Congress, NASA

Grumbling about Bolden

In an article in the Birmingham News yesterday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) described a meeting Tuesday with NASA administrator Charles Bolden as “troubling” because he didn’t see any signs of compromise from the administration. “We should not think that the president at the moment has any plans to make significant alterations to what they have stated is their goal,” he told the newspaper. Sessions also said he and a group of other, unidentified senators are interested in an “independent legal opinion” on NASA’s use of the Antideficiency Act to slow down work on Constellation. “We think this is clearly a violation of the congressional intent.”

Despite a NASA directive to withhold nearly $1 billion in Constellation funds in order to comply with the act, money is still flowing to Constellation contractors, the Wall Street Journal reports. The article suggested that the latest releases of funds to contractors ATK and Lockheed Martin were somehow done in contradiction to that directive and without Bolden’s knowledge or approval, claiming that “NASA’s bureaucracy seems to be equivocating” even though monthly Constellation expenditures have dropped by two thirds.

Bolden also faces criticism in an editorial in today’s Orlando Sentinel, this time about his potential conflict of interest regarding an agency biofuels program the newspaper reported over the weekend. That controversy, the editorial argues, “raises doubts about whether he has all the right stuff – including the savvy and sound judgment – to succeed in his position.” The Sentinel wants Bolden to step back from any decisions about this particular project as well as any others where he might have some kind of financial stake. “Mr. Bolden has called into question his ability to lead NASA in this extraordinary time. How quickly, and how firmly, he acts to defuse this controversy will speak volumes about whether he is up to the job.”

92 comments to Grumbling about Bolden

  • cy

    I think it should have been clear when the budget was rolled out that he does not have what it takes to be the leader of the nation’s civil space agency. The deputy should also step down.

  • cy, in regards to the deputy I was thinking the exact opposite. She should have been given the Administrator position but wasn’t purely because of her physical characteristics.

    Everyone is focusing on the conflict of interest part of biofuels controversy.. what I think is more telling is that Bolden is quoted as saying that a biofuel project is perhaps not even something NASA should be leading. Garver’s response to that was to remind the Administrator that one of the President’s goals for NASA is that it better serve important national needs.. like green energy. Anyone who advocates NASA leadership of space solar power should be getting behind Joshua Trent’s OMEGA project too.

  • amightywind

    “She should have been given the Administrator position but wasn’t purely because of her physical characteristics.”

    Huh? She ain’t no Sarah Palin. I will say that identity politics run deep in the Obama administration.

    It is difficult to see Bolden surviving if the GOP come to power. Sabotage is not leadership. The Obama administration has a bigger problem with leadership and credibility on a wide variety of issues including the gulf oil spill and Afghanistan. There is only one solution Petraeus/McChrystal 2012!

  • Vladislaw

    From the article:

    “I would say the mood was grave,” Sessions said. “A number of members feel strongly that America’s leadership in space is being jeopardized by the president’s budget for next year and the attempts this year to cancel contracts before the year is out.”

    Asked if the group could threaten to slash the NASA budget in other ways to protest the cuts, Sessions did not rule it out.

    “I don’t know what the threats will be. Things could develop in that way,” Sessions said. “We need to win a vote in the commerce committee to maintain authorization of the Constellation program, then there is the opportunity for the appropriations committee to keep the program alive.”

    Sessions also said his meeting with NASA admin-istrator Bolden earlier in the day was “troubling.”

    “I didn’t get the feeling there is any real give in their position,” Sessions said. “We should not think that the president at the moment has any plans to make significant alterations to what they have stated is their goal.”

    So Sessions is so worried about America’s leadership regarding space he would be willing to slash spending for space just to prove a point: his state deserves it’s pork and if he has to burn down the house to get his pork, no problem. Sounds as bad as Shelby.

    One thing Sessions failed to mention, well two things, is he willing to vote for more NASA funding for Constellation? Once again the silence on that issue is deafening. Secondly what exactly was Sessions willing to give up? He goes on to say how there is no give from Bolden but what exactly is Sessions willing to give up? AGAIN the Constellation supports never give an answer to funding or what they are willing to give up.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 8:40 am

    It is difficult to see Bolden surviving if the GOP come to power….

    you dont understand either Space dynamics (Still enjoying your Falcon 9 stuff!) or The US Constitution or political dynamics.

    It is hard to see a scenario where, if the GOP takes over Congress they increase or refocus NASA’s budget back toward some sort of exploration goal. Practical matters aside (like having enough votes) the real problems are two.

    First it is clear that the folks who want a different space policy cannot agree on what it is. Second, if the GOP comes to power in DC it will be based on one single thing…cutting, making real cuts in the federal budget and trying to get the deficit under control.

    It is worth reading in depth the NBC poll out yesterday (I just got the time to look it over heavily). It is fascinating in trying to understand the moods in The Republic

    and there is nothing in it or in events to suggest Obama is not going to get his space policy. He is.

    Robert G. Oler

  • brobof

    Trent Waddington wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 7:17 am
    “Anyone who advocates NASA leadership of space solar power should be getting behind Joshua Trent’s OMEGA project too.”

    This project has very little to do with SPS! As an advocate of SPS for some thirty years I would maintain that anything that acts as a terrestrial stopgap is a roadblock to the development of SPS. Whilst renewables, fission, biofuels, etc. may extend our energy usage they in no way fill the required energy ‘gap’ developing by the end of the century. As a Biochemist I would also maintain that it also has very little to do with CLLSS.

    On the contrary it has everything to do with the eventual release of yet more atmospheric C02, the last thing we need! Critically: What are the energy costs of making these bags. What are the energy costs of ‘processing’ the waste water. And what are the energy costs of turning algal scum into a refined fuel suitable for rockets! I say rockets as clearly NASA as an innovator for aircraft technologies should not be funding this. Whilst NASA’s link with aero-industry is a given: why should your tax dollars be spent on remediating an industry with obscene levels of emissions. Let the aircraft industry and the automotive industry pay!
    The only environmental gain is if the end product locks up the existing atmospheric carbon permanently.

    NASA’s funding is tight enough as it is. Let the DoE or Navy fund it. Better still let the Automotive/Petrochemical Industry fund it! Because, in the final analysis, your tax dollars will end up as dividends in the hands of shareholders and high bonuses for the energy company that buys the developed technology for a fraction of the real research costs. And then charges you for the product that you paid to develop.
    This is how they do it elsewhere:
    http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/06/21/41-companies-join-japanese-algae-project/

  • Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) described a meeting Tuesday with NASA administrator Charles Bolden as “troubling” because he didn’t see any signs of compromise from the administration.

    Translation: Obama and Bolden won. Porkers Sessions and Shelby lost.

  • I guess one thing that amuses me is that most people who want a “compromise” really just want what they were asking for before FY11–most of NASA’s money to continue being tied up in NASA-led boosters and capsules. Ie, sure we’ll set aside a pittance for technology and commercial, but we should spend like 90% of NASA’s HSF budget on Shuttle, SDLV, and Orion. The problem in this situation is that when what you want costs so much, it’s pretty hard to “budge” in a way that’s going to make people happy.

    ~Jon

  • This biofuelGate business seems a bit tabloid. Someone convince me that it matters.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Now all that is needed for Charlie Bolden being quoted in Rolling Stone making remarks about Holdren, Garver, and, of course, The One. Clearly Bolden is being set up to take the fall for this train wreck.

    “She should have been given the Administrator position but wasn’t purely because of her physical characteristics.”

    Actually it was because it was because she is unqualified to lead a girl scout troop, not to mention NASA. If Garver gets the top job after Bolden (provided that she could even be confirmed) we will know that the end times have come.

  • Robert Horning

    “Actually it was because it was because she is unqualified to lead a girl scout troop, not to mention NASA. If Garver gets the top job after Bolden (provided that she could even be confirmed) we will know that the end times have come.”

    I can only say ditto to this. Charles Bolden is from my perspective one of the best administrators that NASA has had for quite some time. He not only understands the organization from the ground level, he has leadership experience that is equally impressive. For the Marines that have served under Bolden, I have heard generally nothing but praise and general respect for the guy.

    If there is a fault to Bolden, it is that he is a good Marine and follow orders even if those orders are on a suicide mission (politically speaking). Bolden doesn’t compromise because he is told not to compromise. It is a tough job that has to be done, and he has had to clean up a whole bunch of messes that have been put off by previous administrations.

    I don’t know what to think of the apparent insubordinate behavior coming from the rank and file of NASA, other than those employees ought to be grateful they aren’t in the military.

    “This biofuelGate business seems a bit tabloid. Someone convince me that it matters.”

    I’d have to agree here too. This is such a minor part of NASA, something that has so little to do with NASA’s core mission that it hardly seems something to even worry about. Besides, if this is Congress that is complaining about an apparent conflict of interest, what does it say about members of congress receiving “campaign contributions” on behalf of lobbying groups and folks that are intimately involved with creating and passing legislation.

    Perhaps there may be something there, but it seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. Besides, what Bolden is being accused of doing is urging caution on dumping millions of taxpayer dollars into a crazy scheme that may or may not work. It would be one thing for Bolden to be directly allocating tax dollars to a particular company, but simply saying that the money shouldn’t be spent? I call that being responsible and also expressing political speech on an issue that it sounds like he may know a thing or two about.

  • Gary Church

    “anything that acts as a terrestrial stopgap is a roadblock to the development of SPS.”

    A perfect example of a good idea turned evil.

  • Vladislaw

    Robert, I don’t know if you were aware of this as it never gets press but NASA is charged with:

    “(e) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence in scientific and engineering systems of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also be directed toward ground propulsion systems research and development. Such development shall be conducted so as to contribute to the objectives of developing energy- and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems.”

    Right or wrong, NASA is supposed to be doing that very thing for the auto industry.

    Personally, I think it would be better if DOT did this rather than NASA, a little out of there basic mission outline, seems like a make work for engineers to keep them busy.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jon and Stephen have hit the operative point.

    Whittington is just wishing, Bolden is not being setup for any fall and Garver is not being groomed for Administrator. If anything her performance in the new “effort” has in my view hurt her.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Now all that is needed for Charlie Bolden being quoted in Rolling Stone making remarks about Holdren, Garver, and, of course, The One….

    hah. unlike Stan, Charlie has a clue how the notion of the UCMJ and good military order work.

    Had Stan said similar things about your beloved Bush the last, you would need tranquilizers to calm down.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler – Humor impaired as you are reality impaired, you may not be aware that I was making a joke about Bolden and Rolling Stone. Bolden would more likely having a crying jag than to start grousing about the CINC.

    Also, were you aware that I have stated that Obama was well within his rights sacking MacChrystal?

    I rarely need trancs, but I would have been perturbed as it would have been a lie. In any case, the One has tapped Bush’s General to clean up his mess in Afghanistan.

  • MrEarl

    “Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) described a meeting Tuesday with NASA administrator Charles Bolden as “troubling” because he didn’t see any signs of compromise from the administration.

    Translation: Obama and Bolden won. Porkers Sessions and Shelby lost.”

    Wrong:
    Translation: Stalemate, nothing get done in NASA HSF or commercial HFS.
    Come to think of it, that is Obama was after all along.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “In any case, the One has tapped Bush’s General to clean up his mess in Afghanistan.”

    To replace a guy who was Cheney’s Director of the Joint Staff, I believe. Oh well …

    It probably seems escapist, but given that the purpose of human space flight has so little consensus, the Obama administration may be doing it a favor by pulling the rug out from under the U.S. effort. This would be with the understanding that the ensuing rage/tears/exasperation/confusion will eventually result in a storyline and plan for it that is uniformly accepted by the public, the press, and Congress. That’s a strategy that sometimes actually works, especially with regard to a national investment that you can pull the rug out from under without impacting the quality of life. That there are some glimmers of compromise may be the first signs that the strategy is working.

    Yes, one would like to believe that real leadership would promote consensus without confusion, but it may be that HSF is too far gone. With respect to any kind of grand vision, it’s been running on fumes for many years.

    Unfortunately for Bolden, everyone thinks that he was supposed to be nailing down the rug. No wonder he took so long agreeing to take the A position.

  • @Doug Lassiter

    You may be onto something. Kinda like unplugging your computer’s power cord to do a hard re-boot?

    Anyway, if you are correct, I have two questions that might help amplify and extend these thoughts:

    (1) Once this re-boot is initiated, what role shall (should?) foreign carrier rockets and/or spacecraft play in our space program? Especially whatever BEO initiatives someday emerge?

    (2) How aggressively should we seek funding sources for human spaceflight that are not sourced from the U.S. taxpayers?

    I believe and predict that one consequence of FY2011 (if enacted more or less “as is”) shall be a drastic reduction in the HSF component of NASA’s budget and therefore finding innovative funding for human spaceflight will become mission critical, if we enter a post FY2011 environment.

    = = =

    I very much like this phrasing, ” . . . result in a storyline and plan for it that is uniformly accepted by the public, the press, and Congress . . . ”

    Sounds like what we need are a few good narrative engineers.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Sounds like what we need are a few good narrative engineers.”

    That’s exactly right. A big problem is that we have an engineering community who can come up with oodles of ways of getting there, but who don’t have a clue (or at least can’t cogently express a clue, without falling back on “exploration” and “inspiration”, and even “unobtainium”) about why we should be going there. Re oodles of ways of getting there, the main argument is about cost. But if you don’t have a compelling rationale for what you’re doing that everyone agrees with, cost is irrelevant.

    You and I may have a clue about why we should be going there, but Congress and the American public do not. In the absence of that, it’s about jobs, where NASA becomes just one faucet on the federal bank reservoir.

    Narrative engineers would be nice, and some narrative scientists wouldn’t hurt either.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m as frustrated about the lack of plan/commitment/vision as anyone. But the solution may well be found in the discourse. That would be discourse we’ve never really had.

  • A terrific short essay from January 2004. IMHO, it still rings true today:

    In the aftermath of the breakup of the space shuttle Columbia an important debate on the purpose and future of the U.S. human-space-flight program is under way, though perhaps not as forthrightly as it should be. The issue at stake is not space exploration in itself but the necessity of launching manned (versus robotic) vehicles. Because articles of faith are involved, the arguments tend to be manipulative and hyperbolic. If the debate is to be productive, that needs to change.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/01/a-two-planet-species/2869/

  • DCSCA

    Bolden’s career and mindset is military. He salutes and does what he’s told which is a weak and compliant posture for America’s civilian space agency battling for survial in challenging times. The Peter Principle at work. He served NASA better as an astronaut. If the agency survives, it will be better off when he and Garver move on.

  • DCSCA

    “I can only say ditto to this. Charles Bolden is from my perspective one of the best administrators that NASA has had for quite some time. He not only understands the organization from the ground level, he has leadership experience that is equally impressive. For the Marines that have served under Bolden, I have heard generally nothing but praise and general respect for the guy.”

    Sure, you can respect his service and praise his skill as an astronaut but as an administrator, not so much. Civilians must manage the civilian space agency — not military.

  • DCSCA

    Obama has no interest in space exploration. It’s not something that played any part in shaping his life experience. The most visited place in Washington isn’t the White House where he lives but the NASM, where America’s most treasured space and aviation artifacts reside– and where taxpayers can touch a hard earned fragment of our moon returned by American astronauts. He has more interest in the NBA than in N-A-S-A, not unlike his predecessor, who was more familiar with NASCAR than NASA. The dismissive, simplistic, almost childish, ‘been there, done that’ comment to thwc world and the space community on lunar exploration said it all. There’s a sense that Obama’s public positions are based on recommendations from ‘meritocracies’ that prepare ‘briefs for him’ — as lawyers prefer– for him to read, not on any personal curiosity. ‘Got a title, got a degree, prepare a brief and He will listen to thee.’ It’s a pattern. He read a recommendation prepared by in-fighting bureaucrats at KSC on April 15. That’s all. Same with Afghanistan last year. Mullen recommended McChrystal, Obama accepted it with no apparent deeper review, leading to Wednesday’s dismissal. He endorsed a meritocratic recommendation that offshore drilling was safe earlier this year, then the BP disaster struck. Our concern is the space agency. Manned space exploration’s only hope of survival is with Congress. The White House has already decided on NASA’s fate with respect to manned spaceflight- ‘been there, done that.’

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Obama has no interest in space exploration. It’s not something that played any part in shaping his life experience. ”

    This is a curious statement. Obama told the nation how watching astronauts from the shoulders of his grandfather played a part in his life experience. What other presidents told us that space exploration played any part in shaping their life experience?

    “Been there, done that” (which Obama never actually said) is hardly dismissive, simplistic, or childish. It’s the basis for the spirit of exploration. You’re suggesting our motto should be “Been there, need to do that again”? Also curious.

    I won’t comment on the rest of your post, which is irrelevant to space exploration. And in that respect, doesn’t even merit curiosity.

  • DCSCA

    @DougLassiter- “Obama has no interest in space exploration. It’s not something that played any part in shaping his life experience. ” This is a curious statement. Obama told the nation how watching astronauts from the shoulders of his grandfather played a part in his life experience.

    To borrow a line from Dick Cheney, ‘So?’ This writer attended the U.S. Open as a child and saw Nichlaus and Palmer play up close and remembers it fondly but doesnt give a damn about golf. This writer attended the Indianapolis 500 as a child and remembers it fondly as well but doesn’t give a damn about auto racing. Let’s be kind- Obama was all of 10 when Apollo 17 was recovered –and younger if he was referencing the earlier recovered crews. A quaint memory with a loved one. The rest of your comment is irrelevant. The ‘been there, done that’ mindset is childish, immature and ill-informed, based on the meritocracy arounsd him with little personal curiosity of his own. Suggest you visit the NASA-LRO image bank and take a look at the recent images of the Apollo landing sites. As awesome an achievement as they were for their time, it’s pretty puny stuff to consider the moon as explored. Armstrong, Cernan and Lovell have it right.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    Obama has no interest in space exploration.

    Can you name a president that has?

    In the whole scheme of things going on in the U.S. (and outside), you think Obama should be spending political capital pushing something that is less than 1% of the whole budget? Two wars, high unemployment, an economy still in recovery, and on and on. You, my friend, are pretty ignorant of politics.

    Obama gave Bolden his speech at KSC, and photo-op at SpaceX, and some other supporting speeches, but that’s gonna be about it.

    How many speeches did Bush give pushing NASA programs? Did he spend any political capital on the Constellation budget? Did he threaten to veto the budgets that shorted NASA for Constellation? Better reset your expectations…

  • Did he threaten to veto the budgets that shorted NASA for Constellation?

    Actually, he did once. It was about the only time he ever did. FWIW.

  • DCSCA

    Obama gave Bolden his speech at KSC, and photo-op at SpaceX, and some other supporting speeches, but that’s gonna be about it. <- No kidding. All things NASA are in the 'out box' on desks at the WH now. The fate of U.S. manned space exploration is in the hands of Congress now. That should make everyone at NASA sleep well. If you live along the Space Coast– sell.

  • Ben Joshua

    Doug Lassiter, true and well said.

    The “why” of space exploration is the kernal of the dilemma.

    Post Apollo, raising political and media awareness (not to mention understanding) of spaceflight was a tall order.

    I’m guessing that lowering the cost will get more participants involved, and that will help answer the question, along with some version of, “there’s platinum in dem dere asteroids.”

    In other words, some triggering motivation that speaks to basic human ambition, not a romance with spaceflight or an understanding of the wisdom of stepping out further.

  • DCSCA

    How many speeches did Bush give pushing NASA programs? ROFLMAO A Texan who never visited the JSC. Bush’s interest in space was confined to how much of it he could clear of scrub brush on the south 40 — and some stilted speech he had to give that interrupted his planning just days before he attacked Iraq.

  • DCSCA

    “In other words, some triggering motivation that speaks to basic human ambition, not a romance with spaceflight or an understanding of the wisdom of stepping out further.” <- ROFLMAO It seems a 'base human ambition' in 1957 was fear- see American reaction to Sputnik for details.

  • DCSCA

    The “why” of space exploration is the kernal of the dilemma. <– President Kennedy addressed that in 1962 referencing Hillary's climb of Everest. 'Because it is there.' There is no dilemma. There are always those who'd prefer 'to rest; to wait' and not press onward and outward… which is why the meek shall inherit the Earth.

  • Nemo

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    Actually, he did once. It was about the only time he ever did. FWIW.

    That’s correct.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5498155/
    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/197/1%27

  • Nemo

    DCSCA wrote:

    and some stilted speech he had to give that interrupted his planning just days before he attacked Iraq.

    Incorrect. Bush’s speech announcing the Vision for Space Exploration was on January 14, 2004, almost ten months after the Iraq war started.

  • silence dogood

    Does anyone recall the bet that Bolden made with Obama when he was appointed?

    As I recall, he said that if Malia and Sasha were not excited by what NASA does in a year from the bet, he’ll step down.

  • amightywind

    RGO

    “you dont understand either Space dynamics (Still enjoying your Falcon 9 stuff!)”

    I was one of the few pundits who understood that Falcon 9 was in great distress. I think a pliant press and besotted SpaceX fans were all too eager to declare this flawed mission a success.

  • DCSCA

    @Nemo- Wrong. Suggest you revisit date/time of Bush’s address to the nation the date Columbia disintegrated, which was the intended reference. =sigh=

  • DCSCA

    @Lassiter: From CNN video: Pausing, with a Half-chuckling grin, Obama stated, “But I,I,I,I,I I just have-ta-say, uh, uh, uh, pretty bluntly here, we’ve been there before. Buzz has been there.” – Souce, CNN video, 4/15/10 Gee, Buzz has been there, so it’s explored. Good grief.

    “It was kind of like a ‘been there, done that’ when he explained that a moon mission that happened before and why he was scrapping it.” — source CNN video, 4/15/10 The intent was clear and understood by those attending the address. =sigh=

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    I was one of the few pundits who understood that Falcon 9 was in great distress. I think a pliant press and besotted SpaceX fans were all too eager to declare this flawed mission a success.

    For weeks before the first Falcon 9 flight, SpaceX had been talking about their goals for the flight. Elon Musk stated that day even that their highest hope was to get a successful 1st stage flight, then to get a successful 2nd stage separation, and then to reach orbit. They accomplished all of that.

    What was the “great distress”?

    Also, the roll did not stop them from doing a upper stage engine ignition burn to circularize the orbit of their dummy payload, so I don’t see where it could possibly be described as a “flawed success”.

    Pad operations – Success!
    Launch systems – Success!
    1st stage – Success!
    – – – – – – – – – – Primary test goal
    2nd stage separation – Success!
    2nd stage – Success!
    2nd stage guidance – Success!
    – – – – – – – – – – Secondary test goal
    2nd stage roll control – needs work
    2nd stage restart – Success!
    – – – – – – – – – – Gravy

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Yes, we have been there, and we have done that. NASA showed us 40 years ago how to land on the Moon and return safely. Now others can do it, and NASA can spend it’s scarce resources on doing something that no one else has done before – leave and survive outside the Earth-Moon system.

    The Moon was opened for exploitation after Apollo 11, and just because no one decided to go there and exploit it doesn’t mean that no one will, it’s just that it hasn’t been a priority.

    NASA is not a mining company, and though it may have scientists that would love to do research on the Moon, I’m not prepared to spend $6B/person to send someone back there to chip rocks and play golf. The educational payoff is missing for me.

    If there are so many natural resources on the Moon that we need, then a private company will figure out a business case to attract investors, and use NASA technologies to go there and exploit them. Maybe you’d like to start the investor fund? How much would YOU be willing to risk on the potential riches of the Moon. Put your money where your mouth is – Elon did.

  • Ben Joshua

    We’re no longer afraid of Sputnik, and, “because it’s there” is motivation for the few who live life on the edge, or have the singular vision and drive (and funding) to invent the telephone, fly at Kitty Hawk, develop the polio vaccine, or team up with people of similar vision to accomplish together what one or two people cannot.

    A president may like the idea of a landmark space initiative on his legacy list, but in a serious recession, with deficit hawks ascending, industries more powerful than Space, Inc. lobbying Congress for every irresponsible advantage they can think of, and by the way, a war to be faced and dealt with, a president cannot simply point to Mars or the Moon and say, “Let’s go!”

    Had we proceeded with commercialization decades ago, circumstances might be different, with more people involved in LEO and more profits to be made.

    Alaska was a “folly” before gold, and much of the public attitude toward new space initiatives without an obvious ROI is, “Why bother?”

    I do not agree with that attitude, but politically, how you proceed is more important than that pointing somewhere and saying, “Let’s go.”

  • Bennett

    Coastal Ron wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    Your comment should be required reading. Those four paragraphs are both the answer and the gauntlet.

  • DCSCA

    NASA is not a mining company, and though it may have scientists that would love to do research on the Moon, I’m not prepared to spend $6B/person to send someone back there to chip rocks and play golf. The educational payoff is missing for me. Hmmm. Don’t think anyone suports that as a means to an end. But tally up the hours spent on visiting the moon in six places for very short periods between 1959 and 1972, and deciding we’ve ‘been there’ and it’s explored smacks of a dismissiveness that only spells doom for NASA. If/when manned spaceflight is yanked from NASA, Americans won’t see any reason to keep it around as an independent agency. Not in these times, and frankly, this writer would be one of them, which would be a sad ending to a once fine agency.

  • DCSCA

    “If there are so many natural resources on the Moon that we need, then a private company will figure out a business case to attract investors, and use NASA technologies to go there and exploit them. Maybe you’d like to start the investor fund? How much would YOU be willing to risk on the potential riches of the Moon. Put your money where your mouth is – Elon did.” Nonsense. The closest Musk will ever get to investing in a lunar venture is buying a DVD of of ‘Destination: Moon.’ Musk is will sell his interest in SpaceX within a few years.

    Space exploitation is not space exploration.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    Space exploitation is not space exploration

    And you, apparently, think only the Moon is worthy of exploration.

    Obama never said that no one would ever continue exploring the Moon. NASA has money in their budget to do just that (robotic precursors). But NASA has already done the hard part (land & return), and now there is a blueprint for anyone to follow.

    You don’t seem to want NASA to pursue the hard stuff, but instead satisfy your yearning to see someone bounding about the Moon. I have no doubt they’ll find something interesting, maybe even VERY interesting (for a scientist). But when they come home, we will not have expanded our presence into the space any further than what Neil & Buzz did. They actually satisfied Kennedy’s Moon challenge – all the other missions were repeats.

    It’s been 38 years since we last visited the Moon. We haven’t been in a rush to get back so far, so I would rather spend NASA’s small resources figuring out how to leave the Earth-Moon system, which happens to be a necessity if we’re ever going to get to Mars. This is also the ultimate destination for Bush’s VSE, so if you liked his plan, you can’t disagree much with Obama’s – only the intermediate details.

    My comment about Musk was a little fuzzy, and should have specified that he thought there was value in creating low-cost access to space, and he believed so much that he put up a sizable amount of his fortune to get it going. He put his money where his mouth is. He also thinks that humans are too vulnerable on Earth, and that we need to spread out into space (just in case).

    If YOU think the Moon is so immediately valuable, then you should find others that agree, put your money together, and go explore/exploit the Moon. Heck, Google will even help fund you. If it’s a worthy goal, then you shouldn’t have too much trouble finding the money, and NASA has already proved out the technology for you – go for it!

  • @Coastal Ron @ DSCSA

    If there are so many natural resources on the Moon that we need, then a private company will figure out a business case to attract investors, and use NASA technologies to go there and exploit them.

    This is precisely the premise of my novel, Platinum Moon. Click my name for details.

  • PS — My protagonist also seeks commercial control over EML-1 with the intention of creating a trading cross-roads to the lunar surface and to points beyond cis-lunar space.

  • I guess this makes Bill White a “narrative engineer”.

  • Rhyolite

    “If/when manned spaceflight is yanked from NASA, Americans won’t see any reason to keep it around as an independent agency.”

    Hardly. One of the failings of HSF fans is that they overrate the importance of HSF in the public mind. Two points:

    First, the last time a genuine public outcry caused NASA to do something was saving Hubble Space Telescope. That a Shuttle mission was involved was incidental to keeping an unmanned mission going. There hasn’t been that kind of outcry for keeping Shuttle going even though it has been on the chopping block for the last six years. Americans have shown a genuine attachment to their unmanned missions.

    Second, in 2004, when the Mars Exploration Rovers were active, approximately half of NASA’s web traffic was for Mars related sites. Even though the MER rovers cost an order of magnitude less than Shuttle and Station cost to operate that year, they garnered more attention than all of HSF and nearly all of the rest of NASA combined.

    Americans have already demonstrated a greater attachment and interest in non-HSF exploration than they do in HSF. I see no reason that these would go away or that NASA would go away in the (very unlikely) event that NASA HSF were to go away.

  • DCSCA

    @CostalRon- Exploring the moon is an obvious and logical and challenging step outward into the solar system for any enhanced manned space exploration in this era, given the state of technology in this period of humasn history. It is relatively close by and allows for perfection of space operations for extended periods in the extreme lunar environment as well as the opportunity to perfect techniques, methods and spacecraft operations within a reasonable distance from Earth. This knowledge base can then be used to expand outward to the planets.

  • DCSCA

    @BillWhite- quaint idea, but expanding the human presence out into the cosmos based on business enterprises is amusing fodder for children of the free market Reagan era but a bit myopic. Bear in mind space exploration was initiated by Soviet Russia– and it was hardly a capitalistic endeavor in search of fresh business ventures. The only business/industrialists Americans ever saw plan a moon trip and see it through was at drive-ins watching in the film, “Destination:Moon.” Take a look at Antarctica– the closest analogy on Earth to exploring/exploiting a remote and desolate frontier. Even with the benefit of an atmosphere, it’s been 100 years and what’s there is mainly research facilities– not Disneylands. Expect the same kind of development on the moon within 250-300 years, but don’t expect it to be American.

  • DCSCA

    @Rhyolyte “Americans have already demonstrated a greater attachment and interest in non-HSF exploration than they do in HSF. One of the failings of HSF fans is that they overrate the importance of HSF in the public mind.” Nonsense. Suggest you give the NASM a call– or the visitors center at KSC. Or, for a start, switch on a TV or visit a library. Human spaceflight adventure has been part of American culture for 80 years. Good grief.

  • DCSCA

    and there is nothing in it or in events to suggest Obama is not going to get his space policy. He is. =yawn= no, he wont. not with so many jobs at stake being lost. The gulf is spewing oil and courts overturned his moratorium on exploratory drilling for those 30-plus rigs– the politicians in those states screaming for the jobs.. .and those were comparatively few jobs. Obama’s space policy won’t get off the legal pad it was written on. Not in an election year.

  • brobof

    DCSCA wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 5:21 am
    Precisely hence:”Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Buzz has been there. There’s a lot more of space to explore, and a lot more to learn when we do.”
    We can learn more by TeleOps. The Russians proved that by Lunokhod! The Americans by Sojourner; Spirit & Oppy; Cassini (Huygens) and even @Voyager2 which still tweets from the rim of interstellar space
    “I am currently 12 hrs 42 mins 51 secs of light-travel time from Earth”
    We were quite concerned about the recent bit flip!
    @MarsScienceLab has 12,000 followers and she isn’t even launched yet. @CassiniSaturn nearly 45,000 followers and @MarsRovers nearly 49,000 followers. Whilst previous generations were happy to follow a select few; nowadays we all want a piece. It would seem that we relate quite well to our robotic proxies. Our future Lunar Avatars even more so. Wrt HSF we won’t start ‘real’ exploration until we reach EML-2 or some asteroidal fragment in L5/4.

    Antarctica? Er. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty refers. The politics of Lunar Exploitation are even more fraught!

  • Doug Lassiter

    ““It was kind of like a ‘been there, done that’ when he explained that a moon mission that happened before and why he was scrapping it.” — source CNN video, 4/15/10 The intent was clear and understood by those attending the address.”

    I’m not arguing with you that what Obama said was equivalent to this. I’m saying that he’s right. It pretty much comes down to what our HSF effort is all about (see previous post). If it’s about going new places, he’s right. If it’s about colonizing the Moon, then I guess he’s wrong.

    That emplacement of an outpost on the Moon might well assist in going new places is an idea that does have some merit, and the new plan certainly doesn’t reject a return to the Moon to do that. People who see the new plan as a wholesale rejection of the Moon need to clean their glasses. What the plan does is focus on the prime goal, and doing what we’ve already done isn’t the prime goal.

    “Been there, done that” is a simplistic way of looking at the issue, but sometimes popular acceptance of a difficult idea requires a simplified sound bite. I’ll say it again. “Been there, need to do it again” ain’t a sound bite that is going to excite anyone, even if it’s going to be done again with steroids.

    I also never stated that Obama’s life experience was fundamentally impacted by watching astronauts return. I’m guessing Obama saw a premier golf tournament too, as a child. as you did. He probably saw some awesome hula as well! But he didn’t think it significant to mention those to the nation. He did think it significant to tell us about being on his grandfather’s shoulders watching astronauts. Obama drew a personal line between what he considered a significant life experience and HSF. No other president has done that. The bit about his grandfather’s shoulders is a nice touch, because it evokes passing along pride and accomplishment to a new generation. I know that’s a hard fact for some to digest that HSF once touched his heart, but seems to be true. Get over it.

    Now, that Obama will see implementation of his space policy is hardly assured. This country has a lot of serious challenges right now — a full scale war, and environmental disaster, an economic free-fall, and in some respects those serious challenges are what derailed Constellation even in the last administration. If Obama’s space policy won’t get off the legal pad it was written on (which would put him right up there with the last half dozen or more of his predecessors), it may be because other more important policy did. That’s what he was elected to do.

  • @brobof

    Antarctica? Er. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty refers. The politics of Lunar Exploitation are even more fraught!

    Indeed.

    IMHO, the viability of ISRU (and the hurdles to viability include economic, technical and legal issues) is one of those hinge points that shall determine whether humanity has a shot at becoming a multi-planet species. Our ability to mitigate radiation and otherwise thrive in microgravity are additional hinge points. And there are others.

    And yet these hinge points all involve the same the core question — might our species someday become a genuine multi-planet species capable of safely and routinely making healthy babies at multiple celestial locations?

    Anyway, the politics of lunar ISRU (and thus issues of lunar property rights) are fascinating to me because these would seem to reprise old debates about the origins of property law and for me at least lead back to the re-examination of folks such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, if not Marx and Proudhon.

    Books I was assigned to read as an undergraduate, never expecting there might someday be practical application of these words in resolving the question:

    “Who will someday own the Moon?”

  • Musk is will sell his interest in SpaceX within a few years.

    Apparently you are completely ignorant about Elon Musk.

  • common sense

    @ Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:53 am

    “I also never stated that Obama’s life experience was fundamentally impacted by watching astronauts return. ”

    How would you like a President of the USA whose life was fundamentally impacted by watching astronauts return? I am not arguing with you Doug, just saying. How crazy would anyone be to vote for an astronaut groupie??? And if it had been the case I am sure he’d be looking for a job as an astronaut… Now for those fans of watching stones grow on the beach: How great would it be to have a President whose life was fundamentally impacted by watching stones on a beach???

    Doug I know you were not saying this but it’s for the rest of who actually are…

  • brobof

    Bill White wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 10:16 am
    “Who will someday own the Moon?”

    We do! Right now! I pontificate about the subject here: http://brobof.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/moon-pie/
    with some hopefully constructive solutions.

    For more rigourous analysis:
    http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/COPUOS/Legal/2009/symposium.html
    I would PARTICULARLY recommend:
    “The negotiation of the Moon Agreement” Judge Helmut Türk,
    Vice-President, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
    and
    “The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle: the Moon and Lunar Resources”
    Juan Manuel de Faramiñán Gilbert, University of Jaén, Spain

  • Doug Lassiter

    “How would you like a President of the USA whose life was fundamentally impacted by watching astronauts return? I am not arguing with you Doug, just saying. How crazy would anyone be to vote for an astronaut groupie??? ”

    That’s a good point, and it kind of highlights one of the two legs this tippy stool is standing on. The first is “exploration”, and the second is “inspiration”. We don’t understand what either of those words mean, with regard to space flight, and we hide behind them. Would we say that Barack Obama was “inspired” by what he saw sitting on his grandads shoulders? Um, well, maybe it wasn’t a divine revelation, and maybe it didn’t even lead to his going home and building rockets out of Tinkertoys. Maybe the lesson he got out of that experience just reinforced the lessons he got from other brave people doing hard things, of which there were a legion. As a result, here’s an administration being brave and doing hard things (as each of Obama’s predecessors did, including those before Apollo). By the same token that we shouldn’t vote for an “astronaut groupie” to lead the nation, we shouldn’t give special credence to an initiative because of it’s ability to attract such groupies.

    I was part of the Apollo generation, but it sure is hard to say that watching the first footsteps on the Moon had any more to do with my future career than the excitement about science, technology, and competition with the USSR that put those astronauts there in the first place. That excitement came from many directions. Connecting human space flight with “inspiration” is a chicken-and-egg kind of thing.

  • common sense

    @ Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    May be his inspiration relates to what the USA can (could?) accomplish if we put our will to it together. Heck, if we can go to the Moon what is there we cannot do? As a nation? As a people? That for sure is inspiring but in the big picture kind of a way. Not in a narrow space view kind of a way.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Heck, if we can go to the Moon what is there we cannot do? ”

    Some would say we should put an outpost on the Moon, and even put a seventh flag there (with footprints). But that’s not really “big picture”, is it? Unfortunately, what we cannot do is do it again, because we can’t put our will together to do it. as measured by our investment. There are too many other important things demanding our will, and our money. The challenge for this administration is understanding what we can put our will together to do.

  • common sense

    @ Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Yes.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 11:06 am <– It's more than apparent you are ignorant of seeing a capitalist at work. He'll get it up and flying a few times and cash out. He did it with PayPal; he'll do it with SpaceX.

  • DCSCA

    @brobof- “Precisely hence:”But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Buzz has been there. ” <– Inaccurate. This writers posting is verbatum from CNN video of 4/15/10. But you go on believing President Obama's plans for a space program will materialize in 2020, 2030 and beyond. He said he'd close Gitmo, too.

  • DCSCA

    @Lassiter-“I’m not arguing with you that what Obama said was equivalent to this. I’m saying that he’s right.”

    Disagree. Armstrong, Cernan and Lovell are correct. Suggest you visit the NASA LRO image bank and review the recent images of the Apollo landing sites from 40 years ago. Although they were triumphs of technology, organization and planning in their time, it’s pretty puny stuff to use to rationalize away that the moon’s been ‘explored’ as we’ve ‘been there, done that.’ If/when manned space exploration is eliminated from NASA and a multi-year, decade long gap is established w/no new manned space vehicle is in the pipeline, the civilian space agency is finished in this economic climate. It will be dissolved by politicians hungry to eliminate any government agency in what will soon be an era of auterity Americans haven’t known since the Great Depression.

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    “Apollo landing sites from 40 years ago. ”

    Yes. 40 years ago is a leitmotiv of yours. Things were so much better then. This writer thinks you’d better start to look at the future and no so much at the past. I was much younger 40 years ago. So?

  • DCSCA

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:53 am Here’s the difference between Obama’s experience –and yours. This writer is a few years older. In the same era of Obama’s welcoming experience and our shared experience of witnessing men first reach the moon, this writer was fortunate enough to have met the Apollo 11 crew at a reception in the U.S. embassy in London less than 90 days after their return; and a year or two later, Von Braun as well. Those encounters left a more positive and inspiring impression than Obama’s recovery encounter did with him. Or golf matches, Indy 500s and Kentucky Derbys did with this writer. And both encounters have had nothing to do with personal career development. Manned space exploration is a certainty. Whether it is led by Americans is not.

  • DCSCA

    common sense wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 4:44 pm <- if you beleive those LRO images of the Apollo landing sites taken over the past 12 months satisfy your threshold of the moon being 'explored' then 'common sense' is something you most assuredly lack.

  • DCSCA

    “Some would say we should put an outpost on the Moon, and even put a seventh flag there (with footprints). But that’s not really “big picture”, is it?” <- it's part of a very, very, very big picture, if you can see it. But if lunar exploration to you is only flags and footprints, you don't– and you can get that rush in Antarctica, or walking along a tide-swept beach.

  • DCSCA

    “How crazy would anyone be to vote for an astronaut groupie???” <— ROFLMAO. Apparently no less crazy than voting for devotees of Ayn Rand. See the Reagan era for details. Good grief.

  • He did it with PayPal; he’ll do it with SpaceX.

    One of these things is not like the other. Again, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of Elon Musk. If his goal was to get rich and cash out, commercial space is the last place he would have put his money.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “If/when manned space exploration is eliminated from NASA and a multi-year, decade long gap is established w/no new manned space vehicle is in the pipeline, the civilian space agency is finished in this economic climate. It will be dissolved by politicians hungry to eliminate any government agency in what will soon be an era of auterity Americans haven’t known since the Great Depression.”

    I hear ya talking’. But that’s a pretty long sound bite. It also doesn’t say anything about national needs. The issue is what such work can do for the country, not whether there is going to be a space agency (to provide civil service jobs?), which you seem to be focusing on. I don’t think anyone said that we shouldn’t go back to the Moon because “It’s been explored”. They’re saying that the Moon doesn’t have to be a priority for humans because we’ve been there many times. It’s not as exciting as it used to be. Please get that straight. There is a lot left to explore on the Moon, even for humans. But that doesn’t make it a high priority.

    The most cogent argument against “been there, done that” is a clear sound bite about how “not going back there, won’t do that”. What exactly are we not going to do by not making an unaffordable lunar return for humans a top priority?

    “It will be dissolved by politicians hungry to eliminate any government agency in what will soon be an era of auterity Americans haven’t known since the Great Depression.”

    Yep. It has to do with fiscal responsibility. The Augustine committee declared that Constellation was fiscally unexecutable. If space exploration can’t justify itself in terms of national needs, more power to the hungry politicians who would eliminate it as they reach for austerity. What the new plan hopes to do is make such voyages more affordable.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Here’s the difference between Obama’s experience –and yours.”

    Your post is hard to understand. What precisely are you trying to say? That you met the Apollo 11 crew and von Braun? Nice, and also whoopdedoo. So on the basis of this experience, which practically no one else had, you’re going to lecture us about inspiration, and how inspiration from human space flight benefits the masses? C’mon now.

    Positive and inspiring impression, eh? What positive thing did that meeting inspire you to do? I know teenagers who have had “positive and inspiring” impressions from autograph sessions with celebrities. Gotta hand it to those “positive and inspiring” impressions!

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- “He did it with PayPal; he’ll do it with SpaceX. One of these things is not like the other. Again, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of Elon Musk.” Again, you display a profound ignorance of a smart business man at work and a basic knowledge of capitalism in play. He will sell it. He should sell it for the right price and investors will demand it. It’s the smart move to make. He has partnered up Tesla; he has sold Paypal; he will sell his interest in SpaceX. He’s a ‘capitalist’– and their goal is to make money.

  • DCSCA

    @Lassiter- Positive and inspiring impression, eh? What positive thing did that meeting inspire you to do? Clearly more than it did for Presdient Obama. Nobody is lecturing you. Either you get it or you don’t. It seems you didn’t.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Either you get it or you don’t. It seems you didn’t.”

    I didn’t. Movin’ on.

  • He has partnered up Tesla; he has sold Paypal

    Neither Tesla or Paypal are going to get him to Mars. They were means to an end.

  • DCSCA

    I didn’t. Movin’ on. <- ROFLMAO If Obama's space policy in put into effect, you'll be movin' on to a new career.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
    He has partnered up Tesla; he has sold Paypal. Neither Tesla or Paypal are going to get him to Mars. They were means to an end. The only ‘Mars’ Musk will ever reach with any reasonable time frame though cost effective transportation is by Greyhound bus to Mars, Pennsylvania.

  • OK. We get it. You know nothing about Elon Musk, and you are an idiot in wanting to flaunt your ignorance.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
    OK. We get it.

    We?? Idiot?? Please, speak for yourself. Let’s review your lessons for today- Nixon killed Apollo, not LBJ; Musk is a capitalist who is in business to turn a profit for himself and his investors- he is not Wernher von Braun. He has sold his interests in other projects he has started and he will sell his stake in SpaceX for the right price, as a good CEO capitalist should, for himself and his invetors; Musk and a trailer full of his space hardware is more likely to visit Mars, Pennsylvania before any of it ever gets close to the planet Mars. And finally, 1+1=2, not 11.

  • OK, in other words, you persist in your ignorance of both history and Elon Musk.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 1:16 am
    OK, in other words, you persist in your ignorance of both history and Elon Musk. <— We've already ascertained 'history' is not your strong point, Rand. Suggest you brush up on how capitalists operate as well. Musk is no von Braun. He'll sell when the price is right– and rightly so. It's the right thing to do for his investors and himself. But you'll learn that soon enough.

  • The price for Elon is a ticket to Mars.

    Idiot.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 1:35 am
    The price for Elon is a ticket to Mars. Idiot. <- Speak for yourself. You'll learn soon enough. "The price" of a ticket for 'Elon' from LA, CA to Mars, PA is less than $200.

  • brobof

    DCSCA wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    @brobof- “Precisely hence:”But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Buzz has been there. ” <– Inaccurate. This writers posting is verbatum from CNN video of 4/15/10. But you go on believing President Obama's plans for a space program will materialize in 2020, 2030 and beyond. He said he'd close Gitmo, too.

    I cut and pasted from the transcript: But if you want to make a point of style over substance…

    writer's
    verbatim <- ROTFLMAO

    http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html http://www.nasa.gov/about/obamaspeechfeature.html

    Your partisan sniping adds little to this thread. However since you raise a straw Gitmo: Bush legacy. Republican intransigence. Congressional Failure. Starting to sound familiar?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html
    Be careful DCSCA. It's dark and cold and wet under the bridge!

  • DCSCA

    @brobof “Be careful… It’s dark and cold and wet under the bridge!” This writer wouldn’t know. You clearly do.

  • DCSCA

    @brobof<– And while you're there, say 'hi' to Cheney.

    Per candidate Obama’s space policy paper of 2008, ‘Candidate Obama’ has certainly embraced ‘change’– his own.

    "Embracing Human Space Exploration:

    Human spaceflight is important to America’s political, economic, technological, and scientific leadership. Barack Obama will support renewed human exploration beyond low earth orbit.”

    “He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more
    distant destinations, including Mars.” -source,

    http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/policy/Space_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf

    Oops! Change you can believe in… President Obama, not so much with respect to space.

  • brobof

    DCSCA wrote @ June 26th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
    I an unreliably informed that your ex VP can’t get under the bridge something about running water. And hawthorn. And garlic.

    Heck I would have endorsed a Moon landing in 2020!
    However for an extra $159 billion??? (6.2.4 Unconstrained Program of Record with the ISS Extension.) Ahh but you want to trash the ISS. So thats only $145 billion then. Trying to do that within the budget meant 2030’s (If ever.)
    Change? Too right he changed.
    Try re-reading his speech again. Without the partisan blinkers.
    When I let go of what I am,
    I become what I might be.
    Lao Tzu

  • Luke

    I feel that the past 20 years or so have been wasted effort on the silly “international” space can. It really has not resulted in anything of scientific or political recompense, short of a few thousand tons of space garbage. We should have been developing a REAL moon base, with an underground element. By now , we would have established a far larger presence and knowledge base of the moon , and a launching point for more than just another photo op.

Leave a Reply to Rand Simberg Cancel 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>