I believe that if NASA were to put together a couple of strategically targeted Ad Campaigns on how national and international space enthusiasts can contribute a modest amount of money (And receive a Medal or Coin souvenir) to a budgetary overflow fund for those cases where you just have to go a little over budget to get it right. This could in my modest estimation add %5-%15 to your yearly budget. I know the viewers of the Sci Fi, Science, Discovery, and other similar channels would be a great test bed for the idea.

Secondly, I understand that the heavy-lift cargo transport rockets are going to have to be one of the more expensive projects because there really aren’t any alternatives. Recently the very talented group of Scientists and Engineers that won the X Prize came up with some ingenious re-entry techniques that I think NASA should be open to exploring for fleets of inexpensive Space Planes that can be used for Scientific, Rescue, and even Military applications. Some of the manned flight in the 2010 era will be cheaper, safer and more efficient because of good old Capitalism. These companies are looking to make money and loose as little as possible.

and Lastly, as I mentioned previously, there is a real interest by arm chair scientists and space buffs to feel more involved in space exploration than just paying their taxes. Some of the groups such as the Mars Society and others have been spending a lot of privately raised money on real hard science. Why not work together in developing space base technology in some situations?
I appreciate you taking the time to listen to the ideas of a computer geek (by profession), student pilot and space buff (by hobby),

Thank you,
Corey Goode
Dallas, Texas

Check X-15B, X-15/Navaho, and Project 7969.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15b.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/navhox15.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/prot7969.htm

> What would have driven the space program was the demand of the military (and commerce) for
> satellite launches. So we’d have had expendables.

Not necessarily. Reusable Atlas was proposed as the launcher for AT&T’s Telstars, before Kennedy nationalized the communication satellite industry.

> Without Apollo to create a large entrenched manned spaceflight bureaucracy, I suspect we
> wouldn’t have had much manned spaceflight at all — it’s not as if there’s been a large non-NASA
> customer base clamoring for it at those costs.

You’re overlooking Mercury, X-15, DynaSoar, HL-20, M2, Reusable Atlas, and X-24.

The assumption that manned spaceflight has to have “those costs” came largely out of Apollo.

What would have driven the space program was the demand of the military (and commerce) for satellite launches. So we’d have had expendables. Without Apollo to create a large entrenched manned spaceflight bureaucracy, I suspect we wouldn’t have had much manned spaceflight at all — it’s not as if there’s been a large non-NASA customer base clamoring for it at those costs.

Even if now NASA could afford with its budget re-enactment of Apollo flights, so what? A couple of tax-subsidized astronauts jumping around and on the Moon for a couple of days, twice a year? Why? Longetivity of the program was not a consideration then, why would it be now with the same layout?

No, he distorts and lies. Donald Robertson also disagrees with Bush on many things yet he and I can have a reasonable debate about that disagreement. The difference is that Donald does not resort to distortions and lies, as does Kuberberg.

and Cecil Trotter also writes: “No the difference is Donald tries to be factual while you make no attempt to…..You make intellectually dishonest assessments and declarations about everything you disagree with and then just expect everyone to take those as fact.”

No, the real difference is that Greg makes a good attempt to respectfully verbalize his interpretation of the facts while you resort to sly personal insults over and over. I’ve noticed that Greg (and a number of other posters) stay above these personal attacks while you consistently snoop down to it.

Just because Greg disagrees with your beloved and adored president, doesn’t mean he deserves your insults, nor does it mean he is insulting you.

Why do you call it “the O’Keefe report” when it was issued by NASA and undoubtedly vetted by the OMB?

“O’Keefe also had an extended Q&A session on the day of the Bush speech. This session already had the famous sand chart that was the gist of the later report.”

So? You were arguing “input” which means “before the decision was made.” I would also argue that “input” implies that he had substantial influence, because everybody can offer suggestions, but what is important is what actually gets INTO the policy.

Just because the Administrator talked about and defended the policy AFTER it was unveiled proves nothing.

“I agree that it doesn’t prove substantial input, but it certainly was meant to suggest it.”

No, it does not “suggest” anything about O’Keefe’s earlier influence, just that O’Keefe was told to explain and defend the policy that Bush unveiled. O’Keefe worked for Bush. He played Good Soldier until he did not get promoted and took a much better paying job in academia.

I have to say that the degree of O’Keefe’s involvement in formulating the VSE is not a central point for me. What really matters is the way that Bush and O’Keefe explained it and backed it. It’s clear enough that O’Keefe strongly associated himself with the VSE, and that the Griffin VSE is significantly different from the O’Keefe VSE.

Even so, I am not convinced of your position. It is not just the O’Keefe report released in February (which may have been ghost-written, as you suggest). O’Keefe also had an extended Q&A session on the day of the Bush speech. This session already had the famous sand chart that was the gist of the later report. I agree that it doesn’t prove substantial input, but it certainly was meant to suggest it.

It is possible that O’Keefe’s real interest was in technology development rather than actual missions. That would be consistent with his enthusiasm for bureaucracy, his record of cancelling missions, and his own resignation before RTF. It is also possible that O’Keefe picked Mars when pressed, although in the Cowing-Sietzen version, White House planners picked the moon, then Bush and Cheney tacked on Mars and beyond. Do you have a reference for these things that you say were well-known in Washington?

Anyway I’m not in a position to dispute either the journalism of Cowing and Sietzen (although their judgment is a fair target), or your opposite claims.

Huh? How does the fact that NASA released a (slim) report on the Vision _after_ the Bush speech indicate that O’Keefe had substantial input into the policy in the first place?

First of all, you do realize that O’Keefe did not write that report, right?

Second, it is well known in Washington that for years O’Keefe stated that he was more interested in developing technologies than in picking a destination. Then, when the White House started discussing a destination, NASA (i.e. O’Keefe) chose Mars. They lost on this account and the White House picked the Moon instead.

Finally, it is no surprise that NASA released a report after the Bush speech that further fleshed out the plans. After all, this is what agencies _do_.