“The obvious reason is because space doesn’t actually fall into anyone’s electorate.”

No doubt that plays a part. If we don’t go back to the Moon, no one particular political district is hurt, so no one particular politician is going to stand up on the floor of Congress and make a fuss.

“And while we may all support the ideal of settling on Mars the only thing for sure is that those settlers and not going to be in anybody on Earth’s electorate, so why should the average politician (and so many of them are average) give a toss?”

And I’m sure the politicians understand that once people get outside of Earth’s sphere of political influence, there won’t be much of a need for Congressional oversight. So why would politicians spend taxpayer money for people that they don’t represent or control?

“The Sausage Factory”

“…when I refused and suggested that you present your goals instead you replied with a set architectural technologies to be developed with no actual goals specified.”

In response to what I said:

“I think the President and the Congress should state that the next goal for the U.S. in space is to be a spacefaring nation. And the initial phase of that would be to create a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon (EM-L, LLO, etc.).”

So I did state a goal (i.e. “a reusable transportation system”) and I even stated an initial destination (i.e. the region of the Moon), but I didn’t state what the architecture was other than it should be reusable. Hard to see how much more architecture neutral I can be when the whole point of doing things in space involves some sort of transportation.

“This kind of disingenuous obfuscation is exactly what I mentioned is the problem with pretending anything can be discussed seriously with you.”

You do realize that there is an audience beyond those of us that write something, right? I offered you an opportunity to convince those that may not remember every word you write, and you passed. That’s OK.

As to what you said about me? You write more about what you’re not going to say than anything you have ever said of any real content (i.e. facts, opinion, etc.), so I just view you as ducking any form of real contribution to the subject that you pretend to be concerned about (i.e. what we’re doing in space). In other words, your real goal here is to argue, so why would I care what you think of me?

“With that good night.”

Sure, whatever…

No Ron. My original post noted that the Obama non-plan had no objectives. You then wanted me to state what I thought those objectives should be, when I refused and suggested that you present your goals instead you replied with a set architectural technologies to be developed with no actual goals specified. So your statement is counter factual.

This kind of disingenuous obfuscation is exactly what I mentioned is the problem with pretending anything can be discussed seriously with you.

With that good night.

“Like I said I am not going to get into another drawn out “debate” on architectures. ”

You’re the one talking about architectures – I never mentioned any. The only related thing I said is that NASA would not own any part of the transportation system I proposed. Whether that means canceling existing government transportation programs or transferring them to the private sector, it doesn’t matter to me.

“You are suggesting an architecture at least similar to that proposed in the NASA OASIS Study from the 1990’s”

I never claimed my idea was original, only that it was what I think the U.S. Government should commit to.

“However, there is nothing of any significance in any of the Obama Administration Budget proposals since 2010 that support such an architecture.”

Yes… and I never claimed that my idea had been proposed by the Administration or anyone in Congress.

“If you want to argue that the Obama Administrations budget is superior to that of the GOP House budget version because it allocates more money to not even try to do anything that is your privilege.”

It is my privilege, but that’s not what I posted. My point was in regards to other posters that have said in the past that Obama is defunding NASA, or in some other way didn’t like NASA. Comparing the two proposals, regardless the merits of what they want to do, shows that the Republicans in the House are not the type of NASA supporters that Obama detractors say they are.

Personally I don’t think “space” is a priority for anyone in Government right now, so my comment was my way of “tweaking” Obama detractors.

“But, if you are going to do that you should relinquish your privilege to call anything you simply so not like “pork”.”

Looks like my ability to use the “pork” label is intact…

And as far as I am concerned last. Like I said I am not going to get into another drawn out “debate” on architectures. The subject has already been over discussed.

I will say this however, my original post stated “So there is no practical difference between the two” budgets. Nothing you said changes that. You are suggesting an architecture at least similar to that proposed in the NASA OASIS Study from the 1990’s (except that study assumed Earth Surface to LEO support from the Shuttle and a SDHLV, which I assume you would have opposed). However, there is nothing of any significance in any of the Obama Administration Budget proposals since 2010 that support such an architecture. In the original roll out they talked about all sorts of things from orbital propellant depots to solar electric propulsion systems, but they put them all in a wish list that that began by stating “may include” which in fact means nothing. While some small technology demonstrators may have been pursued in some of those areas, no coherent program was proposed and no actual hardware development has been proposed after three years.

If you want to argue that the Obama Administrations budget is superior to that of the GOP House budget version because it allocates more money to not even try to do anything that is your privilege. But, if you are going to do that you should relinquish your privilege to call anything you simply so not like “pork”.

“This time you state what you like the goal for NASA to be, from a high level perspective.”

OK, I’ll go first.

I think the President and the Congress should state that the next goal for the U.S. in space is to be a spacefaring nation. And the initial phase of that would be to create a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon (EM-L, LLO, etc.).

As part of that the government may decide to fund destinations too, like an EML Gateway, but the focus is on developing the transportation system itself. NASA and the government would not own any part of the transportation system, but NASA would be the agency in charge of spending government funds as needed to put such a system in place.

Such a system would get us closer to ALL destinations.

My philosophy is that NASA should always be on the leading edge, and not mired in the exploitation part of opening up a new frontier. And since NASA has lots of capabilities, it should also be used as a force multiplier, which means helping companies, and not NASA doing everything themselves. That also means that NASA could wean off it’s support as non-government traffic increases, which would free up funding for what comes next.

Putting such a system in place to the region of the Moon should keep NASA busy for at least a decade, and by then the goal could be extended for a transportation system to the region of Mars (and points along the way obviously). Since travel in open space entails lots of additional challenges like long-term radiation mitigation and long-term health, that should keep NASA busy for at least another decade or more.

As we have seen here on Earth, the key to opening up new frontiers is to have good transportation to them, and that’s what this does for space. What people and companies do at those new frontiers is not part of NASA’s charter, NASA just opens up the frontiers.

My $0.02

You do not need me to tell you that again.

You have elicited my position on what I would like to see the goals for a HSF program to be at least three times (once – a long time ago – on this website). Each time you make a critique of my assertion. When I answer that critique you present another (often contradictory) one. Then when three or so such iterations have been performed you restate the original critique. Eventually (and mercifully) the pointless process is ended having resolved nothing. There is no reason to go through another circular and redundant exercise that leads nowhere.

So why not try something different.

This time you state what you like the goal for NASA to be, from a high level perspective. Not your usual process double talk, something specific. Below is an example.

I would like the goal to be to go to:
(a) The Moon
(b) Mars
(c) Pluto

In order to:
(a) Learn to use extraterrestrial resources
(b) Establish an independent settlement
(c) Build a really cool low gravity swimming pool – because you always wanted one

Then others (not me), if they desire to do so, can discuss your plans with you.

At least (for once) you would be original.

You might notice I mentioned neither in my post, but talked about objectives instead.

But since returning to that argument is all that interests you, you might also notice that both budgets contain substantial funds for the much hated (around here) SLS and very little (if any) money to work on orbital propellant depots. Again even hypothetically accepting your version of reality there is no practical difference between the two budgets.