White House

“We the People” think only a little about space

There was a flurry of media attention over the weekend and on Monday to the official White House response to a petition to “formally acknowledge an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race”. In what doesn’t exactly qualify as breaking news, the White House stated, “The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race.” At least we have that issue settled. Whew!

But are people using the White House’s new “We the People” online petition tool for more serious space policy topics? Not much, it seems. Of the 118 open, visible petitions on the site (as of early Tuesday morning), only two deal directly with space issues, but both have met the threshold—originally 5,000 signatures, but raised for newer petitions to 25,000—for an official response. One, “Reallocate Defense funds to NASA”, seeks to divert defense funding to NASA, specifically for human spaceflight. “America and Humanity require a permanent presence in Space and no amount of telescopes or rovers are going to meet that requirement. Manned Missions are the only answer but NASA does not the have funds to make this vision a reality,” the petition states (capitalization in original). “America needs to wind down these wars and reallocate all that money into our space program.”

The second petition seeks to give the shuttle Enterprise to Ohio, reversing NASA’s controversial award of the orbiter to New York’s Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum. “New York City is unprepared to house the Enterprise Shuttle while the National Museum of the USAF at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is the ideal location,” the petition argues. “Please help boost the Ohio economy!”

The odds of success of either petition—in terms of changing policy, not attracting signatures—appear long. Transferring “all that money” that funded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to NASA would be a political nonstarter in the current era of cutting overall federal spending. And would the White House wade in and override NASA’s decision to award Enterprise to New York City, making NASA look bad and agitating New Yorkers, without some other precipitating event (such as the failure of the Intrepid museum to raise funding for its planned shuttle museum)?

Notably, there are no open, visible petitions on what the space community considers hot topics: nothing about the Space Launch System, commercial crew, space technology funding, and so on. The key here, though, is visible: in order for a petition to show up in a search on the “We the People” site, it must already have at least 150 signatures, requiring sponsors to rely on word of (electronic) mouth when starting their petition drive. For example, in addition to the petition giving Dayton the shuttle Enterprise, there’s a similar one to give Enterprise to Houston. However, that petition, created just over a week ago, has attracted only 37 signatures as of Tuesday morning, and thus doesn’t show up in public searches.

Perhaps, though, the space community has decided that the petition site is little more than a stunt, and that there are more traditional, effective means to shape policy. Or, as one recent petition states, “We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition.”.

45 comments to “We the People” think only a little about space

  • SpaceColonizer

    Why don’t we start one? I’m serious. In fact, if nobody ore qualified wishes to volunteer), I’ll start one when/if I have time later today. Then get as many people from here, and through my twitter followers to get on board. Add to that any HobbySpace readers (because Clark pretty much always posts links to your blog) and we could easily get the petition visible in no time! From there we just have to hope word gets around and that “the people” will take interest in the issue.

    I’ll start thinking up a first draft. Need to make sure the relevant issues are adequately explained for those who don’t follow these things.

  • MrEarl

    “We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition.”
    Jeff’s last reference sort of sums up the entire purpose of the site.

  • SpaceColonizer: I agree. Exposure is king. Keep it simple, keep it in keeping with a U.S. audience, not an international one. It must ‘bleed’ patriotism, one with free market principles, within the confines of a sustainable NASA budget, and mentions that it breaks technological barriers. With that you could have a 25,000 winner soon.

    Good luck

    Gary Anderson
    TPIS

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Seriously, if you walked out of the door and polled 1,000 passerbys, how many of them would know about the SLS? About the debate on commercially-provided crew launch? How many of them would even be aware that the shuttle had retired? Hell, a few people I knew were surprised to hear that it was even still flying; the last they’d heard about it was the Columbia accident!

    Unless something big occurs to put space in the centre spotlight (say, a new space race), then I doubt that the majority will care about space policy. It’s there, like the Department of Education, the Agriculture Department and the EPA but, unless it stops working in a big way or if there is some other crisis, most people just ignore it and assume that there is nothing to see.

    FWIW, the attempts to turn China and, to a lesser extent, commercial space into boogymen is probably due to someone realising that some kind of competition, no matter how artificial, is needed to focus public interest (and thus guarantee funding).

    ~
    Ben the Space Brit

  • amightywind

    People don’t pay attention to NASA the same way they don’t pay attention to the military. They are big and complicated. But they expect them to be the best, and in times of need to perform. At the moment, the military can put iron on any bad guy on the planet at any time. NASA is begging rides from the Russians. See the difference?

  • “NASA is begging rides from the Russians. See the difference?”
    Listen to the idiot complain about a situation set into motion in the last administration as if it came from the present one.

  • Robert G. Oler

    SpaceColonizer wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Why don’t we start one? >>

    because one could go out and watch the sun come up or go down, or the grass grow or sing a song…and accomplish as much.

    Space advocates (or most of them anyway) make a mistake of thinking that everyone cares about space or human spaceflight as much as they do…it is kind of the fantasy world of “if they just knew (the shuttle was finished, or the Chinese were racing us to the Moon, or the Chinese were going to do this or that in space, or we are no longer number 1 in space )…then wow they would just rise up and demand whatever “we” want…

    It is just goofy and in reality the American people who are not getting a check from human spaceflight or are not in some way interested in it (and these are very very small groups in comparison to the rest of the country) dont give a frack about human spaceflight.

    Besides no one in DC reads petitions anymore (ikf they ever did)…RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 11:25 am

    NASA is begging rides from the Russians.

    Actually Russia needs us as a customer since their space program is under-funded too, so no begging is needed. Although you didn’t seem to mind this situation when Bush/Griffin put us into it, so don’t get crocodile tears over it now.

    Commercial Crew will solve the problem if politics will just get out of the way.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Anderson wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 10:26 am

    “. It must ‘bleed’ patriotism,”

    how does one do that? RGO

  • Dennis

    Petitions have about as much chance of acknowledgement as the UFO questions. Did anyone REALLY believe that if our government had a captured UFO and was utilizing it for its tech. that they would tell us? I doubt it. Does anyone really believe the government will end war to back space projects? That will only happen if we have an outright space war. You know our Falcons fighting foo fighters, or some war of the worlds, or worse, Starship Troopers! Well I stll wonder about all those abductees though!!!!!!!

  • SpaceColonizer

    As much as I half-agree with RGO’s realist pessimism (aka my usual/default disposition) I have decided to create the petition. Here is my first draft, if any of you want to comment (comments should be active on the GoogleDoc, please don’t pollute Jeff’s blog), please do. I will likely post the real petition later tonight .

    The purpose of the petition is to express frustration with Obama’s lack of vocal support for his own space policy. I decided to focus on commercial crew, rather than make a direct attack against SLS. I do mention members of congress seeking to “maintain the status quo” at the end, which is my wink/nod at the SLS issue. I tried my best to keep it broadly acceptable and was afraid a direct attack against the SLS earmark was not only less likely to receive support from those not familiar with the issues, but also would be politically more difficult for Obama to become more vocal on.

  • John Malkin

    People employed by space related industries, space related lobbyist and space advocates are the only people (99.993497834%) that are directly affected either emotionally or financially by space related legislation.

    The most influential are large space related corporations that can afford large campaign donations and lobbyist. A citizen that isn’t related to space doesn’t really “care” or do much lifting. Surveys and letters don’t have the impact of corporate lobbyist but it’s better than doing nothing.

    It’s important to support companies like Boeing that are going against the grain.

  • amightywind

    I have decided to create the petition.

    I strongly oppose your petition. The fact that you are still struggling what do with the ISS leviathan is telling. ISS represents the reeking status quo. Its research could cure the common cold still not be worth the extraordinary sums of money sunk into it. President George W. Bush understood this when he planned to deorbit the facility in 2015. The facility is so costly it crowds out other more important priorities, like major planetary science and astrophysics missions and manned exploration.

  • Michael from Iowa

    @SC
    Needs editing, try and keep it down to about 3/4ths of a page. Try and put more emphasis on the WH making more a more publicized support effort – maybe recommend a televised address from the President, give him a chance to make a proper pitch of his original proposal to the American people?

    Otherwise looking good, I’ve got a whole physics department who’d love to sign a petition like that.

  • I strongly oppose your petition.

    Who cares?

    President George W. Bush understood this when he planned to deorbit the facility in 2015.

    There were no plans to do that. Clueless as always.

  • John Malkin

    amightywind wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
    I have decided to create the petition.

    I strongly oppose your petition. The fact that you are still struggling what do with the ISS leviathan is telling.

    ISS isn’t going anywhere. Please show me one person in Congress that wants to earnestly defund it? Destroying ISS now doesn’t see the big picture.

    I think the petition should focus on Congress constantly forcing NASA to work under budget. Congress should fully fund the goals set by Congress which includes CCDev.

  • MrEarl

    Windy: “President George W. Bush understood this when he planned to deorbit the facility in 2015.”

    Simberg: “There were no plans to do that. Clueless as always.”

    Plans were to un-man, (is that the term?) the ISS in late 2015 and then de-orbit it in the first quarter of 2016.

    Looks like nit-picky troll feeding Rand….. I guess you could say the same thing about this message too.

  • Robert G. Oler

    SpaceColonizer wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    As much as I half-agree with RGO’s realist pessimism (aka my usual/default disposition) >>

    good going…my pessimism is well mine “Gloom and Doom Oler” is a phrase…and anytime people want to get involved in the “redress of their grievances” then my line is “go forth”.

    As for Obama not supporting his own policy…thats Obama. Obama has in my view been completely ineffective in advocating things that he stands for or said he stood for or even claims now he stands for. And the GOP has just the opposite affect…if Obama is for it they are more or less dead set against it flip flopping is no big deal with them.

    As it is I htink things are moving fine. SLS and Webb are succumbing to NASA sloth and incompetence which in normal times would not be fatal but today with things spinning out of control are…commercial cargo seems to be plodding forward and when that actually works, then commercial crew wont be far behind.

    Herman Cain continues his entertainment tour…and even op eds on Red state are calling the GOP field “pathetic”. things will work themselves out. The creator takes care of drunks, The USN and The USA…LOL

    Robert g. Oler

  • MrEarl

    RGO:
    “As it is I htink things are moving fine. SLS and Webb are succumbing to NASA sloth and incompetence which in normal times would not be fatal but today with things spinning out of control are”

    I don’t know why you keep saying this. SLS and MPCV schedules are moving to the left, the costs are being held check, unlike Constellation that was late and over budget coming out of the gate, and there is key support in the congress for them. Must be wishful thinking on your part.
    As for the WEBB, it is what it is, and it has a great defender in Mikulski.
    Things are turning out just as I told you they would 2 years ago; commercial to LEO, NASA to BEO.

  • DCSCA

    @John Malkin wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    “ISS isn’t going anywhere.”

    Except on the national credit card, in circles and eventually, into the Pacific.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
    “I don’t know why you keep saying this. SLS and MPCV schedules are moving to the left, the costs are being held check”

    none of that is happening or if it is it is only in rhetoric. NASA right now is trying to blow a lot of smoke about SLS times and they havent even gotten the wind tunnel test done of the “various” configs. Webb went another 100 million over budget recently.

    NASA has some internal estimates of 32 billion to get SLS to a human config…

    Both are going to die soon RGO

  • Frank Glover

    @ almightywind:

    “At the moment, the military can put iron on any bad guy on the planet at any time. NASA is begging rides from the Russians. See the difference?”

    The difference is expectations.This is part of what the military is supposed to do. But with the possible exception of an asteroid impact threat, no one expects NASA to always be ready to immediately act on our collective behalf. It’s a research and development agency, not an armed service (As much as we know you’d like to change that…but then there would no longer be room for much of what NASA does. Why would the DoD launch a Pluto flyby probe [much less develop an HLV], for example?) Apples and oranges, Windy. It’s not what they do, or are even perceived as doing.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi AW –

    You’re getting off message again. The reason we’re buying rides from Russia is because ATK is a crummy company, which could not deliver a crummy rocket anywhere near on time or on budget.

    RGO – SLS does not have to get to a human config (manned rating). There will be two manned launchers available when needed for that part of the ride.

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    I hope JWST survives somehow. And the audience and visibility are far larger than that of SLS/MPCV.

    But Robert is right. SLS will die and MPCV will follow. If not now, pretty soon. Note that they can keep going another 4/5 years and their fate will be that of Constellation’s. I predicted zombie programs since after the Augustine Committee. And it is what they are.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    I think Obama did what he could with an idiotic Congress. Sure GOP is dead set against him but it can be said of his own party. An example is Nelson.

    You cannot lead people who don’t want to be led. Nope. Not a chance in the world. And Congress does not want to be led. Hence their approval rate.

    How we can elect people (Congress) that we despise so much is beyond me.

  • JohnHunt

    I figure attempting a petition wouldn’t hurt. It could get some helpful publicity.

    For it to get 25,000 signatures, I think that it should appeal to the “stick-it-to-the-man” attitude. Since I think that the SLS is probably currently the main obstacle to permanenrly opening space, I would go for the jugglar and call for it’s termination. It would be very easy to write the petition in such a way that would cast the SLS in a very negative light since it is more pork than anything. So, play it up. Don’t hold back. It is:
    – a massive waste of taxpayer money,
    – fills the pockets of special interests in certain districts,
    – undermines proven cost-effective commercial alternatives,
    – extends our HSF gap,
    – prevents funding of more worthy and sustainable approaches, and so
    -batunta our leadership in space thereby denying our children from seeing the best that America can achieve.

    Something like that.

    But, if people are going to read and sign it, it must be very brief. 3 or 4 sentences top.

  • Frank Glover

    @ Mr Earl:

    “I don’t know why you keep saying this. SLS and MPCV schedules are moving to the left, the costs are being held check, unlike Constellation that was late and over budget coming out of the gate, and there is key support in the congress for them.”

    Considering SLS *began* in Congress (and not at NASA’s request or proposal), it’s not much of a surprise that there’s ‘key support in Congress.’ And it doesn’t have to fly on schedule (if at all), in order to work for those ‘key supporters.’

    Though a holdover from Constellation, at least Orion *can* fly on something else (and on something that already exists, at that), and SLS would look utterly silly and have zero justification without it (still no money for landers or anything else it’s supposedly needed to lift, though), so Orion/MPCV has to be along for the developmental ride, as the only bit of real clothing the Emperor has…

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    SLS and MPCV schedules are moving to the left, the costs are being held check

    I don’t think SLS supporters realize how ironic it is that Bolden is their best friend for keeping the SLS alive. If he had succumbed to the pressure early on to make contract awards the program would have been out of control out of the gate – the Constellation contractors would have had zero reason to try and hold the line on the spiraling costs the brought down Constellation.

    However I think it’s too soon to know if the SLS program is on schedule and on budget – they don’t even know what the design is for the center tank and upper stage, and the 130mt boosters have not been competitively bid. There is still plenty of time to do the usual budget creep.

    The big question is what will happen first – budget creep will force it’s cancellation, or the realization that Griffin was right when he said all we need is Delta IV Heavy to get back to the Moon…

  • JohnHunt

    Sorry, I sent that before proofing it. Exchange “harms” instead of “batunta” :)

  • Robert G. Oler

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    “RGO – SLS does not have to get to a human config (manned rating). ”

    it does in NASA land. without the human rate part, it is well more of a joke RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    i common sense wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ November 8th, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    I think Obama did what he could with an idiotic Congress. Sure GOP is dead set against him but it can be said of his own party. An example is Nelson.

    You cannot lead people who don’t want to be led. Nope. Not a chance in the world. And Congress does not want to be led. Hence their approval rate. >>

    I am not impressed with Obama’s leadership performance on any issue. I think that the GOP Congress is deserving of its low ratings and are a bunch of hypocrites and jerks…but Obama has failed in my view to summon opposition to them. Having said that I think he is going to be reelected. The GOP field is made up of dolts, womanizers, and backflipper Willard.

    RGO

  • Vladislaw

    MrEarl wrote:

    “RGO:
    “As it is I htink things are moving fine. SLS and Webb are succumbing to NASA sloth and incompetence which in normal times would not be fatal but today with things spinning out of control are”

    MrE:
    I don’t know why you keep saying this. SLS and MPCV schedules are moving to the left, the costs are being held check, unlike Constellation that was late and over budget coming out of the gate, and there is key support in the congress for them.”

    Robert stated that NASA sloth on two projects will are moving them to the left and ultimately cancellation. You responded with their schedules are moving to the left, I think you made a mistake and mean’t moving to the right, that would be the postive direction. I believe Robert is correct on SLS, I believe it will have a little more legs before cancellation then he does.

    You said costs are being held in check, for SLS there hasn’t been any checks issued yet so to say prices are being held in check is invalid. Remember Congress stated 18 billion was all SLS was going to get. When the BH report was released they put the starting figure at 32 billion and 38 billion was going to be more realistic, they also expressed very little confidence in these figures holding true past 3-5 years because NASA added so many items that would bring prices down in the out years. Booze Hamilton stated that there was literally no documentation on how these savings were going to occur in the out years. NASA had included a lot of the old saws about how through better contracting controls etc they would achieve these savings. But as BH stated, NASA has never achieved those before and they expressed little faith that NASA would achieve them this time.

    NASA is going to slam their head into the proverbial brick wall and expect a different result. NASA has illustrated over the last 30-40 years that meeting schedules and budgets was not their forte.

    After this report and illustrating that costs would be almost twice as much as congress was going to authorized, what did congress do? Approved it. There is still just a tiny bit left in budgeting for congressional space states to get away with this. But trading turkey is getting very close to being over. It will a little harder to say “I will vote for your pork if you vote for mine”, as it relates to NASA.

    With the James Webb, I believe that it is to late to cancel and with it’s strongest supporter on the Appropriations committee you either give her her pork or you can kiss anything you want goodbye. I believe JW is currently in a lot stronger position, politicially, than SLS. More people are in touch with Hubble and will be wanting a replacement than identify with Apollo and want a redux.

  • Assume I’m not the only to note how we could have visited an asteroid for a bargain price this week. Could a shuttle have pulled it off?

  • reader

    But, if people are going to read and sign it, it must be very brief. 3 or 4 sentences top.

    That’s one thing, catering for the common length of the attention span.

    Second thing is relevance. Just being all spacey and attentive to detail obviously does not get you anywhere. Punch line that gets most people concerned, because they feel the relevance to themselves, is the thing that you need, unfortunately. Think sound bites.

    Good luck with finding that.

    Hire a “mold breaking” PR firm to have any hopes of success. I feel sorry for this, but that is the unfortunate way things work.

  • SpaceColonizer

    Alright, I’ve finished the petition. By popular demand I shortened it… then when I went to post it I found out there was an 800 character limit… so I shortened it A LOT more. Man, I kinda wish I looked into how long they could be before I wrote that monster of a thing. I also made sure to stress that increased oversight and regulations are BAD. Here’s the link. If you agree with what I said, please sign the petition. Please tell your space friends. Tell your facebook “friends”. Tweet it. Stick your head out the window and yell “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.” Well maybe not that last one, but please get the word out.

    The text is short enough for me to just go ahead and post it here:

    After the retirement of the Space Shuttle, the only way for Americans to get into space is to buy a seat on the Russian Soyuz. Our dependency on this “single point of failure” is simply unacceptable. Commercial companies are currently working with NASA and competing to provide these badly needed crew transportation services, but these initiatives are under threat from underfunding and the potential for increased oversight and regulations that are likely to increase costs and delay availability. This petition asks that you step up your support for these initiatives by going on record and telling Congress that fully funding the commercial crew program is the only path forward for a healthy space program.

  • GuessWho

    CR wrote – “Commercial Crew will solve the problem if politics will just get out of the way.”

    Talk about an oxymoron. If there were truly a “commercial” market in the offing, politics would have nothing to do with it. Your statement admits that without a USG involvement (i.e. funding), “commercial crew” is non-existent. The USG has no business creating and subsidizing this market and in the process picking winners and losers. There is nothing that prevents private businesses from creating and executing a commercial manned spaceflight business, except a business case that closes.

  • Byeman

    “Commercial” as far as NASA is concerned is not what the money source is , but the contracting methodology. “Commercial” to NASA means buying a service vs hardware. “Commercial” for NASA has nothing to do with the market or subsiding.
    So Guesswho is completely off base.

  • Coastal Ron

    GuessWho wrote @ November 9th, 2011 at 2:20 am

    Your statement admits that without a USG involvement (i.e. funding), “commercial crew” is non-existent.

    You are confused. There is already a functioning market for crew transportation to the ISS, but at the moment there is only one provider – Russia. NASA is buying transport at the 2016 price of $63M/seat, and the CCDev program is meant to allow U.S. suppliers to compete in the market.

    There is nothing that prevents private businesses from creating and executing a commercial manned spaceflight business, except a business case that closes.

    That is a false statement. Congress has given NASA authority over who can transport cargo and crew to the ISS from the U.S., so no, companies can’t just “show up” and demand to off-load passengers and cargo.

    The CCDev program is what NASA is using to ensure that the aerospace industry is building crew systems that NASA is happy with, and it’s also the way the industry is extracting information out of NASA to build safe systems. That is why it’s called a public-private relationship, since both get something out of it.

    Regarding a business case, Boeing, SNC and SpaceX have stated that they can close their business case with just the ISS business. What you believe is immaterial, since you don’t know what their true marketing plans are.

    For instance Boeing has a partnership with Bigelow Aerospace, so they know how they can expand their customer base if the conditions arise. SpaceX is likely targeting Bigelow also, since Bigelow has stated they want at least two crew providers, and SpaceX can also leverage their existing (and fugure) CRS contract to keep their prices low.

    SNC and Blue Origin have a tougher challenge marketwise, but since they haven’t revealed their internal marketing plans we’ll just have to wait and see if they pan out. That’s capitalism, and they are quite aware of how it works – are you?

  • ISS isn’t going anywhere.

    No kidding. 12 years after our study of the commercialization potential of ISS, we remain vindicated. Another few years and that station will be older than MIR when we told the Russians to put it into the drink.

    With the budget and economy problems we continue to face (and the Europeans face, and the Russians face, and the Japanese face…) ISS will quickly lose the remaining support it has. And then we can deorbit the glorious beast.

  • DCSCA

    @Space Cynic wrote @ November 9th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    “…the glorious beast.”

    Indeed, a monster which as devoured billions of dollars in scarce funding, produced nothing of value for the investment, yet was fully supported from inception as a government works project over any return to the moon program by Lori Garver from her NSS days. Garver was wrong in the 80s, 90s and wrong for NASA today.

  • Dennis

    Gents today the J2X engine was to be test fired again for the full length of time needed to lift the Orion into space. It seems the money is still flowing toward the SLS, whether U like it or not. Im for commercial, but Im also for the SLS. The more ways we have to get into space the better. Even if Musk proves his COTS flight here in a month, I think SLS will continue on.

  • Coastal Ron

    Space Cynic wrote @ November 9th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    With the budget and economy problems we continue to face (and the Europeans face, and the Russians face, and the Japanese face…) ISS will quickly lose the remaining support it has.

    The big question for Congress is whether they are more interested in a jobs program (the SLS) or in exploring space (just about everything else in NASA’s budget). We’ll see which way they go, although I’ve always thought that the SLS won’t be killed off until after the Presidential election, so likely the budget negotiations in 2013.

    However it continues to be amazing how people can vehemently dislike our only permanent presence in space. That living and working in space is the wrong way to achieve our goal of learning to live and work in space. Weird.

  • Robert G. Oler

    GuessWho wrote @ November 9th, 2011 at 2:20 am

    ” If there were truly a “commercial” market in the offing, politics would have nothing to do with it. Your statement admits that without a USG involvement (i.e. funding), “commercial crew” is non-existent”

    Hello Guess…goofy.

    Go ask SWA how politics played large roles in their birth.

    Commercial crew does not exist without a USG involvement because they are the “commercial crew” client. goofy RGO

  • Frank Glover

    “However it continues to be amazing how people can vehemently dislike our only permanent presence in space. That living and working in space is the wrong way to achieve our goal of learning to live and work in space. Weird.”

    They assume that the demise of ISS would mean that money we spend to support it would automatically be diverted to big Apollo-esq projects…and there is no such guarantee, especially in these austere days.

    No ISS would mean only no ISS.

    (And a lot more whining of the sort that still follows Shuttle about how the US has lost its way, is on a downward spiral, etc…)

  • John Malkin

    Frank Glover wrote @ November 9th, 2011 at 10:49 pm

    I Agree.

    After Shuttle was retired it’s funds were to be transferred to Constellation. Where did the funds go? The same with ISS the funds would disappear and NASA budget reduced. America would have no US Astronauts in space unless they ride with the Russia or China to ?.

    This has happen before with Skylab when we had no access to it and we were developing “HL”, the Shuttle. We let it fall back to earth and it was over 30 years before we had a completed space station. This time we at least are developing LEO access in parallel with a HLV. I don’t think it’s the best HL and I don’t think we need something that large.

Leave a Reply to sftommy 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>