Sorry for the long hiatus, it's been a busy summer!
For those of you who have been following along, you know that the Augustine Committee presented options to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and NASA on August 14, 2009. Since then, we have been busy writing our report.
You can see detailed transcripts of our meetings under the Human Space Flight Plans Review section on www.nasa.gov. We hope to have our report out soon!
Leroy Chiao
Devon Island Expedition
This blog features educational updates on my Devon Island Expedition of July 14-20, 2007. Other sites: spaceref.com/blogs/earthclassroom, www.marsonearth.org
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Please ensure that the cost and schedule evaluations by the Aerospace Corp are used throughout. They may be over or under what would be in reality, but they do provide apples to apples.
Don't let NASA or anybody else "adjust" the cost and schedule to "reflect" "the way it really is".
Thanks Leroy for your great efforts on the Commission.
Thanks for your hard work during the commission Dr. Chiao!
After President Obama reads your report, I hope the president will see the wisdom of raising the NASA budget while also choosing the option that will most quickly and economically return us permanently back to the lunar surface. That's why I strongly support NASA's Sidemount Shuttle concept.
A permanent presence on the lunar surface is the first step towards Mars and the first major step towards colonizing and industrializing the rest of the solar system!
I think the HSF Committee has done great work:
- making a realistic assessment of NASA's budget and schedule for its current and alternative programs
- showing what it will take to get productive use out of the ISS
- encouraging commercial space
- giving different options about destinations
- encouraging revivial of NASA research and development
All of the non-POR options (2, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, and 5C) look like a big improvement to me, since they all extend and use the ISS, encourage commercial space flight for crew to/from LEO, and include a technology development program. Even option 2 (grim as it is) is an improvement.
I think my favorite option is 5B, Flexible Path with EELV Heritage, although it might be politically difficult. My bias is that I'm a bit skeptical that NASA can build an HLV even with the additional funds. I suspect additional money will be hard to come by anyway. There are a lot of other interests that might be ahead in line for that money, including other parts of NASA.
I imagine a less-ambitious verison of 5B with just existing EELVs and new commercial rockets could allow us to at least make incremental progress in exploration and satellite servicing near earth (eg: LEO, GEO, lunar orbit, Earth-Moon Lagrange points). Adding refueling and/or 40-50MT mini-HLVs could be affordable and achievable in a "partially" constrained budget environment, allowing additional exploration. Refueling and 40-50MT HLVs also strike me as being more likley to be useful for non-exploration applications than large HLVs, and perhaps thus more sustainable. Refueling also seems like a great way to bring international and commercial participation on board.
It will be interesting to see the full report, possibly with details on robotics and more on-ramps for commercial and international participation.
Leroy,
Bill Nelson has said of your work at the Ausustine Committee . "Why did we do all that and then throw it out?"
Obama has eliminated the entire US National Human Spaceflight Capability.
That requires his impeachment.
There is no silver lining to what he has done.
Post a Comment