Will White House Speak Soon About NASA?

Any cut in the NASA budget will hurt the US economy and US economic growth!

If anyone is interested in reading a pdf copy of the 1992 Nature magazine report (Sharing out NASA's Spoils) on the substantial economic benefits of our space program then they can contact me at:

newpapyrus@yahoo.com.

You'd be surprised just how much our investment in space impacts the general US economy as far as economic growth and job creation!

Marcel F. Williams

More and more this drama reads like the history of the Soviet space program that I get out of Encyclopedia Astronautica every day.
While the Soviets were busy arguing amongst themselves about who had a better design, how much money was necessary and which administrator or bureaucrat was more incompetent, the USA was busy blowing past them on the way to the moon.

I'm oversimplifying probably, but this is just more and more depressing... to the point that I'm reading this website less and less. Sorry Keith, you do a fine job but the news is just crap day after day.

I agree with "bassplayinben". This is like a greek tragedy! What the administration is about to do is so short sighted and foolish mere words fail me. For the first time in my life I'm glad that I'm in my 50's. I'd hate to be 20 with the country on the kind of trajectory the last few cycles of politicians have placed us on. I knew we were in trouble when they started moving the chess pieces around and appointing "Blue Ribbon Commissions" When that starts to happen there's always Skullduggery a foot. I posted this 11 months ago.

"Well, Mr. Griffin is gone and I believe NASA will be the poorer for it. Those of you out there popping the Champagne corks should hold up on pulling out your plans for a better mouse trap, until the dust has settled from your in-house food fight.
Politicians & bureaucrats will occasionally give you what you want, just not the way you want it. The incoming administration getting rid of Mike Griffin is, as we say in the medical profession, a terrible prognostic indicator. It portends a major change in the vision and direction of the American Space program, not just a detour in road to booster development. I don't believe that many of us that visit this site will care for those changes.
Great nations engage in grand endeavors. The last time our nation did so I was a boy of 11. My father and I went to see every launch of the Saturn V. It was the greatest thing I had ever witnessed and I so wanted my country to walk that path again. I believe Mike Griffin thought so to, and was doing his best to make it happen. He just ran out of time. We should all meet back here in 24 months and see if certain people still believe this departure was a good thing.
Posted by: L. Hartswick at January 17, 2009 11:57 PM"

Well, it didn't take 24 months.

This is sad. As a young man in his 20's working on Orion, I fear I will no longer have a space program that inspires anybody.

My parents met working on Apollo, I have always wanted to be a part of the space program. Will this be the case with our youth and our new NASA?

This is the best thing for NASA. It hasn't adapted well to the new century, never really connecting with the public. They should have spent a lot more money on PR, it would have been well worth it. A top gun feel would have made a huge difference but I still see the same old boring looking astronauts in their blue flight suits. Gotta make it interesting and exciting, otherwise people will tune out. Or in this case, stay tuned out.

International cooperation is the way to go, it's cheaper and the other countries are rising so fast that cooperating in space can keep the geopolitical feuds at bay.

Commercial is the way to go anyway, it MAKES money. Not waste BILLIONS by the bucketful. I'd rather see 6 suborbital tourists go for the ride of their life than another boring 2 billion dollar space shuttle ride to nowhere. It's over NASA, thank god.

Les, I'm probably not the only one who is thinking this, but wait a few more days to see the verdict is. The jury is still out, and if you read the article you know that Obama doesn't have the only say. From all this talk of inspiration and international cooperation could very probably lead to an international joint program for human exploration beyond LEO: better than nothing, even if it proceeds with UN levels of bureaucracy.

Well if you didn't expect "O" to invite the Commie Chinese to basically a "free technology lunch" you've been dreaming.

Tho I think what Congress did today was simply marvelous!

Kinda hamstrings "O" and Bolden...that and (D) FL Sen. Nelson saying today he wouldn't vote for the Health Care bill ....don't get mad Bill...just put a gun to his head.

LOL!

"I've got a bad feeling about this" -Han Solo

It's looking like the next President is going to have to take the space bull by the horns.

Les, the current path that Griffin put us on is an absolute guarantee of failure, akin to a terminal disease. The worst part is that it is a direct result of Griffin imposing his personal rocket concept on the Agency. As a result, we have squandered $8 billion and 5 years. This is something from which we may never recover regardless of his successor's actions. The Ares I rocket is more complex, more expensive, and more dangerous than the Space Shuttle that it is supposed to replace. If we don't get rid of this albatross, human spaceflight will end in a series of dramatic failures.

Purely FWIW, my call on the Obama/Bolden vision is something like this:

1) Ares-I will be canned;
2) ISS crew access will be solely by commercial spacecraft launched on commercial LVs (likely the Boeing-Bigelow Orion-Lite on Atlas-V-502 and the Crewed Dragon on Falcon-9);
3) Orion will be solely a BEO crew vehicle and its IOC will be moved back to as late as 2017;
4(a) Operationally, Orion will operate solely from the new HLV, which will enter service alongside Orion. My call as to the identity of the HLV is a kind of Ares-V-Classic/DIRECT hybrid - 5 x SSME on stretched 8.4m-diameter core, 5-seg SRMs & 6 x RL-10B-2 upper stage (block-I) later becoming 1 x J-2X (block-II) as soon as J-2X is ready;
4(b) Orion will also be compatible with the Delta-IVH+1 (with RS-68A core engines) as a backup for CCDev to the ISS. However, this will not be a primary role and only will be utilied in the event that both CCDev providers are unable to meet their commitments. Orion/Delta-IVH will also carry out the initial LEO flight tests for Orion;
5) The initial mission for Orion will be NEO encounters, LLO orbital missions and, possibly, suporting a 'Moonlab' space station at EML-1. Lunar landing will be postponed until later because Altair will not be funded until the HLV reaches IOC, defined as cargo launch capability without Orion.

Both NEO and LLO Orbital missions will utilise the ESA's ATV-derived spacelab module. 'Moonlab' will be a fully international program with participation by Russia, Europe, USA and any other country that can pay their share of the costs.

For God's sake I have never heard such pessimistic talk about something that has yet to happen. I urge people to wait for the actual decision-and I have no idea what it will be-before breaking out the crying towels and abandoning all hope.
Let's give the President a chance before we start lamenting the sky is falling. We all might be pleasantly surprised. What will be a fight, I suspect, will be to get the funding from Congress should Obama choose an expansion of manned spaceflight. And that's a whole different food fight!

History does have a way of repeating...especially when the bureaucrats get involved. The Soviet Space effort in the 1960's is a excellent case study. Our program started suffering once the politicians got involved in all of the power and money struggles, not to mention the earth science navel gazing BS. It was at that point any vision of HSF beyond LEO was extinguished.

And Frank, with all due respect to your post, the President has had almost a year to take a leadership role on this issue. Even with the Augustine Committee's report being finished, he is still showing no leadership. The sky is where it's always been and always will be, but there is precious little hope left for U.S. space exploraion in the next 30 years with a President that only cares about himself.

Obama did say in his campaign that he was going to "redirect" NASA's mission. Now it's past time for him to tell those that didn't understand exactly what he meant. I guess he'll devote some time to thinking about that when he stops travelling for a while.

Mr. Sietzen, I pray your right.
And I am not religious! LOL

I'm in my early forties. I want to live to see humans walking on the moon again, preferrably Americans, and for them to live and work there. I want very much to think that the first person to step onto the red soil of Mars has been born, and just maybe, I will live to see that.

I have tried much of my life to contribute as a citizen to those goals in ways the average person can.

We are running out of time very quickly for many of us here to see hose events happen.

Out out curiosity, does anyone have a link(s) to NASA's technical assessment of the Ares-1X test? I haven't seen anything about the results on NASA Watch. I'm surprised about that, but maybe I just missed it. I do know that the Ares 1-X 30 day report was released on Dec. 3rd., and I've googled that. Just wondering if there is more.

At the forum held at MIT, John Logsdon was of the view that President Obama was planning on increasing NASA's budget, particularly in the human spaceflight program, which would seem to directly contradict the Orlando Sentinel story.

I will let you guys continue to argue about the engineering. As the DeForest Kelley once quipped, "I'm a doctor, not an engineer Jim!" But if Norm & Bohdan saw no insoluble problems in the machine, then it is probably so. I do know that at some point you have to take a design and go for it! But, if you guys want to redesigned Delta, or build the Jupiter, or rides sidesaddle into orbit, that's fine. But, we can't keep going 3 steps forward and 5 steps back. That is toxic and gives aid in comfort to people who wish us no good fortune. The really important rocket is Ares V anyway, and if Ares I gets us there so be it. Guess what, I've heard that space travel is hard, and expensive, and dangerous. In my profession, I pay enough taxes to bring tears to your eyes, but would gladly suffer a percentage increase if it would go to something useful like our space program.

This talk of the international cooperation sounds great. We work well with our traditional partners, but making the future of America's Space Program hostage to continued good diplomatic relations with the "KGB Colonel" and people who HLA type their political prisoners, I believe is fraught with uncertainty.

In the last election, whether we voted for him or not, in electing this President, we all decided to embrace Keynesian economics. Well, if we are going to spend our way out of recession, I humbly suggest that investments in aeronautics & space technology are among some of the smartest spending that we can do. Right now, we're making a lot of direct payments out to people that are being spent on PF Flyers & Happy Meals. That's fine, you have to help people that are hurting, but is that getting people on their feet? Most of the money we spend on the space program is spent right here in America, and would put people to work in excellent jobs, developing and building new technology. So when this spending orgy comes to an end we won't just have some beer cans and a hangover, but tangible scientific and technical achievements that can be leveraged to improve our future. I think we should pay for our space program, and improve our power grid, and our roads and bridges. I think the President would do well to stop talking to the guys from Wharton, and talk to some of the guys who write into this website about where the "shovel ready" projects are. Some of you guys could give him a big fat list of projects that would improve are technology base & infrastructure, while putting a ton of people to work in good jobs. But I fear "the suits" aren't listening, and worse don't care. I once heard one of the Brahmin's of the great business schools say on C-SPAN, "computer chips, poker chips, potato chips or cow chips it's all the same thing to me."

I'm gonna make a prediction-if the President chooses some combination of Moon First and Flexible path, he'll pay for it by a combination of stimulus money AND cuts to other NASA accounts. Don't be surprised if all of the Earth science part of NASA gets peeled off into a new environmental science agency.
Just a guess-but I doubt that the top line of NASA's budget gets raised...I strongly predict that the Republican leadership will be against any NASA increases, no matter where they might come from, especially from John McCain.

In my 20+ years of working with NASA, I would have to say that one of its toughest challenges has been the power of its existing stakeholders to prevent progress. Lots of jobs, money, and power are threatened by any change. There’s so much capability in the existing aerospace workforce, but it is also incredibly paranoid – especially the 40 and up crowd (of which I am one). Will this change threaten my employment? Will this change threaten my stature in the organization? Will this change threaten my power? Whatever direction we take, I hope it is a direction taken in order to make the most of our nation’s resources in exploration of the universe and not one that is simply to satiate the paranoid.

“This talk of the international cooperation sounds great.”

There's a new kid in town with regard to international cooperation: Great Britain. The BNSC recently (Dec. 10) released their "Space Exploration Review", http://www.bnsc.gov.uk/13440.aspx

From the conclusion,

However, this new international activity creates opportunities for both technological innovation and commercial endeavour. The inclusion of astronauts will have several further effects: increasing the flexibility of science missions as intelligent humans are on hand to assemble, adjust and maintain instruments; while the extra lift capacity needed to carry them creates opportunities for larger and more complex instruments. Humans still make better explorers than robots, being able to spot the unusual and serendipitous to make new discoveries and choose the most valuable samples. The need for engineers and scientists from the wide range of disciplines working together on human spaceflight will inevitably produce new understandings and innovations.

And in summary,

1. The UK is securing excellent science, technology and commercial benefits from its investment in the ESA Mars robotic programme.
2. Viable options exist to develop a science-driven, national/bilateral robotic exploration programme focused on the Moon and asteroids. This would strengthen and re-balance the UK’s space programme which is heavily biased towards ESA at present. The proposed MoonLITE mission fits this scenario.
3. A human space exploration programme could be pursued through joining the nascent ESA exploration programme or through bilateral collaboration with NASA (the ‘Canadian Model’). The difficulties of maintaining focus on UK interests within a larger ‘club’ favours the latter approach. Because it prepares for a human lunar exploration programme, the MoonLITE project is consistent with this approach.
4. A minimum human spaceflight programme is possible. However, an integrated robotic and human programme comprising focused UK contributions to robotic infrastructure and technology would potentially yield a stronger mix of technology impact and economic return while simultaneously delivering the benefits of prominent UK astronauts working on the Moon.

I don't know how much this might tie in with Administration, but it is promising.

It may even happen that the classical role of NASA will come to an end. That they shall do no more own development and just have to organize industrial- and international contributions. After NASP, Venture Star and Ares I, the political patience may have come to an end.

@ Frank : "Don't be surprised if all of the Earth science part of NASA gets peeled off into a new environmental science agency"

So Frank, how do you see this new Earth Agency impacting GSFC, JPL, LarC, and other NASA Centers that are either performing Project Management, Instrument Development, Science data processing, mission operations etc. for the very many Earth Science missions already in operation, and the many that are in development?

Will a new Agency be formed that pays NASA to build it's missions? In much the same way NOAA pays for the GOES, GOES R, POES, etc. missions that GSFC is managing/developing but NOAA operates?

Or will the workers across the Agency working Earth Science be re-badged and shipped to new office space somewhere else?

Just wondering what you see happening if your suggestion comes to pass.

Obama was right to question the Orion-Ares-Moon-Mars plan. It was questionable
itself and was stalled in serious technical uncertainties.
Although he's probably made his decision, here are my citizen's two cents:

-Ares-1 should not be in the critical path of our next-gen crew vehicle,
but should only be developed as a strap-on booster or as an unmanned launcher.

-Our next crew vehicle should be a versatile work-horse, like the shuttle,
and it should land on an airstrip. See this original Lockheed Martin CEV
proposal:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1534782.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm
Sticking with Lockheed Martin would avoid contracting delays, and would allow
using Orion-developed internals within the new design.
Otherwise we might need to scale up the X-37B as a manned vehicle:
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=20686

-Wherever we go in deep space--moon or asteroid or Martian moon--should depend on where the most valuable mining is. We probably need space mining to pay off our national debt.

Oh, I know, lets partner with say Japan, oops they are facing 10% cuts.

Frankly, Earthshine, I predict mass confusion and chaos when and if this is done. What usually starts off as a good idea in principle quickly unravels as various defenders of the status quo chime in. In the beginning, I think your thought as to a simple rebadging will start it off. Consolidation into what is now Goddard would be the most likely next step. It will be a mess for a while-probably until the election of the next President, who might well undo the whole damn thing!
It's either something like this, or a scaling back of exploration. I'm betting that Obama won't kill human spaceflight outright, but if he declines to choose an expansive option, given his statements about international partnerships and the importance of environmental planning, then the Moon and Mars are really out of reach then.
Many NASA folk are dreaming of a renewed Presidential commitment to exploration. I hope they are right-but the Republican leadership and many Blue Dog Democrats will balk at a NASA top line increase, which is why I think (hope) more creative ways of funding Flexible Path are considered. Canceling Ares 1 and the LEO version of Orion could be a start in freeing up some funds for beyond LEO manned spaceflight-but even then key Democratic Senators like Shelby will fight to the death.
One small positive note: last Spring I accompanyed Buzz Aldrin when he spoke before the Democratic Senators at their private luncheon in LBJ's old caucus room. About 40 were there, including Reid and Dorgan.Buzz gave it to them straight-avoid a Moon race, kill Ares 1 and V. Commercialize crew and cargo to ISS. Afterwards, Senator Bill Nelson came over to Buzz and said "You know Buzz, you make a lot of sense. I need to think about what you've said"......

Frank, if you think that Buzz's private luncheon speech is a positive note then U.S. space exploration is already dead and we're just waiting (still) for Obama to pronounce the corpse. Cancelling the work to date (whether you agree with Ares I or V) only moves the moon, Mars, or anything else beyond LEO another five years down the road. We've been doing that for the last 45 years and counting...more of the same history repeating.

I used to be one of NASA's biggest fans, now I say let's quit arguing and go ahead and kill NASA and in the process quit kidding ourselves that we have a "space program".

Minor Correction there Frank

then key Democratic Senators like Shelby will fight to the death.

Last time I check, Shelby had left the Democratic party, and is now a Republican

Frank,

Over the last month two large delegations from Florida and Texas of which over half the members were Republicans signed letters urging to President Obama to increase NASA funding. So I am not sure how you can portray this as a partisan issue. John McCain himself has been a supporter of NASA. But Senator Shelby of Alabama has been an ardent Constellation supporter and likely to be considerable roadblock to any change in NASA's overall mission.

With all due respect to Buzz Aldrin, he is not a Washington insider and I suspect does not have much influence when it comes to Congress or the President. A decision about NASA's future should come either at the end of this year or sometime early next year. This is what the word has been coming from a number of different sources. So let's give the political rhetoric a rest here OK?

You're probably right Frank, the pessimistic point of view usually is. But it doesn't have to be that way. I don't see why you even need to create a new agency for it. Everything that looks down or back towards the earth, gets rolled into NOAA along with their budgets, staff and research teams. They design the scientific package, and let out contracts to the appropriate companies for the orbital vehicle. Funding for and placement of the entire spacecraft into orbit, would be another revenue stream for the COTS companies to compete for. Everything that looks up or out into space would be NASA's responsibility.

Gods forbid that a member of the American political class should want to spend extra money investing in America's scientific and technical future. The kind of money were talking about is a rounding error to both the nasty old Republicans, and to the enlightened liberal elite. They dispensed with over $16 billion to send out a cost of living increase to Social Security recipients, when there was no cost of living increase. So, we just went ahead and did it anyway with a lot less thought that you would give to buying a pair of shoes. Money for Afghanistan, no problem. Money for AIG, sure how much? Money to explore the solar system in which our fragile little world spins...gosh its really tough right now...wish I could...but get back to me later on that.

My impression from various Legislative Branch members' statements is that they are not deconstructing very much regarding Ares-1, Ares-V, Orion, timetables, etc.
They seem to want to be vindicated on their original support for Constellation, or they're only looking at home state procurement issues, or something other than technical issues within Constellation.
Obama will need to show some determined and effective leadership in this matter.

Buzz is just another person looking to cash in. He has his own agenda to promote. He's looking to feather his own bed.

My mistake-Shelby is obviously not a Democrat.
Yes, I am aware of the letter and who signed it. But note my point: it is the Republican leadership that controls what the caucus does and they are highly unlikely to support any additional federal budget increases-they are already on record for that.
McCain is endorsing a freeze in all discretionary spending, and spoken favorably about a 20 percent across-the-board cut. In either case, exploration would be in serious trouble unless stimulus money fills in for the cuts.
The point I was trying to make about quoting the Buzz-Nelson dialog was a supposedly ardent supporter of Ares 1 was hinting at second thoughts....
On both sides of the aisle, those members with NASA facilities in their districts have always been on record as supporting NASA increases-to little effect. The same is true for the space subcommittees. They collectively have had no luck in swaying their colleages and leadership. A big budget increase-such as that proposed by Augustine-will almost be certain to find itself in the larger food fight over deficit spending.

Yes, just as the naysayers, Griffin haters, Jupiter groupies, et.al. were looking for vindication for their views in Obama, Bolden, Garver and Augustine.

When following the discussion about the future of spaceflight, everyone and everything seems to have a lobby – beside the physics. Is this a good idea?

Just to underscore the perception and thinking that Ares-1/Orion critics are faced with today:

"I believe we should push ahead with more aggressive tests on the Ares I, which performed wonderfully in its first test flight in late October. It is the safest and best way to get cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station and beyond.” --Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville), House Appropriations Committee.
http://aderholt.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=20§iontree=6,20&itemid=948

Is anyone up to arguing with this guy?

No it's not a good idea and I posted the reasons over two years ago. To sum it up, the politicians against human exploration of space don't understand nor care why we need to explore and will use any excuse to put that money elsewhere.

When the pro-space community continues to fight over the best way to do it AFTER a direction is chosen (whether you like it or not) not only do we confuse the non-technical among us we give hostile politicians even more reason for cuts.

I think that this malaise is a symptom of three serious problems with HSF as it has stood since the end of the Apollo program in the early 1970s.

1) Lack of vision, objective and leadership;
2) Failure to communicate such to the public;
2) Treated as a jobs program.

Because HSF lacks compelling direction and vision and struggles to make quick progress, there is room for endless competing visions and philosophies to make their voice heard and to develop bands of followers. Until the idea of a destination can be firmly fixed in the collective mind of the space continuity, there will be this continual low-level civil war between advocates of different missions and different archetectures.

I also think that the Apollo/Shuttle gap has much to answer for. The loss of public interest as well as loss of overall momentum during that period was disastrous on several levels, in terms of both the knowledge base and leadership.

Secondly, as a government-funded program, NASA HSF is too often seen as a method of directing pork to certain districts. Thus, decisions on technology are made, not on the engineering and budgetary issues (does it do the job and can we afford it) but on the question of whether it brings wealth to certain, important constituencies.

Those who have debated with me before will know that I believe that, in the immediate term (and probably also the short- to medium-term), government funding is the only way forward for HSF. Commercial providers are only barely on the first teetering first few steps of creating a private-sector LEO market, let alone a BEO market.

The only obvious solution that I can think of is to put the engineering and technology decisions in the hands of a politically-independent panel that is also independent of NASA's own internal politics. The panel will accept submissions from any party. However, once the panel has made its decision, it is up to NASA to implement it. The decision will be final, unless GAO receives compelling evidence of corruption, undue influence, malfeasance or incompetence.

Overall, hesaenger, the general problem with the Ares-based archetectuer is the suspicion, held by the advocates all the alternatives, that NASA was motivated at the highest level by issues of grandiosity, ego and the commercial interests of several large OldSpace companies rather than achieving the mission set out in VSE. I think that the alternative advocates would not be so loud and persistant if they had more confidence in the process that led to the Ares Launch System and CxP.

P.S.: I've finally got a copy of Zubrin's The Case For Mars from a 2nd-hand bookstore today. At first glance, it is a compelling and well-argued vision. However, I do think that Zubrin is guilty of a certain degree of over-optimism about Martian ISRU. I'll probably have a clearer idea of his vision after I've finished reading the book thoroughly.

Von Braun and others pioneers taught me a little bit about space transportation. Therefore I do not thrust in Ares I. It is too week for its task and for its single solid booster, there are not many possibilities to get it stronger. Even with Ariane V, Europe had a similar problem and had to cancel the Hermes spacecraft. These spacecrafts always became heavier during the developing phase. Therefore the launcher needs some more power to correct this. The next point is that the actual Orion capsule needs more payload capacity and an active landing system and therefore should become heavier. Just dropping into the sea needs a lot of additional money to rescue and to refurbish it. That means, Ares I or what else has to become more powerful.

Dear Gen. Bolden, please stop being a potted plant who only speaks up if he's talking about education and stand up, speak out publicly, loudly and advocate for and fight for the agency and a little something called space exploration - one of NASA's purposes (FYI, in addition to and in concert with education). Generals know how to fololow orders from the Cmmander-inChief, but they have to LEAD as well. So do it.

Dear Mr. President, please don't screw us over (again) like every other president since Kennedy has done.

Dear House and Senate Republicans, don't make me leave the party over this by blocking everything, but I will if necessary.

I thought that I was finished with this thread but something that Ben posted got me started again. With all due respect, I agree with some of his points however it contained the following that really has me troubled.

It is: "put the engineering and technology decisions in the hands of a politically-independent panel that is also independent of NASA's own internal politics."

Sorry, there is no such thing and never will be and the last thing we need is another committee or panel. Forty years of committees have resulted in nothing beyond LEO. He does make a good point that the real problem with NASA can be boiled down to politics and power. There is always some politician, arm chair rocket "expert", or bureaucrat that thinks that any direction other than their own, is the wrong one. Unless and until we are ready to exhibit real leadership by telling the losers (of the direction debate) to shut up and sit down and tell the engineers and real rocket scientists that they won't be second guessed, we will continue to have the NASA we have today.

Sadly, no one that has the authority to do so has the guts to do it.

With respect, I think that you misunderstood my point. The reason why forty years of committees has achieved nothing is that implimentation of their recommendation has always been in the hands of either egotistical would-be Von Brauns or bureaucratic empire-builders whose interest has been self-aggrandisment rather than doing the job.

IMHO, things would have been very different if the various centres had been told: "This is the plan - do it. We don't really care very much whether this fits into your personal 'grand vision' or not." Certainly there needs to be flexibility in the detail of methods (note the argument between EOR and LOR during project Apollo's planning stages). However, it should be forbidden for projects to be completely 're-imagined' so that powerful lobbyists and their thralls at NASA can direct pork to their favoured schemes.

No Ben I did not misunderstand your point. I too would like to see your idea work. In reality it won't because the committee or panel that you envision simply can not exist.

I'm encouraged to see that you understand that the real problem is that there is no one that has the needed leadership characteristic (and an administration to back them up) to put away the feel good BS and say this is the direction.

Sadly the centers aren't cohesive in their direction because the politicians let them operate that way and quite frankly they have too many things on their plates that have nothing to do with NASA's original charter. Why should one center concern itself with HSF when their whole reason for being is "climate study" or managing computer information, just to name two? NASA has been "Balkanized" by the politicians and has so many disparate interests that you'll always have too many competing interests for a focused "vision".

It will take bold and sometimes harsh leadership to untangle the mess and get back to NASA's original mission. History shows that the politicians don't care anything about a focused "vision".