Major Tom: “For space cadets like us, I agree. But regardless of where one comes down on the climate change debate, Earth observation research is arguably a a higher priority than anything else NASA does.”

Given Obama’s space policy document, stimulus package actions, general priorities, electoral implications of locations often involved in such work, abd cutback during the previous Administration, it’s pretty predictable that Obama will propose increases in Earth observation. I’d expect these increases to be substantial. The NAS recommended something like 17 new Earth observation missions over the next decade, almost all for NASA. Compare that to the CBO projection of total NASA robotic science missions in 2010-2025, half again as long for a lot more NASA science areas, dropping to 44 if Constellation is to be kept on schedule. They might also want to add an OCO replacement and DSCVR.

These traditional Earth observation missions are useful not just for climate change research, but for all sorts of other Earth and (through comparison) planetary sciences. They also tend to be useful for commercial applications on Earth (i.e. use of the data for agriculture, fishing, transportation, and on and on, as well as commercial processing of the data). They often provide good transitions to moving the satellite capabilities to NOAA or commercial space. Plus, they’re helpful to the general satellite and launch industries.

However, we should encourage the expected increased NASA Earth observation funding to do more than the traditional type of NASA missions. There are great commercial space opportunities with Earth observations in a number of areas: small satellites and their launchers, satellite servicing, commercial suborbital RLVs, hosted payloads, data purchases, etc. It may take some work, though, to make the case that some of the funding should be used with these innovative approaches.

Beyond Earth observation, and based on similar reasons, I’d also be surprised if Obama’s budget proposal doesn’t include big increases in Aeronautics and Education. These areas also provide lots of opportunities if the space community can make a good pitch for them (eg: smallsats and commercial suborbital RLV use, Aeronautics work in areas of use to RLVs, etc).

I also think there’s a good chance of other beneficial areas being proposed in the budget. For example, Obama’s space policy “Closing the Gap” section says “Using the Private Sector: Obama will stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate spaceflight capabilities. NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is a good model of government/industry collaboration.” Since this is in the “Closing the Gap” section, I take it as something like COTS-D. There are other useful proposals in that document, and I don’t see any reason why they’d be dropped.

At any rate, it sounds like we won’t have to wait too long to see how the budget proposal looks.

Losing what argument? What are you taking about? You have a very special way of “thinking” it looks to me. So hey keep it up.

Exploring Space is done via science, engineering and physics, not wishful thinking. But if you do not even understand that then there is not much we can do, at least together. That much I am confident.

As to the national goals I am sure you are an authority on them so I’d like to know what national goals are being addressed by say Constellation.

For space cadets like us, I agree. But regardless of where one comes down on the climate change debate, Earth observation research is arguably a a higher priority than anything else NASA does. Before making enormous changes in our energy economy, we should know whether global warming is human-induced and reversible. And if you think we already know that, then better monitoring is going to be needed to contain the plethora of scenarios, understand regional impacts, and devise the best responses.

“I guess that we should be grateful that it wasn’t proposed to put them to work on renewable energy.”

Earth observation research has been part of NASA’s charter for more than a decade longer than NOAA. It’s appropriate.

“I agree, except that now NASA is (at least in theory) the Obama administration. If the White House wants to fix this, it needs to come up with a new administrator and a new plan.”

Agreed. But again, like the Clinton White House, given the performance (or lack thereof) in NASA’s human space flight programs, the response may be that NASA has too much on its plate, is incapable of managing another large human space flight program, and needs to forgo exploration beyond LEO for the time being.

Given Obama’s campaign and budget blueprint commitments to a human lunar return and Obama’s apparent personal interest, I don’t think so. But the news out of Constellation has become so bad so quickly since Griffin left that it wouldn’t surprise me, either.

FWIW…

As a Space surrogate for the McCain campaign, I would have thought you would have stayed in touch with the campaign subsequent to your one appearance and would have known the work that was being done to bring the economic and space policy folks together. Because, had you, you would have known that what you wrote above is incorrect.”

Mr. Muncy was correct. He wrote:

“Senator McCain would not be giving NASA more money than President Obama.”

The Orlando Sentinel blog entry you quoted claimed:

“He [McCain] has promised to boost NASA funding by $2 billion.”

Through the FY09 stimulus bill and the FY10 budget blueprint, the Obama White House has provided or plans to boost NASA’s funding by $2 billion.

So Mr. Muncy is correct — Senator McCain would not be giving NASA more than the $2 billion provided by President Obama.

Please, in the future, try to comprehend what the other poster has written before you post. It’s a waste of everyone else’s time when you don’t. And if you’re incapable of basic reading comprehension, then please take it elsewhere.

“Yes, the campaign was not strong on life sciences. But then, NASA’s primary role is aeronautics and space, not life sciences.”

There’s nothing in Mr. Muncy’s post or the Sentinel post about NASA life sciences research.

“I’m a manned guy, not a robots guy…imagine my discomfort at JPL, so that stance was fine by me.”

There’s nothing in Mr. Muncy’s post or the Sentinel post about the human versus robotic space exploration debate.

“Gotta figure out how to make sure the UIPicker *planetPicked ends up being the planet used in the orbit since ISS orbiting the Moon leads to very interesting results.”

Are you off your meds?

Lawdy…

Constellation started with too much money and time, and in some senses too little capability (eg: considering per-mission costs and resulting small number of missions). We can’t allow it to continue to be a bottomless pit for money and time. Here are some other ideas:

1. Cancellation

2. Less money. Less time. More capability.

Given the alternative of (1) above, and freedom to innovate, I’d be surprised if these fixes (or perhaps 1 or 2 of them) wouldn’t work.

3. Commercial participation in the architecture, and corresponding commercial motivation and “skin in the game”

4. International participation – This can be done in a variety of ways … some productive, some not so productive.

5. Fund COTS-D for commercial ISS crew transportation and rescue, allowing Constellation to concentrate beyond LEO.

Here are some fixes that might not make the numerous Constellation schedule, management, and technical problems any easier, but that might give it more political support so that it can survive in spite of them:

1. Find credible, affordable uses for components of the Constellation architecture beyond the Moon and beyond missions and competing with U.S. industry for ISS transport business. Examples might include Ares 1/Orion satellite servicing or Ares V launch of non-NASA government payloads. (If you can’t find such credible, affordable uses … that should tell you that something really basic is wrong with the program).

2. Change the architecture to include inherently useful components (eg: propellant depots, more economical launchers).

3. Make the lunar effort more attractive through more regular lunar robotic science and engineering missions, ISRU R&D, etc.

If none of those look promising … did I mention cancellation?

Thats not how I see things. Borrowing some from commentor Common Sense, I do enjoy your comments about space, and find them enlightening. As for the Republican party, the stimulus, and other such details – not so much, and I do dispute them

That said, I do feel we have strayed too far off the beaten path, in terms of the point of this blog. Therefore, if you would prefer, I’d be more than happy to discuss it via email.

I will add one thing – the idea that the hard left has the reigns of this country, and Obama needs to take them back from them is laughable. Many of Obama’s proposals are very center. The real issue is that what has been portrayed as the “center” is actually quite conservative, and people are finally beginning to realize that.

OK, you first.

Because this sounds like someone losing an argument…

BUT exploring Space is based on science, physics and engineering, first and foremost.

Nonsense. It is not about “exploring Space” at all, but on national goals with respect to space, which don’t seem to be agreed upon.

Look we can go on and on and on. How about we, as a community, try and ignore basic politics for a little while? How about we look into what is wrong in what we are doing and try to fix it. Just before we, as a community, try to fix the world and call names. If the people posting here are truly, and I mean truly, commited to and worried about the direction the Space program is going and yet cannot help their political beliefs on everything else get in the way then we are not SERIOUS about it. There will always be politics. BUT exploring Space is based on science, physics and engineering, first and foremost. If and when we get politics in the way is when we abdicate to whomever rules at one given time. If I compare the two strategies for VSE I think O’Keefe had the best approach. A longer term approach but one that does not put you in a hole if you have a problem (i.e. spiral development). Yes it was complicated but Space is complicated. So Space requires complicated and sophisticated thinking.