And the comment on funding is true – if there were votes to buy Obama would have no problem tossing more money then NASA could ever use at it. But the sad thing is the American Public does not really care much about space flight, so the funding is not there.

If we (the US) were serious about space flight we could build any thing we could ever want. But as a nation we are directionless and lost in most catagories.

Now on to the committe I wish they would give Direct a chance to win out but that is not the right thing since NASA does not want this – why build two launchers when one is all you really need.

Tom

Lolololol! Damn! We actually agreed on something!

“Yes, but as the NYT and other articles indicate, the Augustine Committee has reduced the number of options from 864 to seven and will reduce the that to three or four. There will be no single recommendation, but as mentioned earlier in the thread, narrowing the options to such an extent does create _de facto_ recommendations.”

This is because the options had to satisfy the requirements. Of course they will not provide options to go to a man landing on Jupiter next year.

“Moreover, Augustine stated earlier that the options would be rated against a TBD set of criteria. Those ratings will also make clear that certain options are better than others for certain criteria, again making _de facto_ recommendations even if the word “recommendation” never appears in the report.”

Now that is a “new” development, expected, yet new. It had to be expected that someone would put a weight on those options. I still believe that the actual weighing system will come from the WH as it may involve much more than technical aspects. And what may look better to Augustine or you or I may not be what in the end looks better to the WH.

“And we’re probably kidding ourselves if we don’t think that the President or the Science Advisor aren’t going ask Augustine what Augustine’s or the Committee’s favored option is and why. Oh but to be a fly on the wall during that discussion…”

Back to my point above about the WH decision. And I never said they would not consult Augustine or the panel or anyone else to come up with a final result. My only point was that it was wrong to turn option into recommendation. It is clear that some will. Putting the cart before the horse does not help though.

Pffff I am done with this now. Onto more constructive things like looking at said recommendations! Arrghh I said it! Darn!

@Brad:

You’re welcome but the person to thank really is “Neil H.” at nasawatch.com. I think there are a lot of slides on the twitter website as well (http://www.twitter.com/NASA_HSF).

@JohnM and Brad:

Yep looks like good observations. The political sustainability issue will probably be the driver, not necessarily the timeline or the budget (trading very lightly here) though. Especilly considering that putting a person on Mars may look like a stunt that will not be achievable during this WH. I would say the chances are low. However, if it is preceived as a long term investement that will keep the workforce happy for the next 20 years then… And provides for real connections to national interests, more so than the other options… Anyway. So many ifs.

Good observations.

FWIW…

“Perhaps this might not be a drain on NASA, if international cooperation offsets the cost of flying ISS beyond 2016.” (Brad)

Budget-wise, ISS shouldn’t be a forcing function or much of a drain. Her annual budget is something less than $2 billion per year and is already paid in the budget projections through 2016. Extending to 2020 should only take about $8 billion, call it $10 billion tops, out of the $80 billion the Augustine Committee has to play with. The key is not to waste $40 billion reinventing intermediate LEO lift (current Ares I/Orion cost projection) to get to ISS.

ISS extension is arguably not worth $8-10 billion anyway, but it’s the least damaging of the three albatrosses (Ares I, Shuttle extension, and ISS extension) that NASA’s human space flight program faces.

FWIW…

1)The porklauncher, Ares I, looks dead. Only two of the seven options use Ares I, and one of those two options uses commercial crew services as well.

2)Commercial crew services is going to happen. Five out of the seven options exploit commercial crew services.

3)The Shuttle orbiter looks like it will still retire close to schedule. Only one of the seven options extends orbiter operations through 2015.

4)Ares V may not survive. Even though HLV is endorsed with every option, Ares V is only included in four out of the seven, and those four (IMHO) consist of the less probable choices.

5)Propellant depots are enabling to one option, and mentioned as enhancing three options, so depots are not ignored and have a fair chance for future development. Particularly when you take into account that commercial services are included in every option.

6)The ISS is not going to de-orbit in 2016. Five of the seven options extend ISS operations through 2020. The committee’s hope to expand international cooperation will only emphasize the importance of the ISS. Perhaps this might not be a drain on NASA, if international cooperation offsets the cost of flying ISS beyond 2016.

I wish I were wrong … but I fear that I am not.

John M

http://www.space.com/news/090805-human-spaceflight-options.html

Mr. Bejmuk’s comments at the end of the article are spot on, and coming from the head of the Constellation Program Standing Review Board, rather indicative of the poor state of the program.

FWIW…