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

Tue Sep 15 15:45:37 EDT 2009

 I feel very reassured indeed! As David put it, LEO
 will remain the only game in town for quite some
 time.

 I can't resist the temptation to point out though
 that the best investment in space is to capture an
 asteroid into GEO. Its orbit doesn't decay, you
 can refine its radiation-proof inside dwelling
 quarters, allow interplanetary spacecraft to dock
 and/or depart, etc.

 The initial cost of capturing an asteroid is indeed
 a hurdle, but the alternative of struggling to keep
 multiple LEO space stations operational bears very
 much proof to the adage that 'You have to be rich
 to be poor'.

--
Jens Kieffer-Olsen
Slagelse, Denmark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John [mailto:jbcharle at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:13 PM
> To: <dstdba at post4.tele.dk>
> Cc: FPSpace
> Subject: Re: [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, 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=nor
> mal&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.