Members of the Augustine Commission on Human Space Flight Plans announced.
h/t NASAwatch
- Norman Augustine (chair), retired chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corp., and former member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
- Dr. Wanda Austin, president and CEO, The Aerospace Corp.
- Bohdan Bejmuk, chair, Constellation program Standing Review Board, and former manager of the Boeing Space Shuttle and Sea Launch programs
- Dr. Leroy Chiao, former astronaut, former International Space Station commander and engineering consultant
- Dr. Christopher Chyba, professor of Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs, Princeton University, and member, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
- Dr. Edward Crawley, Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT and co-chair, NASA Exploration Technology Development Program Review Committee
- Jeffrey Greason, co-founder and CEO, XCOR Aerospace, and vice-chair, Personal Spaceflight Federation
- Dr. Charles Kennel, chair, National Academies Space Studies Board, and director and professor emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
- Retired Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles, chair, National Academies Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program, former Air Force vice chief of staff and former commander of the Air Force Materiel Command
- Dr. Sally Ride, former astronaut, first American woman in space, CEO of Sally Ride Science and professor emerita at the University of California, San Diego
Write Stuff Blog has good sources.
The new name is Charles Kennel - former Director of Mission to Planet Earth and NASA AA.
"...the panel will examine ongoing and planned NASA development activities and potential alternatives in order to present options for advancing a safe, innovative, affordable and sustainable human space flight program following the space shuttle's retirement. The committee will present its results in time to support an administration decision on the way forward by August 2009."
"...conduct an independent review of ongoing U.S. human space flight plans and programs, as weel as alternatives, to ensure the Nation is pursuing the best trajectory for the future of human space flight - one that is safe, innovative, affordable and sustainable. (ed. choose any 2 of 4?)
The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle.
...address the following objectives:
a) expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station
b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit
c) stimulating commercial space flight capability
d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities
In addition... examine the appropriate amount of research and development and complementary robotic activities needed to make human space flight most productive and affordable over the long term, as well as appropriate opportunities for international collaboration."
uff-da.
That is an interestingly written Committee Objective.
Taken at face value, I boldly predict that if the Committee actually follows the stated Objectives they'll recommend cancelling Constellation; buying Russian tincans in the short term; bid out for commercial human qualified launchers.
Not sure they'll get any bids.
But, I think with the charter and that composition, NASA is about to cut the chord and let the launcher biz go commercial.
It will be interesting.
Or I could be wrong.
(ed. emphasis mine...)
- Log in to post comments
one that is safe, innovative, affordable and sustainable. (ed. choose any 2 of 4?)
With a little ingenuity, three should be possible. But as you say, they aren't going to get all four simultaneously.
I've never met Charlie Kennel, but I know people who know him, and I've read papers by him. From what I know, he cares about the science. Choosing him for the panel is probably good news for us; maybe not so good for the manned program. (My opinion of the manned program is only slightly higher than Bob Parks'.)
Greason is an interesting choice as well. In his keynote address at the International Space Development Conference last week he criticized NASA for giving up on R & D.
I don't understand. What would be the point of finding unaffordable or unsustainable solutions? And, sure, we might agree that space exploration is such a glorious venture that it's worth knowingly sacrificing a defined expected number of human lives per objective gained, but I doubt that's politically acceptable.
I agree specifying innovation is solutioneering: if a boringly conventional trajectory could be found that meets the other requirements it ought to be accepted. There's no point in innovation for its own sake.
Isn't the real issue timescale?
the short answer is that to get safe and sustainable you can't have it be affordable, at least not on this timescale, and we don't know if innovative or very conservative are the way to go.
actually this takes more than a comment to answer...
IMNSHO
sustainable and affordable are redundant.
p.s. Chiao blogs
Not necessarily - certainly unaffordable is unsustainable,
but I suspect there are affordable programs that are, in a broader sense, not sustainable
pork-barrel politics is the only point you need to insist on an unaffordable solution; as long as the right congressmembers' constituents profit from the unaffordability, it'll get passed. and if sustainability were ever a real concern in the USA, we'd have to shut down three-fourths of the country if not more.
"safe" usually follows "innovative" with about five to twenty years' delay, i'd guesstimate. except in that handful of misinnovations where it doesn't follow at all, cf. the shuttle.