[FPSPACE] Goodbye, Mike, Part 2

[E.P. Grondine]

"WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THE LUNAR TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITY THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED? 

Yes, and now what exactly is that outpost supposed to do? Any idea at all, except for testing a manned Mars lander? If you don't have any idea what you want to accomplish, and why it needs to be done, then certainly you won't have any idea how to do it.

"BY 2020 WE WILL HAVE THIS CAPABILITY, AND WITH IT CHOICES TO MAKE.  WE CAN CHOOSE BETWEEN A LUNAR PROGRAM DEVOTED TO SORTIE MISSIONS, OR ONE DEVOTED TO BUILDING UP A LUNAR OUTPOST. AND WE CAN CHOOSE BETWEEN THE LEVEL OF EFFORT WE INTEND TO FOCUS ON LUNAR ACTIVITIES VS. INITIATING DEVELOPMENT FOR MARS MISSIONS.  IN COMPANY WITH OTHER SPACE AGENCIES AROUND THE WORLD, WE AT NASA HAVE FOCUSED ON AN OUTPOST-CENTERED LUNAR EXPLORATION STRATEGY."

Then since Russia and China have announced the same goal, why not consider their architectures, instead of simply first testing a manned Mars lander?

"I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE PREFERRED OVER A SORTIE-ONLY STRATEGY FOR THE REASONS THAT IT PROVIDES A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE AVENUE FOR INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP, AND BECAUSE IT PROVIDES THE GREATEST OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ON THE MOON WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW TO GO TO MARS. BUT, OF COURSE, NOTHING PREVENTS A SORTIE MISSION (for which read a flags and footprints test of a manned Mars lander) TO ANY LOCATION ON THE MOON THAT IS OF SUFFICIENT INTEREST TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS.  

Someday he may actually figure out what needs to be done on the Moon.

"SO AGAIN, LET US LOOK AT WHAT IS FISCALLY POSSIBLE.

"IT IS TO BE HOPED AND, I BELIEVE, EXPECTED THAT THE NEXT ERA OF SPACE EXPLORATION WILL BE INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE, IN MUCH THE SAME FASHION AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION TODAY.  WHATEVER MIGHT BE SAID OF THE ISS PROGRAM AND THERE CANNOT BE MUCH THAT HAS BEEN LEFT UNSAID IT HAS PIONEERED A PATH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MAJOR INTERNATIONAL SPACE FACILITY.  THERE ARE LESSONS LEARNED IN SO DOING THAT WE WILL TAKE WITH US OUT INTO THE SOLAR SYSTEM.  THESE LESSONS WILL BE THE MOST ENDURING, AND ULTIMATELY MOST VALUABLE, CONTRIBUTION THE ISS CAN MAKE.  WE WILL BE APPLYING THEM ON MARS, FIFTY YEARS FROM NOW.

i.l., Mars in 2057, internationally. The chances of a Tunguska type blast between now and then are about 50%.

"THE UNITED STATES IS DEVELOPING THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHICH WILL ALLOW ACCESS TO THE LUNAR SURFACE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A HALF-CENTURY."

Yeah, but the manned Mars lander test item is so limited in its capabilities that it can't do what needs to be done.

"THIS IS THE HIGHEST 'BARRIER TO ENTRY' FOR EXPLORATION BEYOND LEO, ONE WHICH ESSENTIALLY EXHAUSTS THE CONTRIBUTION THAT WE CAN MAKE TO A LUNAR OUTPOST IN THE NEXT 15 YEARS."

I'm glad no one else is going down the path of using the Moon solely as a test bed for a manned Mars lander.

"IF THERE IS TO BE A LUNAR PRESENCE SIGNIFICANTLY BEYOND MERELY GETTING THERE AND GETTING BACK, IF THERE IS TO BE A HUMAN TENDED OUTPOST, MUCH OF THE EARLY CAPABILITY MUST BE DEVELOPED BY INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS."

"capability" likely will be developed by them.

"BUT OUTPOST SUSTAINABILITY, AT LEAST IN THE EARLY YEARS, WILL LARGELY DEPEND UPON ORION AND ARES."

Once again, the current NASA Administrator leaves office early in 2009.  Perhaps a new architecture will be adopted after that.

"I BELIEVE THAT BY 2021-22 WE WILL HAVE REGAINED ENOUGH EXPERIENCE IN LUNAR SPACEFLIGHT OPERATIONS"

In other words testing a manned Mars lander will be finished.

"THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERTAKE A MODEST, BUT SUSTAINED AND SUSTAINABLE, PROGRAM OF LUNAR OUTPOST DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION."

Well, that will take the cost of developing and building an entirely new architecture designed to do what needs to be done on the Moon, instead of the testing of a manned Mars lander.

"I WILL ALSO VENTURE TO SAY THAT BY 2022 THE ISS WILL BE DEFINITELY BEHIND US.  WE WILL HAVE LEARNED FROM IT WHAT WE CAN, BUT THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN THE VALUE OF THE WORK BEING DONE ONBOARD THE FACILITY WILL BE JUDGED NOT TO BE WORTH THE COST OF SUSTAINING ITS AGING SYSTEMS, AND IT WILL BE BROUGHT DOWN."

Once again, the ISS power supply could be moved to orbit around the Moon, used as a test bed for solar electric powered ion drives. Or as a test bed for micro-wave power beaming. Or perhaps some industrial uses will emerge by then. 

If the "space tourists" want their own power supply, they can damn well pay for it themselves.

"I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS WILL OCCUR"

Never. No one is simply going to pitch out a power supply built and orbited at a cost of 10's of billions of dollars.

"AND I AM NOT SURE IT IS PREDICTABLE OTHER THAN IN A STATISTICAL SENSE, BUT I BELIEVE THAT BY 2022 OR THEREABOUTS IT WILL HAVE HAPPENED.  AND WHEN IT DOES, THE RESOURCES WHICH HAVE BEEN USED FOR ISS SUPPORT CAN BE APPLIED TO THE SUPPORT OF A LUNAR OUTPOST.

I think you're right there.

"FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT AND NOTHING MORE, LET US SAY THAT IN 2022 WE WILL BEGIN A SUSTAINED LUNAR PROGRAM OF EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF THREE MANNED MISSIONS (TWO OUTPOST CREW ROTATIONS AND ONE SORTIE) AND ONE UNMANNED CARGO MISSION PER YEAR, UTILIZING THREE ORION/ARES I VEHICLES AND FOUR ARES V LAUNCHES."

So let's see, that's 10 large Thiokol grains per year, up from 4 now. Anybody here have any doubts that that income stream is not already included in Thiokol's powerpoints and spreadsheets?

Of course, as Apollo was cancelled entirely with only 6 landings, that income stream may become limited.

"PRESENT PROJECTIONS ASSUME A CARGO CAPACITY OF SIX METRIC TONS ON A LANDER CARRYING FOUR CREW MEMBERS, AND TWENTY METRIC TONS ON A CARGO LANDER, AT A MARGINAL COST OF ABOUT $750 MILLION FOR A HUMAN MISSION AND $525 MILLION FOR A CARGO MISSION.  THE MARGINAL COST IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS FOR THIS NOMINAL LUNAR PROGRAM WILL THUS BE ABOUT $3 BILLION.

Split 3 ways, $750 million is $250 million apiece. But that $750 million can't be split.

$750 Million is about twice the cost of the same mission using 4 mediums and a lunar orbiting fuel transfer facility. And using mediums, you have economies of scale.

It looks like the CEV is pricing out at about $750 million - $525 million = $225 million per copy, with each Ares 1 going for nearly $450 million = $525 million-say $80 million per cargo module or so.  

"THESE MARGINAL COSTS DO NOT INCLUDE AN ALLOCATION OF THE FIXED COSTS OF PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS WHICH WILL BE ASSIGNED TO EACH FLIGHT.

I got a question. If Thiokol wanted to enter the medium lift launch market, why didn't they do it on their own dime? Or why not DoD's, as for the existing medium EELVs? Why NASA's dime?

"LET US ASSUME A FIXED-COST SUPPORT BASE OF $1 BILLION ANNUALLY, ABOUT A THIRD OF THAT FOR THE SHUTTLE TODAY, EQUIVALENT TO ROUGHLY 6,000 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES AT AVERAGE FISCAL 2000 LABOR RATES.  WE SHOULD ALL WORK TO MAKE IT MUCH LESS,

I don't know how people feel about their home districts.

"BUT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATELY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE FOR THE PRESENT.  THIS YIELDS A SUSTAINED LUNAR PROGRAM COSTING NO MORE THAN $4 BILLION/YEAR, LEAVING $4.8 BILLION ANNUALLY IN THE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT ACCOUNT TO BE APPLIED TO NEW DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES.

Let's see.  Assume 2 CZ5 and 2 Angara at about $80 million per launch, or perhaps as low as $60 million per launch. About $400 million, split several ways, for each mission?

"BY THE 2020'S WE WILL BE WELL POSITIONED TO BEGIN THE MARS EFFORT IN EARNEST."

That is, if the taxpaying public wants to spend any money at all on manned flight to Mars, which is highly unlikely, given that they can see about all of Mars that they want to with rovers.

"THE LUNAR CAMPAIGN WILL HAVE STABILIZED; A HUMAN-TENDED OUTPOST WILL BE WELL ESTABLISHED; WE WILL HAVE EXTENSIVE LONG-DURATION SPACE EXPERIENCE IN BOTH ZERO- AND LOW-GRAVITY CONDITIONS, AND IT WILL BE TIME TO BUNDLE THESE LESSONS AND MOVE ON TO MARS WHICH DOES NOT IMPLY THAT WE WILL BRING LUNAR ACTIVITIES TO AN END.  QUITE THE CONTRARY; MY PREDICTION IS THAT THE MOON WILL PROVE TO BE FAR MORE INTERESTING, AND FAR MORE RELEVANT TO HUMAN AFFAIRS, THAN MANY TODAY ARE PREPARED TO BELIEVE.

Agree with you on that.

"BUT BY THE EARLY 2020S, IT WILL BE TIME TO ASSIGN A STABLE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR LUNAR ACTIVITIES, AND SET OUT FOR MARS.

See above.

"THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORION/ARES I/ARES V TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS BEING DONE IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES A SUBSTANTIAL CAPABILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT MARS EXPEDITIONS."

That's certainly an understatement.

"IN PARTICULAR, WE EXPECT THE ORION CREW VEHICLE (OR A MODEST UPGRADE OF IT) TO PROVIDE THE PRIMARY TRANSPORTATION FROM EARTH TO WHATEVER TRANSPORTATION NODE IS USED FOR THE ASSEMBLY OF THE MARS SHIP, AND TO BE THE REENTRY VEHICLE IN WHICH THE CREW RETURNS HOME AT THE END OF THE VOYAGE.  THE ARES V CARGO VEHICLE WILL PROVIDE, WITH NO MORE THAN A HALF-DOZEN LAUNCHES, THE 500 METRIC TONS OR SO WHICH IS THOUGHT TO BE NECESSARY FOR A MARS MISSION, BASED ON PRESENT-DAY STUDIES.  AS A PERSPECTIVE ON SCALE, THIS MASS IS ABOUT 25% GREATER THAN THAT OF THE COMPLETED ISS.

Yeah, if you don't launch wings and a body, and their heat shielding, you can put up a lot more mass. Since the performance numbers are as they are, why wasn't the development of the Ares 5 undertaken instead of the development of the Ares 1? Oh yeah, I forgot. Thiokol wanted to enter the medium launch market on NASA's dime.

"IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESTIMATE THE NON-RECURRING COST OF DEVELOPING A MARS MISSION THAT IS INITIATED SOME 20 OR MORE YEARS IN THE FUTURE, AND ESPECIALLY SO WHEN A SPECIFIC MISSION ARCHITECTURE HAS NOT YET BEEN FORMULATED.

Well, if you throw out any option using a large nuclear electic power generator launched over Ft. Lauderdale, that pretty much leaves solar electric and solar thermal architectures, now doesn't it?

"BUT REASONED ESTIMATES CAN BE MADE.  A SMALL GROUP CO-CHAIRED BY SKYLAB AND SHUTTLE ASTRONAUT OWEN GARRIOTT AND ME MADE AN ATTEMPT TO DO SO IN A STUDY CONDUCTED FOR THE PLANETARY SOCIETY IN 2004.  WHILE NECESSARILY OMITTING MANY IMPORTANT DETAILS, A REASONABLE APPROACH BASED ON MISSION MASS, CONSISTENT WITH MODERN COST ESTIMATION ALGORITHMS, WAS OUTLINED.  IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT, FOLLOWING A DECADAL HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE, NINE MARS MISSIONS COULD BE CONDUCTED OVER A 20-YEAR PERIOD FOR A TOTAL COST OF APPROXIMATELY $120 BILLION IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS, OR $6 BILLION/YEAR, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN WE ARE SPENDING ON SHUTTLE/ISS TODAY.

It was just my 'magination... running away with me....

(IF THIS SEEMS LOW, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COST OF THE HEAVY-LIFT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IS ALLOCATED TO THE EARLIER LUNAR PROGRAM. THE MARS PROGRAM WOULD PAY ONLY THE MARGINAL COST OF TRANSPORTATION.)"

As a lunar program using a different architecture could be done entirely with mediums, for which see Perimov's architecture, op. cit., clearly this is a rationalization and the entire development cost for the Ares 5 should be assigned to the manned Mars effort.

"ALLOCATING AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD 30% RESERVE AT THIS STAGE PUTS THE COST OF A 30-YEAR MARS EXPLORATION PROGRAM AT $156 BILLION IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS.  OF THIS, APPROXIMATELY $70 BILLION CONSISTS OF DEVELOPMENT COST, WITH RESERVE.  IF $4.8 BILLION/YEAR IS AVAILABLE IN THE HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT ACCOUNT, THEN THE MARS MISSION DEVELOPMENT CYCLE WILL REQUIRE ABOUT 15 YEARS.  THUS, IF WE BEGIN DEVELOPMENT WORK IN 2021, WE WILL BE ABLE TO TOUCH DOWN ON THE MARTIAN SURFACE IN ABOUT 2037, WITH FOLLOW-ON MISSIONS EVERY 26 MONTHS THEREAFTER FOR THE NEXT TWO DECADES."

Let's see, follow on missions every 26 months for the following 20 years? I wonder how many Thiokol grains that works out to...

"SO THERE WE HAVE IT, AT LEAST FOR THE U.S. CIVIL SPACE PROGRAM.  AT PRESENT LEVELS OF REAL-DOLLAR FUNDING, BY 2057 WE CAN CELEBRATE THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY OF A LUNAR BASE, 

2022 - but only the test of the manned Mars lander has been detailed so far. 

WHICH WILL BE GROWING IN CAPABILITY AT THE RATE OF 30 METRIC TONS PER YEAR, EVEN WITHOUT ASSUMING ANY INTERNATIONAL PARTNER CONTRIBUTION TO LOGISTICS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS OVERLY CONSERVATIVE."

You can not assume that anyone will give you money simply to fly to the Moon, test a manned Mars lander, step out and raise a flag. You can assume that no one overseas will pay you to do it. Choose an architecture which makes international participation difficult, and you can expect it to be shut down due to the expense...

Even as early as Kennedy, he was considering "co-ordinating" the US and Soviet Moon projects shortly before he was assassinated. 

Some people, and I include Zubrin and Tumlinson here, don't learn because they just don't want to. Unfortunately, the rest of us end up picking up the tab...

"WE CAN CELEBRATE THE 100TH SPUTNIK ANNIVERSARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST HUMAN MARS LANDING.  AND WE CAN DO ALL OF THESE THINGS EVEN WITH WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER THE PESSIMISTIC ASSUMPTION THAT WE RECEIVE NO MORE MONEY, IN CONSTANT DOLLARS, THAN WE DO TODAY.  INDEED, THERE SHOULD BE MONEY AVAILABLE FOR MISSIONS TO INTERESTING NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS, A SEPARATE CHALLENGE WHICH WE WILL COME TO UNDERSTAND OFFERS HUGE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE SEEKING TO DEVELOP A SPACEFARING CIVILIZATION."

My g*d, you can get an act of Congress passed, and the man still does not understnad.  These NEOs have hit sometimes, and there's these big holes left in the ground where they did. 

"THAT'S WHAT I SEE AHEAD FOR THE AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAM.  WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD?  BOTH RUSSIA AND CHINA HAVE DOMESTIC HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT CAPABILITY TODAY; INDEED, THE ISS PROGRAM WOULD BE IN VERY DIFFICULT STRAITS WITHOUT RUSSIAN CREW AND CARGO SERVICES.

Yes, indeed. After Columbia, the ISS would have been in the ocean without Progress/Soyuz.

OTHER NATIONS OR ALLIANCES EUROPE, JAPAN, INDIA, BRAZIL, OTHERS COULD DEVELOP SIMILAR CAPABILITY WITHIN A FEW YEARS OF A DECISION TO DO SO."

Yes, but when they do so, it's highly likely that they won't be spending money simply to test a manned Mars lander.

China will make its decision around 2016.

"FOR ADVANCED NATIONS TODAY, POSSESSING THE CAPABILITY FOR HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT TO LEO IS A POLITICAL, NOT A TECHNICAL, DECISION.  BUT GOING BEYOND LEO, TO THE MOON, IS A PROBLEM OF A DIFFERENT ORDER.  AND YET, THE MOON IS A NECESSARY FIRST STEP OUTWARD FOR ANY NATION SEEKING A SPACEFARING FUTURE.  

Their space leaderships agree with this.

"SO LET US LOOK AT THE RESOURCES REQUIRED TO PURSUE SUCH A FUTURE.

"THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF APOLLO REQUIRED ABOUT $80-85 BILLION IN FISCAL 2000 CURRENCY, ABOUT THE SAME AS WE PREDICT WILL BE REQUIRED TO REDEVELOP SIMILAR CAPABILITIES."

As its not likely that anyone else will use the current US architecture (See Perimov's study) their development costs will be at least an order of magnitude less. As a matter of fact, one can break it out launcher by launcher, korabl by korabl ("spaceship by spaceship" seems so awkward; "capsule by capsule" doesn't work too well either; SZ by SZ?) if one wants.

"CONSTELLATION SYSTEMS WILL, AS STATED EARLIER, OFFER SUBSTANTIALLY MORE PERFORMANCE THAN APOLLO, BUT IT DOES SEEM AS IF AN EFFORT OF APPROXIMATELY THIS MAGNITUDE IS NECESSARY, NO MATTER WHAT. 

Jeezus, you have the blind, and then you have the willfully stupid.

THERE IS AN INHERENT OF THE COST VS. PERFORMANCE CURVE; IT TAKES A LOT OF EFFORT TO GET TO THE MOON,"

Only if you're using the Moon to develop a manned Mars system.

"AFTER WHICH ADDITIONAL CAPABILITY CAN BE ADDED AT SOMEWHAT LESS MARGINAL COST.

Yeah. For example, once you've developed a medium launcher (CZ5) and fuel transfer faciility (space station - 2014) then you can place them wherever you want.  

"SO LET'S ASSUME A MINIMUM REQUIRED EFFORT OF ABOUT $80 BILLION IS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A BASIC LUNAR CAPABILITY."

Once again, you only need to make that assumption if you're trying to use the Moon to test manned Mars systems.

"IN THE U.S., AT APPROXIMATE AVERAGE AEROSPACE LABOR RATES FOR FISCAL 2000, THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO AN EFFORT OF ROUGHLY 600,000 MAN-YEARS, OR 40,000 PEOPLE FOR 15 YEARS.  OTHER NATIONS WILL LIKELY OPERATE IN A SOMEWHAT LEANER FASHION THAN IS CHARACTERISTIC OF THE U.S. AEROSPACE CULTURE;"

Yeah. I don't think anyone else in the world is wealthy enough to afford this level of stupidity. 

"I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER MAX FAGET'S COMMENT TO ME THAT 'WE COULD HAVE DONE APOLLO WITH A LOT FEWER PEOPLE, BUT WE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT WITH ANY MORE.'  BUT IT REMAINS LIKELY THAT AN EFFORT SIMILAR TO APOLLO WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY NATION OR SOCIETY ATTEMPTING TO REACH THE MOON FOR THE FIRST TIME, PROVIDED IT HAS ACCESS TO THE NECESSARY INDUSTRIAL BASE AND AN ADEQUATE WORKFORCE."

Once again, one can look at the other architectures and price them out.  It's really not all that hard.

"MANY NATIONS OR ALLIANCES CAN, AS A MATTER OF POLITICAL CHOICE, DECIDE TO MOUNT SUCH AN EFFORT.  EUROPE HAS A POPULATION 50% GREATER THAN THAT OF THE U.S., YET SPENDS ON A PER-CAPITA BASIS ONLY ABOUT A FIFTH OF WHAT WE SPEND ON SPACE."

It's even less than that when one considers the massive US spending on DoD space systems.

"A FUTURE EUROPEAN GENERATION COULD CHOOSE TO DO OTHERWISE.  INDIA HAS A MIDDLE CLASS POPULATION EQUAL IN SIZE TO THE ENTIRE U.S. POPULATION, AND PRODUCES ENGINEERING GRADUATES EQUAL TO THE BEST ANYWHERE.  CHINESE SPACE AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES HAVE REMARKED PUBLICLY THAT, TODAY, SOME 200,000 ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS ARE ENGAGED IN SPACE-RELATED WORK.  AND OF COURSE RUSSIA COULD BEGIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LUNAR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM TODAY, ESSENTIALLY AT ITS DISCRETION, GIVEN ITS EXISTING SPACEFLIGHT CAPABILITY AND THE RECENT AND CONTINUING FLOW OF ENERGY MONEY INTO THAT COUNTRY.

"BY THE MID-TO-LATE 2020'S, AT THE LATEST, SEVERAL NATIONS WILL HAVE THE INDEPENDENT CAPABILITY TO REACH THE MOON, AND WILL BE DOING SO.  MY HOPE IS THAT THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS CAN BE BENT MORE TOWARD A COOPERATIVE THAN A COMPETITIVE AGENDA. 

Its likely they will, regardless of any US effort to "bend" them. As a matter of fact, go in with that attitude and they're likely to tell you to get bent.

I BELIEVE THAT NATIONS WILL FIND IT TO BE IN THEIR INTERESTS TO COOPERATE IN LUNAR EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT, AS THEY DO IN ANTARCTICA TODAY."

That's true.

"BUT IT WILL ALSO BE TRUE THAT EACH NATION TO DEVELOP KEY ELEMENTS OF SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE, ESPECIALLY TRANSPORTATION BUT ALSO NAVIGATION AND COMMUNICATIONS ASSETS, WILL BE UNLIKELY TO SET THEM ASIDE IN FAVOR OF RELIANCE ON OTHERS."

Actually, what will probably come about will not be single source "reliance" but rather mutual interactions with multiple countries, all providing medium lift launchers - see Perimov's architecture.

"FOR THE NEXT GENERATION, MAYBE AS MUCH AS TWO DECADES, THE U.S. MAY WELL BE THE ONLY NATION CAPABLE OF REACHING THE MOON ON ITS OWN."

Actually, as was stated earlier, Russia is capable of reaching the Moon, but can not afford to go alone and is unlikely to go unless there is a really good reason for going.

China will make its decision around 2016.  The world will be different then.  Who knows? Will China and India be co-operating by then? Who knows? Why'd you leave Japan off your list? 

"BUT MUCH BEYOND THAT, AND I SUSPECT THAT WE'LL BE THERE WITH OTHERS. THE MOON WILL BE WITHIN THE GRASP OF A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ADVANCED NATIONS.  IT WILL BE THE NEXT BIG LEAP, A VOYAGE TO MARS, WHERE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IS A REQUIREMENT, RATHER THAN AN OPTION."

Actually, due to its cost, sustained working on the Moon is likely to require international cooperation, so choose an architecture which makes that possible.

"WHAT WILL BE THE ROLE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE ENTITIES IN HUMAN EXPLORATION?  BY 'COMMERCIAL SPACE', I MEAN SPACE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES WHICH DEVELOP A MARKETABLE CAPABILITY WHILE DEALING AT 'ARMS LENGTH' WITH THE GOVERNMENT; I.E., LARGELY WITHOUT THE FINANCIAL BACKING AND CLOSE GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION WHICH HAS HISTORICALLY CHARACTERIZED THE SPACE INDUSTRY.  THE GOVERNMENT WILL, AT LEAST INITIALLY, STILL BE THE MAJOR CUSTOMER FOR SUCH ENTERPRISES.

Funny how that works. Maybe it has something to do with the engineering realities imposed by  the laws of physics.

"WHETHER OR NOT AN ENTERPRISE IS PART OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACE ARENA DEPENDS NOT ON THE IDENTITY OF ITS CUSTOMERS, BUT ON THE NATURE OF ITS INTERACTIONS WITH THAT CUSTOMER.

Maybe with enough bs, one can "hide" reality.

"I EXPECT THAT THE ROLE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE IN HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION WILL BE SIGNIFICANT, AND POSSIBLY TRANSFORMING, OVER THE NEXT FIVE DECADES AND BEYOND."

Well, we could always shut down NASA and hire WalMart to buy the CAPS services from China.

"WE AT NASA ARE PRESENTLY ENGAGED IN AN EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A COMMERCIAL FIRM TO DEVELOP ORBITAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITIES WITHOUT THE CLOSE SUPERVISION OF THE GOVERNMENT.  

Let's all pray to our deity that Space X's Falcon works. (Atheists can simply take a minute to hope if they like.)

THE LATTER APPROACH, THROUGH WHAT ARE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 'PRIME CONTRACTS' WITH INDUSTRY, HAS BEEN THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH OVER THE LAST FIVE DECADES FOR STATE-OF-THE-ART PROJECTS IN THE DEFENSE AND AEROSPACE INDUSTRY.  IT PRODUCES SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY AND AT GREAT EXPENSE."

Its funny how much those "prime contract' expenses have risen in recent years. Which is to say, its sad how much those "prime contract' expenses have risen in recent years.

"I BELIEVE IT IS OBVIOUS TO MOST THAT, IF A DESIRED PRODUCT LIES WITHIN THE STATE OF THE ART, IT CAN BE PROVIDED WITH SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER EFFICIENCY BY THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR THAN BY THE GOVERNMENT.  THERE IS LITTLE COMPARATIVE DATA OBTAINED UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM OR TO ESTIMATE THE EFFICIENCY FACTOR INVOLVED. 

You left out the costs of all the "consultants", and the costs of the "bidding" processes, etc.

BUT, TO ME, THE LIMITED DATA AND MY OWN EXPERIENCE POINTS TO AN EFFICIENCY FACTOR OF THREE TO SEVEN IN FAVOR OF THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR.  WHATEVER THE FACTOR, THE LIKELY COST BENEFIT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT OF SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES, ONCE IT IS POSSIBLE, CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE IGNORED.  BUT, AGAIN, THE CRUCIAL ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE INTENDED PRODUCT LIES WELL WITHIN THE STATE OF THE ART.  WHEN THIS ASSUMPTION CANNOT BE MET, CLOSE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT WILL CONTINUE TO BE REQUIRED.  COMMERCIAL FIRMS SIMPLY CANNOT BE SUCCESSFUL IF ENGAGED IN A RESEARCH UPON WHOSE SUCCESS THEIR REVENUE DEPENDS.

Huh?

SOME HAVE OPINED THAT THE SCALE AND DIFFICULTY OF SPACEFLIGHT IS SUCH THAT IT WILL REMAIN AN INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL ENTERPRISE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.  I DO NOT SHARE THIS VIEW. 

Then why the hell are you subsidizing Thiokol's entry into the medium launch market?

FOR ME, THE QUESTION IS MORE PROPERLY WHEN, NOT IF, THE STATE OF THE ART IN ASTRONAUTICS WILL PERMIT A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE TO DEVELOP A SUCCESSFUL ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITY WITHOUT THE DIRECT SUPPORT AND THE ACCOMPANYING ONEROUS AND EXPENSIVE OVERSIGHT OF A GOVERNMENT PRIME CONTRACT.

You left out the costs of all the "consultants", and the costs of the "bidding" processes, etc.

WE AT NASA ARE ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS DATE HAS IN FACT ARRIVED.  

Actually you've tied ISS to COTS, two companies whose rocket have yet to work. Little less not dealt with docking problems, etc.  And you have no contingency plan. 

But then Tumlinson and Zubrin think ISS is a waste of money, so I guess that doesn't matter... to you.

BY PROVIDING SEED MONEY IN THE FORM OF SPACE ACT AGREEMENTS FOR TWO COMMERCIAL ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES (COTS) ENTITIES,

Subsidizing Kistler. Space X still has enough money left to go it alone. For your subsidies to Thiokol, see above.

WE HOPE TO STIMULATE THE ATTAINMENT OF ENTREPRENEURIAL COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION.

Its all simply too wonderful. The existing launcher manufacturers are simply not defined as "commercial entities", which will certainly come as a surprise to their stockholders.

IF SUCH CAPABILITY IS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED, WE CAN THEN PROCURE SUCH SERVICES IN A MANNER MORE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ECONOMY AT LARGE THAN IS THE USUAL CASE IN THE GOVERNMENT-DRIVEN AEROSPACE SECTOR.  WE AT NASA ARE PREPARED TO STAND DOWN GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS AS AND WHEN COMMERCIAL CAPABILITY BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Better check with Thiokol about that.

WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIFIC COTS INITIATIVE IS SUCCESSFUL, THE COMMERCIAL SPACE BUSINESS MODEL WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME SO.

Space technology generally has high development costs, high risk, and a long pay back period.
That's why the government has a role.

A LONG-TERM GOVERNMENT SPONSORED SPACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM CARRIES WITH IT THE IMPLICIT DEMAND FOR MANY TONS OF CARGO LOGISTICS AND CREW TRANSPORT, OFFERING A STABLE AND TEMPTING MARKET NICHE FOR INDUSTRY. 

What the hell for? What goods or services will allow them to make money? And won't the ultimate buyer still be the government, at least in the case of manned space flight? And ultimately, exactly what services will those manned spaceflights provide to the taxpayer?

SOME ENTERPRISES WILL BE SURELY SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO SERVICE THIS MARKET, AND FROM THERE COMMERCIAL SPACE ACTIVITY WILL BLOOM.  

Let's all pray (or hope) that Space X's pressure fed liquids work.

IN ADDITION TO TRANSPORTATION, SPACE EXPLORATION IMPLIES THE NEED FOR COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION, POWER SYSTEMS, AND OTHER SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE.  THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE TARGETED BY SPECIFIC FIRMS AS SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED COMMERCIALLY, RATHER THAN BY GOVERNMENT.

As there are firms today that provide those goods and services, what the hell is the man talking about here?

I BELIEVE THAT THE FUTURE FOR U.S. CIVIL SPACE EXPLORATION THAT I HAVE OUTLINED HERE CAN BE ATTAINED WITH THE RESOURCES THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO NASA BY MEANS OF CONVENTIONAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS AND ACQUISITION STRATEGIES.

Well, there is some good news indeed. At least he understands that he can't spend more than the Congress appropriates.

BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS MUCH AS WE CAN ACHIEVE WITH THOSE RESOURCES, UNLESS WE CAN EFFECT REAL CHANGES IN OUR METHODS OF DOING BUSINESS.

Try changing your architecture.

IF WE WANT TO DO MORE, IF WE WANT A RICHER FUTURE, IF WE ARE UNSATISFIED BY THE RELATIVELY MODEST PROGRAM OF INNER SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION I HAVE ENVISIONED HERE, THERE MUST BE A CHANGE IN HOW WE GO ABOUT IT.  EMBRACING THE POSSIBILITIES INHERENT IN COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSACTIONS IS ONE SUCH METHOD.

PS - keeping your existing space firms in business is a good idea.

WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE TO DO TO BRING ABOUT THIS FUTURE?

Try preventing a country from being blown off the face of planet Earth.

MOST OF WHAT WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS SET FORTH HERE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED, IMPLICITLY OR EXPLICITLY, IN CONNECTION WITH BUDGETARY ISSUES, BUT IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO CONCENTRATE SOME ATTENTION ON THE MATTER.

THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR FUTURE SUCCESS IS STABILITY IN PURPOSE, STRATEGY, REQUIREMENTS, AND FUNDING.  

Stay this course?

APOLLO FUNDING WAS UNSTABLE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  

Actually, once the voters found out how bleak and barren the Moon and Mars were, few thought Flags and Footprints on the Moon was worth the cost. Why expect the current generation to conclude any different?  The decline in education?

THE HUGE RATE OF EARLY GROWTH ALLOWED THE APOLLO GOAL TO BE MET; THE ABRUPT CESSATION OF FUNDING AS THE GOAL DREW WITHIN SIGHT PRODUCED STRATEGIC DAMAGE THAT REMAINS UNTO THE PRESENT DAY.

Again, actually, once the voters found out how bleak and barren the Moon and Mars were, few thought Flags and Footprints on the Moon was worth the cost. Why expect the current generation to conclude any different?  The decline in education?

The shuttle caused the "strategic" damage.

TO BE SUCCESSFUL, PROGRAM MANAGERS (WHETHER IN GOVERNMENT OR INDUSTRY) NEED STABILITY.  ADDITIONALLY, THEY NEED THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE WILL BE SUCH STABILITY; DEFENSIVE PLANNING IS INHERENTLY WASTEFUL.

Okay, What you going to do with ISS if neither the Falcon or K-1 work?  And what are you going to do if they do? You still haven't covered docking and fuel transfer.

STABILITY OF PURPOSE, A RESULT OF AGREEMENT UPON PRIORITIES, IS AS IMPORTANT AS FUNDING STABILITY.  

Well, actually the Congress told the NASA Administrator that impactor detection was a priority, and he simply ignored them. 

MANAGERS MUST HAVE REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF WHAT IS DONE WITH THE RESOURCES PEOPLE, MONEY, AND TIME ENTRUSTED TO THEM.  IF FUNDING IS IN FACT STABLE, THEN ADDITIONAL MONEY WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS WHICH ARE, INEVITABLY, ENCOUNTERED IN ANY STATE-OF-THE-ART DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.  MANAGERS MUST HAVE THE LATITUDE TO SACRIFICE OR DEFER LOWER PRIORITY EFFORTS IN ORDER TO PROTECT MORE IMPORTANT ONES.  THIS IN TURN REQUIRES, AT A MINIMUM, BROAD AGREEMENT ON WHAT THOSE PRIORITIES ARE.

Well, actually the Congress told the NASA Administrator that impactor detection was a priority, and he simply ignored them. 

WHEN THIS CANNOT BE OBTAINED, EVERY PROGRAMMATIC OVERRUN AND EVERY MINOR BUDGET VARIATION PRODUCES DIVISIVE POLITICAL INFIGHTING OVER WHAT WILL BE SACRIFICED, AND WHAT WILL NOT.

Actually, the disgust with NASA over their failure to adequately deal with the impact hazard is pretty much bi-partisan, and no politically divisive infighting has occured over who is more disgusted, as everyone is. Pretty much like the disgust with the way the war in Iraq was handled.

A COMMON RESULT IS THAT NOTHING IS SACRIFICED AND ALL PROGRAMMATIC CONTENT IS PRESERVED, BUT AT A SLOWER PACE.  THIS PRODUCES AN INHERENT INEFFICIENCY IN THE EXECUTION OF ALL PROGRAMS, RESULTING IN MORE OVERRUNS, ETC., IN A DEGENERATING SPIRAL.  IT IS DIFFICULT, AND HUGELY WASTEFUL, TO CARRY OUT A PROGRAM IN SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT.

It is wasteful to spend money on a dead end architecture.

THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF STABILITY THAT IS EQUALLY CRUCIAL TO BRING ABOUT THE FUTURE OUTLINED HERE.  IT INVOLVES, ONCE AGAIN, A LESSON TO BE GAINED FROM THE PAST.  THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF FULLY UTILIZING THE SYSTEMS WE DEVELOP, AT HUGE EXPENSE, RATHER THAN DISCARDING THEM IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING WHICH IS APPEALING BECAUSE IT IS NEW.

Then why the hell are the EELVs not being used to service the ISS?

THIS ASPECT OF STABILITY HAS HAD A DIRECT IMPACT ON NASA'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN STABILITY OF BOTH PURPOSE AND FUNDING FOR DECADES.

Yes, it sure does.

WE MUST TREAT OUR SPACE SYSTEMS AS WE HAVE ALWAYS TREATED OUR AIRPLANES.  SUCCESSFUL AIRCRAFT DESIGNS, FROM GENERAL AVIATION AIRPLANES TO THE HIGHEST-PERFORMANCE MILITARY FIGHTERS, ARE EVOLVED, UPGRADED, AND USED FOR DECADES.

Then why the hell are the EELVs not being used to service the ISS?

JUST AS WITH DC-3'S, B-52'S, AND MANY OTHER AIRCRAFT, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT ORION AND ARES WILL BE FLOWN BY THE GRANDKIDS OF THE FIRST ASTRONAUTS WHO TAKE THEM INTO SPACE.

Thiokol is expecting a long income stream.

WE SIMPLY CANNOT AGAIN AFFORD THE STRATEGIC DISTRACTION, THE WASTED MONEY, THE SQUANDERED TALENT, AND THE LOST TIME OF BUILDING A NEW HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT SYSTEM, AND THEN USING IT FOR ONLY SIXTEEN MISSIONS.

The taxpayers pretty much determine how much of anything they want to buy.

ONCE AGAIN, A LOOK AT THE BUDGETARY HISTORY PROVIDES A SOBERING LESSON FOR THE FUTURE, A SOBERING VIEW OF WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. LET'S RECYCLE TO THE EARLY 1970S, A TIME OF BUDGETARY STARVATION FOR NASA, A TIME WHEN WE DID NOT YET HAVE THE SPACE SHUTTLE, BUT DID STILL HAVE THE APOLLO SYSTEMS, THE SATURN I-B AND SATURN V, THE APOLLO COMMAND/SERVICE MODULES (CSM), THE LUNAR LANDER, AND THE SKYLAB SYSTEM.  ALL OF THESE THINGS WERE IN EXISTENCE IN 1973, HAVING BEEN CREATED IN THAT SEMINAL FIRST 15 YEARS OF OUR AGENCY'S HISTORY.

MAKE NO MISTAKE; THESE SYSTEMS WERE FAR FROM PERFECT.  THEY WERE EXPENSIVE TO DEVELOP AND EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE.  OUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS, METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING, DID NOT REALLY KNOW QUITE WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY SET OUT TO ACCEPT PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S CHALLENGE TO GO TO THE MOON.  THEY LEARNED AS THEY WENT ALONG.

Actually, the people learned then that it was not worth the money, 

BUT WHAT THEY EVENTUALLY BUILT WORKED, AND WORKED WELL.  AND IT COULD HAVE KEPT WORKING AT A PRICE WE COULD AFFORD.

In other words, they learned that the marginal value of it was not even worth the marginal cost.

LET'S LOOK AT SOME RECURRING COSTS IN DOLLARS THEN AND NOW.  ALL COSTS INCLUDE BOTH HARDWARE AND MISSION OPERATIONS, AND ARE AT THE HIGH END OF THE RANGE OF POSSIBILITIES, BECAUSE THEY TAKE NO ADVANTAGE OF STABLE RATES OF PRODUCTION.  FISCAL 2000 COSTS ARE APPROXIMATE, OBTAINED BY INFLATING PROGRAMS IN THE AGGREGATE, RATHER THAN TRACKING AND INFLATING SEPARATE EXPENDITURES OF REAL-YEAR DOLLARS.

ELEMENT                  REAL-YEAR $ M    FY 2000 $ M
APOLLO CSM                       50           160 
AOOLLO LUNAR MODULE             120           400
APOLLO LUNAR MISSION            720          2400
SATURN I-B                       35           120 
SATURN V                        325          1100 
SKYLAB CLUSTER                  275           925

LET'S ASSUME THAT WE HAD KEPT FLYING WITH THE SYSTEMS WE HAD AT THE TIME, THAT WE HAD CONTINUED TO EXECUTE TWO MANNED APOLLO LUNAR MISSIONS EVERY YEAR, AS WAS DONE IN 1971-72.  THIS WOULD HAVE COST ABOUT $4.8 BILLION ANNUALLY IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS.

FURTHER, LET US ASSUME THAT WE HAD ESTABLISHED A CONTINUING PROGRAM OF SPACE STATION ACTIVITIES IN EARTH ORBIT, BUILT ON THE APOLLO CSM, SATURN I-B, AND SKYLAB SYSTEMS.  FOUR CREW ROTATION LAUNCHES PER YEAR, PLUS A NEW SKYLAB CLUSTER EVERY FIVE YEARS TO AUGMENT OR REPLACE EXISTING MODULES, WOULD HAVE COST ABOUT $1.5 BILLION/YEAR.  THIS ENTIRE PROGRAM OF SIX MANNED FLIGHTS PER YEAR, TWO OF THEM TO THE MOON, WOULD HAVE COST ABOUT $6.3 BILLION ANNUALLY IN FISCAL 2000 DOLLARS.  THE AVERAGE ANNUAL NASA BUDGET IN THE 15 DIFFICULT YEARS FROM 1974-88 WAS $10.5 BILLION; WITH 60% OF IT ALLOCATED TO HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO CONTINUE A STABLE PROGRAM OF LUNAR EXPLORATION AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARTH ORBITAL INFRASTRUCTURE.  I SUGGEST THAT THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVE THAN THE CHOICES THAT WERE IN FACT MADE, ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO.

It wasn't worth the money then, and that's why the effort began to develop a cheaper launch system; the CEV/Ares1 and Ares 5 look to be even more expensive.

von Braun's original Saturn 1 medium launcher used parachute recovery, and he knew the Saturn 5 was too expensive, and knew it early on. von Braun assigned Koelle this ROV task in 1963-1964. 

First you had the heat shield problems, then you had the reconfiguration of the shuttle by the DoD, and then you had the substitution of the pressure fed liquids by Thiokol's solids. And then it was over: A launcher so bad von Braun quit, and began to work trying to set up a distributed computer network, an internet, using comsats.

Thank g*d that at least stupidity is international.  Brezhnev also wasted the Soviet Union's wealth on Buran. 

AFTER A TIME, AS NASA BUDGETS ONCE AGAIN IMPROVED, WE WOULD HAVE BEGUN TO CONCENTRATE OUR LUNAR ACTIVITY AROUND AN OUTPOST, AND WE WOULD HAVE USED CARGO MISSIONS TO EMPLACE THE OUTPOST EQUIPMENT.  A MODIFIED APOLLO LUNAR MODULE DESCENT STAGE, WITH EXTRA FUEL AND CARGO REPLACING THE ASCENT STAGE, COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE PURPOSE.  THE SATURN V COULD DELIVER TWO SUCH VEHICLES WITH A SINGLE LAUNCH.

What for?

SO, OVER TIME, WE COULD HAVE BUILT UP AN EARLY LUNAR OUTPOST, OR SMALLER ONES AT DIFFERENT PLACES OF INTEREST.  BY THE PRESENT DAY, USING WHAT WE HAD WITH MINIMAL MODIFICATIONS, AND I WILL REMIND US ALL THAT THE SOYUZ SYSTEMS OF THAT ERA ARE STILL FLYING, WE WOULD HAVE A VAST STORE OF EXPERIENCE AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF LUNAR INFRASTRUCTURE. 

Once again, what for?

WHEN THE CIVIL SPACE BUDGET EVENTUALLY IMPROVED, AS IT DID, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN WELL POSITIONED TO BEGIN DEVELOPMENT OF A MARS MISSION.  

What for?

AND IN THE MEANTIME, WITHOUT DOUBT, WE WOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO MODIFY, REFINE, AND INCREMENTALLY IMPROVE THE OLD APOLLO DESIGNS, TO THE POINT WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE PROVIDED GREATLY ENHANCED EFFECTIVENESS BY THE PRESENT DAY.

IF WE HAD DONE ALL THIS, WE WOULD BE ON MARS TODAY, NOT WRITING ABOUT IT AS A SUBJECT FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.

Right. We could have sent a few people to Mars then, but didn't because it wasn't worth the money.

WE WOULD HAVE DECADES OF EXPERIENCE OPERATING LONG-DURATION SPACE SYSTEMS IN EARTH ORBIT, AND SIMILAR DECADES OF EXPERIENCE IN EXPLORING AND LEARNING TO UTILIZE THE MOON.  

What for?

THIS ESSAY ON THE NEXT 50 YEARS WOULD BE QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE I AM OFFERING HERE.  I THINK MOST OF US WILL AGREE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER ONE.

The public decided what they wanted - a cheaper manned space program with the shuttle. But the shuttle did not deliver that.

NOW, NOTHING IS AS EASY AS PLANNING IN HINDSIGHT, NOR AS PERMANENT AS A LOST OPPORTUNITY.

And no one is as dead as a person hit by an impactor. As Pliny put it, "than which no more terrible form of death is to be feared."

I OFFER THE ALTERNATIVE HISTORY ABOVE NOT TO THROW STONES AT POLICYMAKERS LONG DEPARTED FROM THE SCENE, BUT TO INFORM FUTURE DECISIONS.

You'll get another chance at the Houston oral history debrief.

IF WE IGNORE THESE LESSONS, WE WILL SURELY REPEAT THEM.

Hell, if you didn't learn them the first time, you surely will.

THE VISION OF THE NEXT 50 YEARS IN SPACE THAT I HAVE OUTLINED HERE IS NOT A FLIGHT OF FANCY.  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A COURSE CHANGE FROM PRESENT UNDERSTANDINGS, NOR DOES IT REQUIRE EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF COSTLY NEW TECHNOLOGY.  IT IS A LOGICAL, INCREMENTAL, STABLE, SUSTAINABLE PLAN THAT CAN BE EXECUTED WITH REALISTICALLY ATTAINABLE BUDGETS.

I don't think so. For the reasons stated here.

FOR THESE REASONS, I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL BE DONE, AND DONE AS ENVISIONED HERE.  WE REALLY CAN CELEBRATE THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF SPUTNIK WITH THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST HUMAN LANDING ON MARS.  IT IS UP TO US TO MAKE IT SO.

I don't think so. For the reasons stated here.

-- MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN IS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.

E.P. Grondine  
Man and Impact in the Americas, and 
A History of Cosmonautics,


_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail®: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile2_042009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20090430/0c1289bd/attachment-0001.html