To Boldly Go

[spacefan]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2009/07/21/national/a120046D63.DTL

Nasa administrator Charles Bolden indicated that he wants to see humans on mars within his lifetime as he's 62 yrs old already and Nasa plans to visit mars some time in the thirties he's really cutting it fine.

He's stated admiration for his former shuttle crewmate franklin chang Diaz Vasimr plasma rockets.

Given that the nation currently struggles putting humans back on the moon with well understood technology, what is the likelyhood of a true interplanetary spaceship using VASIMR rockets happening any time soon? And what other ways could be taken to get to mars within Charlies lifetime?

[JimMcDade]

I was very disappointed with Charlie's comments today.

"We cannot continue to survive on the path that we are on right now," Bolden told NASA employees in a televised speech earlier Tuesday. What the heck does that mean? Why am I hearing "Cant' do" as opposed to "Can do!"? It sounds like Obama has already told him that NASA is going to have to live on a smaller budget.

Some of his comments about his tendency to cry and his plans to talk about God with Muslims, Buddhists, and people of all faiths were more than a little weird.

I would rather hear the NASA administrator talk about the agency working as a team. I would like to hear him talk about his vision of our space future.

It was all too "touchy-feely" for me. I was not inspired.

[spacefan]

I was very disappointed with Charlie's comments today.

"We cannot continue to survive on the path that we are on right now," Bolden told NASA employees in a televised speech earlier Tuesday. What the heck does that mean? Why am I hearing "Cant' do" as opposed to "Can do!"? It sounds like Obama has already told him that NASA is going to have to live on a smaller budget.

Some of his comments about his tendency to cry and his plans to talk about God with Muslims, Buddhists, and people of all faiths were more than a little weird.

I would rather hear the NASA administrator talk about the agency working as a team. I would like to hear him talk about his vision of our space future.

It was all too "touchy-feely" for me. I was not inspired.



That is the impression i'm getting that we are going to live through a period of fiscal restraint after the present financial crisis. Assume for the sake of argument constellation is off the cards right now. How would you then go about trying to fulfill the VSE and get to mars in charlies lifetime on a cut price budget?

The above is an open question to all members giving you a chance to sell your favourite alternative architechture (as if you needed it).

[J.McDonald]

I was very disappointed with Charlie's comments today.

"We cannot continue to survive on the path that we are on right now," Bolden told NASA employees in a televised speech earlier Tuesday. What the heck does that mean? Why am I hearing "Cant' do" as opposed to "Can do!"? It sounds like Obama has already told him that NASA is going to have to live on a smaller budget.

Would you prefer he say "full steam ahead" until the money runs out? :confused:

[Rick]

Full steam ahead would probably gather more funding.

Personally, I'm scared for the future of human spaceflight, not to mention my employment in the NASA family.

[spacefan]

Full steam ahead would probably gather more funding.

Personally, I'm scared for the future of human spaceflight, not to mention my employment in the NASA family.

Rick are there any rumours going around Boeing, you do seem quite pesimistic last few posts.

[spacefan]

What about going with an Ares iv and Ares v architechture instead of ares 1. As there is greater congruance between crew and cargo LV's you would save on development albeit suffering greater operational costs but would also enjoy greater economies of scale to help offset this cost.

Another advantage would be you could roll out any future upgrades onto the cargo version for flight testing before introducing them into the crew version this would help reduce costs over the longterm.

"Assume for the sake of argument constellation is off the cards right now. How would you then go about trying to fulfill the VSE and get to mars in charlies lifetime on a cut price budget?

The above is an open question to all members giving you a chance to sell your favourite alternative architechture (as if you needed it)."

Anyone fancy having a pop at the above question could direct, eelv's or the SDLV side mounted HLV get charlie his man on mars before he dies and if so how?

[klydemorris]

Among very many, there was one really clear, real forceful and very honest and true statement made by the new administrator that really caught my ear and correctly sums up the path ahead- yet a lot of people seem to have listened right past it even though "Charlie" (as he says he wants to be called) was very clear in making it... that statement was "I work for the President."

And I predict that the "president" will soon send us off to BOLDLY GO... no place. He will formulate some ineffectual program to look at the earth... period. It requires lower funding, far less people, is devoid of the chance for human tragidy in flight and will produce results that can be manipulated to the political advantage of Obama's base voters. He does not "cancel" or eliminate NASA- he simply neuters it.

THAT, is where we're going to boldly "go."

[Me2]

What about going with an Ares iv and Ares v architechture instead of ares 1.

Too expensive

[spacefan]

Among very many, there was one really clear, real forceful and very honest and true statement made by the new administrator that really caught my ear and correctly sums up the path ahead- yet a lot of people seem to have listened right past it even though "Charlie" (as he says he wants to be called) was very clear in making it... that statement was "I work for the President."

And I predict that the "president" will soon send us off to BOLDLY GO... no place. He will formulate some ineffectual program to look at the earth... period. It requires lower funding, far less people, is devoid of the chance for human tragidy in flight and will produce results that can be manipulated to the political advantage of Obama's base voters. He does not "cancel" or eliminate NASA- he simply neuters it.

THAT, is where we're going to boldly "go."

As usual you waste no oportunity for blatant political axe grinding. This is the way i see it, the current architecture is the best in terms of capability it offers than any of its rivals there is one big problem the cost to develop it.

The truth is a human spaceflight program is a luxury item. In the era of fiscal restraint that looks to likely after the current financial crisis NASA will have to tighten thier belts same as other parts of government. However, I have to reject your pessimistic prediction. You are really pre-empting what Augustine has got to say he'll give Obama a number of options. Obama will decide based on what he wants to do and what the nation can afford. But do you really think that ANY president is going to take the moon away on the 40th anniversary of the Apollo landings, not if he wants re-election he won't. You might not get constellation but whatever you get will be the envy of every other spacefaring nations.

I predict that nasa will put research into new technologies much higher on the agenda than previously. RLV's, very high Isp propulsion systems, simulated gravity and space construction techniques the very foundations of an interplanetary civilisation can we do it - YES WE CAN.

[spacefan]

Too expensive

Will your favourite architecture get you to mars any time soon.

Don't be shy, heres your chance to sell everyone on the EELV option.

[Me2]

"We cannot continue to survive on the path that we are on right now," Bolden told NASA employees in a televised speech earlier Tuesday. What the heck does that mean? Why am I hearing "Cant' do" as opposed to "Can do!"?




Because Griffin's folly, the ESAS implementation of the VSE, is too expensive. It never was, even under Bush. Griffin assumed he would get budget increases for his pet projects instead of designing an architecture around the budget.

The ESAS was a pipe dream from the get go.

"Can do" i.e. Damn the costs, full speed ahead is not a viable plan

This has nothing to do with Obama or Bush. 32 billion dollars to develop a launch vehicle that duplicates existing capabilities is one of the problems. Especially when ULA (and NASA) says they can do it for 1.5 billion.

[spacefan]

Because Griffin's folly, the ESAS implementation of the VSE, is too expensive. It never was, even under Bush. Griffin assumed he would get budget increases for his pet projects instead of designing an architecture around the budget.

The ESAS was a pipe dream from the get go.

"Can do" i.e. Damn the costs, full speed ahead is not a viable plan

This has nothing to do with Obama or Bush. 32 billion dollars to develop a launch vehicle that duplicates existing capabilities is one of the problems. Especially when ULA (and NASA) says they can do it for 1.5 billion.

That appears to be a considerable discrepency so much for Ares1 how do EELV's square up to Ares5.

[Rick]

I disagree Me2. The President is focused on climate change (used to be called Global Warming) and earth sciences.

I don't think any vehicle that had made it this far will be going anywhere outside LEO. That is the shame of the whole thing, even though when he was in FL, he told a different story.

Spacefan, I don't think KlydeMorris is knocking the President, he is scrutinizing the Presidents lack of interest in Human Spaceflight.

Yes, Charlie Bolden said we should go to Mars. Having said that, there is much less a plan as there was last week. That is my fear, not a rumor I am hearing.

[spacefan]

Rick I'd like to answer some of your points as follows

I disagree Me2. The President is focused on climate change (used to be called Global Warming) and earth sciences.

As he most definately should be. (See Man made Climate Change Fact or Fantasy thread)

I don't think any vehicle that had made it this far will be going anywhere outside LEO. That is the shame of the whole thing, even though when he was in FL, he told a different story.

I think you may be pre-empting augustine. I think US is going beyond LEO maybe
not with the current architecture.

Spacefan, I don't think KlydeMorris is knocking the President, he is scrutinizing the Presidents lack of interest in Human Spaceflight

No i think Klydemorris would find something to bash Obama about.

Yes, Charlie Bolden said we should go to Mars. Having said that, there is much less a plan as there was last week. That is my fear, not a rumor I am hearing.

Only time will tell but as he's been in the job only a few days you might want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[klydemorris]

Sure- I'm bashing President Obama... I "bashed" President Bush too.. the only differance being that President Bush actually read what I wrote... and drew. I'm a equal opportunity basher... that's my job.

I'm also pointing out the direction in which I most fear this is all likely to go. Some of you may not want to hear it- that's is not my problem.

Additionally, let us remember always that the funding is everything and that is done, largely, in the Congress and not the office of the President. The president does, however, have other influances that can be highly effective in blocking or reducing funding.

Obama, it was said by the new NASA administrator, told him to "...make it the way it was when I was a kid sitting on my uncle's shoulders watching the Apollo astronauts welcomed home." That is encouraging.

We will see.

[Me2]

That appears to be a considerable discrepency so much for Ares1 how do EELV's square up to Ares5.

It all depends on the architecture. Some say heavy lift is not needed with propellant depots.

Or Ares V can continue development with the money saved by using an EELV as a CLV. J-2X development can continue since it is the only thing in common with Ares 5

[Me2]

I disagree Me2. The President is focused on climate change (used to be called Global Warming) and earth sciences.



Where is that documented in direction to NASA? VSE is still the law of the land.

[Rick]

As he most definately should be. (See Man made Climate Change Fact or Fantasy thread) .

Hmm, my humble opinion is that it's not NASA's responsibility to drive global warming issue reconciliation. What does NASA stand for?

With the most due respect, I've read that thread, and as a person that does not agree with Al Gore, I'll leave it at that. :)



I don't think any vehicle that had made it this far will be going anywhere outside LEO. That is the shame of the whole thing, even though when he was in FL, he told a different story.

I think you may be pre-empting augustine. I think US is going beyond LEO maybe
not with the current architecture.

I hope you are right there. Why is it though I am getting more nervous each week though...hmmm... :confused: I don't care how we get out of LEO as long as we do.


Spacefan, I don't think KlydeMorris is knocking the President, he is scrutinizing the Presidents lack of interest in Human Spaceflight

No i think Klydemorris would find something to bash Obama about.

This is out of scope for the thread. Everyone has an opinion, and yours and his are both welcome, whatever it might be.


Yes, Charlie Bolden said we should go to Mars. Having said that, there is much less a plan as there was last week. That is my fear, not a rumor I am hearing.

Only time will tell but as he's been in the job only a few days you might want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Hopefully the new Administrator will speak again SOON with more of a direction for his employees to follow. Mars is a great destination. How do we get there, bypass the moon, go to asteroids first, go directly to Mars, send more rovers?

An inquiring mind wants to know.

[Rick]

It all depends on the architecture. Some say heavy lift is not needed with propellant depots.

Or Ares V can continue development with the money saved by using an EELV as a CLV. J-2X development can continue since it is the only thing in common with Ares 5

Interesting concept.

[Rick]

Where is that documented in direction to NASA? VSE is still the law of the land.

Its not, you've got me there. Do you not feel though that we are headed in that direction?

[Rick]

Will your favourite architecture get you to mars any time soon.

Don't be shy, heres your chance to sell everyone on the EELV option.

He's been doing that for sometime now. And in my case, its a compelling argument.

[Me2]

Its not, you've got me there. Do you not feel though that we are headed in that direction?


It was happening before Obama. Griffin was robbing from the rest of NASA to feed CxP and it was becoming unsustainable. Balance needs to be restored.

[Rick]

It was happening before Obama. Griffin was robbing from the rest of NASA to feed CxP and it was becoming unsustainable. Balance needs to be restored.

Actually I am speaking of philosphy, not Griffins or Bush's or NASA's postion.

What do you think his philosophy about HSF, leaving out the prior administrations wishes?

[spacefan]

Heres an interview with Bolden and Garver

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0907/21nasa/

They seem quite optimistic about leaving LEO. Obama's instruction to Bolden seems to indicate that the president is willing to support an ambitous program.

[Rick]

Thanks for the link. I watched the program in it's entirety and based my observations accordingly.

Funding would reduce the gap would it not?

Thanks for the info!

[klydemorris]

Where is that documented in direction to NASA? VSE is still the law of the land.

Me2 asking for documentation??????:rolleyes:

Rick- maybe you should just tell him that he doesn't get the same level of Inside source e-mails that you get. :D

[JimMcDade]

Hmm, so Charley likes to cry and is proud to admit it. Good! He should be ready to cry some more when he finds out the size of the budget he will be working with. Sounds like he is a good fit for the job.

Rumors are flying around DC that the OMB wants to chop NASA down at the knees. All of this reminds of the time that Nixon sent OMB axe man Donald Rice to eliminate the Saturn V and terminate the final Apollo missions. At least we have a few spare Saturn stages and LMs around to exhibit as a result of Rice's chopping.

I am afraid that we all are going to find unity through our disappointment if NASA suffers severe funding cuts. The Augustine review might just be a PR sideshow to distract us while the President's concurrent James Jones review of national space policy is where the real action is happening.

The majority of voters chose change, so change is probably what we are going to get- like it or not.

Check these out:

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/07/21/feelings-are-back-at-nasa/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/nasas_charlie_bolden_gets_verk.html?hpid=news-col-blog

[JimMcDade]

Because Griffin's folly, the ESAS implementation of the VSE, is too expensive...
The ESAS was a pipe dream from the get go.

"Can do" i.e. Damn the costs, full speed ahead is not a viable plan



Hmm, NASA might have to revive the Mercury-Redstone if it wants to keep sending astronauts into space if the President resurrects his promise to, "delay Project Constellation for at least five years, putting the saved money into a new $10-billion-a-year education program that would, in essence, nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond."

This is the man who told audiences that “NASA is no longer associated with inspiration”.

From Obama's November 2008 platform statement:

IX. A COMMITMENT TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.

[JimMcDade]

Me2 asking for documentation??????:rolleyes:

Rick- maybe you should just tell him that he doesn't get the same level of Inside source e-mails that you get. :D

Klyde, Well the new administrator says he doesn't mind what Me2 is doing as long as he shares the same message with him directly. Are you, Me2? Or are you still afraid to share your identity? The NASA administrator says what you are doing is OK, after all, even if you are a contractor and not a NASA employee.

[spacefan]

Hmm, NASA might have to revive the Mercury-Redstone if it wants to keep sending astronauts into space if the President resurrects his promise to, "delay Project Constellation for at least five years, putting the saved money into a new $10-billion-a-year education program that would, in essence, nationalize early-education for children under five years old to prepare them for the rigors of kindergarten and beyond."

This is the man who told audiences that “NASA is no longer associated with inspiration”.

From Obama's November 2008 platform statement:

IX. A COMMITMENT TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.

You know if you guys were willing to pay an eansy weansy bit more tax a lot of these problems would just go away.

[Rick]

I doubt a tax increase would be applied to NASA's budget. Now if there was a special tax to fund HSF, I'd be the first in line to contribute.

[Rick]

Folks, an FYI, that I am moving this thread to the The Space Politics and Policy of P.O.T.U.S. (http://insideksc.com/forumdisplay.php?f=158) forum, as it seems more applicable.

[spacefan]

It all depends on the architecture. Some say heavy lift is not needed with propellant depots.

Or Ares V can continue development with the money saved by using an EELV as a CLV. J-2X development can continue since it is the only thing in common with Ares 5

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15735.0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7946689.stm

Russians looking at a 4 launch architecture for lunar missions using the yet to be developed Angara rockets. Angara is inspired by the american EELV. with a performance of up to 50t to LEO. Can't find a mars architecture using same rockets.

[klydemorris]

You know if you guys were willing to pay an eansy weansy bit more tax a lot of these problems would just go away.

That statement has to reflect the greatest degree of myopia lack of understanding as to how things actually work that I've ever read. Totally in line with your other posts.

Just for the record- are you a United States Citizen?

[JimMcDade]

Perhaps we could have a check box on our tax return that would allow us to dedicate various amounts from our tax check to NASA. A voluntary NASA tax, more or less.

Personally, I wish we had line item tax returns so that we could choose NOT to fund programs we don't approve of. (Omigosh, that sounds awfully Libertarian!)

[spacefan]

That statement has to reflect the greatest degree of myopia lack of understanding as to how things actually work that I've ever read. Totally in line with your other posts.

Just for the record- are you a United States Citizen?

I feel that statement could certainly apply to your own posts more than mine.

For the record I am not a US citizen.

[spacefan]

Perhaps we could have a check box on our tax return that would allow us to dedicate various amounts from our tax check to NASA. A voluntary NASA tax, more or less.

Personally, I wish we had line item tax returns so that we could choose NOT to fund programs we don't approve of. (Omigosh, that sounds awfully Libertarian!)

You know Nasa could just start an appeal for donations.

[Rick]

You know Nasa could just start an appeal for donations.

They would not get many as there PR isn't steller. (Pun Intended)

[klydemorris]

I feel that statement could certainly apply to your own posts more than mine.

For the record I am not a US citizen.

Here's a deal for ya'... move to the USA, earn your money here (you don't have to be a citizen to get taxed) Pay taxes and THEN tell us how much more we should pay. Without doing that, although you have the right to post here and anywhere else, your opinion has ZERO value when attempting to tell Americans how much more tax YOU think we should be paying.

Now... that being said- my idea is that NASA should sell Space Bonds to supliment their budget. Let us who believe in NASA pay more for the greater good... even non-US citizens should be able to buy them too- then "spacefan" could put his money where his post is.

[spacefan]

Here's a deal for ya'... move to the USA, earn your money here (you don't have to be a citizen to get taxed) Pay taxes and THEN tell us how much more we should pay. Without doing that, although you have the right to post here and anywhere else, your opinion has ZERO value when attempting to tell Americans how much more tax YOU think we should be paying.

Now... that being said- my idea is that NASA should sell Space Bonds to supliment their budget. Let us who believe in NASA pay more for the greater good... even non-US citizens should be able to buy them too- then "spacefan" could put his money where his post is.

No, happy enough living where i am, thank you very much. If you reject someones opinion based on their nationality that doesn't speak well for you. As a non american i consider pursuing a manned space program to be in the american national interest as such it is role of government to adequately fund it (care to rate this statement). I will leave it with this you only get what you pay for.

[Rick]

I still do not think a tax increase would solve any of the issues we are talking about. As I mentioned, the odds of it boosting NASA's budget is slim. Considering the budget is less than one percent, how much funding are we talking about here? 5%, 8%, 10%?

I don't see it happening.

[spacefan]

I still do not think a tax increase would solve any of the issues we are talking about. As I mentioned, the odds of it boosting NASA's budget is slim. Considering the budget is less than one percent, how much funding are we talking about here? 5%, 8%, 10%?

I don't see it happening.

Neither do I, my point was that if the government pie was a little bit bigger nasa's slice of it would also be that much larger i'm not talking apollo level of spending just you might not have to make such hard choices between everything you want to do as a country. But if you guys are allergic to the T word theres no point debating it.

[Rick]

I'm not allergic to taxes, just want them to be for a reason, not just to tax.

The next month is going to be a long one, especially for those who have a stake in the launch vehicle selection and actually, NASA's direction as a whole involving HSF.

[spacefan]

I'm not allergic to taxes, just want them to be for a reason, not just to tax.

The next month is going to be a long one, especially for those who have a stake in the launch vehicle selection and actually, NASA's direction as a whole involving HSF.

I think its almost impossible for a government to tax for the sake of tax in a democracy its too easy to hold them to account.

There are always more worthy programs than available funding, which gets funding depends on the priorities of the government of the day. Now you may disagree with those priorities depending on your political persuasion but they do have the mandate to try and push thier programs.

I guess it comes down to how much you want your government to do as to whether you feel your being taxed too heavily.

Rick whatever happens with constellation i hope you land on your feet.

[JimMcDade]

Should we be worrying more about an "Obama Gap" in human space flight than the 5 to 6 year-long gap that has been the cause of so much angst?

I have seen a number of articles by both liberal and conservative commentators calling on the President to put NASA on the back burner until the economic and health care issues are resolved.

We know that the President originally planned to put Constellation on hold for five years.

[Me2]

1. Should we be worrying more about an "Obama Gap" in human space flight than the 5 to 6 year-long gap that has been the cause of so much angst?

2. We know that the President originally planned to put Constellation on hold for five years.

Incorrect on both accounts

1. The gap was caused by Griffin and his architecture and Bush's low funding. The gap existed in its current duration before November 2008.

2. That never was an Obama policy. That was just an idea floated by Obama education policy hack that was never adopted or vetted through the upper ranks of the Obama campaign

I didn't vote for Obama nor do I believe in most of his policies but I don't believe in misrepresenting the truth for political purposes.

Calling it an "Obama Gap" is slander.

However Obama can narrow the gap by doing something against his party's MO. This fix also goes along with Republican party lines (which is not what Sen Shelby is following). So going by the typical Republican platform, a Republican would be against the inhouse gov't work of Ares I and more for commerical providers such as ULA and Spacex. No ifs ands or buts about it, Ares I is a Democratic party type program. Just because it is space doesn't mean it can be an exception.

[JimMcDade]

Me2, you missed my point. The 'Obama gap' has no relation to Ares, or any of the alternatives. Obama is no friend of human space flight.

Bolden claimed to be a social liberal and a fiscal conservative when he met wit NASA employees last week. That is exactly the kind of person Obama wants to lead his version of NASA.

Editorial opinion: SUP on steroids is probably going to be a prime NASA mission for the new NASA. A lot of the work that is now done in NASA centers will move to university campuses and private institutes.

NASA grants will likely include large allocations for facilities. This will be part of a major revival of Vannevar Bush-style government-funded research by private institutions.

George W. Bush made a lot of enemies on university campuses when he approved cancellation of the HST repair mission. The university presidents who embraced and supported Obama want to see science become NASA's primary mission- at the expense of exploration. Campus scientists protested loudly when Project Constellation was funded at the expense of science. Obama plans to award the universities with what they want.

How do you know that Obama did not read and approve that online platform statement? Of course, I suppose that some people believe Obama when he tried to recalibrate his elitist "police acted stupidly" faux pas when he automatically sided with his Ivy League pal the other day.

[Me2]

1. Obama is no friend of human space flight.

2. A lot of the work that is now done in NASA centers will move to university campuses and private institutes.

3. George W. Bush made a lot of enemies on university campuses when he approved cancellation of the HST repair mission.

4. How do you know that Obama did not read and approve that online platform statement?

1. Based on what?

2. BS. A baseless statement. That is NASA's MO now and has been for decades. NASA hasn't followed the arsenal system except at MSFC and that has proven to be the wrong idea. KSC, JSC, and MSFC work goes to contractors and not university campuses and private institutes. JPL is a university but GSFC, ARC, GRC and LRC don't have tasks that can be taken over by university campuses and private institutes,

3. More bunk. The universities don't have any power and never did. HST doesn't affect that many universities.

4. I have my sources

I don't know where you got this idea that NASA competes with university and private institutes.

HSF will continue to suck the life out of NASA due to the disappropriate share of funding it gets, which has been another NASA MO, even during the last gap.

[Me2]

Me2, you missed my point. The 'Obama gap' has no relation to Ares, or any of the alternatives..

Obama has no relation to any HSF gap.

[Rick]

Okay, lets get at least a bit of reality back in the conversation. "Obama's Gap" as Jim called it, was adding an additional 5 years to an already 5 year gap. Hence 10 years, not 5.

Before the election I investigated his stance, especially concerning HSF. Below are excerpts from his platform while he was running for President. Link included:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released today the education plan he would enact if elected (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/20/in_major_policy_speech_obama_a_1.php). The full 15-page plan (http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/112007%20education%20plan%201.pdf) includes a variety of proposals, including reforming early education programs. The last section of the plan, titled “A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility” explains how he would pay for these initiatives. The passage of relevance here: “The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years,” among other steps. According to MSNBC, Obama would leave in place $500 million/year for Constellation’s “manufacturing and technology base” (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/20/474908.aspx), but would otherwise transfer the funding to the education effort.

None of the campaign’s official statements or other media reports indicate any alternative measures the campaign would take to address what, on its face, would appear to be a five-year delay in the introduction of Ares 1, Orion, and the other main components of NASA’s current exploration architecture.
(A potentially ironic item, depending on your opinion on the importance of Constellation: one other section of the Obama education plan is titled “Make Math and Science Education a National Priority”.)

The Republican National Committee has criticized the move to delay Constellation, The Hill reports (http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-unveils-education-proposal-2007-11-20.html), quoting RNC spokesman Danny Diaz: “It is ironic that Barack Obama’s plan to help our children reach for the stars is financed in part by slashing a program that helps us learn about those very same stars.”

So, if the Presidents comments are to become truth, there is certainly another 5 year pause in addition to the original gap.

Is that an "Obama Gap"? I'll leave that for others to decide.

[Me2]

With the upcoming extension of the shuttle program, Obama can be credited with closing Griffin's gap and not creating one of his own.

[Rick]

With the upcoming extension of the shuttle program, Obama can be credited with closing Griffin's gap and not creating one of his own.

Griffin, Griffin, Griffin. What he has to do with the response above is beyond me Jim.

I/we are tryng o look to the future. Any chance you can give the blame game a rest?

No comment on what I posted above, which is fact and not speculation.

[spacefan]

If obama adopts a cheaper architecture than constellation he could have a sustainable HSF program and his education improvements.

Rick and Jim Mcdade if its a choice between an educatrion program that helps millions of children or some rockets, however capable, the rockets are going to lose.

[Rick]

If obama adopts a cheaper architecture than constellation he could have a sustainable HSF program and his education improvements.

Rick and Jim Mcdade if its a choice between an educatrion program that helps millions of children or some rockets, however capable, the rockets are going to lose.

Not if it means putting human spaceflight on hold for 10 + years. Constellation would be delayed for that period of time no matter what cheaper launch vehicle selection is made, if at all.

I do not have an issue at all with funding education for kindergarten children, but why not gut another budget besides NASA's? There are many useless social programs that could be eliminated to fund children's education.

Failure is NOT an option.

[spacefan]

What if he can close the gap and come in cheaper? In your opinion these social programs are useless, no doubt to the recipients they are wonderful. But i do believe that the taxpayer should recieve value for money, programs that fail to deliver should be canned, but the onus should be on the government to try to put something better in its place.

It has been stated elsewhere on the web that much of the costs for nasa to launch anything are the fixed costs for all the centres they operate. Perhaps it is time for nasa to look hard at what they do and where they are able to trim the fat.

[Rick]

What kind of NASA fat trimming are you speaking of?

[spacefan]

Duplication of effort, i'm talking civil servants neccessary to run all nasa centres. Possibly closing unnecessary centres.

[JimMcDade]

Spacefan, I agree with you up to a point. NASA, now more than ever, looks more like other federal agencies in the workforce area. I imagine that there is some dead weight today in each of the NASA centers as the feds continue to use all federal agencies as a jobs program for both direct and contract support support professions.

There may be too many clerical workers, receptionists, parking lot attendants, security guards, union flunkies, in-house trainers and educators and so on. It may be that there are also too many professional employees working in some areas. I don't know.

It would be nice if outside auditors (non-government) could come in and evaluate the work force.

As for our poorly conceived federal social programs that covet NASA dollars, many of them can be used to teach lessons about unintended consequences. Our misguided and incredibly expensive social engineering programs did eliminate extreme cases of hunger and deprivation in rural and inner-city areas, but just as it is with a heroin addict who switches to methadone, we did nothing to eliminate the root causes of our social problems.

We now have gangs of well-fed, criminals roaming our streets and using the drugs that used to be a welcome relief from a life of poverty and repression. These thugs are well vaccinated and they can spell and perform simple math. A life of crime and violence as a career choice is still as attractive in those communities as it was in the days prior to the availability of federally provided financial assistance, school improvements, school busing and so on.

In 1960, 20% of African-American children were born out of wedlock. Within 20 years, that ratio was flipped and 80% of African-American children were born out of wedlock. Such unintended consequences if social engineering are inevitable simply because changing people is not a science as astronautics is.

The government cannot force people to like each other nor can it make them choose the more challenging path towards self-reliance and personal accountability when the option of a more mediocre, dependency-based existence requires practically no effort or exertion. That is human- and animal- nature.

Technocracy stays around because there are many good things that the progressive approach brings us. The entire NASA budget could be diverted to social engineering programs and things still wouldn't get much better for the people on the bottom.

I heard an African-American professor say that children living in these dependent households average 300 fewer words in their vocabulary by the time they begin these formal education programs. He said the parents are not doing their whole job as parents. Those parents are not reading to their children, nor or they taking their kids to libraries and museums. They had no positive ambitions for their own lives and they are handing that tradition down.

We have yet another generation of dependent, semi-literate adults coming around the bend. A life of crime and self-indulgent escape awaits many of these children- not as a result of government intervention- but because of government intervention. Social engineering has unintentionally eliminated the cultural values that promoted ambition and positive values.

Killing NASA for the sake of pre-school and other social programs is not going to help. People are not engineer-able. Government programs cannot make people love and respect each other. Human behavior is still more of a philosophical area than it is technical or scientific.

Collecting statistics about social issues and computing income and educational levels. and then creating programs to alter those numbers, is not the way to solve our social problems. People need personal goals and deadlines to help them, not nanny state programs. Real change must begin with parents, family, and community.

[Me2]

There may be too many clerical workers, receptionists, parking lot attendants, security guards, union flunkies, in-house trainers and educators and so on. It may be that there are also too many professional employees working in some areas. I don't know.
.

you don't know the make of the civil servant work force. There are no parking lot attendants, security guards, union flunkies, in-house trainers and educators, those are contracted out. There are no secretaries any more except for the few directors.

There are too many professional employees, and they are at MSFC.

[JimMcDade]

"We don't believe other architecture options besides the Constellation Program reduce the gap from the right"- Dr. Sally Ride to the Augustine Commission

[Rick]

"We don't believe other architecture options besides the Constellation Program reduce the gap from the right"- Dr. Sally Ride to the Augustine Commission

Jim, maybe I'm missing something in her quote, but does she mean the existing hardware or the possibility of other hardware, but still under the Constellation umbrella?

[Rick]

Duplication of effort, i'm talking civil servants neccessary to run all nasa centres. Possibly closing unnecessary centres.

Spacefan, what center(s) do you think could be eliminated?

[JimMcDade]

She is stating the obvious conclusion that change will NOT speed things up. She obviously does not beleive in the claims of Ares I naysayers who think that a switch will shorten the gap.

[JimMcDade]

Dr. Ride: "Just looking at this and applying our best judgment, we think it's wise to assume a two-year slip in the Constellation IOC, just for prudent planning at this stage."

She attributed the gap problem to inadequate budgets, not strictly technical flaws in the Ares/Orion hardware. Her committee concludes that the remaining Shuttle missions realistically need until at least March of 2001 to be completed. Their estimate for Ares I/Orion IOC is in March 2017- after the ISS retirement.

Ride suggested adding an additional Shuttle mission to help close the gap or restarting the external tank line at the Michoud Assembly Facility to extend the STS until 2014.

She also proposed extending the operational life of ISS.

The study led by Dr. Ride concludes that that any possible schedule advantages from EELV or other alternatives would be negligible at best, even if NASA decided to write-off the three billion bucks already spent on Ares I.

If the Ride report counts, it is not encouraging news for the alternative proponents in spite of the honest expression of concern about Ares I and Orion progress.

[JimMcDade]

The downside to the Ride report is that it possibly plays to the sentiment behind Obama's original plan to postpone Constellation for five years.

Extending the ISS and STS would keep the USA involved in HSF at a minimal cost. That option would satisfy both the scientific community and possibly NASA's ISS partners if those partners wish to allocate funds for their ISS projects beyond the planned retirement. Unfortunately, what does that option mean for project Constellation workers who will be working for a postponed program? Layoffs?

[spacefan]

Spacefan, what center(s) do you think could be eliminated?

I would have thought that you would have a better idea as to which centres are dead weight.

[Rick]

I never thought about it to be honest Spacefan. Wondering how many jobs that would eliminate, and what it would do the the economy surrounding the center(s) to be eliminated.

[spacefan]

I never thought about it to be honest Spacefan. Wondering how many jobs that would eliminate, and what it would do the the economy surrounding the center(s) to be eliminated.

Its safe to say that eliminating any centres would be a blow to any local economy.

[JimMcDade]

No center is dead weight, but there are probably some employees at each center who are. Each center has a unique mission or set of missions in addition to forming a nationwide constellation of bi-partisan political support for NASA. The domestic political justification for keeping these centers is probably the most important factor of all.

AMES- IT, fundamental aeronautics, bio and space science technologies

Dryden- Flight research

Glenn- Aeropropulsion and communications technologies.

Goddard- Earth, the solar system, and Universe observations

JPL- Robotic exploration of the Solar System

Johnson- HSF

KSC- Prepare and launch missions around the Earth and beyond

Langley- Aviation and space research

Marshall- Space transportation and propulsion technologies

Stennis- Rocket propulsion testing and remote sensing technology

JSC, KSC and Marshall are the big three, of course.

[spacefan]

No center is dead weight, but there are probably some employees at each center who are. Each center has a unique mission or set of missions in addition to forming a nationwide constellation of bi-partisan political support for NASA. The domestic political justification for keeping these centers is probably the most important factor of all.

AMES- IT, fundamental aeronautics, bio and space science technologies

Dryden- Flight research

Glenn- Aeropropulsion and communications technologies.

Goddard- Earth, the solar system, and Universe observations

JPL- Robotic exploration of the Solar System

Johnson- HSF

KSC- Prepare and launch missions around the Earth and beyond

Langley- Aviation and space research

Marshall- Space transportation and propulsion technologies

Stennis- Rocket propulsion testing and remote sensing technology

JSC, KSC and Marshall are the big three, of course.

Ah! good old pork barrell spending.

[JimMcDade]

Ah! good old pork barrel spending.

No pork, no Buck Rogers.

Even Apollo era critic Senator Walter Mondale stopped slamming NASA after 3M was awarded a juicy contract that brought $$$ to his home state. If you can't beat 'em, hire 'em.

[spacefan]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17540-nasa-panel-may-propose-deep-space-crewed-missions.html

I didnt see any of the Augustine sub committee at KSC, but folks over at NASAWATCH have been talking about fuel depots and reusable spacecraft but no landings for the foreseable future.

Did any of you guys get to see it and if so is the above fair?

[JimMcDade]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17540-nasa-panel-may-propose-deep-space-crewed-missions.html

I didnt see any of the Augustine sub committee at KSC, but folks over at NASAWATCH have been talking about fuel depots and reusable spacecraft but no landings for the foreseable future.

Did any of you guys get to see it and if so is the above fair?

Yes, it's fair, but implementation of this incredibly expensive plan is purely speculative at this point. Don't forget that the Augustine panel can only submit recommendations and possible options for the future of US HSF.

It will be up to President Obama to set the agenda for NASA. He is the only entity legally authorized to determine NASA policy. The Augustine panel is conducting one of two separate space policy studies for the White House. The President can ignore the final report of either study if he chooses to do so.

JFK ignored his own science adviser when he chose the moon as NASA's target and Nixon ignored his personally appointed study group (including his own VP) when he set the course for post-Apollo NASA.