Questions And Answers 

Here's an interesting letter to NASA from former astronaut Don Peterson addressing the Vision for Space Exploration. For someone who became an astronaut in 1969 and flew on the Shuttle in 1983, Mississippian Peterson seems to have rather myopic hindsight on the agency's history. His statement, for example that, "And then for some reason you must have felt (Apollo) had no long-term value, because you canceled two or three flights and shut the moon program down," is overly simplistic at best.
A few facts that Peterson would do well to reacquaint himself with:
--Apollo was a goal-oriented plan--To land a man on the Moon by the end of the decade and return him safely home. It's mandate did nothing to address the issue of sustainability.
--NASA has no control over the federal budget. If it did, space exploration would be very different than it is now. If Congress won't give NASA money for more Saturn Vs, it becomes very difficult to keep going to the Moon.
--NASA has no control over the Iran Nonproliferation Act. No matter how much NASA does or doesn't want more Soyuz vehicles, the agency can't simply order more.
--The planned life expectancy of Station from the outset has been the mid-2010s.
His argument that the Shuttle is a limited and flawed vehicle, I don't understand why you'd retire it is also a fascinating one.
What it comes down to, though, is that NASA has already addressed the concerns he raises, to wit: that NASA has a hard time keeping a program going.
The issue of sustainability has been a core part of the Vision since it was announced. This is not a goal-oriented initiative, but rather one designed to take larger and larger steps into the Solar System. A second major watchword of the program is affordability. NASA, I'm sure, would have been more than happy to continue Apollo for as long as Congress was willing to give the agency 4 percent of the national budget.
I don't know what the agency's official answers to Peterson's questions would be, but as someone who is relatively well-read about what's going on in spaceflight today, I'll take a shot at it.
Please explain to me why you think we no longer need the capabilities of the Shuttle, or an equivalent vehicle, to support human activities in low earth orbit.
The Shuttle fleet is aging, and needs to be replaced. What sense does it make to replace it with a vehicle limited to Low Earth Orbit when we could develop a system capable of both operating in LEO and of moving out into the solar system.
Tell me why you have changed your mind about the value of long term research on the Space Station.
At no point has anyone said the agency has "changed its mind" about the valude of research on the Station. Rather, the Vision takes NASA's currently unfocused ISS science program and focuses it on areas believed to have the highest benefits for exploration.
Explain to me why the Space Station wouldn't serve as an excellent facility to test the systems and equipment that will be needed for the long journey to Mars and also provide an ideal place to assemble the Mars vehicles?
I don't know that anyone has said it wouldn't.
Why isn't it to our advantage scientifically and economically to participate in the burgeoning international human space flight effort? (Some U.S. companies are using Russian-made boosters because of their low cost, good performance, and high reliability.)
As Peterson notes repeatedly, NASA is involved in the International Space Station. While no specifics have been worked out, the president and NASA have both publicly expressed an interest in international cooperation for the Vision.
Finally, if you feel all the things that humans have done in the past on the moon and in low earth orbit are not worth continuing, why do you believe that humans on Mars will accomplish things that are worth the cost?
The argument that an agency feels that lunar exploration is not worth continuing while it is developing a program of lunar exploration is a fascinating one. Clearly NASA feels that lunar exploration is important. As for LEO, what is the point of continuing to swim in the shallow end of the pool when one can move on to the deep end? NASA is a long ways from abandoning LEO, but when, and if, it does, it will only be to move further into space.

:: :: 08:16 :: David :: [permalink] ::