Story Continues BelowIn that vein, I hope my space advocacy friends are beginning to pull their heads out of the sand and face reality like I am. We can live in a dream world of pretend scenarios, but it is becoming readily apparent that human exploration beyond Earth orbit, at least by the United States, is likely to not happen in any of our lives? or at least not the lives of us in middle age or older. We're spending our time and energy trying to fall in love with any of the scenarios in the Augustine report, and lying to ourselves that "Flexible Path" is anything more than a road without a destination.

When the Vision for Space Exploration was announced, it's goals were to return humans to the Moon, land on and explore Mars and then explore beyond. Taking the first step before leaping ahead to the next. A logical, gradual expansion of the presence of the human species to other bodies in the Solar System. For me, what grabbed my imagination was the unbelievable idea that I would see people walking on the Moon AND Mars IN MY LIFETIME. That is why I supported VSE.

That's also why I supported Constellation. I supported it because it was, in the phraseology of the Augustine committee, the "Program of Record". It was the means by which we would achieve the objectives and goals of The Vision. As such, I also supported Ares I (and Ares V). While it is an ungainly-looking launch vehicle, uses a solid rocket booster as a first stage and utilizes new concepts in rocket design, I supported the development effort. At the same time, I kept an open mind and tried not to become a "cheerleader" or one of the "sheeple" blindly accepting without questioning the feasibility or wisdom of selecting that particular launch vehicle concept. I kept an open mind about other launch vehicle concepts.

I also fully understood that the longer Ares I was in development, the more wedded NASA became to pursuing that course... or pursuing none at all because there would be neither the time nor money to change course mid-stream.

After several years of development, we have seen successful tests of the launch abort motor, ullage motor, preliminary tests of J2-X, the first 5-segment Solid Rocket Motor and the flight of Ares I-X. We have also seen the achievement of programmatic milestones such as the Ares I and Orion Preliminary Design Reviews.

Throughout this process, there have been naysayers as well, usually writing email or blog postings with headlines such as "Proof! The Stick Won't Work" and then following up with quotations of theoretical worst-of-worst case scenarios and then hammering their point home by misrepresenting those theoretical scenarios as being "what the computers predict will happen," which has always been about as far from the truth as possible.

However, those "critics" (overly-generous term) couldn't leave it at that. The catcalls and conspiracy theories reached the point where individuals were outright claiming that the designers of Ares I are designing a vehicle that they know is absolutely going to kill people and they're doing it because Michael Griffin forced them to under threat of career in order to save his own legacy (as if his 30-plus year legacy in the aerospace and science fields isn't enough). Of course, those rumors, innuendo and tin-foil hat theories are wholly unfounded. At best, they're misguided. More accurately, they're outright lies, and most likely, libelous. But they have persisted.

Against that backdrop, I watched the progress of Ares I, and the progress of those tests. In the wake of the success with Ares I-X, I can now, perhaps too late, state that I have come to a firm opinion.

At each milestone, with each test, the design concepts of Ares I (and I-X) have been validated. At each turn of the corner, the dire predictions have failed to come true. NOT A SINGLE DOOM AND GLOOM PREDICTION HAS PROVEN VALID. And every time Ares I has been put to the test, it has not only met the test objectives, it has far exceeded them. Whether the issue is thrust oscillation, roll torque, launch drift, winds knocking the rocket over on the launch pad, etc. the launch vehicle design has surpassed even the most optimistic of predictions. In short, the Ares I design and the Ares I-X vehicle have outperformed every time they have been put to the test.

So it is with that knowledge that I am absolutely coming down on the side of supporting continued development of Ares I, and pursuing the "Program of Record" with adequate funding. Ares I is possibly the most elegant manned launch vehicle design ever. It will be the safest manned launch vehicle ever. Compared to any "paper" or "real" alternatives, Ares I is, simply put, the superior vehicle. Period.

Ares I is proving itself unequivocally just at the time it is, in all likelihood, facing its demise.

And that's what saddens me. I have very, very little doubt left that, in my lifetime, I will never see people (except for maybe the Chinese) walking on the Moon and certainly not walking on Mars. The Vision for Space Exploration has gone blind.

Furthermore, I place responsibility for starting the process of killing VSE squarely on the shoulders of the fear-mongering naysayers, including those who want kill Ares I solely to spite Mr. Griffin. I place the blame squarely on the heads of those who would rather there be no exploration than exploration that involves Ares I.

And yes, I'm pointing a finger directly at the DIRECT/Jupiter advocates and other groups that have made themselves known as opponents of the Constellation architecture.

A number of people started the process by drumming false scenarios and accusations, seeding doubt in the minds of the powers higher up who don't pay much attention to space but write the laws that fund NASA. They sowed those seeds of doubt, unfounded seeds of doubt, and that began a process which led to President Obama, and his advisers, deciding that a wholesale review of the exploration program was necessary.

While the opponents of Ares I thought they could get the President to cancel that vehicle and keep the rest of Constellation and VSE intact by merely substituting "their" pet launch vehicle instead, they failed to understand the politics of Washington.

It came down to simple questions. If NASA can't build Ares I, then how can they build Ares V? And if they can't build Ares V, then how can they embark on meaningful exploration?

In other words, killing off Ares I would become the camel's nose in the tent, so to speak, to canceling (or in the language of politics, retargeting) all of Constellation.

And that is what we are about to get. And the those who for whatever reason have vilified Ares I will get what they wanted: Ares I is probably about to be cancelled. Too bad they won't get their launch vehicle either and have helped sacrifice the future of exploration in the process.

So let's look at the ramifications of "going commercial".

First, good luck finding any NASA astronauts willing to be merely passengers on someone else's spacecraft without having the ability to fly, control and dock the spacecraft themselves. And good luck finding any NASA astronauts willing to fly on a spacecraft in which they didn't have a hand in designing or ensuring its safety ratings are as stringent as NASA's. Good luck to SpaceX if they want to try to design a manned spacecraft that passes NASA's human-rating requirements. And if SpaceX does, good luck in having it ready to fly before 2018. And... if you say "fine, then leave NASA astronauts out of it", then good luck in getting NASA and the 14 partner governments to approve of Dragon getting anywhere near the space station.

one can make an analogy to the military. Requiring NASA astronauts to stand in line as mere customers for a commercial launch service to low Earth orbit is as stupid as requiring the Army and Marines to fly Southwest Airlines into the battlefields of Afghanistan instead of using their own C-17's designed specifically for the mission and completely under the military's control, scheduling and priorities.

Also, under the EELV program, the Delta IV and Atlas 5 launch vehicles both were two years late achieving first flight and cost double what was originally projected. The Falcon was over 3 years late making its first launch and, by the time it made a successful flight, had cost Elon Musk several times what he originally thought it would cost. Every launch vehicle and spacecraft development program in history has cost significantly more than projected and run years behind schedule. Every single one of them. Do you think a commercial launch option for NASA would be any different? Do you think it would be able to fly by 2016 instead of 2018? If you do, then you are living in a dream world where the realities of this world do not apply.

So what if NASA was forced to go the commercial route, then what? Well, our international partners in the space station program are eager to participate in the Vision for Space Exploration. So I have another question. Do you think any of our partners would be willing to let their astronauts fly on a non-NASA commercial spacecraft? I highly doubt it. For some reason, I just don't foresee the Russians being willing to put their cosmonauts on a commercial U.S. spacecraft. It just won't happen. And the Europeans and Japanese would probably be just as unwilling... in my opinion.

What that means is that if NASA is forced to go commercial, then you can forget about internationalization and NASA will be forced to go it alone. The end result of that? Well, while we're zipping around an empty and thoroughly boring libration point, the Russians and Chinese will be walking on Mars with their Japanese and European partners. Wonderful.

Speaking of internationalization, that's really the answer. It's a simple and, I would've thought, obvious answer. It was the answer to saving ISS when its costs and schedule ballooned. The $50 billion that our international partners invested in ISS was critical to its construction. Without it, we wouldn't have a space station today. And it had the side-effect of creating an cooperative international partnership unlike the world has ever seen and which makes the United Nations look like rank amateurs.

Like I said, they're eager to participate in "Moon, Mars and beyond".

So internationalize Constellation. The $30-50 billion that our ISS partners could bring to the table would more than make up for the present shortfall. Their expertise and industry would help maintain schedule and perhaps even increase the capabilities of the systems that get developed.

It's a simple answer. It doesn't mandate any structural changes to the Constellation architecture. It doesn't require any difficult choices and it gets around the socio-political stalemate we're in now. Most importantly, it would be an easy, non-controversial, decision for the President.

Of course, if you oppose Constellation on philosophical or self-serving grounds rather than technical or financial, this solution would be unsatisfactory. But then again, so would anything, no matter how beneficial, that saves the current program. I can't help you there.

Like I said, I do not believe, regardless of what "course" the President chooses, that there will be any meaningful exploration of space beyond low Earth orbit by the United States in my lifetime. Perhaps my children, but I think, 37 years since we last walked on the Moon, I'll tell them not to hold their breath.

As a final note, I'm tired of people saying going to the Moon won't excite people because we've been there already. First, we've hardly explored the Moon at all. Not all of the Moon is identical to the six small areas we explored. But there's a more important argument to me.

"WE" did not go to the Moon. I was 2 1/2 years old when Gene Cernan expressed hope we'd return to the Moon, and left. "WE" did not go to the Moon. "I" did not go to the Moon. My parents and grandparents did. I did not. I did not help build anything that helped the astronauts get there. I did not even have a chance to vote against Walter Mondale when he tried to kill the whole thing and almost succeeded.

I did not go to the Moon. And you know what? I would like to. Not personally, but at least watch it happening live, not grainy black and while "film" that's older than ME. So, for me, the argument that we shouldn't return to the Moon because "we've already been there", rings hollow and irrelevant.

And not to mention the hope of ever getting to Mars. I think I will not hold my breath.

Matthew Travis, Executive Director
A.R.E.S. Institute, Inc.