White House

The new national space policy is out

The White House released at around 2 pm EDT today the administration’s new national space policy, along with a fact sheet and a statement by the president about the policy. A quick glance through the policy (and comparison to the 2006 policy issued by the Bush Administration) reveals a few initial impressions:

  • The new policy seems to emphasize a greater need for international cooperation but also greater responsibility by all spacefaring nations. A quote from the introduction: “All nations have the right to use and explore space, but with this right also comes responsibility. The United States, therefore, calls on all nations to work together to adopt approaches for responsible activity in space to preserve this right for the benefit of future generations.”
  • The new policy appears to walk back some of the more strident (in the eyes of critics) language of the 2006 policy, taking out the US-first emphasis some saw in the older policy. Compare this quote from the 2006 policy’s principles section—”Consistent with this principle, ‘peaceful purposes’ allow U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests.”—with the related portion of the new policy: “Consistent with this principle, ‘peaceful purposes’ allows for space to be used for national and homeland security activities.”
  • There is a greater emphasis on promoting commercial space in the new policy. However, some might find the portion of the policy dealing with export control lacking, given the interest in ITAR reform. The new policy notes that “…space-related items that are determined to be generally available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably with a view that such exports are usually in the national interests of the United States.” That’s similar to the 2006 policy, which noted that “space-related exports that are currently available or are planned to be available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably.”

What else do you see, or don’t see, in the new policy?

91 comments to The new national space policy is out

  • 2006:

    Implement and sustain an innovative human and robotic exploration program with the objective of extending human presence across the solar system;

    2010:

    Pursue human and robotic initiatives to develop innovative technologies, foster new industries, strengthen international partnerships, inspire our Nation and the world, increase humanity’s understanding of the Earth, enhance scientific discovery, and explore our solar system and the universe beyond.

    = = =

    In 2006, extending human presence across the solar system was itself the goal. In 2010, human initiatives are seen as a possible means to do science and to “explore”

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Bill, I think, hits the nail. Obama walks back from the Bush era goal of establishing a space faring civilization. This puts the abandonment of the Moon in a new light.

  • Major Tom

    BW: “In 2010, human initiatives are seen as a possible means to do science and to ‘explore'”

    No, per the quote you provided, human (and robotic) activities are means to “develop innovative technologies, foster new industries, strengthen international partnerships, inspire our Nation and the world, [and] increase humanity’s understanding of the Earth” in addition to “scientific discovery” and exploring “our solar system and the universe beyond.”

    FWIW…

  • Egad

    “In 2006, extending human presence across the solar system was itself the goal. ”

    Which was, at the time, “Apollo on steroids.” Let us know when that was supposed to extend human presence across the solar system. I don’t hold out a lot of hope for the Obama plan, whatever it turns out to be, but it currently looks a lot more like the Bush VSE of January 14, 2004 than the version of 2006. Which, FWIW, is a good thing.

  • Major Tom

    “Obama walks back from the Bush era goal of establishing a space faring civilization.”

    There was no such goal in the Bush II policy. The goal was an “innovative human and robotic exploration program” that was suppossed to be “extending human presence across the solar system”. Even if the program had turned out to be innovative and successful, the policy emphasis was on “exploration” and “presence”, neither of which require or involve “establishing” any “civilization”, “space faring [sic]” or otherwise.

    Read for comprehension.

    FWIW…

  • This little paper issued by the dizzy Obama white house means exactly NOTHING. Folks here will read all sorts of stuff into it but it means ZERO. The Obama attempt to gut NASA’s ability to launch astronauts has been stopped cold in the Congress- in fact, it is in reverse. This little statement will do nothing to change that- nor will anything posted anywhere by Oler or Major Toe. They are, however, good for comic relief.

  • Gary Church

    I predict Soyuz will be performing minimum crew rotations until the ISS is abandoned. A good solar event requiring a crew return to earth would be enough to end that program. And then all that will be left is SpaceX tourists on a list and with no place to party that list will shrink and the HSF travel agent office will close. And that will be the end.

  • mark valah

    2006: Let’s extend the human presence across the solar system
    2010: Lyrics on music of the spheres…

  • Mrearl

    MT:
    You can try to spin this or split hairs all you want but in 2006 there is a goal of a sustained effort to extend the human presence across the solar system.
    The Obama policy may take us for a spin around an astirod 15 years from now. Oh boy!

  • I do think that it’s a step backwards. I don’t see the new policy as requiring humans anywhere beyond LEO, if that, whereas the previous one was quite explicit about it. I supported the new budget, and I remain glad that we killed off the Constellation zombie, but I do not support the new policy wording. I await an explanation of why it was changed. I’m not holding my breath.

  • I certainly do not wish to defend the Griffin/Bush Program of Record as I believe that was an unfolding train wreck. And if the metric to judge FY2011 is “Is it better than the ESAS PoR” then we have set a very low bar indeed.

    On the other hand, just because the ESAS PoR was an unfolding train wreck does not mean this new policy will accomplish much, either.

    My largest complaint about the new space policy are its Rorschach qualities, its ability to be all things to all people and absorb whatever preconceived hopes or fears various individuals may bring to it. Thus, scarcely a plan at all.

    In any event, “an asteroid mission by 2025″ is the type of goal as easily dismissed by POTUS 45 as “Moon by 2020″ was dismissed by POTUS 44 and thus, Congress can easily cancel funding for all BEO capabilities as being premature, including HLVs and LEO fuel depots and new kerosene engines.

  • John Malkin

    The fact sheet states:

    The United States will advance a bold new approach to space exploration. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will engage in a program of human and robotic exploration of the solar system, develop new and transformative technologies for more affordable human exploration beyond the Earth, seek partnerships with the private sector to enable commercial spaceflight capabilities for the transport of crew and cargo to and from the International Space Station, and begin human missions to new destinations by 2025.

    It’s always “by” so NASA could do it before for once instead of after 2025 which everybody keeps saying. I guess we are just use to NASA never meeting a date. So is the date that important?

  • Is that 2025 date in the policy, or just the fact sheet?

  • Doug Lassiter

    I agree that this document means rather little in the context of human space flight. But let’s not get too hot under the collar about extending human presence across the solar system. VSE didn’t have a reason why we should do that (there may be such reasons, but they have never been cogently stated) and this policy document simply acknowledges that fact. To “explore the solar system and the universe beyond” simply reaches for those reasons. Such extension isn’t a national need. If we find something that makes it worthwhile to extend ourselves, then let’s go for it. Certainly preservation of the species is a good reason, but that’s not a goal of any accepted policy. Please don’t tell me that bringing the solar system into our economic sphere requires humans being there. LEO and GEO are very much in our economic sphere, and it isn’t because we happen to have people sitting in the ISS.

    That this policy has “Rorschach qualities” is quite true, but that’s what very general policy papers are supposed to have. They’re supposed to be about creating words that unify otherwise disparate goals. As such, they are not what an engineer would want to call “plans”. Sorry, but that’s the way it works.

    I was impressed with the new mandate for developing space nuclear power. That effort was abandoned by the previous NASA A, and is critically important to any large scale efforts in space. Mining and refining in space using solar power is not very credible, and reliance on conventional propellants for large scale propulsion BEO is also pretty itchy.

  • Major Tom

    “MT:
    You can try to spin this or split hairs all you want but in 2006 there is a goal of a sustained effort to extend the human presence across the solar system.”

    I agree — your language is almost identical to the Bush II policy language. My earlier point is that the Bush II language does not require or even involve “establishing a space faring [sic] civilization”, per the other posters’ language.

    Neither the Bush II policy nor the new policy (nor any White House policy or law passed by Congress in NASA’s history) sets space settlement or space colonization goals. We space cadets might wish otherwise, but it’s simply never been policy reality. There may be much to criticize in the new policy, but criticizing it on the basis of goals that never existed in prior policies is out of touch with reality. This is a federal policy document, not a sci fi novel.

    “The Obama policy may take us for a spin around an astirod 15 years from now. Oh boy!”

    That’s not what the policy states. It states:

    “The United States will advance a bold new approach to space exploration. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will engage in a program of human and robotic exploration of the solar system, develop new and transformative technologies for more affordable human exploration beyond the Earth, seek partnerships with the private sector to enable commercial spaceflight capabilities for the transport of crew and cargo to and from the International Space Station, and begin human missions to new destinations by 2025.”

    It also states:

    “The Administrator of NASA shall:

    – Set far-reaching exploration milestones. By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth;

    – Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond, and expand efforts to: utilize the ISS for scientific, technological, commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes; support activities requiring the unique attributes of humans in space; serve as a continuous human presence in Earth orbit; and support future objectives in human space exploration;

    – Seek partnerships with the private sector to enable safe, reliable, and cost-effective commercial spaceflight capabilities and services for the transport of crew and cargo to and from the ISS;

    – Implement a new space technology development and test program, working with industry, academia, and international partners to build, fly, and test several key technologies that can increase the capabilities, decrease the costs, and expand the opportunities for future space activities;

    – Conduct research and development in support of next-generation launch systems, including new U.S. rocket engine technologies;

    – Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system to: conduct scientific investigations of other planetary bodies; demonstrate new technologies; and scout locations for future human missions;

    – Continue a strong program of space science for observations, research, and analysis of our Sun, solar system, and universe to enhance knowledge of the cosmos, further our understanding of fundamental natural and physical sciences, understand the conditions that may support the development of life, and search for planetary bodies and Earth-like planets in orbit around other stars; and

    – Pursue capabilities, in cooperation with other departments, agencies, and commercial partners, to detect, track, catalog, and characterize near-Earth objects to reduce the risk of harm to humans from an unexpected impact on our planet and to identify potentially resource-rich planetary objects.”

    Don’t make things up.

    FWIW…

  • Mrearl

    You’re right, it makes no mention of going anywhere 2025.
    My bad

  • Major Tom

    “You’re right, it makes no mention of going anywhere 2025.”

    Yes, it does:

    “By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid. By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth”

    Read for comprehension.

    Ugh…

  • Robert G. Oler

    This is so humorous. All these “space policy statements” remind me of the Leslie Nelson character on Police Squad addressing the Academy Awards crowd (to paraphrase) “lets all send signals to Premier no tay woo so he will make nice” as Mrs. Presely gives him the stretch sign.

    I find it humorous that people are arguing one way or the other about things that are suppose to happen in 2025.

    That is 15 years from now.

    Who in 1995 would have imagined that we would be running nearly 2 trillion dollar deficits, have fought two needless wars that have consumed trillions and …all the other silly things that have happened.

    By 2025 we will be lucky if we have the deficit under control.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    I rather like the Commercial Space Guidelines, especially “Refrain from conducting United States Government space activities that preclude, discourage, or compete with U.S. commercial space activities, unless required by national security or public safety;”

    This is important, and won’t be missed by the folks at ULA etc.

    Beyond that, I find it sad that no matter what was laid out in this document, those that want to interpret it as “the death of HSF” would do so. Those that think “there are no dates or goals” will find ways to spin it to mean “no dates or goals” even if that’s not the intent of this policy document.

    I’m beginning to think that even when we’re orbiting the moon, sending down robots to collect samples of ice, these same people will find some way to claim that it’s all a lie, that it could be done better some other way.

    I’m beginning to think that these debates are pointless in light of the divisions created by CxP and Shuttle Retirement. It doesn’t have to be that way, but some people don’t want to see anything but failure until “their man” is President of the United States.

    That’s not why I follow NASA or the other HSF and Robotic Space Exploration missions our planet manages to engineer. The politics I’m interested in is “how can we get it done?”

  • MrEarl

    Oh, Bennett, you and MT are the types that can come downstairs on Christmas morning to a living room knee high in poop and be so excited thinking there’s a pony somewhere.
    Back to Neverland my friends, first star to the right and straight on till morning.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    Oh, Bennett, you and MT are the types that can come downstairs on Christmas morning to a living room knee high in poop and be so excited thinking there’s a pony somewhere…

    count me in that crowd. After 30 years of NASA BS (“Fred and Bill are docking the shuttle to the station at 17,500 mph”) the present situation though difficult is wonderful.

    I have always found it amusing that the “right of center” (grin) crowd is blown over this policy…in everything else they are for free enterprise…not so much here…and their theory on deficits was to make cuts in federal spending so necessary that their favorite programs go away..and now their “take over the Moon” program is toasting.

    A pony indeed

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Oh, Bennett, you and MT are the types that can come downstairs on Christmas morning to a living room knee high in poop and be so excited thinking there’s a pony somewhere.”

    When you’re done throwing excrement-based insults and instead want to discuss the language in the new policy as it actually exists in black and white, let us know.

    Otherwise, take your ugly ad hominem arguments elsewhere.

    Double ugh…

  • Bennett

    Robert wrote “the present situation though difficult, is wonderful.”

    Amen to that.

    The dissection going on over at Rand’s blog is pretty good. Although Rand’s first reaction to the policy was not so hot (he had only skimmed it before posting), many of his readers have pointed out the more positive aspects.

    Such as ” The United States will advance a bold new approach to space
    exploration. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration will
    engage in a program of human and robotic exploration of the solar
    system, develop new and transformative technologies for more affordable
    human exploration beyond the Earth, seek partnerships with the private
    sector to enable commercial spaceflight capabilities for the transport
    of crew and cargo to and from the International Space Station, and begin
    human missions to new destinations by 2025.”

    By gum, it IS a pony.

  • Rand Simberg wrote:

    I don’t see the new policy as requiring humans anywhere beyond LEO, if that, whereas the previous one was quite explicit about it.

    As we’ve discussed, and I’ve posted as nauseam, nothing in the National Aeronautics and Space Act requires NASA to fly humans into space, to explore other worlds, or even to own its rockets.

    I haven’t read through the policy yet, but it sounds like the document brings the policy closer in alignment to what the law states is NASA’s role.

    I’m all for human exploration beyond LEO, but humanity should go to deep space as a species, not as one nation bearing all the costs. NASA should be leading in the technology development, as the law specifies. NASA should also be encouraging commercial access to space, as the law was amended by the Reagan administration in 1984.

  • MrEarl

    Tom, you desperately need a sense of humor.
    There is nothing in this policy to give anyone any hope that the US will get beyond Earth orbit any time in the near future. It’s just more meaningless platitudes for human space flight. YOU are the one that should read and comprehend. These are nonsense missions. Why would you spend the huge sum of money and take two years to orbit Mars or an asteroid and not land? Oh, that’s right, we’ll do it sometime in the future. When? Who knows?

  • DCSCA

    President Obama’s ‘space policy’ today is 180 degrees from Candidate [Senator] Obama’s stated position less than 24 months ago:

    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.”

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

    Change you can believe in– perhaps. President Obama, maybe not so much. No matter. He’s shaping up to ne a one-termer.

  • Vladislaw

    I thought the new space policy broke ground in a few areas. If you look at the historical United States of America’s National Space Policy reports given by past Presidents, this one finally put nuclear power right up front and in big letters:

    Space Nuclear Power
    The United States shall develop and use space nuclear power systems where such systems safely enable or significantly enhance space exploration or operational capabilities.

    Approval by the President or his designee shall be required to launch and use United States Government spacecraft utilizing nuclear power systems either with a potential for criticality or above a minimum threshold of radioactivity, in accordance with the existing interagency review process. To inform this decision, the Secretary of Energy shall conduct a nuclear safety analysis for evaluation by an ad hoc Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel that will evaluate the risks associated with launch and in-space operations.

    The Secretary of Energy shall:
    ••Assist the Secretary of Transportation in the licensing of space transportation activities involving spacecraft with nuclear power systems”

    Not only will it now be the policy of the U.S. to develop nuclear powered space systems but to also actively use them.

    One other thing of note, traditionally over the last fifty years space policy was about two things, civil space and military. Now it adds commercial to the mix in a very big way as about one third of the document deals with the coming importance of commercial space.

    No one seems to see the boom coming until after it starts, I believe we are near the tipping point.

  • Gary Church

    “I believe we are near the tipping point.”

    Yes, the tipping point of no manned space program. Nuclear powered space systems is pretty specific. It is different than nuclear propelled. Power has never been an issue- it is propulsion. Nuclear electric is worthless and VASIMIR is not going to work without lightweight hi-power reactors which is about as likely as anti-gravity.

    The only viable system is Nuclear Pulse; bombs. If that can be interpreted as nuclear powered than I will dance the night away. But I am not getting that warm fuzzy feeling.

    And is there any mention of HLV’s?

  • Brian Paine

    Question: Who feels truely inspired by this policy?

  • Bennett

    DCSCA wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    The reason your comment is nothing but background troll noise is because instead of considering the document for what it is, and pointing out the good and the bad in it (from your perspective), you use it to attack something that is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

    A troll adds nothing to the conversation, or worse. If this blog was moderated to screen out pointless opinions, your comment would not make the cut.

    You try to present yourself as a mature adult with a valid opinion, can you live up to your own billing?

  • Bennett

    Brian Paine wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    Maybe a program director at ULA, or thousands of engineers approaching graduation?

  • @Stephen C. Smith

    I’m all for human exploration beyond LEO, but humanity should go to deep space as a species, not as one nation bearing all the costs.

    And, as I’ve posted ad nauseam . . .

    :-)

    . . . an internationally operated EML Gateway depot would facilitate what you describe as well as create larger markets for commercial crew & cargo as well as facilitate exploration of the lunar surface, NEOs, Phobos/Deimos and Mars.

  • Set it straight

    Here’s the real problem… Goals 15 years in the future is rubbish… Space policies should only be good for the term of the president… Oler is right in this sense. To plan anything outside the next few years is like looking into a bad crystal ball.

  • Derrick

    MrEarl wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 8:02 pm …

    Even quoting Star Trek VI won’t encourage anyone to take your position seriously.

  • Mrearl

    Derrick:
    That line is from Peter Pan. I thought the Neverland reference would be the clue.
    What I was trying to convay was that people who think the Obama policy will get us past LEO is living in Neverland. You can’t gut a human space program the way they have and expect great things.

  • Bennett

    Mrearl wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    There’s no point in arguing with you.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Set it straight

    We’ve been operating at 15 year increments for a good long time. Certainly, when VSE was announced, it was, wait for it

    15 years in the future.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 8:44 pm


    There is nothing in this policy to give anyone any hope that the US will get beyond Earth orbit any time in the near future. …

    that is because there is no hope that the US (or any nation) will send humans beyond GEO for quite a while perhaps a decade.

    there really hasnt been for sometime because NASA is so screwed up…but the death knell for any real effort to send people (in the US) was the cluster frack that Mike Griffin made of “the vision”. There was a window there where had Griffin cobbled something together that was doable within the current budget and actually was flying “about now” that inertia could carry the thing to completion.

    But a era in US politics is ending and ending with it is the spending on HSF for exploration.

    It is not only the national debt, the declining US economy, the unemployment numbers…it is that after 8 years of Bush screwing everything he touched and Obama intent so far on following that policy…and industry growing more and more intent of screwing the American people…

    the American people are running out of enthusiasm for “big government” programs and that includes things like Government exploration of space. All the polls indicate this in general and about human space exploration in general.

    Worse the world space powers are also tightening in terms of the dollars they are willing to spend on “frivilous” things. and that is human spaceflight.

    It is to bad that Griffin’s management of “the vision” was as big as a cluster as it was.

    Dont worry, uncrewed flights will continue, just put those on the computer and in the background have some shuttle R/T going and you wont be able to tell the difference.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Here’s the real problem… Goals 15 years in the future is rubbish… Space policies should only be good for the term of the president…”

    As I said above, the misunderstanding here is “plans” versus “policy”. Making plans 15 years in the future is certainly rubbish, or at least wishful thinking. Policy is a direction. It’s not a destination or a date. It provides guidance about what’s important to us, and how that bears on making plans. It’s a metric by which you give value to planning options. Strategic planning is part of policy. A strategic plan is an existence proof that argues there is a path that’s worth taking. It’s not a promise about which path we’ll end up taking, or even which path is going to turn out to be best. Policy is most certainly NOT something that pertains to one presidential term. Engineers, scientists, and space geeks largely don’t understand what policy is, or what it’s for, which accounts for a lot of grief and exasperation, much of which is voiced here.

    See, expansion of the species isn’t policy. Heavy-lift isn’t policy. The Moon isn’t policy. In fact, even human space flight isn’t policy. Those are ways of implementing policy, depending on what that policy is, and in themselves don’t offer any benefit to the quality of life. People who are interested in space politics should get some grounding in what space policy is, because that’s the way the game is played. Not too surprisingly, what was released today was mostly policy, but also some stuff painted to look like policy.

  • @ Ferris Valyn

    Yup, POTUS 44 calling for an asteroid mission 15 years from 2010 is very much like POTUS 43 calling for a lunar landing 15 years from 2005.

    Those 15 year increments are rather like the promise of viable fusion power — a technology that has only been 20 years away for the last 50 years.

  • I detect essential POTUS indifference to the real issues and goals of space exploration. The policy represents, in my mind, his reliance on the visions of his science advisory team. It is obvious that this team has not really consulted with NASA scientists or with internationally recognized astrophysicists. In total a massive disappointment and setback for humankind. The one outstanding concept of international cooperation and potential joint ventures would be redeeming if they were really serious goals. I fear they are just words to tease the hopes of the serious space exploration community.

    My disappointment is visceral regarding the policy’s shortsightedness and lack of real understanding of humankind’s commitment to explore in order to survive and thrive.

  • Major Tom

    “Tom, you desperately need a sense of humor.”

    Why are you continuing with the ad hominem insults?

    Grow up or go away.

    “There is nothing in this policy to give anyone any hope that the US will get beyond Earth orbit any time in the near future.”

    No, there’s nothing, hopeful or otherwise, about getting beyond Earth orbit in the policy. No, nothing at all besides the direction to the NASA Administrator to:

    “- Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system to… scout locations for future human missions;

    – Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond, and expand efforts to… support future objectives in human space exploration;

    – By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid;

    – By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth;

    – Set [other] far-reaching exploration milestones.”

    For the umpteenth time, stop making things up.

    And read for comprehension, for crissakes. It’s right there in black and white.

    “These are nonsense missions. Why would you spend the huge sum of money and take two years to orbit Mars”

    Because astronauts in Mars orbit teleoperating robotic assets on the Martian surface would be a huge improvement over the current communications time lags with the MERS rovers.

    Because, per the final report of the Augustine Committee, before taking on the costs and risks associated with landing a crew safely on Mars, operating effectively and safely on the Martian surface for months, and then launching them safely back to Mars orbit, we should maybe, just maybe, make sure we can get a crew to and from Mars orbit in one piece.

    Because we may find enough evidence for the development of life on Mars that we don’t want to put any humans on its surface to avoid the back contamination risk and potentially existential threats such lifeforms could pose to civilization and life on Earth.

    Think before you post.

    Triple ugh…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Waddell Robey wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 12:53 am

    I detect essential POTUS indifference to the real issues and goals of space exploration.

    no more so then the last POTUS. Spacefan folks really think that everyone in the US is a space groupie or would be if only (insert reason here).

    Truth is most Americans dont care…and most foreign people even less.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 1:17 am

    “Truth is most Americans dont care…and most foreign people even less.”

    So very true…

  • common sense

    I am a little baffled at the expectations of some here. So what is it that would have made them happy? A policy stating we would be landing on the Moon next month, a la VSE? I can’t believe how obtuse some are. It was tried once and it did not work. So let’s assume we’d have such a policy just for the sake of it. Please show me how we would proceed to make it happen. There is one rule you cannot transgress though: You have to live with the budget you have. No you cannot get 5% nor 20% of GDP budget. And I mean real numbers right. Not some hand waving nonsense of approximation.

    Let’s see.

  • Waddell Robey wrote:

    My disappointment is visceral regarding the policy’s shortsightedness and lack of real understanding of humankind’s commitment to explore in order to survive and thrive.

    Many polls over the last decade say you’re wrong.

    Poll after poll show that a majority of Americans think too much money is spent on human space exploration, want NASA’s budget reduced, and want the private sector to pick up the tab.

    Furthermore, you fail to explain why the American taxpayer should pay for it and the rest of the world should not. Especially when a majority of American taxpayers say spend less on government space programs.

  • Rhyolite

    There is a pretty good definition of what they mean by commercial on page 10:

    “The term “commercial,” for the purposes of this policy, refers to space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers.”

    I am glad to see them give commercial space a prominent roll in their policy.

  • The whole document read like a lawyer’s perspective on space and the universe. Its probably the least exciting document I have ever read on human space travel.

    “As established in international law, there shall be no national claims of sovereignty over outer space or any celestial bodies. “pg. 3

    Give me a break! We need a real space policy that will finally enable nations to at least lease some territorial rights on other celestial bodies so that private industry can exploit these areas and their resources for the benefit of humanity. The revenue generated from leasing out extraterrestrial territories (an extraterrestrial property tax) could be divided equally amongst every nation on Earth.

  • Marcel, you can have the lease, I’ll use my blaster.

  • DCSCA

    @Bennett- <- astroturf is an artificial, superficial substance. Clearly the truth struck a nerve… and you can't hande it. Obama's space policy will never fly. Decisions by Congress will direct space policy. He has already indicated to the nation– and the world– in his oil spill speech that he really has no idea where he's going.

  • DCSCA

    @Waddell- “I detect essential POTUS indifference to the real issues and goals of space exploration..”

    Yep. It’s a pattern. He’s a lawyer and bureaucrats hammer out a brief w/recommendations, he reads it and moves on. His threshold for curiosity on space is most likely on a par with Dubya’s. He did it with Afghanistan, he did it with recommending offshore oil drilling and he did it at KSC on 4/15. Going 180 degrees from his policy position during the campaign speaks volumes. When it comes to space, he’s no JFK, no LBJ but more like Carter.

  • DCSCA

    Truth is most Americans dont care…and most foreign people even less. <- nonsense.

  • DCSCA

    “NASA should also be encouraging commercial access to space, as the law was amended by the Reagan administration in 1984.” <– which was proven by subsequent events to be disasteriously foolish. Purging the agency of the poisons from Reaganomics would be an improvement.

  • DCSCA

    common sense wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 1:26 am
    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 1:17 am

    “Truth is most Americans dont care…and most foreign people even less.”

    So very true… <– Lunacy, of course.

  • DCSCA

    @Brian Paine wrote @ June 28th, 2010 at 9:36 pm “Question: Who feels truely inspired by this policy?” You don’t understand– astroturfers who embrace developing commercial space at the cost of government funded space operations are not looking for inspiration– that’s a ‘Cernan intangible’ that holds no value to them; they see lucrative contracts and quarterly returns, no more, no less. Commercial space has all the inspirational value of shipping a crate of oranges from Cocoa Beach to Chicago.

  • DCSCA

    “Especially when a majority of American taxpayers say spend less on government space programs.” <– Oh c'mon, you can do better than that. A majority of American taxpayers believe the government spends too much on everything from foreign aid to the war in Afghanistan; and if the space agency had even 5% of the funds wasted on those two areas alone, Constellation huggers and commercial space lovers would all be happy.

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 1:12 am <– Mars?? Orbit people?? Why go at all. Commercial space technologists can spend the money better developing better, faster, cheaper exploratory vehicles. And the spinoff for microtechology fields could be enormous for many parellel industries. Turn some nice profits, too. By 2030, the red planet could be peppered with plenty of little rovers bristling with flags, cameras, instruments, microlabs, sample return capacity, etc. And humans can sit comfortably in their homes on Earth and tune it all in on the web, their i-phones and plasma screens and watch it all on TV, with popcorn. And when they get bored, as 'polls' show people are with space exploration, they can tune in to colorized, 3-D reruns of 'I Love Lucy.' Nope. No point in sending people out there at all when you can see it all on TV.

  • MrEarl

    MT:
    ““These are nonsense missions. Why would you spend the huge sum of money and take two years to orbit Mars”
    Because astronauts in Mars orbit teleoperating robotic assets on the Martian surface would be a huge improvement over the current communications time lags with the MERS rovers.”
    Are you serious?! You think it’s cost effective to spend billions of dollars and risk lives to cut out a 30 min time lag?!
    You’re the one who needs to think before they post.

    “we should maybe, just maybe, make sure we can get a crew to and from Mars orbit in one piece.”
    Those systems can be tested in the Earth moon system far more cheaply and safer than a jaunt out to Mars.

    “Because we may find enough evidence for the development of life on Mars that we don’t want to put any humans on its surface to avoid the back contamination risk and potentially existential threats such lifeforms could pose to civilization and life on Earth.”
    That’s why returning crews and samples would be quarantined in an Earth orbiting station or better yet a lab built specifically for that purpose on the moon.

    Your first four bullets, all nice platitudes but there’s not even a hint of plan put forward in the policy statement, (which wouldn’t be expected) or anywhere else on how to do it.
    You need to stop dreaming things up.

  • byeman

    “– which was proven by subsequent events to be disasteriously foolish. Purging the agency of the poisons from Reaganomics would be an improvement.”

    Wrong again. This is where commercial launch services came into being.

  • Jeff: “What else do you see, or don’t see, in the new policy?”

    There is no there there.

  • Justin Kugler

    MrEarl,
    What if you sent them there to start building a base camp on a Martian moon? The delta-v is much more manageable and it could evolve from something temporarily inhabited to something more permanent over time. As the technology evolves, the base camp could host surface expeditions.

  • Major Tom

    “Are you serious?! You think it’s cost effective to spend billions of dollars and risk lives to cut out a 30 min time lag?!”

    I didn’t write that it’s cost-effective. I wrote that it’s a major improvement.

    Don’t make things up.

    “You’re the one who needs to think before they post.”

    You asked for reasons why such a mission would be undertaken, arguing that there were none. I provided several. If you instead wanted measures of cost-effectiveness, then you should have asked for them.

    Think before you post.

    “Those systems can be tested in the Earth moon system far more cheaply and safer than a jaunt out to Mars.”

    No, they can’t. For example, a propulsion system for a Mars mission won’t stay in the Earth-Moon system, by definition.

    For the umpteenth time, think before you post.

    “That’s why returning crews and samples would be quarantined in an Earth orbiting station or better yet a lab built specifically for that purpose on the moon.”

    For how long? The rest of their lives? And how are we going to deliver food, water, and other supplies to them without the contaminants spreading? And how are we going to deliver medical care to them without the contaminants spreading? And how are we going to manage their wastes without the contaminants spreading?

    Again, think before you post.

    “Your first four bullets, all nice platitudes…”

    Platitudes or not, they’re not my bullets. That language is copied directly from the policy. Maybe if you’d read the policy before littering this forum with ignorant posts, other posters wouldn’t have to waste their time quoting the policy for you here.

    “You need to stop dreaming things up.”

    I’m not the poster who doesn’t know what he’s asking for in his posts.

    I’m not the poster who thinks he can keep a Mars propulsion system within the Earth-Moon system.

    I’m not the poster who thinks indefinite quarantines can be maintained without significant risk of contamination.

    And I’m not the poster who misattributes White House policy language to other posters on this forum.

    Quadruple ugh…

  • Major Tom

    “Why go at all. Commercial space technologists can spend the money better developing better, faster, cheaper exploratory vehicles. And the spinoff for microtechology fields could be enormous for many parellel industries. Turn some nice profits, too. By 2030, the red planet could be peppered with plenty of little rovers bristling with flags, cameras, instruments, microlabs, sample return capacity, etc. And humans can sit comfortably in their homes on Earth and tune it all in on the web, their i-phones and plasma screens and watch it all on TV, with popcorn.”

    A fair argument that goes to the rationale and justification for civil human space flight.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “A majority of American taxpayers believe the government spends too much on everything from foreign aid to the war in Afghanistan; and if the space agency had even 5% of the funds wasted on those two areas alone, Constellation huggers and commercial space lovers would all be happy.”

    NASA doesn’t compete with defense funding. NASA is a domestic, discretionary, R&D agency. It competes for funding with other domestic, discretionary, R&D agencies, like the DOE, NIH and NSF. Their budgets are also measured in the low tens of billions (DOE, NIH) and single billions (NSF) of dollars.

    The question isn’t whether the nation should defend yourself or invest in the future. Of course, as long as threats exist, the nation is going to do more of the former than the latter. The question is, among all the investments the federal budget can make in the future, which are the most important? Historically, with the exception of Apollo (which was arguably a national security imperative), civil space doesn’t do well against alternative direct investments in energy, IT, biomedical, etc.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    Justin:
    That would great! That would be a well thought out and reasonable plan. While NASA takes the initiative of building the base then expeditions to the surface of Mars, commercial can be tasked with resupplying the Martian moon base and maybe crew transport between that base and the Earth or a base on our moon. But nothing like that is even hinted at in any of the announcements or pronouncements coming out of the WH or NASA administration.
    That’s building a space infrastructure and it becomes much harder to abandon it than these one off jaunts around an asteroid or a swing past Mars.

  • MrEarl

    Tom:
    If you don’t know why the administration would propose these expensive jaunts or don’t think they are cost effective why would you support the FY’11 budget?
    “a propulsion system for a Mars mission won’t stay in the Earth-Moon system, by definition.”
    We’re not talking a warp driver here. The most likely propulsion system for a Mars mission would be some variation of an ION drive. Power and acceleration rate can be tested quite well within the Earth moon system. Ocean liners are not sent acrost the ocean on see trials. They’re kept close to port in-case something happens. Un-maned test articles would be sent to Mars to test flight duration.

    As far as contamination, Mars should be studied as thoroughly reasonably possible by un-maned probes before landing humans, not by some people circling 100 miles above. Then we can reasonably asses the risk of contamination ad prepare accordingly.

    “And I’m not the poster who misattributes White House policy language to other posters on this forum.”
    That was not my intention but if you don’t agree with the WH policy why do you support it?

  • Major Tom

    “But nothing like that is even hinted at in any of the announcements or pronouncements coming out of the WH…”

    The White House blue ribbon Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee referenced human Deimos and Phobos missions — including sample return, ISRU, and teleoperation of robotic Mars surface assets — at least five times. Missions to the Martian moons also appear in all three Flexible Path options in that report.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “That’s building a space infrastructure and it becomes much harder to abandon it…”

    Space infrastructure gets abandoned all the time. See Skylab, various Salyuts, Mir, hundreds of comsats, etc.

    Infrastructure is a means to an end. It is not an end unto itself. A space policy with the primary “goal” of building infrastructure would produce useless programs at potentially great cost to the taxpayer.

    Think before you post.

    Lawdy…

  • MrEarl

    MT:
    “Space infrastructure gets abandoned all the time. See Skylab, various Salyuts, Mir, hundreds of comsats, etc.”
    All of those were designed with a finite life expectancy. Skylab was intended to be the start of the first US modular station but shuttle delays and an unusually intense solar maximum brought it down before that could happen. A better and more recent example would be the ISS extension by at least 5 years probably longer.
    You can stop waiving the Augustine Committee report around. The WH has never stated which recommendation, if any, it used to come up the the FY’11 budget.

  • Justin Kugler

    MrEarl,
    The National Space Policy doesn’t say we can’t do those things. In fact, it says NASA needs to set the exploration milestones. I’m eager to see what comes out of the inter-center Human Exploration Framework Team.

  • Major Tom

    “If you don’t know why the administration would propose…”

    I do know why. Anyone who bothers to actually read and comprehend the final report of the Augustine Committee, the FY11 budget request, and the new policy knows why the Administration set the exploration goals that it did. We may not agree with those decisions and reasoning, but we know why they were made.

    It’s step one to having a non-idiotic discussion about the future direction of the civil human space flight program. You should try taking that step instead of repeatedly making stupid statements out of ignorance.

    “these expensive jaunts…”

    How do you know that they’re expensive? Especially relative to your favored lunar base plan?

    Where’s your evidence that contradicts the findings of the Augustine Committee? Where are your missions definitions and assumptions? Where’s the independent, non-advocate cost study? Where’s the analysis of alternatives?

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “The most likely propulsion system for a Mars mission would be some variation of an ION drive. Power and acceleration rate can be tested quite well within the Earth moon system.”

    No, it can’t. Not for the uninterrupted firing duration necessary to know whether a propulsion system will stay functional in the deep space environment for a Mars mission. By definition, firing a Mars-class propulsion system for a duration long enough to support a Mars mission will send that propulsion system well beyond the Earth-Moon system. It doesn’t have to go to Mars, but by definition, it will escape the Earth’s gravitational influence in the course of conducting a Mars-relevant flight test.

    “Ocean liners are not sent acrost the ocean on see trials. They’re kept close to port in-case something happens.”

    This is a goofy analogy. The physics governing the velocity of blue water ships is completely different from the physics governing the velocity of spacecraft. A blue water ship can test propulsion endurance by going around in circles. A interplanetary spacecraft cannot — it will accelerate out of its gravity well.

    “As far as contamination, Mars should be studied as thoroughly reasonably possible by un-maned probes before landing humans, not by some people circling 100 miles above.”

    The search for habitable environments and life on Mars would be magnitudes more effective if the “un-maned [sic] probes” were teleoperated by “people circling 100 miles above”, not millions of miles away.

    “or don’t think they are cost effective”

    Where did I say that these mission proposals are not “cost effective [sic]”?

    Don’t make things up.

    “That was not my intention but if you don’t agree with the WH policy why do you support it?”

    Where did I say that I don’t agree with the new policy?

    Stop making things up.

    Geez…

  • MrEarl

    The simple fact is that up until February 1st, there was a plan to extend the human presence into the solar system. You may not agreed with it or agreed with the implementation, valid arguments can be made against both, but there was a road map to extend our presence into the solar system.
    What has replaced it is US human space flight turned over to commercial space companies which may or may not be up to the task and NASA becoming a primarily an R&D agency. Despite the rhetoric coming out of the WH and the 9th floor of NASA headquarters, there is no real plan to advance our presence beyond LEO.

  • Major Tom

    “All of those were designed with a finite life expectancy.”

    And your hypothetical lunar base won’t have a finite life expectancy? You do have at least a rudimentary understanding of outgassing, corrosion, UV degredation, mechanical stress, etc., right?

    “The WH has never stated which recommendation, if any, it used to come up the the FY’11 budget.”

    They don’t have to. If you actually bother to read the final report of the Augustine Committee and the FY11 budget, it’s obvious.

    Duh…

  • By definition, firing a Mars-class propulsion system for a duration long enough to support a Mars mission will send that propulsion system well beyond the Earth-Moon system. It doesn’t have to go to Mars, but by definition, it will escape the Earth’s gravitational influence in the course of conducting a Mars-relevant flight test.

    Not necessarily. It could spiral out for a while, then back in, then back out, then back in…

  • The simple fact is that up until February 1st, there was a plan to extend the human presence into the solar system.

    No, there wasn’t. There was a plan to send a few astronauts to the moon a couple times a year, at a cost of at least a billion per ticket. There were no specific plans for anything beyond that, and even the lunar plans weren’t well defined.

  • Major Tom

    “there was a road map to extend our presence into the solar system”

    No, there wasn’t. There was a goal to do that in the VSE. No roadmap was finalized (or even really created) before Griffin came onboard, and ESAS collapsed the VSE into an Apollo-on-steroids lunar repeat that Constellation made so technically crippled and unaffordable that it couldn’t even get back to the ISS in any reasonable timeframe, nevertheless the Moon.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “What has replaced it is US human space flight turned over to commercial space companies…”

    ETO transport is being competed among commercial providers. ISS and BEO are not being turned over to anyone.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “NASA becoming a primarily an R&D agency.”

    If NASA is “becoming a primarily an R&D agency”, then why is it still operating missions to ISS? Setting BEO human mission dates? Developing and operating scores of unmanned missions?

    Don’t make things up.

    And since when is R&D bad?

    Goofy…

    “… there is no real plan to advance our presence beyond LEO.”

    Yes, there is. Per the policy, it consists of the following elements:

    “- Maintain a sustained robotic presence in the solar system to… scout locations for future human missions;

    – Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond, and expand efforts to… support future objectives in human space exploration;

    – Conduct research and development in support of next-generation launch systems, including new U.S. rocket engine technologies;

    – Implement a new space technology development and test program, working with industry, academia, and international partners to build, fly, and test several key technologies that can increase the capabilities, decrease the costs, and expand the opportunities for future space activities;

    – By 2025, begin crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid;

    – By the mid-2030s, send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth;

    – Set [other] far-reaching exploration milestones.”

    Stop making things up.

    Cripes…

  • Major Tom

    “Not necessarily. It could spiral out for a while, then back in, then back out, then back in…”

    You’d have to repeatedly interrupt the firing, not to mention spending considerable time under and going back and forth across the Van Allen Belts. You wouldn’t be testing as you intend to fly.

    FWIW…

  • Justin Kugler

    MrEarl,
    I think the VSE is still a valid framework. Many of the Augustine panel members do, too. We lost that, though, when the implementation ignored the recommendations of President Bush’s own Aldridge Commission. What we ended up with was a roadmap that said there was only one way to get where we wanted to go.

    I disagree entirely with your characterization of the FY2011 plan. US launch services are what is being turned over to commercial providers, not “human space flight”. NASA will still be primarily responsible for exploration and its focus over the next few years will be the R&D and demonstration exercises necessary to build a sustainable human exploration enterprise.

    If we can’t do that, we couldn’t have made Constellation work either.

  • You’d have to repeatedly interrupt the firing, not to mention spending considerable time under and going back and forth across the Van Allen Belts.

    No, you wouldn’t. You’d just turn around while firing. And there’s no need to spiral all the way down to the belts. Spiral from GEO out to beyond lunar orbit and back. Rinse and repeat. Just don’t build up enough velocity to escape.

  • MrEarl

    MT:
    The original argument was, I asked why send a crew out to Mars and come back without landing, one of your answers was to test a Mars propulsion system. Nobody is going to send a crew out to Mars to test a propulsion system and have the very real risk of loosing the crew. It’s going to be done within the Earth moon system the way Rand suggested or by sending an un-maned test article to Mars, a point I made about 4 posts back.

    Gees

    Justin:
    I also think that the VSE is a valid framework and if this was a realignment to get us back to that framework, which I think Constellation lead us away from, I would be a supporter. I don’t see it. Maybe since you’re at JSC you would have a better in-site than I do about commercial crew and plans for BEO human space flight.

    I would also be very interested on how Mr Bejmuk felt about the FY’11 budget.

  • Justin Kugler

    MrEarl,
    The policy doesn’t explicitly say it’s getting back to the VSE fundamentals, but Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker – hardly men who carry Obama’s water – think it does.

    I couldn’t find any recent quotes from Bejmuk, but I do recall that he was one of the most ardent advocates on the panel for commercial launch services. As I understand it, the FY 2011 budget largely incorporates the recommendations of his sub-team in that regard.

    My optimism for the future of human space flight does largely come from the Exploration Workshop hosted in Galveston last month and internal presentations I’ve seen regarding how we could make a “Flexible Path”-style initiative work.

    Rather than one monolithic program, we’re trying to evolve to smaller, more agile, parallel development paths that build on each other, but don’t scuttle the whole thing if one area doesn’t pan out. I think this is what we should have been doing all along.

  • Major Tom

    “one of your answers was to test a Mars propulsion system.”

    No, one of my answers was that before taking on the costs and risks associated with Mars entry, Mars surface operations, and Mars ascent and rendezvous, we should make sure that we can just get crews safely to and from the vicinity of Mars (Mars transit) first.

    You then claimed that all human Mars mission elements could be tested in the Earth-Moon system. I cited propulsion as one example where this is not the case. I did not claim that a Mars propulsion system test should be crewed.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    I could also cite huge differences in communications lag and implications for communcations systems and mission operations, huge differences in thermal environments and implications for thermal management systems, huge differences in atmospheres (or lack thereof) and implications for entry/habitation/EVA systems, huge differences in available resources and implications for ISRU systems, and even huge differences in primary toxicity risks and implications for life support systems. The lunar environment is radically different from, and therefore a poor testbed for, Mars missions.

    There may be other reasons to go back to the Moon, but testing for Mars missions isn’t one of them. A NEO or other deep space missions have more in common with a Mars mission than a lunar mission does.

  • Major Tom

    “No, you wouldn’t. You’d just turn around while firing.”

    Repeatedly turning and sweeping the vehicle through its own, active ionosphere may have a relatively high pucker factor. Depending on the Mars and Earth arrival/entry methods, the vehicle may have to do that a couple times anyway. But repeatedly doing so seems unnecessary. I’d say swingby a useful target, like a NEO or Phobos, for the test. It will be a much more accurate test regime.

    FWIW…

  • Repeatedly turning and sweeping the vehicle through its own, active ionosphere may have a relatively high pucker factor.

    It may. It also may not. It’s not obvious to me that it would.

    Depending on the Mars and Earth arrival/entry methods, the vehicle may have to do that a couple times anyway. But repeatedly doing so seems unnecessary.

    I would say that doing it repeatedly would either give you a high level of confidence that it could be done a couple times, and was a very robust system, or tell you what the limitations of the system were.

    I’d say swingby a useful target, like a NEO or Phobos, for the test. It will be a much more accurate test regime.

    Of course, ultimately that’s the real flight test, but I’d want to do extensive testing close to home first, to wring out bugs. It’s called expanding the envelope.

  • Major Tom

    “Of course, ultimately that’s the real flight test, but I’d want to do extensive testing close to home first, to wring out bugs. It’s called expanding the envelope.”

    Fair enough.

    FWIW…

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 11:46 am <– Exactly. Why go to Antarctica. We can see it on TV. Why go to a ball game when you can watch it on TV.

  • DCSCA

    @MajorTom “A fair argument that goes to the rationale and justification for civil human space flight.” It’s a cost-effective argument to stop flying sales staff from Los Angeles to Manhattan for meetings, too.

  • Major Tom

    “Why go to Antarctica. We can see it on TV. Why go to a ball game when you can watch it on TV.”

    Well, I have little interest in Antarctica or baseball to begin with.

    Besides littering this forum with inane posts, what’s your point?

    “It’s a cost-effective argument to stop flying sales staff from Los Angeles to Manhattan for meetings, too.”

    Well, no duh, especially in the videoconferencing age. Your sales staff should be out making sales, not wasting time travelling to meetings at your corporate sites.

    Again, besides littering this forum with inane posts, your point?

  • Bennett

    Justin Kugler wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    I always enjoy reading your comments, and am glad you take the time to offer your perspective.

    Thanks.

  • DCSCA

    Besides littering this forum with inane posts, what’s your point? <- indeed, what's yours?

  • DCSCA

    Because we may find enough evidence for the development of life on Mars that we don’t want to put any humans on its surface to avoid the back contamination risk and potentially existential threats such lifeforms could pose to civilization and life on Earth.

    Think before you post. Uh-huh. And you believe the probes sent there already were completely sterile, too, no doubt. The place could be crawling with mutant microbes now, courtesy of some fellows muffled cough while working on Viking 1. Think before you post.

  • In my opinion White House politics on TOTAL reliance on ‘Commercial Space’ development was and is bad policy & politics and what you observe today is a ‘Kooky House’ of competing interests that will effectively kill HSF in the short term unless this policy is untangled carefully with strong leadership from gov’t-&-industry quickly.
    I do praise Sen. Nelson on Heavy Lift because he’s after all pragmatic on the NASA side of the space equation which has no other alternative but to go nuke in space and HLV is a key component toward this aim. It is up to gov’t space to lead the way and Heavy lift (liquid & solid Ares) is the way to go for future space markets to open (most NS readers advocated this 10 years ago and many space nuke professionals dedicated a lifetime to develop).
    The fact is future space will require in-space infrastructure and nuke propulsion & power a key component to protect U.S. industry and worker skill sets and space jobs.
    I also do want a commercial sector to start participating in space but providing the services they can easily manage efficiently without failures to allow them to be sustainable.
    Everyone knows by now these are very difficult economic times characterized by bloated sometimes with corrupt politics by gov’t bureaucratic and private banking business practises. Only fair free trade in international and increased domestic production, sound money, healthy savings accounts and transparent monetary policy can once again establish trust and grow a fair market economy. ITAR issues need to reflect fair investment in quality information through fair policy in gov’t-to-gov’t and industry-to-gov’t. reciprocity and not be calling out to discredit potential customers on charges of industrial espionage.

    There is no doubt. If you want a robust sustainable U.S. Space Program you need to be paving the road with a trustworthy business and governmental policies and practises. One sure technical engineering method and science is nuclear energy and I approve of the administration’s notice of this basic fact in at least employing words to describe it in this current U.S. space policy- it is about time Space Nuclear science and technology be recognized for its potential to grow human and robotic presence in our solar system.

Leave a Reply to Major Tom 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>