Space Policy Reaction Is Still All Over The Map

Aaaah. I was going to make a log comment here, but I just can't find the energy or much interest in doing so. So that's my reaction.

I could probably get behind Buzz's ideas and it seems he has the ear of the president. He's done so much for space awareness and he gets that a permanent manned presence off planet is mandatory. I don't get that same level of warm fuzzies from the gov't though.

"But in the end, he may have succeeded only in applying very, very pretty lipstick to what remains, alas, a pig.

The problems with Obama's policies are numerous and represent a fundamental misreading of space history."

I really don't see how Garver and Bolden can turn this perception around in front of congress.

I bet we will not see Obama back at NASA again anytime soon.

(I believe the by line for:
Obama's Hollow Promise On Space, Opinion, Tim Jones, Fox
should be Tom Jones)

Clearly Obama will get his plan through congress.
The question is then: by what metrics do we begin to evaluate the success of failure of this policy?

If engineers are going to build a HLV beginning in 2015, that means there will be requirements established for it's 'destination' and 'payload carrying capabilities'. So clearly, sometime between now and then, while this 5 year formulation is going on, NASA will have to decide what to put into it and where it will go. And there will of course be cost estimate for that ...and on it goes..and will there be money for all this?

Sand chart sand chart, my kingdom for a sand chart.

"Clearly Obama will get his plan through congress."

Correction...
Ultimately he will get *a* plan through congress.

It will have portions of what he wants now to varying degrees some things will be rejected by congress outright. That is just the political reality of how the executive and legislative branches work most especially on something that continues to get an incredibly cold reception from congress. If not historically cold. Not sure there has ever been such presidential space plans that have arrived with such a resounding thud.

While some are waving their arms and yelling about the space missions canceled by the end of Constellation, we should be focusing on the massive challenge posed by a manned mission to intercept an Earth-crossing asteroid and the design of refuelable upper stages. The technological requirements of a manned deep space mission beyond the Earth's magnetosphere, and the trajectory needed to get there, are simply staggering. Will the space capsule attached to the deep space ship be a safe haven in the event of a solar storm? Will be main ship be based on flatable technology-and how will it be tested before setting sail for deep space? These challenges dwarf anything anyone has ever attempted in space before and will call for a level of maturity in our space operations that will be, to use an overworked word today-awesome!
I hope to hang on long enough to see this happen. Don't you wish to join me? Can't we focus on the challenges in front of us rather than the political controveries behind us? And if we discover in the meanttime an asteroid headed for us, the future of all life on this Earth may hang in the balance. Bruce Willis, are you available?

Just out of curiosity, how many earth crossing asteroids are in an orbit that allows them to be regularly visited?

My understanding is these things pass nearby then wizz back out of our reach for years at a time. So the mission would go something like land, plant flag, read speech, grab a rock and leave.

Unless we get in the business of moving these boulders around or living off of them, this sounds like a one shot deal.

It's not a matter of waiting for an asteroid to approach us but to fly out to their breeding grounds and search for those we can't detect from Earth. The orbits of these larger NEOs are not stable I'm told and the challenge is to make rendezvous, figure out a way to extract a sample, survey the neighborhood while you're there and then head for home.

I agree Frank. We don't get to decide policy but it's hard to imagine a space fan not being excited about visiting a NEA. I liked CxP, I like this. Two different strategies but both worthy of support when they are at bat.

It's not a matter of waiting for an asteroid to approach us but to fly out to their breeding grounds and search for those we can't detect from Earth. The orbits of these larger NEOs are not stable I'm told and the challenge is to make rendezvous, figure out a way to extract a sample, survey the neighborhood while you're there and then head for home.

Please explain why an unmanned spacecraft could not perform that mission much sooner and cheaper than a manned mission.

An unmanned spacecraft is always cheaper and can be built sooner than one that carries a crew. But the goal of the civil space program is human occupation of the solar system. I think both parties define U.S. space leadership by manned spaceflight. An NEO flyby has been selected as the first deep space mission, developing the technology and systems for a Phobos mission and a Mars settlement. So I think the people vs robots argument is over.

extremely blunt, but my fav so far (except the CxP rocket part, of course):

Obama 2010 a Space Oddity

In the short space of time that he has occupied the White House Obama has succeeded into turning the U.S from sole hyper power into the huff and puff power...Indeed with Ahmadinejad sharing...Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez... so who'll notice anyway?

Mind you we have to admire his guts in telling those critics...that the U.S. has been to the moon anyway...No for Obama the next step is...

That should keep those pesky spaceballs occupied while Obama's administration finds bigger and better ways to reduce U.S capability, sever more long term alliances and create partnerships with governments that consider the U.S. one step above Beelzebub.

http://www.newstime.co.za/rs_headlines.asp?recid=4683

Under Constellation, NASA was spending a lot of money and doing very little. Under B.O.'s plan (if you can call it that), NASA will spend even more and do nothing. Of course, B.O.'s "plan" may change completely tomorrow. As someone once said of Richard Nixon, he will never tell the truth if a lie will do as well.

I cannot believe that the people who pretend to think that B.O.'s "plan" is going someplace...any place...are being honest. If they are, I'm sorry for them.

"I cannot believe that the people who pretend to think that B.O.'s "plan" is going someplace...any place...are being honest. If they are, I'm sorry for them."

Keep your pity for yourself, you're the one who needs it. I can't get over how everyone thinks NASA can continue these monstrous in-house efforts to recreate the glory of the past and leaving no money for the R&D necessary to advance technology beyond the 1970's. That is where our rocket technology is currently at because that was the last time we did R&D, during Shuttle development. If NASA had twice the budget, we could continue with Constellation. But we don't, so we can't. Get over it, this is a new course for NASA. And as someone with almost 30 years in the business, I'm excited about it. The fact that less people in NASA are excited about this new direction is a testament to the stale, unimaginative, and pathetic state of the Agency and its employees. We should all be excited about creating a new future without the ball and chain of the past to drag us down.

"I cannot believe that the people who pretend to think that B.O.'s "plan" is going someplace...any place...are being honest. If they are, I'm sorry for them."

Actually I feel sorry for anyone that thinks its OK to piss away billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars to recreate a program that ended nearly 40 years ago using technology developed nearly 40 years ago.

You obviously have little to no real knowledge about Orion. Orion was in no way a rehash of apollo. It was a "capsule" design because coming home from BEO is much different than coming home from LEO. A "lifting body" like the shuttle would be torn to pieces on reentry at those speeds. You could skip off the atmosphere a few times to slow down but it's risky. As for other aspects of Orion, Apollo had all the avionics ON THE GROUND (for the most part). Orion has a very advanced on board avionic system that is not only leaps and bounds better it is also MUCH safer etc.

It annoys me when people speak ill of things they do not understand. The solid rocket booster approach of Ares was, not a great choice IMO but you shouldn't condone a whole set of programs due to one of the set's issues. Altair was also quite impressive, though not nearly as mature as Orion... living mostly in white papers and presentations as of today.