Both Florida Today and the Orlando Sentinel report today that the White House is planning a “space summit” in Florida next month where President Obama will discuss his new vision for NASA. The timing of the event, though, could cause some heartburn for an organization over 1,500 miles away.
The event, expected to take place at or near the Kennedy Space Center, hasn’t been formally announced by the White House (the Sentinel article suggests a formal announcement could come today) (update 11:45 am: the White House has announced it, according to the AP), but Sen. Bill Nelson all but confirmed the event to both papers. Details in general about the event are scant, including the event’s agenda and who will be invited to attend. An unnamed White House official told Florida Today that the conference would include “the implications of the new strategy for Florida, the nation and our ultimate activities in space”.
Nelson, meanwhile, hopes that by the conference the White House and NASA will make several changes to the plan. Nelson told the Sentinel he wants to see one more shuttle flight added to the manifest (although not explaining why only one, instead of several as others in Congress have proposed), a commitment to human exploration of Mars as the plan’s long-term goal, and continued development of a heavy-lift launcher.
The issue about the conference, though, is its timing: Thursday, April 15. That may work well for Florida (other than it’s also the deadline for filing tax returns), and also some in Washington: Nelson tells Florida Today the timing is good since his space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee will vote “on NASA’s budget” in May (a reference, presumably, to an authorization bill). However, it could cause some angst in Colorado Springs, home of the Space Foundation. The 15th happens to be the last day of the National Space Symposium, one of the major annual space conferences in the US. A competing space event with a presidential imprimatur, depending on the specifics of that event, could wreak havoc on attendance and the conference’s agenda. For example, NASA administrator Charles Bolden is scheduled to speak on the afternoon of the 15th according to the latest agenda; that seems unlikely if there’s a space conference featuring the president in Florida at the same time.
However, at least the National Space Symposium will have that day something the Florida conference won’t: Spock.
There are three entertaining things here.
The first is that The President (and everyone else including Garver etc) apparently didnt care enough about the “meetings” already planned to associate themselves with THEM or to schedule around them. Imagine a conference on race relations at the same time of an NAACP meeting.
Second…this shows that there is not going to be a lot of changes…
Third Obama has no problem believing he will get the thing through.
Robert G. Oler
Anything that Obama says will be taken in context with the flip-flops (although some may call them “lies”) that he has already made concerning United States human spaceflight. Additionally, anyplace that he goes and speaks in promotion of ANYTHING- that same effort takes a nose-dive. So come on Mr. President- bring it on! Promote this non-plan to nowhere with all three teleprompters firing at full speed… drive a stake into this budget’s heart…. BTW can you move the event up to, oh, perhaps this week.
Promote this non-plan to nowhere
Can you please explain to us how wasting five years and ten billion dollars on a failed moon ‘plan’ while destroying our shuttle and ISS infrastructure is ‘going somewhere’? Rational people can only concluding that your are lying.
Max Peck – in addition to Rational Minds, I am curious as to where Obama said specifically he was supporting Constellation. He said he supported returning to the moon, but that doesn’t equal support for Constellation.
So, you wanna show me what lie you are talking about?
Max Peck wrote:
“Additionally, anyplace that he goes and speaks in promotion of ANYTHING- that same effort takes a nose-dive. So come on Mr. President- bring it on! Promote this non-plan to nowhere with all three teleprompters firing at full speed”
In the two CENTURY history of our nation the most fillibusters has been 64 and the biggest jump from one president to the next has been about an 18% difference. The “party of no” so far has racked up 112 fillibusters an almost 100% jump. The “party of no” has also fillibustered 34 times programs they had previously voted FOR.
So you are probably correct, it won’t matter what comes out of the President’s mouth, the party of no will go against it, even though republican President’s Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr. Bush Jr. and multiple republican congress’s have voted for NASA to use more commercial…. THIS group of republicans will vote no regardless of what the President proposes.
Max Peck wrote @ March 7th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
you were entertaining until you babble the gook about the teleprompters…sorry Bush couldnt even speak while reading off of one.
Robert G. Oler
This is proof that Obama himself knows that his space policy is in big trouble. It is not being accepted by the Congress or the public. The question is, will Obama bring a new proposal to Florida that merges some of the good things in his policy with some kind of space exploration program, with a destination, a timetable, and deadline? Or will he take the stance that the stupid peasants just don’t understand how wonder his plan is and needs having it explained to them, in small words and simple sentences.
If the latter, look for fireworks.
Space politics — what an entertaining way to try to reduce launch costs.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 7th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
there you go again…pushing something as “proof” when it is your fantasy… this policy is going through with almost no changes…Nelson might get his extra shuttle flight…but Constellation…doomed another bush bad headache is tossed
Robert G. Oler
Just to let folks know…there is _no_ conflict between this ‘space summit’ and the annual “Space Access” meeting in Phoenix April 8-10, see space-access.org.
stupid peasants just don’t understand how wonder his plan is and needs having it explained to them, in small words and simple sentences…
nothing will explain it to the “techno welfare” crowd…(see “Save our space (jobs)”.
but the audience is larger…it is the rest of the American people and all the other representatives…and to the extent that anyone else care the policy is going and is resonating.
Heck before Obama was for it…you use to be for exactly the same thing he is proposing…
sigh
Robert G. Oler
Seems to me both of these plans need to go into the toilet. We need something inspirational, with a worthy10-12 year goal, defined, commercial based, prize driven, based on existing (ULA) and developing (Space-X,
Sierra Nevada Corp, Orbital Sciences Corporation) capabilities. Add a couple more shuttle flights to shorten the looming gap, HLV only if it must be included to make peace…keep it long term, very long term. Offer prizes for incremental development of LEO, space depots, ISS replacement, lunar lander (reusable ), or lunar space elevator, moon and mars bases. Let go stake a claim to the lunar ice before China gains control of it.
Back to the moon by 2023. China could already be on the moon by then if we develop sustainable infrastructure as we go we should be to keep a leg up on them. Seems to me the moon might be better suited for a space elevator than the earth.
Doug wrote @ March 7th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
how would we claim “lunar ice”? Robert G. Oler
“Heck before Obama was for it…you use to be for exactly the same thing he is proposing…”
Oler, I would appreciate it if you didn’t lie. I was certainly for (and still am for) the space commercialization initiative. But I was never for deep sixing space exploration. You know better than that and I do not appreciate you trying to tell people otherwise.
Obama could care less about this NASA’s tiny budget. He has much bigger financial concerns.
However, Obama has to be concerned about his plummeting approval rating in a politically critical state like Florida. And that’s why he’s going.
Obama could care less about this NASA’s tiny budget. He has much bigger financial concerns.
Financial concerns and the Exploration Directorate’s budget are closely related, because HSF is a very visible kind of spending. If you want to make yourself look financially responsible, an extravagant HSF project makes a juicy target for budget cuts.
BTW, “it’s only a tiny percent of the budget” is an excuse every wasteful bureaucrat uses.
Robert Oler asks:
How would we claim “lunar ice�
By mining some and shipping it up to EML-1 or EML-2 or LEO or maybe just using it to fuel a lunar ascent vehicle.
Current law allows people to take possession of lunar materials the same way we take possession of fish caught in international waters – claiming ownership of the crater would be problematic but claiming ownership of ice mined and cracked into H2 and O2 seems simple enough.
And, since there appear to be numerous craters with water ice at both the North and South lunar poles, if someone objects, just remind them that they are perfectly free to mine their own crater, without objection from the U.S.
And now a shameless plug — questions about the ownership of lunar materials are a key feature in my novel, which is 50% off during “Read an e-book week” at Smashwords.
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/9415
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 7th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
But I was never for deep sixing space exploration…
actually you were, or at least you asked to have your name put on a piece which argued for no real government program to explore space on a timetable like Apollo.
Iknow, I wrote it.
Robert G. Oler
Off to work on the duck habitat…rejoin the carnage later Robert G. Oler
Current law allows people to take possession of lunar materials the same way we take possession of fish caught in international waters
Yes, and this is an awful invitation to have a tragedy of the commons. The lunar ice will be frittered away by the first takers who have a strong incentive to use it up quickly (before somebody else gets it) rather than recycle it or conserve it for more important future uses.
Property rights are badly needed here.
Jeff: “Nelson told the Sentinel he wants to see one more shuttle flight added to the manifest (although not explaining why only one, instead of several as others in Congress have proposed)”
As a political help towards getting the 2011 budget changes in, I could reluctantly see adding 1 or 2 missions if they can be done without excessive expense (i.e. not restarting all sorts of things that have already been shut down, but rather using lots of hardware that’s already available). This might work with the Shuttle slip contingency funding as part of the plan – if you don’t slip too much, launch another Shuttle mission. That would also be useful for the new ISS direction. I haven’t been following the Shuttle program, but I thought the last contingency mission (STS-135) could be turned into an ISS cargo mission (with Soyuz continency). Beyond 1 or 2 more missions, Shuttle really seems like a quagmire. Also, there are the ever-present Shuttle safety problems that should not be overlooked.
Indeed, googaw, indeed.
Something that utterly fascinates me about extraterrestrial property rights discussions is how these issues cause the old arguments between Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke, Hume, Rousseau and others to be relevant to our situation today.
How will property rights emerge on the Moon? A fascinating question, both from the “what should happen” and “what do we predict will happen” perspectives.
My novel’s protagonist argues a variation of Rousseau’s approach – he intends to harvest lunar resources (building a metaphorical fence) then look around and ask “Does anyone have a problem with this?” Do I agree personally with my protagonist? Eh, a little of yes and a little of no.
In any event, I believe lunar ISRU oxygen is essentially limitless since the oxides are everywhere, in great abundance. No one has a legitimate basis to object to anyone and everyone extracting LOX from regolith at least IMHO based on a famous passage from John Locke about mixing one’s labor with unowned stuff in the state of nature, if enough remains for everyone else. Plenty of oxygen rich lunar regolith remains almost everywhere.
On the other hand, cold trap water (and those few peaks of eternal sunlight) are more problematic because of their scarcity.
Bill White wrote:
“if someone objects, just remind them that they are perfectly free to mine their own crater, without objection from the U.S.”
Well actually, they would be free to mine the crater you are mining. By you saying they are free to mine their OWN crater, implies that the crater you are mining is yours and they can not mine it and have to mine a different crater that is not “owned” by you.
There in lies the problem, why should I spend one single dime exploring other craters to see if they have ice, when the crater, that you do not own or have any property or mineral rights claim of ownership, has already proved out and contains ice. Hell, you would be a fool NOT to mine the crater you are working because you do not own it and it contains ice.
“This is proof that Obama himself knows that his space policy is in big trouble.”
Or they planned to hold an event all along. How do you know? Can read the President’s mind?
Don’t make stuff up.
(Actually, given the usual lead times for Secret Service, this specific event may have been planned but not public for a while.)
“It is not being accepted by the Congress”
If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is “not being accepted by the Congress”, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill provide every dollar in every NASA account that the White House asked for?
If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is “not being accepted by the Congress”, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill endorse commercial crew and cargo as the preferred means of ETO transport?
If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is “not being accepted by the Congress”, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill extend ISS to 2020?
If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is “not being accepted by the Congress”, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill seek HLV acceleration over Ares I/Orion?
If the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is “not being accepted by the Congress”, then why does the draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill direct no funding to Constellation and reduces the program to a study about Ares I/Orion cost and operational effectiveness?
The draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill for NASA has adopted every major human space flight element of the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA. The President’s budget request for NASA is being accepted by Congress in legislation.
Don’t make stuff up.
“or the public.”
And what independent, scientific poll tells you this? Or can you read the minds of the U.S. citizenry as well?
Don’t make stuff up.
“The question is, will Obama bring a new proposal to Florida that merges some of the good things in his policy with some kind of space exploration program, with a destination, a timetable, and deadline?”
NASA’s FY 2011 budget states that the new Exploration Systems Mission Directorate programs will lay “the ground work that will enable humans to safely reach multiple potential destinations, including the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs.†That’s four destinations.
NASA’s FY 2011 budget for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate clearly lays out the following programs with the following timetables and deadlines to build human exploration hardware:
Exploration Technology Demonstrations — $7.8 billion for Flagship Technology Demonstrators, each with an expected lifecycle cost in the $400 million to $1 billion range, over a lifetime of five years or less, with the first flying no later than 2014. Targeted technologies include: In-Orbit Cryogenic Propellant Transfer and Storage; Lightweight/Inflatable Modules; Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking; Closed–loop Life Support System Demonstration at the ISS; and Aerocapture, and/or Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) Technology. Using this budget, NASA will also initiate in FY 2011 smaller demonstration projects in the areas of In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), Autonomous Precision Landing and Hazard Avoidance, and Advanced In-space Propulsion.
Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology — $3.1 billion for First-Stage Launch Propulsion to develop a fully operational U.S. core stage liquid oxygen/kerosene engine equal to or exceeding the performance of the Russian-built RD-180 engine by the end of this decade (earlier with DOD cost-share) for use in a future heavy-lift rocket. Using this budget, NASA will also develop and test in space a liquid oxygen/methane engine and potentially also a low-cost liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engine for upper stage and in-space applications.
Exploration Precursor Robotic Missions — NASA will send precursor robotic missions to candidate destinations for human exploration including the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points, and nearby asteroids to scout targets for future human activities, and identify hazards and resources that will determine the future course of expanding human civilization into space. Dedicated precursor exploration missions are planned to remain below $800 million in total cost, and most will be considerably less expensive. NASA will begin funding at least two dedicated precursor missions in 2011. One will likely be a lunar mission to demonstrate tele-operation capability from Earth and potentially from the International Space Station, including the ability to transmit near-live video to Earth. This will also result in investigations for validating the availability of resources for extraction. NASA will also select at least one additional robotic precursor mission to initiate in 2011, and identify potential future missions to begin in 2012 and/or 2013. Potential missions may include: 1) Landing a facility to test processing technologies for transforming lunar or asteroid materials for fuel could eventually allow astronauts to partially “live off the land.†2) Landing on asteroids or the moons of Mars rather than orbiting these bodies would allow us to better determine whether they pose safety hazards to astronauts or contain materials useful for future explorers. Landing can also test technologies that could help future human missions.
That’s three schedules with several deadlines.
The President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA clearly funds a “space exploration program, with a destination, a timetable, and deadline”.
Don’t make stuff up.
“Or will he take the stance that the stupid peasants just don’t understand how wonder his plan is”
You really shouldn’t refer to other people as “stupid peasants” when you write unintelligible phrases like “how wonder his plan is”.
“But I was never for deep sixing space exploration.”
Yes, you are “for deep sixing space exploration”. You oppose the FY 2011 NASA budget plan, which contains $4.3 billion ($0.5 billion more than FY 2010 and $23 billion over five years) for NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.
Oy vey…
Bill White:
No one has a legitimate basis to object to anyone and everyone extracting LOX from regolith
I agree with this. What’s more, the ice is a far easier (far less costly) target for making LOX (and hydrogen and probably much else) than the regolith, and far scarcer as you point out. So as you say the ice is going to be the focus of dispute and waste if we don’t have a good property rights regime for it.
John Locke about mixing one’s labor with unowned stuff
In Locke’s model this mixing creates property rights, not just in the thing extracted but in the land it was extracted from. Locke’s principle in fact is practiced in property law: prescriptive rights, of which adverse possession is an example. If you go to the moon and start mining ice, under the prescriptive rights principle this would give you a right not just to that ice but to the real property or at least the mineral rights in the area where you mined it from. (Important details of e.g. just how much rights of what kinds this would give you, still needs to be worked out).
Real property law, mineral rights and mining law are good models for lunar ice. There’s nothing actually very novel about lunar ice legally speaking except the problem of it being international rather than titled by national or local governments.
An alternative model is to have a governmental (probably international) regime define the mineral or real property rights before anybody gets there and auction them off. Interestingly, this could be done long before lunar ice mining operations or even technology are developed. Trading in these speculative rights to lunar ice would effectively form what is called a “prediction market” that would form a consensus market prediction on the financial value of that ice. This would allow investors in lunar ice mining operations to properly gauge their levels of investment. Infinitely superior to making who gets the lunar ice another subject for the tug-of-war between the Bush bashers and the Obama bashers.
BTW, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) provides a good example of how property rights are, after a fashion, legally possible in space based on an international regime. The ITU has long allocated radio frequencies and slots in geosynchronous orbit and elsewhere. These allocations become in many ways like tradeable property. The ITU regime can probably be improved upon, but it’s much better than nothing.
Vladislaw writes:
Well actually, they would be free to mine the crater you are mining.
Well, yes.
Subject to non-interference with operations. By analogy, tuna boats cannot (lawfully) cut the nets of competitors or operate too close for safety. One tuna boat cannot exclude another from a particular area of ocean however they also cannot ram each other or otherwise endanger the safety of life or property in the race to catch fish.
Competitors could enter “your” crater (it isn’t really your crater after all) but they cannot damage, displace or move your “stuff” or otherwise interfere with operations, subject to rules about what constitutes “operations”.
googaw writes:
An alternative model is to have a governmental (probably international) regime define the mineral or real property rights before anybody gets there and auction them off. Interestingly, this could be done long before lunar ice mining operations or even technology are developed.
A variation on this would be for some entity (public or private) to establish an EML Gateway and auction logistical support to various craters. Use auction proceeds to fund the Gateway deployment together with a reusable lunar lander (or a few) eventually fueled via ISRU.
Each participant could disclaim legal title to the land within the crater but agree by contract to not poach on another’s crater on penalty of being cut off from the EML Gateway and its logistical support.
I believe this could be done under current law without amending existing treaties.
This could also be added on as a supplement to whatever is decided at the Obama space summit as it would be far better if NASA had no role in the operation of this Gateway except perhaps as a customer, co-equal with every other potential customer.
Bill, your EML1 scenario is very interesting, although I don’t expect EML1 to become a bottleneck. EML1 is a big place and can’t be controlled (except perhaps militarily, but the same is true for GEO and the lunar poles themselves). And the ISRU propellant manufacture and depot(s) may be in a near-GEO orbit rather than EML1 in order to serve the biggest real market for propellant. Gas stations go on the busy streets and the main highways because that’s where the cars are. There will probably be good reasons for the propellant makers to vertically integrate and have their own competing depots, just like oil companies usually have their own gas stations, especially if a depot tries to be a bottleneck that gets between them and the propellant markets.
Mark: “The question is, will Obama bring a new proposal to Florida that merges some of the good things in his policy with some kind of space exploration program, with a destination, a timetable, and deadline?”
Major Tom (after listing numerous destinations, timetables, and deadlines specified in the 2011 budget): “That’s four destinations. … That’s three schedules with several deadlines.
The President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA clearly funds a “space exploration program, with a destination, a timetable, and deadlineâ€.”
I think for some reason Mark is looking for a specific (and probably rocky) destination, astronauts, and a deadline, all at the same time. Many 2011 budget opponents seem to be looking for Apollo again, or in some cases Apollo at Mars. Even though Apollo was not sustainable, and the benefits of Apollo (like technology development, soft power, education, technology career choices) are unobtainable by doing the same thing the same way a second time, that seems to be the goal of many. Even though a specific rocky destination, deadline, and astronauts were part of Constellation’s purpose, they did little to help that program succeed, and it could be argued that they caused a lot of harm to that program and others. Nevertheless, it seems that many advocates want those 3 things, and they want them all together. For some reason 2 out of 3 doesn’t satisfy them.
The budget includes specific timetables and deadlines for robotic precursors, most of which will probably be on the surface of rocky bodies. That’s 2 out of 3 (deadline, rocky world), but it’s not good enough, because there are no astronauts yet, even though the robotic precursors lay the foundation for astronauts later. The same could be said for robotic science/exploration missions to potential later astronaut destinations.
The budget includes specific timetables and deadlines for technology demonstrations, some of which will apparently be done with astronauts on the ISS. That’s 2 out of 3 (deadline, astronauts), but it’s not good enough, because there is no rocky world yet. It’s not good enough, even though the technology demonstrations lay the foundation for astronauts at rocky world destinations later.
The budget includes specific destinations for astronauts (the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs). That’s 2 out of 3 (astronauts at including rocky body destinations and others), but it’s not good enough, because there is no deadline. It’s not good enough, even though identifying those multiple destinations allows us to make decisions that will apply technology development and other work towards reaching those multiple destinations rather than a program that is over-optimized for one destination, and even though those multiple destinations allow us a gradual and thus achievable way to get to all of them, starting with establishing a solid foothold in LEO.
It seems the Constellation experience should show us there is no point in setting specific deadlines for astronaut visits to difficult destinations like asteroids, the lunar surface, or the Martian surface at this point. With the Constellation fiasco, we’re having trouble even reaching LEO with astronauts.
We’re taking an approach that uses robotic precursors to assess destinations, that attempts to establish a solid commercial space access foundation to build upon, and that attempts to develop and demonstrate new exploration technologies. All of these things will take years, and we may have to wait for results on all of those efforts to decide how and when to attempt difficult exploration missions.
Not only that, but we don’t know what will happen with budgets and priorities in future Administrations.
All of these factors tell us that setting a rocky world destination and deadline is a meaningless exercise, and one that could actually cause a lot of harm if it drives bad decisions (as happened with Constellation).
Getting all combinations of “2 out of 3″ multiple times each should be good enough, but for some reason it doesn’t seem to satisfy the Apollo nostalgia.
It’s possible that it would make sense to set specific deadlines for astronauts at more achievable, near-term beyond-LEO destinations like GEO, lunar orbit, or Earth-Moon Lagrange points. Those destinations might be within our grasp without serious technology demonstrations or robotic precursors. In fact, they might even help us with technology demonstrations or robotic precursors for more difficult destinations. I think a case could be made for deadlines and more specific plans for astronauts at those more easier beyond-LEO destinations even within the general framework of the 2011 budget, although even that might be a stretch since we need to concentrate on the basics as a first priority.
Jeff: “Nelson told the Sentinel he wants to see a commitment to human exploration of Mars as the plan’s long-term goal”
Personally I think the Augustine Committee put a little bit too much emphasis on Mars in the “Flexible Path to Mars”. We could end up with a NASA “Dash to Mars along the Flexible Path” that doesn’t build infrastructure or otherwise make the most of the destinations along the way. We also could easily find ourselves coming up short in this path. I personally think we should direct a lot of attention to each and every one of the steps along the Flexible Path, and make the most of them, even if it triples the time it takes to get to Mars.
As far as Florida is concerned, Nelson probably should like an interpretation of the “Flexible Path to Mars” that pays lots of attention to the steps along the way, too. Such attention tends to encourage lots of launches to make the most of each destination, including eventually passing along responsibility for earlier destinations along the path to commercial space. A lot of those launches could happen in Florida. That might be a lot safer than a dash to Mars that could take a long time to start, that might not kick off commercial followers, and that might fall short of actual Florida launches to the more difficult destinations because of technical or budget difficulties.
Jeff: “and continued development of a heavy-lift launcher.”
The DoD has had backlog problems with EELVs. Hardware, investigations, late payloads, and so on have caused a lot of trouble for launch schedules. It might be useful for DoD schedules, NASA, and jobs in Nelson’s Florida to open up additional launch processing paths for one or both EELVs and perhaps new commercial rockets there. That could be a lot more important to Florida jobs, and more sustainable, than a heavy-lift rocket that might not be built ever, or that might take a couple decades to build. With all of the smaller payloads NASA will need in the 2011 budget to launch for robotic precursors, technology demonstrators, ISS crew and cargo, Earth science missions, and so on, a focus on multiple processing paths could be a win all around.
We could end up with a NASA “Dash to Mars along the Flexible Path†that doesn’t build infrastructure or otherwise make the most of the destinations along the way.
That would be just as well. NASA has an extremely poor record in developing “infrastructure.”
More hubris and lectures no doubt.
Yawn.
His plan is a dud, he can’t change that.
CessnaDriver – you know, those “hubris & lectures”?
Well, its looking increasingly like they’ll pass Health Care Reform
Oh, and if you want to look at a dud, look at Constellation. that was the go nowhere plan.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2010/03/05/awx_03_05_2010_p0-209773.xml&headline=China%20Studies%20Moon%20Rocket&channel=space
so much for A Chinese dash to the Moon…Robert G. Oler
red wrote:
“Getting all combinations of “2 out of 3″ multiple times each should be good enough, but for some reason it doesn’t seem to satisfy the Apollo nostalgia.”
What if one of the precurser robotic missions planted a little flag, like the russians did with a robot on the arctic floor, would that help convince those people that “two out of three ain’t bad”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6Khy9A1mT4
(article)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2151370620080221
(image)
http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_lupe/0,,2756813_ind_2,00.html
Ferris Valyn
In case you haven’t noticed, healh rationing is getting jammed down the throats of Americans. They don’t want it! Another congress and president will get rid of it. There will be massive backlash for that. Constellation was starved of funds. That is several congresses and TWO presidents fault. Obama sucks for NASA and HSF.
The guy is a flip flopper and promise breaker.
He’s spreading NASA’s wealth around and will kill it.
The current plan is a fatal plan. It’s up to congress to stand tough and keep the damage as little as possible for HSF at NASA.
CessnaDriver – we are already getting health rationing, thanks to the insurance companies. With reform, we are likely to actually get health care. Multiple polls show that a majority of Americans either support this HCR, or think it doesn’t go far enough.
As far as another Congress & president getting rid of it – see Social Security, Medicare, & Medicad.
As far as Constellation – it was a go nowhere program, that didn’t advance the cause of becoming spacefaring. You can bleet your mouth as much as you want, but that is the truth.
Obama never promised to fund Constellaiton – go read the policy, go watch the speech. promise breaker my @$$. Congress, and to a degree NASA, have PUT HSF in this precarious position. Congress has treated NASA as a pork dumping ground, for a long time. And NASA has never dealt with the fact that its not going to return to the days of getting 4% of the federal budget. You can stamp and scream all you want, its not going to happen. Maybe you should hold your breath, then they’ll really listen to you.
Give it a rest. I see your crap other places, and I get sick of it. I have no intention of going after you everywhere, but here at least, I intend to call you out on it.
CessnaDriver wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 12:47 am
you are not very politically sophisticated.
If health care reform passes there will be little or no chance that it will be undone. These sorts of things are very very popular once they crank up…medicare was once villified by the GOP much as they are doing health reform…and now it is one of the more popular programs around (even the right wing is defending it! HAH)
A public option is very very popular in the US…the only people rationing health care are the insurance companies .
As for Obama’s space policy…it to is going to pass. and in a year or two it will be the best thing going…even Shelby will like it.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G Oler
It is you that is not very politically sophisticated, you are seriously underestimating the American people on this matter.
This is unlike anything that has come before and you will realize I am right come November this year when the American people will speak quite loudly. Obama’s political capital is dwindling fast, his approval is plunging in the polls. That is pure political fact. People are freaked out about the massive unsustainable spending and the cliff he his steering the nation for. It won’t stand.
And neither will this so called “plan” for NASA.
Cheerleading for Obama won’t change this.
It’s going down. It will not survive intact (this is obvious even to supporters who are honest) Mark my words.
I was right about it’s reception in congress, I will be right again.
Obama is fast becoming a poison pill.
Heh, if I went to the Moon and started mining a crater I’d keep quiet about which crater it was.. and I’d get real dirty if someone else deliberately tracked down which crater I was in and went to that crater because it had been proved to be fertile. So much so, in fact, that I would seek redress, and if denied in court, be seeking political representation to introduce an appropriate bill.
I think the real problem with space property rights is that people want them now, before its even practical for anyone to go out there and stake a claim. The theory seems to go that if laws are created *now* to protect mining rights in space that this will spur the creation of a space mining industry. And, ya know, it might, but it seems a little like putting the cart before the horse to me.
“Obama is fast becoming a poison pill.”
No, not poison, CessnaDriver, it’s about allergy. You are allergic to Obama and so you think that everything Obama does is bad for our country. Regardless of what he is actually saying and doing.
Only a few years ago a lot of people were allergic to Bush. It happens with every president. Remember?
It’s just like nature. Pollen may be bad for some people, who are allergic to them, but overall they’re good for nature, giving new trees and plants. Providing us with food and air. Even giving rise to new variations.
So stop worrying so much. And if it still becomes to much for you, just remember: over a few years there will be another president to which you may not be allergic.
The so called “plan”, as you name it, is a return to the VSE by O’Keefe and Bush. But without deadlines that cannot be met anyway as has been shown in the past.
A little perspective here might be nice.
Tom and Robert….
I don’t think that the president’s plan is the slam dunk that you two insist it is. I think this evident but the “Space Summit” in Florida next month. (A month is more than enough time for the Secret Service to make arraignments.) There has been a lot of push back from congress for many reasons. To many a lot of this R&D is going to projects that have been studied to death already like heavy lift or is re-inventing the wheel like development of a RD-180 class engine.
I’m a big supporter of commercial ventures. Resupply and crew transport to the ISS is the perfect venue to get commercial ventures experience in HSF. But the Falcon 9 is already 2 years behind the original schedule layed out by SpaceX in 2005 and it’s not unreasonable and should be expected that there will be more delays to come. I don’t mean that as a bad reflection on those ventures but it is the nature of the business. So until capability is proven, there will be those in congress that are leery about commercial HFS.
Constellation Fanboys:
You could hear the death rattles before the Bush administration even left town. Griffin did it to himself by picking the most expensive way forward as possible KNOWING the the VSE called for “go as you pay” . There had already been studies on how to turn the shuttle stack into a sidemount and in-line HLV but he ignored it all instead going for essentially a blank slate design. Because of that the project had gotten way over budget and way behind schedule. I think more money initially could have saved it but that ignores the fact that the budget was just not there for that.
My opinion is that the president is most concerned about the Earth sciences and education parts of the NASA budget. I hope that a compromise can be reached that will do the following.
1:) Keep the Earth sciences and education funding as budgeted.
2:) Keep the Commercial initiative as funded.
3:) Move the Constellation shutdown and HLV funding into something useful like development of the Orion into a true BEO space craft and development of an Aries V lite / Jupiter HLV.
Personal I would also like to see an extension of shuttle flights to use the existing ET’s and maybe long enoug to deliver a VASIMER demonstration to the ISS.
Frank…
It’s not an allergy and it has nothing to do with me.
But your close there…
The political reality is,
Obama is being rejected from the Body American like a bad organ transplant.
So much of what he does is not compatiable with the American way. It’s that simple.
The “Obama” that was elected was a media creation illusion. The “Obama” we got is something entirely different. Few will argue against that one now.
Even his own party is becoming seriously factionalized, his agenda is too radical for many of their consituents.His policys are being rejected by more and more of the American people.
Gutting NASA HSF is one of them. A nation defining agency like NASA, that exemplifies the pioneer spirit this nation was born of!
Again, he can lecture at this thing all he wants, it won’t help.
We all know the drill now.
He will lecture, smile, make some amazing promises about how great his bold new plan is and put science in it’s proper place, failed policys of the past, NASA is so great, blah blah blah.
Then he will leave, and that will be the last word from him on any of it.
Nothing will change, congress won’t sign off on his NASA budget as is,
that is politically reality. Concessions will be made on both sides.
Obama will be on the losing side of this..
Mark my words.
@ red
A statement that NASA will develop technologies to send humans to , someday is not a “plan for human exploration” it is the absence of a such a plan.
Claiming this budget contains a “plan” for human space exploration with destinations and deadlines is like claiming: “I’m going to start saving money so I can buy a ticket to fly to some city that has an airport someday” is an intinerary.
The only “deadlines” in the budget are related to robotic exploration, not human. And the “destinations” were simply a list of every destination that might be reachable in the near term. That’s like answering a question of “Where are you going for your vacation?” with “Somewhere that has an airport or a seaport or a highway or a trail leading to it”.
CessnaDriver wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 11:14 am
a program which does not go back to the Moon for two more decades is not a program of exploration.
Obama has his problems and I have talked about those…but to argue that the current plan to go back to the Moon is a plan at all is silly.
Robert G. Oler
Space Cadet wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Claiming this budget contains a “plan†for human space exploration with destinations and deadlines is like claiming: “I’m going to start saving money so I can buy a ticket to fly to some city that has an airport someday†is an intinerary…
so you dont like The Constellation program? I am confused
Robert G. Oler
CessnaDriver wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 1:16 am
nope.
A pretty Whittington like analysis (are you him?)
a few points.
I think that Obama has had a very hard time grabbing the reigns of power. All Presidents have this problem (Ronaldus the great did) and everytime I think he is on the verge of it…he has floundered.
But having looked at it over the last few weeks trying to figure out “whY”…I have come to the conclusion that a large part of it…is that Obama and his staff (for what reason I dont know) severely underestimated the depths to which the GOP attack machine would go..and how affective it is.
Whittington is an example. He is now supporting policies that less then a decade ago (1999 in fact) he supported. Shelby has no problem on the one hand saying “none of Obama’s policies help the private sector” and then in the same paragraph saying “the private sector is not capable of human spaceflight”. Republicans who used “reconcilliation” for almost everything in their time in charge are now beating up on it as some evil akin to the short guy with a mustache.
People who were wrong about EVERYTHING in Iraq during Bush’s time…are gleefully pounding on what we should do in Iran (or like Palin they get them confused)…and dont have a problem doing it at the top of their lungs. Trying Richard Reid (spell) in federal court was OK but the current guy isnt because Reid was a citizen oh sorry he wasnt but it was still ok (Newt Gingrich).
What I have never understood about the Dems is that they never quite figure out how “Ugly” the GOP right and leadership can now go…and how incoherent in terms of facts people who support them are. Whittington (and I guess his alter ego you) say we are abandoning exploration…none of that will happen for 20 years if ever…Ares is costing more then Falcon/Atlas/Delta…combined
What the Dems never can seem to figure out is that at somepoint they need to stop trying to “win” by the political equivalent of dropping JDAMs everywhere…and instead close on the mouthpieces and fear mongers of the GOP with rhetorical bayonets and take them.
All cycles in American politics end. AT the end of the Civil War when the GOP ran out of the actual efforts to put down slavery (because the reconstruction had been done so badly and the south was mostly racist)…the best they good do for a generation of politics was “wave the bloody shirt”.
At somepoint we will see the end of the Atwater cycle…
Robert G. Oler
Whittington is an example. He is now supporting policies that less then a decade ago (1999 in fact) he supported…
sorry…in the middle of the post “duty called”…this should read “He is now supporting policies that less then a decade ago (1999 in fact) he opposed”.
The editor regrets the error…
Robert G. Oler
The only “deadlines†in the budget are related to robotic exploration, not human.
So what?
MrEarl wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 10:04 am
As someone who has carried a federal badge (grin) I wont comment at all on how the USSS protects the President other then to say unless you have a carried a USSS badge and worked on the Presidential detail……you know even less then I do. If you did carry a Federal badge with the USSS and were on the Presidential detail…you would not comment at all. They are all like that. It comes with the sunglasses.
(that joke is not original..one of my instructors at Glynco years …decades ago…was on Ronaldus The Greats detail and while in good shape…she was clearly not going to run along with the Limo and she remarked on that saying she lost that conditioning “when they took the sunglasses back”. Moving back to my point…
I dont see much effective push back. I’ve watched federal programs come/go/be modified and this has all the characteristics of a program that is going to change “more or less” along the lines that the President wants.
What has killed the program is that Charlie (and I know this for a pretty good fact because I know some people who are lobbiest) is showing almost everyone who will listen (and Crist saw this) how badly Ares is going. The only thing that seems to be semi well managed is Orion and most of its problems stem from the problems with Ares. It is conceivable “some form” of Orion survives because Lockmart can make a go of that…but Ares is just one cluster screwup after another.
How you know the program of record is dying is so many ways (mike coats for instance) but the main pivot point is that no real “name” other then those associated with human spaceflight have come out for it…and I am told The Speaker has made it clear that she doesnt care for it.
there are a few bumps and grinds along the way…but Ares and Constellation as a program are gone. So is the shuttle…it may gasp for one or two extras but that is it (and I doubt that).
Charlie has so far done a good job shutting this one down
Robert G. Oler
The Obama plan was DOA.. It won’t happen. Get your minds around that.
Constellation as it is known is gone, we know that.
But Constellation will live on through Orion and HLV through NASA once congress is through.
Just like Space Station Freedom on paper to ISS above our heads, we go though these processeses every few years.
America wants NASA to do what NASA is best known for.
Obama cannot change that, especailly as we watch his political clout collapse.
Had he skipped the Augustine commission and had this summit 10 months ago? We would be talking a different story.
Too late.
CessnaDriver wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 12:58 pm..
I dont get where you are coming from.
If Constellation as it is known is gone then Obama has won.
the rest of your point is useless…really useless.
Robert G. Oler
“It is conceivable “some form†of Orion survives because Lockmart can make a go of that…but ”
This is far from a given. As you aptly pointed Orion and Ares form a system, a Space system of systems. A lot of the design for Orion is based on how Ares I is, was, supposed to fly, e.g. aerodynamic and aerothermal loads in particular abort contingencies. What may be saved is not Orion as a vehicle, rather the avionisc suite may be saved, the TPS concept may be saved, the general OML and IML possibly. The return from orbit be it LEO or lunar is not related to the LV but the ascent is a major driver. So again technically you may geet something back from Orion but not the vehicle itself. It may be overdesigned and/or underdesigned depending on the LV.
Also and as I pointed out several times there will be possibly legal issues associated with Orion. Orion, then CEV, was bid in 2004-2006 for Constellation. Disbanding the whole thing means that NASA may have to re-procure another system. I serioussly doubt they will go “sole-source” with LMT as they did with ATK. Unless they have “deals” in the making with the other commercial participants I doubt that LMT will stay the prime contractor on the “son-of-Orion” just like that. For example I hardly see Boeing just accept that LMT uses all the development for Orion to bid another vehicle, considering that Boeing may still lick their wounds on CEV.
Oh well…
common sense wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
in the definition of “some form” of Orion…I agree with every word and thought you put forward…
to be clearer…there is no form of Ares I expect to survive. One of the political things that is killing Ares 1 (or Ares in general) is I know that ATK has been asked specifically about trying to do a Lockheed or Boeing or SpaceX or OSC and bring a launch vehicle to completion on the same dollars that those folks got (the high end being Lockmart/Boeing on the EELV) and they have said that they could not
Robert G. Oler
Robert, the knowledge that you “carried the Federal badge” is quite disturbing! :-O
Another disturbing fact that I think you are trying to point out in own covert way, is that the USSS needs more than a month to plan a trip for the POTUS to get to a federal facility (as Major Tom seemed to allude to in a previous post) that is already relatively secure when compared to other more public places that the president visits.
We’ll have to disagree on the strength and effectiveness of the opposition of the president’s budget for NASA. I think we’ll get a better grasp of this once Mikulski’s committee begins hearings. I think this will be much more a battle in the senate where the speaker’s opinion carry’s vary little weight.
I still believe that the president is most concerned about points 1 and 2 in my previous post and will allow a compromise like point 3 to get them.
Frankly all this is speculation until April15th. I think that’s when all the cards a put on the table.
Unlike others on this, and other blogs, I will admit when I’m wrong. Would you do the same if something close to my points come out of this summit?
I agree, Ares will not survive in any way, shape or form, including Ares I/V or Direct or Sidemount or anything. If we want to get rid of the old Shuttle infrastructure and costs it, the SRB, cannot survive. Otherwise… Back to square 1.
“ATK has been asked specifically about trying … have said that they could not”
So now for some speculation on my part. A solid propellant is like a solid explosive, somehow. Those things are very, very capricious. They are very difficult to handle and build. They require tremendous expertise and experience, none of which I deny ATK, quite the opposite. The consequence is tremendous cost, in particular when they have to be “man-rated”. The propellant design and material have to be something pretty unbelievable to build, most likely based on empirical experience, a lot more than a scientific approach.
But again this is all speculation on my part so take it for what it is.
A question for Common Sense
What makes the shuttle infrastructure, VAB, Pads 39A &B so expensive? Especially the SRB.
I was under the impression that most of the shuttle’s costs were associated with the orbiters and their extensive refurbishment needs?
Just asking.
I think that Obama has had a very hard time grabbing the reigns of power. All Presidents have this problem (Ronaldus the great did) and everytime I think he is on the verge of it…he has floundered….But having looked at it over the last few weeks trying to figure out “whYâ€â€¦I have come to the conclusion that a large part of it…is that Obama and his staff (for what reason I dont know) severely underestimated the depths to which the GOP attack machine would go..and how affective it is.
Yes, it must be those evil Republicans’ fault. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the facts that before he got to the White House he had never run anything other than the Harvard Law Review, and that he and his cronies are a bunch of incompetent and thuggish Chicago hacks (just look at what they’re doing to Massa right now), and that they’re trying to push through a radical agenda that the American people hadn’t realized they were voting for.
Most of the cost associated with Shuttle is its workforce, all the people it actually takes to make any one given flight. All the workforce that you have to have every day to make one flight. ATK or Lockheed, Boeing, etc are part of this cost, not just NASA. Not just the manufacturing of tanks or SRB or anything. BUT if you insist on keeping one of the major components of the Shuttle for your new system, and/or even worse the current infrastructure your cost will never, never go down. How could it? What was the estimated cost for Orion? $1B or $2B per flight? from 10 to 20% of the whole HSF budget a year??? Just to fly?
MrEarl wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Robert, the knowledge that you “carried the Federal badge†is quite disturbing! :-O
it was disturbing to the folks I had a part in putting away as well. As one “person” told then Judge Ted Poe “He is an aggressive person”, Poe’s reply “so am I”.
it was a fun seque in my career of flying airplanes. great times, bad times, sad times…but some outstanding and really challenging flying (I was mostly teaching folks to fly the planes although I did have some fun in “Southwestern Vice”.
my impression of the USSS is that the more time that goes between when something is announced and it occurs the more they like some advanced warning. You figure it out!
The 15th oh you mean the summit…nothing will change there….to paraphrase Sarah Palin…”the death panels are meeting”…
you betcha
Robert G. Oler
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
So on the one hand you want this WH to honor your desires for commercial space (and they do) and on the other hand they are just “a bunch of incompetent and thuggish Chicago hacks”. What is wrong with you? Biting the hand that feeds you?
As to Robert comments: He is right. The GOP is far more effective than the Dems ever were in their wildest dreams. Not that I agree with what the GOP does but it is a fact. As to the competence of this President: Don’t you think you kinda trivialize a bit? Because how would you say he is incompetent yet you might support (as I have come to believe) his new plan for NASA?
Please you can be more constructive than that.
It would be interesting to see what part of the workforce is involved in orbiter preparations as opposed to other costs. I would think taking the orbiter out of the equation would would cut the workforce in half.
Where can we find that information?
@MrEarl:
I think there is no way anyone can really figure such things with great detail. People have complained about this for ever. NASA went, in error I believe, to full cost accounting and what is the result today? We still don’t know. So somehow a clean sheet of paper is what we need. And that scares the heck out of a lot of people who suddenly may have to justify their existence. Look at what Sen. Shelby and even Sen. Nelson are doing! Unbelievable! Is it not?
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Yes, it must be those evil Republicans’ fault…
not completely nor did I say it was the evil Republicans fault entirely.
Part of Obama’s problem is what you mention…in reality he never ran any real serious organization that had to do with politics and political maneuvering. There are leadership skills that are learned (how to woo friends and destroy enemies…grin) at almost any level of politics. This is one reason that Gov’s (and I include Bush the idiot in this) are so successful (mostly) at “energizing” the political system and getting “their” way in it. Gov’s particularly in states with weak chief executives (as in Texas) learn the hard way to develop the above mentioned skills and staff to make the show go.
What separates Bush from Carter say is that Bush had 9/11..unlike say the Iranian hostage thing which Carter mishandled politically Bush managed the politics of 9/11 perfectly. The rest of it, the actual foreign policy was so badly handled it will haunt us for decades.
What the “evil” people do however is spin up the opposition so that db’s replace actual numbers.
For instance the opposition to NASA’s new path is strikingly like the opponents of health care reform. They have consistently overstated what the program was going to do (ie explore the Moon), overstated what the reasons for it were (the Chinese are going to take over the Moon) and lied more or less about what the new program will attempt to do…and do it all pretty cleverly.
The “SAve Americas space program” on FAcebook for instance continually beats up on Obama for “not closing the gap” between when Shuttle stops and another American access to space begins…what they ignore is that the Constellation program was actually widening the gap by its mismangement…and worse that commercial access to space…closes the gap.
Both Spudis and Whittington beat the “Chinese are going to take over the Moon” stick as if there was some reality to it.
These are no different then Palin’s “death panels”…all fiction.
But the right wing has no trouble pushing them…that is there method of moving the debate.
Robert G. Oler
Look at what Sen. Shelby and even Sen. Nelson are doing! Unbelievable! Is it not?
I’m afraid to break the news that it is entirely believable because it is quite normal. It’s called government politics.
“It’s called government politics.”
It is called “State” government politics. And no it is not “normal”. They indeed represnet their respective States in the United States. If what they want from the United States further the United States and they want a piece of it then fine. It is not what they do. They want the United States to subssidize their respective States workforce for something that is detrimental to the United States.
Thanks for the analysis though.
Robert, there is one major factor that the NASA debate very different than the Health care debate and that is opposition from within the president’s own party from key senators.
MrEarl wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
It would be interesting to see what part of the workforce is involved in orbiter preparations as opposed to other costs. I would think taking the orbiter out of the equation would would cut the workforce in half.
Where can we find that information?..
I agree with you that taking the orbiter out of the equation would cut the workforce…not for sure if I would go “in half”.
The cost to prepare any stack that is based on SRB’s/ET/and some shuttle configuration are going to be “high” because the workforce will be the same…particularly if SSME’s, the current flight avionics, and the same assembly process.
Thelaunch cost (ie the people associated with that) will be almost exactly the same unless NASA does a major rethink of how its firing rooms are run. The redo of the “flight control rooms” netted new paint schemes and displays but no serious reduction in people.
Robert G. Oler
MrEarl wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Robert, there is one major factor that the NASA debate very different than the Health care debate and that is opposition from within the president’s own party from key senators…
no not so much.
Part of Obama’s problem with the health care debate…in fact almost all of it has come from the inability of his own party to agree to something that can pass…since they will pass it on Dem votes. Lieberman/Nelson etc are all Dems.
Besides if Nelson (of FL) is any indication the opposition is not that bad.
Robert G. Oler
” fact almost all of it has come from the inability of his own party to agree to something that can pass…since they will pass it on Dem votes. Lieberman/Nelson etc are all Dems.”
Maybe Lieberman is a hint as to what is wrong with the Dems. Can they see it? Apparently not.
They want the United States to subssidize their respective States workforce for something that is detrimental to the United States.
Like I said, it’s politics as usual.
“They want the United States to subssidize their respective States workforce for something that is detrimental to the United States.
Like I said, it’s politics as usual”
Possibly but you said it is “normal”. It ain’t normal. It is usual indeed and it’s getting us broke in that case NASA broke.
“Usual” is a synonym for “normal”, last I checked.
Sure it depends where you put the “norm”.
Because how would you say he is incompetent yet you might support (as I have come to believe) his new plan for NASA?
I don’t really think that it’s his plan for NASA. I don’t think that he cares that much about space, so he hired people who he thought knew something about it, rather than (as in many other cases) people who would do what he wanted them to do. It’s not like he came out and made some kind of grand pronouncement about it. He hasn’t said anything about the subject, instead allowing the administrator and science advisor defend the budget proposal. It remains to be seen how hard he’ll defend it against real opposition. On the other hand, the budget realities remain what they are. It’s still hard to see how Ares can survive, and without it, there’s not much alternative to the commercial options.
I will say that I remain struck by the irony of such a new policy coming out of an administration that seems eager to nationalize everything else, and the strange bedfellows and enemies it’s created, with some opposing it for no other reason that it’s Obama’s policy, though it’s much more in tune with ostensible Republican views than Democrat ones, and some support it only for that reason as well. I just evaluate the policy, regardless of its source (just as I did during the Bush administration).
@ Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
So what? Do you think that a President, any President, would pen out a plan for NASA on his lonesome? Please! What do you think Space is on his agenda? Yet he is taking time to talk about it (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30358) or trying to if we believe the latest comments by Keith on NASAWatch. He put together the Augustine Committee at the begining of his mandate. Etc. I do think that for some one who does not care abotu Space he is putting quite a bit of work into it. If he did not care NASA would still be running Constellation into a ditch and you and I would be mourning NASA HSF or worse the US HSF.
I had the belief that this WH would restore somehow the pragmatism in our politics. And I am still optimistic. In the end it is not about ideology, i.e. private vs. government. It is about what works. NASA HSF does not work, private health care does not work. They should get help from the private sector for NASA and nationalize (in some form) health care.
It does not make them thugs or hacks, your words.
NASA HSF does not work, private health care does not work. They should get help from the private sector for NASA and nationalize (in some form) health care. It does not make them thugs or hacks, your words.
I didn’t say it did. Other things do that. Like the muscle and bribes they’re putting on Senators and Congressmen to get health care passed. Like forcing out Massa because he voted and will continue to vote the “wrong” way.
Do you think that a President, any President, would pen out a plan for NASA on his lonesome?
I have no reason to think that he “penned it out” at all, with or without help.
@ Robert G. Oler
What’s not to get?
Obama handing over NASA future HSF to commercial in full isn’t going to happen. Congress has made that very clear. His plan was DOA.
Constellation rebooted will live on under a different path and name at NASA is the very likely outcome. Orion will survive this. That is the heart of Constellation afterall.
Just like Space Station Freedom became ISS. Constellation will do similar.
CessnaDriver wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
@ Robert G. Oler
What’s not to get?
Obama handing over NASA future HSF to commercial in full isn’t going to happen. Congress has made that very clear. ..
nope.
Congress people from space districts and states have made that very clear…no one else in The Congress has revolted…indeed Hutchinson has more or less put Obama’s thoughts into the bill that will do what Obama wants.
As for future HSF to commercial…there is going to be commercial lift to the station watch listen learn
Robert G. Oler
“Like the muscle and bribes they’re putting on Senators and Congressmen to get health care passed.”
Do you know any other way? Look, all countries have to go throught their own health care reform. Ours does not work. It is not working for 2 reasons in my view: Not enough people sharing the cost and most importantly it is not ethical to prey on others’ ailments. The public wants reform and only those caricatures of Congress people are turning away from it. Yes a public option is the way to go. The only real way to go. It can take different forms but the private for-profit insurances are not ethical enough to make it work, they should go.
You might argue about the financial sector and I might agree but not now…
“I have no reason to think that he “penned it out†at all, with or without help.”
You said he does not care and they are thugs/hacks. Look you know they are doing the right thing here. Just say it. It is not about Reps vs Dems. It’s about right vs wrong. They are no hacks not any more than the previous WH anyway. I did not endorse any of what the previous WH did, except the VSE! And still today, despite all its shortcomings, it may be the best NASA plan ever. The current changes revert to the VSE a la O’Keefe because it made sense. Not because of some hyperbolic reason.
“indeed Hutchinson has more or less put Obama’s thoughts into the bill that will do what Obama wants.”
KBH is very smart, I think/hope. She is playing her constituents to their own tune and she knows that anything else does not make any sense. I think that even the Shuttle extension is moot. She MUST know it all started back in 2004 and 6 years later to restart Shuttle would be too expensive. Apparently Sen. Nelson is asking for 1, one!, extra flight. So they may get that one flight and shout victory and that’ll be it.
Do you know any other way?
Yes, you persuade them that it is good policy.
Look you know they are doing the right thing here. Just say it.
I have said it. That doesn’t mean that they’re doing the right thing in other policy areas, or aren’t thugs and hacks. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. And it is often the case that, when government does the right thing, it’s for the wrong reason. In this particular case, I really have no idea what the president thinks about this policy. I’m simply grateful that, for whatever reasons, it is one policy where it’s an improvement on the past. And a policy discussion on health care deform is off topic for this web site.
common sense wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
I had the belief that this WH would restore somehow the pragmatism in our politics. And I am still optimistic…
so am I, I figure he has got another year before the final word is said on where Obama’s presidency is going…and that is going to govern the politics of 12.
I would say this about your point. (I voted for McCain…and was “somewhat” sad when he was not elected…but Palin had been going nutty for about a month toward the end…and…)
…McCain in his campaign never put together a theory of where at the end of Four years “McCain’s America” looked like. He was on the brink of that in 00 in NH but in 08 he never really could explain what in 2012 we were going to be as a people. As he could not Palin’s view of what America looked like started getting center stage…and it scared even me….and that might be some topic for discussion…but my point is this.
At somepoint soon Obama needs to explain to America what “his” America looks like. In the campaign he managed to get by with “My America doesnt look like Bush’s” and for a large majority of Americans that was good enough. Bush’s America is a sour horrible place where fears supplant courage and honor is overwhelmed by “sneaky”. It is an America where logic is trumped by “gut feelings” and sound science and history is replaced with bible bangers…
Obama and his folks cannot seem to figure out that while that got them the Papacy the American people now need more…and I am not for sure if those folks recognize that. (I think Obama will get his health care plan…and his space effort…)
Winning is important but how you win is even more so…and connecting the dots on what you are trying to do, to give hope that (in my grandmothers song we sing in The Church of Christ…) “Tomorrow will be better” is important.
His problems with this are partially external. Lieberman doesnt want health reform he use to be in favor of because he is watching out in large measure for his corporate donors. Shelby doesnt want space reform (even though he likes other commercial plans) because of the politics of the jobs…
But Obama’s speeches so far; while eloquent and thoughtful…are like a Wagnarian opera without any coherent theme…lots of good music but nothing connects the passages.
the trick at somepoint is that his political shop has to figure that out. The GOP will help in some fashion; they are so one dimensional now (and there is a longing for the good old bush days on the part of the base)…but it wont be enough.
Obama will have to sell tomorrow to get change today. And that is his space program. I am quite sure he will get what he wants there…but it amazes me that Major tom and some others can beat back thunderheads like Whittington and Spudis far more effectivly then I have so far seen Obama (or even Garver) do it.
If I was running the politics at NASA (and that is what Garver is far) I would turn right at the Spudis et al arguments and blow them to kingdom come. It is not hard.
Robert G. Oler
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Even stopped clocks are right twice a day…
no they are not…that is a ridiculous argument.
First off there is a PM and AM to the equation and most clocks today illustrate that.
Second…time is dynamic and the purpose of a clock is to tell you what time is is “now” (when one consults it). time is not “passive” as your statement would illustrate.
By calling anyone in the Obama administration (particularly the policy makers) “thugs” without any proof of law breaking…you are confusing hardball politics with well thuggery. Thugs are people who cannot follow the law. You know like the last administration.
Robert G. Oler
At somepoint soon Obama needs to explain to America what “his†America looks like.
That’s the last thing he needs to do, actually. His America looks like France. Or California. And ultimately, Greece or Venezuela. Fortunately, the voters have figured that out without his explaining it to them. They’re not rubes like you. It’s just a shame they didn’t figure it out a year earlier.
Oh, and this is lunacy, Robert:
…and there is a longing for the good old bush days on the part of the base)
No one longs for the “good old bush days,” except in comparison to the awful new Obama days. If there’s a longing for any previous president, it’s Reagan.
By calling anyone in the Obama administration (particularly the policy makers) “thugs†without any proof of law breaking…you are confusing hardball politics with well thuggery.
You can define “thug” in whatever eccentric way you want, but it has nothing to do with lawbreaking per se. One can be a thug without breaking the law and one can break the law without being a thug. And I said nothing about policy makers. I was talking about the people who (for example) forced a Democrat Congressman to resign today by accusing him of homosexual harassment, because he didn’t vote the right way. In the same Congress and party that has no problem with Barney Frank. That’s not policy making — it’s political thuggery.
A nice flawless falcon 9 launch before the summit would be great.
Any chance that will happen?
Rand in order for you to think you are winning an argument it looks like you swerve one way or another. Useless. Persuasion takes many shapes. Why did we not persuade Saddam to step down? You don’t have to answer that one.
This WH is right on what they do for Space. I hope they get it right on health care and regardless what you think the policy to be enacted on health care may have strong repercussion on that of Space. You may want to check where most government expenditures are going to go in the not so far distant future. Health care per se may be discussed elsewhere indeed but there is no denying its impact on what we try to accomplish at any level for Space.
“You can define “thug†in whatever eccentric way you want, but it has nothing to do with lawbreaking per se. ”
Are you sure? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thug
At least a smart question: “A nice flawless falcon 9 launch before the summit would be great. Any chance that will happen?”
What do you think?…
http://spacex.com/press.php?page=20100211
““We expect to launch in one to three months after completing full vehicle integration,†said Brian Mosdell, Director of Florida Launch Operations for SpaceX. ”
http://spacex.com/updates.php
“Thursday, February 25, 2010 SpaceX’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle is now vertical at Space Launch Complex 40, Cape Canaveral!”
Rand in order for you to think you are winning an argument it looks like you swerve one way or another. Useless. Persuasion takes many shapes. Why did we not persuade Saddam to step down? You don’t have to answer that one.
Surely you meant to write something more coherent than this? You’re starting to sound like Oler.
@Robert Oler:
“At somepoint soon Obama needs to explain to America what “his†America looks like. ”
I think he did so in part at the ’04 DNC. But it is a long time ago in dog’s life that makes 42 years! So yes he should go back to it but he hasn’t had much time. He has focused on the treatment rather than on the communication and I believe he acknowledged it. The US have been damaged so much that it will be difficult to fix under one single term. The next campaign is soon to start! I can’t even believe it as I write. So he will have to have something to show for otherwise, your good friend Palin is in for the run since I don’t stand a chance to become President as you told me.
Lieberman should have been hmm booted out. I am sure he has a lot of power but it’s a little like the financial industry: Can’t live without them can’t live with them…
He needs to repair his image with the public wrt healthcare and the financial bail out. He needs to be able to show that some if not all his policy are helping “Joe the Plumber”. Or…
” You’re starting to sound like Oler.”
Great minds meet, what can I say?
Great minds meet, what can I say?
Well, some kind of minds meet. It wasn’t meant as a compliment…
Oler can’t even figure out how to use quote marks so that others can tell which ungrammatical words are his and which are those of others…
And I thought I deserved some compliments, thence took them as such… So I’ll ignore this post for my own well being and distort reality where it is a compliment. How’s that?
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
If there’s a longing for any previous president, it’s Reagan…
that is my point exactly….so it is not all that much “lunacy” as you put it.
No one admired and loved (from a political standpoint) Ronaldus the Great…more then myself. As I type this my “Reagan Ranger” card is prominently framed …but the Reagan folks like you (and Whittington…two peas) long for is one that never existed.
Reagan knew when to leave a foreign policy effort that had gone wrong (Lebanon), he raised taxes to keep the deficit in check; he never exaggerated or lied about the threat Ivan posed (despite what the loonies on the left said about him in crazy films like “the day after”)…and he backed down the Soviets without firing a conventional shot.
Even having said that…to “long” for him is absurd. The World that he knew and worked has long ago faded. You have no clue (nor do I) how Reagan would have responded to a world where it was not great power confrontation but a lot of little thugs that are pygmies…there is almost nothing his Presidency confronted that is relevant to today.
In fact that is the problem with the GOP right wing. It acts as though Iran or OBL or whatever thug is out there is The Soviet Union and the same tactics would work against them.
Some things of Ronaldus the Great are eternal. His sunny optimism, his brand of politics which was never mean or gutter…but of course the GOP trashed those long ago.
“You can define “thug†in whatever eccentric way you want, but it has nothing to do with lawbreaking per se.”
LOL…at least you admit that the last administration was a bunch of law breaking thugs…
but “thug” is “Thug, a criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, especially for hire. Often a member of a gang, as an enforcer in organized crime.” the only non criminal mention is about a garden plant.
finally
“I was talking about the people who (for example) forced a Democrat Congressman to resign today by accusing him of homosexual harassment, because he didn’t vote the right way”
are you that gullible?
or is it just because you like the politics?
If Massa was being forced to resign because of his vote the simple question is why would he resign? Why would he be targeted instead of any of the other dems who are threatening to vote “No”?
What makes you think it is just about him being “gay” (which is not illegal)? How about that he was pushing either sex of some gender (any gender) on his staff or that he was doing something else that prompted his chief of staff and most of the office staff to seek redress.
Comeon Rand…try thinking outside of Drudge or your political blinders…that is “whittingtonesque”.
Robert G. Oler
common sense wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
an aside. I have no doubt that almost everyone on Obama’s staff is as carefully as possible urging Palin to run…she would get creamed…she might carry oh 8 states..You stand a better chance of being President then her. (grin)
I’ve gone back and listened to that speech from 04…it is a good one…but really the speech Obama needs to listen to is Reagan’s evil empire speech. That speech (which Brother Gergen has some input to) is a masterstroke of bashing the fools who got us where we were…and discussing a future that was unimaginable (and far to optimistic). I recall sitting around the table talking about it and the person in the family who noted something like “it will be great when Ivan goes down; but it wont be all that great, it will be a world we cannot imagine now” (a summary of her Foriegn affairs article).
But the politics of it were perfect…and on the economy and the internal domestic situation…Obama needs something like it badly…followed up by some action to get a health care/financial regulation bill.
Obama needs to forget “reasoning” with the GOP right now. Just ram things down their throats. He wont ever get the support of thunderheads on the right…they live in a Ronald Reagan want to be world (see Simberg) …but the middle of American politics want a decisive leader…and they dont like the GOP (and the tea party even less) so they wont care how messy it is.
Robert G. Oler
François wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
A nice flawless falcon 9 launch before the summit would be great.
Any chance that will happen?..
30/70
Robert G. Oler
“but the middle of American politics want a decisive leader…’
Unfortunately in this world of media pundit down the throat soundbite useless baseless bable (e.g. http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/03/jay-barbree-nee.html) called information the one that shouts the loudest gets heard. Nobody cares to check facts for themselves any more. The brainwashing of the Limbaugh and others like him appeals to people’s fears. Even when pointed with hard fact evidence some still deny them. He should have done a “GWB” political capital speech (not a Reagan speech) and steer left as much as he could have. We’d still be right of center but the negotiation with the GOP??? Okay for 2 or 3 months then after you realize or not they are just playing you. And that is very embarassing. Only now has he taken a stronger language towards them. Unfortunately he’s equally being embarassed by his own party! Blue Dog, Red Dems(I made it up) what have you. Dems saying they really are Reps, tough on anything but themselves. They don’t get it, and it seems they never will. The President has to face all of this nonsense. And amidst this absurdity of dumbed down political discourse has to elevate the country to higher grounds.
Argh. Better now, thanks.
So I’ll ignore this post for my own well being and distort reality where it is a compliment. How’s that?
Whatever gets you through the day. I’m into undistorted reality, myself…
“If there’s a longing for any previous president, it’s Reagan…”
that is my point exactly….so it is not all that much “lunacy†as you put it.
Quotes added.
So your point of saying that people were longing for the “good old days of bush” was that they were longing for Reagan?
Hokay….
[laughing]
I know that spelling (like logic) isn’t your strong suit, but do you not understand the difference between “bush” and “Reagan”?
the Reagan folks like you (and Whittington…two peas) long for is one that never existed.
I’m not a “Reagan folk.” I never voted for him. I’m also not like Whittington. Why do you continue to stupidly mischaracterize my beliefs?
LOL…at least you admit that the last administration was a bunch of law breaking thugs…
No, only a lunatic could infer that from anything I wrote. And LOL at things they write that aren’t funny.
If Massa was being forced to resign because of his vote the simple question is why would he resign? Why would he be targeted instead of any of the other dems who are threatening to vote “No�
Because he could be. Because he said some stupid things at a party, and probably did other stupid things in the past. Many other Democrats no doubt do similar stupid things, but they voted the right way. And other Dems who voted no and want to do so again will no doubt have their own weaknesses found.
try thinking outside of Drudge
I can’t recall the last time I went to Drudge. It certainly wasn’t in the past three months. It may have been once in the past year. Please, again, stop saying ignorant and stupid things about my beliefs, or sources of knowledge.
“I’m into undistorted reality, myself…”
Hmm. Like the definiton of thugs?
common sense wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
remember the rules of losing an internet argument…when one starts going over accepted definitions and grammer…
simberg is there
Robert G. Oler
“Thug, a criminal, who treats others violently and roughly, especially for hire. Often a member of a gang, as an enforcer in organized crime.â€
You mean like these people, who work for Andy Stern, the most frequent visitor to the White House?
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
there are a thousand ways to play hardball with Congress people, particularly ones like Massa…and an ethics investigation requires more then just some conversation at parties. (as The Congressman is trying to sluff it off on)
The old “I am resigning to not put my family through this” excuse WAS nuts when John Mitchell used it and its nuts now. If the Congressman walks out the door it will be because he could not deal with the reality of what the actual charges were. To think otherwise is to be in the political booby locker.
As for the rest of your post (to me at least) it is just squirming on the petard trying to hope that no one notices you are “winding”. (The word petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind)
Long Live The Republic
Robert G. Oler
Thigs arte thugs left or right, Reps or Dems, the article quoted does not say who the attackers were and what party they belonged to. So???
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
You mean like these people, who work for Andy Stern, the most frequent visitor to the White House?..
unlike the thugs that Cheney hired to torture people…the “thugs” Stern might or might not have are not hired by The White House.
Robert G. Oler
common sense wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Nobody cares to check facts for themselves any more. The brainwashing of the Limbaugh and others like him appeals to people’s fears..
one is never going to convince those people…the lights are home but really no one is home…they are all “dittoing”.
As for swinging left. That would not be Obama.
The vast majority of Americans (the ones who voted for him and people like me) are willing to follow a strong leader who can persuade them to accept their ideology for a goal that is useful.
Where Obama should have taken it to them…is that last health care “meeting”. I would have whipped suntan john so bad he would have seemed “white” (sorry )
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
“30/70″
It would definitively be a good timing for the WH in support of the commercial plan for HSP.
Do you think SpaceX will wait past the summit (if they are ready for flight) or they don’t realy care about the summit vs their launch date? Cause I sure think a test flight going wrong would be bad timing.
Would the test result change anything to the space policy summit?
François (fr-CA)
“The vast majority of Americans (the ones who voted for him and people like me) are willing to follow a strong leader who can persuade them to accept their ideology for a goal that is useful. ”
His goal was at the time very simple: United States of America in particular We, the People. His message at the ’04 DNC was it and it never changed. Only it got damaged by weak thinking pundits who are scared of their own shadows. Some of whom do take drugs and claim they have “values”. Ah values! Anyway. This President needs to get his act together, what he does for Space he can do for anything he likes. He received the authorization, the mandate actually, from We the People. Not from Congress even if they so like to believe.
” I sure think a test flight going wrong would be bad timing.”
No matter what, a failed flight will always be bad for SpaceX. And I mean politically. The stakes are pretty high for them as they right now represent the future of NASA. Sorry the other CCDev participants are far from SpaceX today. Even OSC is rather far.
“Would the test result change anything to the space policy summit?”
It unfortunately might, just might. Again SpaceX is the poster child of private space. If they fail it’ll show poorly on the WH and NASA plan. It may give more ammunition to the Constellation crowd. See what most people don’t get is the difference in cost. Check all the nonsense about safety. Ares does not even exist that to some it is the safest rocket ever. Ares 1X showed how safe a stage sep might get but see it was “planned”.
unlike the thugs that Cheney hired to torture people
I wonder what your fellow aviators (assuming that all of your tall tales are true) would think of this nonsense?
As for the rest of your post (to me at least) it is just squirming on the petard trying to hope that no one notices you are “windingâ€.
That’s the best response you have to an extended coherent and cutting takedown of your incoherent and illogical, ungrammatical nonsense?
This kind of stuff was why I banned you from my blog. Jeff would do well for comments hygiene to follow my example.
As for the rest of your post (to me at least) it is just squirming on the petard trying to hope that no one notices you are “windingâ€.
I would add, I will take that to assume that you will continue to lie (and I use that word very rarely, as I’ve noted in my own comments section) about my political beliefs?
Robert, you need help. I hope, for the sake of your new family (assuming you’re not lying about that, too) that you get it.
François wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 7:11 pm ..
the last question is the easiest.
A succesful Falcon 9 launch changes everything IF and only IF Musk can make his cost numbers. that is the big number. a first time success is electrifying.
As for when Musk would try it…I dont know what issues that they are working or how close they are to actually saying “we are ready”…if it were me (and it is not) running the show there ie the safety person…after everyone said “we are ready to go” and I had had a successful countdown to engine firing…
my next line would be to toss a “tiger team” into the review for about four days…and go over all the test that had been done…and the failures that had occurred before…and see what we missed.
Robert G. Oler
And yes, Jeff, I think that this thread has worn out its utility.
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
unlike the thugs that Cheney hired to torture people
I wonder what your fellow aviators (assuming that all of your tall tales are true) would think of this nonsense?..
what a statement…I would just address the torture point.
The folks most opposed to torture are the vast majority of the US military. There is little or no flag support for it…and while it is accurate that “torture” gains popularity as one goes down the ranks and rates…the leadership of the military is solidly opposed to it.
Unlike cheney and his thugs…the military is trained to act honorably and by a code of conduct and by the rule of law. T hat is what separates us from them.
Robert G. Oler
OK, sorry, apologies, but I can’t let this one go.
squirming on the petard
Robert G. Oler, the brilliant military historian, demonstrates to all that he doesn’t even know what the hell a petard is. He must fantasize it as some kind of scaffold, or something.
“As for when Musk would try it…”
The darn thing in on the pad… Is it not?
“Congress has made that very clear. His plan was DOA.”
“The Obama plan was DOA.”
“Congress won’t sign off on his NASA budget as is, that is politically reality.”
Congress is already signing off on the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA. The draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill provide every dollar in every NASA account that the White House asked for.
The draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill also supports every human space flight element of the President’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA. The bill endorses commercial crew and cargo as the preferred means of ETO transport, extends ISS to 2020, and seeks HLV acceleration over Ares I/Orion.
Your DOA patient is alive and walking around in the Senate’s draft authorization bill for NASA.
“Orion will survive this. That is the heart of Constellation afterall… Constellation as it is known is gone, we know that… But Constellation will live on through Orion”
The draft Senate FY 2011 authorization bill directs no funding to Constellation or Orion and reduces the program to a study about whether Ares I/Orion costs and operations would conflict with the new plan going forward.
“Obama can’t change that.”
So far, it looks like he won’t need to. But even if he does, you do realize that under our system of government, the President can veto legislation, right?
“Just like Space Station Freedom became ISS… Just like Space Station Freedom on paper to ISS above our heads Constellation will do similar…”
The space station was saved because the Clinton Administration found a foreign policy justification for the program by involving Russian engineers in the program, ostensibly keeping Soviet missile technology out of the hands of dangerous states.
There is no foreign policy rationale for Constellation — Griffin expressly kept foreign partners out of the program — and no White House champion for Constellation like there was for the space station program during the Clinton Administration.
“Had he skipped the Augustine commission and had this summit 10 months ago? We would be talking a different story.”
Your argument is inconsistent. You cite the history of the space station program, but Freedom’s out-of-control costs were reeled in and the outline of the ISS design created by an independent, blue-ribbon panel appointed by the White House very similar to the Augustine Committee. Yet you argue that the Augustine Committee wasn’t needed to reel in Constellation’s out-of-control costs and outline the replacement program. Which is it — are these independent panels critical to saving broken human space flight programs or not?
(And it’s the Augustine Committee, not commission.)
“Gutting NASA HSF is one of them. A nation defining agency like NASA, that exemplifies the pioneer spirit this nation was born of!”
Hopefully they will in the future, but NASA’s human space flight programs havn’t pioneered a frontier since the end of the Apollo lunar missions. NASA’s science programs have been the pioneering part of the agency for 40-odd years now.
“America wants NASA to do what NASA is best known for.”
For better or worse, these days, that would be Hubble Space Telescope pictures and Mars rovers.
“I was right about it’s reception in congress…”
In terms of the actual legislation working its way through Congress, you’re not.
“I will be right again… It won’t happen. Get your minds around that.”
Because you say so? Really?
FWIW…
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Robert, you need help..
lol…yeah my wife finds helping me a full time occupation! (along with her other task).
why cant we all get along!
Robert G. Oler
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 8th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard..
you should have let it go Rand…now I will have to throw it in your face. I was hoping you would bite…the nasty part of me.
“The word petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind,”
you right wingers are so much fun to kick around!
Robert G. Oler
“I will take that to assume that you will continue to lie (and I use that word very rarely, as I’ve noted in my own comments section)”
Goose, gander, good for?
Just kidding…
Space Cadet: “The only “deadlines†in the budget are related to robotic exploration, not human.”
You’re illustrating my point about the opponents of the current budget demanding a deadline, astronauts, and a rocky (or at least beyond-LEO) destination, all at the same time. As you acknowledge, the 2011 budget has deadlines for robots to beyond-LEO rocky world destinations. That’s 2 of the 3 – deadline and destination. Why isn’t that enough, given that even with the 2011 budget increase we know we don’t have enough money for all 3 at the same time right now (witness Constellation’s expected but absurd astronaut boots on the lunar surface in year 2035 – totally making a joke of the 2020 deadline)? The only one missing of the 3 is the astronauts — and this new line of robotic missions has the specific purpose of breaking ground for astronauts (as opposed to NASA’s traditional robotic science missions). Why don’t the 2011 budget opponents value these absolutely essential missions?
As Major Tom illustrated above, it’s not true that the only deadlines in the budget are related to robotic exploration, even if you don’t count the HSF robotic precursors as part of human exploration. Major Tom listed a number of technology demonstrations with deadlines. According to the 2011 budget, many of these demonstrations will be done with astronauts (eg: at the ISS). Again we have 2 of the 3 – astronauts and dealines. All we are missing from the 3 concurrent things the 2011 budget opponents for some reason seem to pine for is the destination. The ISS work will be done in LEO. However, this work is done specifically to demonstrate technologies for enabling beyond-LEO exploration by astronauts. Why isn’t this valued by the 2011 budget opponents? Why do they so much prefer a budget-busting 30-year government rocket development program to get astronaut boots to repeat Apollo, which is all we would be able to afford with Constellation, if that?
And yes, we do have the other 2 out of 3 pair: specific destinations for astronauts. Yes, the destinations include just about all of the usual astronaut exploration prospects. That probably means it will be something like the Augustine Flexible Path, which, contrary to what many people say about it, is easily understood and specific even though flexible. We don’t have a deadline for these because it makes no sense to have a deadline for them. Constellation is a perfect case study for setting a deadline and completely missing that deadline – by a decade and a half, as currently estimated. A decade and a half! That deadline was useless, and worse, it caused NASA to do all sorts of destructive things to Constellation itself and to other NASA programs. Setting a deadline in the 2011 budget, where details will depend on what robotic precursors find and are able to do, what R&D and technology demonstrations work out, and how well commercial space establishes a foundation for exploration, makes no sense. Setting such a deadline would be a lie. Why do it?
I’ve said this in other posts, but I’ll say it here too: I think a case could be made for having all 3 at once for beyond-LEO destinations that are easier to reach like GEO, lunar orbit, and Earth-Moon Lagrange points. I don’t think we need a lot of robotic precursors or technology demonstrations for those, they could even help the robotic precursors and technology demonstrations for more ambitous destinations, and they could set up or enable capabilities and infrastructure (probably using commercial services) that could enable more difficult exploration. So, in those cases, I could see setting up specific deadlines and destinations for astronaut missions.
For the more difficult exploration destinations, I totally agree with the 2011 budget in not setting a bogus deadline for astronauts at rocky-world destinations. This is honesty, and it’s refreshing after ESAS/Constellation’s big lie that everyone knew was a lie in 2005. We don’t have the technology or knowledge yet to get astronauts to those difficult destinations yet on anything like an affordable budget when we have so many other things besides astronaut exploration missions to do with NASA that are of high priority.
“The word petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind,â€
Well, who would know about that better than you? How does one “squirm” on it, though?
Do you think SpaceX will wait past the summit (if they are ready for flight) or they don’t realy care about the summit vs their launch date? Cause I sure think a test flight going wrong would be bad timing.
If they were really a commercial company, they wouldn’t have any reason to care. However the plausibility of the idea that they do care suggests they are mutating into something different, a creature of politics. I’ve seen it happen before, and it’s just as sad to watch as the last time.
Comments for this post are closed for what should be obvious reasons.