Aldridge Commission Report Out

06/15/04 00:00:00    

By Michael Mealling

(I'm in the middle of a conference call for the Day Job so I'm not going to be as reliable as I'd like.)

Here is a locally cached copy of the report

bq.

Congress increase the potential for commercial opportunities related to the national space exploration vision by providing incentives for entrepreneurial investment in space, by creating significant monetary prizes for the accomplishment of space missions and/or technology developments and by assuring appropriate property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and infrastructure.

Yes! Property rights! So far so good….

bq.

a discovery-based criterion to select destinations beyond the Moon and Mars that also considers affordability, technical maturity, scientific importance, and emerging capabilities including access to in-situ space resources.

Good,a requirement that missions focus on ISRU.

bq.

The vision is a “go as you can pay” plan where we achieve periodic technological advances and discoveries based on what we can afford annually.

Hmm… “go as you can pay” instead of “pay as you go”. I like the fact that this gets to a more frugal way of looking at it. You only do what you can afford, not what you would like.

bq.

The Commission also realizes that the launch of human crews requires extraordinary care and will likely remain the providence of the government for at least the near-term.

Ok, “near term” is better than what I heard in earlier reports that didn't qualify it.

It also seems that they are suggesting that all 10 centers be transferred to FFRDCS.

bq.

The Commission recommends that NASA immediately form special project teams for each enabling technology to:

conduct initial assessments of these technologies;   

develop a roadmap that leads to mature technologies;   

integrate these technologies into the exploration architecture; and   

develop a plan for transition of appropriate technologies to the private sector.

Good, at least there is a requirement that they be transitioned. But I'd prefer they not be done in NASA to begin with. I'd much rather NASA put out a bid for stuff and let the industry provide it if they can. This approach just about ensures that the big existing contractors will get the sweet stuff. But then again, if NASA is driving the process it will by definition not be competitive.

Subsequent pages show a fetish for heavy lift that I'm sure Rand will discuss in more detail.

More to come as I read further….