Since you asked, best guess would be:

Validate human exploration – mission is to build technology and systems base to enable expansion of human life into immediate and greater solar system for exploration and commerce (a lot more like Marburg’s take on VSE, a lot less like Griffin’s).

This implies a mixture of deep space exploration and lunar development as technologies are developed and proven. Mars when it makes sense (based on budget and tech) and not a driver. Emphasis on seeing what happens to economics when increased commercial, fuel farms and in situ resources play against each other.

Add 1 or 2 shuttle missions and stretch out fly-out and shut down by 1 – 2 years.

Extend ISS to 2020 and probably beyond, use extended mission as framework for working out extended international and commercial partnership structure and approaches that will be flowed into exploration. Using extension period in part to enable further studies of human long term duration, in situ resources, lunar & deep space technology will eanble tracability to content as well as structure. Post 2020, transition to international / commercial consortium and significantly reduce US budget required for operations

Cancel Ares I, expand Commercial Crew and Cargo to encompass ISS servicing with option for much further expanded crew and system role in exploration.

Somebody (OSTP or reactivated National Space Council) gets tasked with determining the national requirements for heavy lift. (Exploration first but also defense, enabling commercial space applications on orbit and beyond). Based on their findings, a competition for concepts and approaches and costs. See a ULA/USA hybrid proposal, SpaceX, and Direct concepts being commercial players. Ares V or Ares IV will be the govt. concepts, but so discredited by problems with Ares I and stuff that turns up in the post mortem that they may not be competitive. If there is a requirement to create new heavy lift (primarily exploration but at least some other users) it will probably be procured through an EELV like approach, with MSFC mostly out of the loop.

As this plays out, NASA will also see some increased budget for technology development, aeronautics and earth sciences, particularly for elements that also result in some near term economic benefit in terms of generating contracts and jobs.

The $3 billion question (amount needed to keep the lights on for the real current baseline) will be addressed by plugging in that amount in current and next budget year to address gap and realignment of program (stimulus redirect this year, new money next year). Going forward starting FY 2012 or 13, NASA will be required to find $1.5 billion in reduction of center-based expenditures which will be matched by a $1.5 billion increase in recurring budget authority. This will trigger a huge food fight between the executive branch and certain congressional leaders and staff, including the likelihood of at least one budget veto to confirm the point that the entitlement era is over.

We will see how all of the center, contractor, community and congressional players perform under an “adapt or die” framework. NASA needs to be driven by national and international objectives, not a transmission belt for delivering regional pork. Competition is a generally good thing.

Obama will probably write somewhat bigger checks, but will cut off the practice of issuing blank ones.

IMHO.

– Sam

someone else wrote:…the taxpayers are entitled to a little inspiration for their funding, IMHO.

R. S. replied: Funny, I think they are entitled to concrete and dramatic progress in space for the billions spent. If that were to happen (very unlikely with current plans,even if successful by their own criteria), the inspiration would follow.

I think that is a reasonably fair statement, the difficulty (as I am sure you know) is how to define “dramatic progress”. Particularly how does one define it so that it is obvious to the American people.

You have written fairly passionately and I think coherently about the use of fuel depots…to my mind, the more I think about the idea of fuel depots they could in fact become the modern day equivalent of “forts” on the frontier in a variety of ways. They (the depots) have a certain appeal both in terms of their practicality (ie they enable specific things and a genuine change in how to do business, the structures of space operations…plus they have a sort of “we are here” statement about them.

Robert G. Oler

Funny, I think they are entitled to concrete and dramatic progress in space for the billions spent. If that were to happen (very unlikely with current plans,even if successful by their own criteria), the inspiration would follow.

Robert G. Oler

(http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/policy/Space_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf)

The opening paragraph states

““When I was growing up, NASA united Americans to a common purpose and inspired the world with accomplishments we are still proud of. Today, NASA is an organization that impacts many facets of
American life. I believe NASA needs an inspirational vision for the 21st Century. My vision will build on the great goals set forth in recent years, to maintain a robust program of human space exploration and ensure
the fulfillment of NASA’s mission. Together, we can ensure that NASA again reflects all that is best about our country and continue our nation’s preeminence in space.”

It goes on to discuss how the civilian space program embodied American spirit of adventure and inspired the world, and wanted a balanced and robust NASA program, including human space flight, as well as robotics, earth science, aeronautics and education.

“Historically, the U.S. space program has inspired people the world over with its feats on behalf of all humankind. This leadership can continue; indeed, the Bush administration set an ambitious agenda for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), but has since failed to provide adequate funding or leadership to move forward with that agenda. As a result, key programs have suffered. Poor planning and
inadequate funding are leading to at least a five-year gap after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. During those years, the United States will have to depend on foreign rockets and spacecraft to send Americans to orbit. NASA has had to slash its research budget, including its aeronautical research, its programs to study climate change, microgravity research that can yield new technologies, and even the robotic exploration of the outer solar system and the universe beyond. Many other countries are moving forward in space; the United States
cannot afford to fall behind.”

Also “Educating the Public” was the last of six public purposes the paper set out for NASA and civil space:

“Engaging the Public and Inspiring the Next Generation. Fifty years after Sputnik, science, math, and engineering education in America is facing a crisis. As the National Academy of Sciences’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm report concluded, a “danger exists that Americans may not know enough about science, technology or mathematics to contribute significantly to, or fully benefit from, the knowledge-based economy that is already taking shape around us.” Barack Obama believes that NASA can inspire students to learn about mathematics, science and the applications of engineering and technology.”

(The other five were a comprehensive vision, space science and exploration, earth oriented research, promoting international cooperation and keeping space secure, developing new technologies.)

Please note that there is a combination of hard science and tech goals here, along with soft power objectives of international and inspiration. Completely appropriate for a national program of the sole remaining superpower.

You can be sure that there will be a much stronger a human space flight program after Obama’s 8 years than he inherited.

I think you can also assume that there will be serious kicking and screaming when poorly designed programs and systems are canceled in favor of commercial alternatives, and the congressional driven entitlement program for failed centers in red states approach is seriously cut back as well in favor of a more integrated agency approach.

Also, the taxpayers are entitled to a little inspiration for their funding, IMHO.

Like with any children the parents are the source of inspiration.

In that particular case did the President say “specifically use HSF to inspire the children”? Or did he say “when I was young HSF inspired me, find a way, HSF or otherwise, to inspire the children”?

These are 2 different things…

FWIW.

I mock the entire thing (save our youth) because in an agency like NASA that spends a LOT OF MONEY and almost all the money in The Republic on human spaceflight…there really ought to be a reason to do it… when the argument to do it boils down to “Its not all that much money ” or “it is not a big fraction of the budget” or “save the children”…all that means is that there is no reason.

Having said that, anything that improves education does help, but very little NASA will do will improve or inspire or motive our “youth” on anything more then a tiny tiny percentage of the “children”.

Children in their formative years are motivated by four things in decreasing order of importance….1) the interest of a mentor, 2) the interest in someone who is interesting to them 3) their natural gifts…and 4) something that catches their interest.

Of all the four the least likely to be a long term pertubation on their lives is number 4. There are so many reasons for this…but mostly it boils down to the fact at “the youth” almost always are seeing something on a day to day (or week to week) basis that “catches their interest” and distracts them from the last thing that did. In “terms” that is called exploring and children do that alot.

To think that going back to the Moon as opposed to astronauts going to work on the station….would capture the interest of a substantial part of the under 18 crowd and motivate them to do well in science is about the dumbest thing that one can think…and one of the reasons for my sarcasm on the issue is that I dont think that NASA or the politicians are that dumb, they all have children…it is just they are being manipulative with the issue.

(one of the surprising things to me while on the local school board was how few of the children from schools in heavy NASA districts went on to technical careers….moving on)…

My father gave me some words of wisdom many years ago that I have found useful as I have run into the “children” years. We were talking about a Biblical story of a young boy doing something quite unique for his age…and I (as a young boy) said something like “how could they know what his interest would be”.

Dad smiled and said when you have your own 12 year olds you will be able to see the outline of the man/woman particularly if you look and see the adults they are spending time with….(thats pretty close anyway).

Charlie Bolden will have little or no input on getting the First couple’s children interested in science. If that is going to happen, that will be the role of the First couple.

Robert G. Oler

Another example of what I was ranting about in my previous post. The fact that there are people out there who think a tiny spacecraft could have that effect on the moon boggles the mind.

“Won’t someone please think of the children!”

That being said, if NASA can inpire young people to get more interested in science in math while simultaneously focusing on their mission of space exploration, then more power to them. I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but the state of STEM education in this country should be a national disgrace.

For example my wife, who’s also an engineer, volunteers for an education outreach program Lockheed Martin participates in, partnered with the Boyscouts and a few other corporate sponsors here in Denver. At the begining of each school year they usually give a little quiz to see how much the students already know about space. These are HIGH SCHOOL children and most them can’t answer simple questions like “Is space a vacuum?”, “Which planet is closest to the sun?”, and “Which planet is the largest in our solar system?”

It’s pretty scary to say the least.

I am reminded of “listing Estes”…aka Estes Kefauver in the 1956 Presidential campaign…what a hoot.

Robert G. Oler