In an interview with ABC News and Yahoo! News earlier this week, former Speaker of the House and 2012 presidential candidate Newt Gingrich looked back briefly on what was one of the signature moments of his ill-fated campaign nearly two years ago: the speech he gave in Florida in January 2012 where he called for, among other goals, a human base on the Moon by 2020. The reaction that announcement got, he said this week, illustrated the problems with the current political system.
“I gave a serious speech in Florida on the Space Coast, outlining a very bold strategy,” he recalled. “I got savaged by two of my competitors, [Mitt] Romney and [Rick] Santorum, who deliberately distorted the speech. I got ridiculed by Saturday Night Live.” He said that only one person in the media, Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, asked the “key question” about why the reaction to Gingrich’s call was far more critical than John F. Kennedy’s famous May 1961 call to land humans on the Moon by the end of the decade. “The American optimism of 1961 said, ‘That’s cool, let’s go do it,'” he said. “The American pessimism of 2012 said, ‘That’s absurd.'”
Gingrich’s interview was tied to the release this week of his latest book, Breakout, which outlines his views on a variety of policy positions. The book includes one chapter on space, titled “Breakout in Space.” The book is less reflective of his experiences on the campaign trail than the interview, though. “When in my presidential campaign I advocated a manned base on the moon—a goal I have supported for my entire career—many in the media and in my own party howled with laughter,” he writes. “Yet building a moon base had been official government policy through most of the Bush administration and for the first two years of Obama’s presidency, until he canceled the project in 2010 following ludicrous cost overruns in the early stages.”
The chapter instead largely reiterates familiar themes in Gingrich’s space policy, including disgust with NASA’s bureaucracy and a call for prizes to spur innovation in the private sector. NASA, he writes, “was once almost synonymous with the future, but in the four decades since the moon landings, it has become one of the government’s most tragic prison guards of the past.” NASA is now a risk-averse agency, he argues, no better than any other government bureaucracy, something he says the public doesn’t understand. “[F]or some reason it’s a little harder for Americans to believe that NASA, the agency behind moon landings and the Hubble Space Telescope, is just another bureaucracy. We don’t want to believe that they often act more like IRS agents than intrepid explorers.”
Gingrich also levels blame at big aerospace companies (“gigantic bureaucracies themselves”) and Congress. “Many of the agency’s strongest supporters in Congress have NASA centers in their districts or states, and the centers themselves are astute lobbyists for a piece of the action,” he writes. “Many of NASA’s activities, therefore, are driven by politics, not by the needs or interests of the space program.”
Not everything NASA is doing is wrong, he acknowledges, citing the progress made by companies like SpaceX, supported by NASA, to develop commercial space transportation systems. “NASA deserves some credit for taking such steps towards reliance on commercial space services in recent years, and so does the Obama administration, which pushed the agency further in this direction.”
Gingrich, though, still has his eyes on prizes, as he has for the better part of two decades. In the book, he proposes setting aside ten percent of NASA’s budget for prizes. “We could reduce the size of NASA and refocus its mission on breakthroughs in science and technology rather than developing or operating basic launch vehicles and spacecraft,” he argues.
“I gave a serious speech in Florida on the Space Coast, outlining a very bold strategy”
Yep, it was bold, and I guess it was serious, but is wasn’t much of a “strategy”. Except as an exercise in American exceptionalism. The public has little patience with such exercises when, unlike during the Cold War, exceptionalism doesn’t really count for that much. Gingrich wants NASA to act as “intrepid explorers”, where such explorers are defined not by learning about new venues, but by heroically colonizing them. Apollo was a barely digestible exercise in American exceptionalism, because we did it, and then spent decades wallowing in pride at having done it. A Moon base is different, because once we’ve done it, we’re going to be paying big bucks just to keep it going. Forever. The American public understands that.
To the extent that a Moon base offers real commercial value, we look forward to commercial firms making the investment to build it and maintain it. More power to them.
I would like to believe that a smart guy like Newt Gingrich could take some leadership in developing a real federal space strategy that is not only useful and exciting, but also politically sustainable.
“Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, asked the ‘key question’ about why the reaction to Gingrich’s call was far more critical than John F. Kennedy’s famous May 1961 call to land humans on the Moon by the end of the decade.”
Because:
1) Much of the rest of America feared the perceived superior Soviet ICBM threat, compounded by the Soviets’ space achievements like Sputnik and Gagarin. Kennedy believed that a clear Cold War demonstration of American superiority in space was needed, asked Johnson and a panel to recommend options, and a lunar landing effort that turned into Apollo floated to the top. That Cold War card can’t be played today. It’s unavailable to Gingrich or any other President or candidate.
2) The Kennedy and Johnson Administrations turned NASA into another economic development project for southern states, garnering keystone supporters in Congress. That card has been played, and NASA has too much workforce and institution for its budget today. Gingrich or any other President or candidate can’t play that card again.
3) Kennedy’s assassination arguably sustained the Apollo Program through the first landing or so. That wildcard can’t be held in advance. Gingrich or any other President or candidate can’t plan for it.
There were several public, political, and emotional justifications to spend a relatively large percentage of taxpayer dollars on Apollo, none of which exist for a lunar effort (or any other civil space effort) today. A different rationale is needed, and Gingrich did not provide one.
“The chapter instead largely reiterates familiar themes in Gingrich’s space policy, including disgust with NASA’s bureaucracy and a call for prizes to spur innovation in the private sector…”
Gingrich is good with strategy. Not so much justification or rationale. He never explained in any concrete way why a lunar base is important to the nation and what context is driving him to propose one now.
I agree with all of that (well said!), except perhaps your definition of strategy. Strategy has clear goals that offer value. Gingrich didn’t clearly express those goals (except, as I said, American exceptionalism). So no, in this case, Gingrich wasn’t good with “strategy” BECAUSE his self-defined “strategy” wasn’t coupled to justification or rationale. Indeed, he usually is good with strategy. See, you need that coupling, or else you can’t assess the strategy. Did it work? Strategy without justification or rationale isn’t strategy, because it isn’t designed to achieve an important aim.
Human spaceflight policy is filled with alleged “strategy”, which is usually defined as technologies for lifting people off the surface of the Earth and sending them somewhere. Nope. That’s how you implement strategy. It isn’t the strategy itself. A Moon base isn’t a “strategy” in and of itself. Lunatics need to get that straight.
Strategy:
The expansion of humans into the Solar System and beyond for survival based on a self-sustainable market.
Or something like that…
I don’t recall Newt saying that. Yes, that’s a strategy, but a pretty hand-waving one in any case. Presumably humans aren’t going to survive on Earth for the cost it would require to transplant them elsewhere? I can’t see Joe taxpayer shoveling money at that, for the same reason that Joe taxpayer isn’t buying insurance against a disaster that threatens the demise of humanity. I think Newt knows that. You think State Farm might offer such a policy …?
Please do not trivialize. Rather than that you might offer something constructive. There are ongoing efforts that support what I said. If you don’t know of those then you may want to research some. And in this strategy there is a sequence of events including ongoing efforts to lower cost to access space. There is an effort to democratize access to satellites, to suborbital flights, etc. It is not hand waving. Is it coordinated? Maybe not as much as it should but it is happening. And no – just in case – it does not exclude robotics, nor science. But for some reason I am sure you know that.
I don’t hesitate to trivialize points that appear to me to be pretty trivial. “Survival based on a self-sustainable market” are big words. I wish I knew what they meant. I’m sure there are ongoing efforts to support what you said. That’s great. But they haven’t resulted in any kind of public consensus that it is important. My constructive comment is to urge people to come up with better and more compelling rationale than “survival based on a self-sustainable market”. Frankly, the public won’t buy that.
Survival? What in the world is that about? Oh, you mean that bad things can happen to good planets? There are many ways to mitigate those bad things, and space exploration might well have an important role in doing so. Colonization of the solar system does not. That’s an escapist response.
The fact they appear trivial to you do not mean they actually are trivial. I don’t know what “big words” means, care to explain? You don’t know what? “Survivable”? “self-sustainable”? Or “market”? Or the three together?
You are sure there are ongoing efforts??? So you don’t really know? Let me refer you to Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Made in Space, Nanosatisfi, Moon Express, Deep Space Industries, Caterpillar. Just to name a few. What do you think these guys are doing?
You seem to have an issue with the “public”. The people I mention above do not need “consensus”, they need cash. No more no less. They are not NASA even though they work with NASA. Fortunately not all NASA is limited to SLS/MPCV or JWST or SMD.
You do not have anything constructive. You “urge people”? How so? What is it you offer that actually makes a compelling argument to sustain… your salary maybe?
Again with the public. Seems to me your salary is paid for by the public, but not everyone’s salary is and especially not that of those people working on commercial space, at least not 100% of it.
Survival? Here I hope this helps: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/survival
1 a : the act or fact of living or continuing longer than another person or thing
b : the continuation of life or existence
2: one that survives
Did I say anywhere in my “strategy” there are no other ways to mitigate “those bad things” that you so aptly describe?
You are the one who 1) mentions “colonization” – I did not – and 2) says without any support whatsoever that “colonization” does not have an important role in our survival whose meaning you claim you don’t understand.
Again it is pretty simple. Whether you like it or not eventually Earth for one reason or another will be gone. When might you ask? I have no idea. None. Anywhere from tomorrow to a few billion years from now. Once Earth is gone the civilization(s) and all the species on Earth will be – you know – equally gone. If some are to – you know – survive they will have to go somewhere else. How do you propose they do that?
In any case. You are trivializing since you don’t seem to have quite all the elements to do otherwise. Get informed, ask questions if you don’t know and construct an argument. Maybe the solution is no survival whatsoever but at least it might be somewhat supported by some form of evidence.
“I don’t know what “big words†means, care to explain?”
Big words means big-sounding, but not well articulated. That’s what I meant. There aren’t too many letters in those words, after all. Hope that helps.
“You are sure there are ongoing efforts??? So you don’t really know?”
That’s self-contradictory. I said I was sure there were ongoing efforts. So I do really know. But they use big words too.
“You seem to have an issue with the ‘public’. The people I mention above do not need ‘consensus’, they need cash.”
Excuse me. I am the public. The people I work with and associate with are the public. I have no “issues” with the public. We have no consensus about what needs to be done with humans in space. Oh, you bet we need consensus. Especially if federal funds are going to be involved. The people you mention are largely dreamers, looking for cash from other dreamers. More power to them, but for now, they’re dreamers. Cash isn’t an issue if people haven’t decided what they want to do. Maybe you have an “issue” with cash?
“Survival? Here I hope this helps: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/survival”
How handy. But you didn’t say what expansion of humans into the solar system has to do with survival. You may have missed it in another thread, but there was some discussion about exactly what it takes to ensure species survival. Planting a few dozen people on another world WON’T DO IT. Not by a long shot. Why don’t you look up what will do it. You might be surprised.
I should say that if you’re talking about human space flight and species survival but NOT talking about colonization of other worlds, then I don’t have a clue where you’re coming from. That’s why I mentioned colonization.
“Again it is pretty simple. Whether you like it or not eventually Earth for one reason or another will be gone.”
For one reason or another? Yep, for one reason or another my home will be gone as well. Oh, and the Sun is going to burn out too. Don’t forget about that reason. Geez, that only gives us 5 billion years. Yikes. Look, if we spend the money on asteroid detection that you would spend on shipping a boatload of people to Mars, we would be good friends with every small rock in existence, and we’d know exactly how to dispose of it. Our protection of the Earth from celestial impact would be absolute. I propose we survive firstly by taking care of our Earth, rather than running away from the problem. I used to think that human spaceflight was about species survival, but I’m now wondering if that rationale is merely an escapist illusion.
Let me add that the human race is not worried about the threats you bring up. People don’t build “Earth destruction shelters” in their backyards, or have nightmares about the Earth ending. That being the case, the human race is in no rush to execute even an escapist illusion. Nothing trivial about that.
I believe in human spaceflight as a tool for reaching out, but we haven’t really decided what we’re reaching for.
Finally, please don’t lecture me about constructing arguments, as yours seem to be based largely on insults. I appreciate your opinions, and your arguments, but just telling me that I’m clueless isn’t welcome. We’re done here, I think.
Dreamers? Right. When ISS is being serviced by a Dragon launched atop an F9 I am sure everyone is dreaming. And no they don’t need consensus to continue their work. But you need to look at their business models.
Where did I ever say that “Planting a few dozen people on another world WON’T DO IT.” or anything like that. Do you actually have the links to any form of specific studies demonstrating the required diversity that will ensure human survival anywhere? And unlike you I am not trivializing the issue. But I would definitely welcome a plan or some documentation to support your claims.
You mentioned colonization in a trivializing manner as if we were going to put a few dozens people on Mars… Nonetheless even if you assume you will somehow automatically terra-form Mars you will at some point need to bring people and other species up there.
You are only being antagonistic. Did I say we should neglect asteroid *detection* anywhere? Did I say we should not take care of our Earth? Did I ever say we, as we the public, should fund any of that? Did I? You keep associating the public with NASA and HSF. That I am afraid is the old model that does not go anywhere.
When you stop patronizing me by trivializing my comments I will stop lecturing you about how clueless you might be.
So far you are the one who went down that road. Not I.
And by the way “as yours seem to be based largely on insults.” Show me where I insulted you any more than you did?
State Farm right. Right?
What do they say? Pot, kettle, black and so on.
Dreamers? Right. When ISS is being serviced by a Drgon launched atop an F9
Launching a satellite is nothing new to crow about these days, CS. Governments have been doing it since 1957.
DCSCA whined:
“Launching a satellite is nothing new to crow about these days, CS. Governments have been doing it since 1957.”
What you continue to miss is the money part of this. OF COURSE governments can launch rockets and build spaceships, because they really don’t have to worry about whether they are doing it in an affordable manner.
However, if we’re ever going to EXPAND our presence out into space – which should be the one area of agreement between us – then we have to find a way to do it AFFORDABLY.
Governments don’t do that, and the Shuttle was the most recent example of that. It goes against the nature of politicians to do anything cost effectively when they could instead pour benefits into their political districts.
The key about NewSpace is not that they are doing anything new from an activity standpoint, but that they can do it for FAR LESS than it takes governments to do the same.
Until you understand that, you will continue to be frustrated by all the progress NewSpace is making, and how little progress your “government projects of scale” are making.
“I gave a serious speech in Florida on the Space Coast, outlining a very bold strategy,†[Gingrich] recalled.
Except it wasn’t– as SNL so magnificently proved, labelling him ‘Newt Gingrich, Moon President.’
“I got savaged by two of my competitors, [Mitt] Romney and [Rick] Santorum, who deliberately distorted the speech. I got ridiculed by Saturday Night Live.â€
And rightly so- because the speech was s blantant piece of pandering heavilly larded with the kind of grandiose prose and simplistic generalities common to most of Gingrich’s assertions.
“The American optimism of 1961 said, ‘That’s cool, let’s go do it,’†[Gingrich] said. “The American pessimism of 2012 said, ‘That’s absurd.’†blusters Newt.
This is simply not true. In fact, there was significant opposition to Project Apollo among conservatives of Gingrich’s ilk in both parties in Congress during the JFK/LBJ era and the ultimate conservative of the period, Barry Goldwater, called out Apollo as a waste in his famed ‘Extremism is no vice…’ Republican Party presidential nomination acceptance speech at the Cow Palace in 1964. The GOP Apollo slam was lost in smoke of the more famous, fiery rhetoric from the soon-to-lose-in-a-landslide-Goldwater– a fellow championed by Gingrich’s supposed hero, Ronald Reagan.
And lest Gingerich be reminded, some years ago when he was ‘teaching’- Gingrich professed to his students that NASA should have been disbanded after the Apollo goal was achieved.
The most damaging individual to any serious public discourse today on manned and unmanned spaceflight projects is ‘Newt Gingrich, Moon President’- a SNL lampoon so richly and rightly deserved. Do America’s space program a favor, Newt: shut up.
Gingrich had some highly ambitious ideas, and has to be commended; but as I’ve said priorly, he really should’ve been more careful in who his exact audience was, before making such bold grandstanding in a speech! Regular, Joe-Shmoe can never be relied upon, to actively support big & grand space projects; and hence, any such ‘major announcement’ speeches are in need of being de-sensationalized & perhaps even dumbed-down a bit, so that they’d be palatable to the average Joes & Janes. Only when he knew that his audience was specifically the space interest community, should he’ve uttered any glossy or overly rosy wording to his human space visions. Aside from that, why do I get the stinking feeling, that if he had spoken about establishing a Mars colony by year 2020, instead, that he would’ve been showered with honors & accolades?!?! I truly hate that Mars is always seen in a sensationalistic light, & it appears to be so acceptable in the media to do so, even in the scientific/technological community. How about when the current President changed NASA’s long-run game plan, (in 2010), to another 15-20 years in LEO, researching on board the ISS—–Why didn’t the press call him: THE LOW EARTH ORBIT PRESIDENT?!?! How come, huh?!
Chris Castro said:
“Regular, Joe-Shmoe can never be relied upon, to actively support big & grand space projects”
Yet you don’t mind them paying for them, huh? Are you against democracy?
“…that if he had spoken about establishing a Mars colony by year 2020, instead, that he would’ve been showered with honors & accolades?”
Considering that getting back to the Moon can’t be done by 2020 with any reasonable budget, saying we’re going to go magnitudes farther away and require far more hardware systems (none of which have been perfected yet) would have looked like he was truly out of touch with reality.
“How about when the current President changed NASA’s long-run game plan, (in 2010), to another 15-20 years in LEO, researching on board the ISS…”
Actually it was Bush43 and Michael Griffin that changed the plan. Do you think when the ISS was originally proposed that they said “And after it’s built, let’s not use it to the end of it’s useful life, but instead we’ll dump it after just a couple of years of use”?
The ISS was planned to be useable through AT LEAST 2028. The only reason to not use it that long is if it turns out that it cannot produce the scientific output that is needed to merit the cost. But that date has not been determined yet, and I know a lot of scientists are hoping that the ISS stays available for scientific research for a long time. Me too.
In fact, I’d be glad to let Joe-Shmoe vote on it, especially when they can see how much the alternative plans cost, and what we’d get in return.
“THE LOW EARTH ORBIT PRESIDENT”
Apollo is gone and left nothing sustainable behind. The Shuttle is gone, and left nothing sustainable behind. If after the ISS is gone we’re left with a cost-effective and redundant commercial cargo and crew system for Low Earth Orbit (LEO), then that will be a major accomplishment.
“The Shuttle is gone, and left nothing sustainable behind.”
Not quite. Boeing X-37 is what’s left and some technologies around.
As for the rest of Chris’ post… What are you gonna do? What can you tell him when he writes that below?
“Aside from that, why do I get the stinking feeling, that if he had spoken about establishing a Mars colony by year 2020, instead, that he would’ve been showered with honors & accolades?!?! ”
“Stinking feeling”??? Oh well.
common sense said:
“Not quite. Boeing X-37 is what’s left and some technologies around.”
I don’t see it that way.
The X-37 program is a parallel program to what was going on with the Shuttle, but was not a direct outgrowth of the Shuttle program. It uses no Shuttle infrastructure or systems.
Since the program is classified, do not expect a lot more info…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
“The X-37’s aerodynamic design was derived from the Space Shuttle, hence the X-37 has a similar lift-to-drag ratio, and a lower cross range at higher altitudes and Mach numbers compared to DARPA’s Hypersonic Technology Vehicle”
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense-space/ic/sis/x37b_otv/x37b_otv.page
“The X-37B is one-fourth the size of the Space Shuttle, and relies upon the same family of lifting body design. It also features a similar landing profile. ”
If the aerodynamic is similar it means that it basically re-enter the atmosphere is a similar way, sustaining similar (probably higher actually since it is smaller) heating. And since most of the design is dictated by its aero/aerothermodynamics…
common sense said:
“The X-37′s aerodynamic design was derived from the Space Shuttle…”
We’re not talking about what designs they borrowed. If we wanted to do that, then you’d have to acknowledge our cave-dwelling ancestors that created the wheel that the X-37 used to land on (and we all know how important landing is, right?).
The Shuttle design was set back in the 70’s, and everything the X-37 needed to know about whether the design worked was validated on the first Shuttle flight in 1981.
In reality the SLS is the only follow on from the Shuttle program, since by Congressional design it uses so much of the Shuttle architecture and infrastructure. But since there is no way that thing will ever be deemed a success, I didn’t bother to use it as a good example.
Oh come one. There is a lot more than what you describe to X-37 if the aerodynamic designs are similar and that part I know.
SLS/MPCV only rely on the infrastructure created for Shuttle. It does not mean that SLS and/or MPCV have a direct lineage to Shuttle.
X-37 does, technically. Essentially they took all that was good about Shuttle and threw the rest away, including the ludicrous architecture. More to the point, they found ways to launch it from an EELV, while initially Orion was not “able” to launch from EELVs.
common sense said:
“Essentially they took all that was good about Shuttle and threw the rest away, including the ludicrous architecture.”
We could have done that after one flight of the Shuttle back in 1981. The Shuttle and the X-37, other than sharing some generic outlines, do not share anything else that isn’t common with many other flying things.
And my original statement stands – the Shuttle left nothing sustainable behind when it shut down. Not Shuttle v1.1 or v2.0 that improved upon what came before it.
“It does not mean that SLS and/or MPCV have a direct lineage to Shuttle.”
The SLS SRM has direct lineage to the Shuttle SRM, and the main tank of the SLS is supposed to have direct lineage to the Shuttle (per Congress), although other than the same size and general shape, that may not turn out that way. Same launch pad as the Shuttle, same VAB, same control centers… shall I go on?
The X-37 does’t share any of that.
We are talking past each other.
Shutlle to me is the orbiter.
Not the infrastructure, not the boosters, not the tank. All of which were jettisoned in the new infrastructure nonetheless there is direct lineage between Shuttle, the orbiter and some of the infrastructure, and the X-37. Go ask Boeing.
Maybe it’s clearer now?
But it seems that we are not connecting so as they say we will have to agree to disagree.
“NASA deserves some credit for taking such steps towards reliance on commercial space services in recent years..” spins Newt.
Except it doesn’t. But what would you expect an anti-government, pro -privitization conservative fellow traveller like Gingrich to say.
NASA went with COTS which has resulted in 2 brand new commercial cargo carriers to leo. Sure NASA put funds in but those were limited and only paid upon performance of agreed milestones by the commercial participants.
“Gingrich is good with strategy.”
There’s no recent, credible evidence to support this assertion- particularly with respect to spaceflight- and given the collapse of his failed presidential campaign and subsequent lampooning by SNL, effectively labeling him, ‘Newt gingrich, Moon President’ for all time. .
Gingrich is desperately recycling failed policy from his youth and trumpets the anti-government cabal speak of the likes of fellow travellers Walker, Thompson and Rohrbacher. He knows the the deadly and disastrous attempt at the foolish notion of privatizing spaceflight in the Reagan era. Reaganomics can never propel humans out into the cosmos. Supply side is a big a failure as the N-1. He knows little about spaceflight and even less about aerospace R&D space projects of scale. This pseudo ‘historian,’ who has demonstrated he is incapable of managing his own life and career, is one of the most ignorant, corrupt politicians of our times which his own party recognized when it forced him out of office nearly 20 years ago. But his foolishness is consistent as the following news blurb from 1995 noted:
“GINGRICH CRITICIZES NASA
House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on Saturday that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should have been disbanded after the Apollo moon program ended in the 1970′s. Source- NY Times February 6, 1995″
Revisit this:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/21/gingrich-calls-for-privatizing-human-spaceflight/
DCSCA opined:
“He [Gingrich] knows little about spaceflight and even less about aerospace R&D space projects of scale.”
Neither did Kennedy, but that didn’t stop you from fawning over the Apollo Moon program Kennedy started.
This is a ridiculous standard that you are trying to impose, and I don’t think any President would meet it.
The problem that Gingrich had with his Moon proposal is the same one that afflicts most failed proposals large and small – they lack a compelling reason for people to care. And certainly in this case, so few cared that the idea could be ridiculed and no one bothered to defend it.
But let’s remind you too that you have in fact advocated the exact same type of “government projects of scale”, so you and your buddy Newt are no different. In that light, I think we could even call you “Newt-lite”…
“But let’s remind you too that you have in fact advocated the exact same type of “government projects of scale‒
Inaccuate. Gingrich isn’t advocating a government led effort– and you know it, Ron. DCSCA supports a government led space program supplemented by commercial efforts to establish a an international facility on Luna. Gingrich proporse exactly the opposite- truncating if not eliminating NASA and urging private enterprise to try to do it tapping the Treasury to subsidize it– which is in line with his cabal of anti-government chums– but it’s a recipie for failure for as we all know, over fifty years after Project mercury came to a close, ‘NewSpace’ has failed to even attempt to launch, orbit and safely return anybody, Ron.
2016/17!
Moving right along, I should add that NASA is about to let Phase 2 of CCiCap in the form of CCtCap. NASA expect to issue a FAR contract to two of the three existing commercial companies.
Note: All 3 companies currently on track with their CCiCap SAAs.
Apologies for the off-topic post but DCSCA deserves these little facts
=yawn= Hype aint flight, Neil. NewSpawe has failed to even attempt to launch, otrbit and safely retuen anybody from LEO. So dont try to peddle government contracting in any way, shape otr form as s0me kin of parody. NewSpace HSF is dead w.o government, which makes it anything but private enterprise. =eyeroll=
“Hype aint flight”
That’s right, it isn’t.
While SpaceX has flown an unmanned prototype of its manned DragonRider spacecraft into space four times now, Orion has flown no higher than a helicopter could carry it.
While CST-100’s contractor, Boeing, has developed every spacecraft NASA has ever launched with an astronaut aboard, Orion’s contractor, Lockheed, has never developed a manned spacecraft before, ever.
That puts Commercial Crew years ahead of SLS/Orion despite starting five years later and receiving a funding profile 1/5 as much.
Orion: All hype & no flight.
DCSCA whined:
“Inaccuate. Gingrich isn’t advocating a government led effort… DCSCA supports a government led space program supplemented by commercial efforts…”
Gingrich was calling for a government led effort supported by government money, with commercial participation as service providers – pretty much what you say you support.
If there was a business reason for businesses to set up a facility on the Moon by 2020, it wouldn’t be Gingrich who would be pushing this, it would be the private sector. But there isn’t, so all he was saying is that the government should foot the bill to do some sort of grandiose mission to the Moon – which again, is what YOU support.
If the government wants to pay NewSpace, OldSpace, WhoeverSpace to send mass to the Moon, then of course companies will be lining up. And they don’t care if it was your crazy idea or Newt’s, as long as the government is paying for it.
But you and Newt have the same problem – going back to the Moon lacks a business case. Why? To pick up more grey rocks? Gee, that’s worth $100B, huh?
That’s why you are a “Newt-lite”.
“Gingrich was calling for a government led effort…” fibs Ron.
=yawn= Except he’s not. And you know it, Ron. Newt’s in the Walker, Thompson, Rohrbacher anti-government cabal. Gingrich advocates privatizing spaceflight, prize models tapping the Treasury for fsubsidiesand has openly called for disbanding NASA. Gingrich is most decidely opposed to big government projects of scale– space or otherwise. What’s more, he fells the NASA bureaucrats ahouild do less talking and planning. What he fails to understand is the the STG did exactly that before Apollo was launched. And of course, it’s up to the WH and in lieu f failing to do so, then Congress0 to direct NASA, not NASA itrself. NASA is a tool- an instrument to implement policy decisions, not create them. .
DCSCA whined:
“Except he’s not.”
Go back and read what he said – he wants to provide government money to the private sector.
If all he was doing was trying to inspire the private sector to go to the Moon all by themselves, then the government doesn’t need to be involved at all, right?
But that is not what he said.
“Gingrich advocates privatizing spaceflight, prize models tapping the Treasury for fsubsidiesand has openly called for disbanding NASA.”
Yes, so what? He’s still planning to use government money to fund the whole thing. He just thinks that removing the bureaucracy of NASA will provide more value – which it could if done the right way, but IT’S STILL A GOVERNMENT FUNDED EFFORT.
Geez.
“fsubsidiesand”
What the heck does that mean? Apparently you take less pride in your typing than you do in your research, and that was already pretty low effort.
Go back and read what he said….” muses Ron….
Hmmm.
Jeff’s header says it all, Ron:
“Gingrich calls for privatizing human spaceflight”
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/10/21/gingrich-calls-for-privatizing-human-spaceflight/
Game, set. match. You really outta read up on Walker, Rohrbacher, Thompson, et al., and Newt’s position on privatizing government.
“Yes, so what?” coughs Ron. So it makes you inaccurate. Again, Ron.
DCSCA said:
“Go back and read what he said”
Government money going to private contractors. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand – NASA never built their own rockets and spacecraft, THEY PAID CONTRACTORS TO BUILD THEM.
NASA didn’t run the Shuttle program, THEY PAID CONTRACTORS TO RUN THEM.
Show me what is so different between you and Newt? The Taxpayer is still paying.
In the Project Triangle of “Fast”, “Good”, and “Cheap”, the 2020 date (i.e. “Fast”) that Newt stated meant that either “Good” or “Cheap” became variables.
No doubt everyone would assume that “Good” is not a variable either, so that would mean that “Cheap” would no longer mean “Cheap”, but “increasing amounts of money that no one can actually predict”.
Absent some sort of “National Imperative” like Apollo had, the nation would not be inclined to support such a program for very long, no matter where in space the goal was.
The other thing about fake dates such as the 2020 date, is that when you essentially base your architecture on what’s expedient, regardless of cost, then you are not creating cost-effective systems that are sustainable over a long period of time after the initial goal is attained. That’s what happened to Apollo, and Newt should have learned that lesson.
Apparently he didn’t.
“The other thing about fake dates such as the 2020 date, is that when you essentially base your architecture on what’s expedient, regardless of cost, then you are not creating cost-effective systems that are sustainable over a long period of time after the initial goal is attained. That’s what happened to Apollo …”
Well, let’s be honest. What happened with Apollo was that JFK declared 1970 as a “fake date” to beat the crap out of the Soviets and relieve the American public of their missle fears. That was the national imperative. Apollo was never intended to be about creating cost effective systems that are sustainable over a long period of time, though space exploration proponents convinced themselves that it was going to be. So you’re right, Gingrich should have seen that, but it wasn’t a lesson that came out of any mistake by JFK. The Apollo program was profoundly successful in what it set out to do, which was NOT, in the final analysis, landing humans on the Moon. It was relieving much of that fear.
The national imperative then was based on mitigating fear. Fear of Soviet missles. Kids were practicing hiding under desks, and fallout shelters were being dug in lots of back yards. The answer was to show that our missles are better than your missles, and human spaceflight was the technological expression of that answer (bringing courage and bravery into the equation). Our main fear now is terrorism, though human spaceflight in no way relieves that fear. China might be considered an economic fear, but one that doesn’t have kids hiding under desks.
That’s what Gingrich doesn’t understand. Those efforts were based on fear and, at least right now, we have no such fears that can be mitigated by human spaceflight.
Hiram said:
“What happened with Apollo was that JFK declared 1970 as a “fake date†to beat the crap out of the Soviets and relieve the American public of their missle fears.”
Maybe I was unclear, but since the Apollo program had a “National Imperative” driving it, the “before this decade is out” statement that Kennedy made was part of the “imperative” part. I’m OK with that, and since “Cheap” was going to be the known variable, everyone else at the time knew that it was going to be a lot of spending.
Today though, cost does matter, especially since there is no known “National Imperative”. Gingrich completely forgot that the trend in his party was to spend LESS, not MORE.
“That’s what Gingrich doesn’t understand. Those efforts were based on fear and, at least right now, we have no such fears that can be mitigated by human spaceflight.”
Yep. Which makes you wonder if Newt really is a historian, how he missed that?
“The Apollo program was profoundly successful in what it set out to do, which was NOT, in the final analysis, landing humans on the Moon.”
I agree wholeheartedly, in fact JFK made this perfectly clear in his address to the joint session of Congress in which he proposed the moon race. He said “The nonaligned nations of the world are deciding which path they will take, and we cannot ignore the effects the recent Soviet accomplishments in space have had on men’s minds.” He proposed the moon race as a symbolic goal to substitute for the perilous race in nuclear arms, a goal prestigeous enough to convince the nonaligned nations that the American way would provide them with the fastest path to industrial development.
“Many of NASA’s activities, therefore, are driven by politics, not by the needs or interests of the space program.†muses Newt.
It’s this sort of simpliatic, bombastic blabber- trademark Gingrich BTW-that passes for thoughtful discourse to pedestrian GOPers. And the media laps it up. Newt makes for good copy, but not much else. More heat than light, which is the Gingrich MO. Spaceflight in general and NASA in particular was born out of politics and as we all know, it is political science, not rocket science, that fuels it. So mastering the obvious and repackaging it as original thought isn’t particularly enlightening.. but very Gingrich.
Newt’s biggest mistake was not proposing the lunar base, which is a wonderful idea, but in not laying out three to five easy to understand reasons that it should be done. Not being ready when Mitt jumped all over it didn’t help either. The upshot is that is will be very hard to get any other political candidate to advance the same idea.
“…The upshot is that is will be very hard to get any other political candidate to advance the same idea.” muases MW.
More or less– certainly not as a specific while running for office. Kennedy campaigned hyping a ‘missile gap’ which as we know was more or less bogus– as Soviet missiles developed more rocket thrust because their warheads were less sophisticated and heavier. But once in officer, the famed meo asked LBJ to source competitive alternatives to counter the political propaganda successes of Soviet space successes and alternatives were presented with a manned lunar landing being selected as offering the longest lead time to ‘catch-up’ and overtake the Russian position. Turned out to be a wise choice, as Ruissian rocketeers have repeately stated ovr the years since the end of the Cold War. But it’s a safe bet that had JFK run around America talking about a moon program in the ’60 campaign, he’d have been asily ridiculed by Nixon– Ike as well. Indeed, even as APollo was initiated, conservative opposition was strong in Congress- it’s all in the Congressional Record– culminating in Goldwater’s Apollo slam in his Cow Palace speech.
Folks tend to forget that after Newt gave his Moon speech, he participated in a space policy roundtable at Brevard Community College. He didn’t have to do that.
You can watch both events at:
http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2012/01/gingirch-delivers-space-policy-speech.html
Newt gave the big bombastic speech the Moon huggers have been demanding for years. It fell flat, because the vast majority of this country isn’t interested.
I still hear people around the Space Coast fantasize that one day a Republican president will march down to Congress and give a speech proposing an Apollo redux that will be instantly passed by unanimous vote. The ability for self-delusion by some really is breathtaking.
Still aren’t interested which is why NASA is still flailing around trying to dream up reasons for SLS and MPCV.
Meanwhile SpaceX continues to drive it’s R&D in accordance with it’s current business plan and longer-term goal.
2016 isn’t that far off. I predict that by then SLS will have been cancelled and MPCV will effectively have been shelved for lack of money to do any missions.
Neil Shipley wrote:
Meanwhile SpaceX continues to drive it’s R&D in accordance with it’s current business plan and longer-term goal.
NASA and Bigelow are holding a joint presser Tuesday which is expected to announce the results of their study of a possible commercial program beyond Earth orbit.
If it goes the way I suspect, it will be another nail in the SLS coffin. Bigelow will demonstrate how BEO mission can be flown by the private sector far more cheaply and safely than SLS. Congress will ignore them. NASA will propose next year in its proposed FY15 budget a commercial lunar program. Congress will freak out. Although porkery is bipartisan, it will be amusing to watch the Republicans who claim to stand for smaller government argue for protecting the big bloated government space program in face of a cheaper and safer way to do it with the private sector.
Yes, apologies, I was a bit general in my statement concerning NASA. There are some who believe that partnering with commercial ‘NewSpace’ for want of a better term, is the way forward.
Bigelow report calls for use of COTS model for cislunar transportation.
Heh. I wonder what DCSCA will say, beside usual frothing from mouth and deplorable rethoric. Ticket to no pla… uh, no… ummm… going in circles, nowhere fast between Earth and Moon?
More seriously, I currently expect denial. It is always first stage, after all.
“Still aren’t interested which is why NASA is still flailing around trying to dream up reasons for SLS and MPCV.
” wails Neil.
=yawn= It is not not NASA’s responsibility to craft policy but carry out policy directives from Congress/WH. SLS/MPCV is a geo-political strategy for the United States just as stationing an increased level of USN assets in Australia is in this era.
Gingrich would have been a great President.
Nope he would not have been a great President. The one we have today is great and Congress is messing up with him since inauguration. Furthermore someone who does not understand the futility in the public’s eyes of arguing a Moon base in a presidential election in the middle of a recession has no business becoming the President of the USA. And that is that.
“The one we have today is great….”
You’ve got to be joking. While he may have had good intentions what Obama has shown is that he is inexperienced and uncommunicative. He has fallen on his sword multiple times making pronouncements and decisions without benefit of forethought. Syria, Iran, Palestinians, Obamacare, the Federal budget, sequestration, the cancellation of Constellation…
He’s had some good ideas…cancelling Constellation perhaps was required. but there was no follow-though, no positive plan at all for what to do after his pronouncement; he’s turning out to be one of the most incompetent people ever in the oval office. Even for those who have supported him it is becoming difficult to continue to speak supportively on his behalf.
The President proposes, the Congress disposes.
I am not kidding but you don’t seem to understand our political process as far as how things get funded or not around here.
Congress cancelled Constellation, not the President, because it was a turkey. It’s been demonstrated time and again and I wont get back into that. But since you still don’t understand why I suggest you read the most recent report on NASA’s programs performance. You’ll find the link somewhere and try to put through your mind that they are not working as described.
There was a plan as depicted by FY-11 but most those supporting Constellation need a destination. They don’t really care the technology does not exist but rather they want to hear we are going to the Moon, or Mars or Alpha Centauri. Now they have ARM. An idiotic concept to support an idiotic SLS/MPCV unworkable and unusable program that is “bankrupting” HSF at NASA.
Agreed which is why NASA ‘underground’ is working through CCiCap, CCtCap, etc. and shortly perhaps something of interest out of Bigelow.
It’s not all that much “underground” any more.
Obstacles? Yes. Fragile? Somewhat but much better than it was even a year ago.
Difficult to change direction for sure but when all else has been exhausted…
Proof: These nice Congress people who vociferously support SLS/MPCV keep cutting the budget… What does it mean? Except that they are hypocrites I mean…
Actually that’s right. For most it is out in the open but there are still the deniers in Congress and on this thread.
“Gingrich would have been a great President.” pufs yg1968.
Clearly voters proved otherwise. There is zero evidence to support yg1968’s absurd assertion and reams of data to refute it. Volatile, devisive, simplistic, shamelessly egocentric, a blatant hypoctite- particularly when it comes to family values as well as the space agency- and often childish, Gingrich was ‘ousted’ aka ‘fired’ by his own party and clearly incapable of managing his own life, Gingrich lacks the skill set and stability to be a Chief Executive of a country, let a lone a corporation. ‘Newt Gingrich, Moon President’ is a lampoon well earned and kudos to SNL for launching it– and making it stick.
I second that: Newt Gingrich would’ve made a fine President—–particularly in terms of space policy. The current man in office has been a dreadful hack, and for the life of me, I can’t comprehend why ANY person in the space community would favor him! NASA & the space program have been mothballed down to nothing, under his watch! We’re basically trapped in Low Earth Orbit, clear up to the year 2030, doing nothing but zero-g research, on board the ISS! Imagine: NOTHING but that. The American nation was made for greater things, my friends! This nation is worth vastly more than that! American technology, know-how, & derring-do. We should be entirely up to the task of further exploring & emplacing base camps upon the Moon, by 2020 or 2025. But with all the damage that the Obama administration has done—–now, none of that will be possible! Commercial companies will never get the job done—–even with the massive subsidies that the government is currently being duped into providing for them! ALL the entrepreneurs will deliver is spacecraft for mere LEO—-just for reaching the ISS. They’ll never be capable of building deep space vehicles, hence our space program will once again, be CONFINED TO LEO.
How about: Barack Obama: Low Earth Orbit President!! He’s the one who’s chained us to the ISS for the next 15 to 20 years! It seems that NASA isn’t going anywhere, ’til it’s gotten all of that crucial zero-g, space station research firmly accomplished just right, eh?!
Chris Castro said:
“It seems that NASA isn’t going anywhere, ’til it’s gotten all of that crucial zero-g, space station research firmly accomplished just right, eh?!”
And you think that is a bad thing?
Weird.
If after the ISS is gone we’re left with a cost-effective and redundant commercial cargo and crew system for Low Earth Orbit (LEO), then that will be a major accomplishment.
To go………..nowhere. You really have no vision and just far too often set the bar extremely low. Pity. It’s a good thing you are not involved in any way in the US space program.
Crash Davis said:
“To go………..nowhere.”
To those people that think that Low Earth Orbit is on planet Earth (i.e. nowhere different than where you are today), then there is nothing I can do to change your mind.
But for those people that understand that getting to Low Earth Orbit is the major cost of doing anything in space, being able to move cargo and crew to LEO in an affordable way is a major accomplishment. It’s never been done before in our country.
It’s also the building block that will allow us to go everywhere. Unless you’re not interested in going anywhere in space, in which case why the heck do you bother to post here?
If you think you have a better plan, and that plan uses less taxpayer money, then by all means let’s hear it!
I doubt you do though…
“It’s also the building block that will allow us to go everywhere.” predicts Ron.
Very 1960s, Ron. Very. Still stuck in the past, eg fella.’ .
DCSCA whined:
“Still stuck in the past”
You’re the one that measures everything to Apollo – if that’s not being stuck in the past, I don’t what is…
If after the ISS is gone we’re left with a cost-effective and redundant commercial cargo and crew system for Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Then that will be a major accomplishment. To go………..nowhere.” notes CD wisely.
Precisely. Going in circles, no where, fast for another decade or two isn’t of much value for the long range exploration of space– and has more to do with the broader political agenda of anti-government, privatizxation crowd than any tre desire to press onward and outward. And, of course, under the current paramenters as you’ve outlined, without govwernment subsidies and a ‘faux market’— a market to keep six people in orbit costing billions/year BTW– with quertionable ROI from same– NewSpace is a classic dead end, akin to -the ‘promising future’ of zeppelins and the flying cars in every garage. Going in circles, no where, fast, for years and years and years on eld is what it is, an expenasive trip to no place.
DCSCA whined:
“…and has more to do with the broader political agenda of anti-government, privatizxation crowd than any tre desire to press onward and outward.”
Man is it hard to read what you write with all your typo’s. Don’t you care about what you write? Anyways…
Blah, blah, blah, government is so good, and the private sector is so bad. Blah, blah, blah.
You should hear yourself. Even better, you should hear how you are empty of any solutions. You only complain, you never offer any solutions.
If you think the current situation is so bad, then offer a solution for what Congress should do! But don’t be politically naive, offer up something that has a chance of making through some future Administration and Congress.
So far all I’ve heard you call for is your so-called “government projects of scale”, which even though you don’t like it, is not different than Newt calling NASA to be killed off and for lots of money to be thrown at the private sector. Regardless the route, the private sector gets most of the money anyways, since NASA is mainly a contracting agency – they don’t build and operate much, it’s all contractor run.
So stop your whining and STAND UP FOR SOMETHING!! ANYTHING!!
I agree solidly with DCSCA! Another decade & a half rummaging in LEO, doing zero-g research, is a ludicrous prognosis for the activity of NASA, in the future! This agency has got to get out of LEO, at some point—-preferably sooner rather than later.
“This agency has got to get out of LEO, at some point—-preferably sooner rather than later.”
Hard to argue with that, and I don’t think anyone is. It’s a non-argument. While one might prefer that we reach out faster, the funds available don’t seem to allow it. The real argument is about time scales. Sure we can pull the plug on ISS and spend that money on a lunar base. But didn’t we try that once before? Yep, but we decided that we couldn’t afford it, after flushing a huge amount of money down the drain. We now have a new program to flush a huge amount of money down the drain (SLS) that doesn’t even have an explicit goal. Is that progress?
But the idea that going in circles doing zero-g research is going “no place” is simply defining “place” as a distant rock. Not too many rocks that are even accessible really, and the usefulness of those rocks for our presence on them is arguable. The premise that ISS research doesn’t blaze the trail for going further is amusing, most simply considering the Boeing ISS-EP concept, which is to use ISS elements for a cis-lunar hab. We’re testing them in LEO right now.
Let’s admit it. The real frustration here is that NASA hasn’t bitten in to anything really *exciting*. It’s not about doing something useful, but about doing something exciting. Many would call such a wished-for strategy a stunt-driven one, and stunt-driven strategies do have a lot of popular appeal, though not necessarily for federal funding.
That being the frustration here, a more general and defensible frustration is that NASA hasn’t really committed to doing anything in particular with humans in space. NASA hasn’t really concluded that human spaceflight has a purpose, except maybe as a mode of travel. We need to travel to the stars! Uh, we do? NASA’s real failing is that it hasn’t presented an ultimate rationale for human spaceflight. Of course, that failing doesn’t belong exclusively to NASA, as NASA is an implementation agency, rather than an “ultimate rationale” agency.
Project Constellation had a challenging destination, direction & purpose. The SLS is merely the huge rocket hardware WITHOUT any game plan at all! This is akin to the NASA of the 1960’s going ahead & building the Saturn 5—–but then cancelling using it for anything useful—–just blindly building it, with vague hopes that some specific purpose will be found for it, someday. THIS is what is wrong with NASA’s current approach to the near future: NO specific destination NOR particular game plan. The Low Earth Orbit President certainly swung that wrecking ball upon NASA’s designated ambitions, back in 2010!! In absence of presidential leadership getting us to take the right step forward, NASA seems prone to muddle on, doing the boring, dull, bland & mundane, over & over again. It never fails. This is why I place my hopes in a near future change in presidents & administrations. Then and only then, will the fortunes of NASA transform.
“The Low Earth Orbit President certainly swung that wrecking ball upon NASA’s designated ambitions, back in 2010!!”
I had no idea that Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, and Bush2 had anything to do with decisions in 2010. Yes, they were Low Earth Orbit presidents as well. Bush1 and Bush2 pretended not to be for a little while, but it didn’t take long for them to effectively swing the wrecking ball at NASA’s ambitions for humans in deep space. They did that, by the way, without admitting that they did it. They just turned their back on it. Bush2 wrecked Constellation, which he started, by essentially looking the other way while it flew out of control. Obama cleaned up his mess.
But lets face it. To the extent that dramatic progress in human spaceflight is dependent on POTUS, and to the extent that the new political modus operandi is opposition by the other party to any kind of success by POTUS (yes, it sure won’t stop with Obama) dramatic progress in federally funded human spaceflight simply won’t happen. The opposing party will simply never allow a president to achieve the kind of legendary success that JFK had in starting Apollo.
The real problem isn’t money. If Obama raised the flag and told us we were going to head to Mars and beyond, the GOP would come down on him like a ton of bricks, with major quibbles about at least his wrongheaded way of doing it. I’m afraid our political structure no longer really permits leadership to be expressed in expensive, grand adventures. I think you’re living in the past if you think that it can.
Presidential leadership STILL matters! Mr. Obama has & continues to be the stopper of progress, when it comes to possible deep space endeavors by this nation. While it is a high exercise in cynicism to assume that the oppositionist party will reverse the previous president’s course, once restored to power, I personally place my bets on that assumption—-the BO White House is the one that put NASA on the chopping block—-& BO cares NOT one iota about whether American astronauts ever take to deep space ever again—-he’s just too busy with his progressive transformation of America, to give the results of his space policy a second look! I am appalled that so many people in the space interest community really believe the fallacy that we are now going in the right direction, as mandated by the White House!
John Kennedy was a very exceptional Democrat indeed, to’ve put such a driving force into America really acheiving something big, in astronautics. Sad to see he didn’t live to see Apollo reach full fruition, but the grandiose manned space adventure was set properly into motion, with Lyndon Johnson keeping the project on the march. If only Barack could’ve done good by future history, and have allowed Constellation to eventually’ve seen the light of day—-which it would have!! The lamentation that has been NASA since 2010, brings home the fact of just how much easier it is to destroy, than it is to create!! Presidential fiat can still derail NASA’s potential & progress.
“Presidential leadership STILL matters!”
No it doesn’t. Your uber-partisan discourse is a perfect example of why. Whatever Obama does, you will oppose it. That partisanship works both ways, by the way. No, in space exploration, presidents don’t lead anymore. Bush2 tried to lead, with his VSE, but then gave up on it. Presidents just don’t command the respect they used to. It’s been that way for a while now. The JFK model is a legacy that doesn’t really pertain anymore.
“John Kennedy was a very exceptional Democrat indeed, to’ve put such a driving force into America really achieving something big, in astronautics.”
With all due respect to JFK, what he put such a driving force into was beating the exceptionalistic crap out of the Russians. Achieving something big in astronautics was a sidelight for him. His “grandiose space adventure” was a success, but it is well understood that Kennedy had no designs about setting something into motion that wouldn’t come to a conclusion. It was a hugely expensive, and hugely important geopolitical stunt.
“If only Barack could’ve done good by future history, and have allowed Constellation to eventually’ve seen the light of day—-which it would have!!”
Ah ha ha ha! “Eventually”? Yep, maybe. Constellation might have seen the light at the end of the tunnel, but it was looking to be a REALLY long tunnel. Someone had to take the responsibility of pressing RESET on Constellation, which was simply unaffordable. Obama did that, and thereby did good by future history. His legacy won’t be deep space human space flight, but rather human space flight fiscal responsibility.
Yes: EVENTUALLY it would’ve succeeded, if it’d been allowed to reach fruition! Project Constellation was badly in need of proper funding. The obvious remedy was to’ve simply funded the program! But taking an ax to the program wasn’t going to win anybody anything! One finds way too many junctures in space-flight history where a grand project gets announced, and some preliminary work on it gets started, but then the very next president & administration decides not to honor the previous national commitment—–and NASA ends up having worked for peanuts again—–basically acheiving nothing. Even if Constellation would’ve taken somewhat longer than projected, in acheiving its first manned Lunar orbit mission, the higher-than-Apollo overall goal of Lunar resource exploitation & base occupation & farther-advanced scientific investigation was well worth accomplishing! I would much rather see the year 2030 arrive, with our astronauts engaged in renewed Moon landings with increased technological capacity; than to see the same year come, and all NASA is doing is mere research activity in LEO on board the ISS!!