The recent study of the Human Space Flight Review Committee, released by NASA, indicates our ambitions are outstripping our resources. To quote,The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources. Space operations are among the most complex and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans. It really is rocket science. Space operations become all the more difficult when means do not match aspirations. Such is the case today.
The report covers a number of topics, including plans to return to Moon and the fate of the International Space Station (ISS). In terms of the Moon, the Committee appears to support the idea of using the Moon landing as a good test on our way to eventually visiting Mars. In fact, robotic exploration of other solar system bodies first (called "Flexible Path") may also have more benefits for awhile before storming Mars. The report states
Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration; but it is not the best first destination. Both visiting the Moon First and following the Flexible Path are viable exploration strategies. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; before traveling to Mars, we might be well served to both extend our presence in free space and gain experience working on the lunar surface.
If NASA follows these recommendations it is possible the Mars plans will be pushed even further into the future.
Concerning the ISS, the report believes the station should remain in orbit longer than planned. After all, it will be a $100 billion asteroid at some point, but maybe we can wait awhile.
Finally, the report recommends more commercial involvement and relevant competitions to spur development. I like this idea. To quote,
Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and lifecycle costs than government could achieve. A new competition with adequate incentives should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.
All in all, the Committee's findings make a lot of sense. Much of the debate comes down to resources, and given the state of the U.S. economy and plans for future government programs, such as health care, we are unlikely to see a huge rush to fund expanded space programs. NASA will be lucky to hold onto its current budget.
