In an earlier article, the New York Times asked "For Human Spaceflight, Can Measured Beat Bold?"
Its clear that The New York Times think that it can, and that it will get us to a spacefaring future.
Join me over the fold.
As you may have heard, Obama's budget, while containing an increase for NASA, it also does away with Constellation. It heavily invests in developing new gamechanging technology, and also in the creation of new industries, particularly human to earth orbit transport.
Concerning the technology development program, the New York Times adds the following point
Leaping to new generations of technology is inherently hard and NASA’s efforts may not bear fruit in any useful time period. To increase the odds of success, Congress may want to hold the agency’s feet to the fire and require that a specified percentage of its budget be devoted to technology development.
I couldn't have said it better, in many respects. In the past, NASA has raided the R&D budget, to pay for cost overruns in other programs. This became particularly bad under Mike Griffin. NASA's R&D budget needs to be protected, and needs to help shepard those technologies that are passed the computer modeling stage, and ready for flight testing in space (which has been referred to as the TRL zone of death).
Concerning commercial crew, the New York Times says this:
The idea of hiring private companies to ferry astronauts and cargo to the space station is also risky and based on little more than faith that the commercial sector may be able to move faster and more cheaply than NASA. The fledgling companies have yet to prove their expertise, and the bigger companies often deliver late and overbudget.
If they fail or fall behind schedule, NASA would have to rely on Russia or other foreign countries to take its astronauts and cargoes aloft. That is a risk worth taking.
The Times is right about both points - yes, we are putting faith in a commercial sector that has either delivered overbudget and behind schedule, or is brand new. But it is also right that this is a risk worth taking. One thing not mentioned, which is likely to help mitigate the risk, is the contracting mechanism. Constellation, and most previous NASA systems, utilized cost-plus contracts (those contracts that allow for infinite cost overruns, and a profit).
However, its very likely that the new contracts will be fixed price, that will force companies to absorb cost-overruns on their own. This is a great thing, and a great mechanism to get costs under control.
Also not mentioned is that, as the Augustine Committee determined, there is likely to be private users who want a commercial crew transport to LEO, but its unlikely to happen without NASA's help. And the great thing is that, if there is only 1 extra flight per year, of a commercial crew system, that will reduce costs by up to 33% (also from the Augustine report).
In terms of destinations, its clear that the Times desperately wants to go to Mars. But they do see value in developing systems that can service multiple destinations, something I am in full agreement with.
The New York Times ends with the following statement.
Less self-interested colleagues ought to embrace the notion of a truly ambitious space program with clear goals that stir all Americans’ imaginations and challenge this country’s scientists to think far beyond the Moon.
I couldn't have said it better. Its time for us to get beyond Apollo, and become spacefaring.