It a mission to no place. The ‘compromise’ is to dissolve NASA as a separate, independent agency w/all that goes with that sturcturing in the Federal bureaucracy and make it a division of the DoD and the survivors become ‘civilian’ contractors to a DoD operation. The duplication of facilities, personnel, etc., is unsustainable when you have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar spent to keep it running. And longer term space projects may actually have a layer of protection under the guise of ‘national security’ operating from DoD and less exposed to easier efforts to cut budgets. As it stands now, an independent NASA appears sorely out of sync with 2010 needs. It’s a Cold War relic and the Cold War ended.

Gingrich wanted to disband NASA in the 1990s. His trial balloon was quickly shot down then.

I dont recall which Pope from long ago who said “Now that we have the papacy let us enjoy it”…but that phrase comes to mind as I watch the GOP getting ready to run the House.

For all its rhetoric the GOP has never been very good at cutting spending…in fact a guess would be absent the TARP and Stim bill the GOP has in the last 20-30 years been far more “spend happy” then anything the Dems could have imagined.

And as things have gone along, the “advocacy groups” that have grown up around the spending have gotten their hold in the GOP just as much as they have the Dems. Already you see people in the GOP trying to pull the “lets not cut national defense” and then the next step “well this program or that program is part of national defense”. There is even one tea party “elect” Congressman who wants his national health care “NOW”.

David Frum who is an interesting soul has a book called “Dead right” and it is a fascinating look at the Gingrich years where the GOP could talk a big game, but just as soon as the interest groups and protest cranked up…well not so much.

My guess is that the next year is going to see the Genius in the House try and figure out a way to cut spending to try and curb the budget issue…and when they figure out that this is almost impossible in substantive way and more or less makes them as unpopular as the Dems are now…

they are going to go toward revenue (as Reagan called them “revenue enhancers”) and then the fun is going to start. I would be very surprised to see NASA go away…what is changing is their mission.

Robert G. Oler

Acknowledging that you are wrong is a good first step.

That’s because you keep repeating the same failed arguments after you’ve been proven wrong. The need for HLVs is an article of faith for you, it must satisfy some deep psychological need. But manned spaceflight is not served well by faith-based initiatives, it needs the rational and pragmatic approach people have been pointing out to you.

Gingrich wanted to disband NASA in the 1990s. His trial balloon was quickly shot down then.

“Whether these vehicles were going to be used to “settle space” is not clear unless you could see into the future.”

The best year of the shuttle we launched about 60 people into LEO. If constellation would have went forward, with the deorbiting of ISS at the end of 2015, We would have dropped down to 8 people per year. I believe if “settle space” was the goal it was a backwards move towards that goal.

We have to create the infrastructure that has a lot higher capacity than that. As you watch the shuttle launch being delayed over and over, which was a common occurance, do you honestly believe Constellation was going to do routine launches? We can’t even settle LEO, or GEO ( where billions of assets are flying) and you think NASA can settle another body?

I do not agree. I believe any human space flight beyond earth orbit is going to require the support of a HLV. Putting together spaceships 25 tons at a time will fail miserably and this will probably be realized early on.

I always get the same canned responses when I say this. The regulars ALWAYS say something to the effect, “you know nothing and are completely stupidly wrong.”

There, now you do not have to waste time typing. You’re welcome.

[rolling eyes]

Griffin. like many space enthusiasts, had an obsession with manned flight to Mars

He had a funny way of showing it. And that doesn’t constitute settling space, which requires affordable space access.

“Whether these vehicles were going to be used to “settle space” is not clear unless you could see into the future.”

Do you foresee NASA being the one to “settle space”? If so, then maybe they would have used the NASA launchers.

But I don’t see NASA expanding our presence in space – helping to establish it, yes, like with the ISS and other leading-edge exploration. But being the driving force behind dramatic expansion of humanity into space, no.

What would the future look like with NASA running an HLV transportation service? How would they price their service in the competitive marketplace? How much taxpayer money would they use for marketing or creating new markets?

Once you start asking these types of questions, it becomes clear that NASA cannot use their HLV’s to lead the way into space, because they have no budget or expertise to market their services, and there could even be laws that would limit their ability to compete for business with commercial companies like ULA or SpaceX.

NASA building and running their own launchers is an anachronism – it reflects the beginning of the space era, not the future.

“As the Augustine panel noted, if we’re not doing this to settle space, it’s a waste of money.”

But we already are in space, passengers on spaceship Earth.

“But the people who came up with Constellation clearly weren’t doing it to settle space.”

I’ll disagree with you on that. Griffin. like many space enthusiasts, had an obsession with manned flight to Mars, and engaged in fantasies wirh it.
$10 Billion dollars worth.