NASA HSF monies will indeed be aligned with administration priroties and thus will flow in the direction of politics.

When the VSE is tossed in the dust bin of history for Flexi-path, watch how the money flows and to where and ask yourself if this makes any sense and will it make a difference in addressing the concerns of the electorate writ large…..lets hope so.

Sigh… So true so very true… Notwithstanding those who blindly believe a mission “can” be done just “because”, e.g. one way trip to Mars. It must be fun to be in Alan Ladwig’s position then again it must be frustrating like hell too! Good luck!

Oh well.

Of course, the first year of a new Presidency is pretty much a learning experience but Obama needs to be a much more decisive and expedient leader over the next three years of his administration.

I think by January, we need a clear decision from Obama and Bolden on the future of the Shuttle, what future manned space architecture the tax payers are going to be asked to invest in, and whether or not we’re really going to the Moon to stay (as NASA keeps telling us)! So the administration needs to stop foolin’ around!

If that’s your angle, then you should be applauding the Obama Administration. Except for the two, nonviable, Program of Record options, every option in the Augustine Committee’s final report gets NASA out of the mid-lift LEO business and advocates transitioning its human space flight programs to commercial crew and cargo transport.

“I’ve been fighting the baleful effects of having a NASA rather than a ‘NACA for space’ for about a quarter century.”

Again, you should be applauding the Obama Administration on this. Every option in the final report of the Augustine Committee recommends that NASA shift back towards early- and mid-stage technology development and invest more there.

“I think you can figure out the sarcasm of my comment from there.”

I think you need to be less kneejerk in your comments, and actually examine what the Administration is doing and think before you post. Painting the civil space policy of any White House based on totally unrelated bank failure, automotive industry, and/or health care policy is goofy in the extreme.

It’s fine if you and Whittington have an extreme dislike for the President. He wasn’t my pick for Oval Office, either. But that’s not an excuse for posting totally unsupported and specious arguments on civil space policy here. I’m sure there’s an “I Hate Obama” blog somewhere that can cater to you.

FWIW…

Thanks.

To quote another well known politico, you betcha…

is this the same politician who has free health care from the state of Alaska because her husband is an Alaska native…even before she was Gov and even though she got run out of the job?

Robert G. Oler

Aside from the $1B that NASA received in the Recovery Act, what do any of these things have to do with NASA or civil space policy?

“To quote another well known politico, you betcha.”

Bet what, Mrs. Palin? That aligning the agency with White House direction could result in a better funded agency?

Unlike what Griffin did during Bush II?

“Besides, is not the “primary sponsor” of our space effort the country as a whole and not just the Leader?”

In theory, sure. In practice, no, not at all. We elect a President and they determine the major direction of the agency, especially its human space flight program. See Kennedy and Apollo, Nixon and Space Shuttle, and Reagan/Clinton and ISS.

There’s no voter referendum on the civil space program.

“Besides, I think Congress has a say or two about things.”

Not really. Most of the shape of NASA’s programs are set by the White House. The Congress can fiddle at the edges with earmarks, but the legislative branch has never started major civil space initiatives or programs on its own.

FWIW…

“Of what? Aligning the agency with the interests of its primary sponsor?”

The “primary sponsor” who is the architect of the stimulus package, health care “reform”, and cap and tax. To quote another well known politico, you betcha…

LOL from the person who still thinks good thoughts about Bush the last.

“Besides, is not the “primary sponsor” of our space effort the country as a whole and not just the””

nope. sit and take a minor civics lesson.

…the country “as a whole” elects a President every four years who is then put in charge of the Executive branch, for which NASA is a part of…and it is the purpose of the “Chief Executive” to set the course for each of those departments. The Congress serves as a method to finance those departments, and hence by what financing is past or approved has some “input” on the operation of those departments.

You should know this since you were cheering wildly as Bush the twit announced “the Vision” and realigned the agency to that…and you thought it was just wonderful. Now he has left the office and another person who was elected quite handily is in office…and gets that same role.

or do you only like the Chief Executive setting direction when it is a Chief Executive that you like? ah those folks who would redefine The Constitution

Robert G. Oler

Robert – he has been in the center for most of his presidency. He is not the far left bogey man that Faux News claims. …

not so much.

First off Fox news is worthless. All they are is a venue for the various “Father Coughlin’s” of our day or home for all the old men to watch pretty girls in short skirts.

Obama held the center on election night. The campaign was a tour de force in not only “finding” the center but also causing the center to move toward him…that is what all successful candidates do. The unsuccessful ones (except in very close elections…Gore/Bush or Nixon/Kennedy are examples) usually stake out “extreme” ground or (in the case of McCain 08) are pulled there by external forces.

Since inauguration, Obama has both drifted out of the center of American politics and seen the center drift away from him. In other words the “center” of The Republic is “fluid”. This is not because as extremes claim “the center is mushy” but it is because what leaders do is move folks to follow them creating in The Republic’s case “the new America”…this has happened since The Founding of The Republic.

There are endless examples of successful “changes” in the center. FDR for instance took a country that had a fairly weak federal government and because of crisis was able to both solve the crisis AND permanently change the relationship of the people to their government. Ike, forever moved the center on things like Highway construction…”roads” though not mentioned in The Constitution became a part of federal infrastructure.

There is failure to…Bush the last drifted into “extremism” not because his policies were goofy (they were) but because they were failures. Had Rumsfeld listened to competent military and political figures on “how” to do Iraq, Iraq of today would likely have been the Iraq of 2004 and we would be thinking about using that same sort of tactics against Iran. The center would have shifted .

Obama has lost the center so far, in my view for two reasons. First at least so far his economic recovery theories have floundered. This might change as they take hold (or it might not) but so far the flop has allowed them to be painted as “extreme left wing”…and as they are his, so is he. He has floundered as well because in my view he has not been bold enough. If he was going to eliminate “Dont ask dont tell” as he more or less promised, he should have done it his first day and he would have had two weeks of the right wing going nuts and then it would be behind him. Likewise he has in my view inherited the war in Afland because he did not come into office and either have a plan to “win” (whatever that is) or leave.

Same with health care. Be decisive…have a plan (whatever if its) demand loyalty by the Congress on the force of his victory…and get it. Instead He is bleeding every day.

Instead of moving the center on these issues, he has watched the center move from him.

Since space policy is not an issue in terms of center/left right (it is so trivial) what this will have to do with space policy is that if President Obama flounders in his political support…whatever he has in mind will be harder to get.

Robert G. Oler

Exactly, Tom, and it’s done such a wonderful job of making spaceflight practical.

I’ve been fighting the baleful effects of having a NASA rather than a ‘NACA for space’ for about a quarter century.

I think you can figure out the sarcasm of my comment from there.