Joint Statement From Closed Space Group Meeting

I thought NSS would know better.
Any space group supporting the Obama plan as offered has no crediblity the way I see it.
It's sad. They shoudl be fighting much harder for better funding and real committments.

That ends my membership there.

My money will go to Challenger Center instead.
Children dreaming of the stars may be the only way out of this mess in the future since we are screwing everything up so badly now.

This is saying... nothing. These are broad "Bread is good with butter" statements which add nothing to the discussion. Or am I missing something profound?

Orioncontractor, you are missing something profound. I'm a former employee of NSS, and let me tell you it must have taken heaven and Earth to get these groups on the same page. It is not something to berate. My hat's off to Chris Carberry, among others, for hearding these cats. Now they all need to get their membership to start lobbying the Hill for Obamaspace.

Frank, I don't care if it took a pack of rabid dobermans to herd these cats; they said nothing but motherhood & fluff! Yeah, I like my bread with butter too...so what?
Obama haters and lovers can all agree with these statements ... and it does nothing to define something of substance (a goal, a destination, a schedule, etc.) which is what we need.
"Heavy lift launch ... enables new realms of exploration.." Yes, yes, I know, and so does every 3rd grader in the country. We've studied HLV to death for years, and there's *dozens* of excellent HLV designs ready and waiting to be enabled right now. Supposedly, there's billions of dollars allocated in his budget for HLV....so WHY ARE WE WAITING 5 YEARS TO DECIDE?!
The *only* reason to put it off is so that it can be quietly killed between now and then. That's called politics, and you should know that as well as anyone on this forum.

This is sad, watching a dream fade from view. 60-80% of the people I have worked with over the last 3 years on Orion have already jumped ship. Most of them vowed that after this royal bag of hot mess, they will not come back. We have given over 3 years of our dedication to something which is finally coming to fruition; the LAS PA-1 test is a great example of how things are going perfectly on the Orion side.

It's just disheartening to see it all slip away, while a president tries to make a name for himself and congress bickers letting contracts be killed implicitly. I have fought for several rounds (over 6 by my count) of lay offs to stay and support this program after putting so much into it; not sure how much longer I (and my fellow die hard Orion workers) can hold out.

What [deleted] happened in a few months that NSS went from saying "partly done" to "strongly support"?

They strongly support a "partly done" job now?
What happened to calling for BEO funding?

Washington, DC -- February 5, 2010)
"The National Space Society (NSS) commends NASA and the Executive Branch for proposing to increase spending for science, technology, and sustainable economic development in space; however, we believe the President’s 2011 budget request would leave the job only partly done. NSS calls for the President and Congress to restore funding for human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit. NASA’s goal should be to make it possible to incorporate energy and resources from space into our economy and to extend human presence throughout the solar system."

"let me tell you it must have taken heaven and Earth to get these groups on the same page"

Frank, you are missing something obvious! Everyone on that list are direct beneficiaries of Obamaspace. Research and "Commercial" (hand picked Obama/Garver selections) beneficiaries are the only parties.

It would be harder to gather stray dogs to a steak dinner than to get those organizations together for government hand-outs.

Everything the white house is supporting has a weak correlation to space exploration and strong correlation to winning votes and rewarding blue states.

I agree with you Cessna.

The Obama plan doesn't get us a Moon Base, or a Mars Base, or even an artificial gravity space station. So why should tax payers spend $500 billion over the next 25 years to establish nothing permanently in the New Frontier?

Marcel F. Williams

With all due respect to the cooperation of these important organizations, what they came up with here is pretty thin.

• We strongly support the top line FY2011 NASA budget.

Er, the top line is $19B. Why wouldn't they like it? They'd like this better than $20B? Would they tell us what about it they strongly support?

• We believe an important goal of the NASA budget is to accelerate the development of the intellectual capital of the United States by investing in a high-cadence exciting program.

Which is exactly what the Constellados would say. So? You can develop intellectual capital and claim high cadence by putting outposts on the Moon, with occasional tests of boosters that look a bit like those you really want.

• We are excited by the increases in science, aeronautics and technology initiatives.

As pointed out, most of these are organizations that depend on such investments. Is it a surprise that they are "excited" by increases? I'm overwhelmed. In fact, "excited" doesn't mean "pleased". It could mean frenzied or just buzzed.

• We believe both human exploration and research are important: destination, milestones, engagement and story matter.

As opposed to those legions who don't think these enterprises are important, and such things matter. C'mon. Give us something here!

• We believe this is an opportunity for NASA to craft the exploration strategy in partnership with science and applied science ...

Now this is the single substantial piece of this statement.

• We believe it is critically important that the American people can and must participate and be engaged in the journey of discovery and exploration.

As if everyone else doesn't believe this?

I'm not arguing with this joint statement. I'm just disappointed with the blandness of it, and the fact that it is largely content-free. These organizations should be capable of being so much more articulate and convincing. This is one of these "rubber stamp" statements that will never be quoted. It's a "Yoo hoo, we're here!!" statement. Thanks, but I knew that. By my count, this statement constitutes about fourteen words per organization.

It's always nice to have media that have some understanding of science and technology. We often don't. It's also nice when you have scientists and engineers who can write. Maybe we'll someday see a statement from these groups that shows that they've actually invested some thought in it. Sigh.

I'm sorry, but if these people are leaving, they are not die-hards. Three years invested? The battery in my watch has more time invested than that. Finally coming to fruition? Five years later and you are just now testing the LAS? At that rate, you might be ready to fly by 2020 just to get back to LEO. Forget BEO, that was a pipe dream with the CxP architecture.

For you yahoos who demand a destination, detailed schedule, and vehicle architecture, it took CxP over 18 months to get to that point. Oh they had a destination and a timline from day one, but that didn't help because they still failed to even come close to getting it right. Obama has done us a huge favor in killing this joke before we waste tens of billions of dollars and decades on this ill-conceived abomination. It's time to cut our losses and start in a radically new direction. If we could just get the same idiots that ran CxP into the ground out of the picture, we might have a chance of succeeding. But what I've seen so far, it's just more of the same incompetence and stupidity.

It's not the president's budget you should be irate about. You should be irate at the senior management in NASA and at the Centers for putting incompetent and inexperienced idiots in charge of our programs, projects, and engineering organizations.

There's probably some favoritism for Lori Garver by the NSS. From Wikipedia

"Garver served as the second Executive Director of the National Space Society, a non-profit space organization based in Washington, D.C., for nine years, leaving the organization in 1998"

I'm just not as cynical as some. And while this statement may be thin, I can assure you that there were weeks of arguments about it. That's what it takes these days to get support. Yes, they stand to gain from Obamaspace-but don't we all?

> This is saying... nothing.

> they said nothing but motherhood & fluff!

Multiple space enthusiast organizations publish a press release to say they support the president's plan.

And these guys are confused about what it means.

@possum

Why do people keep spouting things like this when they clearly have no idea what they are talking about? The competition phase did not end until August 2006. Lockheed Martin's Orion Contract began in October 2006, so it has been just about 3 and a half years. A lot of work has happened, a lot of hardware has been built, a lot of tests have been performed and oh yeah, PA-1 was flawless. And the LAS is one of the most important pieces of a crew vehicle's safety requirements. PDR ended over 6 months ago and CDR is approaching soon. Orion will be ready to fly in 2014, provided it is not cancelled. I do not know if there will be anything ready for it to fly on. I believe Ares I first stage is also on schedule and will be ready, it is Upper Stage where I have an open question mark.

Anyway, I dont have a problem with commercial, I want commercial to succeed as much as anyone, I want commercial to take over LEO. Build hotels and casinos and MegaMarts. There is nothing I want more. However, they should not do it at the cost of destroying our BEO program. We need both. And dont throw us Orion as a life-boat bone, because frankly, that was a bigger insult than canceling Orion. This vehicle was designed to go to the Moon and now you want to turn it into a useless shell that sits on station until an emergency and it is needed to evacuate? Useless waste of time, money and effort and a horrible end for Orion. If you want to kill the architecture, kill the architecture. But keep the goals in the right and logical order otherwise we will fail in all endeavors. Moon (to stay) - NEO (to learn to go into deep space without going all the way to Mars) - Mars (because it is the "ultimate" goal after we learn how to live on another planet by setting up habitats on the moon) - Infinity and Beyond (but we have to wait for some aliens to teach us how to do this last part)

P.S. - No, most of us will lose with Obamaspace because Obamaspace is a myth, like Unicorns and Leprechauns. When you get to the end of the rainbow, you're not gonna find a pot o' gold, you're going to find out you've been fooled by fools gold.

Go Oreon!

Cynicism has nothing to do with it Frank. I held off commenting (as you asked) till after Obama's appearance at KSC. Just as I suspected he performed as the leader he is not. If you can't or won't see the uselessness of this exercise there is no help for you. "ObamaSpace"? Give me a break. He said during the campaign that he would redirect NASA and in doing so cancel Constellation to pay for "education". Of course we know that he changed his tune, backed off that promise but then after the election looked to the Augustine Commission to give him an out. Yep, real leadership and all the rah, rah from these groups doesn't change his lame HSF "plans".

And no, we all don't stand to gain from "ObamaSpace" simply because if there is not enough money to do CxP properly (Augustine's findings, not mine) then no amount of handwaving by you or the Griffin/CxP haters is going to make any other program, including extension of the shuttle and further continuation of ISS, successful either. It isn't "commercial" if tax money is funding it and those "commercial" firms will go out of business if the money doesn't materialize. Same deal as happened in the 1980's when the satellite market dried up and with it all the launchers on the pads and drawing boards.

It's time to defund NASA, and I mean all of it, and move on. Cynicism? No, realism.

Frank, you are not only correct, you manage to understate the accomplishment. People who have never tried to do anything constructive with such a diverse group of organizations just don't know how hard it is and sure don't know how to read between the lines. That's about as strong a supporting statement as that collection could ever produce under the circumstances.

When you get the AIAA joining a diverse group of scientific organizations in a time of controversy, it means more than it seems. And the three space advocate organizations probably represent about 90% of the popular support for space in this country and the full ideological spectrum, from the Planetary Society to the Space Frontier Foundation.

Smart people would take this seriously. It's just plain silly to think they don't know what they are doing.

As with so many "group" letters of support, it's done to shore up a political position and represents the thinking of the people in charge. The list is long of those whom have been aghast that their membership in an organization was used to support (give clout to) something they disagreed with or that totally went against their beliefs, best interests and welfare.

Like, "consensus" science = global climate doctrine

Or, "consensus" doctors = Insurance-healthcare reform

Then there's "consensus elderly" (AARP)

How about "consensus" educators (NEA-AFT)

And not to forget, "consensus" religion

My, oh my, what's a member in one of these, or thousands others like it, to do with their ideas, when as NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden told JSC employees in Houston, " If for any reason you're uncomfortable or unwilling to join me on the NASA team, please give me a call, come visit for conversation, or send me e-mail so that we can determine the future role you should play in our quest for expanding the human presence into deep space and other worlds."

That sounds like you'll be shown where the exit doors are.

Perhaps, heads of these organizations don't want their access door shut and locked.

Wielding the "consensus" club shows weakness in one's argument but makes headlines just as intended.

"For you yahoos who demand a destination, detailed schedule, and vehicle architecture, it took CxP over 18 months to get to that point. Oh they had a destination and a timline from day one, but that didn't help because they still failed to even come close to getting it right."

Right on possum. I'd also like to add to this comment that the POR's destinations and timelines did nothing to enhance success....those so called dates were always "moving to the right" on the manifest and most of the destinations initially set were slowly but surely becoming unachievable (in the end there was no ISS to go to by the time Ares I/Orion became fully operational, and Mars & anything but planting a flag on the moon was well beyond even the very unlikely expected available budget and/or realistic mission ops concepts). Basing a program's budget on unreal expectations of what the POR hoped would be available for them to spend + getting rid of ISS was ridiculous.

Those commenting here on the product of this meeting, including those former members, are not cynical but naive to think this is an up and up statement. This letter is attempting to present an opposing view at the request of some in this administration to help shore up their case although weak. The new direction is being realigned as we speak with the old direction, and while it will be called something else it is closer to what should have been offered in the 2011 budget.

"Yes, they stand to gain from Obamaspace-but don't we all?"

No.

As the yin yang continues, where is range safety when you need them?

Think of this more like a statement by the United Nations, because the space groups that signed this joint statement are very different in many ways.  The bullet points itemized in this joint statement are therefore the common parts of the proposed FY 2011 NASA budget to which all parties agreed.  While much can be imagined from what was not said, at least these groups are talking to one another and trying to find common ground.  That is the foundation on which more stronger relationships can be built.

The National Space Society positions on the FY 2011 NASA budget have not officially changed and are still available on the NSS Web site.  Ditto the associated Space Exploration Alliance position that was released in February after the budget release but before the President's speech.  Unique positions from the other organizations are probably available on their Web sites.

The annual major conference of the NSS is next week in Chicago.  All are invited.  You can find a list of speakers and the programming schedule from the ISDC Web site at http://isdc.nss.org/2010/.  There are plenty of talks and debates scheduled that span the range of opinions about the proposed major change in direction for NASA's human space flight program -- and plenty of opportunities to add to those conversations in hallways and hospitality suites.

Some posters keep referencing an idea floated during the campaign which was reversed and supplanted with a supportive policy for human spaceflight, followed by a budget proposal that raises NASA's budget while freezing all other federal spending. I refuse to be branded as mentally challenged just because I believe in my President and the commitmnents he made on 15 April. Whether you agree or not, this is a serious proposal worthy of serious review and ultimately, support. The alternative is to return to the POR which has been so poorly funded -by both parties-that there is no chance of a lunar landing before the mid 2030s. While I'd dearly love to see America return to the moon, it looks very much to me that that opportunity has been squandered and other destinations must now be substituted. Critics who demand that Obama do more do not understand how extraordinary it is for the President, in today's massive deficits to give NASA damned near anything. And NASA isn't going away, not now not ever-it is a federal bureaucracy-have you ever heard of a bureaucracy being dissolved? Not likely, so defunding NASA isn't an option-ever.

No RC. I can clearly see this statement for what it is. A bland generic statement that could be used to support COnstellation, or Obama Space, or more importantly for these folks, whatever Congress come up with. This statement is about political cover so that they can say the supported any program that eventually comes out and maintain their access to the decision makers and the source of their funding.

Marcel, you write:

The Obama plan doesn't get us a Moon Base, or a Mars Base, or even an artificial gravity space station. So why should tax payers spend $500 billion over the next 25 years to establish nothing permanently in the New Frontier?

You obviously weren't paying attention to the Augustine Commission last year. Inside ANY reasonably likely budget, Constellation was not going to get us more than a LANDING on the Moon, let alone Mars, in the next 25 years. Because exploration doesn't receive $500billion over that time, only about $250billion, and Constellation was just too freaking expensive.

You all can whine about why evil Obama should "invest" more in this steroidal fantasy, but then neither did George Bush.

Only a frontier-opening strategy gets us bases (or better yet, settlements). And while Dr. Griffin talked a great game about the strategic reasons we go into space, he designed his program as Apollo 2.0, and -- big surprise -- it got cancelled just like Apollo 1.0. Constellation was never going to open the space frontier, because it wasn't DESIGNED TO. At least Obamaspace has a chance of doing that.

But too many of you would rather just throw rocks than propose improvements. Which is why "consensus" statements are so hard in the first place...

- Jim

@Frank

Agencies don't get dissolved, but programs get terminated. If the opponents of the FY2011 budget manage to block the new program and continue Constellation, it would be vulnerable to a Future Combat Systems decision in the next budget cycle - with no replacement and a much lower top line for NASA. It might even get a veto this year. The President could take a stand against wasting government funds on a program that is projected to produce no results for at least 25 years, perhaps applying the savings to deficit reduction.

Call it a self-fulfilling prophesy from the Obama haters, but I doubt they think that far ahead. They have no idea how few friends they might have in such a reframed struggle.

As a result of a last minute change in plans I was actually able to attend this meeting representing NSS. Jim Muncy is the only other person who attended this meeting whom I recognize as commenting here.

The aerospace establishment -- which, I gather supports Orion and the program of record -- was well represented at the meeting. Jon Malay of AIAA and Lockheed Martin was one such person. Another was Phil Ardanuy of Raytheon and the Maryland Space Business Roundtable. I think there were others.

Some people who have long worked for various changes in aerospace were also present. Besides Jim and myself, I would put Brett Alexander of the Commercial Spaceflight Foundation in that category.

There was also significant representation on the part of the science community. Bill Smith of AURA, the meeting's leader, fits that category.

First, I will say it surprising that a group this diverse was able to come up with a common statement. I personally pushed for effective public outreach work. Effective? Effective outreach involves listening to the target audience -- something I have doubts that the aerospace establishment can actually do all that well.

I personally favor a more commercial approach to space exploration and development. That, if it seeks to become more involved in the larger community and help the larger community in concrete ways, could lead to a healthier, stronger space industry.

I will close with one ironic comment. I've used my laptop to connect up to the Internet at a wide variety of places ranging from Panera Bread to Episcopal churches. I -- and others -- could not get WiFi to work at the AAAS headquarters. Now you know why I did not do any live blogging that day. Other commitments prevented a quick follow up.

Frank,

Alas, I didn't have anything to do with this statement. Thus far, I have been unable to adequately "herd cats." I do hope that SEA will be able to come together and be an effective group. However, this may require a compromise plan.

Chris

Now I get it Frank. The reason you guys think that this thing you tout as "commercial" is going to work is because you people don't understand economics. NASA will get defunded but only of it's exploratory role and HSF just to steer that money into "education" and payoffs for government fat cats.

This whole discussion is comical because you are naive enough to believe in "ObamaSpace". You posted several months ago that CxP should not be funded because of the massive federal deficit. (For the economically challenged that means there is no money to fund all that the government thinks it needs to do.) Now because you "support your President" you're willing to cast away that argument that you so deftly used to trash Cxp. Wake up, if the money isn't there for CxP it isn't there for anything else. That's how the opportunity was missed.

You think that NASA is somehow immune from dissolution? The bills are coming due and it doesn't look good for the ol' people at NASA. The politicians and you can call it anything you want but it won't be the NASA that explores space and aeronautics. So lets just quit kidding ourselves and realize that Obama wanted the money that was going to NASA and he and his minions (Holdren, Garver, Bolden, Hansen, et.al.) are going to see to that IF they can get past the present Congress. I say fine, take it, at least we can quit kidding ourselves that we have a "space program worthy of this great Nation".

No one should take lightly the point that this statement asks for full funding for NASA. You will recall last year that, in the face of an uncertain plan, the House Appropriators cut NASA by a huge amount. What the statement says is to give NASA sufficient head room to forge a path forward.

The statement represents many groups who have not taken public positions on these issues before, but now see that we all have a stake in the outcome.

Mike, the economic argument you make seems to backfire. You seem to be saying the real budget risk is knocking money loose from NASA and letting it float off into the rest of the federal budget. I would agree. But the fact is, the Obama budget request includes a $1.2B/yr increase, which snares that money from somewhere else and stows it inside the NASA budget. That's going the other way---the right way.

So I fail to see how this budget request is a step toward dismantling NASA. The only way you can make that argument is by forecasting future cancellations; i.e. Obama fights hard, at high political cost, to increase NASA spending against the tide, while secretly planning to reverse it later. That just makes no sense. There is no factual basis for such forecasts---only your persistent pessimism.

The budget is increasing, and it's being spent on what you and I want: efforts to get people and cargo into space. Expert analysis (Augustine commission) says it's being spent more effectively this way, and my experience says 2-4 competing vendors is more robust than one government sole source. Don't just be a grouch -- tell us what works better and why.

You're right, I'm guilty over generalizing again and lumping it all together. Orion is by far the best of what has happened in CxP and much of it's problems are a result of an inadequate launcher. Of course, a 16klb escape system doesn't help.