Congress, NASA, White House

Dubious commentaries

An editorial in Friday’s Florida Today offers a warning—or maybe a threat—to President Obama: increase NASA’s budget or “it will come back to haunt him at Florida’s ballot box”. The editorial claims that “among the reasons Obama won Florida last year was his NASA promise gained him votes in the critical Central Florida corridor.” Yet Obama lost Brevard County, the heart of the Space Coast, by 11 percentage points, and it seems unlikely space played a role in his much larger victories elsewhere in central Florida, like nearby Orange County, home to Orlando. The editorial also fails to point out that while Obama can propose a budget increase, there’s no guarantee that Congress will follow through, and most of the Congressional supporters cited in the editorial haven’t demonstrated much influence among appropriators on this topic.

Compare that to an op-ed in Thursday’s Washington Examiner by Douglas MacKinnon, who’s worried that once the shuttle is retired the US won’t be able to launch humans “for quite possibly a decade or more to come” because, as he puts it, “President Obama and most Members of Congress don’t consider our human spaceflight program to be a tangible vote-getter. As simple and as destructive as that.” MacKinnon goes on to complain that the White House and Congress don’t appreciate spaceflight in the same way John F. Kennedy did nearly a half-century ago, and then criticizes the Augustine committee (for concluding that a human return to the Moon by 2020 is unaffordable) and new NASA administrator Charles Bolden (for “weakly” offering rationales like lowering the cost of spaceflight and using the Moon as a testbed for new technologies, rather than channeling JFK.)

David Hill, a Republican pollster, offers a solution in a column this week in The Hill: Republicans and Democrats should work together to endorse “the continuation of the manned spaceflight program”. A great idea, except that space is already largely a bipartisan issue, with supporters on both sides of the aisle whose talking points are often identical (such as the request to divert $3 billion in stimulus money to NASA, something back by members of both parties.) That hasn’t been very successful—at least, not yet.

65 comments to Dubious commentaries

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “Yet Obama lost Brevard County, the heart of the Space Coast, by 11 percentage points, and it seems unlikely space played a role in his much larger victories elsewhere in central Florida, like nearby Orange County, home to Orlando.”

    All true, but on the other hand the Bamster is facing abysmal polling numbers, with only 43 percent reelect numbers. Things can change in three years, but what chance would Obama have to carry Florida in 2012 if he loses the Space Coast by–say–22 percentage points?

  • Major Tom

    “what chance would Obama have to carry Florida in 2012 if he loses the Space Coast by–say–22 percentage points?”

    It’s still a non-issue, by a large margin. Obama won Florida by more than 235K votes over McCain.

    http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=12&year=2008

    The entire population of Brevard County is only 536K, and 22% of that population is under 18 years of age. So there’s only about 418K eligible voters in Brevard County.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brevard_County,_Florida

    Assuming a 60-percent voter turnout (consistent with the high nationwide voter turnout in the 2008 election), only about 251K votes were cast in Brevard County.

    So nearly all of the 251K voters in Brevard County would have had to vote for McCain in the 2008 election to make up for Obama’s state-wide lead of 235K votes. That’s an impossibility.

    Moreover, if they think about it for a minute, anyone with half a brain would realize that other issues, like retiree healthcare or relationships with Cuba, are going to be much bigger factors in deciding Florida than the civil space program. The number of individuals over 65 years of age in Florida is about 2.8 million. There are 540K ethnic Cubans living in southern Florida. Forget the KSC workforce — these retiree or Cuban populations swamp that of the entire NASA workforce nationwide, both civil servant and contractor, which is only about 78K.

    Even in a state with a major NASA field center like Florida, it would be nutty for a Presidential candidate to think that civil space issues are going to make a critical difference in whether he or she will carry that state’s electoral votes. The population of voters who would potentially change their votes based on civil space issues is dwarfed by the population of voters who would change their votes based on other issues.

    FWIW…

  • Eric Sterner

    FWIW, the state of Florida ultimately awarded Bush a win in 2000 by 537 votes. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html) The courts may have intervened in the process, but had either candidate driven up their vote counts in the Orlando-Space Coast corridor, the whole story in Florida might have been very different.

  • Dude, don’t burst our bubble! True, Brevard went to McCain, but space issues did rise to the short-list of key topics during the Florida campaign effort. Promises were made and they are remembered by voters on both sides of the aisle. Florida remains a strategically important state for the next election, and the ripple effect of post-Shuttle job losses extends far beyond the staunchly conservative Brevard County.

  • Major Tom

    Off topic, but Mr. Foust may want to post about yesterday’s confirmation hearings for NASA’s new CFO and IG. Sen. Rockefeller and Sen. LeMieux expressed considerable skepticism about how NASA handles its budget and the possibility of future budget increases. See:

    http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=480:senator-rockefeller-expresses-concern-about-nasa&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “True, Brevard went to McCain”

    It doesn’t matter whether a county goes to one candidate or another. It matters how many votes a candidate can extract from a county and how that tallies up for the state overall. It’s the popular vote across the entire state that determines where the electoral votes go.

    “Florida remains a strategically important state for the next election, and the ripple effect of post-Shuttle job losses extends far beyond the staunchly conservative Brevard County.”

    Florida is important just because of the state’s large number of electoral votes. But the number of voters impacted by the Shuttle workforce is going to be swamped by the number of voters impacted by other issues.
    Unless the race is incredibly close, as Mr. Sterner points out was the case in 2000, the economic impact of Shuttle retirement is not going to swing the state. And the chances that the race is going to be that close again are statistically low.

    FWIW…

  • Robert Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 16th, 2009 at 8:26 am

    All true, but on the other hand the Bamster is facing abysmal polling numbers, with only 43 percent reelect numbers. Things can change in three years, but what chance would Obama have to carry Florida in 2012 if he loses the Space Coast by–say–22 percentage points?..

    LOL Mark you use to be a serious political analylst.

    I see Major Tom has done the heavy lifting here. on the overall picture

    Obama is about now in the same position reelect wise as Ronaldus the Great was in 1981. Bad and getting worse. Both were left, by their predecessor with bad economies and difficult foreign policy situations…all getting worse. Although it is fair to say that compare with the situation in The Republic when Carter left the deck, the situation Shrub the last left us in is near catastrophic.

    Things continued to slide. Indeed the GOP got creamed in the 82 midterms. This encouraged the Dems to view that they could run their “ideal ideology” person, the ever second place Walter Mondale…and well how many votes did Ronaldus come short in MN to winning a 50 state landslide?

    It is impossible to say what the reelect situation for The President will look like in 12. For 10 the midterms (and the 09 warmups) are shapping up as entertaining, although the right wing of the GOP seems to be having trouble getting traction.

    There are so many forces which will affect the 12 election …that to say space or human spaceflight is even a major one is absurd. If the situation in The Republic continues to get worse job wise; ie a recovery of some sorts on Wall Street but deepening gloom in the middle class…a few (relativly speaking) jobs that depend on the government dole having gone away wont change the mind of the folks I know who are being laid off from major airlines… who actually work for a living.

    Indeed if the GOP summons up its courage and sends a spear chucker like Gingrich or Palin, it is completly possible that Obama could do an FDR from 36.

    in any event the FLorida Today editorial is just the folks at FL Today recognizing what some (including me) have been saying for sometime…there is major changes coming in human spaceflight and Shrubs “vision” is like the rest of his programs…toast.

    why you carry water for the worst President in our lifetime is beyond me

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Edward Ellegood wrote @ October 16th, 2009 at 11:39 am
    Florida remains a strategically important state for the next election, and the ripple effect of post-Shuttle job losses extends far beyond the staunchly conservative Brevard County…

    Florida is important because it is a trend state as to where the “purple” electorate is going.

    The GOP right now is losing strongholds in almost all the populated areas of The Republic. Once a city hits a mass of about 3 million people or so…it goes blue. The only “red” solid red groups are lightly populated and rural. Texas is a good example of this. Its four major population centers; Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and of course deep blue Austin are all solid Democratic…in 1980 and 84 Reagan carried all of them.

    The DEMs right now are growing stronger in the areas of the Republic that are populating…and Florida is that.

    There is little ripple effect of “shuttle jobs” in a state where the big issues are Cuban immigration, elderly care etc. And the Cape area is a trivial part of the states voting patterns.

    It is sheer wishful thinking to threaten as the Florida Today editorial did…the election of 12 is going to be decided on far bigger issues.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Eric Sterner wrote @ October 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am

    FWIW, the state of Florida ultimately awarded Bush a win in 2000 by 537 votes. (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html) The courts may have intervened in the process, but had either candidate driven up their vote counts in the Orlando-Space Coast corridor, the whole story in Florida might have been very different…

    that can be said of any county in FL in that special case election.

    Robert G. Oler

  • 2020 is a target established on the false direction of our science. Going up to the space without looking back onto the Earth. The Earth is a part of our universe. Distances have misled our scientists. Living organisms require a suitable environment to survive with. Meanwhile, they also need living tissues to start with. The Earth is definitely not a rock. It contains living tissues for evolution to occur. In another word, evolution is a process of growth of the planet itself. The suitable environment for living organisms on the Earth is a cross reference to prove that “the Earth is a living thing”.

    Once, we prove the Earth is a living object. We look back onto the worsening environment of our Earth (i.e. desertification and acidifications of oceans). It may be too late. Imagination causes death. Open your eyes. Look at the satellite images of the Earth. It may not be too late to have a U-turn. Scientists will be responsible for consequences of shortening the life span of our planet.

    For what we’re heading the moon, when our family is dying behind?
    The world is no longer segments. We’re a unity.

  • Anon

    The assumption is that the thousands that lose their jobs with the end of HSF will stay in Florida. Traditionally aerospace workers have been a very mobile workforce. So the ones laid off are likely to be living and voting somewhere else then Brevard County.

    That said his Republican opponent could probably get pretty good mileage out of a national ad showing the empty Shuttle launch pad and talking about how before Obama American proudly sent astronauts into space aboard the finest spacecraft ever built (cut to a clip of Reagen praising its first flight). Now we have to beg the Russians for rides to the $100 billion dollar space station built by taxpayer’s dollars. Yes, that is the change you got from Obama. It could be one of a series showing the decline of America under the Obama administration.

    That will have much more of an impact then a few votes in Florida.

  • Major Tom

    “That said his Republican opponent could probably get pretty good mileage out of a national ad… talking about how… Now we have to beg the Russians for rides to the $100 billion dollar space station built by taxpayer’s dollars.”

    Probably not. NASA relied on Russian Soyuzes and Progresses to keep ISS supplied and crewed for over two years after Columbia, and there was no public outcry.

    And the ad would be easily defused anyway by pointing out that it was Bush II Administration that decided to shut down the Shuttle program. In fact, based on the Augustine Committee’s Summary Report, the Obama Administration will probably be extending Shuttle operations by one year. (Not that that’s a good thing, but that appears to be where things are headed.)

    FWIW…

  • Robert Oler

    Anon to parrot Karl Rove (“turd blossom”…yes I read his books)…”symbols only work if they are symbolic of something that the American people already feel”.

    If there is a sense in 2012 that America has “declined” under Obama then that image might work…although it could be easily countered by a commercial of say workers in LA/TX and FL building and launching Dragon’s to the space station. And if Americans sense a “decline” there will be far more powerful images to show.

    As for showing Ronaldus the Great. Another line from Rove “never quote anything in politics that is over 10 years old”. A collolary of that from Frank Luntz is “never show footage where the fashions are out of date”.

    The GOP right wing is stuck on Ronaldus because of the 3 GOP Presidents from 1980 to today, he is the only real success. 30 years later…? It is like in 1960 bringing up FDR.

    It is a different world then 1980, even though the GOP far right wishes it wasnt. (and I liked 1980 fashions for women!)

    Robert G. Oler

  • If the race is close then failure to adequately support America’s manned space program could hurt Obama in Florida and elsewhere. All the Republicans would have to do is to continuously run commercials on how Obama turned his back on the pro-space legacy of John F. Kennedy– the ultimate Democratic icon. Portraying Obama as the– anti-JFK– in commercials after a clip of Kennedy’s to the Moon speech would be devastating!

    Obama would be penny wise but pound foolish not to increase the NASA budget by a meager $3 billion annually so that we could replace the shuttle and return to the Moon.

  • common sense

    The space program “hurting” or “helping” any one at the presidential elections is utterly ridiculous. Especially in thses days of extreme crisis.

    If I were losing my job and one president were to say he/she would extend a space program that does not benefit me right here and right now how do you think I would vote??? Come back to Earth people!… Who the heck cares about space beside you and I?

  • Major Tom

    “If the race is close then failure to adequately support America’s manned space program could hurt Obama… Portraying Obama as the– anti-JFK– in commercials after a clip of Kennedy’s to the Moon speech would be devastating.”

    It depends on what one’s definition of “adequately support” is.

    No doubt, were any President to propose terminating the civil human space flight program, there would be a large political and public outcry.

    But that’s not what’s being discussed today.

    What i being discussed today is whether to keep the program at it’s current funding levels of about $10 billion per year or increase those funding levels up to $13 billion per year.

    The American public is not going to howl if the President doesn’t ask for 3 billion more of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars in an era of record deficits so that NASA can reenact a 40-year old Moon landing a decade or two from now. No one besides we space cadets, the relevant NASA workforce, and some parochial interests in Congress is going to care.

    “Obama would be penny wise but pound foolish not to increase the NASA budget by a meager $3 billion annually so that we could replace the shuttle and return to the Moon.”

    In an environment of 10% unemployment and historically high federal budget deficits, the President would be stupid to propose spending billions more taxpayer dollars for a highly discretionary activity like civil human space flight. The amount may be puny by federal budget standards, but it would become Exhibit A in any attack on the Administration’s lack of fiscal discipline. The White House’s opponents would beat the Administration relentlessly with monikers like “President Moonbeam” after such a move.

    The Augustine Committee recommended it, but it’s very hard to see any Administration proposing a 30% increase in the budget for the civil human space flight program given the current economic and budget environment. There is just much more political downside to increasing NASA’s budget than there is upside in this environment.

    Thus, the White House and NASA are probably going to have to figure out how to take the best parts of the Augustine Committee report and work within the existing $10 billion per year civil human space flight budget to propose a sustained human space exploration effort… or defer human space exploration for another decade or so.

    FWIW…

  • Same tired arguments from the same tired arguers, arguing against what the public probably assumes is just the same tired NASA panel. But congresspeople like Rohrabacher got mad at Augustine because he didn’t follow the the tired old NASA panel formula of “sexy new rocket viewgraphs + unreachable destination = NASA is Great.” The whole point of the HSF conclusion was “you can’t get there from here.” Not on 1960’s technology and business practices. The classic NASA boosters seem lost for words… they were all ready to argue for Lockheed powerpoints vs. Boeing powerpoints, but suddenly they are being forced to justify their own jobs. Priceless.

  • Anon

    @Major Tom

    You are assuming voters are rational. They are not, they are emotional. That is why Kennedy was able to milk the so called “missile gap” (there was none) in his 1960 election as an issue. And why the voters elected Obama president when his only claim to fame was showing up and looking good. In 2012 they will be looking for excuses to “throw the bums out” so it will fit right in the campaign strategy. Your fine points will be lost on the sound bite masses who decide elections.

  • What do we ultimately want from this effort to push out into space? What benefit does the effort and the money spent have for people living and working now? How does one get that message out?

    Personally, I see space as necessary for continued economic development, the ultimate solution to our energy needs (at least our current energy needs), and a requirement for a continually growing human population. Studying and exploiting space also helps us to understand planetary environments and climate issues better and may help to alleviate pressure on Earth. None of these benefits, however, are pressing concerns right now (although they are becoming concerns) that can be immediately solved by the current space program. None of these concerns make a justification in most people’s minds to spending their money in ways that they do not see as justified. It seems to me that current efforts in space are basically planning, preparation, and learning for benefits in the far future.

    The space industry also has an image problem in that the current benefits of space: telecommunications, remote sensing, medical advances, etc. are not immediately obvious to most people, and are seen as their own industries, not as a “space” industry. Most people in the US wouldn’t want to live without their cell phones and would complain loudly if the telecommunications industry couldn’t launch enough satellites. However, they don’t associate space with cell phones in any meaningful way.

    With human spaceflight it is even more of a stretch. Most people don’t believe they will get to go into space any time soon and don’t know what they would do there (short of enjoying the view for a while). I hope space tourism takes off, but the fact is that the way to get most people to care about human spaceflight is to generate a large number of jobs that require they work in space.

    Since an international infrastructure is growing (albeit slowly) to push human endeavors to encompass the Earth-Moon system in a meaningful way, I wish we in the space advocacy community would utilize our efforts to focus on growth on this path. Instead of a fragmented community that wants too many things at once, we should:

    1) Focus on support for space commercialization, get lobbying efforts going that fight for this to happen swiftly. This makes jobs here and now in many different industries needed to grow this aggregate space industry.

    2) Actively support politicians who support space commercialization, and fight to get politicians who are not supportive voted out of office.

    3) Focus on LEO and the moon, until we are there in sustainable numbers, mining, putting up solar power generating satellites, studying space medicine, etc. Things that cannot be done on Earth and require people to be in space.

    4) Focus on pressure on governments to dissolve the Outer Space Treaty and other obstacles to space development. Call for, and make an issue of, the establishment of a legal framework for international space development based on economic growth and job/wealth creation.

    5) Focus on education and space which links the space issue with an important all around issue, and one that is needed for advancements in space.

    6) Focus on what the use of space assets can do for the Earth’s environment, another issue of growing importance.

    To get people to support space, to get politicians to see the space issue as important for getting and keeping voter support, space needs to be linked to the other issues it empowers.

    Otherwise, we risk being seen as increasingly irrelevant.

  • Major Tom

    “You are assuming voters are rational. They are not, they are emotional. That is why Kennedy was able to milk the so called ‘missile gap’ (there was none) in his 1960 election as an issue.”

    The evidence offered doesn’t fit the argument. The public bought into the missile gap argument out of ignorance, not emotion. The public didn’t have access to the CIA estimates showing that the Soviets were actually behind, not ahead, of the United States in terms of the number and capabilities of each nation’s ballistic missile arsenal. Just like WMDs and the decision to reinvade Iraq, if the public had had access to accurate facts and unbiased information, they would not have come to the same conclusion.

    “And why the voters elected Obama president when his only claim to fame was showing up and looking good.”

    I’m no fan of several of the Administration’s policies and decisions, and I don’t think the President has earned his Nobel Peace Prize, either. But arguing that the President’s “only claim to fame was showing up and looking good” does a disservice both to the President and American voters.

    You may intensely dislike the President, but that doesn’t mean that the American public is stupid and it’s certainly not evidence for the argument you’re putting forward.

    “Your fine points”

    These are not “fine points”. Americans know that the federal government is running record deficits. They also know that we sent astronauts to the Moon in the 1960s. Knowing just those two facts, why would any non-space-cadet voter want to increase the debt by billions more dollars to put astronauts on the Moon once again? This is the logical equivalent of adding 1+1. It’s not a sophisticated argument.

    “will be lost on the sound bite masses who decide elections.”

    Even if we assume such a low intelligence for the average American voter, spending billions more on civil human space flight is tailor made for soundbites, like:

    “President Moonbeam”

    “Throwing money at the Moon”

    “Debt so high it reaches to the Moon”

    “Taxes from outer space”

    Etc., etc.

    It’s unfortunate, but the reality is that it’s much easier to portray spending on discretionary items in a bad budget environment as economically stupid and fiscally reckless (whether it actually is or not) than it is to convince taxpayers to cough up more money for an activity that has no direct and very little indirect impact on their lives.

    FWIW…

  • Robert Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ October 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    Obama would be penny wise but pound foolish not to increase the NASA budget by a meager $3 billion annually so that we could replace the shuttle and return to the Moon./

    actually it would be about the dumbest spending Obama could do.

    In the scheme of things, 3 billion dollars is not a lot of money (sigh) but if spent wisely it is a lot of money in areas that are not doing very well.

    For instance…3 billion dollars spent modernizing the ATC system for 8 years fixes the ATC system for a generation. That changes the travel equation for all Americans.

    Now spend it on going back to the Moon…that really does nothing for the rest of The Republic.

  • Robert Oler

    Anon wrote @ October 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    You are assuming voters are rational..;.

    they are…that is why McCain is not President.

    Look as disclosure I volunteered for John S. McCain in 2000, raised money for him in 2000 and raised money for him in 2008. I would have volunteered for him in 2008 had I been in CONUS. I did know quite a few of the professional staff…and it is on the record in the McCain blog that well before he picked Sarah Palin, I was promoting her.

    I would also note that I voted for the loser in the last three presidential elections and think Bush was a disaster for The Republic. having said that.

    McCain lost because he ran an emotional campaign, Sarah Palin became a drag on the ticket in no small measure because she became iemotional as the campaign went on.

    Americans in 2008 were looking for a completely new direction. There was (and it might include you) a tiny percentage (less then 22 percent) who liked what Bush was doing, but the vast majority of folks, including a lot of people who voted for McCain wanted “another way”.

    Obama as a candidate had far more going for him then “showing up and looking good”. He ran a smart campaign which appealed directly to what Americans wanted their country to look like. Americans who decide the election were tired of shootem up bang bang bible banging politicans who were incompetent. Obama appealed to those people.

    OK you might not like him much and I dont care for some of his policies, but he ran a smart clever campaign.

    McCain ran a dumb campaign. He could not describe what a “McCain America” looked like and as the campaign went on to more and more Americans it looked like four more years of Bush’s. Palin was nothing but emotion. The phrase “domestic terrorist” had no basis in fact, all it was was emotion. Joe the Plumber was nothing but emotion. …that might of excited the red meat base but that loony group was going to vote for McCain anyway.

    .but it did nothing for Americans in the middle…but turn them off to her and eventually “Little Johnny”.

    Americans are smart folks who given the facts will figure out the course of action. One reason Bush is so hated is that he did nothing but present things as facts, which the American people bought, which turned out “not to be true”.

    This is what kills space advocates. they get all emotional over spaceflight like “wow”…and the American people? They want their lives to be better.

    Robert G. Oler

  • First of all, the government investment in space technology has not been a burden to our economy. In fact, it has made this country and the world much richer.

    Secondly, most Americans love the manned space program and think its a good investment for America’s technological future.

    Third, a $3 billion increase in the NASA’s annual budget could enable us to replace the current space shuttle, set up permanent bases on the Moon and fund future technologies that could enable us to set up permanent bases on Mars and access small asteroids for their platinum and other resources. So that extra $3 billion a year could change everything. However, even a $3 billion dollar increase would still be only about 66% of what the NASA budget was during the Apollo era.

  • First of all, the government investment in space technology has not been a burden to our economy. In fact, it has made this country and the world much richer.

    Some of it has, most of it hasn’t, particularly in manned spaceflight, relative to the opportunity costs.

    Third, a $3 billion increase in the NASA’s annual budget could enable us to replace the current space shuttle, set up permanent bases on the Moon and fund future technologies that could enable us to set up permanent bases on Mars and access small asteroids for their platinum and other resources.

    Not the way NASA currently does things. It would be mostly wasted,and certainly wouldn’t achieve any of those goals. They’d just continue to pour it down the Constellation/heavy-lift rat hole.

  • Anon

    @Major Tom

    Thanks! I always figured based on your comments you were anti-manned spaceflight. You just proved it.

  • Anon

    @Robert,

    I don’t dislike Obama. He seems nice enough. He just doesn’t have the experience to be President. His only accomplishment beside a few years as a Illinois legislator was two years as Senator with nothing of substance to mark them. He short he just showed up and looked good.

    But its the ability to govern that is key and he has not shown that ability yet. Look at how he went from cutting money from NASA in his first statement, to a completely different position on NASA in the Summer, to a no one knows position today.

    He is basically an empty suit that goes what ever direction his current advisors lead him. That is what comes from a lack of experience. By 2012 the majority of the public will have recognized their mistake (many are already) in focusing on the speeches and not the ability and be looking for a replacement.

    I am not a fan of McCain BTW, I could think of several that were better, but at least you knew he had experience and knowledge. In short he has the ability to make his own decisions and not have to depend on the advisor of the week to make them for him.

  • Major Tom

    “I always figured based on your comments you were anti-manned spaceflight.”

    I’m not. I think there is value in an effectively and efficiently run civil human space flight program that makes actual exploration achievements and provides secondary science, economic, and security benefits without busting the budget for other valuable NASA activities. But that’s not the program we have today, not by a long shot.

    And even if we had such a program, based on the established science, I don’t entertain fantasies that our species is likely to ever do more than take two or so year trips into the solar system — absent changes to our genome, bodies, or FTL travel, we’re unlikely to ever settle or colonize other worlds.

    But more importantly than any of that, even if I was anti-human space flight, why do you care? Why is this a litmus test for you? Why wouldn’t you want to hear the arguments of those who think differently from you?

    We don’t learn anything listening to ourselves.

    “You just proved it.”

    Because I showed that your evidence doesn’t match your argument?

    Because I stated that your dislike of the President doesn’t mean that the American public is as stupid as you portray them?

    Because I showed that, contrary to your claim, it’s easy to make up soundbites that don’t support your position?

    Please, grow up…

    “He is basically an empty suit that goes what ever direction his current advisors lead him.”

    Oh, so you’ve been sitting in the Oval Office when the President has discussions with his advisors? Please tell us what you’ve heard!

    Don’t make statements on subjects which you know nothing about.

    Lawdy…

  • Rich

    I see that Robert Oler has been active in the Larouche campaign as his new space advisor. Dean to Kerry to McCain/Palin and now to Larouche. I see no pattern there in terms of ideology. Oh well, Oler is nothing if not inconsistent.

  • Robert Oler

    Anon wrote @ October 17th, 2009 at 3:25 am

    @Robert,

    I don’t dislike Obama. He seems nice enough. He just doesn’t have the experience to be President. His only accomplishment beside a few years as a Illinois legislator was two years as Senator with nothing of substance to mark them. He short he just showed up and looked good. ..

    Well a few points tying into space.

    First if Obama had not the experience to be POTUS then Sarah Palin was several orders of magnitude worse off…

    ..Obama had the experience to be President without a doubt.

    There is only one arbitrary threshold of “experience” to be POTUS and that is the voters say “yes”. That is it. There is no magic number of years in the Senate or House or Gov…or years in the armed forces or whatever…

    the great crucible of The Presidency is the campaign. The Founders wisely set it out that way and history has been kind to our Republic and molded the campaign where the temperature is even hotter…survive the campaign and you deserve to be POTUS if you win by 500 some odd votes or a landslide. It is that simple.

    The only task other then running a campaign, that I think was similar to those that The Presidency puts on, was managing the Continental Army…and we dont have that role anymore. The one left today is starting more or less from scratch genning up a campaign and taking it to 1600 Penn Army. Our elections are like The Revolution, they are two armies sweeping the country trying to attract votes…and on election night one we give the keys to soverignty to, and the other vanishes.

    The losers always try (as sadly you are doing) to deligitimize the win. (as an aside Rich Kolker who post here will tell you that although I thought Bush a jerk, when the Supreme Court made its ruling I told him “its over he is POTUS”). This is the birther movement and those who say “the American people will realize there mistake.” silly.

    All Presidents have hard first years as they walk on the deck and move from campaign mode to governing, some recover (Reagan) some flounder (Carter Bush the last)….but McCain would have had as hard a time.

    As for “I could think of several that were better,” none of them were good enough to win.

    ” but at least you knew he had experience and knowledge.” which was pretty meaningless. You dont want a President who simplly “makes his own decision” Bush the last should have pointed out how flawed that was. Presidents are decision makers, they are not complete knowledge experts, you need knowledge good knowledge to make decisions. That is why one has advisers/chiefs of staff/staff etc. They can tell you what is possible, probably not and very dangerous; because their portfolio is far more limited then what a POTUS should be. Show me a POTUS who doesnt listen to their advisers, I’ll show you an idiot or what did I call him…a jerk. That doesnt mean one follows them blindly; and I see no evidence Obama is doing that. I dont know what he will decide on say Afland, but he is at least approaching the problem in a very thought out manner.

    That is why his position on space and human spaceflight has evolved. You find things out; I doubt Obama had given space and NASA much thought, but upon assuming the office he got more information and found out what a jerk off outfit it is…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Rich wrote @ October 17th, 2009 at 10:18 am

    I see that Robert Oler has been active in the Larouche campaign as his new space advisor

    Is Larouche still alive? Actually I am starting in campaign mode again oddly enough today..my brother in law is announcing for DA of Galveston County

    As for 2012 who I will support is well unknown.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ October 16th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    First of all, the government investment in space technology has not been a burden to our economy. In fact, it has made this country and the world much richer.

    in human spaceflight there is no data to support that statement

    Robert G. Oler

  • Rich

    The Larouche people keep referring to you as their new space guru, Mr. Oler.

  • Robert Oler

    Rich wrote @ October 17th, 2009 at 11:57 am

    The Larouche people keep referring to you as their new space guru, Mr. Oler….

    lol so he is alive? Is he still “incarcerated”? again lol

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anon

    @Major Tom

    “I don’t entertain fantasies that our species is likely to ever do more than take two or so year trips into the solar system — absent changes to our genome, bodies, or FTL travel, we’re unlikely to ever settle or colonize other worlds.”

    That explains a lot about the views you express here and your attitudes towards space advocates. Really, if the purpose of the space program is not human settlement of the Solar System why bother with it? You might as well close NASA down and turn its robotic missions over to NSF. Same with the NSS, MS, SFF, etc… For that matter there is no need for a Blog like this one as peer review could better determine how to best spend the nation’s money on science projects.

    Which leads the next question. If all of this is useless why do you bother posting here?

    Oh, and just a note. You don’t need FTL to reach Mars or other places in the Solar System. A good nuclear ion, or nuclear plasma, will do quite well.

  • Anon

    @Robert

    “the great crucible of The Presidency is the campaign. The Founders wisely set it out that way”

    Actually that is just what the Founders didn’t want to happen. Its why they created an electoral college with the hope that by voters electing people they trusted to decide for them who would be president there wouldn’t be any draw out campaigns to divide the nation. In short they set it up just the opposite, but it was twisted into what you see now.

    And there worst fears of a divided nation have come true as you illustrate thinking that I am some radical Republican or Libertarian because I don’t see Obama as being up to the job. I thought Sarah was a joke and she probably lost the campaign for McCain. But I am republican or a fan of Bush. I voted for Gore in 2000 because I felt Bush didn’t have the experience to be president and history has proven that to be the case. He messed up space as much as he messed up the wars he started. He was totally lost in the job. Bush disproves your theory that the ability to run a good campaign is equal to the ability to serve as president.

    BTW I also voted for Kerry in 2004. He had experience in the Senate and heroism in combat. And he wasn’t Bush who already proved he wasn’t capable of the job even if he ran a good campaign which you see as the only qualification.

    Also I would have voted for Hillary over McCain if she won the primaries, something else the Founders never imagined or foresaw. Yes, she lacked experience but at least had Bill to guide her if needed.

    But I think the Founders would be horrified at how selecting the president has become a beauty contest and not surprised at the how the country has declined as a result.

  • Robert Oler

    Anon wrote @ October 17th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    @Robert

    Actually that is just what the Founders didn’t want to happen. Its why they created an electoral college with the hope that by voters electing people they trusted to decide for them who would be president there wouldn’t be any draw out campaigns to divide the nation…

    I dont agree with that. The Founders set up the EC (which I like BTW) as a compromise for two reasons. The first was that they wanted small states to have a decent say so in the election of The President and second they wanted to preserve the concept of states having control of the election process. That was of course before the 14th amendment (as Bush V Gore correctly in my view argued).

    It had really nothing to do with the people chosing people who would decide for “them”.

    “I voted for Gore in 2000 because I felt Bush didn’t have the experience to be president and history has proven that to be the case.” I voted for Gore because in my view Bush was an idiot who had proven how he would run the Presidency as Gov of Texas. IE the experience he had, and was likely to govern how he ran the office of President was in my view idiotic.

    “Bush disproves your theory that the ability to run a good campaign is equal to the ability to serve as president. ”

    But the problem is that I did not say that. I said that it was the only task that prepares one for being President…it also in my view indicates what kind of President you will be…which is what gives me hope that Obama will get it together…and made me fear the election of Shrub (aka Bush).

    Bush ran “the better” campaign (although he lost the popular vote in 00) in terms of engaging and defeating his opponent. Gore should have won going away, peace prosperity, and all but his campaign was incoherent. As was Kerry’s btw. Kerry should have won but fell into a “Rovian” trap (about would he have voted for the war again) out of dithering.

    HRC lost in no small measure because she was unable to stop leaning on Bill..

    As for The Republic declining? Nonesense at least in my view. We are going through tough times, but we are a far better nation then we were when The Constitution was written, and for the most part every decade we have gotten better. When the people are soverign the measure of The Republic is that the people get more free.

    But then of course I am not one who puts a lot of stock in “what the founders would do today”. They lived in a Republic that could barely hold its own self together. We live in a Republic that is the collosus of the world.

    We are going through tough times. We will come out of them.

    Robert G. Oler

  • sam

    At the intersection of stupid opinions about human space flight and stupid opinions about presidential campaigning (and governing), there exists a density of denseness so great that a stupidity singularity is likely to form, and pull all of this discussion past an “irrelevant horizon”.

    (1.) “HSF should be inspirational” = something real people actually care about. Building the technology platform for life into the cosmos may be such a goal, we are a visionary people – but preserving centers and vehicles is not.

    (2.) Angery Repubs – Obama kicked and is continuing to kick your ass. A temper tantrum is not an argument or a position on recovery (aka stimulus), health care, deficit, climate or human space flight. All of these issues are at far worse crisis points now as the result of the policies the Republican President and Republican controlled congress enacted from 2001 – 2007. Obama won because he identified a set of specific issues and an overall approach he would take to governing, and got people who agreed with them to persuade friends and neighbors to register and show up and vote. Aren’t you the people that usually scream “America love it or leave it”?. Sore losers are always the biggest losers.

    (3.) Obama will make a significant national investment in meaningful research and development in multiple fields. Meaningful could be in terms of basic research, commercial applications, national purposes. Energy, health, IT, climate, etc. NASA being a part of that means proposing stuff (especially HSF stuff) that isn’t a George Abbey / Dick Shelby legacy entitlement program.

    (4.) HSF for further exploration is not an inherent national need. You could see a NASA budget plus up that goes to other sciences and technologies, with the HSF portion being commercial rides and ISS. Huntsville hasn’t produced anything that performed as advertised since Von Braun died. (Interesting how the health care / space issues are mirrored – people that scream about a government option for heath care scream about a private option for HSF).

    (5.) While Bush II did good work in the analysis leading up to VSE and other policies, OMB prohibited additional funding needed due to return to flight and other development issues, and Griffin gutted the agency in furtherance of a program architecture that was more of a contractor alliance than a plan. Obama inherited a fluster clock. (So what else is new?)

    (6.) The economy is recovering – would be recovering faster with additional recovery investment and ability to modify mortgages in bankruptcy – health care will help – and the Tea Bag brigade will drag the Republican Party down because they will primary out any elected official who doesn’t adhere to a litmus test that 75% or better of the voters agreed with.

    (7.) Bottom line – free ride is over guys, HSF needs to come up with a plan that makes sense in terms of cost, timetable and value provided. Your idiot brother in law who has been on the gravy train may just need to look at options including Amway and food service.

    Quit whining. Make It So.

    – Sam

  • Robert Oler

    Sam…interesting comments. I read you’re other post and am thinking about it…will shortly post where I think this is going.

    I think you are premature in saying the economy is improving

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Really, if the purpose of the space program is not human settlement of the Solar System”

    It’s not. There’s no national policy document that says it is.

    That’s not my opinion. That’s a fact.

    And how could it be if humans, as in homo sapiens, can’t survive more than a few years or successfully reproduce in any known space environment.

    I apologize for pissing all over your scifi novels, but this is a forum about space policy, not space fantasy.

    “why bother with it?”

    Done right? Scientific discovery, technological advancement, national pride, and/or international confidence building… at a minimum.

    Maybe, if the dice roll right, new resources, the protection of our homeworld against certain predictable threats, and/or a revolutionary perspective about the potential for life elsewhere and the place of our species in the universe, too.

    There’s no need to colonize anything to realize those benefits.

    And even when discussing settlement, it all depends on your definition of “human”. Barring a breakthrough ability to access Earth-like worlds orbiting other stars or create new ones, it won’t be done with our current brains and bodies. But tweak the human genome enough or project our consciousness via machines and maybe our genetic or silicon descendents will colonize the solar system.

    “You might as well close NASA down and turn its robotic missions over to NSF.”

    That’s a goofy statement. NSF is a science grant organization. It lacks the engineering capability necessary to field any space system more complex than a nanosat.

    (This is not a knock against nanosats. But they’re the only space system that NSF has ever attempted to field. Anyone who thinks NSF could take over NASA’s science program has no clue about what NASA or NSF actually do.)

    “…peer review could better determine how to best spend the nation’s money on science projects.”

    Agreed. The civil human space flight program lacks the independent peer review that is a key ingredient in the success of NASA’s science programs.

    “If all of this is useless why do you bother posting here?”

    I never said it was useless. You’re the one who is arguing that a civil human space flight program that does anything less than colonize the solar system is useless, not me. Stop putting your words in my mouth.

    “Oh, and just a note. You don’t need FTL to reach Mars or other places in the Solar System.”

    I wasn’t talking about our solar system. We know that there are no other Earth-like planets orbiting the Sun.

    FWIW…

  • sam

    “Improving” being relative but still very sluggish stability and modest growth as opposed to total “China Syndrome” meltdown of banking, real estate and manufacturing, resulting in complete collapse of consumer economy and new great depression as was possible outcome in late 2008.

    Didn’t mean to imply Hunky Dorey.

  • Anon

    @Major Tom

    ““Really, if the purpose of the space program is not human settlement of the Solar System”

    It’s not. There’s no national policy document that says it is.

    That’s not my opinion. That’s a fact.”

    Nope, its not a fact, just another example of your lack of knowledge about space policy showing. Look up the Space Settlement Act of 1988 Public Law 100-68.

  • red

    Marcel F. Williams: “Obama would be penny wise but pound foolish not to increase the NASA budget by a meager $3 billion annually so that we could replace the shuttle and return to the Moon.”

    Major Tom: “The amount may be puny by federal budget standards, but it would become Exhibit A in any attack on the Administration’s lack of fiscal discipline. The White House’s opponents would beat the Administration relentlessly with monikers like “President Moonbeam” after such a move.

    The Augustine Committee recommended it, but it’s very hard to see any Administration proposing a 30% increase in the budget for the civil human space flight program given the current economic and budget environment. There is just much more political downside to increasing NASA’s budget than there is upside in this environment.”

    I agree with Major Tom here. A modest increase might be possible, but probably not that much. The Administration would be a lot better off replacing Ares 1 with something cost-effective, such as a commercial competition for ISS crew transport. As far as returning to the Moon is concerned, they can point to the Augustine Commission’s finding that the ESAS approach isn’t affordable or implementable on anything like a reasonable timeframe. They could then replace the ESAS approach with something affordable. That might be a Moon program that is all about robotics for the current planning horizon with some thoughts towards later gradual build-up of lunar HSF capability in an “infrastructure/reusable in-space vehicle” style, or it might be an affordable variant of the Augustine Flexible Path.

    Supporters of a big NASA HSF budget increase probably need to frame their position in a different way than “we need a Moon program now”, “stick with ESAS and fund it more”, or “Augustine recommended a big increase”. I would discuss any budget increase in terms like this:

    – The ISS is almost built, but we have no funds in the current budget plan to use it the way it should be used or keep it running past 2015.

    At least framing the budget discussion this way shows some sort of possible near-term benefit (results from ISS science and technology use). It also shows fiscal responsibility, in a sort of backwards way, by not wasting all of the billions that went into building the ISS.

    – In recent years we lost much of our NASA research and development as well as technology demonstration capability, and we should rebuild it.

    Framing the budget discussion this way at least shows some possibility of benefit towards national priorities. Many of the R&D efforts can be directed towards solving problems that help space capabilities, but that also address security, economic, health/medicine, energy/environment, or similar “national priority” areas where lots of Federal money is spent.

    – We intend to rebuild our satellite servicing abilities demonstrated with the Shuttle missions to Hubble and similar ones, but with a strong focus on affordability. This will start in LEO and move out to assets in GEO and Lagrange points.

    If this can be done affordably in Earth orbit with the increased funding, a big step towards exploration-oriented Lagrange point observatory servicing will be accomplished. At the same time, there is a sort of obvious usefulness in such activities. They just sound fiscally responsible – refurbish a satellite instead of throwing it away. The trick is to actually have a credible plan for making them affordable.

    Some of these approaches also have the benefit that they aren’t all-or-nothing giant funding efforts like Ares 1 or a heavy-lift vehicle.

  • Major Tom

    “Space Settlement Act of 1988 Public Law 100-68″

    There’s so many things wrong with this reference, it’s hard to know where to begin.

    First, Public Law 100-68 has nothing to do with space settlement. It’s a “joint resolution designating the month of November 1987 as ‘National Alzheimer’s Disease Month'”. See:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d100:SJ00015:@@@Z

    Second, the correct legislative reference for the “Space Settlement Act of 1988″ is H.R. 4218. See:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d100:1:./temp/~bdGMBd:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/d100query.html|

    Third, H.R. 4218 is a bill. It’s not a law or a policy. Heck, the bill never even left subcommittee.

    Fourth, the NASA Act (as amended), which H.R. 4218 intended to amend, still doesn’t include the words “colonize” or “colonization” and only uses the words “settle” or “settlement” when discussing judicial issues (e.g., “settled by the court”). See:

    http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html

    Again, don’t make statements on subjects which you know nothing about. It’s a waste of your time and other posters’ time.

    “another example of your lack of knowledge about space policy showing”

    I don’t know everything, but I’m not the one who:

    1) Mistakes Alzheimer’s-related legislation for space-related legislation.

    2) Can’t tell the difference between a bill and a law.

    3) Makes false claims about laws that don’t exist.

    Lawdy…

  • red

    Major Tom: “And how could it be if humans, as in homo sapiens, can’t survive more than a few years or successfully reproduce in any known space environment. I apologize for pissing all over your scifi novels, but this is a forum about space policy, not space fantasy. … And even when discussing settlement, it all depends on your definition of “human”. Barring a breakthrough ability to access Earth-like worlds orbiting other stars or create new ones, it won’t be done with our current brains and bodies. But tweak the human genome enough or project our consciousness via machines and maybe our genetic or silicon descendents will colonize the solar system.”

    Major Tom has posted on this theme a few times recently, and I haven’t seen much in the way of counter-arguments. As far as I’m concerned, the benefits of HSF other than colonization Tom lists like resources, protection, science, technology, etc are good enough justification for HSF, if it’s done well. Failing that, I’m ok with a robotic-only effort, again if done well. However, the Augustine summary report says “the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path for human expansion into the solar system”. Is this feasible? I haven’t seen any arguments here showing it is.

    It’s interesting that a lot of modern SF stories actually go the route Major Tom describes. Many rule out settlement as-is, and take either the path of altering the environment to suite humans, or altering humans to suite the environment. The second route is often broken down as Major Tom did, into biological or machine variants. Bruce Sterling’s Schismatrix “Shaper-Mechanist” stories come to mind, as does Frederick Pohl’s “Man Plus”. Is there a path to space settlement short of such radical changes to underpin goals like the one mentioned in the Augustine summary? Does there need to be?

    Let’s assume we have a leisurely 100 years to get space settlement started. Beyond that and perhaps you have the genetic or mechanical species branch, or a breakdown in civilization shutting down all such options. In that time we get CATS, reusable spacecraft, large-scale and diverse space industry, ISRU on the Moon, Mars, and asteriods, major biology/computer/materials/robotics/communications improvements, etc. However, space is the realm of robotics and quick visits by astronauts. Can this scenario switch to settlement?

    What do we really know about the effects of a lower gravity environment of places like the Moon or Mars? We know there are multiple serious problems in an environment like the ISS. I’ve read some studies on effects of living in the ISS environment, but these weren’t focused on settlement, and didn’t involve planetary surfaces. How do these effects scale to 1/6 or 1/3? What are the long-term prospects (meaning, say, 100 years) of artificially gravity via (perhaps part-time) rotation, or medically lessening these effects?

    What about radiation? Could a Moon or Mars culture live mainly underground, with short visits to the surface? Let’s say you can afford 2 (Earth) years on the surface or Mars. Is that a reasonable radiation budget? You stay shielded as you grow up. Two years is about 2000 work days on the surface. You have a 4-day work week on the surface; any other work is below. That gives you about 500 weeks in your Mars surface career, or 10 (Earth) years. Could a society function that way? If your work isn’t on the surface, maybe you could vacation there one day each week. Let’s assume aggressive telerobotic and virtual reality capabilities, so perhaps you don’t need to be on the surface that much.

    Meanwhile, reproductive genetic material is stored in locations that are well-shielded from radiation.

    Or … are medical counter-measures feasible in the long-term? Pseudo magnetospheres? Could some combination of a bad situation on Earth, prospects of riches in space, adventure, and so on compensate for the shorter life span implied by the radiation environment?

    What about a settlement in an icy moon with a liquid ocean – perhaps spread through the ocean, ice, and ocean floor. The ice could shield from radiation – if you can survive the radiation on the path to get to the moon in the first place.

    Whatever the answers are to the above questions, the bottom line is I think our justifications for NASA HSF should be more near-term like the ones Major Tom listed.

  • Anon

    @Major Tom,

    The Public Law is 100-685, the NASA Authorization Act for 1989. The 5 was left off as you probably recognized if you googled it. Really, do you just try to be dense? Or is just you dislike from people that see space exploration as something a bit more then mere research publications for academic promotion?

  • Anon

    @Red,

    If you kill HSF you will never get the answers to the question of humans being able to adapt to other gravity environments. That said, I remember when people thought that mere exposure to Zero-G would be so dis-orienting that people would be helpless. That proved to be baloney as soon as people had a chance to be exposed. I suspect most of the myths Major Tom promotes of the effects of prolonged exposure to low gravity will prove to be just as mistaken as the beliefs held about Zero-G 50 years ago. Already it looks like a simple pill could replace exercise. I suspect that this line of research will solve the problem of muscle weakening during zero-g.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/science/01muscle.html

    The same will be true of the other problems, once they are studied on the ISS and in low gravity environments. Bioscience could well be a major justification of a human moon base.

    Remember the first step in mastering the universe is identifying the problem. Then understanding the mechanism. Then fixing it. But Major Tom seems all too willing to just give up before the problem is even fully identified.

    I also expect similar solutions will be found to the problems of radiation in space. Again is the simple process of understanding the process and then correcting it.

  • Mike Finn

    I’m sorry to see this board being taken over by Robert G. Oler. He is a well known cyber bully with a make believe resume. Watch for S/N ratio slide.

  • Jeff Foust

    I hate to step into a debate between Anon and Major Tom, but a few facts might clear up the issue:

    The “space settlement” provision did make it into PL100-685, Section 217:

    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C26.txt

    The key aspect of it was to require NASA to file, every two years, a report on space settlement activities and research undertaken by the agency. o the best of my knowledge, NASA never filed any reports on that. Despite that becoming a cause célèbre within the space advocacy community, Congress never pressured NASA to file those reports. The reporting requirement was stripped out by later legislation.

    It’s worth noting that the legislation didn’t make space settlement an explicit goal of NASA, only that space settlements “will fulfill the purposes of advancing science, exploration, and development and will enhance the general welfare.”

  • Robert Oler

    Anon wrote @ October 18th, 2009 at 2:52 am

    @Red,

    If you kill HSF you will never get the answers to the question of humans being able to adapt to other gravity environments. That said, I remember when people thought that mere exposure to Zero-G would be so dis-orienting that people would be helpless. That proved to be baloney as soon as people had a chance to be exposed. I suspect most of the myths Major Tom promotes of the effects of prolonged exposure to low gravity will prove to be just as mistaken as the beliefs held about Zero-G 50 years ago…

    maybe but there is little data to show that this is the case. All the data gathered so far shows that life in zero g and the human body as it has evolved over a long period of time…is not very compatible…and that doesnt even hint at the radiation problem.

    I was at a party the other day and one of the attendees was an astronaut who had spent one of the longer times on ISS. I asked her/him about how they felt upon return and the response (not for NASA records) was “barely functional”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Jyoung

    Another imaginary conversation between Robert Oler and an astronaut. Why are these fantasies allowed on this otherwise excellent website?

  • Major Tom

    “The Public Law is 100-685, the NASA Authorization Act for 1989″

    Then why did you write “Space Settlement Act of 1988 Public Law 100-68″?

    You got both the legislative reference _and_ the year wrong.

    Please learn how to count and tell time. If you know how to count and tell time, then please stop trolling with purposefully useless references. Sending other posters on a wild goose chase is a waste of your time and theirs.

    Mr. Foust already pointed this out, but I have to reiterate that the law you tried (but failed) to reference doesn’t even support your argument. It doesn’t make space settlement a goal of the civil space program. And the reporting requirement the law imposed on NASA has been ignored (so it was never policy, either) and was subsequently repealed in later legislation (so it’s no longer an effective law, anyway).

    So again, there’s no national policy document (or law) that says that the purpose of the space program is human settlement of the Solar System.

    That’s not my opinion. That’s a fact.

    You may not like it. But that’s reality.

    “Really, do you just try to be dense?”

    I’m not the one who:

    — Got both the year and the legislative reference of a law wrong.

    — Referenced a law that never supported my argument to begin with.

    — Referenced a law whose reporting requirements have even been neutered.

    “Or is just you dislike from people that see space exploration”

    How can I (or anyone else) “dislike from people”?

    Is English not your first language? Or are you trolling again?

    “as something a bit more then mere research publications for academic promotion?”

    If you bothered to read my prior email, I stated that a well-run civil human space flight program could deliver:

    “Scientific discovery, technological advancement, national pride, and/or international confidence building… at a minimum.

    Maybe, if the dice roll right, new resources, the protection of our homeworld against certain predictable threats, and/or a revolutionary perspective about the potential for life elsewhere and the place of our species in the universe, too.”

    Only one of those seven justifications deals with scientific “research publications”. I may be highly skeptical about the potential for homo sapiens to ever settle beyond Earth’s environments, but I clearly think that a well-run civil human space flight program could offer more than just research output.

    For the second time, please stop putting words in my mouth, especially when I’ve made the exact opposite statement in black and white.

    Oy vey…

  • The government’s manned space flight program is a long term investment that will help insure the survival of our species and will probably create far more wealth in the long run than the unmanned space program. Space tourism could someday be a $100 billion a year enterprise by mid century, IMO, that could make a lot private companies very very wealthy thanks to our government’s investment in manned space flight.

    But to argue that NASA doesn’t deserve a $3billion dollar a year increase in its budget so that we can send that tiny bit of money down the black hole of Iraq or health care would be extremely foolish. $3 billion would only pay for 10 days in Iraq. And $3 billion is only chump change next to the hundreds of billions of dollars the government alone spends on health care annually and– microscopic– compared to the trillions of dollars Americans spend on health care annually.

    So the idea that an extra $3billion dollars given to NASA would some how significantly harm our economy is just beyond silly!

  • Robert Oler

    Marcel F. Williams my plan for the 3 billion is to not spend it

    it is all borrowed

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anon

    @Major Tom

    I was born in a foreign country. So what? I am an American now.

    So for you space is just science… And some bragging rights. And maybe some very, every expensive spinoffs. If that is true then Obama may as well kill NASA as there is nothing of value to the average working American. Which is why the support for NASA is a mile wide and an inch deep.

  • Major Tom

    “I was born in a foreign country. So what? I am an American now.”

    I didn’t ask where you were born or about your citizenship. I asked whether English was your first language.

    “So for you space is just science… And some bragging rights. And maybe some very, every expensive spinoffs”

    For the third time, that’s not what I wrote. Stop putting words in other posters’ mouths and react to what they’ve actually written.

    FWIW…

  • Anon

    @Major Tom

    ““Scientific discovery, technological advancement, national pride, and/or international confidence building… at a minimum.”

    Scientific Discovery = Science

    Technological Advancement = Spinoffs from the scientific research, the Old justification of NASA to the masses = Science

    National pride, and/or international confidence building = Our scientists are better then yours…. = Science

    Sounds like a science policy agenda to me. If the shoe fits wear it.

    But its definitely not an agenda for opening the space frontier (SFF) or expanding human settlement into space (NSS). So again what is in it for the average working America they wouldn’t get from the Olympics or from some other form of entertainment? What is about NASA is worth 18 billion taxpayer dollars a year, a few more academic publications and bragging rights on how good are scientists are? Or Space Dots ice cream?

  • Major Tom

    “Technological Advancement = Science

    If you don’t know the difference between technology and science, then I can’t help you. You need to complete your education.

    “National pride, and/or international confidence building = Science”

    If you don’t know the difference between international relations and science, then I can’t help you. You need to complete your education.

    “Sounds like a science policy agenda to me.”

    Even if technology and international relations were the same thing as science, you failed to fully read my post (yet again) and left off several other justifications:

    “new resources, the protection of our homeworld against certain predictable threats, and/or a revolutionary perspective about the potential for life elsewhere and the place of our species in the universe”

    And even if all these justifications were the same thing as science, what’s wrong with a “science policy agenda”. (What’s wrong with science? This isn’t the Dark Ages.) NASA’s science program is wildly successful, especially compared to NASA’s human space flight program. Using science goals to drive choices in human space flight would ground that program in much better informed design tradeoffs that it currently lacks. Instead of wasting years pursuing enormously expensive space stations and lunar architectures without no firm idea of what astronauts are going to do at those locations, NASA’s human space flight programs could be scaled and paced to address specific research goals and make measurable achievements that have utility to someone besides NASA and contractor employees.

    “But its definitely not an agenda for opening the space frontier (SFF) or expanding human settlement into space (NSS). So again what is in it for the average working America [sic] they wouldn’t get from the Olympics or from some other form of entertainment?”

    Even if we assume that homo sapiens can live out healthy lifetimes and reproduce in the high radiation and low gravity environments that lie beyond the Van Allen Belts (which our species almost certainly can’t, but let’s pretend), what would the “average working American” receive from government spending on space settlement? What’s an office secretary or truck driver going to get in their lifetimes other than higher taxes so a few dozens to hundreds of their countrymen can survive and do little more in a wildly expensive environment for decades, maybe centuries, to come?

    And why do you want NASA (or any government agency) running a space settlement program, anyway? That’s not how frontiers have been settled on Earth. Governments may provide incentives to individuals and companies to settle frontiers, but frontiers are not settled by employees at government agencies — they’re settled by individuals, families, and companies making individual economic, governance, or religious decisions to move into the frontier.

    The question you should be asking yourself is, given the incredible expenses and deadly environments involved, why would any “average working American” (or even any above-average American) want to move into space permanently to live out the rest of their and their children’s lives there?

    If you can’t answer that question effectively, then it’s not going to happen.

    And again, this all assumes that our species can live out healthy lifetimes and reproduce in high radiation and low gravity environments beyond the Van Allen Belts, which it almost certainly cannot without a lot of reengineering of our genomes and/or bodies.

    If you want to colonize space, the program would look nothing like what NASA is pursuing today (or may pursue after the Augustine Committee). Launch vehicles, landers, habitats, etc. are not on the critical path to enabling humans to live for decades in space and reproduce successfully there. Rather, understanding what changes we have to make to our genomes and bodies (and probably elements of our Earth ecosystem — especially symbiotic microbes that are crucial to our survival) to survive near-constant bombardment by high-energy cosmic rays, occasional bombardment by solar proton events, and low gravity environments is what’s critical.

    That, or we wait until terraforming artificial Earths or FTL travel to an extrasolar Earth become possible — which may require infinite amounts of patience given the unknown engineering and/or science involved.

    FWIW…

  • Anon

    @Major Tom

    “what would the “average working American” receive from government spending on space settlement? What’s an office secretary or truck driver going to get in their lifetimes”

    The same benefits of increased national wealth Spain, Portugal, England, France received from the New World.

    “And why do you want NASA (or any government agency) running a space settlement program, anyway? ”

    Which is why you are convincing me NASA does need to be shut down, or at least have its budget seriously reduced to a couple of billion a year for robotic missions only.

    “If you want to colonize space, the program would look nothing like what NASA is pursuing today (or may pursue after the Augustine Committee).”

    Exactly. And that is why NASA doesn’t have the strong support it used to have. Its not seen as opening the frontier any more as it was with Apollo. Its just a science welfare agency.

    Yes, you have convinced me. NASA does need to be shut down in its current form it is just another waste of tax payer dollars. Maybe Congress could allocate that $18 billion a year wasted on NASA as prize money to the parents of kids born on the Moon, Mars or in space during that a specific fiscal year. That would stimulate space tourism and human space settlement far more then the money we are now wasting on NASA. I sure with such a prize the medical industry would solve the insolvable problems you see to human settlement of space.

  • common sense

    @Major Tom:

    I have to say I do admire the level of patience you display at trying to explain why we are on a train wreck (current HSF) to those who think we should just do it regardless of pretty much anything.

    Remember though that some of these people would not mind a one way ticket to Mars. Now what does that tell you/us?

  • Robert Oler

    Anon wrote @ October 19th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    The same benefits of increased national wealth Spain, Portugal, England, France received from the New World……

    really? based on what product? what would come back from the Moon that would make money for The US?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Paul

    The same benefits of increased national wealth Spain, Portugal, England, France received from the New World……

    After 1492, Spain had turned a net profit from the New World in a time shorter than the “Space Age” has already existed. Human spaceflight… well, there’s still no profit in sight.

  • common sense

    I think that profit as that experienced by the several historical exploring/colonizing countries on Earth may not be seen for centuries to come in space.

    This being said, a form of profit that would be in part subsidized by the government for commercial entities may happen. In other words the government(s) may want to provide seed money for space exploration. It will then be the responsibility of commercial entities to find whether there is money or not to be made, for example with ISRU on the Moon or anywhere.

    Also somehow the commercialization of LVs/RVs may end up costing a lot less to the government to carry exploration per se or any other space activity.

    Here again there are a lot of “ifs”. On the other hand, barring extreme imminent danger, I cannot see any real reason for exploring space away from Earth. And even were it to be an asteroid coming at us we would most likely be unable to go anywhere since we could not survive the long term exposure to space with the current technology.

    So, I think we ought to have more humble goals: Use robotics for the most part as scouts through the Galaxy. Check out what’s there. At the same time start developing the technology required for human settlement of some sort, e.g. VASIMR. We could as well launch crews on scouts too a la Flexible Path. All the while we collect the necessary data to understand how to survive there.

    But we must accept that in the end there may just be nothing to do for humans in space or on any other planetary body. Period.

    Bottom line (again): We do need an overarching plan, not just a collage of stunts that will get us nowhere. And it must be long term like in “centuries” long…

  • […] of time…is not very compatible…and that doesnt even hint at the radiation problem. …Read More space settlementfrederick pohl, radiation problem, space […]

  • Little changes can big difference. One extra cookie weekly can lead you to obtain 5lb per year : cut that will biscuit from the diet and likely to lose the amount.

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>