[FPSPACE] Which way for NASA? A step-by-step path -- 'FlexiblePath' concept may work out better than fixation on moon orMars // September 11, 2009

[Jens Kieffer-Olsen]

 Jim's MSNBC commentary is good - very good - given that there
 is not enough money in the pot to both land a crew on Mars
 AND bring it back home to Earth.

 My only misgiving - and one that neither David nor John Charles 
 seems to address  - is that we are far from ready to 'dismiss'
 low Earth orbit. "Been there, done that" is NOT in my view the
 proper attitude to the challenge of mastering LEO!

 What we need is a string of international space stations. The
 ISS is in a rather arbitrary orbit, chosen to meet Russian
 requirements. Let's have a HISS as well, a High Inclination
 Space Station to study polar regions and release satellites
 into such orbits. And of course a zero inclination space
 station, from which to release interplanetary spacecraft.  

 If maintaining three international space stations is too tall
 an order, I don't think time is ready yet to contemplate the
 noble plan of establishing a permanent manned outpost on, say,
 Phobos.
 
--
Jens Kieffer-Olsen
Slagelse, Denmark

-----Original Message-----
From: John Charles [mailto:jbcharle at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:13 PM

 [snip]

> Someday, somebody will have to actually commit to a concrete
> architecture for human space exploration beyond low Earth orbit,
> and let human creativity bend that architecture to new and
> unanticipated uses.  Griffin made a valiant attempt, and always
> impressed me as someone who actually understood how things had
> to be arranged in order to work.  He also antagonized people,
> including some who now claim he "hated" this or that, and others
> who stood not to profit under his plans.

> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:59 AM, David Portree 
> <dsfportree at hotmail.com> wrote:

 [snip]

> > JSC and Griffin *hated" the DPT approach. Which probably 
> > means it's a good idea, JSC being the minds behind the Space
> > Shuttle and Shuttle-launched Space Station, after all.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: jameseoberg at comcast.net
> > To: fpspace at friends-partners.org
> > Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:16:04 -0500
> > 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32767421/ns/technology_and_science-space//
> >
> > Commentary By James Oberg // NBC News space analyst // 
> > Special to MSNBC

 [snip]

> > None of us really knows what criteria the White House will use
> > to select NASA's future course, or how policymakers will mix and
> > match among the options. 
> > In all my years of experience observing the Space Age, working
> > within the heart of it, and writing and speaking widely about it,
> > I've found that expecting rationality in the debate over space
> > policy is often a folly that ends in tears.
> >
> > I do want to make one plea, however. My own contribution to the
> > national debate is going to be a defense of the much-maligned
> > "look but don't touch" option - what the panel calls "Flexible
> > Path." I think it deserves more respect than it's been getting,
> > and I'd be content to see it emerge from the process.