I’m quite sure that Doug Stanley is on record as not being on board with the moon as a goal for VSE, and wanted to use the opportunity to build a (heavy-lift) infrastructure for Mars. But can anyone point me to a citable source for this?
Yes, I am working on a major piece for a serious publication…
I think this is it:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/11/former_esas_lea.html
(It was removed from the original source, a nasaspaceflight.com forum)
“Now I am going to let you in on a little secret! Shhhh…don’t tell anyone, OK? If I were in charge of National Space Policy, I would not even go to the Moon! I am actually a Mars First/Direct person. I would like to get to Mars as soon as possible and think that the Moon will be a distraction from that. If we establish an outpost on the Moon, NASA’s entire exploration budget expected to be available will go to the operation of that outpost and the exploration of the Moon.”
Rand, is it right here?
“forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=1e13e169ceb59708bf7acabd7d824636&topic=5419.0;all”
Scroll down to the word “mtv” via your browser’s find-on-page option.
If I were actually in charge of National Space Policy, I would probably not even go to the Moon! I am actually a Mars First/Direct person. I would like to get to Mars as soon as possible and am worried that the Moon could be a distraction from that. If we establish an outpost on the Moon, NASA’s entire exploration budget expected to be available will go to the operation of that outpost and the exploration of the Moon. I am afraid it will be the “tar baby” we will be stuck with that will keep us from going to Mars in my lifetime. NASA will need a significant budget increase to do both, which I don’t think is likely. To me, Mars is 10 times more interesting because of the atmosphere, the water, and the possibility of life below the surface…I would prefer to focus on a robust robotic exploration program including sample return, including human precursor mission, followed by human missions within the next 15 to 20 years.
I was asked by a friend to do ESAS and was working within the requirements I was given as a part of the VSE. I could not change them. But, If the next administration wishes to re-focus on Mars, all of the building blocks will be there. We will have preserved the Shuttle components and momentum to build a Heavy-lift launch vehicle and have a CLV and CEV that can launch humans to a MTV and a CEV that can even serve as an Earth-entry vehicle with more TPS…We will not have yet spent any appreciable funds towards lunar transportation or surface systems…we reserved this flexibility…
I also copied these links into my notes as I looked for the above link:
“www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/nov06/features/stepmars/stepmars.html”
“www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/08/15/208459/in-orbit-refuelling-could-give-ares-v-eds-legs-for-onward-mars.html”
“selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html”
For other readers who can’t wait for Rand’s article, I also recommend this excellent posting by Jon Goff, which discusses the above quote and the HLV issue:
“selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/11/now-that-explains-lot-esas-edition.html”
Yup. That will work. Thanks. Bob….1…
Lest it be missed, that memagazine link is an article by Ahmed K. Noor, Robert Zubrin, and Douglas Stanley which builds to this conclusion, among others:
“The development of heavy-lift launch vehicles in the Saturn V class or more powerful is thus an essential requirement for a successful moon-Mars program.”
Ok, I’m done commenting! Good luck with the article!
It is a shame when such bright men don’t know the meaning of the word essential.