Value for Cost: The Determinate Path

The report of the Augustine committee analyzes America’s space program through a very narrow prism. Much of their report argues that the existing program of record (more specifically, the Ares I and V launch system) is not affordable, a fact already apparent to most observers. The pertinent question about the original intent of the Vision [...]

In contrast to the claims of the Augustine committee report, use of existing launch assets and infrastructure permit us to return to the Moon within the projected budget guidelines
The report of the Augustine committee analyzes America’s space program through a very narrow prism. Much of their report argues that the existing program of record (more specifically, the Ares I and V launch system) is not affordable, a fact already apparent to most observers. The pertinent question about the original intent of the Vision for Space Exploration is not considered or addressed: Is a program to return to the Moon and create a permanent space faring infrastructure possible within the projected budgetary envelope? Thus, the committee advocates human missions to destinations without deep gravity wells, eliminating the need to develop a lander spacecraft.
So once again we have a space policy gap, a technical ...