It's Not Rocket Science. Oh Wait...

I've been itching to discuss this topic for quite some time, and stumbled upon an article in ScienceNews that has given me a good reason to take a crack at it. The article summed up the results of the Augustine committee quite well, and, I may add, quite succinctly. This succinctness is good, because no one in their right mind wants to read a report written by a panel of rocket scientists about rockets for other rocket scientists. Actually, that's not totally true. The panel, headed by a former chair and CEO of Lockheed Martin (whose name is Norman Augustine; hence the name of the committee), was charged with reviewing NASA's future plans for manned space flight after the retirement of the space shuttle. Currently, NASA is betting on use of a rocket called Ares 1 to send manned capsules into low Earth orbit and to resupply the International Space Station. After what appears to have been an extremely thorough study by the Augustine committee, the group concluded, essentially, that even though NASA could develop and deploy Ares 1, that it didn't necessarily mean that they should. One of the express concerns that will arise, whether NASA goes ahead with the Ares 1 or not, is what will send our astronauts up in between the time that the shuttle retires, which is next year, and when the next program will be ready for use (the Ares 1 isn't slated to be ready for manned missions until 2017). To address this, the Augustine committee noted that it might be more beneficial to contract International Space Station resupply missions and other low Earth orbit missions to industry, allowing NASA to focus on manned missions to the Moon and Mars. To this possibility, the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chairwoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) replied, “we are not prepared to have our astronauts’ access to space held hostage to purchases of seats from nonexistent commercial providers,” adding that the Ares 1 program appears to be on track and perfectly capable.

Giffords' statement is not only false, but very confusing.

Why? Because this is where SpaceX comes into the picture. SpaceX is a space exploration technology company founded and run by a remarkable man by the name of Elon Musk, who is also co-founder of PayPal and owner and chair of Tesla Motors. SpaceX has not only already developed a launch vehicle called the Falcon 9, but a transportation spacecraft called Dragon is also being developed and nearing completion, which will be capable of carrying cargo and crew into orbit and to the International Space Station. In addition, NASA has already contracted a minimum of 12 flights with SpaceX to resupply the International Space Station after retirement of the shuttle, with flights beginning in 2011. So this means that either Giffords was ill-informed when she made the aforementioned comment or just lying, because our astronauts' access to space is already being held hostage by commercial providers. But at a great value to the taxpayers. The Augustine committee concluded that the Ares 1 would not be capable of performing the tasks set forth without an extra $30 billion ontop of the current funding provided. On the other hand, SpaceX charges a flat rate for use of their Falcon 9 and Dragon systems, and for the 12 flights that have already been scheduled over the next 5 years, the total cost comes to approximately $1.6 billion. That's big savings. And not only is a continued NASA contract with SpaceX viable because of monetary concerns, but also because the Falcon 9 is extremely safe and reliable.

Are there any real reasons not to allow our astronauts' access to space be held hostage by commercial providers? Maybe. But I can't think of any. By the way, Falcon 9's inaugural flight from Cape Canaveral is scheduled to take place in just a few short months. I'll let you know how it goes.