Yes they do matter, they must matter. The previous WH has shown they can essentially go off the reservation in other policies and get away with it BUT is it a model we should follow? We have to draw a line at some point. I somehow would object and I will say this as you adequately pointed. NASA is, was, supposed to encourage the fullest commercial use of space. So far they have not and they are at fault. No one cared until very recently it looks like. And watch how many here and elsewhere actually oppose it. Progress and change never come easy. Even when they are the LAW.

“If the laws telling NASA what they’re supposed to do are second to Congressional and Presidential whim…well, they’re not much use, are they?”

I naively was under the impression no one was above the law. Don’t you think so? What future do you want? Ask yourself the question. Cynicism is fun and every thing but again some time some how you MUST draw a line. We, you, have the democracy we, you, deserve. Remember that.

On a side note, I’ve been to Hong Kong a few years ago, and to China, and I think that unless it has radically changed since then China is not about to do anything stupid to the US or to Hong Kong or any where. It would go against their own interests. Then again, the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan so you could say you never know. If you grew up in Hong Kong then I would also assume you may have some bias towards China, good or bad. From what I collected in Hong Kong it’s probably not that good. Then again… Remember that the future is for you to make, no one else.

Thanks for the reply, lets see if I can do it justice.

“Well there is a big difference between “nationalism” and “liking (loving?) your country” – Side question just to make sure: Ever been to China? – For the former read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism for the latter, well you know… No one is saying you ought to love China or anywehere else more than the US (I assume you’re in the US). Does that mean you are going to get into a Cold War mentality with China? Do you actually know what the Cold War was about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War”

You’ve got a point there, but I’d say both nationalism and patriotism are alive and kicking in my generation. Only mentioned it as I thought some folks were suggesting that my generation was disconnected from our country.

Grew up in Hong Kong, though how Chinese that makes me depends on who you’re asking. Fun city.

Am I personally going to “get into a Cold War mentality with China?” Well, I hope not, but I can see it happening to both myself and my country. China is a major trade partner, true, but they also possess an unpleasant form of government and a rather aggressive outlook which I can easily see bringing us into a conflict.

“What alarm would it cause you? What is it that NASA would do to alleviate your fears? Do you think we have NASA or the DoD to take care of any threat, chinese or otherwise?”

Wouldn’t cause me much alarm at all. I’ve spent the past few years patiently explaining to people why Chinese on the moon does not mean the Reds are going to come pouring over the border soon. (I know interesting people…) More interested in space commercialization than rehashed Cold War antics, personally. However, I can *definitely* see it alarming the public and demands to “beat the Chinese back to the moon” surfacing. FOX news would have a field day, that’s for sure.

“As to this it is a matter of opinion. I am not saying you’re right or wrong. It’d be interesting though that you provide something a little more constructive if you want to be taken more seriously let’s say. So what should NASA do? But first read this http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html and then tell us. It is important you know what NASA is really supposed to do by law before starting to talk about human expension, colonization or anything really. You might argue we should change the law. Fine then what and how?”

“The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”

That line seems nice enough. I’d like NASA to help the growth of private spaceflight in all of its forms and it appears that it is already empowered to do that.

But now a question for you: Do NASA’s explicit functions as set out in the Space Act actually matter? I mean, if NASA were ordered to do something completely outside of the bounds of the Space Act…would anyone object? If the laws telling NASA what they’re supposed to do are second to Congressional and Presidential whim…well, they’re not much use, are they?

It could change, and Constellation was on a path to take us out of that first place spot. Raiding NASA science, aeronautics, and technology development, forcing the ISS to be dumped in 2015 or so, getting an Ares I/Orion ready to service ISS in 2018 or so, getting an HLV in 2028 or so, realizing that Ares I/Orion/Ares V are way too expensive to operate, and finally perhaps, if it hasn’t been cancelled before then, repeating Apollo in 2035 or so, is as good a way as I can think of to take the U.S. out of first place spot in space.

The 2011 NASA budget gives us every opportunity to remain first in space:

ISS: The new budget makes sure the Shuttle finishes building the space station, adds capabilities to the space station, gets faster and more U.S. cargo support for the station, gets faster and more robust crew support for the station, actually uses the station, sets us up to operate the station to 2020+, and gives the station a new use in operating some parts of a new series of technology demonstrations.

robotic missions: The new budget boosts small and large robotic missions in Earth sciences. It decreases our dependence on Russia for Plutonium-238 for deep space missions. It starts a new series of large and small robotic HSF precursors. It starts a new line of general space technology innovation efforts. Many of those efforts will benefit U.S. robotic missions.

commercial space: The new budget strengthens the U.S. ISS commercial cargo services. It starts a new program for U.S. commercial crew services. All of these can be applied to commercial markets (eg: space launch, etc). The new general space technology, exploration demonstration, and propulsion budget lines give many opportunities for commercial interests to cooperate with NASA to develop new technologies that can be used in the commercial market.

space access: Currently the U.S. is not in first place in the launch industry. The new budget gives us every chance to regain first place. It strengthens the SpaceX Falcon 9 and Orbital Taurus II new entries in that market with new commercial cargo funding and much more ISS cargo business potential with more and longer ISS use. It opens up many opportunities for stronger U.S. launch services with the new commercial crew line. It will use U.S. launchers for many more missions for robotic HSF precursors, Earth science, and technology demonstrations. There are new efforts that give opportunities for new U.S. entries in the launch business with NASA use of commercial suborbital RLVs, a new class of suborbital and small orbital Earth science missions, and a new program for smallsat demonstrations that requires some launcher (possibly a small one). The budget starts general propulsion R&D, and also works on new first-stage engines. It keeps the existing Shuttle going into 2011 if needed, which extends that portion of U.S. launch capabilities. It modernizes KSC and the Florida launch range, which may help the U.S. commercial launch stance.

technology development and demonstration: Does anything really need to be said about putting the U.S. in first place in space technology with the big new budget lines in this area? There’s a big, broad new general space technology development program. There’s an ambitious series of new exploration technology demonstrations and smaller exploration research efforts. There’s a new HLV and propulsion research and development line. There are all sorts of opportunities for technology transfer to other U.S. space interests and cooperation with commercial, academic, and international partners. Additionally, commercial space is encouraged to develop new technology with the commercial space access efforts.

Yes, this should keep us #1 in space stations, robotic missions, crew access to space, space launch, commercial space, space technology, etc.

This would be an interesting outcome. If the U.S. can’t go to the space station the Russians might inherit it.”

The Program of Record has us getting astronauts to the space station in 2017-2019 – most likely 2019 or so. The new plan has us getting there by 2016 at the latest. That’s according to the Augustine Committee’s estimates, which were skeptical on the schedules on both the government and commercial sides.

So … the new plan reduces our reliance on Russia.

The new plan also funds up to 4 U.S. commercial crew services, giving us a lot more chances at successes than the “all eggs in 1 basket” Ares I. Again the new plan reduces our reliance on Russia.

The new plan includes new funding to encourage U.S. commercial cargo services to add risk reduction steps and additional capabilities. Again the new plan reduces our reliance on Russia for the ISS.

The new plan includes Shuttle contingency funding that, if needed, will extend the Shuttle into 2011. That reduces the Ares gap.

We have always relied on the Russian Soyuz for the ISS since crews stayed there for long durations. The Shuttle can’t provide crew rescue services except for the short time it’s at the Station. We certainly relied on Soyuz during the post-Columbia gap. Given those points, there is nothing new about the gap we’re getting into, except that Ares has made it much longer than it should have been. Even if commercial crew were expected to be slower than Ares in reaching the ISS, which it’s not, reliance on Soyuz is nothing new, so why the sudden interest in it after the 2011 budget? The 2011 budget shrinks the gap.

Also note that the Russians can’t inherit the space station. How could they control the U.S. or other nations’ ISS components technically? How could they control those components legally? How could they afford to maintain them? How could they get the needed cargo there?

Looking into dependence on Russia in other areas, the new budget includes U.S. engine work that perhaps could replace the Russian RD-180 in U.S. rockets. The new budget includes U.S. production of Plutonium-238, which we now buy from Russia. Again and again the new budget reduces or reliance on Russia.

None of these steps to reduce reliance on Russia would be affordable if we’d kept Constellation.

Be kind.

and BHO goes down to Florida and puts the head shot on the opposition to his programs…end of the ride for the Ares huggers

Robert G. Oler

I have to say I am still struggling with this idea: Was it better for Powell to leave the WH hence losing some one with any good common sense or to have him inside and try to damage control things? Either choice was bad for us and for him. ..

Colin Powell answered that question himself in one of the seminal post Vietnam speeches on the role of flag rank seniors to the civilian chain of command when the Civilian chain of command insisted on a course of action which “the flag” thought was ‘wrong”…it was resignation.

in the end the devil that Powell has to wrestle with is that he allowed him and his “good name” to be attached to the actions of a bunch of thugs who were unwilling to play straight with the American people on the dangers before us.

Robert G. Oler

So as I said before the public thinks we a first in space, nothing new is happening, and so they don’t care about it. If it is rubbed in their faces that the government has screwed up and we are falling behind there will be some new interest…

I dont really agree with your post. But this interested me the most.

This is only accurate (again) if 1) your statement is accurate…the public thinks we are first in space and 2) they care.

I dont see any evidence that either of these are true.

The Sputnik/red moon thing was in my view a unique situation of American history. The generation(s) that were involved had (mostly) come out of a world war…and to quote JFK were now in the midst of a “hard peace”…and looking at another war and a war with “rockets”…

The Moon goal fitted in quite well with a LOT Of political things…

the trick to recognize is that very quickly the political set of circumstances which the lunar goal was designed to address changed and all the public steam started going out of the support to go to the Moon as a national goal.

I am quite certain that some President could try and rev up a chinese moon landing as some sort of “red under the bed”.

somehow after bush I dont think it works so well

Robert G. Oler

agreed, but the astronaut office learned to live with that long ago. Now they just want their unionized workers to go do their routine work in safety. Your point is not lost on the astronaut office.. when the Hubble servicing missions were being scrapped for safety reasons the astronaut office was shouting that they weren’t opposed to taking risk for a mission of such importance. But risk is a calculated thing that must not be taken routinely, and if anything in space is routine, it’s ISS missions.

I have to say I am still struggling with this idea: Was it better for Powell to leave the WH hence losing some one with any good common sense or to have him inside and try to damage control things? Either choice was bad for us and for him. But I strongly favored he’d left the WH. The “nuts” in control did not cut him any slack anyway and they got what they wanted. He should have known better. Then of course there still is the possibility he agreed to this masquerade, and that is a very bitter pill to swallow.

Oh well…