Dopo un tempo abbastanza lungo senza articoli “graffianti”, il numero odierno di “The Space Review” riporta una buona analisi dello stato di avanzamento della Vision for Space Exploration.
Uno dei passaggi più lucidi:
Michael Griffin recently said two things that significantly bother me about the Ares architecture. He said that the Ares 5 is being designed with the requirements of a Mars mission in mind. He also said that he didn’t foresee sending humans to Mars for at least twenty years. By deductive reasoning, the first journey to Mars would take place using twenty-year-old (if not older) technology. Isn’t old technology one of the reasons there are problems maintaining the shuttle fleet? If a Mars base is going to require a nuclear reactor and the Ares 5 architecture isn’t deemed safe enough to launch it, are we just adding a cost for capabilities that may never be needed? Are we committing NASA to using circa 2006 concepts and technology for two to four decades from now? Are we so arrogant that we think we know now what will be the preferred technology for possibly the next half century?
I clearly don’t like the way political funding deals are done on Capitol Hill, but I grudgingly accept them as reality for the foreseeable future. I want the VSE to succeed and move forward faster and more efficiently than NASA has over the last few decades with other projects. NASA is an agency with an aging workforce, and the individuals running it now will not be in charge when the next person steps foot on the Moon. If the VSE is to survive beyond the current administration, it needs stronger support than it’s getting now. Otherwise, I could easily see the Ares 1 and Ares 5 joining the DC-X and the Orbital Space plane as vehicles started and never completed and becoming the subject of blogs as to what should have been done to make their development successful.
Il link al testo completo: