Al

Right on. In fact Marburger in writing, speaking, and in deeds has indicated that he does not support the ESAS architecture. In his 2006 speech, after going into some detail that the economic development of the solar system is the priority for space, stated that NASA is “not perceived to contribute to the economic and security interests of the nation” and that this is why both the NSF and DOE are getting big budget increases and NASA is not.

I simply cannot fathom why this message has not gotten through to NASA management across the board. Actually I can, as economic development is foreign to NASA and has always been, even though that is ranked just as high as science and education as their core values in the NASA Authorization act.

I read what you posted just above, and you provided no real evidence that Marburger supports ESAS. BTW, when Marburger says “policy”, he almost certainly is talking about White House policy, which is where he works.

Marburger has given two major public speeches, and nothing in those speeches directly confirms that he supports ESAS.

– Al

“The current space vision sets no date on a return to Mars, although it does acknowledge Mars as an eventual destination for human presence. It is a logical destination, but much of what I read about how and when we can get there is unrealistic. The current policy emphasizes a step-by-step approach, and advances the concept that deep space exploration is necessarily “a journey, not a race.” – Marburger
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=27253

You have to first seperate VSE from ESAS, which Marburger plainly does. He says the “current space vision” in that he is clearly refering to the VSE as President Bush outlined it, which is America’s CURRENT space vision. Policy is seperate from the “Vision”, policy is those actions that will FULFILL that vision. Here again Marburger is making a clear distinction between the two. He next states that “the CURRENT POLICY”, “emphasizes a step-by-step approach, and advances the concept that deep space exploration is necessarily “a journey, not a race.” Current space POLICY is the ESAS, He is acknowledging that YES there are OTHER PLANS out there but they are OBVIOUSLY FLAWED because they do not emphasize CURRENT POLICY’S step by step approach.

If the “current policy” was wrong would he not have said “the current policy should” or “the current policy doesn’t” or ANY SORT of nueanced word that politians use to show disfavor while outwardly acting like they are signing on?

Marburger goes on to say:

“As we think about the future of the space exploration enterprise, we need to keep in mind how unusual its early history was. I think we are psychologically conditioned to want to model national policy on the highly successful Apollo program, starting with its huge budget. But the Apollo program was a unique response to a singular set of events at the height of the cold war. I cannot prove it except by pointing to the history, but it seems that the pace and scale of the Apollo program was unsustainable. In any case it was not sustained, and its rapid demise created serious long term difficulties for NASA management. We definitely need stable budgets that grow with inflation in order to avoid costly interruptions of multi-year programs and construction schedules.”

The apollo program was NEVER DESIGNED to be sustainable. It was ONLY the precurser missions to test IN SPACE systems UNTIL the new nerva engines were completed and the NOVA program was started.

Kennedy gave a speech in Dec 1962 http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/publicpapers/1962/jfk546_62.html

and did a question and answer session after:

Q. Mr. President, after your trip to Los Alamos Laboratory, New Mexico, is it your intention to ask for more money to speed up Project Rover, or for nuclear propulsion in space?

THE PRESIDENT. We’re going to let these tests go on, of the reactor. These tests should be completed by July. If they are successful, then we will put more money into the program, which would involve the Nerva and Rift, both the engine and the regular machine. We will wait until July, however, to see if these tests are successful. It should be understood that the nuclear rocket, even under the most favorable circumstances, would not play a role in any first lunar landing. This will not come into play until 1970 or ‘71. It would be useful for further trips to the moon or trips to Mars. But we have a good many areas competing for our available space dollars, and we have to try to channel it into those programs which will bring us a result, first, on our moon landing, and then to consider Mars.

President Kennedy ASSUMED we would be going to the moon with NUCLEAR powered IN SPACE ships BY 1970-71 and on to a mars (flyby) in 1973 and Mars landing 1975 with the NOVA program which would have REPLACED the apollo program. Apollo was NEVER MEAN’T to be SUSTAINABLE!

If you look here: http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/nova.htm
You can see the Nova program suggested vehicles that Martian, Douglas, Nasa, were planning on for the FOLLOW ON to the Apollo program.

But when kennedy announced that the the RIFT test would get funded and would be the foot in the door for the NOVA program ELEMENTS in congress acted immediately to shut it down. Congressman Karth, told one reporter that he was “absolutely astounded,” especially in view of repeated congressional warnings against “new starts. Very bluntly he said, “a manned mission to Mars or Venus by 1975 or 1977 is now and always has been out of the question-and anyone who persists in this kind of misallocation of resources at this time is going to be stopped.”

So the SECOND phase AFTER apollo ENDED was clearly advanced nuclear propulsion for use in going to the “moon mars and beyond” .

I’m one of those and for me the reason is how the Aldridge commission’s report (from here on ACR) got something fundamentally right: the “why” of it all as it applies right now. It also did it in a way that continues to be inclusive rather than exclusive (and not just politically but philosophically). Then it went further and outlined sound general principles of “how” in a way consistent with the “why”.

It’s not so much the specific details of the ACR (or the VSE for that matter) on their own that makes me enthusiastic but rather the general approach embraced. I believe this holds true for most that support it as should be clear if you notice the diversity of opinion represented by them on specifics, even only here on this website. The opinions I’ve noticed as absolutely opposed to the VSE/ACR combination have been those that are categorically against any other approach except for their own specific one.

The VSE/ACR combo also broke with a very stale yet persistent idea: more government money as the only solution. That old meme is a self-defeating one even for pure science: as one tries to build an increasingly vast structure of activity on top of such a “single block foundation” it is destined to either topple or stagnate by necessity .

Based upon the spirit of the VSE and together with it as a supplement the ACR did something wonderful; it opened up the possibility of NASA as a significant enabler to vigorously open up space with increased expansion of activity and a very broad level of non-NASA participation.

Instead one got ESAS which quickly turned into the opposite of most if not all of the aforementioned and then in addition makes matters worse by pitting just about everybody against each other. If I thought it was intentional I would be absolutely rabid but since I don’t I’m only frustrated and saddened .

It’s not that one can’t do without NASA but that the VSE/ACR could speed things up in a very efficient manner that no one but the US are currently capable of while ensuring that all the good work NASA has done doesn’t become redundant by atrophy. That said the VSE/ACR strategy isn’t the one and only way to attempt a more robust and inclusive human presence in space (in person and by robotic proxy) but it’s not over yet; the VSE and ACR or at least the approach they advocate can still be saved and most likely by a combination of Direct or Direct+EELV&NewSpace lobbying together with the next President. and White House.

What direct evidence do you have for the opinion that Marburger thinks that ESAS meets his stated criteria?

It is possible that Marburger thinks that ESAS does not meet his criteria, but he is powerless to do anything about it. The problem is that if Marburger publicly said as much, then he would have to do something about it, such as:

1) Get Griffin fired (which may not be possible, since the President has higher priorities than dealing with NASA, and Marburger would be making a technical argument to the President that his technical judgement was better than Griffin’s judgement.)

2) Force Griffin to cancel ESAS (which may not be possible, if Marburger can’t threaten Griffin with being fired.)

3) Admit that Griffin is ignoring White House policy with ESAS, and that he made a bad decision in picking Griffin as NASA Administrator (which does nothing, and probably gets Marburger in trouble for airing WH dirty laundry in public.)

None of these are “good options” from the perspective of Marburger.

– Al

I read what Marburger wrote a couple years ago on HOW the VSE brings the solar system within the economic sphere of humanity. According to Marburger from the time of JFk NASA has operated with a litmus test as it regards spending, it was a two pronged test. Science, National security. If the proposed spending did nothing to advance either of those two, then the proposed funding was a non starter. When president Bush outlined the VSE he ADDED on item to that litmus test, that in the history of NASA had never been their before. The absolute GENUIS of Bush’s vison, according to Marburger was that Bush added “economics” to past two litmus test items, so now ANY proposed spending that NASA makes it has to either: Advance science, provide for national security, OR add an economic activity to America. So in Marburger’s thinking the ESAS passes that somehow.

Pulleeeasse.

I know this is what you are really thinking, so my apologies for beating up on you, but you really are not in touch with reality. This naivete is quite common, so let me talk to the engineers (and rocket scientists) who read this blog and were thinking the same thing.

No federal agency is above, or transcends politics, nor has this ever been the case. Politics is the process by which a democracy (or any other form of government short of a total dictatorship) works out its priorities.

Even a marriage, which is a group of two people, has politics to work out the priorities between wife and husband (that is, unless one of them is a total dictator.)

Name me a single federal agency that transcends politics.

More specifically to NASA:

1) The creation of NASA was a political act, in response to Sputnik, which was a Soviet global political statement.

2) Apollo was a political act by Kennedy in response to Gagarin, Sputnik, and the claim by the Soviets that they were going to bury us.

3) Shuttle was a political act by Nixon to give NASA something to do, and to assuage the political powers that cared.

4) The ISS was a political act by Clinton to do something with our new friends from Russia (part of the former Soviet Union.

5) The VSE was a political act in response to the Columbia accident. If it had not been for this national tragedy, which captured the entire nation’s attention for an extended period of time, there is little to no chance that President Bush would have given space policy more than 5 minutes thought (war or not.)

The engineer who asks “why can’t NASA transcend politics?” is the equivalent to the liberal arts major who asks “When do we get warp drive?”

Neither one are in touch with reality.

This is partly what I mean when I say “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

FWIW,

– Al

You got at least one LOL for that one!

I agree with everything that Rand said about the Aldridge Commission report. The FFRDC recommendation was problematic (actually, this has been a pet idea of Bob Walker’s for some time … as a member of the commission he almost certainly pushed it). But there is a strong consensus with the Aldridge Commission’s recommendations related to national security and commerce. Even Marburger, since he repeatedly trumpets the importance of benefits to commerce and national security.

QUESTION: If we are going to incorporate the solar system into Earth’s economic sphere, how in heck are we going to do so without the U.S. Government (i.e., NASA) transforming its relationship to the private sector?

ANSWER: It is not going to happen.

QUESTION: The Aldridge Commission called on NASA to develop a sustainable & affordable strategy. What is it about the current ESAS is sustainable and affordable?

ANSWER: Nothing

– Al

“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

What country on Earth ever folded due to spending too much on exploration and research? The opposite holds true. What country on Earth ever failed by keeping challenges grand? The oppostie holds true.

NASA’s budget is a joke. It’s a joke. Two months in Iraq will give you more than enough for NASA’s Yearly budget! What if we spent 100 Million on NASA – challenging the youth of America to step up. What could be done. It’s PROVEN that for every dollar spent at NASA – 8 returns to the community. That’s money well spent. It’s win/win for everyone. Anyone thinking NASA should be privatized is years off of this actually happening. Go ask Branson how easy it is to launch ONE person without a payload. If NASA had a larger budget – instead of a JOKE budget – we could foster such ideas.

The picture should be big – not narrowly focused. A country that spends less than 1% on it’s space budget – then bitches about it – is a country that should be ashamed…..