In today’s issue of The Space Review I summarize some of the recent lobbying efforts, and the problems associated with them, that I’ve discussed here in the last week or so, including the dueling March Storms, the SaveNASA effort, and Save Space’s letter-writing campaign. A couple of items in the article that I had not previously posted here:
- Both ProSpace and the Space Frontier Foundation are proceeding with their planned lobbying efforts early next year, although Mike Heney, project manager of the Foundation’s project, said that they’re “not worried about naming the event at this point”.
- Frank DiBello, president of Space Florida, provided a little more information about the source of that claim that the campaign had reached its goal of a half-million letters, saying that a White House staffer he ran into on Capitol Hill mentioned the large number of letters, originally a couple hundred thousand but later increased to 400,000 to 500,000.
Also, to make it clear that it isn’t just the space activist community that has problems with its advocacy, Dwayne Day profiles the lackluster PETA protest outside NASA Headquarters last week: “their theatrics were so underwhelming that they might have failed to make their point.” (The PETA protest, if you missed it, was about plans by NASA to fund research that will involve irradiating monkeys.) Perhaps PETA should have gone with a backup plan: “I’d rather go naked that irradiate monkeys.” At least the passers-by would have appreciated it…
Even if the space advocacy community wasn’t balkanized and even if these kinds of missed communications and missteps didn’t occur, these efforts to influence White House and Congressional decisions would still be coming up far short. Like many things in life, successful lobbying requires forward planning, early contact, and consistent follow up at every stage of the legislative process and with every important decisionmaker related to that legislation. A one or two day lobbying blitz or one-time letter writing campaign (or tweeting campaign, for heaven’s sake) just doesn’t cut it, not by a long shot. (This goes double when these efforts are only heard from in the last stages of a budget crisis.) Decisions on NASA’s budget pass through at least three layers of political review at the White House during a budget season that lasts from September through January. Similarly, there will be as many as six subcommittee, committee, and floor votes on House and Senate appropriations bills for NASA before those bills are reconciled in Congress and sent to the President for signature over a period that last from February to October (and often longer). As much as I empathize with (and even belong to) some of these advocacy organizations, it’s crazy to think that an 11th-hour writing campaign in late fall is going to reverse decisions at the White House that have already been vetted through a couple layers of political review. Or that a two-day lobbying blitz in early spring will result in a desired legislative outcome a half-year later. It may make the membership of these organizations feel like they’re part of the process, which may have value in and of itself, but it’s not effective lobbying.
Legislative affairs offices at most universities understand this and that’s a big part of why they so effective at getting earmarks inserted into NASA (and other R&D agency) appropriations. I would learn from their operations and even consider paying for some professional lobbying advice or help.
FWIW…
@Major Tom:
Unfortunately I seriously doubt that the space advocacy community will ever be any efficient. Suffice to read all those who believe their plan is best. Too much ego and/or day-dreaming. And it stems from the leadership, so far. Look at VSE and Constellation as it is today. I think it is safe to say that a lot many people adhered to the VSE even though it might not have been the dream of each and every one. At least the VSE made (some) sense. Its current implementation was based on the “be all end all” approach. Today it is a fiasco. VSE was one great chance for the community to get together. Because of Constellation we now have the POR fans, the Mars fans, the Flex-Path fans competing again. Worse: The Augustine panel’s Flex-Path approach actually caters to every one of those groups, yet they cannot even see it! These groups only focus on the “my pln is best and should be done in my lifetime”. Ah the lifetime argument!… How can you see all those sub-groups getting together and learning an efficient way to lobby? The only real way for HSF to ever achieve its potential is if the President says so. If the President finds a politically, financially, technically sustainable way to permit HSF then maybe just maybe then the community will somehow coalesce. In the meatime…
Oh well.
@Major tom
Unlike the universities, which have huge budgets to hire Washington professionals whose only job is to lobby, the space group relay on unpaid volunteers. They are truly grassroots organizations and should be applauded for even attempting to take on the professionals in big space science who have steer space policy into its current dead end of look don’t touch and robots only space policy options.
Major Tom: Even if the space advocacy community wasn’t balkanized Common Sense: Suffice to read all those who believe their plan is best.
I agree with both of you. Our legislative efforts are balkanized because we are balkanized. As I understand it, the “program of record” is a heavy modification of a plan originally put forward by the Planetary Society and the general goals were advocated by an earlier Augustine commission — which were then squeezed through the political sausage maker to produce the monster we have now. Setting aside the particulars that we all hate, realistically, if we as a community cannot agree on the “program of record,”, there is probably not a whole lot we can agree on. Yet, since the “program of record” has severe technical and budgetary problems and does not exactly fulfill each of our dreams — which will be true in different ways when any conceivable plan meets the real world and real politics– every contributor here (including me!) is guilty of biting off a few of the thousand nibbles that will / are leading to this programs death without an obvious replacement.
If history is any guide, the next “plan of record” will get exactly the same treatment by a slightly different cast of nibblers. However bad it is, it remains true that the “program of record” is farther along in both political support and technical development than any plan has got since the Shuttle / ISS.
Take the environmental movement. There is vast diversity of opinion about what the end goals should be, what is achievable, and how to get there. But, they have a set of core values and goals that they can all subscribe to, which allows them to close ranks, bury their differences, and provide a united front on specific projects, often drowning out the radical fringes who oppose any project or action.
We can’t even come up with a core set of lowest common denominator values defining what our end goals are (e.g., “human space colonization” and “robotic reconnaissance” that all of us can agree on, and unite behind, let alone specific projects and short-term goals. Until we can, we are not likely to succeed in redirecting the sausage factory to achieve our goals.
— Donald
“They are truly grassroots organizations and should be applauded for even attempting to”
Reread my post. I explicitly stated: “… I empathize with (and even belong to) some of these advocacy organizations…”
“take on the professionals in big space science”
“Big space science”? You do realize that the budget for NASA’s science program is less than half (about 40%) that of the human space flight program, right? Space science proper (minus Earth science) is even less — only about a third of human space flight.
Please learn some facts about a program before you mischaracterize it.
“who have steer space policy into its current dead end”
Yes, university lobbyists are responsible for the end of the Apollo program, poor Shuttle design decisions, an much too complex and very slow space station build, and steering the VSE away from actual human space exploration to a duplicative mid-lift LEO launcher.
You have to be kidding…
“of look don’t touch”
You do realize that NASA’s space science program has two rovers touching Mars right now? You do realize that NASA’s space science program has returned samples from a comet and the interplanetary medium, right?
Don’t make claims that have no basis in reality.
“and robots only space policy options.”
Oh yes, the final report of the Augustine Committee is just dominated by robot-only options, and those are the only ones getting any serious consideration at the White House.
[rolls eyes]
Lawdy…
“We can’t even come up with a core set of lowest common denominator values defining what our end goals…”
I’d argue that existed in the VSE, that Griffin refocused it on a duplicative government LEO launcher and a permanent lunar base that were never in the VSE or fit the budget, and that it’s been reinvented in the final report of the Augustine Committee. It’s not that hard to get behind a statement that says NASA should get out of routine ETO operations and focus its human and budget resources on the key technologies and innovative capabilities necessary to enable incrementally tougher human and robotic missions to multiple important destinations in the solar system within a sustainable budget profile that avoids the Apollo start-stop syndrome.
I’d argue that’s the VSE, Aldridge, and Augustine distilled to to one (run-on) sentence. Whether the Obama Administration recognizes and follows that common direction and advice remains to be seen.
My 2 cents… FWIW…
Major Tom: Allow me to remind us all, from the NASA transcript of Mr. Bush’s original speach:
After completing the ISS, Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the crew exploration vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. The crew exploration vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the space station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo command module.
Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond. Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration. Using the crew exploration vehicle, we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015, with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods of time.
. . .
Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the cost of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth’s gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far-lower gravity using far less energy and thus far less cost. Also the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging, environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement. With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond.
Now, you and I may and certainly do quibble with the decisions that Dr. Griffin made and the solutions he chose, but I think any fair reading of what Dr. Griffin attempted to do was headed in the direction this speech proposed. The speech specifically calls for an Exploration Vehicle to visit the ISS, but whose primary purpose was to return to Earth’s moon. The robotic missions that were dropped are clearly an afterthought in the plan outlined above, and very explicity aimed toward human exploration.
The biggest problem I have with Dr. Griffin’s approach is that he concentrated on duplicate launch vehicles and heavy lift, rather than Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon . . ... But, for all my dismay at what actually occurred, Dr. Griffin’s decisions were engineering choices, not significant modifications of the plan, and “the program of record” does in fact support these goals, albeit (I believe) at significantly higher costs than necessary. I profoundly disagree with some of the choices that Dr. Griffin made, but I think he actually kept the vision as expressed by Mr. Bush more in his mind than most of the rest of us do.
— Donald
Now, you and I may and certainly do quibble with the decisions that Dr. Griffin made and the solutions he chose, but I think any fair reading of what Dr. Griffin attempted to do was headed in the direction this speech proposed.
There was nothing in that speech about developing new launch systems. In squandering scarce resources on that, he wrecked any chance of doing the things that the speech actually called for. He also completely ignored the requirements of the Aldridge Commission that the program be affordable and sustainable, support national security, and engage international cooperation and the commercial sector. Instead he used it as an excuse for a make-work and on-the-job training program for Marshall.
“current dead end of look don’t touch and robots only space policy options”
At least those robots are doing something beyond LEO. No humans out there doing anything at all.
And I agree completely with Major T. We’ve got robots touching Martian soil right now. In fact, one is kind of stuck in it at the moment. Tell Spirit it isn’t touching something, why don’t you.
““take on the professionals in big space science—
As opposed to the professionals in ULA, ATK, Lockheed, and the Florida pork army? Get real. Those are hugely well paid professionals who are simply handicapped by the fact that, like most of the HSF advocacy effort that this thread is about, they don’t have much cogent and even consensus rationale to work with.
Therein is the problem for human space flight advocacy, and it is woefully evident in the SaveSpace effort. Have you looked at their suggested letters to Obama? Check out the “long version” of the “I voted for you” letter, in which the first of two short paragraphs (“long version”, eh?) says “you told the citizens of Florida that, if you were elected president, you would make sure our Space program does not suffer when the Shuttle goes out of service and that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the shuttle retires.” Um, what about if I voted for you, and I lived in Idaho? It’s all about pork for Florida! Oh yes, it’s also about “align human exploration goals with key national objectives such as energy independence”. Huh? Flap those arms faster, now.
Again, I believe that there are some good arguments that could be made for human space flight. Arguments that could at least try to appeal to the intellectual fiber of our President. But are they being made? Nope. These arguments here, typified from those by SaveSpace, are pretty brain dead.
A few points to add to the very well thought out points of Major Tom (and some others).
Space advocates have no where to go in terms of lobbying not only because they have nothing to lobby for in terms of coherent policy, but (and this is important) they have no one to lobby for.
Lobby groups are successful when three things occur…first there is some coherent lobby focus point, 2) there is critical mass of members or a group to lobby on behalf of and 3 (and this is very important) there is a “group” beyond the membership that the lobbiest can titularly represent.
A pretty good example of all these things is say the NRA. They easily meet points 1 and 2…but they also meet 3. I am not a currrent member of the NRA (Former President G. W. Bush and I resigned for the same reason! grin) but for most of what the NRA would lobby for or against IF something in the Congress working through (like registration of ammunition) got going, they would and could call on “me” and lots of others and we would go to bat on the issue.
All three points are the reason NRA is very good at lobbying. They might claim, to satisfy the nuts in the membership that in their theory everyone should own a submachine gun if they wanted to…but the folks running the organization know that if they really started to push that then a lot of the “subway membership” (with apologies to G. Wallace) would drift away.
In part because space advocates have such “entertaining goals” (“lets have mass drivers on the moon”) and in part because most Americans have no real stake in a human spaceflight program and in part because the “beloved” squabble so well among themselves (sometimes foolishly…) there is little “subway membership” for space lobbyist to appeal to.
as an aside
Sunday the wife and I went to the beach house in Galveston and hung out for a spell there and on the beach. As I awoke from a couple hour nap, on the beach with the sky just glorious and a soft mildy cool wind blowing, to the sound of the surf I smiled as I thought “wow instead of this I could be in one of Marcels lunar lava tubes or Whittington’s conservative paradise on Mars…” not so much.
Robert G. Oler
Donald F. Robertson wrote @ November 23rd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
but I think any fair reading of what Dr. Griffin attempted to do was headed in the direction this speech proposed…
As my saintly Father use to say in similar situations “well now I wouldnt say that”. and I wouldnt.
To be honest (and fair) I dont think anyone has a clue what “Dr. Griffin” was trying to do or what direction he was going in. IN fact to be fair, I am not even sure he did.
A primary requirement for any vehicle that is going to be used for anything is that it be affordable not only to acquire, but to operate. One can go out and buy a used LRJet with reasonable life left on noisy engines for about the price that one would pay for a new single engine piston popper…but one couldnt run the LRJet for anything approaching the price of running the piston popper…
In a very kind fashion what the AC is saying about Griffin’s “direction” is that even if we could afford to build it, we could not afford to fly it. And that fact should have given “Dr G.” a bit of paused as he set sail with a Presidential mandate.
this isnt rocket science. I said on this board in 2004 that the plan would end up being to expensive to build and to operate.
Robert G. Oler
@Major Tom
From your first post
“Legislative affairs offices at most universities understand this and that’s a big part of why they so effective at getting earmarks inserted into NASA (and other R&D agency) appropriations. I would learn from their operations and even consider paying for some professional lobbying advice or help.â€
And then
“Yes, university lobbyists are responsible for the end of the Apollo program, poor Shuttle design decisions, an much too complex and very slow space station build, and steering the VSE away from actual human space exploration to a duplicative mid-lift LEO launcher.â€
So first Universities and their big science lobby are a role model for how to be effective lobbyists and then you claim they hasn’t been effective.
Please make up your mind! (shake head…)
If nothing else groups like the USRA, NSF and the space science community have sold Congress the idea that space is about science and so even HSF is forced to have science driven goals instead of goals related to space settlement… That is what has gotten us into this dean end, thinking of space exploration as science, not settlement.
BTW if you are not aware of it, the Ares Architecture originated with the Planetary Society study on sending humans to Mars that Griffin did, so actually it does have its roots in a space science view of space exploration/ When your HSF goal is flags, footprints and science sustainability is not important, unlike space settlement where its critically important as a goal.
Also I thought it was fairly well known that “look but don’t touch†was the term for the flexible HSF option favored by the Augustine Committee. Clearly you are not aware of that based on your comments about robots touching Mars. (roll eyes…)
Really, you need to be more informed on current topics if you are going to contribute to this discussion.
“I empathize with (and even belong to) some of these advocacy organizations…â€
BTW most of space advocacy organizations are focused on the human settlement of space. That is definitely the purpose of the Space Frontier Foundation, ProSpace, Mars Society, Moon Society and National Space Society. Even the Planetary Society wants to send humans to Mars. Yet you claim in other threads that human settlement is impossible. Seems like a disconnect to me, belonging to organizations with goals you don’t believe in…
Donald: “Dr. Griffin’s decisions were engineering choices, not significant modifications of the plan”
I have some examples pointing out how, in spite of some superficial similarities, the “Program of Record” differs from the VSE at its core:
restorethevision.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-far-is-esas-architecture-from.html
… and here’s one for the Aldridge Commission report:
restorethevision.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-far-is-esas-architecture-from.html
More importantly, some of the authors have published statements and papers with much the same conclusion about the “Program of Record”.
I agree that the Augustine Committee final report gives us a chance to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again”. It has the original VSE’s focus on commercial and international participation, innovation and new technology, affordability and sustainability, HSF synergy with robotics and science, and returning national benefits – all lost with the “Program of Record”. That’s no guarantee that the ultimate results will be good, but hopefully after seeing the same basic message again and again, decision-makers will make good use of what they’ve been given this time.
Ray
Anon wrote @ November 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
“Yes, university lobbyists are responsible for the end of the Apollo program, poor Shuttle design decisions, an much too complex and very slow space station build, and steering the VSE away from actual human space exploration to a duplicative mid-lift LEO launcher.â€
So first Universities and their big science lobby are a role model for how to be effective lobbyists and then you claim they hasn’t been effective. …
lol I am sure Major Tom will point this out…but you badly misread his post
Robert G. Oler
“I think any fair reading of what Dr. Griffin attempted to do was headed in the direction this speech proposed.”
For better or worse, the speech is not the policy. Policymakers write policy. Speechwriters write speeches. There’s a reason that the former exists. A government can’t be run by whatever turn of phrase appeals to a speechwriter. Griffin wasn’t directed to follow a speech. He was directed to follow a policy. The policy calls on NASA to:
“Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit; Conduct the initial test flight [of this crew exploration vehicle] before the end of this decade in order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration missions no later than 2014″
Per the policy, the ISS does not figure into CEV’s requirements.
“Acquire cargo transportation as soon as practical and affordable to support missions to and from the International Space Station; and Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.”
Per the policy, Griffin was to procure both cargo and crew transport. As we know, he only pursued the former.
“Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic missions to the Moon to prepare for and support future human exploration activities;”
As we know, Griffin reduced LREP to one mission to pay for Ares I/Orion costs.
“Conduct the first extended human expedition to the lunar surface as early as 2015, but no later than the year 2020″
As we know, Griffin didn’t even come close to meeting these dates. Per Augustine, the most probable delivery date for Ares I/Orion isn’t until 2019. Forget Ares V/Altair.
“Use lunar exploration activities to further science, and to develop and test new approaches, technologies, and systems, including use of lunar and other space resources, to support sustained human space exploration to Mars and other destinations.”
As we know, Griffin wiped out most of the ISRU (and most other human space exploration technology) funding to get Ares I/Orion started. And, of course, it’s hard to use lunar exploration to do testing if there is no lunar exploration program.
“Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare for future human exploration;”
As we know, Griffin cut MEP severely to pay for Ares I/Orion costs.
“Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes and to support human exploration. In particular, explore Jupiter’s moons, asteroids and other bodies to search for evidence
of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to search for resources;”
As we know, Griffin cancelled JIMO (and any successor) to get Ares I/Orion started.
“Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other stars;”
As we know, Griffin effectively cancelled SIM and TPF to pay for Ares I/Orion costs.
“Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support, and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable, and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration
of Mars and other destinations;”
As we know, Griffin effectively cancelled Prometheus (and most other human space exploration technology) funding to get Ares I/Orion started.
“Conduct human expeditions to Mars after acquiring adequate knowledge about the planet using robotic missions and after successfully demonstrating sustained human exploration missions to the
Moon.”
As we know, Griffin’s planning ended at a lunar polar base.
“Dr. Griffin’s decisions were engineering choices, not significant modifications of the plan”
No, per the above quotes and Mr. Simberg’s post, Griffin’s choices countermanded the policy on the prescribed division of labor between commercial and government systems for ISS and human space exploration transportation, added elements like a new government intermediate-lift launch vehicle never called for in the policy, and eliminated whole components of the policy related to non-lunar objectives and critical technologies. Griffin couldn’t (or wouldn’t) follow straightforward policy direction. It’s a simple as that.
“The biggest problem I have with Dr. Griffin’s approach is that he concentrated on duplicate launch vehicles and heavy lift, rather than Spacecraft assembled… on the moon”
Honestly, anyone who knew better at the time laughed at this passage in the speech. Assembling, say, an ISS-sized human Mars mission on the lunar surface and then lifting it out of the lunar gravity well is goofy. And even if the speech was referencing smaller subsystems, the processes for manufacturing a spacecraft component much more advanced than a simple structure or low efficiency solar cell on the lunar surface are beyond our ken and wouldn’t have been realizable on timeframes relevant to the policy, not by a longshot.
FWIW…
“So first Universities and their big science lobby are a role model for how to be effective lobbyists and then you claim they hasn’t been effective.”
Reread my first post. I wrote that universities are effective at getting earmarks. I didn’t write that they were effective at changing the course of the entire human space flight program.
Don’t put words in other posters’ mouths.
“If nothing else groups like the USRA,”
USRA stands for the Universities Space Research Association. Their purpose is space research, not space settlement. Of course, they’re not going to lobby for the latter. It says so right in their title.
Don’t waste your or my time on silly arguments.
“NSF”
The National Science Foundation is a federal agency, just like NASA. They have no say in what NASA does, and even if they did, like all federal agencies, they are forbidden by law from lobbying Congress.
Don’t make things up and waste your or my time on false arguments.
“and the space science community have sold Congress the idea that space is about science”
They have? Your evidence? Where is the declaration from Congress stating that “space” is solely “about science”?
Don’t make things up and waste your or my time on false arguments.
“and so even HSF is forced to have science driven goals”
Like what? What science goals is NASA’s human space flight program pursuing today that are driving the program?
Don’t make things up and waste your or my time on false arguments.
“That is what has gotten us into this dean [sic] end, thinking of space exploration as science, not settlement.”
What “dean [sic] end”? What decisionmaker has stated that they think of space exploration solely as science?
Don’t make things up and waste your or my time on false arguments.
“BTW if you are not aware of it, the Ares Architecture originated with the Planetary Society study on sending humans to Mars that Griffin did”
Ares I didn’t originate in the Planetary Society. MSFC performed studies on launchers with single-stick SRB lower stages and J-2S or SSME upper stages as early as 1995.
And the Planetary Society study didn’t recommend Ares I (or any other launcher). It simply laid out Ares I (along with EELV, etc.) as one of several options.
Read your sources before you mischaracterize them. Don’t make things up and waste our time on false arguments.
“Alsoo [sic] I thought it was fairly well known that ‘look but don’t touch was the term for the flexible HSF option favored by the Augustine Committee. Clearly you are not aware of that based on your comments about robots touching Mars. (roll eyes…)”
Well then why did you conflate that inaccurate term with a robotic program in your first post? Read what you’ve written and think before you post.
[rolls eyes]
“Really, you need to be more informed on current topics if you are going to contribute to this discussion.”
Yeah, I’m the one who doesn’t know what USRA does or that the NSF is federal agency or where the Ares I design originated or what the Planetary Society study actually stated.
Yeah, I’m the one isn’t “informed on current topics”.
[rolls eyes, again]
“Yet you claim in other threads that human settlement is impossible.”
I stated that settlement by homo sapiens is likely impossible. I didn’t state that it was impossible to a certainty, and I explicitely stated that our descendent species, with bodies modified by genetic engineering and/or technological augmentations, may be quite capable of settling the solar system. Whether you consider them human is up to you.
“Seems like a disconnect to me, belonging to organizations with goals you don’t believe in…”
These organizations have goals other than space settlement. Even if settlement by homo sapiens is impossible, there’s lot of valuable things that human space exploration could accomplish, short of living out entire lifespans and reproducing in low gravity/high radiation environments.
Sigh…
@Major Tom
So if space policy in not about science or about settlement WHAT do you think its about?
Also why build ISS if its not for science or to study human settlement in space? Just for the fun of it? Sheessh.. You twist your arguments so much you must be plastic man
As for this bit of misinformation you posted.
“And the Planetary Society study didn’t recommend Ares I (or any other launcher). It simply laid out Ares I (along with EELV, etc.) as one of several options.”
This shows you are wrong.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/226/1
CEV: a different approach
by Jeff Foust
Monday, September 13, 2004
Direct from the article.
“In July, the Planetary Society released a report, “Extending Human Presence into the Solar Systemâ€. The report was the product of an independent blue-ribbon panel, chaired by Owen Garriott and Michael Griffin, who examined alternatives to implementing the Vision for Space Exploration. “We are recommending that strong consideration be given to a specific design using the Shuttle solid rocket motor (SRM), together with a new liquid propellant upper stage†to launch the CEV, the report concluded.”
So the Planetary Society that Griffin was part of DID recommend a SRB based CEV as Jeff states in his article.
Again do your research….
“So if space policy in not about science or about settlement WHAT do you think its about?”
I’ve answered this kind of question from you multiple times before. Go back and read my answers for once and stop wasting your and my time.
“Also why build ISS if its not for science or to study human settlement in space? Just for the fun of it? Sheessh..”
International relations. It’s right there in the title of the program. ISS stands for International Space Station.
Think before you post.
“You twist your arguments so much you must be plastic man”
Why are you resorting to namecalling? Again?
I haven’t called you any names. Grow up or go away.
“This shows you are wrong.”
You’re relying on a secondary source for a quote taken out of context. You need to go to the actual study, which, on p. 19-23, discusses multiple “Launch Vehicle Options”, including “U.S. Expendable Launch Vehicles”, “Foreign Launch Vehicles”, “Shuttle-Derived Vehicles”, and a “New Heavy-Lift Launcher” and recommends on p. 35 that “Some study should be devoted to determining which option is best suited to early use; what choices would be the most cost-effective, safest, and most reliable; and what additional infrastructure would be required for each option.”
The Planetary Society study did not recommend a launch solution. In fact, it recommended that more study was needed to identify a launch solution.
“a SRB based [sic] CEV”
The CEV is not “SRB based [sic]”. There is no SRB in the Crew Exploration Vehicle (now known as Orion).
There is an SRB in the Ares I version of the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV).
Please get your Constellation terminology straight for once. This is the third time I’ve corrected you on these simple vehicle names and acronyms.
“Again do your research….”
Physician, heal thyself… and try to get at least one fact right before you post again.
Ugh…
@Major Tom
“You’re relying on a secondary source for a quote taken out of context.”
So now you are claiming that Jeff took that quote out of context? Sorry, Jeff is very, very good at making sure what he publishes is accurate and reliable. His articles in The Space Review are of the highest standard. You really should apologize to him for claiming he took a quote our of context, that is something a good journalist like Jeff would never do.
(Shake head…)
Sheesh, the lengths you go to in order to avoid admitting that you are wrong….
Also it would probably be a shock to NASA that the ISS wasn’t built for space science. If its goal was not science research why did the 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated the U.S. modules as a national laboratory? Now tell me, what do you do in a laboratory? Write thesis on international politics? No, you do Science.
So as you see that was the goal in building the ISS. The fact that the U.S. leverages the experience and technology of other nationals to reduce costs doesn’t distract from its original goal of conducting scientific research. If the U.S. just wanted a show piece for international relations they could have built a much simpler station without all the science laboratories or instrumentation…
Once again you are wrong. It will be interesting to see you twist your way out of this one…
ISS was “clearly” designed to become a national lab. Interesting how an “international” space station can also be a “national lab”. Anyway. Ah history, history…
Oh well…
http://history.nasa.gov/smith.htm
“In 1992, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, President George H. Bush rejuvenated U.S.‑Russian space cooperation. Among other initiatives, the two countries agreed to launch a Russian cosmonaut on the U.S. shuttle and an American astronaut to Russia’s space station Mir, with a docking between the U.S. shuttle and Mir. ”
“Some argued that President Clinton’s decision to bring in Russia saved the program because its new foreign policy dimension attracted votes in Congress. Others contended that Russia might doom the program because of uncertainty as to whether it would be able to fulfill its sizeable commitments to the program. Shortly after the announcement that Russia would join the program, the Senate voted on the FY1994 VA‑HUD‑IA appropriations bill. “
“So now you are claiming that Jeff took that quote out of context?”
No, I’m claimed that you took the quote out of context because you never read the primary source. Read, comprehend, and think before you reply to other people’s posts.
You used one sentence in a secondary source to mischaracterize the main recommendations of a 36-page study. That’s bone-headed stupid or stupendously lazy.
Do your homework or don’t post. You’re wasting your and my time.
“You really should apologize to him for claiming he took a quote our of context, that is something a good journalist like Jeff would never do.”
You should apologize to me for claiming that I was impugning Mr. Foust when I wasn’t.
And you should apologize to Mr. Foust for calling him a journalist. That’s not his profession.
“Also it would probably be a shock to NASA that the ISS wasn’t built for space science.”
NASA’s Space Science Directorate has nothing to do with ISS. ISS, and all the payloads on board it, are managed and paid for out of NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate and NASA’s Explorations Systems Mission Directorate.
Do your homework or don’t post. You’re wasting your and my time.
“”… why did the 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated [sic] the U.S. modules as a national laboratory?”
Because Senator Hutchison wanted a feel-good victory to demonstrate to JSC voters back home that she and her office were actually doing something on their behalf. Congress names and renames things every day. That doesn’t mean that anything significant has changed. No substantial new activities have been undertaken on the ISS, certainly nothing commensurate with its enormous, multi-ten billion dollar cost, since the ISS was designated as a National Lab.
“So as you see that was the goal in building the ISS.”
My opinion doesn’t matter. It’s a fact. The five issues in the directive that President Reagan signed to have his administration study whether or not to proceed with the “development of a permanently based, manned Space Station” that led to ISS nearly all revolved around international relations. They were:
1) How will a manned Space Station contribute to the maintenance of U.S. space leadership and to the other goals contained in our National Space Policy?
2) How will a manned Space Station best fulfill national and international requirements versus other means of satisfying them?
3) What are the national security implications of a manned Space Station?
4) What are the foreign policy implications, including arms control implications, of a manned Space Station?
5) What is the overall economic and social impact of a manned Space Station?
The words “science” or “research” don’t even appear in the directive. See:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/nsdd-83.html
Again, do your homework or don’t post. You’re wasting your and my time.
“The fact that the U.S. leverages the experience and technology of other nationals to reduce costs”
There’s no evidence that foreign participation in the International Space Station has saved NASA or the U.S. any funding. We don’t need the Columbus or Kibo modules, but we had to pay for the Space Shuttle flights to put them up. And Russian participation delayed ISS deployment, adding to NASA’s costs.
“If the U.S. just wanted a show piece for international relations they could have built a much simpler station”
I agree, but that has everything to do with the engineering culture at NASA and nothing to do with the policy rationale for the U.S. to proceed with the development of a permanent, manned space station.
“Once again you are wrong.”
Once again? You have to be kidding. You havn’t gotten one single fact right in this entire thread.
Pot, kettle, black…
“It will be interesting to see you twist your way out of this one…”
No twisting is needed when one bothers to read and comprehend the primary sources.
Again, do your homework or don’t post. You’re wasting your and my time.
Lawdy…
“‘Some argued that President Clinton’s decision to bring in Russia saved the program because its new foreign policy dimension attracted votes in Congress. Others contended that Russia might doom the program because of uncertainty as to whether it would be able to fulfill its sizeable commitments to the program. Shortly after the announcement that Russia would join the program, the Senate voted on the FY1994 VA‑HUD‑IA appropriations bill.'”
A good point as the Clinton Administration was the other White House after the Reagan Administration to revisit in a major way the rationale (and design and management) of the U.S. space station. And again, the justification for continuing with the space station program revolved around international relations — specifically keeping former Soviet scientists from going to work for rogue nations in the wake of the Cold War — not science.
FWIW…
I think that an HSF with intelligent design for exploration might somehow be based upon the ISS model for involvement of foreign participants. I also believe that it’d probably ought to involve more countries including China, India and others where the national space program is embryonic. It may include african nations as well. Will it be complicated? You bet! Note that involvement would be taylored to the country. For example one might only have an astronaut others some “modules” etc. And it is important to realize that the more advanced countries, i.e. USA, Russia, Europe’s ESA and yes China would take on more advanced tasks and try to bring up to speed the other nations. Therefore the program would be able to go ahead without waiting for others that would be given non critical yet impotant tasks. How in heck would we do that? I don’t know but we were able to do it with the ISS so… The ISS did not solely provide the knowledge on how to assemble large structures in space… Oh well.
@Major Tom
Just because the ISS is not under the science directorate doesn’t mean that its not doing science.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/sep/HQ_09-203_ISS_Science_Report.html
Yes, an international element was added to it to leverage the resources and experience of other nations, but then science has always been an international endeavor. But to say the ISS was just a foreign policy stunt is really doing a disservice to the researchers who have used the ISS for their research. But I know, you would prefer the money for your robotic missions rather then for HSF so you have to talk down its science achievements.
The paragraph from Jeff’s article I quoted from was accurate. It was cut and pasted directly from the article, so twist as you like, its what the reported recommendation was. Also note that in regards to the Planetary Society report, it was Griffin who wrote it and Griffin that pushed its recommendation for a SRB based CEV launch system into effect.
Also Jeff identifies himself as the editor and publisher of The Space Review in his article bios. Last I looked editors and publishers are considered journalists even if they have other jobs. The article was in line with his work as a journalist. And you know there is nothing wrong with being a journalist as you imply in your remark.
Really, think before you attack people and their posts.
And admit your were wrong on the link between the Planetary Society Study and the Ares launch system.
.
Based on the budget documents and the PARs (Performance Accountability Reports) for the agency, “the objective of ISS is to support science research for human space exploration and other activities requiring the unique attributes of humans in space”. It has done this human science very well, and the Science Mission Directorate doesn’t do that kind of science. But I’m not aware of any non-human science done on ISS that has really been game-changing. That science is good, solid stuff, but it’s arguable whether those dreaded robotic spacecraft which do other game-changing science left and right couldn’t have done it equally well for a LOT less money. Unfortunately, ISS non-human science is largely comprised of make-work efforts. When SOMD dangles dollar bills, scientists who can do their science on ISS are strongly incentivized to do so. There are many reasons why SMD doesn’t use ISS to do science but the main reason is that, for what SMD really needs to do, ISS just isn’t a very good place to do it.
Again, that’s not a criticism of the non-human science done on ISS, just an observation about it.
But the most important difference between SMD non-human science and SOMD non-human science is that the performance accountability for SMD depends on it, while for SOMD it doesn’t. SOMD does ISS science because it can, and not because it has to.
Of course, ISS used to host a rich program of (non-human) space life science research, but that was killed off rather quickly when budgets got tight. Wow. Talk about “doing disservice to researchers who have used ISS for their research”! NASA did that all by themselves.
The question of whether ISS was just a foreign policy stunt or whether it was a science platform leaves out a crucial role. It may have been both of those to some degree, but ISS was certainly a technology development platform, and an remarkably good one.
“Just because the ISS is not under the science directorate doesn’t mean that its not doing science.”
Sigh… your argument wasn’t that the ISS is doing science. Your argument was that the “goal” of the ISS is “science research”. Per the Reagan directive, neither “science” nor “research” were even a consideration, nevertheless a goal, in the decision to pursue the permanent, manned space station that became ISS.
If you can’t follow your own train of thought, then please stop posting here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“an international element was added to it to leverage the resources and experience of other nations”
Sigh… I quoted and pointed you towards the very directive signed by President Reagan that set in motion his administration’s debate on the program that became the International Space Station. That directive is filled with phrases like “international requirements”, “foreign policy implications”, and “arms control implications”. To claim that an international “element” (whatever that is) was added to the space station program as an afterthought, when the President himself signed a directive that was all about international “elements”, is ludicrous.
If you can’t read and comprehend a primary source — even after another poster has pointed that primary source out to you — then please stop posting here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“you would prefer the money for your robotic missions rather then for HSF”
I would? Oh, really? Where did I say that?
If you can’t compose an argument without putting words in other posters’ mouths, then please stop posting here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“The paragraph from Jeff’s article… was cut and pasted directly from the article,”
Good for you! You know how to cut and paste!
Again, using one sentence in a secondary source to characterize the main recommendations of a 36-page primary source is either incredibly lazy or stupendously stupid.
I summarized entire sections of the primary source, quoted its actual recommendation, and pointed you towards that primary source. Even after that, you’re still relying on one sentence in a secondary source.
If you can’t read and comprehend a primary source — even after another poster has pointed that primary source out to you — then please stop posting here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“so twist as you like, its what the reported recommendation was.”
To reiterate, I went to the actual, 36-page primary source and quoted chapter and verse. You quoted one sentence in a secondary source.
I’m not the one doing the twisting.
[rolls eyes]
“a SRB based [sic] CEV”
For the umpteenth time, CEV was not “SRB based [sic]”. CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle. It’s the capsule that the astronauts ride in that’s now known as Orion.
The Ares I version of the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) employs an SRB in its first stage. The Ares I CLV is the rocket that the Orion CEV rides on.
I’ve explained this ESAS/Constellation terminology to you repeatedly over multiple threads. If you can’t get your vehicle names and acronyms straight, then please stop posting here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“The article was in line with his work as a journalist.”
Sigh… Mr. Foust is not a journalist. He’s a senior analyst at the Futron Corporation. It even says so on his website:
http://jfoust.com/
If you can’t compose an argument without making up facts, then please stop posting here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“And you know there is nothing wrong with being a journalist as you imply in your remark.”
I did not imply such. I argued that it’s insulting to someone (anyone) when you get their profession wrong, whatever that profession may be.
Repeatedly, in your case.
[rolls eyes]
“And admit your [sic] were [sic] wrong on the link between the Planetary Society Study [sic] and the Ares launch system.”
Sigh… your argument wasn’t that there is a link between the Planetary Society study and Ares I. Your argument was that the study recommended an “SRB based [sic] CEV [CLV]”. There is no such recommendation for any particular launch vehicle (SRB-based or otherwise) in that study. In fact, the study recommends that more study is needed before a launch vehicle recommendation can be made. (That’s why Griffin pursued ESAS.)
If you can’t follow your own train of thought, then please stop posting here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
If you can’t compose an argument without making up facts, then please stop posting here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“Really, think before you attack people and their posts.”
Really, really, please stop posting here. You can’t get one single fact straight in your posts, including the profession of this site’s owner; you can’t follow your own train of thought for more than two posts; you don’t demonstrate any knowledge of the primary sources needed to make your arguments, even after they’ve been pointed out to you; you put words in other posters’ mouths, even when they ask you repeatedly not to do so; you resort in juvenile namecalling when no one has done such to you; and you can’t get even simple vehicle names and acronyms right, even after you’ve been corrected multiple times.
Your posts are a total waste of milliwatts and other posters’ time. Really, really, really, just go away.
Sigh…
“The question of whether ISS was just a foreign policy stunt or whether it was a science platform leaves out a crucial role. It may have been both of those to some degree, but ISS was certainly a technology development platform, and an remarkably good one.”
The ISS is a foreign policy tool per its history. This tool happens to be in space and to host astronauts for them to do some science. Foreign policy may be achieved via different means, including but not limited to military means, commerce, science, etc. The birth of the ISS could not be justified on its scientific merits alone and therefore was not.
@Major Tom
“Again, using one sentence in a secondary source to characterize the main recommendations of a 36-page primary source is either incredibly lazy or stupendously stupid.”
So again you are claiming the secondary source didn’t properly characterize the report….
In reference to Jeff being a journalist. Below is a definition of a journalist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/JOURNALIST
“a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience”
The fact that he also earns money as an analyst has nothing to do with the fact that he also works as a journalist. People often have duel careers. Nothing wrong with it. And the article in question was something Jeff did wearing his journalism hat, so its correct to refer to him as a journalist in that regard. And quite honestly Jeff has been a space journalist since the early 1990’s and is very good at it, too good to misrepresent a report like you keeping claiming he did when attacking my use of a “secondary source”.
The bottom line is that Griffin and the Planetary Society were recommending a SRB based CEV launch system. You know, a system that launches the CEV into orbit, since you seem to have trouble with understanding terminology that common folks use.
Also science projects often have an international element. Look at the number of observatories that a funded by multiple nations. Big Science is expensive and you need to spread the cost around.
You cited the goals for it being international, but not the reasons for it to be built, which was to conduct space research.
You know this is just a discussion board, not a meeting of the American Academies of Science. You need to lighten up and stop trying to make this discussion board into something its not. And break up the flow of discussion like you so often do. If you want a technical discussion go to a technical conference, or start a technical blog, But don’t spend you time correcting others from using a discussion board like a discussion board.
@Major Tom
Since you brought up President Reagan in regards to the ISS earlier, you might want to look at how he justified a space station to the American people in his 1984 address.
“Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade.
A space station will permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications, and in metals and lifesaving medicines which could be manufactured only in space. We want our friends to help us meet these challenges and share in their benefits. NASA will invite other countries to participate so we can strengthen peace, build prosperity, and expand freedom for all who share our goals.â€
NOTE: the first and reason given was to advance science. Then, and only then, did he discuss sharing the potential of a space station to advance science with other nations as a symbol of American friendship, something that is routinely done in the various fields of science.
BTW this quote is from the NASA history page, http://history.nasa.gov/reagan84.htm so if its wrong, and if the space station is just a foreign policy stunt and not science as you keep claiming you might want to let NASA know and ask them to correct their website. That is if NASA will allow you to rewrite history as you like to rewrite it here…
To Major Tom and Anon: whether or not I am a “journalist” is irrelevant to the subject of this post. (Also, to be honest, I don’t care.) Please keep your discussion on the topic of the post. Thanks for your cooperation.
Thanks Jeff….I was getting lost there!
To the point: Grass roots lobbying is , snif snif, tear tear, very romantic.
But if they do not represent those who have money, forget it.
Politicians are influenced by groups with money.
“A space station will permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications, and in metals and lifesaving medicines which could be manufactured only in space.” — President Reagan
I think the point is, as I said before, there were never any “quantum leaps”. It was good solid science that was done in ISS, but not the game-changing science that Reagan-era advisors may have been assuring us about. It just never happened. That being the case, Reagan’s second reason took precedence. ISS became a de-facto foreign policy tool. Now, even as a technological test-bed, the public could still say about ISS “OK, but what’s the ultimate purpose of the technologies we prove there?” That’s a question that human space flight advocates were still unable to answer clearly.
Look, I’m as hopeful as anyone that with the completion of station, with adequate power, space, and staffing for the science that it once promised, we’ll see that game-changing science after all. But as it is right now, the advocacy that points proudly to the science that it has accomplished (with the notable exception of the effects of microgravity on the human organism) sounds pretty hollow.
Doug Lassiter
I am far more optimistic that even as things get gloomy in The Republic that things are going to change for the better in human spaceflight…indeed I envision a Renaissance in it, and that Renaissance helping pull The Republic into its next century.
The road block to all this is NASA. What Ronaldus the Great could never envision but to be fair should have, is that the corporate system at NASA values the sustaining of NASA over any contribution that human spaceflight could make to The Republic of mankind in general.
It takes so long to do things on the space station and cost so much…all fairly needlessly in my view AND in the fact that Musk has/will managed to come to a complete vehicle for human spaceflight on far less dollars then NASA spends just to keep the “institution” going tells me that it can be done cheaper…and somewhat faster.
Once that logjam is broken and I think it will be shortly then we are going to see some tremendous advances on ISS in various fields. And what is “neat” about it to me at least is that ISS is an areana where the various different aspects of “economics” can compete. What we truly need is something that roughly represents “free enterprise”.
What NASA represents is the worst of “design bureaus”, defacto “socialism” and plodding bureaucracy.
If we can get NASA and “our” part of the space station to represent free enterprise and private industry I think that even though the investment in ISS was far more then needed, we will one day see the return in value from it.
To be clear…the next 10-15 years in human spaceflight in The Republic is going to be aimed at making the investment on ISS pay off…if it does not then the US wont do large scale human projects in space again.
Robert G. Oler
wow…sometime next year the PRC might try and do their equivalent to Gemini 8…wow ….we are in danger of becoming a second class space faring nation someday sometime in the future…
(not really just enjoying the right wing paranoia…it is kind of like watching my one year old nephew throwing a temper tantrum…)
Robert G. Oler
The GAS Light Industry was well aware of what Thomas Edison (and others) was up to with the light bulb. They couldn’t get out of their own way though, and eventually…..ka-poof.
As Robert points out, NASA has too much invested in it’s present thinking to ‘get out of it’s own way’, and while not totally excluded from Manned Space Flight, will be marginalized and on the sidelines, as those outside the ‘HSF Industrial Complex” (read: Musk et al), make the breakthroughs necessary to move HSF foward.
“So again you are claiming the secondary source didn’t properly characterize the report…”
No, I’m claimed that you mischaracterized the main recommendations of a 36-page report by quoting one sentence from a secondary source that wasn’t a recommendation in the report and wasn’t even in the recommendation section of the report.
“The fact that he also earns money as an analyst has nothing to do with the fact that he also works as a journalist. People often have duel [sic] careers.”
Per Mr. Foust’s website:
“I’m a senior analyst with the Futron Corporation in Bethesda, Maryland, focusing on various aspects of the space industry. By night, weekend, and WHENEVER ELSE I’M NOT WORKING [emphasis added], I devote my time to a number of side projects (see below) related principally to space and baseball.”
Mr. Foust’s space and baseball blogs are listed after this paragraph.
It doesn’t get any more clear than that.
“The bottom line is that Griffin and the Planetary Society were recommending a SRB based CEV launch system.”
No, they were not. How could the report possibly be recommending a specific launch vehicle design option when in the recommendations section on p. 35 of that same report states that more “study should be devoted to determining which [launch] option is best suited to early use; what choices would be the most cost-effective, safest, and most reliable; and what additional infrastructure would be required for each option�
It’s goofy to claim that the report recommends a launch vehicle option when it clearly states that more study of the options listed in the report is needed.
“You know, a system that launches the CEV into orbit, since you seem to have trouble with understanding terminology that common folks use.”
For the umpteenth time, the CEV is not “SRB based”. And a “CEV launch system” is called a Crew Launch Vehicle or CLV in ESAS and other sources.
The only “common folk” that think the CEV includes an SRB or that refer to the CLV as a “CEV launch system” is you.
“Also science projects often have an international element.”
Oh really? Wow, I had no idea.
[rolls eyes]
“Big Science is expensive and you need to spread the cost around.”
So what? That doesn’t mean that the words “science” or “research” were even mentioned in the five policy issues that drove the Reagan Administration to pursue a space station program.
“You cited the goals for it being international, but not the reasons for it to be built, which was to conduct space research.”
No, I cited the five issues in a directive signed by President Reagan that enumerated his administration’s interest in and policy justification for starting a space station program. All of those issues revolved around foreign policy, and the words “science” and “research” didn’t even enter into the directive. The ISS may do space-based research, but that was not the rationale for the program’s existence.
I also cited the Clinton Administration policy history where the space station program came close to termination but was saved when a new foreign policy justification was added to the program when post-Cold War Russia was invited into the partnership.
I may listen to the radio (Sirius XM satellite radio, in fact) in my car, but that’s not why I bought the car or continue to buy gas or drive at all.
Policy justification for a program is not the same thing as what the program does.
“you might want to look at how he justified a space station to the American people in his 1984 address.”
So you’re basing your argument on what one or two writers thought would sound good in a speech, when the Reagan Administration’s internal policy documents clearly show otherwise?
Are you serious?
“‘A space station will permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications, and in metals and lifesaving medicines which could be manufactured only in space.'”
You do realize that “quantum leaps in… communications” is nonsense when talking about the ISS?
You do realize that despite over a decade of research, the ISS has never created “quantum leaps in… metals and lifesaving medicines”?
If “quantum leaps” in science was the actual policy goal of the space station program, then we would not have pursued the program that we did. The ISS is designed to create a large, long, and complex engineering project to keep the world’s civil space agencies busy and engaged with each other. It’s not designed to create rapid, scientific breakthroughs. If it were designed to meet a policy goal of scientific breakthroughs, it would not take so long to complete; it would not be so hard and expensive to access; it would fund a healthy research community; it would provide a much better microgravity environment; and it would still have a centrifuge (among other things).
“You know this is just a discussion board, not a meeting of the American Academies of Science.”
There’s a National Academies of Science and an American Academy of Arts and Science. But there is no “American Academies of Science”.
Can’t you get anything right?
“You need to lighten up…”
Then stop filling up these discussion boards with false statements and stop calling other posters names when they correct your false statements.
“And break up the flow of discussion like you so often do.”
So you do or don’t want me to “break up the flow of discussion”?
As usual, several sentences in your posts are incomplete and incoherent.
“If you want a technical discussion go to a technical conference, or start a technical blog,”
How is citing five broad policy points in a Reagan directive a “technical discussion” or correcting gross misstatements about a Planetary Society study a “technical discussion”?
If that’s too much “technical discussion” for you to handle, then you shouldn’t be posting here (or anywhere else) about space policy.
“if the space station is just a foreign policy stunt”
I never said that the ISS is a “stunt” of any kind. That’s your word, not mine. You may think that foreign policy is all about unimportant “stunts”, but I don’t.
Don’t put words in other poster’s mouths.
“allow you to rewrite history as you like to rewrite it here…”
How is accurately citing internal policy documents from the Reagan Administration that are available to anyone that visits the NASA historian’s website “rewriting history”?
Are you delusional?
Oy vey…
[…] pick up an earlier theme of space advocacy and its problems, I’ve confirmed that the executive director of the Mars Society, Chris Carberry, has […]