Flexible Path doesn’t originate with Garver. The Augustine Committee developed Flexible Path.

And the President’s FY 2011 budget request adopts most of the key elements of the Augustine Committee’s report. That’s something that’s negotiated between NASA, OMB, OSTP, and other interested White House offices. It’s not something that any one person besides the President (including Garver) can ram through.

“As a result congress is now defining what our next chapter will be Flex path has become Lobby Path.”

The ball is with Congress, but the Senate’s FY 2011 authorization bill for NASA adopts and funds all the major human space flight elements of the President’s FY 2011 budget request (extend ISS to 2020, commercial crew and cargo, accelerate HLV, no Constellation funding). The only significant difference is that the bill adds money for Shuttle extension.

“Garver seems to unwilling to make any effort to even attempt to salvage a couple more Shuttle flights.”

Why? That would only knock 6-12 months off the gap while costing billions of dollars that could get the next system operational sooner.

“It is becoming more apparent that Garver is in bed with Obama calling the shot from the sidelines and Bolden is just mere figure head.”

Because Bolden in Space News is telling his troops to move out on the President’s FY 2011 budget request?

“… We have to be forward thinking and aggressive in our pursuit of new technologies to take us beyond low-Earth orbit, and the President’s plan does this. After years of underinvestment in new technology and unrealistic budgeting, we finally have an ambitious plan for NASA that sets the agency on a reinvigorated path of space exploration”

Yeah, Garver is obviously pulling the strings on that one.

Goofy…

OK, then we really not very far apart. You are more worried about zombification than I am, I am more optimistic about the possibility of NASA stimulating commercial development of space through manned spaceflight than you are.

I’m not 100% against it, it’s a matter of how much the U.S. government should spend on it. Like I said, there are some small public benefits to it, such as national prestige (during certain historical eras, not so important now) and motivating children to study science and education (of course there are other ways to motivate them, but astronauts help). And may be a small benefit to ISS as a microgravity lab now that it is up there. If you don’t think these benefits are worth it and just want to shut the whole thing down I won’t have a big quarrel with you.

If you had to peg me to a number, these benefits may be worth NASA spending $2 billion per year with similar contributions from Europe etc. on HSF, which practically means spending it all on ISS. That $2 billion doesn’t include technology research motivated by future HSF visions.

Perhaps $4 billion/year, half from NASA, is enough to maintain (not expand) ISS and keep it staffed with 3-5 people working 2-year shifts each based on a very small fleet of cargo delivery vehicles (we don’t need 5 different cargo delivery vehicles from 3 different countries) and two different Commercial Crew capabilities (one U.S. and one foreign). The current shifts of 6 months and shorter are economically unacceptable and need to be greatly lengthened (we will also learn a great deal about space medicine by doing this). If or when Exploration Directorate says it can’t do any HSF on $2 billion per year we should shut it down.

apparently you can’t tolerate Obama’s idea of commercial crew vehicles for it.

I’m actually in favor of this, although I’d like to see more SCOTS-like contracts, and more money paid out at cargo or crew delivery time and less at “milestone” time. I’m also against some of the terribly inflated expectations surrounding COTS, and the fraudulent belief that this is really “commerce.” Also per above I don’t think they need to be sending crew up and back to the ISS so often: they need to greatly lengthen the stays. But I know I don’t live in a perfect world, particularly when it comes to the Exploration Directorate. So I support the Obama/Bolden/Garver etc. plan right now as a “first step” as they say towards better ways for Exploration Directorate to conduct its business. If Exploration doesn’t start moving quickly in this direction it should be shut down. Like I said, no significant negative long-term consequence is likely to ensue from shutting down the E.D. It’s a nice-to-have, not an essential. I for example like watching the NASA channel like the next astronaut fan. But I’m not so egotistical to believe that the world is going to fall apart around me if I can’t have my entertainment.

What I don’t understand is why you stop short of saying NASA should get out of the manned spaceflight business altogether. You say you can tolerate a little bit of government funded manned spaceflight, but apparently you can’t tolerate Obama’s idea of commercial crew vehicles for it.

Uh yeah there is a little problem, it is not in the NASA Space Act identified as goal for NASA. Save for this, no problem!

Well, to each his unknown. I’d say space colonization is likely but very long-term, so that (for example) Garver’s quest to turn the Exploration Directorate into a space colonizing directorate is doomed to failure insofar as directly achieving that goal in this century is concerned. However, if done with good NACA-style research it could produce some nice technology, which might help achieve space colonization or other important goals for humanity in decades and centuries to come.

What I would like to see is for the rest of inner solar system to become part of our economic sphere of influence

I’m a big fan of this too. Part of this future is already here: machines in earth orbits, mostly higher ones, are already a very important part of our economy. Getting our economic machinery out to the moon and asteroids will probably take several more decades, and lunar tourism will probably follow after that. All the NASA lobbying in the world won’t hasten the spread of the real economy to the stars. More engineers working on economically realistic projects will.

Speaking of commerce beyond GEO, an interesting possibility to consider is that some space physics information is important to earth commerce. For example, solar monitoring and forecasting is important to radio-based telecommunications. So it’s possible that we will see some privatization, even entrepreneurial startups for some solar monitoring, analysis and reporting during this decade — analogous to the private weather forecasting business for agriculture etc. It’s just a hypothetical of course — by no means am I demanding $billions be spent by NASA to bring this about. But we really should be expanding our visions for commerce beyond earth orbit as you suggest — in ways that make economic sense, which means useful machines not astronaut extravaganzas.

I would want any government funded manned activity in LEO to be part of a plan that 1) intends to go beyond LEO eventually and 2) intends to blaze a trail for commerce to follow.

Alas, NASA more often leads astray than in the right direction. So #2 is pointless or even counterproductive. Commerce has many better ways to get clues about the future than to follow the fantasies of an economically unaccountable federal agency. The worst part of NASA is not that it costs too much, the worst part is that it does the wrong things, and I mean not slightly wrong but extremely wrong, when it comes to judging what makes economic sense and what does not. As for #1, I am fine with researchers setting their sights high, as long as they are just doing research and not pretending to help commerce by building “infrastructure” for these crazy Rube Goldberg hypothetical market scenarios.

I have no strong feelings either way about colonisation, it just seems very unlikely, except perhaps very far in the future on a terraformed Mars or Venus. What I would like to see is for the rest of inner solar system to become part of our economic sphere of influence, even if mostly for tourism.

I wouldn’t even call this a goal, since I’m not arguing for government funding for this. All I’m doing is objecting to a NASA monopoly. If any government money is spent on this it should be done with full supply side competition. Similarly I would want any government funded manned activity in LEO to be part of a plan that 1) intends to go beyond LEO eventually and 2) intends to blaze a trail for commerce to follow. Anything else seems like a colossal waste of money. As I’ve argued elsewhere anything you do towards those goals should of course also be judged according to cost, time scales, probability of success et cetera.

Either don’t do it at all, or do it in a way that advances those goals. I’d be happy with either option, though as a space enthusiast I’d be more excited about the latter option. Maintaining a NASA launch capability and not advancing those goals would be a colossal waste of money.

I love the new plan, but there is no such thing as “the first step” towards this goal. There many steps, many happening concurrently, many of them already happened, many yet to happen. Very few of them have or will happen in the Exploration Directorate.