By coincidence, around the same time the Senate is completing debate on the joint funding resolution, the National Space Society will be conducting its Space Budget Blitz 2007 citizens lobbying effort on Capitol Hill. The event was planned months in advance to take place about a week after the FY08 budget proposal was released, but with the funding resolution still in play, one imagines there will be a late push to try and win support for any bid to increase NASA’s budget. Participants are planning to visit over 60 Congressional offices and deliver petitions signed by over 7,000 people supporting “a robust program of human space exploration”.
It’s also worth noting that ProSpace will be holding its March Storm 2007 lobbying effort in early March. The basic agenda of that event, though, is a little different than the NSS event:
- Prizes to stimulate space development
- A redirection of the Ares and Orion exploration programs
- Incentives to promote the development of a commercial space infrastructure
Item #2 will doubtless be of particular interest…
I wonder if there is any hope of increasing NASA’s budget? It seems as if both sides are using NASA like a ping pong to further their cause against the opposition.
Silly, silly earthlings…
Question how have previous efforts to get additional funding by these organizations panned out?
As far as the agenda of ProSpace
1. Prizes to stimulate space development
Yes there is a need but what should they be for.
2. A redirection of the Ares and Orion exploration programs
Changing directions at this time would not lead to congress wanting to support Nasa with additional funding
3. Incentives to promote the development of a commercial space infrastructure
Nasa has taken the first step but until the companies in the running produce that will be as far as it will go. No proof that the companies can do it, then there will be no money given to them.
None of the majors is going to be stupid enough to build a capsule and be burnt again while NASA is proposing Orion to service the station. Been there, done that.
NASA is the one that needs to show proof that they’re interested in commercial transport services. They need to partition off a portion of their budget and put out a tender. So far, despite of the very precise wording of the VSE, Mike Griffin has shown zero interest.
Nothing else is going to matter for about six months. We are about to have the first battle for a “city” in today’s warfare. If Bush’s new “strategery” (finally) works (and it has in my view about a 70-75 percent chance of working) then he will regain his footing as President.
If it does not…then his presidency is gone as far as influence is concerned…and space policy will not matter anyway. We will be starring the long night in the face as the “run away” now crowd will get their wish and see us turn tail and run in the mideast.
As the snail said to his friend after they climbed onto the back of the turtle…”hang on”.
Robert Oler
Robert,
While that does have quite a bit to do with politics, it doesn’t have much to do with *space* politics.
~Jon
Jon…
It has nothing to do with space politics except it is going to determine how the space politics play out.
Space politics are sometimes isolated from everything else, rolled up into tight little bundles of constituent issues alone ie “you vote for my pork I will vote for yours” with a few “I really believe in this” and a couple of “It is a complete waste” thrown in for good measure.
BUT like it or not, in almost everything else in politics these days those politics are mostly meaningless. OH you still have the pork bangers out their calling the hogs, but space dollars (as are everything else) are all caught up in the ever growing divide between the two parties as they gear up for the ideological message that will shape their 2008 campaign…their distrust over tje other (and sometimes of their own party) parties view of the war…and in the middle of this is a presidency that is steadily losing altitude in terms of being able to persuade flies to go to warm excrement.
The fact that Bush’s policies in Iraq and New Orleans and just about every other signature issue are seen as complete debacles…cannot help but color the view of his return to the moon theory.
I am sure that there are some of the devoted who still believe that somehow somewhere NASA can pull of this return to the Moon for the dollars and time table that they claim, but those people really have to be defined as “the true believers”.
And that is why the program is steadily losing altitude.
Space politics no longer exist as in their own little orbit. They are like everything else being caught up in the reshaping of both parties…amidst the fear that Bush’s lame duck period is here with a vengence.
IF he can pull things out in Iraq he gets more altitude. If he doesnt, there is nothing short of an attack on the US (hopefully not) that can do it, and even then I am not so sure. And if his administration cannot gain altitude then who cares what they want in space policy? They wont get it.
Robert
Jon…
I would add one more thing. (well two actually) as some here willl doubtless point out I am not a fan of Mr. Bush. I have not voted for him once. Having said that I have ZERO view with those on the other side of the aisle who voted for the war and are now backtracking on their vote. They sent us here and now they are running like scared children.
In my view having come to Iraq we have to win, because losing is simply not an option if one values our way of life and that includes space policy. I ahve the highest view of the new SecDef and if anyone can pull it off the “flag” commanders now in charge in country and region can do it.
But success or failure in Iraq is success or failure in every other Bush policy. If Bush does not suceed in Iraq then he and his administration will be powerless to influence anyother debate and that includes how NASA is funded.
Robert
Robert Oler is back and you can be certain he will be claiming to be an advisor to a Democratic presidential candidate and also in posession of personnal information from deep with the Astronaut office with whom he is a big pal.
> If Bush does not suceed in Iraq then he and his administration will be powerless to influence anyother debate
> and that includes how NASA is funded.
The opposite is not necessarily true, however. No matter how successful the Administration might be in Iraq, it will only get to submit one more budget, and the next election cycle is coming up. Republicans are starting to realize that fiscal conservatives won’t support another Republican who wants to outspend the Democrats. Even McCain is sounding like a fiscal conservative these days. Democrats, on the other hand, know that NASA employees supported Kerry over Bush despite VSE so they can take those votes for granted. Neither party will have a strong reason to throw money at NASA.
The opposite is not necessarily true, however. No matter how successful the Administration might be in Iraq, it will only get to submit one more budget, and the next election cycle is coming up…..
I am sorry Ed…it got cut off, problem on this end.
I dont disagree with much that you wrote. (I didnt know that there were polls that showed Kerry carried NASA…interesting)..
My take on it is that if Iraq were a “booming” success rather then just a gradual success (adn that is the best that can be accomplished)…then Bush might gain some more altitude in everything else…but it is a combination of to many problems for to long, a bad effort on the return to the Moon, and as you point out not a lot of time left for the administration…
And of course the election cycle.
My guess is that NASA is going to press real hard to take money from everything else to keep the RTM going…to try and make it “inevitable” for the next guy/gal…but my guess is that this is a vain hope.
Ironically I think that Aalpha Town or some vairant of it is going to eventually be what we morph into…and you and others will have called the turn on space tourism.
Robert
> I didnt know that there were polls that showed Kerry carried NASA…interesting
Robert, I haven’t seen any polls specific to NASA, but government employees generally vote Democratic, and there is other evidence that it’s true at NASA. The NASA employees union endorsed Kerry, and Kennedy Space Center held a campaign rally for him. (Illegally, the NASA Inspector General has just pointed out.) From my own experience, although not a scientific poll, about 2/3-3/4 of the NASA employees and contractors I’ve met seem to be liberal Democrats.
And of course, NASA has three centers (including their two largest and most important centers) named for Democrats and none for Republicans.
Well, both Oler and Wright are back. Watch for the tone to decline very quickly.
As to the substance, people are being a little bit too quick to pronounce doom for VSE just because of the foolishness coming out of the House. Even if the Senate doesn’t entirely fix things this week, there is talk of a supplemental. And Hutchison/Mikulski seem to be reviving their “emergency” bill.
VSE us rapidly becoming inevitable because it is the only game there is insofar as public space is concerned. The shuttle is going away and no one has the stomach for another thirty years of going around in circles. No one with any horsepower in Congress has the will or ability to kill VSE.
The question, of course, is “when” and “how.” Hillary would likely let it continue, perhaps at lower levels of funding, perhaps with more “international” partners. The top three GOP would likely let it go status quo. (There are no Dems besides Hillary with a chance of winning.) Newt would make big changes, some of which would be very interesting.
By the way, “Anonymous”, I think you are wide of the mark. If Oler claims anything, he will claim to be McCain’s space guru. Not that it matters, because McCain, despite the fact that he remains a lionheart on the war, will not win the nomination. It’ll either be Rudi or Mitt or (as a wild card if he jumps in) Newt.
Mark: you are correct about Robert Oler and McCain. As was the case in 2004 once Robert is no longer able to name drop his way to give the impression that he is a close confidant to McCain he will flip flop and become a democrat and promote himself as the space guru for someone else.
Mark.
The day I claim to be anyone’s space advisor you can let me know…greetings hope you are well.
We will see on both the nomination and Return to the Moon. I think RTM is dead (and that in my view is a good thing. I dont like big government space projects) and I dont htink that the next two years are going to see any serious policy changes other then the slow decay of the current policy (whatever that is).
AS for the nomination…anything is possible on either side. If he announces, I will most likely support McNasty. (no point in committing…he is no running yet…just an exploratory committee…grin) Although I would not be hosed with a Rudy run…MR is to much of a flip flopper (the GOP kerry). The two long shots on the GOP which I would be happy with are Duncan Hunter and Huckabee…I like both of them.
on the Dem side…I dont think Edwards can win, Obama, Hillary, and Richardson probably have a shot at the nomination.
A HIllary/McCain race or a HIllary/Rudy or even an Obama (or Richardson) /both GOP candidates would be a treat for the nation. It should be a good solid debate over the future of the country…and both Rudy and McNasty would mean the end of the GOP right wing…
The good news for me, the GOP is moving to the center and the Dems are moving to the Nutty left..
Robert
Ed.
interesting analysis on the vote…I’ve always assumed that Bush carried JSC since the four or six prec. back home he carried rather handily.l When I worked for the White candidacy (which also carried those prec…the numbers were that Bush carried those areas 90 plus.
But one gets up into the NOrtheast and the like, well …I dont know though…so I found your thoughts entertaining.
My guess is that NASA human spaceflight is just going to continue on its pressent course which is “less and less” and more dollars and more dollars…until at some point a new bunch of leaders comes in with some new plans. RTM has in my view no legs passed the changing of the Imperium.
Along the way (Hopefully) the private folks who are banging on the door are going to actually get the door to open and start doing somethings which will more or less make NASA’s efforts irrelevant.
Another guess is that Boeing/Lockmart are going to need customers and are going to continue to point out, eventually with success how their launch vehicles can do what AEries etc is suppose to do.
Robert
Same old Oler.
> VSE us rapidly becoming inevitable because it is the only game there is insofar as public space is concerned.
> The shuttle is going away and no one has the stomach for another thirty years of going around in circles.
The Inevitable Triumph of Socialism… yada, yada, yada….
Gosh, Mark, for someone who claims he can predict the future, you sure have a lot of trouble predicting the present. Even NASA no longer considers VSE inevitable.
Flight International just reported, “It is time for NASA to think about Plan B, and there are signs one is in formation. Last month Flight International revealed NASA’s secret third launcher, Ares IV, and that NASA was considering continuing to use the International Space Station (ISS) to 2020. Flight understands NASA staff have conducted unapproved internal studies about continuing the Shuttle beyond 2010 as they expect the next president to dump Constellation.”
Ed..
The new Ares VI still in the planning stage will have five F-1s on the first stage, five J-2’s on the second and a J-2 on the third and take 20 years to produce! They might call it the NOWAK.
LOL
Robert
> and both Rudy and McNasty would mean the end of the GOP right wing… The good news for me, the GOP
> is moving to the center and the Dems are moving to the Nutty left..
Actually, Robert, McCain is trying to position himself as a conservative again, and if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate another big-spending RINO like Rudy, they’ll get a repeat of 2006.
Democrats won’t cross party lines to vote for a Republican no matter how many social programs he supports. If they did, Bush would have won in ’04 by a landslide, instead of the skin of his teeth. The only way a Republican can win the White House is by reuniting the Republican base: the “Evil Libertarians” and fiscal conservatives, not appealing to the few big spenders who are in the wrong party.
All of you have ignored the issue of a Gore run – he’s already won once (I am sure there are others who disagree with me – I think they are wrong, but this really isn’t the time or place to have this debate)
Gore could have a serious unifiying capablity. And given his comments at X Prize Cup this year, he could prove very interesting.
Of course, all that predicates on him running, which, I am not convinced is a done deal.
Also, I think your being too quickly writing off Edwards or Clark (for my money, if Gore runs, I’d be torn between him, and Richardson)
> I’ve always assumed that Bush carried JSC since the four or six prec. back home he carried rather handily. l When
> I worked for the White candidacy (which also carried those prec…the numbers were that Bush carried those areas 90 plus.
In Texas, that’s not surprising. I wouldn’t necessarily attribute it to JSC, whose employees probably don’t account for a majority of voters even in that area.
From my experience, a lot of NASA employees are liberals who say they “didn’t want to work for the military” and believe that space should be “reserved for peaceful purposes.” If you read the Salon story about Dava Newman and why she wanted to work for NASA, it’s fairly typical.
http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2000/02/16/davanewman/index.html
“two things changed her course: She fell in love with flight, especially human space flight; she despised Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative — Star Wars. Space was no place for war. So, law be damned, aerospace engineering it was — human aerospace engineering, because, as she once said to an audience of young students, that’s the key to ensuring ‘cooperative, global human space exploration rather than … militarization of space, to which I’m opposed’ — what a great moment that would be in a Foster film.”
Ferris…
I dont ignore the case of a Gore run…Edwards has had the worst 1 month since his announcement that I can recall and his appearnce on MTP was a disaster…of course it is early (and YOu will note that I dont ignore richardson…I mention him to Mark…he is the “dark horse” of the Dems…)
Gore would change everything in the Dem primary. He would instantly raise money and get good talent. There is a “sense” in the country that some serious mistakes have been made (thats an understatement actually)…Gore to a lot people, is the “one you didnt marry but might should have”.
His stand on the war in my view has been honorable. He was against it from the go but has refused to call for a pell mell run away…(I was against it from the go…it was a big mistake) ..and worse (at least for the rest of the Dem field) he (Gore) is at least it seems actually “comfortable” with himself now.
Gore would simply rearrange the deck chairs…it would be interesting to see what his space policy is.
If he is going to run he is doing the smartest thing he can do. By September or so the current field of the Democratic party is going to I think have combat fatigue (GRIN) and unless someone has gained clear traction, thats when Gore slips in.
Newt of course is trying the same gig on the GOP side. Newt is a very very bright guy and I think has a grasp of the dangers facing this country…he I dont think has a chance at being President.
I dont talk about Gore as a “possibility” because if he is running I suspect only he and Tipper know about it…
Robert Oler
Actually, Robert, McCain is trying to position himself as a conservative again, and if the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate another big-spending RINO like Rudy, they’ll get a repeat of 2006.
Ed.
McNasty’s brand of conservatisim is my brand of “conservatism”…ie its policy not rhetoric or behavioral driven. McNasty is there on all the issues (abortion/gay marriage etc) but the sort of whats the religious guy who just dissed McNasty’s name… “uber social banger” he is not. I know McNasty has touched the Jerry F group, but he is not a “Bible toting, chest thumping, we all must love “god”” kind of person.
Nor is he a rhetoric driven ideologe. He and I differ on wheather or not we should have gone into Iraq, but heck that doesnt matter…to me he recognizes the reality of the situation and did it long before the GOP started casheiring the people who spoke in terms of “Dead enders” etc.
He and I agree on fiscal responsiblity, we believe in American power uberallis, we agree on the fact that there are evil people in the world, but he isnt a fool who thinks we can do regime change with 50,000 people and Achmed Chalibi…
I agree with you that social programs are not the key to getting “Dem” voters. I dont think with the war that is possible anyway. But I do think that McNasty or someone can appeal to a lot of middle of the road voters who are sick and tired of the fracken federal government not being able to go to the mens room correctly.
The last few years have been just one badly executed disaster after another…and return to the Moon is just another example of it.
The entire Federal government is now dysfunctional…the military still works but Rummy took a shot at killing that.
Robert
http://dir.salon.com/story/people/feature/2000/02/16/davanewman/index.html
“two things changed her course: She fell in love with flight, especially
Ed. let me read the Salon piece and get back to you…
Robert
This is hilarious. Oler ran around the country supporting Dean and when Dean’s people kicked him out he went to work for another liberalm Kerry. Now Robert Oler would have us believe that he is a conservative. Next, we’ll be hearing how Robert Oler used to date Lisa Nowak.
Robert, your dysfunction seems to be your equating “religious” with “right wing.” Jesse Jackson is very religious. Does that make him a conservative?
Anyway, that is getting quite off the point, which is: Any Republican who wins the next Presidential election will likely be a fiscal conservative who won’t throw unlimited money at VSE or free prescription drugs for everybody. Most Democrats would likely throw so much money at free drugs that they wouldn’t have anything left for VSE. Either way, NASA will have to learn to live within its means.
Robert, your dysfunction seems to be your equating “religious†with “right wing.†Jesse Jackson is very religious. Does that make him a conservative?
Ed.
Religious was an imprecise word, and I am sorry the context was not clearer.
The REv. HMMM HMM Jackson is no more a religious man then Enterprise my cat is religious. He is a man who takes his politics and garbs it into religion aka “we should do this program because Jesus would or this or that because it is the “right” thing to do”…etc. IN that manner he is no better or worse then James Dobson or any of the other religion pushers who dabble in politics.
All are so weak in their politics that they dont have a clue how to embrace their positions in The Constitution or the concepts of this country. They are the people on the left who have a certian social litmus test to make foreign policy and on the right have a different litmus test to make foreign policy.
those people on the right have held sway in the GOP for the last 20 years or so but until this administration they were at least kept like the crazy relatives somewhere else.
I suspect that any Republican who is able to win the primaries and the general will be a fiscal conservative because that is the bread and butter of Goldwater conservatism and the country badly wants.
I think that Return to the Moon is dead because it is doing the typical NASA thing…which is spiral out of control..the problem now is that there is just less support and spare change to throw at it… I think that people like McNasty and Rudy will ditz it because of the “main” reason I just stated and because in the concept of conservative government…ie letting the private sector do what it should do…it has no role.
not to mention I think that we are entering a 10-20 year period where we will long for the “joy” of the cold war. I fear that we have unleashed a force in the mideast which is going to consume us in a long war of unimaginably tragic proportions.
Robert
Whoa! Space Arena Board flashback!
Robert,
I think its a mistake to write Edwards off. He has a lot of support throught the Democratic party. If you are refering to the Catholics vs the blogs incident, frankly, I don’t expect that to be all that big. the truth is, the people who went after him on that never were going to vote for him to begin with. So I think its a mistake to write him off and claiming he wouldn’t win the primary.
If your argument is he can’t win the general, frankly, I think he’d have an easier time than Hillary to win the general.
And I know you did mention Richardson, but you didn’t mention Clark
I do agree with you about Gore – only he and Tipper know for certain, and i wouldn’t bet even on Tipper, and if he is, he’ll wait.
Finally, I also think your premature to argue Huckabee is a long shot – in a lot of respects, he is the best positioned to run – 1) He appeals to the right wing religous nutbags, but doesn’t sound crazy 2) He can be nuanced about the Iraqi war, and it can’t bit him in the ass (unlike Senators) and 3) – Governor’s have better elections than Senators. Also, Id’ point out you forgot to mention Brownback, another darling of the religous right.
That about Huckabee, McCain is the establishment canadate, and you have to go all the way back to Goldwater to find the establishment canadate not getting the final nod.
“As to the substance, people are being a little bit too quick to pronounce doom for VSE just because of the foolishness coming out of the House.”
I don’t think anyone is about to “pronounce doom” for the VSE, at least not over the next couple years. But the ESAS implementation plan for the VSE is proving to be flawed from the point-of-view of budget and political sustainability. The LEO elements (Ares 1 and Orion) are getting stretched now, and the lunar elements (Ares V and LSAM) are looking good for White House cancellation after the next election.
“Even if the Senate doesn’t entirely fix things this week,”
According to Space News and non-space sources, the House version of the continuing resolution was “pre-negotiated” with the Senate. Based on that, very little is likely to change (i.e, little or no budget “fixes” with respect to NASA or exploration).
“there is talk of a supplemental.”
I’d be interested in any references regarding a supplemental. I have not seen any.
I’d also note that historically NASA has a poor track record when it comes to obtaining supplementals. NASA just does not rise to the same level of urgency as a DOD or FEMA.
“And Hutchison/Mikulski seem to be reviving their “emergency†bill.”
They did not manage to pass said bill last year. And even if they do give NASA a bump-up, their interests are not necessarily aligned with exploration and the dollars may not (are likely not?) to flow there.
“VSE us rapidly becoming inevitable because it is the only game there is insofar as public space is concerned”
Ares 1 and Orion are becoming inevitable because Griffin & Co. have a couple more years to go.
But the actual lunar hardware won’t get started in earnest until 2011. It will be up to Griffin’s successor whether they accept the ESAS plan as it pertains to those elements and whether they are able to convince the White House in power at that time to allocate savings from the Shuttle shutdown towards those elements.
Two very big “if’s” given that we’ve got four more years to go between now and then…
“The shuttle is going away”
I hope by 2010 and not a minute later — it would be a shame to waste any more dollars on the Shuttle albatross — but it’s not a given.
“and no one has the stomach for another thirty years of going around in circles.”
It’s much more likely that a new White House with no vested interested in the VSE or ESAS won’t have the stomach to spend a $100 billion-plus on a lunar return program that promises little more than “Apollo on steroids”, that won’t achieve its first landing until well after that White House is out of office, and that faces much higher budget priorities ranging from Social Security and Medicare to the war on terrorism and energy research.
“No one with any horsepower in Congress has the will or ability to kill VSE.”
It’s not Congress that will cancel the lunar elements of the VSE, but the next White House.
“Hillary would likely let it continue, perhaps at lower levels of funding, perhaps with more “international†partners.”
Based on what evidence?
“The top three GOP would likely let it go status quo.”
Again, based on what evidence?
Apologies for being such a downer, but I think the sooner NASA sobers up and accepts the new political and budget reality, the better.
FWIW…
I see that this morning’s prediction has come true.
For those of you confidently predicting the death of VSE, do not forget the iron law of inertia where it comes to projects of this sort. The space station survived any number of near death experiences, even the one in 1993 when even I was pretty sure it was a goner. And VSE has not a hundreth of the problems that the space station ever had. It will continue because there is no reason (political or otherwise) to make it not continue.
Ferris…
Look all stuff aside…if I had to right now this instant (and I wont!) bet 100 bucks on who the nominees would be it would be HRC/Obama vrs McCain/Rudy or McCain/Graham…
I think those tickets would serve The Republic well. WE desperatly need in these near tragic times an election that is more then “flag burning” or “your evil” or whatever. We desperatly need a serious talk on where and how we are going to engage some of the really major issues of our time…
including I believe the main one that the Federal Government is simply not working.
I think Edwards has had a bad month. Bad rollout, horrible issues presenation, self destruct on MTP… I think he is a political oppurtunist who wouldnt know a courageous stand if his fracken life depended on it. His war stand to me is just horrific. He is I think a coward on his war view. He is the equivelent of Lee at Monmouth.
Huckabee is a “real person” and you are right he is not scary. Brownback is.
But I think that HIllary could implode. She is the IJNS Yamato invincible right up until she sinks. And Gore…
McNasty is the establishment candidate. Look I am biased. Heaven help us we need him. I am so tired of these “suited warriors” who ARE STUPID. who can imagine Ronaldus the Great losing the PR battle to John Murtha? McNasty is for the surge and his second son will be in Anbar in the next two months…His number 1 is in the class at the USNA…
But it is 11 months until any votes are cast, the situation in the MidEast is likely to get worse before it gets better…. and the GOP is withering from a President and an administration that is losing altitude as fast as the Return to the MOON. who knows how it will pick itself up.
I could support McNasty (of course), Rudy, Hunter, and Huckabee and do it with gusto.
I dont think anyone on the Dem side right now has a clue the forces shaping in the world.
My key is that the Federal government doesnt work…and NASA illustrates it (althouth there are others).
I can imagine RTM limping along until Jan 20,2009 and then new actors come in and eventually it just poops out…from as Brother Mark W would say “inertia” running out…
Robert
Mark R Whittington wrote @ February 12th, 2007 at 11:51 pm..
Mark…
supporting inertia now?
this thing is in worse trouble then the space station…they have no clue how to lift it and then the problems get worse.
Robert
“For those of you confidently predicting the death of VSE,”
Again, no one is predicting (or at least I am not predicting) the death of the VSE over the next couple of years, certainly not the cancellation of Ares 1 and Orion in that time period (barring a technical meltdown). But if I had to put money down today, I would bet against the lunar elements of the plan (Ares V, LSAM) surviving after the next election.
“do not forget the iron law of inertia where it comes to projects of this sort.”
I don’t mean to pick a fight, but there is no such law. Every program is subject to its own characteristics and circumstances. For every International Space Station, there is a Superconducting Supercollider. This is politics, not physics.
“And VSE has not a hundreth of the problems that the space station ever had.”
I’d be interested in a little explanation of your yardstick and how exactly it measures one “hundredth” of the problems of ISS.
I can point to two key advantages that the ISS had — including early participation by our traditional allies in Europe, Japan, and Canada — as well as a driving foreign policy rationale in keeping Russian scientists peacefully occupied after the Cold War — that the VSE and ESAS plan have yet to obtain, despite much effort on NASA’s part to do just that over the past year.
Until the VSE and ESAS plan do enjoy foreign participation and a driving foreign (or other) policy rationale, I would argue that the VSE and ESAS plan are potentially more vulnerable politically than the ISS was at any point in its history.
“It will continue because there is no reason (political or otherwise) to make it not continue.”
If no one in the new White House really cares one way or the other after the next election, then I’d agree with you — bureaucratic inertia could carry the program forward.
But they probably won’t. The savings from Shuttle’s retirement and not going forward with the lunar elements are too big — tens of billions of dollars in savings plus tens of billions of dollars in additional outlays — to be treated as pocket change in the discretionary budget. The new White House will want (need) those dollars for other priorities.
And that’s the reason (political, budgetary, and otherwise) that folks in power (who are not space cadets like us) will have to terminate the lunar elements of the VSE.
Again, I apologize for being so grim, but I think it’s important to at least acknowledge these realities and likelikhoods.
Both Oler (as is his tendency) and “Anonymous” misunderstand what I am saying. The inertia I am refering to is political. The Supercollider died because of budget problems and the fact that it didn’t have wide enough of a constituancy. Every large space project by its nature has a very wide constituancy.
People who confidently predict (or even announce) the death of VSE need to answer the question: Why kill the project? Its budget is not exploding. Whatever technical problems it is having are minor (contrary to internet rumors.)
An attempt to kill the project last year in the House, by the way, flopped rather conspicuously. The balance of power has certainly not shifted enough to place it in greater danger.
Then there is the thesis that the next President is sure to kill it. Who will do this? Which candidates have said anything one way or another about VSE? McCain and Hillary have voted for it (and McCain has supported it rhetorically). Gingrich wants to go back to the Moon, but wants to do it more “commercially.” Romney, Obama, and Edwards are silent on the subject.
It seems to me that the burden of proof for those who are predicting or announcing the death of VSE is on those who are making the prediction.
My guess, based on what is known (and not on what is desired), is that *at worse* it slips a year because of the budget nonsense for FY07. It’s unfortunate that Reid is not allowing amendments for the Senate version of the Omnibus Bill, or I suspect the half billion would be restored then and there. A supplemental, possibly attached to the War in Terror funding bill, is a possibility. Also the Mikulski-Hutchinson bill is getting another chance, which will relieve pressure to shift money around from exploration to science and aeronautics.
Mark…
There is no other inertia in Washington but political.
Aside from you supporting another big government program (gasp…grin)…Return to the Moon’s inertia is running out…it is being acted on by another force…
Robert
Robert Oler will soon invoke astronauts and other unidentified experts as the source of his unfounded statements. Truth be known, he is bitter about ISS because his former girlfriend Lisa Nowak won’t get a slot on an ISS Expedition crew.
Mark…why kill the project…let me count the reasons…ok I’ll just list three.
The technical problems are rising, the cost are rising and the schedule is slipping and a fourth why send more government employees to do useless things…
astronuats in love is much more entertaining….
off to fly.
Robert
sorry that should be “astronauts in heat”…
off to fly
Robert
Its clear why Oler got dumped by Lisa Nowak. Actual pilots and astronauts are much more exciting than hasbeen washouts like Robert Oler. Just Google this loser.
The really interesting back story is how Robert Oler was evicted from his homeowners association who threw him out. Seems he started to act like Napoleon …
> People who confidently predict (or even announce) the death of VSE need to answer the question: Why kill the project?
Because the national security of the United States is more important than bread and circuses.
The laws of physics work for other nations the same as they do for Americans.
Other nations will not ignore the military and commercial potential of space just because the US does. Many nations have the technology to develop reusable space vehicles. If Russia, China, or India develop military spaceplanes while the United States follows your “vision,” the United States will become a second-rate military power.
In the mean time, the United States military is cutting ships, bombers, and fighter squardrons to pay for the budget you say is “not exploding.”
The primary duty of the United States government is to provide for the national defense, not to “protect Shuttle jobs” or entertainment those who want to “see NASA astronauts walk on the Moon.”
> Which candidates have said anything one way or another about VSE? McCain and Hillary have voted for it
McCain also saw a legion of big-spending Republicans go down to defeat at the polls. If you listen to him lately, he sounds like fiscal conservative again. Can you quote any recent statements where he’s advocating big increases in domestic spending?
> Gingrich wants to go back to the Moon, but wants to do it more “commercially.â€
Translation: He wants to use prizes to encourage the development of private space, not throw money at NASA. He also supports the development of space power and reusable military spaceplanes.
In other words, Gingrich supports all the reforms you oppose and none of the things you support.
Is that your proof that your vision is “inevitable”?
“The technical problems are rising, the cost are rising and the schedule is slipping and a fourth why send more government employees to do useless things…”
The first two (at least so far) is false. The third may be coming true, but only because of the half billion dollar gap. The fourth–I’ll defer to folks like Paul Spudis who can explain exactly why exploring the Moon is so very useful.
It has also occured to me that one thing a new President might do is ramp up an expedition to an Earth approacher, as has been hinted at.
Edward Wright, by the way, must be kidding when he suggests that the defense budget is imploding. Just the opposite, actually.
Mark…
you might not call be ing “overweight” a technical problem, or not being able to life the rquired mass a technical problem…thats OK Rummy before he left was prepared to say that the V-22 didnt need to lift an armored HumVee…(fortunatly saner heads have prevailed)…but most of us view them as technical problems.
Cost are rising and that is why the schedule is slipping…Or the schedule is slipping because cost are rising.
As for Paul S…he couldnt explain anything outside of the narrow NASA “logical next step” (well they dont use those words anymore) nonesense…the “we are born to be explorers” stuff is a dog that just wont hunt anymore.
Of course I find it completly odd that you of all people are defending a big government space program that is designed for astronauts only…talk about a long ideological journey!
ON to Newt.
How do you know what his space program is? I read almost every speech he gives and other things…and I have not heard him talk about it much at all, much less in any definable situation.
Newt’s main focus now seems to be, the one that he was going quite articulartly (spell) about on MTP that “the instruments of National Power are broken”…something I agree with completly. (he is kind enough not to say that this administration has broken most of them)…
Pressed I am sure that includes the space effort, but I have yet to hear him articulate “what he would do differently” in the “frame” of the current situation.
What I find equally amazing is that I am proud of my opposition to going to Iraq..I think every darn thing I predicted about it has come to past (I remember when you were predicting we could take the place with some “Afghan” like operation…lol) but I agree now with Newt and others that once there failure is not an option and that our entire national insturments of power should be focused on success in this new century.
I dont see how that includes a few NASA astronauts doing the bunny hope on the Moon.
Particularly when we are running out of equipment in Iraq.
Robert
>>>
First, the ESAS is not the VSE. VSE is the “WHAT”. ESAS is Griffin’s particular plan for “HOW” to implement the VSE “What”.
Second, I think everybody — on both sides of the aisle — agrees that NASA needs to get out of low Earth orbit, and out on to the far frontier. There is almost no debate over this issue. (If you disagree, please provide the references of the specific politician.) In other words, most people generally agree on the “What”.
Third, however we do NOT have general agreement on the “how”. We have a huge raging debate over “how”, with everybody and their little sister offering plans for “how”.
Fourth, I have not predicted the death of VSE. I (and others) are predicting is the death of Griffin’s ESAS.
What anonymous & I have urged is that NASA needs to start planning — now — for a revised ESAS that is both sustainable and affordable. I also agree with anonymous that Griffin is unlikely to change his plan.
NASA can either alter its plans on its own, consistent with the political situation, or it can let the next President alter NASA’s plans for NASA. Since Griffin is unlikely to change the plan, the choice will be left to the next President.
– Al
> Edward Wright, by the way, must be kidding when he suggests that the defense budget is imploding. Just the opposite, actually.
That’s the liberal media line. In reality, G.W. Bush has presided over the biggest increase in domestic spending (including NASA) since John F. Kennedy. At the same time, “the US Air Force intends to retire the USA’s 33 U-2 reconnaissance aircraft, its 55 F-117 stealth fighters, 38 of its 76 C-21 Learjets, and about 40% of its B-52 bomber fleet between FY 2007-2011, in order to free up around $2.6 billion for the purchase of more F-22 Raptor fighters. The EB-52 SOJ [stand-off jammer] aircraft project would also be cancelled.” (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/01/us-plans-to-retire-b52s-c21s-f117-u2-for-more-f22s/index.php)
But rather than supporting the military, you want to give NASA a one-billion “miracle” increase??? On top of a $16 billion NASA budget, $53 billion a year for prescription drug benefits, and all the other domestic “goodies”? And you call yourself a conservative?
The big-spending “compassionate” wing has wrecked the Republican Party. The next generation of Republican leaders are not going to support runaway domestic spending. By rejecting any sort of reform at NASA and demanding unlimited funding, you ensure that NASA has no future.
“The inertia I am refering to is political.”
To the extent there is any political inertia pushing on Constellation, I’d argue that it’s pushing in the other direction. We have a $577 million cut to exploration in the House budget resolution; the head of NASA’s authorization committee is promising a further “rebalancing” away from exploration; and only 40 congressmen are willing to sign a letter against the cut and in support of NASA.
“The Supercollider died because of budget problems and the fact that it didn’t have wide enough of a constituancy.”
I’d argue that’s a misreading of history – but it’s off-topic for this forum.
“Every large space project by its nature has a very wide constituancy.”
Sorry to nitpick, but it’s constituency, with an “e”.
It depends on what your definition of “wide” is. I would argue that a few tens of congressmen from red southern states whose political relevance has been reduced as a result of the last election is not “wide” enough to see Constellation through the next decade and a half.
“Why kill the project? Its budget is not exploding.”
Constellation budget overruns are not the problem, at least for now.
The problem is the strains being placed on the overall budget for the federal government.
Right or wrong, the next White House will inherit the debt from a historically high string of deficits run up by the Bush Administration. Right or wrong, they will also inherit the remaining bills associated with an unfinished war on terrorism, the soon-to-be skyrocketing costs of taking care of the retiring baby boom generation in the absence of Social Security reform, and runaway medical costs impacting the Medicare program.
On top of this, within the non-defense S&T portion of the federal budget — where NASA competes most intensely against other research agencies –environmental and energy research will likely have priority, not space exploration.
You have to understand that discretionary programs, especially non-defense discretionary programs like those at NASA, must compete against other federal priorities for their annual budgets every year — first at the White House, then in Congress. For these programs, it’s not a question of whether the White House and Congress decide to terminate each year. Rather, it’s a question of whether the White House and Congress decide to provide _new_ funding to that program each year.
And, in the case of the lunar elements (Ares V, LSAM) of the ESAS plan, those programs will be competing for their _first_ budget in 2011. Unlike Ares 1 and Orion, they won’t even have a “sunk costs” argument going for them.
“Whatever technical problems it is having are minor (contrary to internet rumors.)”
Although issues surrounding performance margin appear to have been overblown, even after Horowitz’s presentation to the press, Ares 1/Orion does still appear to have negative design/development margin. There appears to be no spare mass available for the weight growth that inevitably occurs during the later design and development phases of any aerospace development project (and that’s before the impact of the J2-X upper-stage SRR is known). It’s possible that NASA understands the designs so well and that there is so much heritage hardware that NASA will be able to control mass precisely through the rest of the Ares 1 and Orion design and development cycles. But the history of every other aerospace development project to date would say that such a possibility is extremely remote.
Ares 1 is just woefully underpowered for what it’s being asked to do (it couldn’t even deliver an ATV or HTV to ISS with its current stats), and that’s leaving no room for error through the next 7+ years of design, development, and testing on Ares 1 and Orion. This will magnify the effects of even minor technical hurdles — like the recent parachute test failure — causing their solutions to ripple back through the design and greatly increasing the probability of cost overruns, schedule slips, and/or further performance degredation. The lack of design/development margin won’t kill Ares 1/Orion now, and Griffin & Co. can probably muddle through the rest of the Bush Administration. I wouldn’t predict the death of Ares 1/Orion yet. But the lack of design/development margin does substantially increase the likelihood of problems down the road that could lead to cancellation.
And going back to the original ESAS study, there are still major omissions and errors that folks seeking to sink Constellation could take advantage of. The was no sensitivity analysis regarding requirements, safety figures for Ares 1 “heritage” components are exaggerated, and the costs and technical figures for some competing designs were not accurate. I won’t speculate whether this was due to bias or lack of time. (I would argue NASA has never had a successful 60-day study, anyway.) But regardless, these ESAS vulnerabilities leave Constellation open to attacks from anyone paying close attention.
Whether the new Democratic staff now in power in Congress will start paying attention to these technical issues, and possibly even use them to retard Constellation growth further, remains to be seen.
“An attempt to kill the project last year in the House, by the way, flopped rather conspicuously.”
There are always last-minute amendments by congress-critters who didn’t get their way in committees to kill various programs and redirect the funding to their priorities. They almost always fail, and I would not put much stock in them unless the vote is close.
“The balance of power has certainly not shifted enough to place it in greater danger.”
Barring a technical meltdown, I agree that we are unlikely to see a congressional vote to terminate Ares 1/Orion, at least over the next couple years.
But it’s hard to ignore that the balance of power has shifted enough to retard the budget growth necessary to sustain NASA’s exploration efforts on schedule.
“Which candidates have said anything one way or another about VSE?”
None. Civil space issues almost never surface during the Presidential campaign.
“McCain and Hillary have voted for it”
They voted for larger bills, of which NASA’s exploration efforts were only one part, or against last-minute amendments that were not sanctioned in committee. Thus, I would argue that their views on exploration (or even NASA) remain unknown.
I would also argue that the parochial politics of congressional elections are very different from the national politics of the presidential election. Even if there was a very clear congressional vote on NASA exploration, votes by congressmen now running for President may not carry over to White House budget decisions and policy.
“Gingrich wants to go back to the Moon, but wants to do it more “commercially.—
I think it would take several miracles (or debacles, depending on your point-of-view) for Gingrich to win the White House.
“It seems to me that the burden of proof for those who are predicting or announcing the death of VSE is on those who are making the prediction.”
I think the “burden” (if there is any) lies on explaining why a new White House with no vested interest in the VSE or NASA would allocate $100 billion-plus to a human lunar return effort that will have no actual lunar hardware underway by 2011, that at best promises to repeat Apollo “on steroids” in the absence of a compelling rationale, and that won’t actually deliver a human lunar landing until long after that White House has been out of office — especially in the face of huge federal budget issues that will be coming to a head at the same time.
I’m not saying NASA couldn’t get lucky and the next President couldn’t turn out to be a closet space cadet. But NASA can’t bet on that, and looking at the landscape and facts, this is the likely situation that exploration will be in after the next election if a course-change is not made before then (not that I’m expecting any).
“A supplemental, possibly attached to the War in Terror funding bill, is a possibility.”
Again, there’s not much success to point to when it comes to NASA and supplementals, which usually address emergencies such as war and natural disasters. I think anyone trying to attach NASA to such a bill would get laughed out of committee.
“Also the Mikulski-Hutchinson bill is getting another chance, which will relieve pressure to shift money around from exploration to science and aeronautics.”
Again, that effort failed last year, and even if it succeeds this year, there’s no guarantee that exploration will benefit, especially given Mikulski’s interests in Goddard and science and Hutchison’s interests in STS and ISS.
My 2 cents… FWIW…
Edward: Mr. Gingrich wants to use prizes to encourage the development of private space, not throw money at NASA. He also supports the development of space power and reusable military spaceplanes.
Mr. Gingrich had his chance to support all of this. Instead, he chose to encourage the nation down the path of devisive ideological battles that help no one and achieve nothing constructive. He completely ignored his promise (in front of a room full of people including myself, and in a book) to push space commerce. Why should I (we) trust him now? (And, yes, I’m quite bitter about this — in addition to my opinion that Mr. Gingrich would be a president every bit as bad as the current one, and for many of the same reasons.)
— Donald
> And, yes, I’m quite bitter about this — in addition to my opinion that Mr. Gingrich would be a president
> every bit as bad as the current one, and for many of the same reasons.
Yes, and that shows the folly of Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” Bush supported every spending program liberals could ask for, but because he refused to cave on one issue — surrender in Iraq — you still treat him like the anti-Christ.
Bush spurned the fiscal conservatives and libertarians (excuse me, “evil libertarians”
for nothing. There was zero chance liberal Dems would cross over to support him, even though he gave them 99% of what they wanted.
Gingrich (and any other Republican who’s been paying attention) knows that. To win back the White House, they need to win back the fiscal conservatives and libertarians, not throw money at things like Ares and Orion, prescription drugs, etc. in the hope that Donald Robertson will cross over.
That is why Mark’s whistling past the graveyard on VSE. Republicans aren’t going to stomach big spenders any more, and while Democrats would welcome more spending, they will still reject VSE simply because it has the Bush name on it. You’re stuck between a rock and hard place, and like it or not, there’s only one solution if you want NASA to survive.
Reform NASA.
Edward – speaking as a liberal – Bush changing policy in Iraq would change my opinion, and I doubt he would change any elses opinion.
er, that should’ve read would NOT change my opinion, and I doubt it would change that many other opinions on this side
> Edward – speaking as a liberal – Bush changing policy in Iraq would change my opinion
Ferris, isn’t that just what I said? It doesn’t matter how much money Bush throws at prescription drug benefits or Shuttle job programs. Bush has supported what the left wants 99 times out of 100, but to change your opinion, you say he has to abandon the one policy where he has taken a conservative position.
That hardening of the “liberal” position means it’s useless for Republicans to try to woo liberals with big spending programs. Big spending doesn’t cause liberals to vote Republican any more, but it turns off fiscal conservatives, libertarians, and moderates who support some government spending but also want to take home a chunk of what they earn.
When Republicans can keep their base and also attract the moderates, they win elections. If the fiscal conservatives and libertarians stay home or vote third-party, and the moderates vote Democratic, then Republicans lose.
That’s why (successful) Republicans will be more fiscally conservative in the future and less likely to throw money at things like Apollo on Steroids.
> er, that should’ve read would NOT change my opinion, and I doubt it would change that many other opinions on this side
Er, never mind.
My point still stands. If Bush could tick off the last box on the liberal issue scorecard and still not change the opinion of a single person on your side, what’s the point of even trying?
It is rather ironic that Robert Oler makes the claim that he was against the war in Iraq. Do some Googling and you will find numerous examples where he brags about training pilots to go there and that he personally planned to bomb Hussein’s palace from his jet fighter.
Edward – Wow, I made a mistake, and had to do a repost, and then you did it too – oh well, that happens. Anyway..
First, not EVERYTHING is about money, despite what some believe – the embrace of radical religion, the loss of civil liberties – those are big issues, that have nothing to do Big Spending. And you talk to many liberals, we are more pissed about that stuff than federal spending. And in point of fact, that stuff can piss the libertarians just as much, if not more. Libertarianism is not just a code word for financial greed.
Second, big spending doesn’t mean fiscally iresponsible spending and/or inneffective spending. And thats ties into why I, as a liberal who does like government programs, has a real problem with the current ESAS and VSE, or for that matter, the drug prescription bill.
Which brings me to my third point
When Republicans can keep their base and also attract the moderates, they win elections. If the fiscal conservatives and libertarians stay home or vote third-party, and the moderates vote Democratic, then Republicans lose.
See, I would argue that we are a center-left country, and thats why things have changed over the years. And thats why we held congress for so many years , and why conservatives only held it for a little more than a decade
Ferris, I don’t want to go off topic, so I’m only going to say, well said!
— Donald
> radical religion, the loss of civil liberties… Libertarianism is not just a code word for financial greed.
No, and “civil liberties” is not a code word for religious intolerance. Libertarianism does not mean forcing other people to live and believe the way you think they should.
> Second, big spending doesn’t mean fiscally iresponsible spending and/or inneffective spending.
Yes, it does. The refusal to recognize that is the left’s radical religion. Unfortunately, you jihadis are forcing it on all of us.
> I, as a liberal who does like government programs, has a real problem with the current ESAS and VSE, or
> for that matter, the drug prescription bill.
The liberal objection to VSE and prescription drug coverage has generally been that the government is not spending enough money on those things. The proposed solution is even more reckless spending — “Milkulski Miracle,” etc.
But again, my point was not to engage in an ideological debate with a Daily Kos evangelist. I know I’m not going to convince that people who believe in God, or limited government, are not pure evil. I’m not trying to convince you. I was just trying to analyze the the chances of each party continuing to support VSE. I regret that it’s impossible to have such discussions without your turning it into another attempt to spread Kos with the sword.
Edward – you point about analyzation is well taken. And, in that spirit, I won’t respond point by point. However, your miscaricterization annoyed me. And as such, I suggest you might do a little better just trying to analyse your side, since your understanding about my side is lacking. And as far as being jihadists, or crusaders, we learned our tactics from your side.
> I suggest you might do a little better just trying to analyse your side
Sorry, Ferris, but I have not intention of self-censoring the facts just to please you.
> we learned our tactics from your side.
Then you need to work on the implementation of the “religious tolerance” tactic, because you haven’t got it down yet. Not to mention free speech and tolerance in general.
Ed – its not a matter of pleasing me – its a matter of showing how little you understand about liberals, and showing that lack of understanding
And, as far as religous tolerance, or tolerance in general, you, Edward, have more chutzpa than I have seen in a long time. Or free speech, for that matter. I’d love to hear about the tolerance shown by the Religous right.
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/The_Moon_Is_A_School_For_Exploration_999.html
yet another useless reason to go back to the Moon…
if this is the best NASA can do then well its over…
Robert
Libertarianism does not mean forcing other people to live and believe the way you think they should.
Libertarianism by definition means not telling other people what to believe and how to live.