Unlikely Alliances Against Obama Space Policy

Mars 1st plus Moon 1st unite! I love it:-)

Marcel F. Williams

> The agency created the Constellation program to build the Ares 1 and Ares 5 launch vehicles, the Orion spacecraft and other hardware needed to go to the moon and Mars. A timeline was set, and objectives were articulated to achieve Vision's first major milestone - a sustainable return to the moon by the end of the present decade to gain knowledge

It's quite unfortunate that Constellation's timelines (Crew Exploration Vehicle by 2008, first human mission by 2014, crewed mission by 2020) quickly became meaningless and is likely to become a textbook case study of an unsustainable program. Of course, some argue that throwing more money at the program would have made it sustainable, a notion which boggles the mind.

> We currently possess all the knowledge, technology and infrastructure necessary to build a heavy-lift launch vehicle.

Not in any sort of sustainable manner. Every time a heavy-lift vehicle has been developed (whether by the US or Russia) it's been quickly canceled for being too expensive. Just doing it the same way again is an approach doomed to fail (after spending tens of billions of dollars, of course).

Spudis and Zubrin are extremists ignorant of cost. They think their plans are visionary, when really they're just unconstrained by reality.

Regarding a quote in the article: "a logical and effective space program, a mission is chosen, a plan for accomplishing the mission is developed, the flight hardware needed to accomplish the plan is identified, and technology is developed as needed to enable the flight hardware."

This is EXACTLY how the robotic side of the house operates. They know the mission/science they want. If the technology isn't there to just 'go ahead with the mission' it gets developed with mission requirements driving the technology development.

Moreover, the low cost robotic missions often have no new technology as the risks are too high for the available budget.

NASA knows how to operate in both these 'technology' realms on the very successful robotic side of the house.

Why does it now abandon that logic in favor of Obamaspace?

A joint statement by Messrs Spudis and Zubrin? Hmm... Wasn't one of the signs of the end of the world that dogs and cats would dwell together? ;-)

Seriously, I can understand their frustration. With every 'refinement' to America's HSF plan, they see their dreams get more and more remote.

RC, I'm sure someone, way back when, said the same thing about Columbus.

jski, that analogy is poor, Columbus took second-hand ships to find a new shipping lane... cost was not his constraint at all...

This op-ed is completely disconnected from reality. Why mention a return to the moon by the end of the decade when we'd be lucky to see a (scaled down) Orion flying to nowhere by that time under the current program and funding? Have Supids and Zubrin been living in a bubble since 2003? Maybe it's just a case of only hearing what you want to hear and ignoring inconvenient realities.

It's sad either way.

"In a logical and effective space program, a mission is chosen, a plan for accomplishing the mission is developed, the flight hardware needed to accomplish the plan is identified, and technology is developed as needed to enable the flight hardware."

What logical/effective program are they basing this model on ? The POR ? I sure hope not......not only would that be absolutely false its not that cookie cutter simple. How do you select the flight hardware for a mission to sustainably take humans BEO if the flight hardware to achieve that mission doesn't exist yet ?

The Congress will never endorse an extremely wasteful Obama plan that envisions spending $300 billion in tax payer money over the next 15 years with nothing to show for it: no Moon base, no Mars base, and no artificial gravity space station.

We need to return to the Moon, and to the lunar poles specifically, so that we can begin to exploit the Moon's oxygen and hydrogen resources in order to dramatically reduce the cost of space travel within cislunar space for both NASA and the emerging space tourism industry.

And if we don't do it then the Chinese, Japanese, Russians or maybe even India will do it. And the US and private US space companies could end up importing fuel for their space depots and space vessels from foreign nations. There's nothing wrong with that if our long term goal is to create more jobs for foreign nations rather than right here in the USA.

Marcel F. Williams

I think none of us are surprised by Dr. Robert Zubrin's views, opinions and passion. All appreciable qualities of any man. I'm not going to criticize anyone. I think that's something far too many of us (and I'm guilty too) have engaged in without lacking any energy! And it hasn't produced a result.

I've read the critical remarks above and they are all valid.

What did surprise me, was considering all the Lunar regolith challenges and the ISS working on Lunar equivalent materials and that Commercializing Space will allow free enterprise to evaluate the Moon's commercial opportunities and viabilities (as it does in the rest of our World) and that it's so relatively close to us...Why does Dr. Paul Spudis think the New Direction has two blind eyes to the Moon?

I'm not being critical, I just don't know the answer to that? The Moon will be within arms reach for Commercial Space in a relatively short period of time. But as for Mars, this is a completely different matter.

I think the one thing that's agreed by many is the absence of a Road Map causes havoc amongst just about everyone. I personally don't find it a problem.

If you've lived through the era of going from 8 bit computers to 64 bit ones, the idea that all that progress should've had a Road Map is incomprehensible.

NASA does not need a roadmap from the President, that can be written by the Administrator. NASA does however need from the President:
a. money
b. authorisation to proceed
c. agreement for the White House not to get in the way.

NASA has been given some money, although approval from Congress is still required. NASA now has Presidential authorisation to develop manned missions to Mars, although the law needs changing. In spite of what he says, the President does not appear to be a fan of space flight, so he may ignore NASA if NASA leaves him alone.

Any hardware and trips to the Moon will have to be officially justified in terms of the Mars mission. Equipment testing and ISRU propellant means that is not hard.

In 2016 there will be a different President. Since NASA estimated 5 years to develop anything the next authorisation can be requested from say a gateway spacestation orbiting the Moon at EML2.

I agree with Swallow -- since when does the president need to write down every step along the way toward exploration? Listen to Obama's speech at KSC - he seems to imply (state?) that HE will be the one picking the Heavy Lift architecture. Huh? He needs to be laying wreaths at Arlington (oh, wait, that's too much bother) and making nice with Iran, not trading Isp vs weight vs cost. Give NASA the goal, give them the money, and let them figure out the best way to get it done. They're the experts.

"If you've lived through the era of going from 8 bit computers to 64 bit ones, the idea that all that progress should've had a Road Map is incomprehensible."

Hear, hear

There's a sense that NASA once succeeded brilliantly given a single objective, a destination, a timeframe and a pot of money and that that is the only certain way it can succeed again.

This to me smacks of defeatism. Sure, NASA has had its failures, and it has lost its direction more than once, but that's no reason to retreat into past glories or wish that the world was more predictable or better known than it is.

I completely agree FallingWithStyle,

Road Maps are a great idea...if you happen to be psychic. Do people feel that they're that weak a species that they can only manage by having a Map to guide them through their daily lives?

Inner Solar System Road Maps are all well and good, but even they are not set in stone.

So what's the deciding factor - Technological Capabilities - and what is NASA proposing, increasing Technological Capabilities.

"a logical and effective space program, a mission is chosen, a plan for accomplishing the mission is developed, the flight hardware needed to accomplish the plan is identified, and technology is developed as needed to enable the flight hardware."

The question was asked, why could NASA human space flight not follow this outline. Ten years ago, the guy from NASA put in charge of the Mir effort failed to draw up any plans, processes, or requirements. That phase of Mir was a disaster. The US hardware that flew really was never used. Few payloads flew. Crew provisions were smuggled onto Mir since no 'legal' processes had been defined.

Eventually others came along and developed the plans, processes and requirements, and once that was done, developing and flying US hardware and payloads on Mir became relatively easy, fast and thoroughly reviewed for safety. By that time, the guy who had been in charge of the earlier unsuccessful phase was promoted and moved to another position.

Five years ago, they placed the same guy who had failed in the Mir program, in charge of requirements and processes for Constellation.

The right people could have done the job.