Some things that the commission will also need to address are in regards to the different advisory panels, internal agencies and other issues brought up by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. I am a little concerned that NASA's own Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has not been heard from. Just where is the Advice when it comes to safety issues?
We have not heard there take on the Hubble, The continuing Noises on the ISS or on the proported issues of hazard for going back to the Moon or to Mars.
note refence article http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=942

How does every one else feel about the apathy that is being portrayed by this panel.

Located news release from the meeting recently held by the safety panel.
Panel: NASA making progress
But the group wants NASA to act faster to set up an independent technical authority.
Members of NASA's main safety advisory group said Thursday that they are confident the agency is making strides to return the space-shuttle fleet safely to flight but would like to see more progress in the drive to change its organization.
When the panel meets again, Dyer said, members will be looking for a much more detailed picture of what NASA has done and how it plans to turn the accident board's recommendation into reality.
Board members also said they plan to keep tabs on NASA's effort to change its institutional culture, which the Columbia board called broken. The panel was briefed privately about the results of an employee survey done by a consultant NASA hired; it will be released to the public next week.
High lights from OrlandoSentinel article.
I wonder how the commission percieves this news.

From MarsNews site:
Q&A; Sending humans to Mars
Posted by tourdemars to Humans To Mars | TrackBack

Laurie Leshin is a scientist who studies the formation and evolution of the Solar System. Now she advises on the US presidential commission that will direct a space exploration programme to go to the Moon and then on to Mars. She told us why we need to send people to the Red Planet.

***********************************************
The interviewer left out a very important question that I have. Why are we waiting for the commissions report, before we start doing anything at all? We know that we need to design many new items to allow us to again go beyond LEO.

1. new crew capsule
2. new moon lander
3. lunar base
4. heavy lift rockets
5. supply containers and system
6. new from orbit boosters
7. self suficiency capabilities

All these things must be done while still finishing the ISS. So which items are the highest priority I feel are numbers 1 and 4.
everything else can be started later when we are closure to completing the ISS.

Posted by: Harold LaValley at April 8, 2026 12:10 PM
Harold, the program is in a period when we could make multibillion mistakes. NASA can't start designing hardware that could send them to a wrong direction. It is as a spaceship course correction. Little push in the beginning makes huge difference at the end.

The commission is 2 - 3 months away of filing the report. I listened to some of the hearings. Most of the testimonies hinted that the Moon should be only a test bed for the Mars hardware. Building a separate Moon program could be deadly wrong according many of the specialists.

Before to start designing, NASA needs to determine what it needs to build and what of the old hardware could be used, or modified. For example, there is a discussion about upgrading the Shuttle's booster complex.

Second, they will need a budget. There will be a lot of paperwork before getting the bucks. The first two-three years will be mostly research and approach design.

Posted by: emil at April 9, 2026 08:57 AM

My follow up thought is that we have already done the moon thing and any money spent to use the moon as a research platform is a waste if we do not stay and continue going otherwise just go to Mars with the moons research money. Even going to Mars will be a one or two shot deal and then it will die as well because there are no plans to do anything with it afterwards.

More of my thoughts on the Moon to Mars vission were of the space suits of which the moon and Mars requirements are different, the landers are also different due to mars atmosphere and there being none on the moon. The large scale rockets for the moon and for Mars are not the same also the amounts of supplies are totally different as well.
I do agree to using the moon as a design platform for some of what will be need for Mars in latter years but think of the moon as being a close by Mars simulate everything as if it were a journey to Mars instead, long travel time, food & water supplies, crew cabin habitat, lunar base habitat, ect... Yes some are not quite the same as if it were Mars but make it as close to reality as possible.

The way I see it, to actually use the moon as a staging ground for flights to Mars and beyond, NASA will have to setup a launch site and an actual department or satellite office (no pun intended) there. Once we hear about this then i think we'll be on the right track.

The argument against this is that you do not save any money since all the resources came from earth. Unless we learn how to mine and process the linar surface for the necessary elements to make fuels this is probably not the way it will be done.
There is the possibility of the space elevator as a fuel saver for return flights that I had proposed back last month. But these are all long term goals that indicate we are still making a base that is permanent and not just going for a few times to practice.

Harold,

I was suggesting using lunar materials for the construction. That is the only way I can see that we will have a real presence in outer space.

Like in a permanent settlement colony, I agree this is a must to get people to be willing to shell out the bucks that will be necessary in the long run.

I think the side bar of NASA Mulls Customers on the Shuttle request is of interest interms of following if it happens or not. If NASA will not send there astronauts to any place other than the ISS. Then how can they possibly think that it is any safer for civilians to go esle where other than the ISS as well. They simply need to place small safe havens in other orbit inclinations to really start making space more safer for every one.

Here is another thought for the Shuttle after reading the article about NASA's Mulling of Customers on Shuttle Request.

Lets go one better and turn the Shuttle into a sub orbital joy ride or single orbit, when it is retired using the cargo bay for passenger seating at say 30,000 a seat. I think you would have a lot of flights to book.

Scaled Composites' entry for the SpaceX challenge would probably be a more economic choice for suborbital joyrides than the shuttle - cheaper and no need to spend millions to re-rate the STS after 2013 for manned flight - without which the FAA would never allow it to get of the ground with commercial passengers.

As of this time he has stated no plans for any flights other than those needed to win the prise.

Major modifications would also be needed for multiple passengers and of course for lots higher than sub orbital flights before I think any real interest will happen.

Hi Harold.......Money seems to be an important point to get the go-a-head with the Moon/Mars program....There is one person out there who could really give this a shot in the arm..and that person is...Bill Gates.For the life of me,I can't understand why a person with knowledge like he has and the monetary situation that he is controlling,why he wouldn't step up to the plate and say..Ok Nasa....you put up half and I'll put up half!!!At this point we would be on our way....Maybe someone should start writing Mr.Gates and tell him that this would be the grandest thing he has ever chosen to be involved in !!! Look at it this way..the man has more money than other countries have for their national budget.......I think that in this way everyone would gain and we can get going asap .......Thanks...Jake

Good Morning Jake:
He could pay for a shuttle C program modifications and be given the first flight to the ISS. Just to reseed Nasa's space programs with new CEV Capsule or plane design. I posed the question in an email to both Boeing and Lockheed news release page personel and got back only one reply.
My email:
I am trying to find out if there is any new, news releases for the Presidents Space Exploration Initiative. Especially with regards to the new CEV (Constellation) rocket or its initial crew capsule or be it plane design. It has been many months since the initial drawings and follow up releases for organizational changes needed to bring about the new vision of space exploration.
The Moon to Mars commission I know is still in process but still there should be some progress from the stand point of design. Just some information that would give the American people, that are behind the SEI some ray of hope. I know that myself I wish that all is not stagnant and waiting forever for the final report from the commission. In my honest opinion the commissions report will due little to shape the rocket, capsule or plane design that will be used by Nasa to bring about placing man back into space safely. That I feel is up to both Boeing and Lockheed corporations to do. Time is against us for the SEI vision if we wait to long, to start again exploring space. With the support of our own American designed and built ship rather than hitching a ride on a Soyuz.

I got this from comunications from Boeing on the matter from EDMUND G. MEMI
The Boeing Company Communications, NASA Systems.

Boeing is closing out its work on the Orbital Space Plane and established a new office in Washington DC for the new vision. You can look into these links for some information, but there are no present study contracts until NASA defines the requirements until sometime this fall. We posted some conceptual images. We expect to establish an public web site shortly.

As or this morning I still have not heard back from lockheed.
From Boeings respond until contracts are signed they will do nothing.