An alternate Vision for Space Exploration

The Space Review ^ | 05/01/06 | Eric R. Hedman

[KevinDavis]

The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) may be in trouble. The recently leaked internal NASA LRA-0 study report on the problems with the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), posted on nasaspaceflight.com and later retracted, is disturbing. Shrinking capabilities due to cost projections for developing the original design is making me wonder if it is the right plan for carrying out the Vision. I’ve read through the ESAS and it is an extensive document that lays out a case for its implementation. It gives reasons why certain decisions were made. I have to admit I don’t have the background to judge the merits of all the explanations, but from what I’m reading about these decisions, I’m beginning to have some serious doubts about them. NASA’s failure to release even a summary report on the failure of the DART mission has me wondering about their credibility, but that is another story.

[KevinDavis]

[r9etb]

NASA’s failure to release even a summary report on the failure of the DART mission has me wondering about their credibility, but that is another story.

Indeed it is -- and Mr. Hedman lost a lot of credibility at this point. If the guy's so naive as to think the NASA's DOD partners might not want the results released....

The two biggest advantages of having the ISS in a 28.5-degree orbit supported by the Soyuz or its successor and the shuttle’s successor are as that the ISS could be used to support trips beyond Earth orbit, and any launcher would have greater payload capability to this orbit.

And here his discussion becomes completely lame. Unless they start launching Soyuz boosters from the Cape -- which they won't -- his grasp of basic launch site effects shows that he's clueless about real space stuff.

[Carl LaFong]

Hillary--first woman on Pluto