³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The Augustine committee set up by President Barack Obama to review US human spaceflight plans was adamant that .

Its published on Thursday contains no "recommendations", only "options".

But a careful reading of the document leaves you in little doubt where the panel-members believe the future of American astronauts should lie.

And certainly, the press conference given by committee chairman Norm Augustine and MIT Professor Ed Crawley to present the report sounded very much like the announcement of a preferred route-map to me.

So where is the US headed; what catches the eye in reading the document?

Well, first and foremost, there is now recognition by all that . Nasa cannot do what it is being asked to do on the budget it has.

There are a number of ways you could develop a meaningful human exploration programme, but it is going to take at least an additional $3bn a year to make it happen.

I'm going to start with the space station because it is the element in the equation that probably has the greatest consequence for us here in Europe.

The panel is of the view that the life of the space station really should be extended from 2015 to at least 2020 because, if it isn't, the US will severely damage its international relationships.

Also, it seems a nonsense to have gone to the expense and effort over 25 years to plan and build the station to only then use it for five years (which is the situation we're currently headed towards).

But here's the uncomfortable bit for Nasa. The panel believes the and are too expensive and over-engineered to be used for taxi services to and from low-Earth orbit (LEO).

Ares 1 and Orion also arrive too late to be much use in serving the space station - even one with its life extended.

A cheaper, faster solution might be to ask the commercial sector to provide taxi services instead.

Nasa would oversee a competition in which at least two suppliers were brought to market.

The agency would also "seed" the development of the privateers, carrying some of the capital risk so investors could see a return on their investment.

These space taxis would be simple, Gemini-style capsules launched on perhaps an existing, upgraded rocket.

Nasa would set the technical requirements and ensure quality/safety targets were met.

This process would cost the taxpayer the same or slightly less than developing Ares 1 ($5bn), but the ongoing costs would be much cheaper. For example, the lower mass of the private capsules would mean they could put down on land, negating the need for the expensive sea operations required for splash-downs.

In the panel's view an Ares 1/Orion launch to LEO would cost about $1bn per mission. It believes the private sector could do it at a much lower price to Nasa.

The Augustine committee says it has had contact with several companies which are keen to pick up this option. I guess the front-runner right now is the and being developed by in California.

However, the committee recognises there are major risks in following this option. The competition may not deliver - the suppliers could fail, or pull out. This would leave Nasa in a terrible bind and so it would have to have a Plan B up its sleeve.

Augustine suggests the Plan B take the form of accelerating the development of the heavy-lift rocket which America must have eventually anyway if it is going to go beyond LEO.

So if the privateers did go belly up, the heavy rocket could enter into service not far behind.

In Nasa's current plans, of course, the is set to be the heavy-lift rocket, but in its present guise it is not being designed to launch the Orion capsule, only the equipment needed to take the Orion capsule away from Earth.

If Obama does decide commercial is the right course for LEO, then Ares 5 as currently envisioned is also ruled out...

...but what is ruled in, perhaps, is the Ares 5 Lite - a slightly less capable Ares 5 but with the capacity to launch the Orion capsule.

Augustine seems more neutral on heavy-lifters than it does on the LEO solution, but the Ares 5 Lite came out well in the assessments.

And just to be clear, you have to continue with the development of the Orion capsule or you can't go beyond LEO (because the private capsules won't have that capability).

Where the panel really do seem most sure and confident is on where astronauts should go and the route they should take.

Augustine and Crawley championed in the their press conference what they termed the "flexible path" - this idea of moving out to progressively more challenging and exciting targets... to asteroids, loops around Mars, even landing on the Martian moon Phobos.

The report makes this interesting observation:

"It actually requires less energy to fly by Mars than to land on and return from the surface of the Moon. Next in terms of energy requirements is the lunar surface, followed by Mars orbit. The surface of Mars requires the most energy to reach."

All this is for President Obama to ponder. The report is a good read; it's not overly technical. I recommend it. Also, if you haven't seen it yet, read former Nasa Administrator .

Dr Griffin has deep reservations about a commercial solution to LEO operations.
He was also annoyed that the committee hadn't seemed to consider what he believed the simplest solution to Nasa's problems - which was to restore the funding Ares had lost and that had knocked it off course.

Watch this space.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?