Congress, NASA

House committee demands NASA budget documents

Last week the House Science and Technology Committee asked NASA for more details about its Orion plans, including the cost and schedule of the “lifeboat” version of the spacecraft that the administration announced two months ago, as well as other elements of the agency’s revised plans. The committee asked for that information by the close of business Wednesday. That deadline came and went, without any information provided by NASA.

Now, the committee has upped the ante. As Space News reported last night, the committee is now asking for all supporting documentation for the budget request. (A copy of the letter is available via SpacePolicyOnline.) “Unfortunately, despite your personally giving your assurances to the Committee that details would be forthcoming,” the letter to NASA administrator Bolden reads, “NASA has failed to provide the budgetary and programmatic information necessary for the Committee to assess the Administration’s proposal.”

The letter, signed by the chair and ranking members of both the full committee and the space subcommittee, asks (or, rather, demands) NASA for “all records” related to the FY11 budget proposal, the April revision that restored Orion, and related analyses, including “all other records NASA deems relevant to the support of the Administration’s human spaceflight plan.” Those records are due to the committee by next Friday, June 25. Any records NASA elects to withhold “will be documented, item by item, with the express legal basis for the privilege claimed for each item clearly noted.”

“We sincerely hope,” the letter concludes, “NASA engages this Committee and this Congress in a more cooperative manner.” We’ll soon find out.

83 comments to House committee demands NASA budget documents

  • heh, as My Cousin Vinny once said “You’s was serious about that?”

  • amightywind

    The ‘lifeboat’ is as silly a political compromise as has ever been made. Lets hope the request shines the light of truth on the origins of Obamaspace, and which of Obama’s communistas is the prime architect (Holdren).

  • Eric Sterner

    Kudos to the Science Committee (yes, I’m biased) for asking to see the Administration’s homework. As the staff background memo to the May 26 hearing implies, they apparently didn’t do it.

    http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Full/26may/Hearing_Charter.pdf

    Even the good stuff in the admin’s budget (yes, I do think some portions of it have, or had, merit) is getting tarred and feathered because the WH apparently dreamed this stuff up without any real substantive planning or analysis before springing it on the agency.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    For an administration in a budget crisis and running desperately short of friends, NASA certainly has a strange way of dealing with the people ultimately holding the purse strings. At the risk of seeming partisan, I’d say that this is an example of deliberately blocking all research on alternatives to guarantee that the President’s proposals are the only game in town.

    In other words, same ol’, same ol’. Different boss, same methods.

  • MrEarl

    I know that Robert will come back that it’s all going the president’s way but I don’t think he’s paying attention. If Obama is such a supporter of human space flight and wants to run a “transparent” administration why all the stone walling on this? In my view, what’s becoming more transparent all the time is this administration’s disdain for human space flight.

    Eric:
    Great article on the 16th in space news.
    http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/100616-blog-Destinations-in-Rhetoric.html

  • Al Fansome

    The Science Committee is completely toothless in its unrealistic demands. What is odd, is that they have to know that demanding all that information is unrealistic, and that the White House — even if it had quick access to all the information — would refuse to provide it under Executive Privilege.

    The reason the Science Committee is toothless is because they do NOT hold the purse strings.

    That is the Appropriations Committee, where Alan Mollohan and David Obey will support the President’s agenda.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • MrEarl

    Wow! Using Executive Privilege on a NASA budget. I thought “Tricky Dicky” was paranoid but that would be over the top.

  • Doug Lassiter

    I’m not sure I see the purpose of this. Instead of getting a synthesis by the agency, the Committee is now going to get all the supporting documentation? That will take a huge amount of staff effort to wade through, which will probably end up costing a lot more time than it would otherwise. Now, NASA inexplicably screwed up by not meeting the imposed deadline, and putting itself in this position where the Committee now has no political recourse other than this loud hand-slapping exercise. But the Committee is sort of slapping itself at the same time.

    One might think that the Committee is anticipating a CR, followed eventually by an Omnibus bill strapped together with duct tape. If that’s the case, the pressure to reauthorize the agency is somewhat relieved, and a having a truckload of documents on your loading dock is a convenient excuse to delay it.

    Of course, by accepting all relevant documentation, the Committee forfeits any immunity from problems down the line. There is nothing you didn’t know, the administration will be able to say.

  • Major Tom

    ES: “… the WH apparently dreamed this stuff up without any real substantive planning or analysis before springing it on the agency.”

    Yes, the 12 meetings, five months of deliberations, 12-page summary report, and 157-page final report of the White House blue-ribbon Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee was just a bunch of “dreamed” up “stuff” with any “real substantive planning or analysis”.

    And the White House was obviously “springing it on the agency” by having no less than eight NASA teams consisting of upwards of 200 NASA managers and technical experts supporting the Committee with analyses and other work.

    And the OMB budget passback at Thanksgiving and subsequent White House appeals process obviously provides departments and agencies with no clue as to what programmatic content will be rolled out for their programs in February.

    Are you serious?

    ES: “Even the good stuff in the admin’s budget (yes, I do think some portions of it have, or had, merit) is getting tarred and feathered…”

    If you really do care about the “good stuff” then you shouldn’t be “tarring and feathering” it with false accusations about the FY11 budget being “dreamed up” and “sprung on NASA” when there were months of blue ribbon panel meetings and deliberations, hundreds of NASA civil servants involved in supporting those deliberations, and an annual White House budget decision process that gives agencies months of advance warning.

    Holy hypocritical, Batman…

    You, Mr. Sterner, of all people, should know better.

    ME: “Great article on the 16th in space news.”

    I usually like Mr. Sterner’s policy analysis. For example, I think “Beyond the Stalemate in the Space Commons” is a balanced and insightful think piece on the future of national security space. See (scroll down):

    http://www.cnas.org/node/4012

    But that Space News blog entry is not a good op-ed. It’s a false argument full of factual errors.

    Sterner argues that “the Vision for Space Exploration” was focused solely on “developing the moon as a stepping stone to Mars” whereas the FY 2011 budget supports a less focused “range of destinations one could imagine reaching as a result of the administration’s budget”, including the “the Moon, asteroids and Mars” and “Martian moons, Lagrange points, and asteroids.”

    But it’s simply not true that the VSE was only a Moon to Mars strategy. Other destinations, including NEO and Lagrange point observatories make very large appearances in both the policy and supporting VSE document. Heck, even the moons of the outer planets are part of the VSE, making it arguably less focused in terms of destinations than NASA’s FY 2011 budget.

    Sterner appears to either have never read and comprehended the VSE, confused it with SEI (which was a more narrow Moon to Mars strategy), or simply accepted his old boss’s flawed interpretation of the document (or all three). It’s a disturbing trend of misinformation from Griffin’s ex-senior staff. For example, a couple weeks ago, Scott Pace quoted a figure for completing Ares I development that was a billion less than what was in the FY 2010 budget. It wouldn’t matter, but to perpetuate these Griffin-era myths in print is needlessly distracting to the debate about how best to pick up the pieces left in the wake of the Constellation debacle. And it’s a waste of intellectual honesty from what were, at least at one time, good space policy analysts, who are already in short supply.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    BRG: “For an administration in a budget crisis and running desperately short of friends, NASA certainly has a strange way of dealing with the people ultimately holding the purse strings.”

    The authorization committees, like the House Science and Technology Committee, aren’t the congressional power “ultimately holding the purse strings.” For better or worse, that’s the appropriations committees.

    “At the risk of seeming partisan, I’d say that this is an example of deliberately blocking all research on alternatives to guarantee that the President’s proposals are the only game in town.”

    Actually, per NASAWatch, all that’s happening is that NASA’s response to the Committee, like all correspondence with Congress in any Administration, is under review at OMB. See:

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/06/oil-trumps-spac.html

    Although NASA may have been late in responding to earlier requests from this committee, it’s just not realistic to expect the agency to produce the information and get it through OMB review in under a week. If the committee just waited another week, even a couple days, OMB’s review would probably be done, and they’d get what they want. But petulantly demanding truckloads more data with another unrealistic week-long deadline just broadcasts the committee’s toothlessness and/or lack of basic understanding of the White House clearance process.

    And honestly, the Augustine Committee did tons of research on lots of alternatives, with eight discrete options ultimately being presented to the White House. Doesn’t mean that folks can’t disagree on how things came out, but we shouldn’t pretend or imply that the Administration had only one solution in mind on Inauguration Day and has been “deliberately blocking all research on alternatives” ever since, when, in fact, they ran arguably the most public and wide open examination of human space exploration options to date.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    MT:
    I’m sure Sterner can speak for himself but, the issues he raised have been the crux of the argument against the WH “plan” since February 1st.
    If the WH really want’s to move ahead with their “plan”, have Bolden, Garver and Holdren meet in private with the leaders of the appropriate committees in congress and honestly answer their questions and make their case. I don’t see the benefit to the games and stone walling they’re playing. It’s just damaging to NASA as a whole with the agency stuck in limbo.
    It also opens them up to criticism from the conspiracy mongers that this is the way the administration plans to kill NASA to re-distribute it’s budget. It sounds less crazy with every trick, diversion and evasion they use.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 9:42 am

    I know that Robert will come back that it’s all going the president’s way but I don’t think he’s paying attention. If Obama is such a supporter of human space flight and wants to run a “transparent” administration why all the stone walling on this?…………..

    I have never said “it is all going the president’s way”…indeed in a generic sense I think Mr. Obama is losing his Presidency day by day. The last two weeks are the first two weeks of his administration that I have started to sense…he has the potential for one term.. (it is far to early to make that judgment but I make that statement in a generic sense much as Peggy noonan did in her recent column

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313181930072638.html

    But he is getting his way in space policy. (and that in my view is a good thing).

    I can see the reason for an Orion “rescue” vehicle…I dont much like it

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    It looks like more and more, thanks to Administrating bungling, that we’ll get a continuing resolution, followed by a real space policy written by the GOP controlled Congress next year.

  • MrEarl

    Well, if Obama’s mission is as he said, to start the R&D and demonstrations that would enable BEO human exploration sometime in the future he’s failing miserably. What we have is a stalemate between the WH and congress wile US HSF, NASA and commercial, die.
    If his true mission is to relegate NASA to a small R&D agency so as to raid it’s budget for his pet projects than he’s succeeding in spades.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Eric Sterner wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 9:20 am

    “Its initiatives may be worthy of a great space program, but in eliminating the focus of returning to the Moon and going on to Mars—as well as the political consensus behind it — the administration has robbed the nation of a great space program. ”

    the op ed you wrote for Space News was entertaining. It is in my view however, two dimensional thought, when a couple of more dimensions are inside the issue.

    You seem “destination” focused. That is OK a lot of people are..”we have to go to (this or that place) because that defines a great space program”. Yet like most destination people you seem unable to comprehend that 1) the American people dont care about a destination 2) there is little or no money to support such an effort (even if the money to do it could come down to reasonable numbers much less at the 200 billion mark NASA has) and 3) there seems to be no reason other then “we are number 1″ to go to any of those destinations.

    A noble effort is noble, because of the reason behind it. What separates the invasion of Iraq from the effort to take back Europe in WW2 is the reason both events were done. Just saying something is “great” doesnt make it that way.

    I am a tad frustrated with the politics behind the new Obama plan (although I think the plan itself is quite good). Someone should just have the horsepower to come out and say “there is no good reason right now for humans to go back to the Moon and go to Mars, and the technology to do both is simply to primitive now to afford it”. I wish Obama would simply say that (as it is grounded in reality).

    I dont know why his folks wont do it. But Bolden has come as close as any of them have to saying that.

    But that aside, the article you wrote perpetuates the myth that all NASA needs is a destination a goal and it will do great things. That sadly is utter nonsense.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 11:57 am

    you have been wrong on everything else.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “If his true mission is to relegate NASA to a small R&D agency so as to raid it’s budget for his pet projects than he’s succeeding in spades.”

    Again with the conspiracy mongering?

    Give it a rest. Please.

    Ugh…

  • common sense

    @ Major Tom wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 11:25 am

    “And honestly, the Augustine Committee did tons of research on lots of alternatives, with eight discrete options ultimately being presented to the White House.”

    I would even add to this that the Augustine Committee gave a lot into Shuttle derived vehicles which I would not have. They even acknowledge it somewhat when the address the workforce impact of Shuttle derived vehicles in their report. So I think a lot has been done trying to save Constellation in one form or another but reality struck (finally?): It’s darn too expensive.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 11:58 am

    If his true mission is to relegate NASA to a small R&D agency so as to raid it’s budget for his pet projects than he’s succeeding in spades…,

    I WISH that is what Obama was doing.

    If I were “King” NASA would become the Modern NACA. Gone would be talk of “human exploration” just to keep a bunch of government and industry folks employed. NASA as a NACA would have top flight facilities, engineers scientist and dedicated to knocking back the technlogies of both flight and space.

    Aviation did OK under NACA. Spaceflight has not done so well under the current concept of NASA.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 11:45 am

    “The last two weeks are the first two weeks of his administration that I have started to sense…he has the potential for one term.. ”

    Told you… A while ago… The WH must take a stronger leadership approach. I realize they like a more consensual approach but sometime when you cannot have consensus just go for it! Darn!

  • Al Fansome

    MREARL: If the WH really want’s to move ahead with their “plan”, have Bolden, Garver and Holdren meet in private with the leaders of the appropriate committees in congress and honestly answer their questions and make their case. I don’t see the benefit to the games and stone walling they’re playing. It’s just damaging to NASA as a whole with the agency stuck in limbo.

    What evidence to you have that Bolden and Garver have not been meeting in private with the leaders of the appropriate committees in Congress?

    There have been lots of private meetings between NASA leadership and Members of Congress.

    They have private meetings, and then they stage public dramas like we are seeing play out now. It is all a show.

    As Major Tom explained, the Science Committee made a request for additional information with a VERY short deadline attached. When that very short deadline is NOT met by the White House, they create another very short deadline with a totally unreasonable request.

    Why would they do this?

    This drama is ALL completely staged for the purpose of generating stories in the press.

    I will also point out that neither Chairman Mollohan, nor Chairman Mikulski, feel compelled to create drama designed to generate “media stories”.

    All this drama is just a sign of how toothless the Science Committee really is.

    The House Appropriations Committee has the power, and is much more aligned with the President’s proposal.

    Meanwhile, Senator Nelson has basically conceded the cancellation of Constellation in the Senate in his letter to Sen. Mikulski, who is the Senate Chair on Appropriations over NASA. Mikulski indicated that she was going to be guided, in part, by Sen. Nelson’s desires.

    The Fat Lady is beginning to sing folks.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    Yes you did. What I was waiting for was a “moment” what I call a Commander in Chief moment. Carter with the hostage’s in Iran, Reagan with the Air traffic controller strike…something that was completely outside the realm of politics and inside the control of the executive…to see how The Chief Executive handled the problem…the oil leak in the Gulf is it for Obama…and I dont think he has a clue.

    The last TV address was the break point for me. My wife (who is far more “left of center” then I) simply turned it off for both of us. She put on Miles OBriens Space thing on Musk and I got the hint…I came back later and watched it completely and the only thing that happened is that my opinion of the speech went from the C minus I gave it on the facebook page…to a D. It just gets worse over time.

    “Leadership” is as much about “look” as it is action. You cant sustain leadership just on “look” but action wont work without it. As one of my former Commanding Officers once told us, “I should be able to come on the bridge and within 15 seconds be able to see who has the deck”.

    President Obama is in general floundering on both Look and action in the oil thing.

    I have said for sometime it is to bad we did not get HRC in 08. She was the best of the field. Period.

    As for one term…that all depends on how the GOP Plays this. So far they are clueless as well.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Al Fansome wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    I concur. Obama will get his space policy

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    Al:
    “What evidence to you have that Bolden and Garver have not been meeting in private with the leaders of the appropriate committees in Congress?

    There have been lots of private meetings between NASA leadership and Members of Congress.”

    What evidence do you have that these meetings happened? (I want dates, times, length and and synopsis of all.) :-)

    My “evidence” that they have not id the drama being played out at this time. This is a mostly friendly congress that he has, why not just work with them?

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    You see what bothered me a lot is that the President has an unbelievable power of inspiration, some compare it to Reagan’s. I am not judging just stating. Instead of using this power with the public to get unconditional support he always tries to come up with a comprise or another. At some point it was going to hurt his leadership. I think he still can make it if he survives the oil spill now! What a bad hand he was served right? But such is life and the nature of the job. So it is what he wanted he has to accept it now. But not passively! Go and get what he wants! He can do it mush more easily than his predecessor but he does not! The public MUST realize that he cares about them and work FOR them. I think this is not happening not at the level of what was expected. Fair or unfair does not matter, what matters is perception.

    HRC did not provide inspiration. She lost. Period. The public wanted to see something new, hoped for something new and you know that. McCain lost because all he was doing was perpetuating Bush, strange political decision. HRC lost because she was Bill Clinton’s wife in some sense. Another presidential royalty…

  • Ferris Valyn

    My “evidence” that they have not id the drama being played out at this time. This is a mostly friendly congress that he has, why not just work with them?

    Because, actually, its not a friendly congress

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    My “evidence” that they have not id the drama being played out at this time. This is a mostly friendly congress that he has, why not just work with them?..

    you dont grasp the politics.

    Congress people (and I have a good handle on this…a classmate was the former Chief of Staff to a Texas Senator…Mark has met him in his COS office) as my friends Dad (who was COS to Olin Teague) use to say “Have to play to the home folks, while doing what is possible”.

    The REALITY that most of the pro Constellation people cannot grasp, but people like Nelson etc have is that Constellation is unaffordable and the fixes to make it affordable are not politically doable.

    The REALITY is that Americans do not want to spend more money on Human spaceflight. And to even pursue Constellation (who knows if it will ever fly) cost a lot more money.

    The REALITY is that there is no support for “Missions to the Moon” or Mars or anywhere that require additional spending.

    So what Nelson and others have been engaged in is a ” we tried to do it but it didnt work” effort…and that is why there has to be a lot of sound and fury and really loud and insulting statements and then capitulation.

    If I had to guess right now (and this is sort of informed speculation because of my friend who is now a lobbiest) the Orion “dance” is all about how the device is acquired and what dollars there are for it.

    This “capital two step” goes on all the time.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    “This is a mostly friendly congress that he has, why not just work with them?”

    Hm. It is friendly until you cut their budget and they are democrats! We can say all we want about the GOP but they will sink together much more so than the dems ever will. Egos and all that sort of things…

  • MrEarl

    MT:
    This is a complete 180 that this administration want to do with NASA. What ever your thoughts about Constellation it has sustained supporters in the congress. On the plus side he dose have a friendly congress that would support the administration (with a few mods) on this if it would only explain what they’re trying to do. After 5 months of non-answers and dodging and going behind the back of congress, that good will is very thin and it dose feel like there are ulterior motives.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    “If I had to guess right now (and this is sort of informed speculation because of my friend who is now a lobbiest) the Orion “dance” is all about how the device is acquired and what dollars there are for it.”

    It always is. Ever wondered why LMT won over Boeing and Northrop Grumman? Technical? Financial? Who is the head at JSC? Where is he coming from? Anyway…

  • MrEarl

    You guys can try to spin this all you want . All I’m saying is that the administration is making this much harder than it has to be. If you think this is an unfriendly congress imagine what a GOP congress would be like.
    Robert, I think what is more likely to happen is that you get your wish that NASA regresses back to the NACA and that is what was planned all along

  • amightywind

    It is good to see that some of you can see Obama is going down in flames. It means you are somewhat rational. He is not finished, mind you, but his presidency must redirect drastically. Easy to do if you are Clinton, not if you are an ideologue like Obama. Events and bad policy have this administration reeling in what should be a solid recovery. Obama’s taxing and spending binge ruin that notion. So Obama will be facing a weak economy, and severe austerity, not to mention an environmental catastrophe in a reelection campaign that starts next year. Needless to say Obama’s NASA policy is going nowhere. Good thing. All that really needs to be done is to shed some non-core NASA assets in the science branch and redirect the funds to Constellation.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    You see what bothered me a lot is that the President has an unbelievable power of inspiration, some compare it to Reagan’s…

    there is no question the POTUS can give a speech. The problem that he has is that the rhetoric can only go so far, unless it is backed up by conviction and as I use to tell Rich Kolker and anyone else who was interesed during the election; I dont have a clue what he really believes.

    It was Axelrod who (to paraphrase) said “I dont know how you will react to a punch”…and to be fair I think we are seeing that now. Obama doesnt have much of a clue how to react…what is his “inclinations”.

    That is why we are hearing this crap about “its the holdovers from the bush administration”…I didnt buy that when the bushites tried to blame Clinton for 9/11 and I dont buy it now. bush and Cheney were the worst team (next to Buchanan who let the Union break up) to hold the deck, but they are gone.

    Of course in 2000 I knew what McCain stood for, but now who knows…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    You guys can try to spin this all you want . All I’m saying is that the administration is making this much harder than it has to be. If you think this is an unfriendly congress imagine what a GOP congress would be like.
    Robert, I think what is more likely to happen is that you get your wish that NASA regresses back to the NACA and that is what was planned all along………..

    well I hope so. I really dont think we need a “national space exploration agency”. I’d take the first 50 years of aviation over the first 50 of spaceflight any day.

    A GOP Congress will be, contrary to what Whittington claims much harder on NASA. If there is a GOP Congress the mandate is going to be to cut spending. You dont see any members of the GOP including ones from space districts arguing for more money for NASA. None

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    MT:
    This is a complete 180 that this administration want to do with NASA. What ever your thoughts about Constellation it has sustained supporters in the congress..

    NO IT DOESNT…

    if it did they would be proposing more money for it…Constellation NEEDS MORE MONEY to survive. It needs about 30 billion more to recreate the Saturn 1B with an Apollo on top.

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    Robert:
    YES IT DOSE…….

    If it didn’t have support, for what ever reason there may be, the Obama “plan” would have sailed through by now.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Robert:
    YES IT DOSE…….

    If it didn’t have support, for what ever reason there may be, the Obama “plan” would have sailed through by now…

    this is what “sailing through” looks like really

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    Robert:
    Oh please……
    Titanic’s maiden voyage went better than this,
    The Hindenburg’s last voyage went better than this,

  • This is fun to watch from afar (just how far is available with a simple Goggle search if anyone’s interested). Everyone’s talking. Nobody’s much listening. Everyone could stand to take a step back, decide what their goals for human spaceflight are, and what makes sense technically, financially and politically to get us there.

    Let me touch on just one point. Do we need heavy lift?

    We need pounds on orbit. If the most effective way (effective being a combination of cost, reliability and time) is an HLV, then it makes sense. If it’s Falcon, Delta or Atlas launches (or a combination), then THAT makes sense. What’s needed is pounds on orbit. How it gets there is immaterial.

    Logistics, not strategy, not tactics.

    I’m just talking about the HLV question here, not the larger policy questions.

  • Eric Sterner

    @McEarl
    Thanks

    @Al & Ben
    Executive Privilege doesn’t apply. The committee asked for documents that allegedly exist to support the President’s budget. The “demand” is only unrealistic if the background information doesn’t exist, in which case, making the demand is the only way of finding this out.

    FWIW, I don’t see this as NASA sticking it to the committee, so much as not being able to comply because the supporting documentation didn’t exist, which it can’t admit lest it expose the President’s budget for what it is. In other words, the agency is taking one for the team.

    Is the Committee toothless? Yes and no. It isn’t approps, but I don’t see approps rolling over on it on such a controversial subject. Mollohan and Obey can go either way, since they won’t be there next year. Obey doesn’t usually like HSF, but still has to get a bill out of committee and off the floor. Mollohan lost his primary, IIRC, so he ought to be free to do what he thinks best, although he also will have to deal with the bottom line of getting a bill off the floor.

    @Robert
    I agree that Obama coming out foursquare against HSF would have been honest. Instead, he’s trying to finesse his position so that blame doesn’t fall on him 10-15 years from now when people look back and wonder where the US HSF program went. In any event, it seems from your comment that you see no value in the HSF program. That’s fair. I’m inclined to believe you do need major initiatives with definable, achievable goals and funding in order to pull technology out of the labs and into applications. I’m not talking mere spinoffs, here, but about changing the state of the art in a range of technical areas: materials, structures, power storage, life support, man-machine interfaces (there’s a more technical term, right?), systems integration, autonomous decision-making, etc. etc. etc. Warfare often guides this kind of thing by default; civil space exploration seems preferable.

  • red

    amightywind: “All that really needs to be done is to shed some non-core NASA assets in the science branch and redirect the funds to Constellation.”

    Yes, Constellation is the ever-voracious and destructive program. Hasn’t it devoured and wasted enough already?

    I guess by “non-core” you mean “all”, since that’s what you’d have to do to give Constellation a chance to do a feeble mini-reenactment of Apollo many years in the future.

    That would be a disaster in many ways: science, U.S. satellite industrial base for the military/comsat industry/other space agencies, U.S. launch policy for the same industry and government agencies, practical information for business and government on Earth itself and on space weather affecting us, planetary science work that could inform astronaut missions, STEM education, etc.

  • red

    Eric Sterner: “Even the good stuff in the admin’s budget (yes, I do think some portions of it have, or had, merit)”

    I’d be interested to hear what portions of it have, or had, merit.

    Better yet, I’d be interested to hear a counter-proposal that fits within the budget and that addresses various priorities (U.S. launch needs, science, exploration, technology, commerce, etc).

    If the counter-proposal assumes things like Aeronautics and Earth Observations get the budget boosts that are in the 2011 budget proposal (since based on their general political outlook those will be NASA priority #1 for the Obama Administration, so it’s not realistic to suggest that they’d propose a budget that doesn’t do that), all the better.

  • Major Tom

    “I agree that Obama coming out foursquare against HSF would have been honest. Instead, he’s trying to finesse his position so that blame doesn’t fall on him 10-15 years from now when people look back and wonder where the US HSF program went.”

    This is a nutty statement.

    If the POTUS wanted to destroy civil human space flight, the easiest thing to do politically would have been nothing. Per the Augustine Committee, Constellation would have produced a domestic human space flight capability years after ISS went into the drink and an HLV so late and so expensively that no exploration mission would have been mounted until the mid-2030s, if ever.

    Instead, the White House has done the politically difficult thing of shutting down a doomed Constellation program, and, instead of redirecting that funding outside NASA or its human space flight programs, has doubled down, adding $6 billion over five years to a $9-10 billion annual budget.

    The President wasn’t my choice for the office, either. But to engage in these goofy conspiracy theories that he wants to shut down “US HSF” when this Administration is taking so many politically difficult and budgetarily expensive steps to save it from the Constellation debacle and expand its capabilities — from long-overdue technology investments to HLV acceleration to a much needed domestic crew alternative to Shuttle — is just so out of touch with reality as to be worthy of psychological counseling.

    Just because you don’t agree with details in new plan or are loyal to what was a dramatically flawed old program doesn’t mean that there is conspiratorial intent behind the change in direction.

    “I’m not talking mere spinoffs, here, but about changing the state of the art in a range of technical areas: materials, structures, power storage, life support, man-machine interfaces (there’s a more technical term, right?), systems integration, autonomous decision-making, etc. etc. etc.”

    If this is what you think is needed, then why don’t you support NASA’s FY11 budget? Constellation spent billions and billions rearranging Shuttle components and infrastructure with practically no investment in any of these areas, while NASA’s FY11 budget would put billions and billions into many of these very developments.

    Are you trying to make a convincing, logical, fact-based argument or are you just trying to score political points for an old boss?

    FWIW…

  • Eric Sterner

    @Major Tom

    You wrote:

    “Yes, the 12 meetings, five months of deliberations, 12-page summary report, and 157-page final report of the White House blue-ribbon Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee was just a bunch of “dreamed” up “stuff” with any “real substantive planning or analysis”.

    If you think this constitutes budget and program planning, you’re sadly mistaken. Go back and review the record of what did, and didn’t, go into the Augustine report and you’re going to find pretty quickly that what it did NOT review far and away exceeds what it did.

    You wrote:
    “And the White House was obviously “springing it on the agency” by having no less than eight NASA teams consisting of upwards of 200 NASA managers and technical experts supporting the Committee with analyses and other work.”

    I dunno….the civil servants I talked to at NASA pretty consistently said they had no idea what the admin was going to do as late as January of this year. Even after the budget rollout, you couldn’t swing a stick without hitting a NASA civil servant in ESMD who didn’t know what was expected of them because they hadn’t been involved in developing the budget or the programs. It’s a small town and a relatively small agency and these were the folks who would’ve done the homework. The best alternative explanation is that the homework wasn’t done and a small group of people came up with this plan on their own. For all I know, they were in the comptroller’s shop, the A suite, OSTP, and OMB. Sorry….those folks aren’t qualified to lay out a technically sound program. They’ve very bright, but there’s a big difference between policy and budget personnel and program people.

    One of the many flaws of the VSE (go-as-you-can-afford-to-pay-but-meet-this-deadline being chief among them) was that folks could look at it and see what they wanted. As a gov’t weenie accountable to elected officials (not at NASA or involved in civil space issues at the time), I took the President’s January 2004 speech as the major defining guidance for VSE.
    Goal 1: Finish ISS by 2010
    Goal 2: Develop CEV and fly people by 2014
    Goal 3: Return to the moon by 2020
    Goal 4: Go to Mars and worlds beyond
    Congress tossed in using shuttle heritage hardware and infrastructure.

    It all seems pretty explicit to me. Perhaps I understood it better than the legions of staff guys, analysts, and experts who got their hands on “it” (whatever “it” was) afterwards. (Sorry guys. As much as I admire Pete Aldridge, his commission isn’t the same as Presidential guidance.)

    As for “needlessly distracting to the debate about how best to pick up the pieces left in the wake of the Constellation debacle,” I generally don’t feel the need to sit down, shut up, and accept bad policy when I see it merely because the President proposed it and the opposition to it is discombobulated and can’t always separate parochial self-interest from desirable national goals. (I don’t believe I’ve been a Constellation hugger, either, although it does strike me as odd when people line up behind alternatives that largely exist only on paper.) I have a hard time accepting that a gov’t running a $1.5+ TRILLION dollar deficit can put the civil space program so low on its its priority list. You’re probably right that it’s a lost cause, but human exploration will definitely become a lost cause if folks resign themselves to it.

    As for the whole OMB vs. NASA review process…..I suspect that the committee, which isn’t generally out to embarass a President of the same party, has exhausted what it considers a reasonable amount of patience. To call the administration out so publicly is a pretty good sign that frustration levels are extraordinarily high and there’s more to it than waiting another few days for OMB to complete its review.

    My two cents.

  • Eric Sterner

    @Robert Oler

    You wrote:

    “Congress people (and I have a good handle on this…a classmate was the former Chief of Staff to a Texas Senator…Mark has met him in his COS office) as my friends Dad (who was COS to Olin Teague) use to say “Have to play to the home folks, while doing what is possible…and this is sort of informed speculation because of my friend who is now a lobbiest”.

    THIS means you know what you’re talking about when it comes to the ways of Congress and its interaction with the executive branch? Really? Good grief.

    Look, I think your posts are usually intelligent and well-argued, but c’mon.

  • President Obama’s obsession with imposing his will on NASA policy and its tiny budget is odd since he obviously has very little interest in the space program. And his idea that we need to cripple NASA’s manned spaceflight capabilities in order to support private commercial spaceflight is also odd since they really have totally different manned spaceflight agendas.

    The fact that he’s willing to make enemies with both Democrats and Republicans and the people of Florida on this issue, especially over such a relatively tiny budget, really doesn’t make any political sense or any common sense and appears to be ego driven.

    President Obama really needs to get over himself on this issue and make the logical compromises with Congress!

  • Martijn Meijering

    President Obama really needs to get over himself on this issue and make the logical compromises with Congress!

    Translation: Obama must do what I want!!!

  • I think your posts are usually intelligent and well-argued, but c’mon.

    That’s not my experience. In fact, I find them annoying to read, with the grammar problems, idiosyncratic quote marks, refusal to differentiate his words from those of others, etc. I only glance through them to see if he’s made up some new story about me.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Eric Sterner wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @Robert
    I agree that Obama coming out foursquare against HSF would have been honest. Instead, he’s trying to finesse his position so that blame doesn’t fall on him 10-15 years from now when people look back and wonder where the US HSF program went. In any event, it seems from your comment that you see no value in the HSF program. ……

    I dont equate “exploration” with the sum and totality of a HSF program…and I am surprised that you do.

    It is like saying “wow unless we have Earhart or her equivelents trying to fly the Pacific every year we have no “human aviation program”.

    The two dimensional thinking that I was referring to is precisely that. There is so much more to HSF then a bunch of NASA astronauts blowing soap bubbles on a space station or doing things on the Moon (or insert destination here) that have nothing in common with the people who pay the bills.

    Learn that you learn something

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Eric Sterner wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    THIS means you know what you’re talking about when it comes to the ways of Congress and its interaction with the executive branch..

    No Eric, that means my friend does. He came up from a minor lawyer on staff to Chief of Staff and now lobbies on capital hill.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    I should add

    “He came up from a minor lawyer on staff to Chief of Staff and now lobbies on capital hill.” and a major figure in two Presidential campaigns.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, as usual, has his historical analogies mixed up. While there is some relation between the early years of aviation and the current era of space flight, a better historic analogy is that of Prince Henry the Navigator, who developed the ocean going caravel and much else, as well as a robust program of exploration. His was a government program, by the way, but it directly led to the Age of Exploration that many say started with Columbus.

  • His was a government program, by the way, but it directly led to the Age of Exploration that many say started with Columbus.

    Yes, because it developed cost-effective transportation technologies needed for exploration, as the new plan does for space, which the Program of Record was starving for unnecessary, unaffordable and unsustainable new rockets.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    Oler, as usual, has his historical analogies mixed up.

    Hah.

    until you became enamored with a big government program solely because Bush the last started it, YOU use to draw the “space like aviation” test…

    The problem is that the big government program you like, Constellation has no reference to Henry or any other historical figure.

    “developed the ocean going caravel ”

    Constellation has no legs beyond NASA. There is no use for a project or vehicles that are so expensive, the largest economy on the Earth could not afford them even if the development was free…and that is not just my judgment.

    Sadly you are now a big government guy…sigh

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 4:40 pm

    I only glance through them to see if he’s made up some new story about me….

    still hoping for that “man hug” one day

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “Sadly you are now a big government guy…sigh”

    Not really. But then I don’t regard a fraction of one percent “big.” Perhaps you do…

  • I don’t want a “man hug.” I want you to stop lying about me. I see that it’s not going to happen, though.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Not really. But then I don’t regard a fraction of one percent “big.” Perhaps you do…..

    I do. my view of big government is not metriced by some sort of arbitrary level of spending…it is by how the spending is done.

    The dollars spent on Human spaceflight might be small in terms of federal expenditures, but they are EVERYTHING spent by this government in human spaceflight.

    In your world all the money is spent sustaining a government/contractor infrastructure which has no chance of helping the basic premise of America. Ie Free Enterprise.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    I don’t want a “man hug.” I want you to stop lying about me..

    channeling Bob Dole I see.

    Robert G. Oler

  • channeling Bob Dole I see.

    No, just pointing out that you tell lies about me, and never either back them up or retract them.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “I dunno….the civil servants I talked to at NASA pretty consistently said they had no idea what the admin was going to do as late as January of this year. Even after the budget rollout, you couldn’t swing a stick without hitting a NASA civil servant in ESMD who didn’t know what was expected of them because they hadn’t been involved in developing the budget or the programs.”

    In many respects, I find that advantageous. These NASA civil servants were the folks who had wholly bought in to Constellation. They had absolutely no incentive to contribute to a plan to dismantle it. Sticks got swung, and it sure hit a lot of folks who didn’t know what was expected of them.

    “The best alternative explanation is that the homework wasn’t done and a small group of people came up with this plan on their own. For all I know, they were in the comptroller’s shop, the A suite, OSTP, and OMB. Sorry….those folks aren’t qualified to lay out a technically sound program. They’ve very bright, but there’s a big difference between policy and budget personnel and program people.”

    Yup. But the first order of business was policy, not budget and program. The policy was faulty, and the program that was being built to achieve it reflected that fault. This wasn’t a matter of tweaking a plan. It was a matter of pulling the plug. I too was skeptical about the organization of the new plan, but in many respects I now see that it’s working. As was evident to my sources who were at the big ESMD Exploration Enterprise meeting in Galveston a few weeks ago, ESMD has come around enthusiastically for the new program. These were the same folks who, several months ago, would have spit at Constellation naysayers.

  • red

    Eric Sterner: “One of the many flaws of the VSE (go-as-you-can-afford-to-pay-but-meet-this-deadline being chief among them) was that folks could look at it and see what they wanted. As a gov’t weenie accountable to elected officials (not at NASA or involved in civil space issues at the time), I took the President’s January 2004 speech as the major defining guidance for VSE.
    Goal 1: Finish ISS by 2010
    Goal 2: Develop CEV and fly people by 2014
    Goal 3: Return to the moon by 2020
    Goal 4: Go to Mars and worlds beyond
    Congress tossed in using shuttle heritage hardware and infrastructure.

    It all seems pretty explicit to me. Perhaps I understood it better than the legions of staff guys, analysts, and experts who got their hands on “it” (whatever “it” was) afterwards. (Sorry guys. As much as I admire Pete Aldridge, his commission isn’t the same as Presidential guidance.)”

    Here’s what I see as the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration:

    “Goal and Objectives

    The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United States will:

    • Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;
    • Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
    • Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
    • Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.”

    I’d say that the 2011 budget approach advances U.S. science, security, and economic interests a lot better than Griffin’s approach. It also promotes commercial and international participation better. It’s more sustainable and affordable. It develops space infrastructure better, and develops more innovative technology and knowledge. It doesn’t get to the Moon by 2020, but then neither does Griffin’s approach. As for Mars and other destinations, the 2011 budget approach seems to be better for those Flexible Path deep space destinations, and also for Mars.

    Some of these items are qualitative, but I think you’d have a hard time making the case, for example, that Constellation is better than the 2011 budget approach for science, security, or economic benefits.

    Personally I’d prefer more focus on the Moon rather than the more difficult and possibly less “immediately” economically useful Martian surface than the 2011 budget has (but in the context of something like the Flexible Path that does some useful in-space work in the meantime before we can get to surface visits), but I tend to think that will take care of itself.

    Here are some other key parts of the Vision for Space Exploration that I think are handled better by the 2011 plan:

    “use of lunar and other space resources”

    “Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support, and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable, and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration of Mars and other destinations”

    “Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.”

    “Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station”

    “A robotic landing will follow in 2009 to begin demonstrating capabilities for sustainable exploration of the solar system. Additional missions, potentially up to one a year, are planned to demonstrate new capabilities such as robotic networks, reusable planetary landing and launch systems, pre-positioned propellants, and resource extraction.”

    “NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs—such as heavy lift—are not met by commercial or military systems. Depending on future human mission designs, NASA could decide to develop or acquire a heavy lift vehicle later this decade.”

    “In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles. … Other breakthrough technologies, such as nuclear power and propulsion, optical communications, and potential use of space resources, will be demonstrated as part of robotic exploration missions.”

    “The space missions in this plan require advanced systems and capabilities that will accelerate the development of many critical technologies, including power, computing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, communications, networking, robotics, and materials. These technologies underpin and advance the U.S. economy and help ensure national security. NASA plans to work with other government agencies and the private sector to develop space systems that can address national and commercial needs.”

    That doesn’t mean that I think the 2011 plan is perfect, or a perfect approach to fulfilling Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration. I just think it’s far better than what it’s replacing, which I consider to effectively be the end of NASA HSF and most of the rest of NASA with no offsetting benefits because Constellation would, in my judgement (which I haven’t changed since I paid attention in December 2005), absorb most of NASA’s funding and still fail.

    I’d like to see improvements here and there with the 2011 plan, so I’d like to hear more suggestions on how it might realistically be tweaked to be better rather than all of the alarm about how we’re all doomed.

  • Robert, I agree with Rand on the distinguishing other’s words from yours.. please starting doing it, it’s only good etiquette.

    For example <i>other people’s words</i>

    It’s not hard, please remember to do it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Trent Waddington wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    yeah I should do that…but for the life of me I dont know what Rand thinks I am “lying” about him…

    I will work harder! Robert G. Oler

  • yeah I should do that…but for the life of me I dont know what Rand thinks I am “lying” about him…

    OK, so you have Altzheimers. Or you continue to lie.

    Just in case you are really serious, here’s just one example.

    You have claimed that I have claimed that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

    Retract, or prove.

    Based on history, I have no expectation that you will do either.

  • Bennett

    Like on many discussion boards, some folks need to bolster their arguments by bring up stuff that is so far in the past that most of the current readers weren’t around at the time, and it’s really annoying.

    If you can’t respond to someone’s comment based on the merits of the facts presented in the comment, and instead need to dredge up crap that the individual wrote ages ago, please don’t comment.

    Spell check your comments, and if you don’t know the difference between “big” and “beg”, “frog” and “flog”, “then” and “than”, “hit” and “tit” (hint, they’re all totally different words with NO commonality), please consult a thesaurus for alternatives.

    I like learning what I learn here on Jeff’s blog (Hey Jeff, thanks for the Preview function!!!) but think it’s sad that some folks miss the opportunity for intelligent discourse.

    JMHO

  • Jeff Foust

    I recommend that Messrs. Oler and Simberg take their discussion offline, as it has nothing to do with the topic of this post. Thank you for your cooperation.

  • Nemo

    Major Tom wrote:

    Yes, the 12 meetings, five months of deliberations, 12-page summary report, and 157-page final report of the White House blue-ribbon Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee was just a bunch of “dreamed” up “stuff” with any “real substantive planning or analysis”.

    And the White House was obviously “springing it on the agency” by having no less than eight NASA teams consisting of upwards of 200 NASA managers and technical experts supporting the Committee with analyses and other work.

    The Augustine committee produced only options, no recommendations. The Administration did not indicate its choice to NASA until the OMB passback.

    And the OMB budget passback at Thanksgiving and subsequent White House appeals process obviously provides departments and agencies with no clue as to what programmatic content will be rolled out for their programs in February.

    Incorrect. NASA received its FY11 OMB passback far later than usual:

    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/10/the-reason-for-the-limited-budget-details/

    “The passback this year was the Saturday night before—less than 48 hours before—the budget rollout,” said Charles Miller, senior advisor for commercial space at NASA, as an explanation for the lack of details about some of the technology R&D programs contained in the budget proposal.

  • Vladislaw

    red wrote:

    “NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs—such as heavy lift—are not met by commercial or military systems. Depending on future human mission designs, NASA could decide to develop or acquire a heavy lift vehicle later this decade.”

    “In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”

    I put in boldface the most telling words that were the framework of the Vision for Space Exploration.

    NASA was ordered to NOT develop a new launch vehicle, and if HLV was truly needed one COULD be developed, not that it would be only that it was open.

    NASA was supposed to get downsized with personal, that was outlined in President Bush’s policy, were was all the outrage then?

    They were also supposed to build a reusable, space based, gas and go, vehicle that could goto multiple destinations.

    Now how could anyone say they supported the VSE and also support Constellation, they are mutually exclusive. There is no way to shove Constellation into the VSE and say it satisfies the conditions laid out.

  • DCSCA

    @Eric Sterner wrote @ June 18th, 2010 at 9:20 am
    It’s a pattern. Some bureaucratic authority hands him a brief (as lawyers prefer) with a recommendation from a meritocracy representing the issue at hand (Afghanistan, off-shore oil drilling, human spaceflight, etc.,) he reads it and moves on.

  • DCSCA

    @EricSteiner “I dunno….the civil servants I talked to at NASA pretty consistently said they had no idea what the admin was going to do as late as January of this year.”

    Hmmm. Seem to recall Obama took a position generally opposed to HSF a few summers ago, either before he was a candidate or just as the primaries began. Opposition was raised so his staff reworked it to soften the stand. Can’t recall the exact date but it was a point this writer recalls as a mark in the column against his nomination until the candidates position changed. So his ambivalence toward HSF seemed initially apparent long ago. He’s a lawyer, not a technologist nor engineer, and has a level of curiosity not much higher than his predecessor in such matters. His ‘been there, done that’ crack regarding lunar exploration borders on a level of dismissiveness you’d expect from a GenXer. Just look at the display of detachment toward another recent engineering matter– the oil leak. Still, this writer does not see Congress killing off Constellation this session with so many related jobs in the Gulf region. Frankly, what NASA needs is another Sputnik moment- from China. This writer supports this president — but not this president’s space policy as presented on April 15.

  • Sorry, Jeff.

    I just get tired of the slander.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jeff. thanks for the gentle reminder…all is well with me Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Hmmm. Seem to recall Obama took a position generally opposed to HSF ..

    no opposition to Constellation is not opposition to HSF

    Robert G. oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 1:36 am
    Frankly, what NASA needs is another Sputnik moment- from China.

    what do you think that would be? Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 1:50 am

    Inaccurate.

  • DCSCA

    Like on many discussion boards, some folks need to bolster their arguments by bring up stuff that is so far in the past that most of the current readers weren’t around at the time, and it’s really annoying.

    Past is prologue.

  • Rhyolite

    DCSCA wrote @ June 19th, 2010 at 1:36 am:

    “Frankly, what NASA needs is another Sputnik moment- from China.”

    Sputnik less about being able to lob a satellite satellite over the US than it was about being able to lob a nuclear bomb into the US.

    There is very little China can do in space that would demonstrate the level of existential threat that Sputnik did.

    It may be a long wait for history to repeat itself.

  • David C

    @ Jeff,
    Hi, just a note, I have noticed that a lot of threads and forums are getting a lot more virulent postings, from the people pushing their positions, and making personal attacks in place of good arguments, as we come down to the wire; While I am a fan of Hyde Park Speakers Corner style discussions, they have no place on the internet threads and forums, unless they are specifically politically biased threads and forums, which I found amusing when you were having your last Presidential Election; btw I am British, so this is opinion, not a slanderous attack ;) cool it ladies and gentlemen, take a breather, have a pint, and cheer your team at the World Cup,
    Cheers

  • DCSCA

    btw I am British, so this is opinion, not a slanderous attack <– This writer resided in Britain during several of the Apollo lunar missions. No Union Jacks planted up there yet. It is amusing to note that Britain had no space program at the time and was cheering some other technological advance in work with the French- a curious airplane named Concorde (you can find them in museums today); Britain was quite the cheerleader for who ever was ahead at any given time as well — it was quite the socialist nation then- (Jodrell Bank's Sir Bernard Lovell early on was quite smitten by the Soviet program and believed the Russians would reach the moon first). But the British Museum proudly displays fragments of lunar rock from Apollo 11 on loan.

  • DCSCA

    well I hope so. I really dont think we need a “national space exploration agency”.

    Wiser minds than yours decided differently in 1958 and the world is a better place for it.

    “I’d take the first 50 years of aviation over the first 50 of spaceflight any day.” You can have it.

  • DCSCA

    MSNBC raked Bolden over the coals on the Rachel Maddow Show Monday evening noting the NASA IG is investigating the administrator regarding a conflict of interest over his contact with, financial holdings in and previous position on the board of an oil company and his decisions within NASA over a biofuel project.

  • […] the House Science and Technology Committee Friday evening, which staff members are now reviewing. The committee demanded the documents last week after NASA was not forthcoming with earlier requests for information about aspects of the budget. […]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>