I decided to create a new thread since I don't want this to get buried 50 comments deep.
I'll say right off that I was against Constellation from the very beginning, I believe there are posts on this board attesting to the fact. The biggest problem I've had with Constellation from the outset was it's stated goal of getting to the Moon and Mars by re-inventing Apollo. Let me just state right now that the Orion capsule will take no one to Mars. At most it will be just a life boat to return astronauts to earth after returning from Mars. Another vehicle would be required to do that. Frankly it'd be a waste to tug it all the way to Mars and back just to land people in the ocean some where. If we follow the Constellations Programs other stated goal of getting to the Moon, and we examine the history of the Apollo Program learning the same lessons, we'll likely do a few missions, conclude we've beaten everyone to the Moon again and sit back and wait to see what Russia, China or anyone else does to compare. Effectively, they would be the ones setting our goals for us and we we just race ahead to get it done before them. I don't think that qualifies as showing real leadership or vision.
Another angst I had against Constellation is that it canceled a lot of other worthwhile technologies that are necessary for doing things in outer space. Canceling such programs as JIMO in my opinion was ludicrous. Those are the types of technology that's going to allow people to work and stay in space and build a super earth economy involving the Earth, Moon, Mars, orbital outposts at Langrange points and asteroid bases. The question is: how do we make those possible? Constellation as I understood it was never going to make any of those things possible. We don't need more astronauts in space. We need civilians and lots of them.
How do we go about doing that? Well we have spent the last 100 years or so trying to squeeze ever bit of performance out of chemical rockets. I suspect we are not going to squeeze an order of magnitude better performance out of them any time soon. Ares1 reliance on 1000 years old solid rocket technology is just not the way to go. We have some technology already in the wings, we need to boost those, if not to reduce the actual cost of going to space, then to allow us to quickly boost not only people but cargo at a rapid rate in a transport system that doesn't throw billions of dollars away in expendable rockets.
I was upset, that Charlie Bolden did not better express to Congress the advantages of the "flexible path" and the ramp up in investments in the technologies that would be allowed by the "flexible path". We are too caught up in the fact that NASA needs to have some very specific object in space to go to at some very specific time. I'm going to draw a lot of flack here and say that Kennedy did us an injustice by setting us on a path to the moon at the time he did with the technology available and non existent space infrastructure at the time. It pretty much guaranteed the position we are in now. The better approach I think would have been to scale our progress progressively to orbit, then onto orbital space stations (space infrastructure) and then on to the moon. Getting the infrastructure in place is critical to anything that we are trying to do. If we don't have the right tools to do the job, we might still get it done but it's going to take longer and add significant costs.
What Bolden, Holdren and NASA staffers should be telling congress and the rest of America is simple.
Constellation, meant one thing and one thing only. Only NASA goverment/employees would be going to the moon and maybe Mars in the next 30 years if not longer. The only destination would be the moon because flying Orion anywhere for any length of time was not a designed in feature. What the flexible path allows are the following:
1) An investment in enabling technologies that will allow NASA to pick and choice any destination it wants to go in the inner solar system with a manned vehicle, whether the Moon, Mars, Asteroids, Langrange points or where ever.
This would be akin to getting in your car and knowing you can go to any of destination in range. No one builds the car to go to X destination, but they build it to go X miles and any destination within that reach.
2) Invest in private/commercial companies so that they can build multiple redundant launch vehicles at reduced cost which will expand the industrial base and the economy.
The gloat factor: while Russia or China or anyone else has to rely on government programs to get them to space, we would have advanced so far that we can allow mere private companies to do what other countries need governments to do. If that does not indicate American prowess and leadership in space, I'm not sure what else will. I think that indicates more prowess than another flags and bootprints missions to the moon.
3) The inspiration angle. The critical thing here is getting the technological base, and the research and
development programs moving forward again so that a significant amount of people can participate and benefit while growing the economy at large.
My most galling concern with Constellation, is that only a select few people will ever get to set foot on the Moon under it's umbrella. People like you and me or our kids and grand kids would just be spectators of the show. With development in technologies any one can have their ego stroke by getting involve in those new enabling technologies that will launch more people to LEO, Moon and beyond. I think the space program will get a lot more support if more people believe they personally have the opportunity to go. The way to do that is to develop the enabling technology to allow it to happen.
I'll say right off that I was against Constellation from the very beginning, I believe there are posts on this board attesting to the fact. The biggest problem I've had with Constellation from the outset was it's stated goal of getting to the Moon and Mars by re-inventing Apollo. Let me just state right now that the Orion capsule will take no one to Mars. At most it will be just a life boat to return astronauts to earth after returning from Mars. Another vehicle would be required to do that. Frankly it'd be a waste to tug it all the way to Mars and back just to land people in the ocean some where. If we follow the Constellations Programs other stated goal of getting to the Moon, and we examine the history of the Apollo Program learning the same lessons, we'll likely do a few missions, conclude we've beaten everyone to the Moon again and sit back and wait to see what Russia, China or anyone else does to compare. Effectively, they would be the ones setting our goals for us and we we just race ahead to get it done before them. I don't think that qualifies as showing real leadership or vision.
Another angst I had against Constellation is that it canceled a lot of other worthwhile technologies that are necessary for doing things in outer space. Canceling such programs as JIMO in my opinion was ludicrous. Those are the types of technology that's going to allow people to work and stay in space and build a super earth economy involving the Earth, Moon, Mars, orbital outposts at Langrange points and asteroid bases. The question is: how do we make those possible? Constellation as I understood it was never going to make any of those things possible. We don't need more astronauts in space. We need civilians and lots of them.
How do we go about doing that? Well we have spent the last 100 years or so trying to squeeze ever bit of performance out of chemical rockets. I suspect we are not going to squeeze an order of magnitude better performance out of them any time soon. Ares1 reliance on 1000 years old solid rocket technology is just not the way to go. We have some technology already in the wings, we need to boost those, if not to reduce the actual cost of going to space, then to allow us to quickly boost not only people but cargo at a rapid rate in a transport system that doesn't throw billions of dollars away in expendable rockets.
I was upset, that Charlie Bolden did not better express to Congress the advantages of the "flexible path" and the ramp up in investments in the technologies that would be allowed by the "flexible path". We are too caught up in the fact that NASA needs to have some very specific object in space to go to at some very specific time. I'm going to draw a lot of flack here and say that Kennedy did us an injustice by setting us on a path to the moon at the time he did with the technology available and non existent space infrastructure at the time. It pretty much guaranteed the position we are in now. The better approach I think would have been to scale our progress progressively to orbit, then onto orbital space stations (space infrastructure) and then on to the moon. Getting the infrastructure in place is critical to anything that we are trying to do. If we don't have the right tools to do the job, we might still get it done but it's going to take longer and add significant costs.
What Bolden, Holdren and NASA staffers should be telling congress and the rest of America is simple.
Constellation, meant one thing and one thing only. Only NASA goverment/employees would be going to the moon and maybe Mars in the next 30 years if not longer. The only destination would be the moon because flying Orion anywhere for any length of time was not a designed in feature. What the flexible path allows are the following:
1) An investment in enabling technologies that will allow NASA to pick and choice any destination it wants to go in the inner solar system with a manned vehicle, whether the Moon, Mars, Asteroids, Langrange points or where ever.
This would be akin to getting in your car and knowing you can go to any of destination in range. No one builds the car to go to X destination, but they build it to go X miles and any destination within that reach.
2) Invest in private/commercial companies so that they can build multiple redundant launch vehicles at reduced cost which will expand the industrial base and the economy.
The gloat factor: while Russia or China or anyone else has to rely on government programs to get them to space, we would have advanced so far that we can allow mere private companies to do what other countries need governments to do. If that does not indicate American prowess and leadership in space, I'm not sure what else will. I think that indicates more prowess than another flags and bootprints missions to the moon.
3) The inspiration angle. The critical thing here is getting the technological base, and the research and
development programs moving forward again so that a significant amount of people can participate and benefit while growing the economy at large.
My most galling concern with Constellation, is that only a select few people will ever get to set foot on the Moon under it's umbrella. People like you and me or our kids and grand kids would just be spectators of the show. With development in technologies any one can have their ego stroke by getting involve in those new enabling technologies that will launch more people to LEO, Moon and beyond. I think the space program will get a lot more support if more people believe they personally have the opportunity to go. The way to do that is to develop the enabling technology to allow it to happen.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram