Well, it’s out, and depressingly familiar. There seems to have been very little imagination, and its authors seems stuck in the sixties. It’s basically Apollo to Mars.
Joel Achenbach has the story. I’m glad that at least they’re pointing out the safety issues with flying SLS so rarely, but a bolder report would have discussed what a disaster the program will be cost wise. I’ll have to read the report to see if they addressed the real issue, which is launch costs, but since they seemed to get all their input from NASA, I suspect that it will be completely ignored.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here‘s Eric Berger’s take.
“For simplicity and consistency of presentation, the analysis in this report of all of the DRMs has presumed the use of SLS as the launch vehicle.”
They call this analysis ?
“”They go through all the negative analysis and still conclude we ought to go to Mars. No one ever says ‘let’s lower our ambitions’. It’s always ‘increase the budget,’ not ‘lower ambitions’,” he said.”
One of the first things I learned as a space cadet was that it isn’t just about money. Increasing funding will do nothing if the underlying technology is incapable of getting the job done.
“As for going to Mars: “It’s a dream. It’s been a dream forever. And will remain a dream unless something changes.”
It is one thing to daydream about the future and another to take the concrete steps that will allow the dream to be realized. As with any idea, you have to run the numbers, check your assumptions, and solve the smaller problems that will prevent you from accomplishing your goal. NASA is doing some of this but it seems haphazard and by accident rather than following a deliberate strategy.
From an outsider’s perspective, it looks like there are a lot of technological advancements to be made and human factors questions that need to be answered before we can sustain an outpost on Mars. That doesn’t mean wait until all the problems are solved before we go but it should mean that solving those problems should be addressed in the context of the larger strategy.
[It] will remain a dream unless something changes.
Exactly right. So let’s.
Gah. Some of the comments at the Eric Berger article made me want to claw my skin off.
Then, for the sake of your future integumental integrity, I’m going to recommend you really stay as far away as possible from the comments on the Achenbach piece.
This was a typical government committee. A group of “experts,” mostly in fields far removed from human spaceflight. Including the random politician — Mitch Daniels — as co-chair.
If they wanted a serious report, they would have asked Newt Gingrich. Of course, Newt would be problematic because 1) he would make intelligent comments on space policy, 2) journalists would not understand what he was saying, and 3) they would ridicule him for saying things they don’t understand.