The Columbia Accident Investigation Board reported on a variety of problems with NASA and its industrial supporters that, as recently as a few years ago, apparently have not even been addressed.

I am starting to say that NASA needs more Sidney Harmans, Benjamin Franklins (the man, not the $100 bill) and Arthur C. Clarkes and fewer Wernher von Brauns.

Why did I choose the three examples I did? Sidney Harman was the leading pioneer in creating high fidelity sound systems back in the 1950s. People of all stripes went out and bought such systems to improve their lives. They didn’t ask government to support Harman, Kardon and company. Benjamin Franklin was a great man who helped found — in many ways — the United States of America and much else. Once again, people flocked to support his works. Finally, Arthur C. Clarke, besides writing some fine science fiction, came up with the idea of putting up communication satellites — a space business that benefits all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. People freely pay for that industry. Interestingly enough, these three men were polymaths strongly inclined to supporting democratic societies.

Werner von Braun, on the other hand, created no such industry. The things he created depended upon government support. And support for democracy? He did flee in the direction of the Untied States when the Third Reich collapsed. I would have been more impressed if he had left for the United States in 1935, rather than 1945.

The problem w/Constellation comes back to Ares. Griffin’s bird was a lousy rocket; a flawed concept to build another 30 year program around and developmental problems coupled w/the economic collapse doomed it as configured.

Hence, for good or bad, my focus on putting capabilities in place.

The challenge as I see it is two fold:

1. Have a sense of urgency to get things done. Dates can do that, but not if everyone thinks they are just “movable goals”, and not real.

2. There has to be a perception that the money can run out, and that delays and overruns will continue to be funded.

Competition, when properly used, is very good at managing these two challenges.

Competitions don’t need firm completion dates, since everyone involved knows that only the winner(s) get rewarded and keep going.

For funding, as long as the competition identifies the monetary goals, the teams manage that too.

I think if Constellation had been run as a series of competitions, instead of having major portions chosen by a select few, it wouldn’t have run into the budget problems it did, and likely wouldn’t have ended so ignominiously.

And so far the COTS and CCDev programs have created redundant solutions (i.e. capable of sustaining failure and still continue on), while spending far less that comparable government-designed solutions.

Competitions are not perfect, but I think overall they create better outcomes than the alternative. I just hope NASA is allowed to expand it’s use.

My $0.02

“@Pathfinder01: Listen, dude, there is NOTHING wrong with flying another Apollo, so long as it expands & builds upon what that program achieved! What would you all rather have?—a repeat of the Space Shuttle?—a repeat of the ISS? Because then, we never ever leave Low Earth Orbit!”

Why do you write as if the Apollo architecture as we knew it is the only, or even the best way to reach the Moon? Do you understand why it was even chosen?

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Rendezvous.html

Keeping in mind what Costal Ron has said about being able to pick only two of the ‘good, fast, cheap’ options, the single-launch mission approach to reaching the Moon was chosen from the alternatives, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was selected because it had the best chance of getting men there ‘before the decade is out,’ and before the Soviets. Not because it was cheapest, most economical. Also, there were too many unknowns about fuel transfer in microgravity. (and there still are a few where cryofluids are concerned, but no obvious showstoppers…further reducing that risk is one of the tings we need to now be doing).

Today, there’s no such time pressure. beyond LEO systems can be assembled, tested (re)fueled, and operated Re-doing Apollo. or anything that ‘looks’ like it, won’t give us that. at a pace that makes engineering, not political sense.

What would capability would Constellation have given us that Apollo didn’t? Three men instead of two on the Lunar surface, for a slightly longer time, at more than we could afford, per infrequent mission? Do you understand when the first Lunar Constellation mission was projected to happen? (hint: STILL long after Shuttle retirement) What is ‘full cisclunar capability’ about that? That’s *marginal* capability. It’s not the 60’s. We can do better.

“What would you all rather have?—a repeat of the Space Shuttle?—a repeat of the ISS?”

I’m not interested in re-doing that either. What’s needed are *better* re-useable launchers and space stations, not giving up on the concepts. In the long run, you won’t be able to support ‘exploration’ or much of anything else without them. You see, we’re not ‘finished’ with LEO, no matter how many people are ‘bored’ or ‘stuck’ or ‘tired of round and round.’ There’s plenty to do there, including being a staging area to points beyond. Even Columbus needed a good harbor to start from.

“The Moon is vastly far more important of a destination, and should NOT be ignored, in favor of asteroids!”

I’m inclined to agree. Constellation would not have let us do it soon, in an affordable way, or in anything approaching a regular, large and permanent way. Much of what we already have, or is near-term, is adequate:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

Apollo is over, as are the circumstances that led us to do things that way. If anything, today’s plans are more nearly a ‘throwback’ to the perfectly rational, pre-Apollo concepts of assembling deep spacecraft in Earth orbit. As indeed, Apollo almost was, in EOR.

Pathetic.

Buzz has done a good job of diminishing his credibility in matters space related over the past few years. It appears to have been a business decision on his part. This takes nothing away from his aviation and aerospace accomplishments in times past, but Buzz is all about Buzz these days. For better or worse, he has embraced his ‘celebrity’ –sometimes well, sometimes quite poorly– and channelled it into some very odd enterprises of late- everything from the ‘Dancing with the Stars’ bit to hosting WWF events in Canada last year where a new generation witnessed him literally ‘moonwalking’ across a wrestling ring. Sad stuff. Years ago he was appearing on TV game shows and some sitcoms (‘Punky Brewster’ & v/o work in ‘The Simpsons’ comes to mind) as well as doing TV commericals endorsing commerative Apollo coin sets for some island nation; appeared on QVC peddling costly signed posters of himself on the moon and in 1994 he was at Macy’s in NYC peddling signed ‘moonrock’ neckties. Shades of Joe Lewis– and somewhat sad he’s still at it at 81. In his defense, he has said his underlying motivations have always been to keep the Apollo accomplishments in the public mind in some form. Of late that appears to be an increasingly tepid rationale.

“I agree from an organizational standpoint. I mean fake dates for doing exploration.” Have to agree with you there, unless the dates are dictatated by budgetary constraints. Can’t really see establishing a ‘firm’ date for exploration purposes. Those ‘target dates’ really apply to budget and performance time lines. As that CNN piece stated Sunday night, ‘They’ve been talking about going to Mars in 20 years for the past 30 years.’ In fact, Hugh Dryden tossed it out as a faux ‘goal’ in 1964 as well, along with manned flights to Venus.

Going back to the moon the right way (i.e. in a way that creates a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market) could be one of the best ways to make going to the moon (or anywhere else) a lot less expensive.