The Orlando Sentinel’s Mark Matthews had an opportunity to ask President Obama about the future of the shuttle program during a briefing with a small group of reporters today, asking him why he decided to keep the 2010 retirement date for the shuttle in his FY2010 budget outline. Obama’s response is a little disjointed (not clear if he was stumbling through his comments or because of a transcription error) and contradictory:
First of all, we have authorized were budgeted for additional shuttle launches that had not been scheduled. So we’re extending the life of the shuttle because a) I think it is doing some important work and b) we are very mindful of the economic impact of the space program in the region.
It’s difficult to reconcile that statement with the budget document, which clearly states, “NASA will fly the Space Shuttle to complete the International Space Station and then retire the Shuttle in 2010.”
Later, he falls back on some comments he made during the campaign last year about reviewing what direction NASA should be going:
I think it’s important for the long term vibrancy of our space program to think through what NASA’s core mission is and what the next great adventures and discoveries are under the NASA banner. The space shuttle program has yielded some extraordinary scientific discoveries, but I think it’s fair to say that there’s been a sense of drift to our space program over the last several years. We need to restore that sense of excitement and interest that existed around the space program.
Again, that needs to be reconciled with the budget document and his policy statement released during the campaign, which endorses a human return to the Moon (by 2020 in the policy document, but with no date in the recent budget outline), increased support for earth sciences and aeronautics, and continued utilization of the ISS for some indefinite period.
Obama does add that he plans to “appoint” (nominate, presumably; he also calls the job title “director”) a new NASA administrator “soon”, but isn’t more specific. The new administrator will be tasked with helping determine what that new core mission for the agency should be:
Shaping a mission for NASA that is appropriate for the 21st century is going to be one of the biggest tasks of my new NASA director. Once we have that vision, then I think that it’s going to be much easier to build support for expanding our space efforts. What I don’t what NASA to do is just limp along. And I don’t think that’s good for the economy in the region either.
PS: tangentially related to this, the blog on whitehouse.gov included an entry today on the impending shuttle launch (updating the post after the launch was scrubbed). There’s no discussion in the post of policy or anything else other than the launch (plus a great photo of the shuttle on the pad with the Moon in the sky).
Update: here’s the full Sentinel article about Obama’s comments, which doesn’t add much other than to note what the president didn’t talk about: no specifics about the future of Ares/Orion or the ISS, for example.
Jeff, how can you be so cruel as to actually report things that the president said without a teleprompter.
(He didn’t have a teleprompter, right? I mean, if he did, isn’t that a lot worse?)
Not to imply, of course, that what he said sans teleprompter isn’t bad…
Poor old Rand roaming the internet to kick the new guy at any chance he can find. Give it up Rand you’re a boring baby boomer who has never got over been treated like a nobody at his last real job. Just when was that now Rand that you stopped being a gainfully employed aerospace engineer, and not just an aging baby boomer whining if only it was me in charge. Ya not and never will be. Get over it and find something useful to do.
Of course, certain other recent residents of the White House weren’t even close to being articulate even with a teleprompter!
“Astronauts … courageous spacial entrepreneurs.”
“It’s time for the human race to enter the solar system.”
“For NASA, space is still a high priority.”
It sure is interesting that Obama sees a new vision ahead, and getting one is a job for the next NASA administrator. Yes, he used that v-word. I guess we all saw that coming, and we have to see his FY10 budget for NASA as “limping along”, rather than staying the course.
“It’s time for the human race to enter the solar system.â€
“For NASA, space is still a high priority.â€
Thanks for sharing those wonderful old Algoreisms with me.
That list takes me back to 1998 when they started making the rounds via that newfangled internet he invented.
A reminder to keep your comments focused to the topic of this post, please. Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated.
A reminder to keep your comments focused to the topic of this post, please.
OK, Jeff. What kinds of things should we say (assuming that this was aimed at me, which is unclear)? What, exactly was the “topic of this post”? What the president had to say about space? That seems like a pretty broad topic…
Could you provide a little more guidance (I say this as someone with my own comments section, and not a little experience in herding trolls)?
You know I just realized that if I were to give Pres. Bush a grade for his performance on NASA I’d give him a c-. Some events were beyond his control and he did turn in a good paper, but he lacked on his project skills.
Perhaps the first comment refers to the AMS (a/k/a Big Magnet) launch which was NOT a scheduled launch under the previous Administration, as I recall.
Doesn’t the budget document suggest that AMS will be deployed but only if it can be scheduled before the end of FY2010?
As for this, who can possibly disagree?
What I don’t what NASA to do is just limp along. And I don’t think that’s good for the economy in the region either.
What will the Obama 21st century vision for NASA actually be? Now that remains a good question.
Thanks for sharing those wonderful old Algoreisms with me.
Oh, was he a recent resident of the White House? I don’t think he actually got to be.
Perhaps the first comment refers to the AMS (a/k/a Big Magnet) launch which was NOT a scheduled launch under the previous Administration, as I recall.
Yes, the Obama administration did extend the Shuttle life, but just by a mission or two, and even those were already penciled in as makeup slots. So he did extend the shuttle life in flights, but did so without really extending it in years. Not all that curious, but it is a bit of a fudge.
That Obama’s campaign policy document endorsed a return to the Moon by 2020, and yet his FY10 budget summary doesn’t seem to be as certain about that date could well have to do with the fact finding that his transition team did. You’ll recall there was some sensitivity about Mr. Griffin not being particularly forthcoming about agency programmatic matters. The transition team may not have liked what they saw when they finally looked under his hood, and compared it with what was in his wallet.
Then again, it could well have to do with the collapse of the economy, which followed these campaign policy documents, and might well decrease the number of significant figures on any fund-limited target date.
So I agree, there isn’t anything all that curious here, except that what the President seems to sadly consider a “sense of drift” sure isn’t going to be fixed until some agency leadership is put into place.
So I agree, there isn’t anything all that curious here, except that what the President seems to sadly consider a “sense of drift†sure isn’t going to be fixed until some agency leadership is put into place.
They are still having a hard time finding a democrat that has paid their taxes recently
Obama’s space loving supporters are going to be bitterly dissappointed when his new vision is revealed to directing NASA to study climate change as its main priority.
Blue just put into words my unspoken fear.
I have a feeling that space policy is actually on a ‘drift’ mode right now. It is possible that none of his people who were involved in setting up the budget were really aware that they should be planning wiggle room for extra shuttle missions and program delays.
That aside, I can’t see any politician putting too much effort, especially in the current environment, for something that won’t occur until 2020, two presidential terms down the line. No, his exciting new vision is going to be something LEO-based as that is all that is achievable in the short term. Maybe he plans to browbeat NASA into getting Orion operational before he has to run for re-election.
One other big change he could institute is have NASA announce a switch to COTS-only US support for the ISS from 2016 onwards and have money set aside for COTS-D. However, such a move is dependent on whether he has any interest in pursuing Constellation beyond LEO. He won’t recommend replacement of Orion to ISS if there is nothing else to do with it.
If he is re-elected in 2012, then we will see a bit more of a measure of the man when it comes to space. Will he look upon ISS Orion, pronounce it good and look elsewhere? Or will he tell NASA to start the build-up for return to the Moon? Or even beyond?
Rand: I’m sure you’d agree that a discussion that devolves into “Bushisms” vs. “Algorisms” (as in the two previous comments before my own reminder) is off-topic here. That’s what I was talking about. Nothing else.
Jeff, Doug,
The 2020 date is in the FY 2010 budget outline:
“NASA’s astronauts and robotic spacecraft have
been exploring our solar system and the universe
for more than 50 years. The Agency will
create a new chapter of this legacy as it works to
return Americans to the Moon by 2020 as part
of a robust human and robotic space exploration
program.”
Sorry, but “works to return Americans to the Moon by 2020″ doesn’t count, in my book, as being a goal-driven statement. It’s just an observation that the timelines people are holding look that way. NOT that the administration has a commitment to that date. They could have phrased those words to express a commitment to that date. I’m just pointing out that they didn’t.
“Working towards” is very different than “committing to”.
If you tell your boss on Monday you’re working towards finishing a project by COB on Friday, you won’t feel too bad when you bring it in the following Tuesday with a mild apology.
Yes, the 2020 date is indeed in the budget outline. But you have to read the words that go with it with some care.
With all due respect, Doug, NASA doesn’t have a great track record of meeting deadlines no matter what words are used. To continue the employee analogy it’s as if Apollo was NASA as a new employee, excited about it’s job, well resourced, and not overburdened with extraneous work. As time has gone on it has settled into the day to day, slacked a little around the edges and let deadlines slip ad infinitum. I expect we’ll do the Moon like we’ve done every other project since the 70’s, way over budget and five years late. Obama’s budget wording, aside from being minimally inspiring, will not be the prime cause for any slippage on the moon dates.
My response was directed toward a commenter who seemed to believe that 2020 was still a goal for lunar return. It doesn’t appear to be, implicitly at least. “Slippage” is something entirely different. If a 2020 return isn’t a national goal anymore, then getting there in 2025 (or 2030, or whatever) isn’t what you get to call slippage.
The previous administration drew a deep line in the sand at 2020, and NASA has bent over backwards to try to achieve it, with the echoes of Kennedy’s “end of the decade” challenge ringing in our ears.
The final FY10 budget document may speak differently, but I frankly believe that line will be erased. Budget wording won’t be the prime cause of slippage, but it sure can remove the date that we can slip from.
I’m sure you’d agree that a discussion that devolves into “Bushisms†vs. “Algorisms†(as in the two previous comments before my own reminder) is off-topic here.
Yes, I would.
I’m not an Obama supporter but the last thing I’d criticize him about is his muddled thinking on NASA. Given that he has his hands full with economic issues, and he is working 24×7 to remake American society with fantastic amounts of tax dollars.
So I’m not surprised he doesn’t appear to know what was in his own federal budget outline. He’ll catch up, when its time to actually commit the monies.
Dare I return to discussing what the prez said? Many people who frequent this site know that I am a proponent of continuing to fly the Shuttle – with all of it’s flaws. But “flying the Shuttle” is a journey and NOT a destination.
One thing Obama said (disclaimer here – I remain a big McCain supporter) I must disagree with (here – other things I disagee with will be discussed in other forums) is his subscribing to the common notion “I think it’s important for the long term vibrancy of our space program to think through what NASA’s core mission is and what the next great adventures and discoveries are under the NASA banner.”
He succinctly states a common notion – that NASA (insert other Federal or State or commercial name as needed) must have a Great Adventure And Discovery on the plan. Does a successful operation need a GAandD all the time? Does Southwest Airlines have a GAandD on the horizon or are they content with being a successful operation that makes people happy, supports lots of families, and contributes to their society? How about your local water authority? Or restaurant?
It is a necessary and sufficient goal to: accomplish science in space and improve the capability to do so. Certainly this is heresy – but we would be happy if the Government space administration had the goal of providing a (relatively) safe access to space so that we could run science experiments, allow entrepreneurs to develop new services, etc.
I would love to see the US send people back to the Moon and on to Mars! But for the “long term vibrancy of our space program” it is much much more important to be reliable, dependable, and open to commercial operators. If we have reliable access to space we will then provide the opportunity for great discoveries.
That is what I wish could be on the presidential teleprompter.
Hey Joe the Dentist —
How about articulating something in English next time you post to a message board.
Maybe you’re an aging dentist beyond the years of a baby boomer and you’re feeble minded.
Why, on God’s green Earth would we want to repeat the Apollo program? I mean we can’t even change the engine name much: J2-X? What a waste, as was the Shuttle, the ISS and Skylab. Useless boondoggles.
Unmanned/robotic orbiting and planetary missions are the future kiddos…
Remember, Harry told you first.
Charles is right. “Thinking through NASA’s core mission” is just gibberish…doubletalk to fill the verbal void. The issue is very simply about money to do the proposed (albeit relatively unglamorous) science. Obama either doesn’t have an answer. Or, more likely, doesn’t want to admit the answer to a NASA-friendly audience.
Does a successful operation need a GAandD all the time? Does Southwest Airlines have a GAandD on the horizon or are they content with being a successful operation that makes people happy, supports lots of families, and contributes to their society?
SW Airlines and restaurants are in business to make money, not to make people happy or support families. Water authority is in business to provide water. NASA isn’t chartered to make people happy, support families, nor to make money, although we’d like to believe all that comes out of their work! Those are odd things to compare NASA to. No lessons there.
we would be happy if the Government space administration had the goal of providing a (relatively) safe access to space so that we could run science experiments, allow entrepreneurs to develop new services, etc.
Um, Lockheed, Boeing, Orbital, and even SpaceX do just that in the U.S., and they do it to make money. We need a government space administration to do that too? No, I would not be happy to have a taxpayer-supported government agency that is there to provide access to space.
What a government space agency can offer is a rationale for and commitment to doing what commercial space cannot, and to take leadership on opportunistic things that are not yet commercially justifiable, perhaps involving substantial risk. That can involve grand adventure, and certainly had better involve discovery. I think the President understands that, and his few words expressed above are pretty hard to argue with.
The American space program is tired and — other than the photogenic unmanned programs — dead. Not something most of you want to hear, I know. But the plain fact of the matter is that the public simply does not care.
When the government is flush with cash (real cash, not newly-minted fakery), the public is fine with funding what they see as fun space toys. But when things turn bad, no one wants to pay for it. And regardless of the economy, most folks just don’t get the ol’ thrill up the leg over space travel anymore. Been there, done that, put the flag on the moon — Where’s my big screen TV? That’s just the way it is. The only thing I see possibly turning it around is a major challenge by the Chinese that dings America’s national pride.
NASA is completely off The One’s radar scope, so what did you expect? At best he would think of it as a jobs program.
I would prefer to see NASA continue its mission statement:
-To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.
-To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.
-To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.
Whether or not Obama wants to increase or decrease funding towards this mission should be of lesser concern than whether or not NASA is continuing to further this mission statement by developing and engineering programs that will fulfill the goals stated in the mission.
I think that programs like the Rovers and Cassini and Kepler are fulfilling this mission statement, more so than repeated trips to the ISS. But as people like Neil Tyson have been stating (see this video of Mr. Tyson – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxZxPSad77U ) HUMAN exploration will be essential to complete the goals of the NASA mission statement.
The argument over funding should be secondary to the argument over whether or not NASA is fulfilling its stated purpose.
Good post… I believe that climate direction will not be NASA’s mainstay; and that extending the life of the shuttle is a limited good move.
Particularly as the technology slated to emerge from NASA as a 360 degree turn in advanced technology; much of which has not yet been released for public consumption…
All I can say is that as we near 2010-12; US NASA space program will not only be more efficient, include more robotic missions; NASA will also remain a leader in the forefront of innovative Science…
On Thursday 3/5/2009 NASA announced a new research project to study the fact “that the Sun has been extraordinarily quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimumâ€. Read the PDF document referenced below and note the use of the word “COLDâ€. I am very surprised that the Obama administration allowed this one to see the light of day. On the other hand, they may not understand its full implications but they will very soon.
Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24
http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=178281/B.9%20CCMSC.pdf
ROSES 2009: Causes and Consequences of the Minimum of Solar Cycle 24
http://www.grants.gov/search/search.do?mode=VIEW&flag2006=false&oppId=45910
Michael Ronayne
Nutley, NJ
Harry said: “Unmanned/robotic orbiting and planetary missions are the future kiddos…Remember, Harry told you first.”
While I think there is a robust future for robotic missions, I’m struggling with what an excusively robotic space future says for humankind. Sidestepping political and individual personality arguments which I know are a mainstay for most blogs, I fear the human race will have given up something if we don’t physically push or boundaries any further. In other words, “exploration is a destiny written on the human heart” resonates with me no matter who says it. As a child, I wanted to venture past the back yard boundary. When I first get to a new place, I “explore” the space. Before conquering Everest, the poles, the bottom of the oceans, LEO, and the Moon, the Universe seemed wild and big. What then, is left? Does this mean the fence in the backyard can no longer be scaled, and we humans are doomed to being a kept pet? Everest was insurmountable. Now it is only a challenge to scale all seven of the world’s tallest peaks from the most difficult traverse in a single climbing season. Amateurs routinely travel to the South pole. Does this mean the fence in the backyard should/can no longer be scaled, and we humans are doomed to being kept pets? Or perhaps the kids of our Chinese neighbors will scale the fence and come back and tell us what wonders they’ve touched beyond the wall we built around ourselves. We’ll have to settle for watching it on our monitors.
Yes, robotics are very deservedly part of the future, but in my mind they will never be THE future. Sorry.
Doug Lassiter said: SW Airlines and restaurants are in business to make money, not to make people happy… so perhaps he has not flown on an airliner lately and lives for today only. An airline that did not make it’s customers happy (by providing a comfortable environment or cheery cabin staff) would not long survive. A restaurant could concentrate on making money by robbing it’s customers, but that is quite a short term business plan. Of course all businesses are in business to make their customers happy! Watch a Verizon ad sometime.
Further, though he may now regret it, he goes on to say: I would not be happy to have a taxpayer-supported government agency that is there to provide access to space. What does he think the Space Shuttle does – except provide (people) access to space!! What does he think that Constellation will do?? Launch rocks into space?
Actually, it is very hard to NOT argue with the words offered by Obama, since he (like President Bush before him) prefers to get us behind some program that will result in a GAandD long after they have finished their term of office and gone on to other things.
What would be wonderful is: get the government out of the way! Allow commercial access to launch pads, commercial services to the Space Station. Since we have government monopoly on some things such as launch pads – let commercial space flight companies access like commercial air line companies have access to airports. And yes there is some access today to launch pads but the government still has a strong anti-competitive imperative.
Instead, we should get excited about a program that may land people on Mars some eight years after Obama is out of office (assuming that would be in early 2013).
SW Airlines and restaurants are in business to make money, not to make people happy…
so perhaps he has not flown on an airliner lately
Yes, but the number one priority is … ? Ask a stockholder. $$$ Sure, treating people right is supposed to get $$. But the bottom line is $$$.
I would not be happy to have a taxpayer-supported government agency that is there to provide access to space.
What does he think the Space Shuttle does – except provide (people) access to space!!
Your comment that you posted was “so that we could run science experiments, allow entrepreneurs to develop new services, etc.” Go back and read it.
There is very little science done on Shuttle (they killed off most life science research on Shuttle a long time ago), and I’d be REALLY interested to hear about all those “entrepreneurs” who are using the Shuttle to develop new services, etc. What rocks are they hiding under??
Many senior people feel that Constellation is not a unique, nor even a wise, solution for launching people into space. You should know that. We’ll see how that goes. I agree that heavy lift (Ares V) is something that need a government push, however, but that’s not formally for launching people.
What would be wonderful is: get the government out of the way!
Oh, as in getting the government to provide access to space? Whoops. You missed one there.
but the government still has a strong anti-competitive imperative
You got that one right.
[…] maybe not depending on who Obama appoints. Hat tip to Space Politics, who notes that Obama’s current messaging is a lot less specific than when he was […]
The Rebublicans on the House Science Committee just stated regarding President Obama’s 2010 NASA Budget Request, “We applaud the Administration’s reaffirmation of NASA’s initiatives to return humans to the Moon by 2020 as part of a robust space exploration program, while also stimulating the privatesector to develop and demonstrate commercial crew and cargo delivery services to the International Space Station.” After this official statement, it’s rediculous to keep stating that President Obama doesn’t support returning humans to the Moon by 2020. Whether he would prefer a different lunar rocket such as Direct 2 or more international cooperation to achieve manned lunar-Mars exploration is yet to be seen.
I’m just pointing out that the words Obama used don’t make any explicit promises that return to the Moon by 2020 is part of his plan. So it’s ridiculous to keep insisting that it must be. It might be, but he’s not telling us. It would have been very easy for him to tell us unambiguously if it was already part of his plan. But he didn’t.
But gee, what makes you think that the Republicans on the House Science Committee have any clue what the President is thinking? They say it this way because they’d like it to be the case, and they want the President to know that. But getting a read on Obama’s space policy by listening to the minority on House science, and calling what they say an “official statement” is simply daft. I would never have occurred to me that Obama puts out official White House space policy statements through the opposition party.
[…] “will be coming very soon, perhaps in a matter of days.” That’s similar to what President Obama said himself last week, when he told the Orlando Sentinel that he planned to select someone “soon”, without […]
Joe The Dentist obviously voted for Obama. No facts are presented in Joe The Dentist’s “rebuttal”. Since Joe The Dentist has no facts his empty “rebuttal” is totally name calling. The Sentinel’s article obviously struck a nerve.
[…] future of the shuttle and cooperation with China. In an interview with Nature, Holdren addresses that comment by President Obama regarding the “sense of drift” at NASA: The president said recently that there is a “sense of drift” at NASA, and yet […]
In a disintegrating economy I shudder every time the shuttle is lauched. Whoops! There goes another half billion up in smoke.
At last focus and direction for NASA ! Lets make them a bus driver to the ISS. Thankyou President Obama for deaming without so big !
Perhaps it’s up to China to lead the space race. There is no hope for the USA space program.