Paul S. comments are illustrative of people who simply do not understand why the “vision” is no longer viable.

I hate line by line rebuttals…but a few are illustrative

“That mission was not just the proposal of the former President; it was endorsed by two different Congresses (in 2005 and 2008), under the leadership of different parties, and both times, by huge bipartisan majorities.”

that really is misleading. If one listens to the “claims” at NASA the reason and this is backed up by the Augustine commission the “excuse” that The vision is behind schedule is that the effort was never fully funded. The less it takes spending money the more bipartisan The Congress is. The last administration never really fought for the funding it was claimed the effort needed…hence there was little or no endorsement.

“This new policy is striking in that, rather than serving America’s national security, economic and scientific interests, it undermines them. ”

this is where Spudis and the Vision folks really leave the track. The new policy enhances American security, and economic interest and by default our scientific interest.

The DoD might have started the internet(s) but had it hung on to them much as NASA wants to hang on to human spaceflight…the entire effort would have gone nowhere…

Spudis nor Whittington nor really any of the band of Moon folks can point out a single solid real national security interest that is served by returning to the Moon. They have completly invented the Chinese threat out of thin air and some fear.

The reality is that not only the system meant to implement it, but the entire notion of a national policy aimed at some human space goal that is simply a trophy…with no sense of how the American economic system takes advantage of it…is ludicrous.

that is why outside of the space junkies and the pork system…there is no real support for the position Spudis rolls out.

Robert G. Oler

Glad the letter writing was so effective.

I would not have given the DoD an increase. We can cut about 100 billion off the budget pretty easily Robert G. Oler

DAvid…it is “Oler”…thats ok someone wished my wife a miscarriage the other day so misspelling my name is small stuff.

The point of my post was not that “I was” a member of the younger generation but that just about the only people who are part of the ditto rooms are part of the older generation…and an even more important point is that the “Limbaugh nation” does not even include a large part of that group.

Limbaugh is an amazing showman…he convinces the weak of mind and then blusterss that he is larger then he is. In the FL primary Limbaugh railed against McCain but McCain won even in Limbaugh heavy areas…

Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler

Mr. Oiler, I bet that you aren’t a member of the younger generation either.

If Obama didn’t care about the NASA budget and HSF why were NASA and DoD the only departments to receive a spending boost in their budget proposal? I guess there were a few other exceptions like the Jobs stimulus plan as well.

Answer:

1. There are two wars going on.

2. A bunch of space nuts like myself keep writing to Obama to ask for NASA funding because it is a strategic path we are taking toward an advanced society. The USA is in decline, and without seed money for new technologies and a fresh approach to navigating toward the horizon we will continue to decline.

Remember – When the first small mechanical clocks made there way to the Chinese Court they were regarded with great amusement- A trivial piece- but not worth much more. The Emperor could not envision that soon such a device would lead to the mechanical gears for locamotive engines that could power steam ships to their nation, which dwarfed the economies of the West, and force China to its knees.

It would be wise for the US to take heed of this history lesson by investing much more in R&D than we currently do. NASA is a critical part of this investment approach. HSF is also a critical part of NASA that will yield mechanisms that may seem trivial to begin with, but will evolve into central pieces in our technological prowess. Almost all breakthroughs, no matter how trivial lead to something much more significant, more critical than we could have envisioned.

And “the vision” was also go-slow-approach compared to the current administration toward achieving the goal of SUSTAINABLE HSF. If its not sustainable and a clever approach to HSF it is a step backward. Do I still think we need HSF – Damn right! But we should approach HSF carefully – provided all the critical facets like I explained.

ISRU
radiation mitigation
low cost transport to LEO
low cost transport to GEO and beyond

the things is that “the vision” would still be going IF it was working.

what killed it is not that this administration is anti (or pro) space (I think that they are mostly neutral ie dont care) but results are what is there.

To make “The vision” work there was going to have to be AT LEAST 3 billion more dollars…and no one was excited about paying that.

If you took a poll of The Republic and said “would you be for 3 billion more dollars a year for the next 20 years to take us back to the Moon”…support would be almost nothing

Robert G. Oler