I believe I just got an answer to my own question. Speaking on an interview show this morning Speaker of the House Boehner just said that while the overall budget target was 20%, the cuts would not be across the board.

This is interim good news, while it does not guarantee a good outcome it is certainly a prerequisite to a good outcome.

“Except they didn’t.”

I agree I was just saying to Stephen that there never was a notion that the WH would give more money to NASA. O’Keefe had set up an approach that might have worked which essentially FY11. Only in Griffin’s fantasy there was going to be more money.

Oh well…

“It’s a recipe for disaster and to my recollection has never produced anything but.”

If they go SLS and/or Orion it will toll the bell for HSF at NASA. And that’s that. Period. No ifs no buts.

Except they didn’t. NASA under Griffin belly-ached about lack of funding from the moment the ink dried on the Cx plans to the day he left the position and the ghosts of Cx NASA kept it going until Obama pulled the plug. Even now I see the “If we’d just funded it, it would have worked” arguments. And that’s exactly, to a tee, why I am thoroughly nervous when NASA comes to congress Re: the new HLV saying “yes, we can do it, but not for that much in that time frame” and congress pulls the same old “you have your orders, now march!” routine. It’s a recipe for disaster and to my recollection has never produced anything but.

Frankly, I think congress just likes it when they have a whipping boy set out before the inevitable failure.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/3/2004_3_44.shtml

As we know, Americans could have lofted a satellite at least a year earlier. It’s well documented.

http://launiusr.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/beginning-project-vanguard/

And the Soviets had indicated in the IGY circles, plans to attempt to orbit a satellite for the IGY as well. So within the scientific community, it was not a ‘surprise’ or an ‘if’ so much as a ‘when.’

http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/sputorig.html

And the recently declassified information, notably summed up for the general public in a 2007 PBS/NOVA titled ‘Sputnik Declassified’ indicate the ‘Sputnik moment’ worked to Eisenhower’s advantage. By lofting Sputnik, the Soviets verified free access to space by their own act, all but voiding any disputes regarding over flight rights and questions of national sovereignty in space and so on– something very much in question in the 1950′s. It also made the later successful flights of then new spy satellite system, known today as ‘Corona,’ that much more legitimate. It was the public and the press that panicked over Sputnik. Eisenhower’s reaction at the time was highly criticized for being far too cool and dismissive, but in fact, it fit with his planning, strategy and goal- pressing on to establish, in secret, a space reconnaissance capability for the U.S.

@Anne Spudis wrote @ January 26th, 2011 at 6:33 am

LOL. At least he didn’t go to Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. Or worse– Star Wars.

“As I wrote in this November blog, the scheme was exposed two weeks later when NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe appeared before the Senate Science Committee and presented the infamous Sand Chart showing the Bush Administration had no intention of putting any money into the project, other than to keep funnelling existing pork to the space centers. The first two speakers, John McCain and Bill Nelson, called him out on it, as did many other committee members.”

Well, I am not sure I agree with you here. The viewpoint I had, as many others did, is that NASA was tasked to fulfill the VSE with the budget they had. And if you remember O’Keefe’s strategy was the so called spiral plan where technologies are used as they come about. The current FY11 was very similar to that without the ludicrous timeline. So in essence the former WH told NASA “here is your new charter get going” and NASA HSF finally had a new purpose. Then Griffin came on board and that was the end. The WH never said “go to the Moon before the end of the decade and take as much money you can doing it”. Since NASA is priority number whatever the WH probably dropped the ball especially since AL, TX, UT, CO and some others were happy.

Don’t you mean it has “Q?”

“I discribed the speech on my facebook page as Obama sitting in front of the faculty senate acting as Socrates explaining why the hemlock would taste great”

The average “laundry list” of things to do in the State of the Union address is 31 items and on average 40% of them see legislation. The President’s list was a three legged stool, innovate, educate, and infrastructure.

I have no problem with this agenda, but the devil is in the details so will be in a wait and see mode for what congress actually tackles.

As the Nation’s number one cheer leader and the State of the Union address as the “super bowl” pep rally, I believe the President used the address to make the Nation feel good. Personally, that’s what I want to hear. I want optimism about a better future not a doom and gloom senerio. From the poll numbers I saw after the address the vast majority, 77%, agreed with me and felt better about tomorrow.

How can one imagine that an agency that at this date allows defective metal into the ET…can do anything like going back tot he Moon (or anything really)?

Yeah, that really bothers me that after more than 130 missions a tank with structural defects snuck through … And the STS-135 tank might have the same problem.

It happens in the private sector too, but those who claim that NASA has the moral high ground simply have no credibility.

Oh well its all ending. Really

I don’t think it’s “ending” as transmogrify … In five years, we’ll have crew launches from CCAFS, and it’ll be back to the future. Delta at LC-37, SpaceX at LC-40, Atlas at LC-41. It’s going to be very cool.

Florida Today had this blog post on Monday about leasing KSC facilities once Shuttle ends. I think there will be a certain prestige value for companies, or even other nations, launching from KSC.

All that’s ending is the government monopoly.