View From the 9th Floor

"will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation's future."

Correction...
The Obama administration's "priorities", not the nation. There is a BIG difference there, and it was blatantly evidenced during the congressional questioning.

Interesting she said "should it be approved" though.

It won't.

More interesting is what follows:

The President's budget, should it be approved by Congress, will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation's future.

These key national priorities that I am referring to are:

* Economic development (poverty, hunger, jobs)

* International leadership/geo-politics (world peace)

* Education (societal advancement)

* Environment (future of planet and humanity)

Oy. I am so tired of the political bashing that has been going on here. I’m hoping we can return to thinking clearly, objectively and scientifically to pull the conversation back to rationale. I, like most, believe that to move forward there must be a goal – a destination, if you will. But, why must the Moon, or even Mars, be that goal? What I believe is lacking is a discussing about the goal in the first place. We shouldn’t do something because a) a politician told us to, or b) we’re already on the path. We should instead be asking ourselves “Where should NASA be in 50 years?”…and then back up to figure out how we get there from here. It may be that we need to do a whole lot of technology development now to put us on the right path…or it may be that we need to take some steps beyond LEO now. But we need to have the discussion, and not just make decisions based on politics and momentum. Look where that’s gotten us so far? How the administration laid out NASA’s path forward left a lot to be desired, but I think the path is more intelligent than continuing something that was never really discussed with the larger community. If we have the conversation, I think we’d be surprised with where we may want to end up. Moon and Mars seem to be the most logical because they’re the biggest and closest…but perhaps there are destinations that are smaller (maybe even massless) and farther but are a) more valuable and/or b) easier to reach. Or, maybe we’ll validate Moon and Mars…but then at least we’ll all be on the same page regarding where we should go and why - that is, we'll have developed our priorities intelligently, together. So, let’s move the discussion from the politics to what’s best. By the way, Bolden’s prepared remarks were really great to read – to get the numbers with the names and also a discussion about what it ultimately means. To end on my favorite elementary school joke: If athletes get athlete’s foot, what do astronauts get? Missile toe.

I guess it's a brave new world we be a facing ...

Maybe its a good thing I'm getting old and can draw an early retirement next year. When I got out of the service I made a bee-line to Houston with visions of Shepard, Glen and old Virgil "I" Grissom fresh in my head.

It's been a great ride but the times they are a changing and it appears that the moment to pass the torch has arrived.

(put another way, after watching health care roll through Congress, I don't think you can fight City Hall)

I agree with Hugh, the prepared statement of Mr Bolden is really good. To me it seems to be doing exactly what space agencies should do: Use space today to address Earth's problems as possible, and research how to use space tomorrow. It really feels rational amongst all the heated debate over Constellation.

I actually found out about a lot of great missions in my own area (Earth Observation) that NASA is doing, and I liked the mention of aviation. Although if the only thing they can report about flying planes without petrol is some ground tests, there is really work to be done!

Nevertheless thanks for the post.

A.

Hugh:

I think I get what you mean by "destination". Maybe "direction" would be a better word to use. The idea of "flexible path" could be nicely buried in that one word.

If America wants to take the high ground then their are some good ways to get that done. I believe that a heavy lift launcher is the key to unlock the door. But what to use it for is the big question.

To take the high ground you also need to be able to keep it too. If NASA could build a spacecraft designed in the spirit of the Space Shuttle you'd have a good start. This would mean a reusable spacecraft that could be used for multiple mission profiles:

- Repair and retrieval of satellites in various orbits.
- Transportation of reusable landers, personal and logistics to the moon.
- Sorties to near Earth asteroids.
- Eventual missions to Mars.

Think about it. The Space Shuttle never had a "destination" but it was the "direction" NASA chose and few complained about it then. And that direction changed over the years:

- Commercial space launch of satalites.
- Deployment of satellites for the military and major NASA probes and satellites.
- Scientific experiments and microgravity missions.
- Support flights for the space station MIR (who'd of thought we'd use the Shuttle for that in 1976).
- Assembly and support of the ISS.

See what I mean? Build it and they will figure out new and interesting ways to use it... for things that they never thought of at the beginning of the program.

Design a spacecraft in the spirit of the Space Shuttle and you will have the high ground. Destinations will be provided once you choose a direction to travel.

Make it so!

tinker

P.S. The Shuttle held the high ground for thirty years but it seems that the ground has gotten a little higher.

We have already had the discussion. Everybody knows the options and we still can't reach consensus. It's time to go out and actually accomplish something and stop studying it to death.