Major, it’s ‘Back to the Future’ time for America’s space program. Go back to the origins of NASA, assembled from the old NACA and the threads of the early space and high altitude research in the late 40s and early 50s conducted by the USAF, the USN and US Army. This kind of space program- with expensive projects of scale; long term projects, can only bet sustained, with steady, adequate funding through the Age of Austerity. But as its structured now, with its Cold War raison d’etre over- just as the Cold War ended nearly 25 years ago– the NASA of today is a sitting duck for budget cuts. Tucking the ‘civilian NASA’ under the protective wing of the DoD with the shield of national security at least give it a chance of surviving. Because commercial HSF is gonig no place fast. They’ve demonstrated a reluctance to try to orbit and returned anybody wheras back in the early 60s, per Chris Kraft, military test pilots with the Right Stuff assumed the risk of flying into space on rocket-prepelled systems with a 60% success rate. Today, commerical HSF is inhibited by the fear of failure and their firms are clearly risk averse and will remain so until the financial gain outweighs the risk of failure. Profiteers make for poor rocketeers. THe best next step is likely Branson’s Virgin Galactic sub-orbital jaunts, akin to the X-15 of 50 years ago.

Space exploration projects of scale in this era are beyond the capacity of the private sector to finance, particularly quarterly driven enterprises, where the primary goal is to make a profit.

@ROBERT OLER wrote @ November 17th, 2011 at 12:30 pm

…but in a year Musk will have a near duplicate of his crewed vehicle that will have flown a few times…” LOLOLOL inother ords, he’ll orbit nobody again. Flying an uncrewed ‘crewed vehicle’ is a hallmark of the Musketeers. – Pass the cheese and pass the time. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

Major Princeton Wright
ILE student, Staff Group 33C
Command and General Staff School

“Right now, Congress trusts NASA more than it does the commercial sector.”

What an inane statement, and more of your “dartboard” reasoning (make a bunch of guesses and hope one is right) when you don’t have any facts.

If Congress “trusts NASA”, then they would listen to NASA when NASA says that commercial companies are up to providing crew transportation. Even Congress has made it a law that commercial companies will be the primary method of getting our crew to the ISS – the MPCV is (by law) only a backup. How do you explain that? It’s not a trust issue, it’s money going to the “right” places.

“Granted, we have had two events involving loss of crew and vehicle, but those were from failures in NASA management and a failure to anticipate the terminal events on the design side.”

Again you’re making stuff up, and if you pick apart what you think happened nothing has changed to correct ” failures in NASA management and a failure to anticipate the terminal events on the design side”. The same things can happen with the SLS and MPCV. Sad but true, and mainly because Congress is forcing NASA to be something that it is not – a transportation organization.

“But you still seem to think that Congress should just be a rubber stamp, and approve the projects without any kind of debate or oversight.”

You got that wrong. That just goes to show you how much you don’t listen.

“As long as NASA is beholden to Congress, NASA (along with every other government agency) has to do what Congress says when it comes to spending.”

What’s this “beholden” crap? It’s clear you don’t fully understand how our government works. You know, the whole “separation of powers” thing?

Nor do you understand that NASA’s budget is not being overseen by “Congress”, but by a relatively few in Congress. Those few, and a few on the Appropriations committees, are the small amount of people that decide what money NASA will get, and for what.

And let’s not forget the politics of what Congress does. They are not making decisions based solely on “the greater good”, but also in part based on “MY greater good”. No science, no fully informed reviews, no consensus. Political boundary greed.

However because NASA is such a small and relatively insignificant part of the U.S. Government, Presidents usually doesn’t spend much political capital on what Congress wants to spend on NASA. Hence why we haven’t gone back to the Moon in 40 years, and likely won’t in another 40.

Has nothing to do with trust and you know it. Has everything to do with jobs and special interests at the expense of exploration that would indeed be a source of national pride. The fact that you in previous posts imply that does not bother you, says volumes about what your position really is. Especially considering the mischaracterisations by you in previous posts, like: Augustine Report recommended Ares V size launchers, Orbital as a crewed spaceflight participant, etc. People here don’t trust what you say, Matt. Why?

Ron: Clearly, we won’t change each other’s POV. But you still seem to think that Congress should just be a rubber stamp, and approve the projects without any kind of debate or oversight. It’s not just NASA that has this: DOD especiallly has problems with Congressional mandates to buy things that DOD doesn’t want. As long as NASA is beholden to Congress, NASA (along with every other government agency) has to do what Congress says when it comes to spending. They can’t spend money on a program, no matter how noble the intent, nor the benefits of the program, unless it’s authorized by Congress. They have to follow the law just like everyone else.

Notice that I said “in the ideal world”: that’s where NASA gets twice as much money as it currently does. But since we’re on FlexPath for budgetary reasons and no other…I don’t like it, but have to accept it. We’re likely to see some Lunar Orbit and L-Point missions before the NEO, and I can live with that. As long as there’s a committment to lunar return so that we can practice and prepare for both the Martian Moons and Mars itself. Even Norm Augustine in his report mentions lunar missions prior to heading to Mars.

Btw, did you see the hearing today? Senators were telling Charlie Bolden that it was Congress, not the Administration, that provided the direction and leadership moving forward. Those are the people you have to get on your side if you want their support for proposed programs, or increased funding for current ones. That’s how the system works.

“Ron, I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat: NASA explores, Commercial supports and then exploits.”

Matt, you can say whatever you want, but you’re not in the decision loop. Also, your frame of reference for “how things should be done” is Apollo, and that was an aberration in the history of exploration.

One thing is for sure, if we have to rely on NASA for our entire expansion into the solar system, it’s going to be a long, long time. NASA just doesn’t get enough budget to do serious beyond-LEO space exploration.

“The Moon is NOT the ultimate destination: MARS is. But the Moon should be the ideal FIRST destination. Got that?”

No, I don’t. Again, you don’t decide these things, so why should anyone agree with you? What you should be trying to do is persuade people, not dictate. Got that?

Oler’s once again showing his disdain for any HSF. How original.

Again, you cannot separate politics from policy. To assume the contrary is pretty naive. How many times must it be said? There’s a big difference between what YOU want NASA to do and what CONGRESS will allow NASA to do. NASA is beholden to Congress-they write the checks, after all. And NASA has to do what Congress says-or no money. If you don’t satisfy the politicians, they’ll vote against you and then where would you be, hmm?

This site’s about space politics: it should be clear that the Congresscritters in both Houses who are from “space states” are very influential in determining Space Policy and procurement. Same thing on the Defense side.

Finally something of value.

Lobbying is a fine art…but in a year Musk will have a near duplicate of his crewed vehicle that will have flown a few times and Boeing won’t. That will make a large difference as the pressure to get something US flying with. Crew will mount. RGO

Sent from my IPAD