Flexible Path Already Incorrectly Prioritized. (Score 3, Interesting)

The Flexible Path option would be an excellent example of a pay-go approach to exploring the inner solar system. In theory, it could be able to accomodate different missions based on the value of the scientific discoveries as the program progresses, and our evolving technical abilities. However, the fact that it has no specific goal, opens the Flexible Path to political manipulation which will probably adversely affect its execution. In other words, it seems to be too flexible to ensure success in its endeavors, given the liklihood of the American political system to tinker with programs as vaguely expressed as the Flexible Path.

Although the economy is currently in a trough, an optimistic long term prediction would envision a return to healthy economic growth. In any case, the cost of a space program must be budgeted and the current costs and benefits of that program must be funded by Congress. The current situation clearly forces the prioritization of space program missions. It is crucial that the Flexible Path propose initial missions which are prioritized on cost and time to implement.

There are many possible missions which could be encompassed in the Flexible Path, including the visit to Phobos, which is discussed briefly in the linked article. A cursory examination of that portion of the article, by an interested voter, would reveal at least two fundamental, common sense flaws in the suggestion of this particular mission. These flaws are fatal in the sense that they prove that this particular mission should have a priority much later than a less ambitious Flexible Path mission of a lunar return mission, to pick but one example.

The first flaw is scientific in nature. While Phobos is a "large, dramatic world", per the article, the Moon is larger, more dramatic, and much closer. The terms "large" and "dramatic" are emotionally laden marketing terms and distinctly unscientific reasons to embark on such a mission. The term "closer" is a scientific fact, readily verified, and intrinsically linked with the cost of either mission. The second flaw is also scientific. The article suggests that the "mystery of the origin of Phobos can be resolved". If that is indeed true, then a similar lunar mission could resolve, to the same accuracy, the currently unsolved mystery of the Moon's origin.

Other flaws in that particular Phobos mission pertain to the ease of returning samples, the establishment of the initial inventory of water on either Mars or Phobos, the suggestion that material color is a sufficient criteria for collection, the implication that rover operation would be easier there than closer to Earth, and the further implication that a Phobos mission could demonstrate solutions to these problems that other missions could not.

These types of arguments will be used to prioritize other Flexible Path missions as well, but they are clearly incomplete and do not seem to pass a simple analysis for ranking on a rational basis. The major obstacles to such an ambitious mission as a Phobos visit, cost and time, are given short shrift in the article, and seem to exemplify serious problems in the early determination of the Flexible Path itself.

In contrast to the Phobos mission, for example, many people argue that any lunar mission is futile, based solely on the idea that we have been there and have done that. This particular argument can only be interpreted that human space missions are only a game to be won or lost one time, and one time only. Having won the game, one can study science at that location no longer by this immature and incomplete analysis. With respect to human spaceflight, the "been there, done that" argument is always false, and should be rejected by the voter and the scientific community every time it is brought up.

The larger issue, no matter one's preferred mission, is the question: What is the purpose of human space flight? Today, there is no shared, common sense of what this purpose should be. Part of this purpose is surely the expansion of human scientific knowledge, generally accepted as valuable, but that would still be a purpose based on the emotional underpinnings of human intellectual progress. In some ways, the confusing suggestion of exotic Flexible Path missions confirms the lack of general taxpayer consensus on which missions should be funded and why they should be countenanced. The very wording of the proposals is the marketing of sizzle, with scant mention of the promised steak.

With a purpose for human space flight, we can discuss the order of the missions which we wish to achieve. These missions must always be prioritized on the basis of their true and complete cost; their duration; their dependency on new, unproven technologies; their requirements for new launchers and other equipment; and their reasonably expected return of value.

The early discussions of possible Flexible Path missions are already ignoring every salient technical, economic and scientific issue which must be addressed before they can be prioritized. The lack of common sense appraisal of possible destination viability in these discussions would seem to predict a low chance of achieving the goals of the Flexible Path.