With this post, I will cover what the policy is now and speculate on what its
future course may go. This post won't be too long, because it the latter is
about the future which is too hard to see. But it is the most interesting, no
doubt.
To illustrate current policy in the most succinct manner, let's look at the following
chart from Obama's commission that reviewed US manned space program. There are
eight options listed that would give the most realistic scenarios going forward-
these are based upon the interplay between budgetary constraints and national goals.
I made a screen shot and edited it into this form for display here. Then, I added
my own comments in column to the far right. Let's go over each of these rows of
options. The first column is an option, the second column is budgetary assumptions,
and the remaining columns are goals and means to goals. I added the column in which
I think the likely outcome of the option may be. This includes my opinion, based
upon the projected likelihood of a Republican victory in the midterm elections
being held as of this writing.
The first option is already dead as far as I can tell. It won't be picked up again
by the new Congress.
The second option might have a chance if the ISS is cancelled early. This would
free up some money.
These first two options are consistent with Bush's Constellation program of record
as of the time the report was issued. Obama has already decided to not to do it
that way. Congress will have to change directions in order to go back to this.
Not likely.
The next three options are also not favored by Obama (as far as I know). These
are not likely either. The Republicans will want to cut spending, not increase it.
The best the Republicans can do is to look for areas to cut. Looking at option 3,
the Ares program could become a target for replacement. This is already happening
anyway and could accelerate. Ares V is probably in trouble here and will at least
be replaced by Ares light configuration. This cuts out the Ares I configuration.
This means instead of two rocket systems- Ares I to launch crew; Ares V to launch
cargo- there will be one Ares light system to launch cargo and crew separately.
Option 4 will extend the ISS to 2020 which could become a target of budget cuts.
Option 5 will scrap the Ares program altogether and use a shuttle derived crew
and cargo option, while keeping the ISS to 2020. I consider this least likely
because Obama's opposition. The Republicans might consider this though, because
using the Shuttle derived system can get you back to the Moon and would not require
a substantially new launch system to be developed- such as Ares. The cheapest
option would be Option 5 modified to include a de orbit of ISS. Won't happen.
The next options are more likely to favored by Obama (again as far as I know). As
a matter of fact, Option 5A would keep the Ares light configuration and the ISS.
But the Republicans may want to de orbit the ISS. This is likely not to happen
because of Obama's opposition. The next option is most intriguing, but would
require a new launch system based upon the Delta system being currently used for
unmanned missions. It would create the most upheaval at NASA, but would result
in lower costs over the long run. The last option is to use the Shuttle system,
but with in flight refueling. This one is also a possibilty, but is the least
capable system considered. It would also have higher life cycle costs. The
cheapest possible system would be this one combined with the early end of ISS (not
listed here as an option). But it would be the least appealing scientifically and
technically. It's virtue would be in the least disruptive configuration to NASA
and low up front costs. Life cycle costs would be higher in the long run.
If the Republicans are bold, they will take the Delta option with refueling. If
they are timid, they will follow Obama's current pathway with Ares light flexible
path. They might try to cut ISS, but won't likely be successful. The most likely
path will be these two in my opinion. The last option is possible if the political
scenario favors it. At this point, I wouldn't hazard a guess.
The last option, a shuttle derived system, is the one I would favor. I would forego
a trip to Mars and a manned trips to asteroids in favor of developing the most capable
moon base possible. From the moon base, it could be possible to build a new launch
system directly from the moon, which would ( I hope ) solve the launch problem. In
such as system, the moon would serve as a way station to the rest of the solar
system.
No comments:
Post a Comment