That may be true, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. Here are some interesting statements on Orion by Ed Crawley and David Mindell in “U.S. Human Spaceflight: The FY11 Budget and the Flexible Path”. Ed Crawley was on the Augustine Committee.

http://web.mit.edu/press/images/reports/space-report.pdf

“Yet in view of planned technology investments, should the United States pursue the development of the Orion capsule, which is based on earlier technologies and will not be needed for at least 10 years? One could construct alternatives for Orion besides cancelation: a “lite” version as an option for commercial crew or a “very lite” version for NASA-supplied crew rescue from the ISS.”

Here’s some more from the document for those that say the FY2011 budget strays so far from the Augustine Committee options:

“The decisions signaled by the proposed FY 11 budget are within the range of options identified by the Augustine committee: 1) extending the Shuttle until FY 11, 2) extending the ISS until 2020, 3) choosing a new, probably liquid booster for super heavy lift, 4) relying on crew transport to the ISS supplied by a hybrid-commercial model with significant government incentives, and 5) pursuing a Flexible Path strategy for exploration. The choices made by the administration most resemble “Integrated Option 5B: Flexible Path – EELV Heritage super heavy launch vehicle” of the Augustine report.”

There’s more:

“In the interest of long-term stability and efficacy of the United States human spaceflight program, we recommend that in the current budget cycle, NASA should not attempt to define dates certain and destinations certain. To do so would be to again set up the circumstances that led to the most fundamental observation of the Augustine report, that NASA is “perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources,” leading to an “unsustainable trajectory” for the NASA’s human spaceflight program overall.”

There’s a lot more in the document. I do have a comment on the following 2 excerpts:

“The Augustine report envisioned initial test flights within the Earth-Moon system and then operational flights that include visits to “near earth objects” (NEOs, asteroids and spent comets), Mars flybys, Mars orbital flights and eventually exploration of the lunar and Mars surface.”

and

“Destinations in the Flexible Path have a logical progression. The Augustine report suggested that astronauts might first test the new systems in Earth–Moon space by traveling to lunar orbit and to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points (where the Earth and Moon’s gravity balance each other). Astronauts will then visit Earth-Sun Lagrange points, NEOs, Mars orbit and that of its moons, demonstrating new capabilities for servicing, repair, and construction along the way.”

My comment is that the early destinations in Earth-Moon space (lunar orbit, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, and geosynchronous Earth orbit, which their document adds as a Flexible Path destination) should not be considered just “test” destinations. There is a tremendous amount of work that can be done there to deliver security, science, economic, and other benefits, as well as to develop infrastructure and prepare for more ambitious exploration. I’m almost tempted to consider these earlier destinations to be more like “vegetables” and the deep space destinations like asteroids and Mars as “dessert”, at least for the decades that we’re concerned with.

“”the people of Nebraska are for free silver, so I am for free silver. I will look up the arguments later.” –William Jennings Bryan

YOUR ALL CAPS HAVE CONVINCED ME, I BELIEVE YOU!

“The GOP has done so much to successfully paint the democrats as the anti-military party that they are afraid even to make one of their own the defense secretary! Would that it were the same for NASA.”

To take pride in the ‘painting’ you describe above and the conclusions you draw from it worry me. America is much better than that. It’s based on people coming from all over the world and living together in the USA to make the most of it. Do you know where the U in USA stands for?

I would have asked him, “Senator, are we fighting aliens in space?”

He keeps equating NASA space craft to war vessels. The ISS is a national lab, it would be better to say when astronauts go from one terrestrial NASA lab to another do they take commercial flights, if so then this is no different.

“Reminds me of Griffin’s, “You can’t cancel the Navy.” comment.”

What’s wrong with that comment? Griffin was lamenting the fact that NASA gets turned inside out every time a new democrat President forms an Augustine committee. Much as Obama hates the US military he can’t do anything to change its mission. The GOP has done so much to successfully paint the democrats as the anti-military party that they are afraid even to make one of their own the defense secretary! Would that it were the same for NASA.

This is funny. The DoD has done a number of sale/lease back deals. Transports come to mind. Reminds me of Griffin’s, “You can’t cancel the Navy.” comment.

The same argument works against Ares V, which is supposed to be under study for two or three more years than the proposed new HLV before beginning full development.