NASA is 50 years old. That is a long time for an organization. How many businesses survive 50 years? Okay, so NASA does not generally need to worry about a hostile takeover by the Department of Energy, but still not many organizations last that long. Frustrated Engineers Battle with NASA over the Future of Spaceflight tells there is internal debate about NASA's plan to build a completely new rocket, called the Ares instead of reusing space shuttle components. Pieces Coming Together for First Test Launch of NASA's New Spacecraft tells that NASA will test the first stage of the Ares I this summer in a 25 mile test launch from Cape Canveral. The rocket scientists propose an alternative plan called Jupiter Direct which could fly a manned mission as early as 2013.
It is healthy to have debate. It has been largely forgotten, but the original Apollo lunar mission had a choice of a) direct ascent, b) earth orbit rendezvous, or c) lunar orbit rendezvous. Direct ascent would have a single monster rocket launched that would also land on the moon and return to earth. Earth orbit rendezvous would launch multiple rockets into earth orbit and then assemble the moon vehicle in orbit. Lunar orbit of course, was the selected approach for a main vehicle and a rendezvous vehicle to both travel to the moon. The lunar vehicle descended to the surface of the moon and then returned to orbit to rendezvous with the main ship for the return trip home.
It was a very passionate decision for the relatively young NASA. The U.S. unquestioned rocket authority, Wernher Von Braun, had originally supported direct ascent. But there was a better solution - lunar orbit rendezvous, and the agency selected it. So it is healthy for the NASA engineers to propose an alternative to the Ares rocket. The first manned Ares flight is not scheduled for five years after the retirement of the space shuttle. They want to close that gap quickly.
Mars Rising presents another alternative. It proposes that NASA abandon manned spaceflight completely and focus upon robotic missions for the moon and Mars. The cost and risk of robotic exploration is much less than manned missions. This too, is deja vu for NASA. Prior to the Mercury program, there were long arguments on whether manned space flight was even relevant. Chris Kraft argues in his biography, that without manned space flight, space exploration is not very interesting and will not be politically supported.
Mmm. Manned space flight is expensive. As we extend mankind's reach to Mars, we should probably begin to expect in-flight losses of crews. I wonder whether it is politically/culturally acceptable, and further, whether we should expose willing explorers to those risks. I am not against manned space flight, but we need to understand our culture is different than in 1960. We need to articulate why we need to send manned exploration missions to Mars. In short, NASA needs to articulate its mission.
Comments