Most people think that the end of the Constellation program, will impede NASA’s ability to go to the Moon and beyond. I believe that we can use the change in direction to get to the Moon or Mars faster than if we stuck to the Constellation program (at the very least we can get to Mars faster). The Constellation program, was projected to get us to the Moon by 2020. However, the program has been over-budget, and behind schedule. Given the lack of proper funding, I predict that if we choose to go through with the Constellation program we would not get to the moon until after 2020, maybe 2022 or 2025 if at all.

Eventhough, I agree that lack of proper funding is a major source of problems with the Constellation program, I still think that the Constellation program is a bad strategy for NASA. The reason that I think it is a bad strategy is because there are too many unknowns, too many things that need to be developed that can’t be developed until later in the program (or at the very least verified), and too rigid a box to get it done (it doesn’t help that we also don’t have the proper budget to get this done, but when you add physical constraints it makes life very difficult). Further the long development time, requires us to develop and work on technology that will be severely outdated by the time we get to use it.

What the Constellation program has given NASA is the strong and clear realization that we need to leave near earth orbit and go to the Moon, Mars and Beyond; while providing a clear path to doing it. The goal of going to the Moon or Mars has to remain central to any planning that NASA does.

• What technologies can NASA work on now, so that if we were to fund a program in the future to go to the Moon, Mars, etc it would reduce the amount of time needed to get the project done?

• What technologies can NASA work on now, that can be used as leverage in international partnerships, and commercial partnerships?

Do not be deceived, NASA has a real customer. The customer is the political market. As Mike Coats pointed out, in a recent All-Hands, around every eight years the political party in power changes, and with it comes new direction. Policy defines the priorities that NASA has to be concerned with, and the budget that we have for those specific priorities. Our objective is to explore, WE define that, independently of any policy direction that Congress and the President gives us. When a new direction is given by the President, we get to determine the method of implementing the direction. What we must be able to do is get a significant victory (several preferably) in the pursuit of going to other planets, every time that a new administration and direction is given to us.

For example, with the Constellation Program, the path to get anywhere took too long. Part of the path to the moon could have been to get to the ISS, as a first step, with the CEV capsule, in a method that would have gotten us there before the President was scheduled to leave office.  Scheduling this way would prohibit the project from being stopped by the next President. If we had a second method of getting to the ISS we could comfortably retire the Shuttle, and more funds would have been able to go to funding the path to the Moon or Mars. Also, it is very difficult to argue with success. If we show that we are making progress, the president has less leverage/reason to change the direction. Also, going to the ISS with a new vehicle would have been a great way of getting the public around our mission. Hindsight is 20/20, but this is a lesson that we must learn: there are real timelines (political ones), we must strategize to these timelines.

With the new budget and direction (Robotic Precursor Missions), we could develop a robotic expedition to go to the Moon and return. This would develop critical intelligence, that we have likely lost, in how to return to earth from another planet. By doing it through a robotic expedition, we can minimize the cost of getting this project done. If we do it in such a way that we could one day take cargo to the moon with the capsule, then we could use this project as a stepping stone for new projects in the future (like sending animal experiments to the Moon or Mars). We wouldn’t have to (or want to) develop new rocket technology, it would be wise to use existing technologies to get this done. If it is possible to do it with a stripped down version of the CEV capsule, then we can leverage the work we have already done for the Constellation Program. I don’t know enough, to say if the weight and size (geometric dimensions) would make using the CEV cost prohibitive.

With the “Heavy Lift and Propulsion R&D” money in the budget we could develop technologies that allow us to launch from on-orbit. Launching in space, reduces the amount of thrust and fuel needed to get to our destination. Launching on earth, requires a huge amount of thrust just to move, which causes the launch to go through extreme accelerations. The accelerations cause increased load, which requires stronger structure, which increases the weight. If we launch in space, we can develop rocket technology that has a more steady thrust release. We don’t have to accelerate as fast as we would from earth (we just accelerate for a longer time).   This would reduce the structural strength required (lowering the mass), while still having the ability to get to velocities that get us there quickly.

I guess I will leave with:

We don’t define policy, but we do get to define the approach of implementing the applicable policy. We have to maximize victories needed to explore space, within the political schedule. By showing progress within the political schedule, the policymakers have less leverage to change our direction, increasing the speed that we get to go to the Moon and Mars (or whatever other destination).   Also, the progress helps us get the public around our mission, which increases our chance of getting our budget increased.