…over at Clark’s place.
[Update a couple minutes later]
And a lot more at NASA Watch.
[Update a few minutes later]
One of Clark’s links is particularly interesting. Now that the report is out, Jeff Greason is unleashed: “It’s time to base US space policy on the truth.”
I’ve had some similar conversations with Jeff throughout the summer, but kept them off the record at his request. I suspect we’ll be hearing a lot more from him now, though.
Truth-based policy, now there’s a wild idea. I doubt politicians will want to make an exception for space, especially since it is so easy to fool people about technical subjects like space.
Link doesn’t work for me, I hope that’s not an omen.
No, the link was busted. Fixed now.
What we did not find was a way for NASA to do significant human exploration beyond low Earth orbit in the near term with this current budget.
I find it difficult to accept that for ~$10 billion a year it is not possible to do significant exploration beyond LEO. The assumption herein seems to be that within existing political constraints it is not possible for “NASA” to do significant exploration beyond LEO.
Fair enough, this is about NASA and not about space exploration as such, but I had kind of hoped, in a fit of honesty, to at least see some mention of this comparison. Personally, I would think that a billion a year would be more than enough to open up space and do some serious exploration – if spent honestly.
I noticed that Clark’s website has gone down, probably from excessive load.
Heck of a report.
I suppose that people (journalists and politicians) are having difficulty with it because it doesn’t spell out a simple, single direction that NASA should take.
My take of the report is that commercial providers should be aggressively pursued. Modification of the current launcher should happen. Current assets (the shuttle and the ISS) should be utilized to maximize ROI, that is to say extended. The path should be flexible. At current funding expect indefinite delays and at increased funding expect long but manageable delays.
Am I just reading my own bias into the report or does it actually favor these ideas? Also, if I read between the lines, I would say that there is an understanding that further utilization of commercial services should be pursued as they come available during the decade.
I have but one question. What would be the ballpark increase in NASA yearly funding necessary to implement the above scenario while optimizing the time line?
Well here is the death knell for Ares 1 and probably Orion as an ISS taxi.
When it
begins operations, the Ares I and Orion would be a very
expensive system for crew transport to low-Earth orbit.
Program estimates are that it would have a recurring cost of
nearly $1 billion per flight, even with the fixed infrastructure
costs being carried by Ares V. The issue is that the Orion is
a very capable vehicle for exploration, but it has far more
capability than needed for a taxi to low-Earth orbit.
(Section 6.4.4, page 90)
This is what drove them to the commercial taxi idea.
Heck of a report.
…
My take of the report is that commercial providers should be aggressively pursued.
That, precisely, is the problem with the report. Everyone who reads it will have their own “take” on the report. Prominent congresscritters already have voiced their takeaways : “Constellation program is well managed. Lets keep on going.”
While its been interesting to watch, for all intents of purposes the report is not worth the pages that its written on.