Campaign '12, NASA

Obama’s Florida campaign wants Romney to take a stand on space

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is campaigning in Florida today, which prompted President Obama’s campaign organization in the state to issue a statement calling on Romney to take a position on space policy. “Today, Floridians deserve to know if Mitt Romney agrees with his Republican allies in Congress or if he stands with President Obama in supporting the next era of space exploration,” said Eric Jotkoff, press secretary for Obama for America Florida, in a statement emailed earlier today.

Romney, Jotkoff said in the statement, “has provided unwavering support for the Republican budget plans that would undermine America’s space program and our country’s future as the leader in a new industry. He is seeking advice on space policy from the strongest advocates of a Bush Administration plan that tried to recreate the glories of the past with the technology of the past.” That’s a reference to a January open letter issued by the Romney campaign on space policy, whose signatories include former NASA administrator Mike Griffin.

The Obama campaign statement sought in particular to link Romney to the CJS appropriations bill passed by the House last week that, among other measures, includes report language calling for an immediate downselect to one or two companies for NASA’s commercial crew development program. “Now his allies in Congress are trying to eliminate competition in a nascent private space industry which is driving innovation, moving space exploration forward and creating hundreds of jobs on Florida’s Space Coast. Mitt Romney has said he supports the House Budget,” Jotkoff stated.

The Romney campaign has largely been quiet on space since the candidate’s January 27 speech on Florida’s Space Coast, where Romney declined to take a particular stand on space policy (in marked contrast to Newt Gingrich’s call for a lunar base by 2020, made just two days earlier). Instead, he talked about how he would bring in experts from throughout the space community to develop a mission for NASA. In that speech he was critical of President Obama’s approach to space, calling out “his failure to define a mission for the space program for this nation.” One month later Romney said he was in no hurry to go back to the Moon, which actually would put him more in line with the current administration, which abandoned plans by the Bush Administration for a human return to the Moon by 2020, than fellow Republican Gingrich.

104 comments to Obama’s Florida campaign wants Romney to take a stand on space

  • Robert G. Oler

    This is smart politics and is the start of the effort to tie Willard to the very unpopular GOP House and the Ryan budget in particular.

    Obama is the weakest reelect since 1964, he has squandered three years in various stupid efforts in dealing with first a Congress of his own party and now the GOP in the House…but it appears as though the GOP is prepared to save him.

    With the folks in the House breaking the deal on spending…ie shifting funds from almost every program over to defense…and yet still insisting on “savings”..it is still early 17X days before the election…

    but what you can see is Obama tying Willard (and Willard actually wanting to go there) to the Ryan budget. That might be what the election comes down to actually. A referendum on the Ryan budget.

    If it does and Obama is skillfull, he will win. The American people by large margins (60-70 percent) are ready to take an axe to defense spending and cut “non performing” programs…If OBama can tie Willard to SLS/Orion (and I predict Willard will go there cheerfully) then thats a winner for Obama

    SpaceX is going to get to the space station adn come back before the election…they might do it on this effort. If they do you will have two contrasting pictures.

    Elon Musk who made a lot of money reinvesting it not in capital get richer quick schemes, but actual industries which bend metal and build hardware and do it for a lot less money then government…and The fat old people at NASA who cant hit the ground with an SLS/Orion book…

    A youthful looking Obama walking around the Dragon capsule talking about “the future” and a stiff Willard, as Whittington puts it speaking “what his handlers told him to say”.

    It will sell in Florida and I think across the US. RGO

  • amightywind

    Obama’s space policy is damaging him in Florida. No reason for Romney to do anything specific except oppose Obama. He’d probably benefit from some of his high profile supporters, like Neil Armstrong, speaking out once in a while. But there is no need to be more specific than give assurances of support. The ‘rope a dope’ strategy is working fine for the time being. Go with ‘No Dram Rom’ this November!

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    Obama’s space policy is damaging him in Florida.>>

    Do you have data to support his or are you just “blowing”. RGO

  • E.P. Grondine

    RGO –

    Vince Lombardi said a good offense is a good defense.

    Several years ago I asked people here how they thought ATK would do under Romney.

    For some reason I think this election is going to come down to the swing voters, and their views on gay marriage versus the Mormon religion.

  • E.P. Grondine

    AW –

    Leverage Buyout Artists are pretty universally despised.

    While Jobs and Iacoca earned and deserved their millions, what the hell did Romney do to earn his?

  • amightywind

    Do you have data to support his or are you just “blowing”.

    Obama is running even with Romney on Real Clear Politics. Marco Rubio was elected to the Senate in 2010. Bill Nelson is vulnerable. That is an improvement for the GOP over 4 years ago. One must conclude that Obama’s handling of NASA has something to do with it.

    If space policy were a strength he’d be down in Florida touting it on the Space Coast. Instead he’s been down in Miami raising money with Ricky Martin on South Beach. The melancholy optics of America’s retired shuttle fleet or the weeds growing through the concrete slabs at the Cape are not the backdrop he’d prefer.

  • Robert G. Oler

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    RGO –

    Vince Lombardi said a good offense is a good defense.

    >>

    Yeah and Obama has no choice but to run right at Willard and push him into defending the Ryan budget. Look this is 2004 time. In the end by the time Bush ran for reelect all of his policies had started coming up turds…things were out of control (and most people could see we were going to “lose” in Iraq if winning meant staying there and controlling that country the Bush model) but Kerry had no real answers for the issue …and was so wishy washy he couldnt stick Bush to anything.

    Obama has to stick Willard to the Ryan budget because he has no real accomplishments that are politically viable on his own. Thats not a great strategery…but…

    it may be what we are down to. In the end elections bring clarity when the divisions become so sharp that they force “independents” to pick up and chose which side they are going to..and we are in my view there.

    Space policy is not that important but it is thematic…in the end Obama can tie Willard to Ryan and with that to SLS/Orion…absent Willard embracing commercial lift…and he wont do that…and then we have a clear choice, not an echo (sorry)

    we have one guy who is for massive corporate giveaways that really in the end accomplish nothing but keep the corporate industrial complex in power…and we have another guy who is embracing free enterprise.. which has produced something that flies.

    As an aside I think “gay marriage” will only be thematic. Again do you want someone who is aligned with the really quite hated religious right or someone who is more in tune with the future…

    Willards religion…? Only an issue for the far right. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    None of that has a thing to do with space…(and as an aside it is bad news for Willard that he is just running “even”)…study some politics.

    Look I think that the Obama political shop is some of the dumbest people who breath…only slightly less dumb then their GOP equivalents. But a blind person can see that if Obama is going to come down and (in the words of some “take a victory lap”) on space policy, the time to do it is after The Dragon has landed.

    Then…RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    “While Jobs and Iacoca earned and deserved their millions, what the hell did Romney do to earn his?”

    that is where space policy works and works hard for Obama.

    Willard is one of those people who made his money “the shifty way” ie by financial dealings that are really only reserved for the “Upper class” ie the insider group. Musk makes his money then goes to SpaceX and is hoping to make more “the old fashion way” by earning it through building a product.

    The contrast is something that Obama will want to draw…because as Willard stands up and does (again to use Whittington’s line) “what he is told to think” the contrast standing with the fat old NASA people who have failed at everything…will be amazing.

    RGO

  • Jon A.

    It’s pretty nonsensical for Obama to tie Romney to Bush’s space program and make that a negative, considering that Obama’s space program is virtually identical to Bush’s. Just replace one white elephant launch system with another.

    And it’s absolutely hypocritical for Obama to denigrate Bush’s space program while posing next to a SpaceX rocket that is the result of the Bush era space program.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “Bill Nelson is vulnerable.”

    I’m no fan of Nelson, but that’s just inaccurate. Even Republicans admit that he’s going to be reelected:

    “But in a parallel to the presidential race, a scrambled, drawn-out Republican primary and questions about the quality of GOP candidates have left Nelson in what looks — for the moment — like a comfortable position.

    ‘We’ve experienced a smaller but similar flavor-of-the-month, like in the presidential primary,’ said Republican political consultant Chris Ingram of Tampa. ‘Nelson remains the luckiest man in Washington, and we’ll probably be calling him ‘Senator Nelson’ for another six years.’”

    … On Friday, the Rothenberg Political Report upgraded its estimate of Nelson’s chances to win again in November from tossup to ‘leaning Democratic,’ citing the GOP primary turmoil and polls showing Nelson widening his lead.”

    http://www2.tbo.com/news/politics/2012/apr/22/namaino1-gop-scrambles-in-bid-to-unseat-sen-nelson-ar-395229/

    “One must conclude that Obama’s handling of NASA has something to do with it.”

    That would be the wrong conclusion to draw given that space issues failed to even have a local impact versus the statewide results in either of these Florida elections:

    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/30/did-space-policy-affect-the-florida-primary-results/

    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/02/01/did-space-policy-affect-the-outcome-of-the-florida-primary/

  • MrEarl

    “Obama is the weakest reelect since 1964,” RGO
    You knowledge of politics is amazing Robert! Johnson had one of the largest victories in American politics that year. But I do agree with you that Obama is a weak incumbent, along the lines of Jimmy Carter.

    Though never a great fan of Hilary, I believe that the experience she gained during her two terms as senator would have allowed her to handle all decisions the past few years better than Obama has and put the Democrat party in a better position in the upcoming elections both presidential and congressional. Obama’s newness to the national stage and lack of the driving force of will that TR had, and who Obama seems to like to model himself after at times, has shown in most decisions and actions he’s taken. (Mr. Obama…. I knew Teddy Roosevelt and you are no Teddy Roosevelt!! At least my kids think I’m that old. LOL )
    The way things are now, without a dramatic economic turn or big goof by Romney, either of which is unlikely, I don’t see how Obama wins in a close election. I think a lot of moderate Democrats and independents see him as a nice guy but not someone who they would trust their money with and make no mistake, money is what will be the #1 issue in November by a wide margin.

  • amightywind

    While Jobs and Iacoca earned and deserved their millions, what the hell did Romney do to earn his?

    He took risks on risky assets, comrade. That’s what venture capitalist does. He helps distressed companies reach their maximum value, either through restructuring or liquidation. As a greedy investor, I appreciate management that delivers maximum value. So should you if you have a 401K.

    Obama has to stick Willard to the Ryan budget

    That won’t work unless he proposes an alternative. The previous two budgets submitted by Obama failed to win a single vote by either party in congress.

  • considering that Obama’s space program is virtually identical to Bush’s. Just replace one white elephant launch system with another.

    That’s not Obama’s space program — it’s Congress’s. Obama proposed to get rid of the “white elephant launch system.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    “Obama is the weakest reelect since 1964,” RGO

    You replied:
    “You knowledge of politics is amazing Robert! Johnson had one of the largest victories in American politics that year. But I do agree with you that Obama is a weak incumbent, along the lines of Jimmy Carter.”

    A few points and then a comment.

    I dont class either Johnson in 64 or Ford in 76 as a “reelect”. They were both of course incumbents; but both had “come to the Presidency” without being at the top of ticket, and both were having issues gaining control of the party from the folks who had had control of the party before.

    Johnson in 64 had some issues running into the general but AuH2O and Miller quickly shoved those aside and cleverly made themselves the issues in the campaign (or at least their politics and policy). That is pretty much death for a challenger. As Reagan illustrated in 80 and Kerry in 04 if you can make “the incumbent” the issue you win, if you become the issue…you lose.

    I only used 64 as a time marker actually…to me modern politics start about then. There are some “warmups” in the 52, 56, and 60 campaign…but nothing like in the 64 effort.

    Obama is a weak incumbent probably on par with Carter although I would more place him with Bush of 04 or Bush41 or 92…Carter almost has a unique position due to the issues with the Hostages…

    Bush 41 and 43 share a lot with Obama in that none of them could point to a “political success” which was appreciated as a reelect issue by the people of The Republic. Bush41 to this day (I’ve been privileged to talk with him about this) is shocked that he lost 92 because of the victory in Desert Storm. by 92 few cared.

    Obama has political triumphs which for the life of me he cannot explain and on things which are change of course events that the 08 election signaled…the Bush tax cuts, war in Afland etc…he has been full of timidity.

    As for HRC…sadly I think the time has passed her by but she was the one we missed in 08 which could have I think moved the nation forward in solving its issues…she might be back in 16 but I look for new blood one way or the other on the Dem side. IF Willard loses in 16 however I look for a Palin/Santorum fight for the nomination. (although thats so far away its merely crystal ball thinking).

    Who wins in 12? It all depends on who becomes the issue. Obama’s political shop is weak, but Willards shop doesnt have a lot to work with. Mostly GOP policies are hated by swing voters…but Obama has failed to stick the GOP and Willard with them…so far.

    All I suggest here is that Obama has a good chance, if he can muster it to stick Willard with SLS/Orion and the Ryan budget and those are unpopular. RGO

  • Vladislaw

    Jon A. wrote:

    “It’s pretty nonsensical for Obama to tie Romney to Bush’s space program and make that a negative, considering that Obama’s space program is virtually identical to Bush’s. Just replace one white elephant launch system with another. “

    Pretty hard to tie the Senate Launch System to President Obama, that was forced on the Administration by the usual suspects in Congress.

    In my opinion President Obama was more supportive of the Vision for Space Exploration than President Bush’s NASA Administrator Dr. Griffin.

    He supported commercial aerospace firms for crew swaps on the ISS.

    He tried supporting a lot more technology, that was called for in the VSE.

    He canceled the rockets to nowhere, as per the VSE that said NASA would be building no new rockets.

    Wanted to support fuel depot development, which was called for in the VSE.

    I always thought he should have embraced the VSE as the one thing President Bush did that was okay. Wouldn’t get in much trouble with the base supporting an almost non issue as space.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    Me sort of…
    Obama has to stick Willard to the Ryan budget

    you replied:
    “That won’t work unless he proposes an alternative.”

    NO not so much. The rule of politics (see the 1980 election of Reagan and the 04 defeat of Kerry) is that whoever wins the definition contest generally does not have to define an alternative.

    Ronaldus the Great NEVER not a single time said what he would have done about the hostage issue, which was the Ryan budget of its era. the issue in 04 became that Kerry could not define an alternate Iraq policy.

    Carter tried to pin Ronaldus the Great on “what he would do” in Iran…but Reagan was to deft for that…and the American people had made up their mind that Iran and the hostage thing was a symbol for all of the other Carter ills.

    If Obama can (and this is yet to be seen) stick the Ryan budget on Willard…then he can get by with alternatives which are “general”. History suggest so. Ryans budget polls bad. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jon A. wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 4:01 pm

    And it’s absolutely hypocritical for Obama to denigrate Bush’s space program while posing next to a SpaceX rocket that is the result of the Bush era space program.>>

    Not in the least but even if it was “hypocrisy” is rarely something that points are taken off for in politics.

    If Obama can link Willard to SLS and attach himself to SpaceX ….that is going to be a plus both in FL and nationwide. I dont know that he can…but Obama should try. and Isuspect he will RGO

  • DCSCA

    “Obama’s Florida campaign wants Romney to take a stand on space.”

    They mean reiterate it. He’d form a committee to study it and has very publicly stated during the debates that anybody working for him who came to him pitching space exploration ideas like moonbases would be fired.

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 1:28 pm

    “SpaceX is going to get to the space station adn come back before the election…they might do it on this effort. If they do you will have two contrasting pictures.”

    =yawn= Another press release pitching a firn which to date has failed to meet a schedule. The have a lunch window on Saturday – albeit one second. we’ll see if they launch or slip yet another window.

    The only thing reliable about Space X is their unreliability. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • Vladislaw

    “He took risks on risky assets, comrade”

    Took risks? Buy a company, stop paying all the bills, pocket all the cash, then declare bankrupcy and break the company off and sell off the parts. Sounds pretty risky.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    Obama’s space policy is damaging him in Florida.>>

    Do you have data to support his or are you just “blowing”. RGO

    Don’t be daft, Oler. The layoffs alone speak volumes thanks to Obama’s refusal to fly shuttle quartrly or semi-annually in the gap- and, of course, Scott Pelley presented a slice of the souring space coast life on 60 Minutes and if you believe private firms are going to pick up the slack, you’re dreaming. Reaganomics-styled, private enterprised amateurs are not going to fuel employment and move mankind out into the cosmos. Government funded and managed space projects of scale have begun the process and will continue it..

  • Robert G. Oler

    On the way out to work on my levee…at our new farm

    Jeff Foust our host has a good article up on Space Review about what is at stake on the Dragon launch…in my view it is a solid piece, well written and lays out the issues (although it doesnt go into the politics of it).

    But one reason I have not tolerated those very well who are beating up on SpaceX for “endless” delays…is that to mimic TR “The delays will be forgotten if the thing works and if it fails, they wont matter”.

    SpaceX launch is rightly or wrongly a litmus test for the commercial policy which might have been started by Bush43 but is in the minds even of the people who love Bush43…an Obama program.

    If SpaceX fails, they will of course try again (and OSC will try at some point) but the politics of the failure might overwhelm any future success. The reverse is true as well. If SpaceX succeeds (we might all argue what that means) then the end is in sight for the old NASA way of doing things and SLS/Orion in particular.

    Those of us who have advocated commercial space will have a lot to cheer about if Dragon gets to the station…it will be the dawn of the true space age in a country that never had a national airline or national power grid or national anything really…and if it fails its going to be a firestorm from those who advocate “the traditional way”.

    Thats going to change the politics of it all as well. Success puts Obama and Nelson on a solid footing in Fl…as an image of what new policies and politics can bring.

    Exciting times. Go Dragon RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    “Don’t be daft, Oler. The layoffs alone speak volumes thanks to Obama’s refusal to fly shuttle quartrly or semi-annually in the gap- and, of course, Scott Pelley presented a slice of the souring space coast life on 60 Minutes and if you believe private firms are going to pick up the slack, you’re dreaming.”

    no one cares…really they dont. Pete O banged that drum here in TX 22 until he got an earful at several of his townhall meetings from Continental employees who were getting the axe after the UAL merger…”why do you care about government jobs more then ours” was a common slogan. Pete has since shut up about the layoffs.

    most of the people who were laid off were not going to vote for Obama anyway…and none of it will take up the slack…the shuttle had to many employees hanging on to it…

    But I would love to see Willard pick up the argument that you suggest…Willard arguing to preserve jobs by government spending…when he is known for cutting jobs…yeah that works.

    RGO

  • D. Messier

    Romneybot seems to be running for Consultant in Chief. Hence, his earlier statements that everything is a mess (of course) but that he’s not going to explain his plan. However, he has top men working on it. Top. Men. And that other consulting firm you’re interviewing, Gingrich & Co., has crazy ideas.

    This sounds pretty much what a consultant would do if being brought into a company to turn it around. He just views America as one big turn around project. He seems more interested in selling his resume as a turn around artist than explaining his plans at the moment.

    This is sort of a lame cop-out in that he’s been running for president for 5 or 6 years. And you’ve got thousands of people suffering on the Space Coast. You would think he would have come in with something better than “I’ll get back to you.”

  • MrEarl

    “I only used 64 as a time marker actually…to me modern politics start about then.” RGO
    Actually, “modern politics” really gets it start with the election of 1912 pitting TR, Taft and Wilson in a three way race. This is when politicians first started to actively campaign for the presidency.

    “All I suggest here is that Obama has a good chance, if he can muster it to stick Willard with SLS/Orion and the Ryan budget and those are unpopular.” RGO

    First, SLS/MPCV will play absolutely no role in the election, even in Florida and Texas.
    Second, I’ve often heard historians say that if the roles of the 1932 election were reversed with FDR as president, it’s believed the electorate would have been looking for someone with more substance and business acumen. Someone just like, wait for it……. Herbert Hoover. This election just may prove that right.

  • Mark

    The Obama campaign has walked into a trap, but only in Romney is willing to spring it. The White House is certainly in no position to point fingers at anyone on this issue considering the way it has eviscerated the civil space program.

    If Romney is smart (and he has proven that in other areas) he’ll roll out a plan to restore the civil space program sometime during the general election. This would make the Obama people’s absurd attack akin to the war on women, the war on dogs, gay marriage, and all of the other gambits that have blown up in the president’s face.

  • Doug Lassiter

    amightywind wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    “Obama’s space policy is damaging him in Florida. ”

    To the extent that’s the case, by the same reasoning, Obama’s space policy must be helping him in Virginia, Washington, Nevada, and elsewhere. Although he doesn’t really need it there, California as well. I’ll say it again … the NASA budget is nearly level, and the budget money is mostly used to buy jobs. If not in Florida, then elsewhere. Same number of jobs, just distributed differently. For districts that lose ‘em, others gain ‘em.

    The damage done to Obama in Florida by his space policy is likely very small, except to single-issue people who are hiding in flame trenches, or who keep space shuttle dongles hanging from their rear view mirrors.

    Obama’s space policy, and his emphasis on commercial, is a truly innovative one. He’s exploring the frontiers of federal procurement. Doing things that no one has dared do before. Taking risks to achieve gain. It’s by doing new things that we become great. I have some understandable trepidation about it, but it takes some guts to try it.

  • Vladislaw

    DC Society for Creative Anacronisms wrote:

    “Don’t be daft, Oler. The layoffs alone speak volumes thanks to Obama’s refusal to fly shuttle quartrly or semi-annually in the gap”

    President Obama got the funding for two additional shuttle flights. According to Wayne Hale it would have taken at least 2 years and several billion dollars to fly the next shuttle flight.

    I guess you believe President’s have a magic wand, like Harry Potter, and they can just wave it and things happen.

    Where was the billions going to come from?

    The usual suspects in congress was banking on Constellation and when that went off the rails by blowing the schedule by a decade and busted the budget there was no way they could have increased NASA’s budget by billions to fund the retired shuttle system while many in congress were questioning the funding for Constellation.

    We saw what ultimately happened, Congress could have appropriated funds for the shuttle, they didn’t, Congress could have appropriated funds for Constellation, they didn’t.

    They cut the funding on the two projects that was feeding the pork train.

  • Outside of a radius of maybe 10 miles extending from the KSC Vehicle Assembly Building, few people in Florida care about the U.S. space program.

    The overwhelming majority of the population living within that radius is moderate-conservative to right-wing loony. They would vote for Hitler over Obama.

    I just don’t see space as a significant issue. That majority thinks erroneously that Obama cancelled the space program. All the Dragons in the world won’t convince them otherwise. All they care about is a guaranteed-for-life government job, which in their minds Obama took away even though Bush cancelled Shuttle in 2004 (approved by Congress).

  • Obama’s policies have undermined financial support for beyond LEO development and Commercial Crew development. So he’s managed to create the worse for both worlds by unnecessarily making this a NASA vs private industry issue.

    And, unfortunately, its a microcosm of the way he’s run the country!

    Romney, of course, really doesn’t believe in anything except Romney. And he’ll do anything and will agree or oppose anything, whether he believes in it or not, to get himself into the White House.

    What a country:-)

    Marcel F. Williams

  • joe

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    You have no idea how sad it makes me to agree.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 8:11 pm
    “Obama’s policies have undermined financial support for beyond LEO development and Commercial Crew development. So he’s managed to create the worse for both worlds by unnecessarily making this a NASA vs private industry issue.”

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    The President’s budget strongly supports MPCV, and SLS, though he would have rather achieved the capabilities of the latter in other ways. No undermining there. He’s heaving dollars at those projects by the shovelful. “Making this a NASA versus private industry issue”? Huh? COTS and CCDev are part of the NASA plan. A formal part. NASA is working closely with private industry, as per the President’s instructions. Maybe some people are making it a NASA versus private industry issue, but it sure isn’t the President doing that.

    As to specific plans for beyond LEO, the President has certainly not exercised a lot of leadership, but with a Congress that wants to totally control NASA and design launch vehicles for them, why should he bother to try? Of course, Congress has now admitted to NASA that they don’t have a clue either about where we should be going, or why we’re even doing human space flight, so I guess they can duck that leadership responsibility as well.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    “I only used 64 as a time marker actually…to me modern politics start about then.” RGO
    You replied:”Actually, “modern politics” really gets it start with the election of 1912 pitting TR, Taft and Wilson in a three way race. This is when politicians first started to actively campaign for the presidency. ”

    You are free to have your own viewpoint but I dont agree. TV is the great “game change” in modern politics…and that really didnt get fired up until the 64 election…the LBJ ad that ran exactly once (the one with the little girl and the countdown and the gadget going off) after AuH2O called gadgets “just another weapon” sort of is the liftoff of modern campaigns…but you are free to have your own viewpoint.

    I found this more entertaining and thoughtful

    “Second, I’ve often heard historians say that if the roles of the 1932 election were reversed with FDR as president, it’s believed the electorate would have been looking for someone with more substance and business acumen. Someone just like, wait for it……. Herbert Hoover.”

    mostly agreed. Most American elections are muddled messages…except when there are two sides competing with very unique visions of America…that then gives the election clarity. 64 turned into that…but 32 was also.

    32 in particular because GOP economics not only were considered to have failed, but Hoover was MOSTLY considered inept at trying to deal with the issues that were simply overwhelming The Republic. HST said it correctly when he noted that Hoover had as much to do with causing the depression as “he” (HST) did…the main thing that sunk Hoover was that his notions of how to “fix” it were rejected.

    It is worth noting that FDR in 36 had about the same unemployment rate as he did in 32…but the “perception” was that FDR was getting a hand on it…and of course Landon was a poor campaigner (but Frank Knox was not and FDR noticed!)

    I thought some (but had not read your post) about your earlier comments…and in my view this election stands a pretty good chance of being a landslide one way or the other…the trick is going to be which perception takes hold…Obama has a good plan but is frustrated by the GOP House…or the GOP Houses budget is the way to go.

    I certainly hope Obama wins, but at this time have no clue which way the dynamics are going to go.

    “First, SLS/MPCV will play absolutely no role in the election, even in Florida and Texas.”

    Hmm no role. I dont think you are correct on that. I have never said it would be “determinative”…my word would be that Obama has a good chance to make it illustrative of differences between him and Willard.

    We will see. I have my candidates of course but to me politics is a blood sport…almost like the Roman Coliseum.

    BTW I dont think Willard is that smart. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    ” he’ll roll out a plan to restore the civil space program sometime during the general election.”

    and “restoring the civil space program” looks like what in your view? Newts Lunar goal? HAH RGO

  • BeanCounterfromDownunder

    DCSCA wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 4:52 pm
    ‘The only thing reliable about Space X is their unreliability. Tick-tock, tick-tock.’

    I’m sure you enjoy repeating this sort of thing at every second post but I’ve a question: When are you going to acknowledge NASA’s lousy sheduling and delays or even the ‘old’ players in the same manner as you do SpaceX? Happy to help?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    The overwhelming majority of the population living within that radius is moderate-conservative to right-wing loony. They would vote for Hitler over Obama.

    Mark wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    If Romney is smart

    and finally

    MrEarl wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
    for someone with more substance and business acumen. >>

    Willard is not really smart nor has any great acumen…what it is turning out to be is that Willard is vicious…and being very rich he can take a lot of chances that a lot of the rest of us cannot, after all he will never get a pink slip…

    How vicious Willard is, can be seen by the fact that over the last 8 years or so he has jettisoned, then rejettisoned various “beliefs” he has professed to have and have deeply. Whittington is correct…if Willards advisors told him he needed to come out for a lunar base…Willard would have some massive conversion and change policy and deny he ever was on the other side of the fence.

    With the singular exception of beating up on Newt, Willard has never really moved the electorate “to his positions”; it has always been him moving toward theirs.

    Obama is a weak dick…Mark H on Morning Joe got it correct…in retrospect Obama’s 08 election was simply to easy. McCain was inept, Palin sunk him even farther…and people just wanted something other then Bush43… If Obama wants to win since he has no real success stories that are politically palatable he is going to have to go for Willards juggler…and that is Willards ability to tell the truth; followed by his movement toward the GOP right wing.

    My guess is that Obama can summon up his courage and do it; but we will see. Anyway WIllard is not smart…Smith is correct…the GOP nuts would vote for Hitler over Obama…most of them still believe that Saddam had WMD. Reality is not a pre existing condition. RGO

  • Daddy

    There isn’t much of anything Obama can do to win over voters on the Space Coast. In the 2008 campaign he very clearly said he would keep the Shuttle workforce employed on the next generation of space exploration. He very clearly LIED about that. OR, he was misled by his lackey, Lori Garver, into thinking things would go swimmingly with the cancellation of CxP. She did after all admit that she had no clue that the displaced Shuttle workforce depended so much on CxP….. Really, Lori? REALLY? They just don’t educate space policy scientists like they used to…. Oh, I forgot, they NEVER educated space policy scientists like they should have…. LOGICALLY, with some form of technical credibility. It’s a shame the president is ignorant enough to have to listen to her…

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    The White House is certainly in no position to point fingers at anyone on this issue considering the way it has eviscerated the civil space program.

    Maybe you’re one of those people that thinks Obama could have waved a magic wand and kept the Shuttle flying despite years of preparation for ending the program, and no real need for any additional flights.

    Maybe you’re also one of those people that thinks that Obama, despite being in the largest recession since the 30′s, could have waved a magic wand and summoned up an overall increase in NASA’s budget so they could somehow rescue the over-budget/behind-schedule Constellation program – despite it already consuming the Shuttle AND the ISS program funds.

    Maybe you’re one of those people that believes that money grows on trees.

    I think it’s likely you believe in all three…

  • Googaw

    On the way out to work on my levee…at our new farm

    Far superior to the grandiose fantasies of the future is for us to each “cultivate our garden” — per Voltaire. That will bring us a far better future than an infinity of daydreams about other peoples’ money.

  • Daddy wrote:

    In the 2008 campaign he very clearly said he would keep the Shuttle workforce employed on the next generation of space exploration. He very clearly LIED about that.

    No, he didn’t.

    This is why I posted on YouTube the video of what he really said.

    Last August, three years after that speech, I posted a blog which reviewed what Obama said and what really happened. He pretty much did everything he said he was going to do. The Obama administration proposed a $35 million program to help Shuttle workers with job transition. The newly minted GOP majority in the House killed it in early 2011.

    The Brevard County GOP and their political allies in the local space worker unions love to spin their tales about what Obama supposedly said. I hear all sorts of fibs about how he supposedly said he would keep Constellation and the Shuttle and everyone would have a job for life. If you watch the video, you find their claims simply aren’t true.

  • Vladislaw

    Mark wrote:

    “The White House is certainly in no position to point fingers at anyone on this issue considering the way it has eviscerated the civil space program.”

    So the American civil space program had, for thirty years, a single fault delivery system for crew and cargo. If NASA had a bad day, the Nation’s ENTIRE transportation system for space would grind down to a shuddering halt. America’s only transportation system that was like that, and it was a government program, not commercial

    What will America enjoy at the end of a President Obama second term?

    Multiple cargo and crew delivery firms for accessing and delivering to LEO. No more will our Nation suffer under a failed, Stalinist, big government, solution for our space transportation needs.

    Finally President Reagan’s change to NASA’s mandate, come to fruition and America will finally have a more democratic space program and the NASA monopoly on access will finally be gone.

    If that is your idea of an eviscerated program, I would like to see a lot more eviscerated government programs.

  • GeeSpace

    The political season is really here, filled with idiots and jerks. More fun than a Circus and it’s free. Please pass the popcorn.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “In the 2008 campaign he very clearly said he would keep the Shuttle workforce employed… He very clearly LIED about that. OR, he was misled by his lackey”

    If the President made such a promise, it was a stupid promise to make. The civil space program is not and should not be an employment or welfare agency.

    “They just don’t educate space policy scientists”

    There is no such thing as a “space policy scientist”.

    “LOGICALLY, with some form of technical credibility.”

    Engineering “technical credibility” has nothing to do with running the employment or welfare agency that you want the President to turn NASA into.

  • amightywind

    NASA monopoly on access will finally be gone.

    But NASA’s monopoly on paying will remain. What a tool!

    My prediction is that CCDev2 is down selected to 1 by 2013. Here are the odds of winning on the entrants.

    Boeing CST-100/Atlas 60%
    SpaceX 28%
    ATK Liberty/Orion 10%
    Sierra Nevada 1%
    Blue Origin 1%

    Don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger.

  • Martijn Meijering

    In the 2008 campaign he very clearly said he would keep the Shuttle workforce employed on the next generation of space exploration.

    If he did, then that was very clearly wrong. The Shuttle workforce deserves no special treatment, and seems to be unaware of the special treatment it has had for thirty years. What a bunch of ingrates. The entitlement culture at NASA is sickening.

  • Vladislaw

    windy bellowed:

    “But NASA’s monopoly on paying will remain”

    And without commercial crew would NASA still be paying? Would those payments be going to domestic firms or the Russians?

    As you are constantly using phrases like “commrade” and “bolshivics” you must be a closet Stalinist and like the idea of American taxpayer’s contributions going to Russia rather than domestic aerospace companies.

    Bigelow Aerospace has signed MOU’s from 2nd tier space agencies that will also be paying those same domestic companies so NASA won’t be a monopoly on paying for domestic access providers.

    As far as CCDEV that was not a FAR contract, all the firms that participated did put some skin in the game.

    You are fighting the current on where American space efforts are moving and why you make this fight is beyond many of the readers of this blog.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Daddy wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    There isn’t much of anything Obama can do to win over voters on the Space Coast. In the 2008 campaign he very clearly said he would keep the Shuttle workforce employed on the next generation of space exploration. He very clearly LIED about that>>

    I see Stephen has set you straight about this, or at least tried…

    Dont feel bad, you are not the only person who believes that…and you are not the only person who believes that makes the statement “Obama lied” and then cant when pushed on it deliver the quote. There is none.

    Pete Olson TX22 use to go around at his town halls saying that until a few of us started following him around and demanding where Obama said that…finally Olson shifted to “Obama implied”…which is still a lie, Obama did no such thing.

    There are three problems here.

    The first is that this story clearly illustrates the depths to which the Obama haters will go to try and turn things their direction. The right wing learned to lie, shade things, misrepresent them under Bush43 and now they are just in to it over and over.

    Second it shows the arrogance of the shuttle work force. Why should their jobs be protected? They are generally right wing, a lot of them argue ceaselessly against government spending…except on them of course. When I was President of the school board one person who was/is a GS employee came up and was beating up on the new package of insurance benefits that the school employees had…When I compared the package with what the federal government and USA employees had…the guy goes “Yeah but the school board are public employees, I pay their salary” and you can imagine how much I enjoyed knocking the shit out of him rhetorically on that.

    Third it just shows people saying things with no facts to back it up. This is not a Rush room where hate and other things can be spewed and lapped up by the lackies of the right. OK here is a challenge. Produce the quote where Obama, to use your word:

    “In the 2008 campaign he very clearly said he would keep the Shuttle workforce employed on the next generation of space exploration. ”

    but of course you dontknow it either…you are jus spewing things which you have been told. YOu are spoon fed.

    The Creator gave you a brain. try and use it for something other then just repeating “flackery”. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Googaw wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 12:56 am

    I wrote: On the way out to work on my levee…at our new farm

    you replied:
    Far superior to the grandiose fantasies of the future is for us to each “cultivate our garden” — per Voltaire. That will bring us a far better future than an infinity of daydreams about other peoples’ money.

    Thank you. I love our new farm. I loved our house in Clear Lake , but I have wanted to have land where you could do what you want to do and do it to the level you wanted to do it…Of course part of the charm of this endeavor is that the previous owners did just that (grin) and it was a shit hole when we bought it; but if you are on facebook I pub pictures of our “restart”…for instance we have turned the pond from a place wheere old cars were junked and lots of tires thrown to a thriving eco system which is just stunning…and mostly done it with “reused” or “repurposed” things. It is gratifiying when you start with two leafs of “water cabbage” and now have an entire pond filter system where the cabbage is nurtured by the fish and cleans the entire system…

    and mostly done it ourselves.

    It is slower that way but quite rewarding. One of my favorite Robert H. books is “Farmer in the Sky”…as I spread worms from my worm farm I always remember the line of the house warming party…they all brought worms.

    The farm matches nicely in a strange way with my love of aviation and space… (which pays the bills!) RGO

  • I predict that access to the ISS from the US side, which will only require 2 to 6 launches per year, until the ISS is terminated just 4 or 5 years after commercial crew companies are operational, will be contracted to just two companies: the ULA and probably ATK/Astrium. Why?

    There’s not enough traffic to the ISS to sustain more than one or two manned space flight companies. So Congress will want to help sustain companies that they are most familiar with.

    There will be pressure on NASA by Congress to pick the Atlas V because of its long history of reliability. So the ULA will be granted one contract.

    There will also be pressure on NASA by Congress to pick the Liberty rocket as vindication that the Ares 1 concept was correct and because the 5-segment SRBs will be a component initially shared with the SLS which could help lower the recurring cost for the SLS.

    There will be strong opposition in Congress against giving any contracts to Space X because the Republicans view Elon Musk as an Obama advocate who attempted to destroy NASA’s manned space program. Their public excuse will simply be that Space X simply doesn’t have the spaceflight experience that the ULA and ATK/Astrium has. Elon is now trying to distance himself from Obama and trying to say that he is a friend of NASA. But unfortunately for Space X, Congress doesn’t perceive it that way.

    Marcel F. Williams

  • common sense

    Re: Shuttle Workforce.

    I know it is not going to change the minds of those obtuse space experts here who cannot face the facts but here again.

    Try to read for comprehension. If you cannot comprehend, let us know and we will try to help you out of your misery.

    But in short: It has ALWAYS been the plan to reduce the workforce, not to transition it to Constellation!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.space.com/2342-shuttle-cev-shift-nasas-greatest-challenge-space-agency-chief.html

    Dated 2006, by Mike Griffin, your hero, under the Bush WH. In 2006 Obama was not President. You know that right? That should not be too difficult, now READ!

    “To be clear, NASA will not need as many engineers and technicians on the shop floor to operate and maintain the CEV and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) as we do today with the space shuttle,” Griffin told the Senate’s science and space subcommittee, adding that both new vehicles are designed to be simpler and cheaper than NASA orbiters. “Change is hard, but if we don’t act now to bring it about, we will not develop the space program that we want to have.”

    Some shuttle workers will be transferred to other CEV support programs where their skills can be applied, Griffin added.”

  • E.P. Grondine

    It’s what people believe, not the facts. Thus its perception.

    The perception is that Obama killed the shuttle.

    The fact is Griffin had put an end to the shuttle and killed it dead by the time Obama got the keys and walked in the door.

    I suspect Romney will run on “putting the US space program back on track”, in other words ATK’s Ares1, and paying for their combustion oscillation damping system.

    While JFK was able to remove religion as an issue, I don’t think Romney can. Given the value placed on entertainment by TV news, I look forward to many “debates” on gay marriage versus Mormonism.

    Of course, the real fringe will be claiming that Joseph Smith’s Moroni was an Ancient Alien.

    AW, I don’t think you can turn a Leverage Buyout Artist into a Venture Capitalist.

  • amightywind

    To be clear, NASA will not need as many engineers and technicians on the shop floor to operate and maintain the CEV and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) as we do today with the space shuttle

    Reasonable because Ares I/Orion and Ares V are simpler than the shuttle stack. When he said this I don’t think he meant we’d have no support workers. Cuts or no cuts NASA and all federal agencies should cut their employment rolls by 10%. Mitt Romney supports this.

    AW, I don’t think you can turn a Leverage Buyout Artist into a Venture Capitalist.

    Thanks for the trivial clarification. Not sure whether a company is in the startup phase is relevant. Your clarified language is even more inaccurate. Bain doesn’t use much leverage in their buyouts.

    Far superior to the grandiose fantasies of the future is for us to each “cultivate our garden” — per Voltaire.

    Amightywind loves to garden. Perennials mostly. I am not motivated by Voltaire’s sappy reasoning. I want to crush my neighbors in the curb appeal competition.

    My motto is: “ABC – Always Be Competing” — amightywind.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    wrong on all counts. But thanks for trying RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    I suspect Romney will run on “putting the US space program back on track”, in other words ATK’s Ares1, and paying for their combustion oscillation damping system.>>

    If he, Willard does this then it is a gift to Obama.

    Whittington, Wind eet all are typical of the GOP right…they believe what they believe and ASSUME that the rest of America or at least a majority of it, believes the same thing. Hence the folks who are reving up to bring Reverend Wright back into the political world really thing “wow if people just knew more about Rev Wright they would not like Obama” because thats how they think.

    The folks who support a government run Apollo style program REALLY think that the rest of America is with them. Musgrave fell into this trap with his latest musings…

    If Willard proposes something as you suggest Obama should pound him on it; the people are with Obama. (at least on this) RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    As someone who spent quite a bit of time oppossing the space station (to no avail of course) I would make a different prediction.

    Commercial crew/cargo will change the station and how humans look at spaceflight forever. By 2020 there will be at least 2 launches a month of people to ISS and some of the other space stations in orbit. By that time there will be at least one station that is actively involved in building and modifying platforms to go to GEO…

    time will see who is correct. (warning my track record is better then the one you have) RGO

  • E.P. Grondine

    AW – I need to add that I don’t think you can paint a Leverage Buyout Artist as a Turnaround Wizard either.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    There will also be pressure on NASA by Congress to pick the Liberty rocket as vindication that the Ares 1 concept was correct and because the 5-segment SRBs will be a component initially shared with the SLS which could help lower the recurring cost for the SLS.

    What a laugh. ALCOA could make the same argument about SpaceX and the SLS – they both use lots of Aluminum Lithium alloy.

    Oh, and “Congress” doesn’t have any idea whether the Ares I concept was “correct”, and doesn’t really even remember it now. Congress has a very short memory.

    There will be strong opposition in Congress against giving any contracts to Space X because the Republicans view Elon Musk as an Obama advocate who attempted to destroy NASA’s manned space program.

    There is opposition in Congress, but from lobbyists and the companies that stand to lose to SpaceX.

    And of course you tend to forget that Boeing employees and executives gave generously to Obama’s 2008 campaign – I don’t see Republicans trying to keep Boeing from getting more government contracts.

    Besides, Musk fund raises for Republicans too, but his overall contributions to all politicians is minuscule compared to the NASA Top 10 contractor list.

    Their public excuse will simply be that Space X simply doesn’t have the spaceflight experience that the ULA and ATK/Astrium has.

    How many spacecraft has ATK built, tested and flown? Oh, that’s right, they are not a spacecraft manufacturer.

    SpaceX has built, tested and flown one spacecraft as of today, and that number may double within a week.

    As much as it’s romantic to think that people in Congress get to choose the winners in government open competition bids, they don’t. Sure they can do things to influence the direction it could go by helping to define the end product, but we really do have laws against bid rigging. Just as Boeing about that.

    SpaceX has shown that it will fight awards it thinks it should have won, and government investigators love to find corrupt government officials. I look forward to a fair competition, and by no means do I think anyone is a shoo-in. But SpaceX has the most going for it…

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    See what I mean by “obtuse”?

    I was there you were not or were you? I gave you a reference and you discuss the facts. You are trying to tell me/us what he actually meant. Typical. The plan was to reduce the workforce, whether you like it or not, even before Griffin but on that I have no reference so I cannot show.

    FACTS. Try it, it’s good for you.

  • DCSCA

    @Daddy wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    “There isn’t much of anything Obama can do to win over voters on the Space Coast. In the 2008 campaign he very clearly said he would keep the Shuttle workforce employed on the next generation of space exploration. He very clearly LIED about that.”

    Well, less ‘lied’ and more ‘misled,’ but certainly shifted his position from candidate after being elected. Guantanamo is still open and nobody has been jailed from Wall Street, either.

    “Obama gave the first major space policy speech of his campaign in Titusville, Florida in August 2008. He subsequently approved a seven-page space plan that committed to target dates for destinations 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.” – source,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration

    With respect to space policy, the immediate alternatives are slim and none. Romney offers nothing: form a committee; study the problem. If you support space from any point of the compass, Romney is not your guy. On the other hand, Obama’s plans are next to nothing- a mission to no where, as Cernan, Armstrong, Lovell et al., rightly says, with the distrusting caveat of Obama doing a 180 on early space policy musings from his campaign rhetoric. The stink of the Garver/Griffin feud is all over that and of course Obama’s policy statement at KSC in 2010 was simply an exercise in delivering a recomendation from staff from a white paper, putting space ‘in the out box’ for Term , and moving on to more immediate and pressing economic oroblems. Space is not high on the agenda in the Obama Administration and he has little personal interest in it. The Space Coast will not vote for him. Nor against him. The commercial LEO attempts to service the doomed ISS are quaint tinkering, but ultimately go no place fast- that is, in LEO circles- and prolongs the delay of moving onward and outward w/major BEO government space exploration plans. The CIC in office when the PRC launches out toward Luna will bump space up the agenda again, if the public outcry is high enough, for American space policy has always been reactive, not proactive. Keep in mind, the ISS is a Cold War relic spawned in the Reagan days, an era long over, and morphed over decades into a aerospace WPA project, as Deke Slayton rightly labeled it, championed by Garver in her NSS days and servicing the doomed space platform today magnifies the imporatance of these LEO efforts, but it’s really short term thinking, as space exploitation is not space exploration. A decade from now, we’ll be exactly where we are right now in the wake of the ISS splash. Which reaffirms why the ISS should have been firmly anchored to the floor of the Ocean of Storms, not doomed to a watery grave in the Pacific. In her NSS days, Garver supported the ISS over a return to the moon. More’s the pity, as a lunar research facility seeking commercial support to supplement government operations would have been a more inspiring challenge for fresh generations of engineers and an easier sell to both exploration and exploitation advocates.

    Someone will go; someone will move onward and outward- whether it is American-led remains to be seen, but given the economic realities of the Age of Austerity, such a luxury expense in an era where necessities take precedent seems doubtful. But in the immediate future, that is, the Obama era, it won’t be the U.S.. But if you have slim and none as alternatives in front of you to grasp at, you’ll reach for slim every time. Obama’s space policy is really just another holding pattern for another few years by another disinterested CIC, which is why Congress is stepping in more and more to fill the leadership vaccum on matters space.

    @Doug Lassiter wrote @ May 16th, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Obama’s space policy, and his emphasis on commercial, is a truly innovative one.”

    Except it’s not. Space exploitation is not space exploration. And, of course, LEO is a ticket to no place, going no place fast.

    @Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    “I predict that access to the ISS from the US side, which will only require 2 to 6 launches per year, until the ISS is terminated just 4 or 5 years after commercial crew companies are operational, will be contracted to just two companies: the ULA and probably ATK/Astrium… There’s not enough traffic… So Congress will want to help sustain companies that they are most familiar with…. There will be strong opposition in Congress against giving any contracts to Space X…. Their public excuse will simply be that Space X simply doesn’t have the spaceflight experience that the ULA and ATK/Astrium has. Elon is now trying to distance himself from Obama and trying to say that he is a friend of NASA. But unfortunately for Space X, Congress doesn’t perceive it that way. ”

    Makes sense. And, of course, just two days ago, a Soyuz was lofted w/an astronaut and two cosmonauts to the ISS for docking today. Routine. Reliable. Operational servicing with decades of experience. Space X is still in ‘test flight’ mode and struggling to meet a launch schedule to test delivering groceries– and literally years from even atempting a crewed flight- if ever.

    @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 7:40 am

    [Daddy said] “In the 2008 campaign [Obama] very clearly said he would keep the Shuttle workforce employed on the next generation of space exploration. He very clearly LIED about that….. “No, he didn’t.” He clearly misled Americans on space policy and if it was the motivation for voting for him in ’08, it’s a tough sell for ’12. But it is correct to couch space policy decisions around program needs and objectives, not as a works program.

  • pathfinder_01

    “But in short: It has ALWAYS been the plan to reduce the workforce, not to transition it to Constellation!!!!!!!!!!”
    Not disagreeing just adding a point. There were plans for reductions, but it was like about 2,000 people of the 10,000+ or so shuttle workers. In fact in some NASA offices (Alabama) there would be increases in employment. Basically they expected a hair cut.

    However the truth is that CXP was running late while the shuttle shutdown was proceeding almost on time. I mean if the shuttle shutdown in 2010(and some parts were shutdown well before then) and CXP might have a test flight circa 2015 and come online 2016/2017, then what the heck do you do with the workers for at least five straight years? And that is assuming no more delays from CXP. I can see a year or so worth of training or maybe a year layoff but five years?

    The size of the workforce also made Ares 1 very costly. I mean you get near shuttle costs just to put 4 people up in a tiny capsule. There were few savings.

  • Vladislaw

    common sense wrote:

    “Typical. The plan was to reduce the workforce, whether you like it or not, even before Griffin but on that I have no reference so I cannot show.”

    Vision for Space Exploration
    February 2004

    “In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”

    If the VSE was followed it was readily apparent that a lot of shuttle deadwood was going to be jettisoned when the STS was retired. Dr. Griffin testified to that multiple times in the first year of this being named Administrator,

  • common sense

    “There were plans for reductions, but it was like about 2,000 people of the 10,000+ or so shuttle workers. ”

    That’s 20% which is more inline with what I heard (20 to 30%) and not exactly a haircut (???). How can you see that as a haircut?

    Now as with any program there might be increases, local in time and space(s), and it might have been achieved with temporary contracts. It was always expected that the LVs would draw the most cash hence the most people as opposed to CEV.

    As a side note, there was a huge push to use small businesses and you can not make them all survive over the whole course of Constellation.

    Some of that cut was expected as natural attrition and no replacement. Still 20% cut is large. What I heard predates CxP.

    In any case there was not going to be any “transition” as in 100% of the workforce as some seem to believe. And it was decided under Bush, not Obama, as some seem to believe.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    As doubtless Willard Mitt Romney has said in the boardroom of any of the companies he has gutted “you cannot cut cost and not cut people”. …

    So any “program” that works on full employment for the shuttle standing army will have its cost…and that of course is the problem with NASA programs right now ….there are to darn many people.

    Take a snap shot “this instant”…how many people are FTE’s off the space station? They should be able to run the station here in the US with less then 100 total people at any given time…but the agency has over 200 people assigned to the SpaceX effort alone.

    Now many people work on the Atlas line? I bet its twice what it takes to build a Falcon 9…maybe three times. To many people.

    When he loses his Presidential campaign we could get Willard to come on board at NASA and “Bain size” the agency RGO

  • common sense

    @ Vladislaw wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Yeah absolutely. I did not think about it. Getting old I guess.

    I was trying to find a comment by O’Keefe or the Bush WH on that and I could not. I mean like the one by Griffin.

    It’s kind of the comments by Marburger and the economic sphere back under Bush. Now that Obama is actually doing it then it’s all bad according to the people supporting the Constellation job program. Oh well…

    BTW. If Romney were to win it would go something like this. “We put a committee together of the most conservative, patriotic people we could find to review SLS/MPCV but the damages done under Obama were too great and we now have to cancel the programs. Since Commercial space costs so little and is successful we cannot kill it and replace it with a program 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more expensive despite our strong desire to do that. We cannot compromise National Security. And it is with the utmost distaste we will continue this program.” You get the picture.

    I guess alternate reality is a better place to live in for some.

    Thanks.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Willard has taken so many positions on things this is what happens when you cannot remember them this is a direct quote

    ““I’m actually — I’m not familiar with precisely, exactly what I said. But I stand by what I said, whatever it was. And with regards to — I’ll go back and take a look at what was said there,”

    good choice Mark Whittington. enjoy RGO

  • Vladislaw

    This might be helpful.

    Tough cuts needed to keep NASA on budget

    “But O’Keefe did not rule out the possibility that an unspecified number of jobs in the space shuttle program could be eliminated after the completion of safety modifications to the nation’s three remaining shuttles.

    In addition, while NASA continues to recruit scientists and engineers with certain skills, other workers may choose to retire or resign, and some of those may not be replaced, he said.”
    ———————————————————–

    O’Keefe celebrates, cautiously

    :The Orlando Sentinel, which first published reports of the potential job cuts, also reported that O’Keefe said future job cuts were possible, but said there was no specific number (the Sentinel had originally reported that about 100 jobs were to be cut starting December 1.):

  • pathfinder_01

    “That’s 20% which is more inline with what I heard (20 to 30%) and not exactly a haircut (???). How can you see that as a haircut?”

    It might be 20% but it is quite telling how bloated it got under the Shuttle. ULA only had about 3,000 people at that time (they laid off some) and they make both Atlas and Delta. Space X had about 1,500(they are hiring). In order to make anything shuttle derived competitive with anything ULA, it would have to launch three times as often as ULA and ULA isn’t cheap.

    “In any case there was not going to be any “transition” as in 100% of the workforce as some seem to believe. And it was decided under Bush, not Obama, as some seem to believe.”

    Yeap it was easier for some to imagine this possibility than the more bleak one(i.e. you need a new career ).

  • BeanCounterfromDownunder

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Well thanks for the laugh Marcel. Honestly, do you really believe the stuff you write? Sometimes I get the feeling you’re doing it for kicks and to get a buzz out of the responses not because you’re serious? Least ways I hope so?

  • E.P. Grondine

    I have this little question about plans to dump ISS in the ocean: couldn’t the ISS power truss be moved to lunar orbit, particularly using that lengthy Japanese low-g transfer path?

    Aside from that, about the only way space would become a major issue is if there was a gay Mormon astronaut who wanted to marry his boyfriend.

    Space’s effect is going to be the lobbying money, and the sloganeering.

    In the end, for me, impact has to be dealt with on a bi-partisan basis.
    For that matter, it has to be dealt with on an international basis.
    I’ve had a stroke, and I can’t keep track of who all is involved, aside from those before 2005.

    SW3′s debris chain will make another pass in 2017, and the important one will be in 2022.

  • Coastal Ron

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ May 18th, 2012 at 11:52 am

    I have this little question about plans to dump ISS in the ocean: couldn’t the ISS power truss be moved to lunar orbit, particularly using that lengthy Japanese low-g transfer path?

    There are no plans to end the ISS mission. There were when Constellation was voraciously consuming more and more of NASA’s budget, but luckily it died and went away.

    However you do raise an issue that has been talked about – could parts of the ISS be used for other structures/vehicles in space. Yes seems to be the answer, and certainly copies of existing ISS modules could be built and used for other missions (that would lower the development costs).

    Boeing was proposing an L1 mini-station using an ISS module. That could end up being it’s future fate – being broken up in space for reuse in space. Could be worse endings…

    Regarding gay Mormon astronauts, good to see you still have your sense of humor, and you’re probably not too far off on your conclusion.

  • Vladislaw

    There is going to be a VASIMR engine on the ISS in 2014? Could use that also.

  • pathfinder_01

    “I have this little question about plans to dump ISS in the ocean: couldn’t the ISS power truss be moved to lunar orbit, particularly using that lengthy Japanese low-g transfer path?”

    In theory yes, but why bother. ISS power systems are 1990’s tech. Fine for now, but if you want something new you can get better solar panels(i.e. lighter). Better batteries(ISS uses Nickel caduim rather than lithium Ion and solar panels degrade with age. I remembe hearing that with current tech the panels could be shrunk by 1/3 or more and still produce the same amount of power.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 17th, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    “SpaceX has built, tested and flown one spacecraft as of today, and that number may double within a week.”

    May? Not this May. Don’t bet on it. Space X failed to meet yet another scheduled launch dated w/a terminal count abort early Saturday, 5/19. Shades of Gemini 6, sans Wally & Tom. Initial reports indicate more computer/software glitches- the glitches they’ve had months and month andv months to get right. But still, Space X failed again early Saturday morning to deliver the goods- both figuratively and literally, reaffirming that the only thing reliable about Space X is their unreliability. “I wish it wasn’t so hard,” say Master Musk. Except it is.

    “But SpaceX has the most going for it…”

    Mostly going no place excet back to the drawing boad. Good thing Soyuz and Progress are reliable. Routine. And operational.

  • Daddy

    @ Mr. Smith,
    I saw your posts on Obama’s 2008 comments. I watched the video. He did not say he was going to get them an unemployment program. That statement would certainly not win votes.

    @ Dark Blue,
    Yes, I am aware there is no such thing as a “space policy scientist”. That’s my point. However, that is basically the equivalent value of Ms. Garver’s education and preparation to mislead Mr. Obama’s space policy acumen.

    @ Mr. Oler,
    Thank you for your inert gas contribution to this topic. It amazes me the amount of time you have available to dominate these discussions with content-free opinion.

    @ DCSCA,
    Thank you profusely for adding VERY SUBSTANTIVE responses and facts to the discussion. More intelligence like your contributions are very sorely needed on this forum. As you substantiated, Mr. Obama intended to stay the course (or at least tweak the course) before he was elected…. Then Lori proceeded to tear things apart without any coherent idea what to do next except pander to her consultant cronies. Obama didn’t have the knowledge or time to learn up on things, so he has just let his incompetent appointees and congress duke it out.

  • Harold

    The reality is the Obama administration does not have a national space policy. Romney is just playing it safe. In fact the Bush administration really didn’t have a policy either, just a carry over from the Shuttle program or derived.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Re: ISS component re-utilization

    Thanks for helping with the definition of the option space.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 19th, 2012 at 5:34 am

    Initial reports indicate…

    Trying to take the “Spinning Out Of Control” Chicken Little designation away from Windy?

    The Falcon 9 software did exactly what it was designed to do, which was stop a launch if conditions went beyond defined parameters. How is that a “software glitch”? Weird.

    Oh, and I noticed that you were up to watch the launch attempt. Talk about being obsessed with a company you despise – you’re like an ambulance chaser.

    Me, I was sleeping soundly through the night, since the exciting part of this mission is the autonomous maneuvers in space, not the launch.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 19th, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    =yawn= Bottom line, after failing to launch a Falcon/Dragon stack for over 17 months, Space X fails again and misses yet another scheduled launch date. The only thing reliable about Space X is their unreliability.

    “Oh, and I noticed that you were up to watch the launch attempt.” =yawn= CNN/MSNBC/Fox News are on 24/7 here, and we’re several time zones away from the folks asleep in Florida. We work while you snooze. Preliminary reports from them noted a software glitch, instead, it turns out to be chamber pressure problems in an one of the engines test-fired earlier in the week. All the more alarming but reaffirming that the only thing reliable about Space X is their unreliability– but the terminal count is a classic, certain to make the Moment of Zen on the Daily Show. Who knew George Diller was a comedian.Space X has failed to launch a Falcon/Dragon test stack on over 17 months. And the ISS that much closer to splash. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • DCSCA

    @Daddy wrote @ May 19th, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    When you have disinterest from the Executive like this for administration after administration, lobbyists and bureaucrats like Garver fill the void. And you begin to see how Congress is getting more involved as well to fill the leadership vaccum. Garver was bad for the NSS; bad for NASA, too, and the quicker she’s jettisoned, the better.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 19th, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    And you begin to see how Congress is getting more involved as well to fill the leadership vaccum.

    You Lunartics are hilarious! You think Hall, Wolf, Shelby and KBH are providing “leadership” on space?

    You’ll believe anyone that tells you they want to go back to the Moon. So naive.

    Until you understand that it’s the cost of doing things in space that is holding us back from leaving LEO – not a lack of places to go – you will continue to be disappointed, no matter who is President, or who is running NASA. After 40 years you think you would have got a clue… <:-|

  • Harold wrote:

    The reality is the Obama administration does not have a national space policy.

    Wrong.

    “Fact Sheet: The National Space Policy”

    Released June 28, 2010 by the White House. That would be almost two years ago.

  • DCSCA

    @Harold wrote @ May 19th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
    The reality is the Obama administration does not have a national space policy.

    Well, actually, the Administration technically does, broadstroked at his 4/15/10 KSC speech– but it’s a 180 from the campaign rhetoric and in the eyes of Cernan, Armstrong, Lovell, et al., it’s a ‘mission to no where.’ So a ‘no where’ policy is almost as bad.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Harold wrote @ May 19th, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    The reality is the Obama administration does not have a national space policy.>>

    Oh yes it does…you might not know it (low information voter), or might not like it (supporter of the space industrial complex) but Obama has one…one of the most thoughtful one in years. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Daddy wrote @ May 19th, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    @ Mr. Oler,
    Thank you for your inert gas contribution to this topic.>>

    When so many are belching methane someone has to bring some sanity to the discussion and shoot some noble gases. Compliment taken and appreciated. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ May 19th, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    Me, I was sleeping soundly through the night, since the exciting part of this mission is the autonomous maneuvers in space, not the launch.>>
    and that will be entertaining but I wanted (and will) see the launch. It is not hard…just push a hot key button on my “IPAD” and there is the live cast.

    I found the spaceX crew doing the casting to be “entertaining”…as I noted on my facebook page (and I say this kindly) “So california” RGO

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    When so many are belching methane someone has to bring some sanity to the discussion and shoot some noble gases.

    Unfortunately the trolls keep lighting matches …

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    Pete Olson TX22 use to go around at his town halls saying that until a few of us started following him around and demanding where Obama said that…finally Olson shifted to “Obama implied”…which is still a lie, Obama did no such thing.

    Yesterday I encountered a tourist from Houston who said she was with “the committee” charged with bringing an orbiter to Space Center Houston. She claimed that “politicians” (she didn’t say who) had held up all the money they had to win an orbiter.

    I asked her why, if they have so much money, they haven’t shown up with the barge to pick up the replica orbiter Explorer that’s been sitting at the KSC Turn Basin since January. Rumor has it that Space Center Houston couldn’t raise the money for even that.

    She bristled and repeated they have lots of money. “We’re just waiting to get a real orbiter from another museum,” she said.

    The thought that went through my mind was, “You’ve been talking to Pete Olson, haven’t you.”

    It was at this point I realized I was dealing with someone who doesn’t have a firm grasp on what’s really happening …

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 20th, 2012 at 9:52 am

    The thought that went through my mind was, “You’ve been talking to Pete Olson, haven’t you.”

    It was at this point I realized I was dealing with someone who doesn’t have a firm grasp on what’s really happening …>>

    I havent been very much interested in the “get us an orbiter” campaign. A few months ago someone from the Clear Lake Economic Council asked me to join a group that was trying to get an orbiter for SCH and my reply was “show me the money”…We met at one of the local “lunch” clubs that I sometimes give speeches to…and spent about an hour going over the money trail…

    If this person is on the inside of this effort (and I think she is) the reality is that they never had enough money to do squat and were counting on a lot of “state and federal” dollars to make the thing happen then keep the thing going.

    The new mantra is “An orbiter for the place that history was made with them”…and old Pete bangs the drum pretty well about what he “would try to do”…but in the end the various groups have fallen flat with industry (USA specifically wont give a lot) and its hard to see them getting federal money. State? The state can barely take care of the Battleship which bears its name and is a true historical piece.

    The problem is that Clear Lake is not a real tourist spot (same actually with Galveston). More people fly into both Bush and Hobby to change planes to go to Corpus, then get off the planes and drive to Galveston. It oddly enough takes about the same amount of time to get to Corpus by plane and drive to Galveston…and you get off the airplane at Corpus and are on the beaches pretty quick.

    Clear Lake is on the way to Galveston…but CAL did about a year ago some surveys of “destination points” and there are just not a lot of “non locals” who come to Houston to see JSC…the traffic is mostly local and by that I mean within 70 miles (SCH did some surveys as well).

    Truth is if they were going to put a “real” orbiter in Texas…it should mimic what is happening in NY and go to Corpus and be associated with the Lexington effort. As I noted earlier Corpus gets “national” traffic and that results in a lot of people going to see “Lex”. just because it is there and is something to do when the sun burn gets to much.

    Here is a stat that shows you sort of how things have changed. When I was 14 I wont the Texas Science fair competition for my age group. That year 1 exactly 1 of the winners in the various age groups was not space related (sort of reminds one of that scene from The Dish where one kid gets up on science day to talk and says “My thing is not about the Dish” and the teacher in a nice Aussie accent goes “thank god”)…anyway 1 was not space related. This year the winners in the TSFC were ALL about robotics.

    Cylons here we come! RGO

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    The new mantra is “An orbiter for the place that history was made with them”…and old Pete bangs the drum pretty well about what he “would try to do”

    That’s pretty much what I figured. Olson spotted them for political rubes and promised he’d get them an orbiter knowing there was no way Congress would reverse the process just for his personal political pork. If anyone ever calls him on it, he’ll claim the long and evil arm of Barack Obama reached out from the Oval Office to punish Houston for imagined indiscretions.

  • Harold

    Sorry if I may have rubbed some the wrong way, but I have yet to see anything that would constitute a space policy from the Obama administration. Instead of the snide remarks, actually list one policy he has followed thru on regarding human exploration except for canceling the Constellation program which was a done deal anyway.

  • Harold

    Let me also add that that commercial space venture is no different today than it was under the Bush administration and even though its a popular part of the discussion, these companies don’t have the launch vehicle hardware.

  • Coastal Ron

    Harold wrote @ May 21st, 2012

    Sorry if I may have rubbed some the wrong way, but I have yet to see anything that would constitute a space policy from the Obama administration.

    Obama has announced a policy. Now maybe you don’t like it, or maybe this is a matter of that what he announced doesn’t meet your standards for what a policy is.

    Instead of us playing 20 questions for you, give us an example of a “space policy” – yours, somebody else’s, whatever.

    …these companies don’t have the launch vehicle hardware.

    Atlas V is not launch hardware?

    Falcon 9 is not launch hardware?

    Or do you mean spacecraft, not launch vehicles?

  • common sense

    “actually list one policy he has followed thru on regarding human exploration”

    “these companies don’t have the launch vehicle hardware.”

    These remarks are profound. We needed them on this website.

    Now if only DCSCA or amightywind cared to answer. Will you?

    Thanks.

  • pathfinder_01

    ULA, does not habe launch vehicle hardware? They won an award for CCDEV round 2 to man rate Atlas. Falcon 9 is also man rateable.

    In terms of cargo Falcon 9 and Orbital anteris.

    As for exploration, Congress and parts of NASA rebeled. Sure there are plans to go to an astriod, but little actual movement towards it becuase the rocket SLS is more important than any payload.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Harold wrote @ May 21st, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Sorry if I may have rubbed some the wrong way, but I have yet to see anything that would constitute a space policy from the Obama administration. Instead of the snide remarks, actually list one policy he has followed thru on regarding human exploration except for canceling the Constellation program which was a done deal anyway.>>

    Just because a “policy” does not have human space exploration as its centerpiece does not mean there is not a policy. If you assume a policy is only a policy if it has human space exploration then there hasnt been one in oh say 4 plus decades. RGO

  • Daddy

    @ Harold,

    I’m afraid there is an Obama space policy.
    In a nutshell:
    1. Cancel Constellation;
    2. Avoid any investment in lunar exploration, but keep making vague allusions to some form of future lunar exploration;
    3. Spend billions on Star Trek inspired technology with distant hope of bringing something, anything practical to fruition;
    4. Un-cancel Orion using funds previously diverted for Star Trek inspired technology;
    5. Go somewhere “beyond earth orbit” someday….maybe an asteroid, but we’re not really sure why;
    6. Build a big rocket that will go to an asteroid because Congress told us to.
    7. Go to Mars sometime before our grandchildren are senior citizens.

    That’s it…. A grand vision!

  • I knew the haters would start freaking out the closer SpaceX got to success. :-)

    The future began at 3:44 AM EDT today. Thank you, Elon Musk. Thank you, NASA. Thank you, President Obama for supporting space exploration. I suspect that the next vehicle to take Americans into space launched this morning.

  • Harold

    I want to thank everyone for their kind comments about what I meant regarding available hardware. Our space program(s) are in transition now since the retirement of the Space Shuttle. The Air Force is looking for a new power plant for the Atlas V and Dynetics & PWR have joined forces to bring back the F-1 (F-1A) to compete with Aerojet and ATK for the SLS booster contract, so it should be an interesting contest. So right now, nothing is set in stone. Oh, congratulations to SpaceX on their launch.

  • Coastal Ron

    Daddy wrote @ May 22nd, 2012 at 12:37 am

    That’s it…. A grand vision!

    I haven’t seen you lay out a space policy. Present one to us so we can critique it Daddy-style.

    Oh, and if at any time your space policy implies repeating things we’ve done before (like “exploring” the Moon), don’t bother. We already know how to get to the Moon, land, and return safely. Doing it again doesn’t get us any closer to Mars.

    A mission to an asteroid does get us closer to Mars. See the difference?

    Or are you a Lunartic?

  • Vladislaw

    Daddy wrote:

    “I’m afraid there is an Obama space policy.
    In a nutshell:
    1. Cancel Constellation;”

    Congress canceled Constellation when a bipartisan group refused to fund it any longer because it was behind schedule and over budget.

    “2. Avoid any investment in lunar exploration, but keep making vague allusions to some form of future lunar exploration;”

    Fuel depot investments can be used for traveling to Luna.

    “3. Spend billions on Star Trek inspired technology with distant hope of bringing something, anything practical to fruition;”

    Name some ACTUAL programs being funded that is star trek technology, what is NASA working on warp engines and transporter technology?

    “4. Un-cancel Orion using funds previously diverted for Star Trek inspired technology;”

    No President has ever been issued a magic wand that they wave then get everything they want. Congress wanted Orion and were willing to fund it.

    “5. Go somewhere “beyond earth orbit” someday….maybe an asteroid, but we’re not really sure why;”

    The timeline was laid out for both an asteroid and Mars missions. The reasons were given, but you chose to ignore those pesky things called facts. They interfer with the false narrative you want to tell.

    “6. Build a big rocket that will go to an asteroid because Congress told us to.”

    The United States is not a dictatorship. Congress, in particular, the House of Representatives, gets to control the checkbook.

    “7. Go to Mars sometime before our grandchildren are senior citizens.”

    I am sure a super daddy like you could wave his magic wand and aquire full funding for a Mars trip next year. Unfortunately this President doesn’t have the luxury of utilizing your magic wand.

    “That’s it…. A grand vision!”

    The only grand vision I read was the false narrative you are so bent on telling.

  • vulture4

    Daddy wrote: “I’m afraid there is an Obama space policy. In a nutshell:
    1. Cancel Constellation;”

    Vladislaw wrote Congress canceled Constellation when a bipartisan group refused to fund it any longer because it was behind schedule and over budget.

    Obama tried to cancel Constellation, but powerful members of Congress, including KBH and Democrat Bill Nelson, jammed Constellation down the administration’s throat under its new name, SLS/Orion

    “2. Avoid any investment in lunar exploration, but keep making vague allusions to some form of future lunar exploration;”

    Can you please explain how many people the taxpayers can afford to sent to the moon at over $1 billion apiece?? Romney laughs at human spaceflight. Republicans in Congress are demanding that discretionary spending be slashed so that they can cut taxes further. Tell me what GOP taxpayer is willing to pay even $1 more in taxes to send you to the moon.

    Like LEO, we can go to the moon when we build the tools to do it economically.

  • Daddy

    Harold asked for the Obama space policy…. I gave it to him…. as it has manifested itself.

  • Daddy

    @ Vladislaw,
    I forgot to mention…. On number 3, anyone remember the original proposal for $3 billion to be spent on “Game-changing Technology”??? I think that proposal lasted about 80 milliseconds when it got to Congress. In fact I think that’s the part of the policy that got Armstrong and the line of astronauts to call for changing the game on Obama’s space policy.

  • Vladislaw

    Technology is not a good pork generator. A space shuttle system with an army of workers and a billion and half per launch .. now THAT is a pork generator … so congress didn’t want to invest in any technology that would stop work on heritage systems/hardware and workers… gosh what a surprise.

    Bush outlined, in the Vision for Space Exploration that the new NASA would not need as many workers because of the new ideas and technology.

    We saw how long congress allowed that to run. O’keefe and the spiral design using EELV’s was gone. Griffin was in with his new ESAS 90 day study and back was all the old heritage hardware.

    Why the hell are you so surprised a President doesn’t get all they want in the area of space?

Leave a 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>