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

[John]

Jens,

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position. Personally I am in  
favor of a space program with robots doing what they do best--which is  
acting as surrogates for people in places we cannot or don't want to  
send people--and with people in LEO, and on the Moon, and on Mars and  
elsewhere, doing the scientific investigations that they do best.

My comment about having had a goal for the past few years relates to  
the way it focused our planning onto those space life sciences  
research topics that contributed to the goal.  I will miss that focus.

JBC
(some typos due to iPhone touchpad)

On Sep 13, 2009, at 14:15, "Jens Kieffer-Olsen" <dstdba at post4.tele.dk>  
wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> FPSPACE mailing list
> FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
> http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace