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…

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.

(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

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

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.

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.

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.”

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…

“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.