[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, I hope you will be reassured to learn that I have long publicly  
objected to the glib "going around in circles" dismissal of LEO  
facilities. LEO is an excellent locale for the space life sciences,  
which are (in my opinion) the foundation of human space exploration.

However, the 2003 article you cite appears to propose a space  
infrastructure that shows literally no regard to fiscal realities.

Remember that "NASA proposes but Congress disposes." NASA can only do  
what is authorized and funded. Space settlements are just one item on  
a very long list of undertakings that NASA cannot legally engage in.

JBC
(some typos due to iPhone touchpad)

On Sep 14, 2009, at 21:58, "Jens Kieffer-Olsen" <dstdba at post4.tele.dk>  
wrote:

>
> Hi JBC,
>
> Hopefully nobody will object to robots in space where applicable :-)
>
> My concern is that some people come across as 'tired of going round
> in circles around the Earth'. They even seem to argue that once the
> goal of building the ISS has finished, it should be discarded with a
> hollow howl of 'mission accomplished'.
>
> Through google I find just one treatise which advocates multiple LEO
> stations. That is "The Initial Nine Space Settlements" from 2003 by
> Anita Gale and Richard Edwards:
>
> http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS0
> 00654000001001187000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
>
> Does NASA listen to proceedings from the American Institute of  
> Physics?
>
> --
> Jens Kieffer-Olsen
> Slagelse, Denmark
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John [mailto:jbcharle at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:07 AM
>>
>> 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
>