts to try something new. Risk. NASA's forgotten what it means to take some. For one, I am both horrified, and cautiously optimistic. I've really felt the awe at the operations happening at JSC, I've pursued the astronaut dream for nearly two decades. On the other hand, I've read about the pioneers of air transportation, and know that revolutions happen. I'm perplexed that the conservatives among us seem to be so against this plan, despite the push for private enterprise (because Obama couldn't possibly do anything right, correct?). I'm surprised that people are so openly antagonistic or pessimistic at the possibility that commercial enterprise might have a shot at changing the way we do things (Lockheed and Boeing weren't always mega-corporations). I am troubled to lose the incredible talent we have at JSC, MSFC, KSC, etc. But I think the commercial sector may just be the breath of fresh air we need. Granted, we need a concrete plan forward. But let's have some patience - I'm sure it's coming. In the meantime, imagine what technologies we can develop to lower the bar for human exploration to Mars (e.g. VASIMR, etc). Could we consider this under the tight confines of Constellation? SpaceX is working to bring COTS into full operation by next year, with up to three flights this year to prove their hardware works and will work to human-rate Dragon. ULA undoubtedly already has plans to human-rate the Atlas V. Funding will send robotic precursors to the asteroids humans may one day stand on, and Earth observers will try to figure out what is really happening to our climate.

To me, this sounds pretty damn cool. Let's get on to moving FORWARD and doing something truly great.

Webbja, if you don't mind I would like to modify you comment a little.

IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO RESEARCHERS THEY WILL SPEND EVERY CENT OF IT ON THEIR PERSONAL RESEARCH GOALS AND NOT ON AN ENGINEERING APPLICATION.

I don't want to imply that this is a bad quality of a researcher. It's just the nature of a researcher. In a way, it is their job. However, it is the job of management to oversee this. Now, if the management doesn't know that they are missing their goal, that's a problem.

Martin I do agree that management has the mission of overseeing their employes, but I am telling you from experience, the reality of the situation is it rarely ever happens that way. But even if managers did their jobs correctly, you need an end goal to know what the deadlines are so that a program can be kept on track. Instead under this vision, researchers will be given very generic guidelines that can not be used to support any priorities, milestones or deadlines.
If an agency is told that they have $100 k and 1.5 years to qualify a system in a certain environment than they end up prioritizing the testing and tasks that support that. If they have money to do extra research on top of the minimums then they will carry forwards on that. But if they are told that they will get a certain amount of funding per year to develop a system and are given no other information, then they will end up researching their interests on that system and it will rarely end up being beneficial to an end goal, mainly because their is no end goal.

Webbja, I too have a bit of experience in this field, and I have to agree with every word you said. That is why I wonder if some of the recent events and talk on this thread and others is just a result of a cost model prophecy coming true. NASA and others use a tool such as NAFCOM to estimate what it will cost and how long it will take. And congress says, "OK, our cost models support your cost models so here is the money." Then NASA spreads the money around and jobs expand to meet the money. Hey, use it or lose it. And cost and schedule overruns always happen. So, if one says X is the goal, then Y becomes the reality. If one says Y is the goal, then Z becomes the reality. This is followed by, ooops, too much money, too much time, therefore lets cancel the program. And this applies just as well to robotic missions as HSF.

My next comment is a general comment directed to everyone. The people on NASA Watch and elsewhere who are really serious about doing something for HSF, or other technical goals, are discussing different topics and asking different questions. For example, what were the key issues of Ares and Orion? How well did NASA's computer models compare to actual tests? How well did NASA's cost model do? How did NASA solve the problems, assuming they did of course? Geez, the list goes on. By asking and answering these questions, the next go around will be more likely to succeed, whether it is human or robotic. And, as for those people who are not asking and answering these questions, I have to assume they do not understand engineering of any sort.