Campaign '08

Obama still seeking inspiration and direction for NASA

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made his first trip to Florida in a year on Wednesday, including a stop in the central Florida community of Kissimmee. Obama, like other Democratic candidates, had steered clear of Florida after national party officials put the state in the penalty box for moving up its primary to late January. Visiting central Florida makes it more likely that Obama will get questions on space policy topics, and sure enough, the topic came up, Florida Today reports:

“I want us to understand what it is we want to accomplish, so we can continue to build this program,” the Democratic presidential candidate said, as he spoke during a “town hall-style” meeting Wednesday in Kissimmee. “Other countries are in position to leapfrog us if we don’t continue to make this investment.”

[…]

Obama said he would fund a strengthened space program, including the Orion program, which is designed to return Americans to the moon and later get them to Mars.

Obama said he wanted to revive the energy the country had for the space program during the Mercury and Apollo programs. The Mercury program launched the first Americans into space, and the Apollo program landed Americans on the moon.

“Now, even though lots of good work is being done with the shuttle program, I don’t think people have as deep of a commitment to the space program,” he said.

There’s not a lot of new concrete policy insights there, and it does continue the theme he laid out in earlier speeches that NASA is no longer inspirational and there is a need to figure out what NASA should be doing. But, in the words of aerospace engineer Angel Andujar, who asked Obama the question about NASA, “At least he’s looking into it.”

Update: as noted in the comments, the video accompanying the story has more direct statements from Obama regarding his approach to space policy:

One of the things I want to do is review, with NASA, what are we doing in terms of manned flights to the Moon or to Mars, versus are we better off using, for example, things like Hubble, that gives us, yields us, more information and a better bang for the buck. I am absolutely committed to making sure that we’ve got a space program that is second to none in the world. That is my absolute commitment. But, what I want to do is I want to sit down with NASA and figure out what’s our focus and make sure that that focus is clear and that it is yielding the kinds of benefits over time…

[The video cuts transitions at the end to a concluding statement form Obama, so we don’t know exactly the kinds of benefits over time he was referring to.]

54 comments to Obama still seeking inspiration and direction for NASA

  • MarkWhittington

    The video clip that accompanied the story showed Obama with a slightly more disturbing point of view toward the exploration program:

    “I want to review with NASA what are we doing in terms of manned flights to the Moon or Mars vs for example things like Hubble which yields us more information and a better bang for the buck.”

    Even though Hubble was deployed and is serviced by the shuttle, this quote suggests that Obama is thinking in terms of robots vs humans, with a bias toward robots.

  • Versus indeed

    Mark is right, in that Obama used the word “versus” and thereby pits robotic exploration against human exploration missions. It’s an artifical polarity that reflects a simplistic understanding of NASA’s spectrum of exploration activities. It’s not typical of Obama’s intellectual capacity.

    Modern space exploration is both thoughtfully planned and scientifically relevant, because the true excitement comes from discovery, not from creating footprints and wheel tracks. Discovery requires both robots (machines) and humans, and I would challenge anyone to identify a recent scientific advancement that occured without non-human devices of some sort coming into play. The best balance of man vs. machine, as well as in-situ vs. laboratory activity, depends on the science question that is being studied, and varies over time considerably.

    Because human-in-space exploration, per mission and per hour spent in discovery mode, is extremely more costly than human-on-Earth-with-robot-in-space exploration, it is very appropriate to carefully and thoroughly justify the role of the astronaut in the discovery process. That, I think, is what underlies Obama’s viewpoint. So in my opinion, Obama’s point of view is not disturbing. It shows a healthy skepticism that’s very refreshing after 8 years of dogma and blind faith.

  • spectator

    Obama has been saying for some time that Nasa has lost its vision. I think Obama needs an eye exam. If going to the moon isn’t a vision, what else is? If building and using a huge space station isn’t a vision, what else is? If sending unmanned probes to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto aren’t a vision, what else is? If landing a robot on Mars this weekend isn’t a vision, what else is?
    If earth centric probes to help understand our planet isn’t a vision, what else is? These are typical of Nasa for the last 30 years, what has Obama been seeing?

    Obama is incoherent on Nasa. How can he say he supports Orion and not embrace the vision that brought it forth? That vision is support for the space station and deep space missions. What else is Orion for than taking people to the moon and beyond?

  • MarkWhittington

    Just as another interesting data point. The initiative in which Obama had planned to cut NASA funding in order to fund an education program seems to have vanished from his official web site. At least I haven’t been able to find it.

  • Mark,

    It’s still there. Go to the “Education” issue page and scroll down to the bottom. Open up his Pre-K to 12th grade plan, and you can find the statement at the end of the report.

  • Chance

    “What else is Orion for than taking people to the moon and beyond?”

    Providing jobs to constituents in key Congressional districts for one thing. Sorry if that sounds too cynical, I’m sure a lot of people in NASA think it really is the best way to go forward, but I don’t agree. Why go to the moon? For national pride? Helium 3 for mythical fusion reactors? Seriously, why? I’ve been to the NASA website saying why, and it just doesn’t convince me. If Obama wants to take a good hard look at NASA and the missions they conduct, then amen brother.

  • GRS

    Spectator: Obama has been saying for some time that Nasa has lost its vision. I think Obama needs an eye exam. If going to the moon isn’t a vision, what else is?

    Going to the Moon was visionary 40-50 years ago. Doing it now employing the same basic approach pioneered by our grandfathers is NOT.

    Plus, I can think of many things more visionary than this. How about a nation freed from the tyranny of foreign oil? How about space travel opened up to non-civil servants? Face it, the Von Braun Paradigm and its various incarnations is not very relevant to the modern day.

  • MarkWhittington

    Jeff, thanks. It just shows how hollow Obama’s words in Florida were.

    Chance – 3He is not mythical. It does exist.

  • anonymous.space

    “3He is not mythical. It does exist.”

    The fusion reactors that would use helium-3 do not exist.

    FWIW…

  • spectator

    “Going to the Moon was visionary 40-50 years ago. Doing it now employing the same basic approach pioneered by our grandfathers is NOT.”

    My point doesn’t allow you to cherry pick. Nasa’s vision has been fairly consistent for over 40 years and its quite broad. Its unmanned to deep space to answer basic questions on physics. Its unmanned to earth orbit to answer basic weather, solar and terrestrial questions. Its manned programs to the moon and LEO.

    That is the vision of Nasa. What part doesn’t Obama see? What part does Obama need a “conversation” to support or cut?

    Like many of Obama’s statements this year on other subjects, he’s not making much sense with Nasa either. For instance, he says on his website he’ll delay constellation for 5 years. He said yesterday that he “supports” Orion. Well you can’t do both. He says on his website he’ll delay constellation to pay for education programs. Well I think the part of constellation he wants to delay is the heavy lift part. But that part doesn’t start to consume dollars until 2015 or so. How will cutting its non existing funding starting in 2009 help pay for his Ed vision? If he really means cutting constellation in 2009, then he can’t “support” Orion, can he? Orion is ramping up to be the elephant in Nasa’s budget by 2010 so any cuts to Nasa will either “not support” Orion or gut the unmanned programs.

  • I’m very encouraged by this. If you compare his tone now with the attitude in the education document published late last year, you see a shift from ‘space is the first thing to be de-funded’ to ‘we want to continue leading’.

    The voices being raised at these town hall meetings on space are clearly having some effect – in addition to who-knows-what lobbying is going on behind the scenes. (A lot of groups have been telling me that they’re talking to Obama staffers, quietly. How true that is, at what level, and to what effect is anyone’s guess.)

    Yes, he’s at a Florida event, and yes, he’s still talking about robotic vs. piloted. The point is, he’s definitely changing his tone, and that’s got to be at least in part because people keep asking him about space. I think he’s beginning to see that this is an issue that has a constituency, and that he needs to think seriously about.

    You know: it’s that “squeaking wheel gets oiled” thing.

  • Bill

    Obama is changing his tone now when he’s speaking before an audience in Florida. If (God forbid) he is elected, I suspect that when faced with his traditional democrat constituencies (teachers’ unions, trial lawyers) that NASA will be the first discretionary spending agency to take it in the shorts.

  • Bill White

    Greg Zsidisin makes an essential point, here. Obama’s stance is moving and that is a good thing. The 2008 NASA Authorization Act may be part of the reason why.

    Obama is also opening the door to a discussion of “why space” using the narrative paradigms coined by Rick Tumlinson:

    Carl Sagan-ism;

    Gerard O’Neill-ism;

    Werner von Braun-ism.

    Space advocates now need to explain why “seeking knowledge” or Science is not the only justification for NASA.

    Regardless of where Obama himself stands, a transparent and candid debate on “why” we have NASA and what its long term mission should be would be a very good thing. Given the language and proposed funding found in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act it is also clear that the Democratic Party is NOT anti-spaceflight.

    = = =

    In January 2004 William Langewiesche wrote a marvelous (IMHO) short essay titled “A Two Planet Species”

    The opening paragraph:

    A Two-Planet Species?

    In the aftermath of the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia an important debate on the purpose and future of the U.S. human-space-flight program is under way, though perhaps not as forthrightly as it should be. The issue at stake is not space exploration in itself but the necessity of launching manned (versus robotic) vehicles. Because articles of faith are involved, the arguments tend to be manipulative and hyperbolic. If the debate is to be productive, that needs to change.

    The entire essay is worth reading (and its very short)

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/langewiesche

  • MarkWhittington

    Greg, et al, who think that Obama is moving in the right direction. I think that is true only rhetorically. For instance, the offending clause in his education plan, as has been pointed out, is still on his web site. And he has not made any specific committments regarding exploration, commercial development, or indeed anything regarding space at all.

  • Someone

    Obama is jsut telling the people in Florida what they want to hear so they don’t get too upset as having their votes not count. Next he will be in Michigan talking about saving the auto industry for the same reason. Once elected both will be forgotten.

  • Chance

    My point doesn’t allow you to cherry pick. Nasa’s vision has been fairly consistent for over 40 years and its quite broad. Its unmanned to deep space to answer basic questions on physics. Its unmanned to earth orbit to answer basic weather, solar and terrestrial questions. Its manned programs to the moon and LEO.

    You seem to be getting very worked up over a rhetorical device. Forget vision. What are the practical reasons to direct NASA to go back to the moon? Has the space station been a success? Maybe one sucess is expanding our knowledge of how to assemble large-ish structures in orbit, I’ll give it that. Aside from that, it has been ridiculously expensive and has accomplished little in the way of science or commercial gain. The shuttle? Come on. I know there are lots of rocket scientists who read this blog, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that the shuttle program has been a decades long, expensive bust. Now you want to take the same organization that mismanaged these programs, and put it in charge of even bigger, more expensive programs? I’m a pretty liberal guy, not one of these types who wants to privatize everything, but to reward failure (or let’s be generous, mediocrity) is not smart in my book. Parts of NASA have been very sucessful (*cough* robots *cough*). No, they can’t do everything a human could, but they can do a lot, for a lot less money. It just makes sense to reward sucess.

  • spectator

    “You seem to be getting very worked up over a rhetorical device. Forget vision.”

    I’ll leave the rhetorical flourishes to you to work up.

    Obama brought up the Vision thing. So can we discuss it? Or is it a distraction now?

    My humble contribution is that he either won’t say what his vision is or is inconsistent in what he says. Nasa’s vision is plain to see over the last 40 years, so what is Obama’s problem in discussing it and saying plainly what is worth funding in a Obama(shudder) administration? This isn’t rocket science you know, its politics.

    As a “liberal guy”, I’m sure you would no more cut into Medicare, Housing allowances, welfare, & other social subsidies because of program mismanagement or blunders from time to time. Nasa in all of its .0006 of the federal budget could get the same slack as well. Afterall, an average Medicare blunder could fund Orion for an entire year, an average screwup in a big Nasa program might fund Medicare for 30 minutes.

  • Mark

    “it has been ridiculously expensive and has accomplished little in the way of science or commercial gain. The shuttle? Come on. I know there are lots of rocket scientists who read this blog, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that the shuttle program has been a decades long, expensive bust.”

    This statement just shows ignorance about the ISS and shuttle programs. Just because you cant name the successes, doesn’t mean none exist. The ISS is the only micro gravity research lab mankind has, an environment which is needed for many important areas of research, ranging from biology to materials science.

    As for the shuttle, I agree it has continued 1 decade too many, but it certainly hasn’t been a “bust”. I wouldn’t call ~120 successful flights a bust. The ISS or the Hubble wouldn’t exist without the shuttle. While it is time for it to go, It has been a successful large payload carrier up and down from orbit.

  • GRS

    Mark: As for the shuttle, I agree it has continued 1 decade too many, but it certainly hasn’t been a “bust”. I wouldn’t call ~120 successful flights a bust. The ISS or the Hubble wouldn’t exist without the shuttle. While it is time for it to go, It has been a successful large payload carrier up and down from orbit.

    Good point, but the Shuttle has also pointed to the need for continuing the development of technologies and growing the demand for affordable access to space. Without this, VSE, at least the larger scale elements thereof, will be nothing more than a dream.

  • Obama’s “intellect” is vastly overrated. In his stumbling and fumbling over his policy over negotiations with rogue nations, for example, he’s shown himself to have only a shallow grasp of recent history- i.e. insisting that Kennedy met with Khrushchev when they “were on the brink of nuclear war.” Actually, the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit occurred more than a year before the Cuban missile crisis, and Kennedy’s lack of preparation and poor performance led directly to the erection of the Berlin Wall and the missile crisis. In other words, it was a perfect argument against the very policy Obama advocates. That Obama could not recognize that doesn’t speak highly of his allegedly superhuman powers of perception.

    His proposal to stretch out Orion funding to finance a preschool program is another example of muddled thinking. Anyone familiar with government-funded big science and military projects knows that stretching out funding only makes them more expensive, not less, and that his preschool program will quickly mushroom into an enormous entitlement that will quickly dwarf NASA’s entire budget.

    Very little of what Obama says actually makes sense, and yet he has become something of a Rorschach test for those looking for some kind of Messiah figure to lead us out of the Wilderness into true Enlightenment. In reality, an Obama administration will probably unravel more quickly than Jimmy Carter’s and be an unmitigated disaster for NASA.

  • PhilHorzempa

    Perhaps, the space community should start to point out to the Obama team that there are other places in the Federal Budget that could (should) be trimmed to free up funds for his Education Initiative. My suggestion would be to cut the “Star Wars” Missile defense program. The Pentagon has tried to hide the true costs for this porgram by dividing it up into separate items. However, the total for all elements of Star Wars is now about $10 Billion per year. I would suggest getting Obama’s education funds by cutting Star Wars back to $5 Billion per year.

  • Vladislaw

    “Why go to the moon? For national pride? Helium 3 for mythical fusion reactors? Seriously, why?”

    Why do you climb a mountain?

  • Chance

    Vladislaw, I don’t ask the taxpayer to subsidize my mountain climbing.

    Just because you cant name the successes, doesn’t mean none exist. The ISS is the only micro gravity research lab mankind has, an environment which is needed for many important areas of research, ranging from biology to materials science.

    You’re coming dangerously close to the famous “invisible dragon” argument made famous by Carl Sagan. (I have an invisible dragon in my garage. You can’t see, hear, or smell him, but he’s there, I swear it)Please list the significant advances or discoveries in any of the fields you listed made on the ISS. I’m not going to claim there haven’t been any, surely there have. What are they, and were they worth the 100 Billion or so spent?

    As for the shuttle, I agree it has continued 1 decade too many, but it certainly hasn’t been a “bust”. I wouldn’t call ~120 successful flights a bust. The ISS or the Hubble wouldn’t exist without the shuttle. While it is time for it to go, It has been a successful large payload carrier up and down from orbit.

    120 sucessful flights, great. Had NASA said in the 70’s that we want to build a vehicle that will fly 120 times in 27 year, I’d agree they were a complete sucess. But that’s expressly not what the shuttle was supposed to do. The shuttle never even came close to the promised number of 48 flights a year. By that measure, the biggest measure of all since the whole point of a reusable vehicle is that it should be cheaper in the long run, is is indeed a bust. As for the Hubble and ISS, that’s pretty close to circular logic. I find it difficult to believe that either could not have been launched or built with a differant vehicle.

    As a “liberal guy”, I’m sure you would no more cut into Medicare, Housing allowances, welfare, & other social subsidies because of program mismanagement or blunders from time to time. Nasa in all of its .0006 of the federal budget could get the same slack as well. Afterall, an average Medicare blunder could fund Orion for an entire year, an average screwup in a big Nasa program might fund Medicare for 30 minutes.

    On the contrary, I would have no problem eliminating any program that screws up. If a better solution can be found, I am all for it. I identify myself as liberal because I do not reflexively assume that government should have no role in whatever the solution is. If it is private sector, great. If it is government-run, great. Whatever works. As for pointing out those programs overruns and issues, that is a red herring argument. The misdeeds of others have little to no bearing on the misdeeds of the one in question. Would I tell a judge that I should get off for stealing a few bucks since bank robbers steal millions every year? I don’t think that defense would fly. (Hm, but would it fly 48 times a year?)

    I rarely comment here because the people on this blog are usually so knowledgable, but don’t insult my intelligence by acting like a mistake (even well intentioned ones like the shuttle and ISS) is actually a great sccess. That’s why we have politicians.

  • Dennis Wingo

    We go to the Moon in order to set up the first human outpost outside of the Earth and to utilize its resources to enable lowering the cost of access to more than just LEO.

  • MarkWhittington

    On the question about why to go to the Moon. The short answer is to open up all of the scientific, commercial, and national security opportunities that occupying the Moon implies. Everyone has their list of what those are and other people will disagree with some or all of them. But there are opportunities and they will not be taken advantage of (at least by us) is we choose not to go.

  • spectator

    “I rarely comment here because the people on this blog are usually so knowledgable, but don’t insult my intelligence by acting like a mistake (even well intentioned ones like the shuttle and ISS) is actually a great sccess. That’s why we have politicians.”

    Kind of smug don’t you think? Here you have an international program led by Nasa over many years through a shuttle explosion and now that station is considered a great prize by Russia, Japan and Europe. Its almost ready for 6 person full time habitation of Russians, Euros, Japanese and Americans. Russians have served under Americans and Americans under Russians.

    Yet you call it a mistake. Whatever happened to a liberals love for kumbaya? Don’t you realize that this “mistake” as you call it, is a top priority for the next 10 years of Russia, Japan and the EU space policy? So what do you know that our foreign friends can’t quite grasp? Enlighten us.

  • Mark

    “You’re coming dangerously close to the famous “invisible dragon” argument made famous by Carl Sagan.”

    No I’m not, The Dragon is perfectly visible, you just haven’t bothered to open the door to the garage and look in. Do some reading about micro gravity research. I’m not going to cut and paste articles from scientific journals to prove my point.

    When there is no gravity, it is possible to do experiments which can measure the fundamental physics of a process. On earth, those processes are slightly altered due to gravity (dendritic crystal growth in solidifying metal for example) If we can understand the physics, then we can learn how to control the process.(make stronger materials in the example I used)

    This link lists some of the research being done with micro gravity:
    http://www.microgravity.org.uk/6%20fundamaental%20research%20areas/main%20research%20page%20(default).htm

  • Vladislaw

    “Vladislaw, I don’t ask the taxpayer to subsidize my mountain climbing.”

    Correct, you do not ask the taxpayer to subsidize your mountain climbing ONLY until your party gets into trouble and has to be air lifted off the mountain with emergency evac and rescue teams. Then the taxpayers pay for your mountain climbing.

    My comment was not directed as a support for NASA’s efforts to goto the moon. It was more the point of why individuals and the private sector may choose to do something. It does not always have to be a reason understood by everyone or show a profitable bottom line. SOMETIMES the reason can be nothing more then it is there so lets explore it.

    Personally I am for a government sponsered lunar effort, just not the one that is planned and how it is being implimented.

    Just as I do not believe NASA should be allowed to build it’s own automobiles that the agency uses but should buy them off the shelf (COTS) I do not think NASA should be allowed to have it’s own LEO transportation system, they should be only allowed to buy a ticket for a seat to the ISS or other commercial stations. Nasa should be focused on building an IN SPACE ship that gets refueled at a commerical gas station in space.

  • anonymous.space

    With Clinton effectively out of the race, it now appears guaranteed that Constellation and maybe all of NASA’s human space flight activities will face a major review at the outset of the next Administration, regardless of who wins the Presidency. McCain has promised to subject all discretionary programs to a review as part of an FY 2010 budget freeze. And this is the third or fourth time Obama has expressed his desire for a review of NASA’s human space flight goals and budget priorities.

    At a minimum, this introduces a large amount of uncertainty as to whether the VSE’s human space elements will be carried forward. And with the gap at five years and growing, Constellation design reviews slipping to the right, Ares I/Orion mass/performance and architecture closure issues persisting, two negative independent reviews by GAO, and the high likelihood of further budget-driven delays from Congress this year, it’s perhaps more likely that elements of Constellation will face termination than not.

    One could hope that the next Administration would give NASA an opportunity to change course and pursue a faster, more cost-effective means of regaining human ETO capabilities while still retaining or accelerating a better-scaled human space exploration effort. But with both McCain and Obama looking for spare change in the federal budget, that’s an unlikely scenario, and one that will probably only come about if NASA comes to the negotiating table with alternatives.

    My 2 cents… FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    “…now that station is considered a great prize by Russia, Japan and Europe… Don’t you realize that this “mistake” as you call it, is a top priority for the next 10 years of Russia, Japan and the EU space policy?

    Well, of course Russia, Europe, and Japan are taking advantage of the ISS. Europe and Japan got access to a 100+ billion dollar space station for a small fraction of the total cost ($8 billion in contributions from Europe and something less than from Japan, IIRC). And NASA _pays_ Russia to make the ISS a priority. We couldn’t have made it more of a sweetheart deal for the ISS partners if we tried. Who looks a $100 billion gift-horse in the mouth?

    “So what do you know that our foreign friends can’t quite grasp? Enlighten us.”

    Chance’s comments regarding the costs and the benefits of the Shuttle and ISS programs are hardly unique or new. Heck, Mike Griffin himself has called the Shuttle a mistake, and terminated nearly all funding for ISS microgravity research.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    Edit…

    Chance’s comments regarding the costs and the benefits of the Shuttle and ISS programs are hardly unique or new. Heck, Mike Griffin himself has terminated nearly all funding for ISS microgravity research and has repeatedly referred to the Shuttle and ISS as mistakes:

    “The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday.”

    “Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, ‘My opinion is that it was. … It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible.’ Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, ‘Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we’re building in the orbit we’re building it in.'”

    “Griffin has made clear in previous statements that he regards the shuttle and space station as misguided. He told the Senate earlier this year that the shuttle was ‘inherently flawed’ and that the space station was not worth ‘the expense, the risk and the difficulty’ of flying humans to space.'”

    See (add http://www.)

    usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2005-09-27-nasa-griffin-interview_x.htm

    FWIW…

  • Anonymous: Constellation and maybe all of NASA’s human space flight activities will face a major review at the outset of the next Administration

    One saving grace for an ESAS supporter is that this seems very unlikely at the “outset” of any Administration, but particularly one that doesn’t care much about spaceflight. However, the reprieve will not last long if the budget situation continues to deteriorate or Constellation suffers major technical or financial post-study stage failures. Also, I expect there are limits to what Congress will tolerate. A withdrawal from immediate lunar ambitions may be in the cards, but I think a complete withdrawal from human spaceflight is not, no matter what an Obama Administration may want.

    the next Administration would give NASA an opportunity to change course and pursue a faster, more cost-effective means of regaining human ETO capabilities while still retaining or accelerating a better-scaled human space exploration effort.

    Unfortunately, I agree that this is equally unlikely. An Obama Administration that does not care about human spaceflight is unlikely to cough up new initiatives, however inexpensive — more likely is an effort to keep the human spaceflight folks at NASA quiet by keeping the Space Station going. If that equates to steady-as-she-goes funding for COTS-like efforts, such an outcome may be no bad thing. . . .

    OSC’s proposal of a vehicle optimized for both automated science missions and ISS cargo delivery may turn out to have been a very wise choice. (As usual, I should disclose here that I am a small shareholder in OSC.)

    — Donald

  • GRS

    I am confident that the U.S. will not abandon government-subsidized human space flight. Even with a massive changeover in the delegations of Texas, Alabama and other states, the military-industrial complex wields enough clout to keep a Shuttle replacement afloat. However, no interest group has enough firepower to maintain national sights on the Moon, especially with an Administration that is even more lukewarm on space than Bush Jr.

    What NASA faces is a decade of indifference and shrinking budgets amidst a rising tide of space entrepreneurialism. The best thing that NASA could do is develop a science mission portfolio that captures the imagination of the American public. With the added possibility of scaled back budgets, it would be wise for NASA centers to begin looking for additional work for the future. I suspect that the specter of conversion to FFRDCs will come up again.

  • anonymous.space

    “One saving grace for an ESAS supporter is that this seems very unlikely at the ‘outset’ of any Administration, but particularly one that doesn’t care much about spaceflight.”

    Actually, to the extent that these reviews are driven by the budget, they will be conducted towards the beginning of the next Administration. The McCain review is definitely tied to the FY 2010 budget, which the next White House will need to transmit decisions to Congress on within a couple months of taking office. And to the extent Obama is looking for spare change for other budget priorities, an Obama Administration will also review NASA’s human space flight programs sooner rather than later, ideally as part of the FY 2010 budget, but certainly no later than the FY 2011 budget.

    White House transition teams actually begin working the FY 2010 budget as soon as the November election is over. Some decisions are made even before the formal inauguration in January.

    FWIW…

  • Dennis Wingo

    “The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday.”

    Without ISS the assembly of large space structures by humans and robots would have remained speculative. With that as a base, we can build telescopes that can easily find Earth type planets around other stars. We can build a reusable cislunar transportation system that will dramatically reduce the cost of getting to the Moon. ISS also allows the seamless integration of our international partners in the effort as well as commercial entities such as SpaceX and Bigelow.

  • MarkG

    “Without ISS the assembly of large space structures by humans and robots would have remained speculative.”

    Surely the biggest thing that ISS has taught us about ‘assembly of large space structures by humans and robots’ is not to do that? More than that, if we wanted to ‘build telescopes that can find Earth type planets’, or ‘build a reusable cislunar transportation system’, why not just do that and not blow $100,000,000,000 on a white elephant like ISS?

    Lastly, imagine that instead of launching a white elephant, that $100,000,000,000 had been put into research to dramatically reduce launch costs; then we wouldn’t need to bother with ‘assembly of large space structures by humans and robots’ because we’d be able to afford to launch them in one go. ISS is a huge misallocation of resources; though as a government project that’s hardly surprising.

  • spectator

    The argument that ISS was ill considered or the Shuttle was a mistake are generational arguments regarding any big budget Nasa program going back to the start of Nasa. However, let Mr. Griffin explain Washington’s thinking:

    ‘But a plain reading of policy and law requires us to understand that, throughout four presidential administrations and twenty-plus Congressional votes authorizing tens of billions of dollars for its development, the ISS has remained an established feature of U.S. space policy ….. The U.S. government will not abandon its commitment to the development and utilization of low Earth orbit (LEO).”

    Griffin has spoke in favor of the ISS before at the AIAA as well. But Griffin is a beyond LEO guy and would have preferred a push beyond LEO during those long years from 1972 to 1992. I agree with him, the ISS and Shuttle aren’t what I wanted either. But a mistake? Hardly. Useless? Not what Mike Griffin has said. Mr. Griffin as spoken of the wisdom of advancing the CLV so as not to depend upon the Russians for ISS access.

    Obama has had opportunities to flesh out his ideas on Nasa and its direction. So far he’s not done it other than state his desire to slow roll Constellation by 5 years(near death experience). He’s also observed that Nasa has lost its vision. Again not good for a Nasa that is attempting to do LEO and beyond EO over the next 20 years. I have a hard time imagining what kind of vision is left if LEO and BEO are excluded. Hopefully some day Obama will tell us his vision.

    I have a very long list of policy disagreements with BHO, his lack of vision for Nasa is a small brick in the wall separating my vote from Obama.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Without ISS the assembly of large space structures by humans and robots would have remained speculative.

    Still is. Building things in space – ANYTHING in space – is not part of the plan anymore. No investments are being planned to preserve or exercise/use this capability. We’ve carefully, and at enormous cost, developed expertise in building big things in space, and yet we’re not only walking away from ISS, but the capability itself.

    Walking away from developed capability is a point of great frustration to Mike Griffin with regard to Saturn V.

  • Surely the biggest thing that ISS has taught us about ‘assembly of large space structures by humans and robots’ is not to do that?

    No, that would be entirely the wrong lesson.

    Lastly, imagine that instead of launching a white elephant, that $100,000,000,000 had been put into research to dramatically reduce launch costs; then we wouldn’t need to bother with ‘assembly of large space structures by humans and robots’ because we’d be able to afford to launch them in one go.

    Don’t confuse affordable and low-cost launch with heavy lift.

  • Al Fansome

    Some predictions:

    1) Whoever wins, NASA’s forward strategy will be up for a major review, and NASA is likely to see significant budget reductions. (I agree with anonymous.space.)

    2) ESAS will probably die as it is not sustainable in an era of significant budget reductions. Some unknown new strategy, which can be sustained within the reduced budget, will take its place.

    3) Orion will probably live — but will be flying on EELV’s like Gen. Dickman of the AIAA recently proposed to Congress. The Orion will probably focused on easier initial missions. Maybe some asteroid visits, and satellite servicing. It’s existence will create a growth path to human missions to the Moon and Mars.

    4) As these facts become clear to more people, the debate will grow about what the new strategy should be.

    Some of that debate is taking place here now.

    Some of that debate is encompassed in the bill that passed the House Subcommittee on Space last week.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • GRS

    Another aspect of the Change will be a renewed emphasis on Earth Science and possibly Planetary Science, Astrophysics and Heliophysics too. The direction of the science program will be dictated by how well investigations contribute to improving our ability to understand Earth’s environment and cope with climate change.

    We may also see a resurgence in interest in affordable access to space. DOD and the rest of the nation still view this as a major goal. Once NASA gets back to reality, I am sure it will find itself in the middle of this.

  • Ahead of us is a future where America has ceded the high frontier to others. For at least half a decade we will have to buy rides to the Space Station from Russia, which will be supplies by Russian Progress tankers and Europe’s Autonomous Transfer Vehicle. India will be orbiting the moon, and China may well land there before we even get our Orion capsule flying. Althoguh Obama doesn’t see the value of human spaceflight, fortunately for humanity others do.

    Obama wants to complete the Ares 1 launcher and Orion capsule, but cancel the reason for building them. This is almost a repeat of the Shuttle program, which was only one part of a Space Transportation System (STS)- the only part to get funded. It shows how clueless Obama is in this area. If all you need is transportation to the Space Station, a smaller capsule on an existing launcher would do. Or you could just buy the service from a commercial carrier, since the COTS program is designed for just that purpose. But no, Obama wants to waste money building just a part of a lunar-capable architecture – a part that is unnecessarily expensive if you only use it in low earth orbit.

    NASA’s slice of the federal budget is less than six-tenths of one percent, or about 16 billion. The Department of Education’s budget is over 68 billion and has grown by 17 billion since 2001. In spite of this, by the Department’s own measures, 12th grade Science scores have actually decreased since 1996.

    Will taking NASA’s funding fix this? Over the past seven years the Department of Education had it’s budget increased by more than NASA’s entire budget, yet has produced litte or no improvement. Clearly, throwing money at the problem does not work, yet Obama would take resources from one of the few government agencies that actually produces results and throw it down the rat hole.

  • Robert Horning

    “Ahead of us is a future where America has ceded the high frontier to others.”

    No, this is a future where government employees working for a federal agency that is clueless about how to run an efficient space program is likely to be abandoned by the government it claims to have served.

    NASA is part of yesteryear, and old glory days long gone. It is an engineering jobs program that is intended to spread money to as many congressional districts as possible, to keep the pork barrel politics of both major political parties firmly entrenched in their “base” support groups.

    The future of America…. if people like Obama will allow it… is to have private citizens get “up there” and do what they do best: Come up with their own purposes and uses for resources and opportunities that are available to them…. having the government stay as far away from them as possible except to “provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare”. In other words, maintain law and order to what is happening.

    Manned spaceflight by NASA hasn’t been in the business of exploration for decades, yet I believe that is exactly where they need to be: On the frontier of human society. Getting into low-earth orbit is a long-solved problem that even private companies are getting into the business of doing for paying customers (whatever their motivation). NASA needs to get out of that business and move on… yet that is precisely what is being done.

    The only thing going for NASA is that I suppose money dumped into that black hole isn’t going to some other place that is even worse… like Iraq.

  • MarkG: Surely the biggest thing that ISS has taught us about ‘assembly of large space structures by humans and robots’ is not to do that?

    I hope it has not taught us that, since no matter how big your rockets, construction of large structures will be essential if humanity is to have a future in the Solar System. Even if you could launch everything fully assembled, things break and must be repaired.

    In any case, why has the ISS taught us that? The ISS’s problems have mostly related to transportation — i.e., the Shuttle — the actual construction has gone very well. (If nothing else, nobody has died, which is itself an amazing achievement and something the terrestrial construction industry fails at all too often.) The lesson of the ISS seems to me to be: keep your rockets small and simple and keep the complexity in space.

    Al: Orion will probably live — but will be flying on EELV’s like Gen. Dickman of the AIAA recently proposed to Congress. The Orion will probably focused on easier initial missions. Maybe some asteroid visits, and satellite servicing. It’s existence will create a growth path to human missions to the Moon and Mars.

    I would consider this a very good outcome indeed.

    Randy Reach: Over the past seven years the Department of Education had it’s budget increased by more than NASA’s entire budget, yet has produced litte or no improvement.

    I don’t believe that’s true. At least locally, our inner city districts are performing far better than they were a decade or two ago — in fact, our district today performs almost as well as regional suburban districts. There are still many problems, but that is a major improvement.

    — Donald

  • Go

    Obama wants to “sit down with NASA” to figure out whether to use manned missions or things like Hubble?

    What?

    NASA wants to feed people at their centers. Although Hubble has been a scientific success, it hasn’t been a complete success within NASA. Indeed, GSFC is still furious that the operations for the Hubble went to an outside organization. That’s over $50M per year “lost” from NASA.

    The reason NASA likes manned missions is because they get to keep more money to feed their people.

  • Someone

    Obama will probably just appoint another Presidential Commission, much like Bush did with the Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry. They will spend two years studying the problem, seeking a new vision for NASA, while creating another round of jobs for the consultants and meetings/workshops for the space advocate industry. Then file a report. Perhaps Obama will make a vision speech based on it. Perhaps he will have moved on to new things.

    ESAS will be put on hold pending the new report, then NASA will go off in a new direction the last year or some of his first term. This will give Obama the excuse to draw down on ESAS funding for his education plan without anyone noticing. If he’s re-elected then NASA will stay on that course. If not the next president will do the same routine – study, new direction, leave office.

    Meanwhile NASA’s manned space program will die a slow death after the Shuttle, just hitching rides on the Soyuz.

  • Mr. Zsaz

    Snobama is bad for our space program period. If you value your space program, vote for somebody else.

  • […] who were in Washington to vote on the supplemental appropriations bill. Nelson also referred to Obama’s recent comments about space in Florida. “You will see he made a different statement, and I thanked him for that this morning, and he […]

  • red

    Someone: “If not the next president will do the same routine – study, new direction, leave office.”

    That’s one reason why NASA should avoid plans like ESAS that try to map out its entire future for decades, and why whatever long-term plans it does make should bring major benefits along the way in time frames that are relevant to Presidential administrations (and Congressional terms).

  • […] The AP account of the meeting brings up a different issue: McCain would “support continuing space shuttle missions” beyond 2010 and that he wants the US to have “a better set of priorities” for the space program. That last point sounds a little bit like what Barack Obama has been saying about reviewing the agency’s direction. […]

  • […] note more recent statements, including both in that quasi-official policy statement and a Florida speech from May where he supports continued development of Ares 1 and Orion. It’s also unclear how McCain […]

  • […] Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will be speaking Saturday in Titusville, Florida, near the Kennedy Space Center. In a location like that, one would expect the candidate to mention space policy to some degree. If he doesn’t, he’ll likely be asked about it since this will be a “town meeting” with Q&A. The question, though, will be whether he’ll go into any more specifics than he did during a previous stop in Brevard County in May. […]

  • […] gap” and flying at least one shuttle mission after 2010; however, Obama previous stated that he supported continued development of Orion and his quasi-official policy from January called for continued development of Ares 1 and Orion so […]

  • Ursula Romeo

    May the Good Lord Bless the United State
    Bless Obama and the people of America

    I would like to know what are you all lookng for is it some one that can change there dresses and suit every time or some one that is going to make a different to the United State of Amarica

    The USA is a State that help many Country ,Island, and many more and due the repulican many people have lost there job, homes, and every thing, what do you want
    we need help and to get help we need the change look for the party that will work for you not in spending the $ for a suit, but to make quite a big different in the United State ,kindly think before you go out there and vote so please vote for Obama the Democratic

    From the Island of St Maarten

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>