It Is Time For Charlie Bolden To Stay Home

I have nothing but sympathy for General Bolden. He must do as the WH directs, no matter how it makes him and his agency look. Surely there are more important priorities at NASA than Muslim outreach, things like assuring U.S. global space leadership and settling the solar system. How much longer can he allow himself and his agency to be used in non-space goals is the question. Why?

It's almost like Bolden and company are intentionally trying to shoot themselves in the foot. Ill-defined direction, poor implementation, and now trying to force-fit NASA into a type of diplomatic role that may interfere with its science role. I'm all for reaching out to Muslim nations to improve relations, but using NASA as the vessel is not the way to do it.

The worst enemy of the new policy maybe the people trying to implement the new policy.

Krauthammer's comments are illustrative (in my view) of the bulk of the criticisms. Krauthammer has not gotten a single thing about global politics correct since 9/11/2001. He sees everything happening worldwide in the prisim of cold war politics where various mid east actors and groups have replaced the Soviets as the new cause celeb for big power actions....and even when wrong he simply wont apologize. For instance he still thinks that the invasion by the US of Iraq was justified because of 9/11.

The vast majority of the comments against Bolden are caught up in the dislike of the new policy coupled with a political viewpoint that is anti Obama AND a view of human spaceflight that is left over from the big power days.

It is also a bit of frustration by the anti new policy people. Nothing that they have said has worked in terms of engaging support for the "Program of record". None of the usual appeals to American "exceptionalism" or fears or even "save our jobs" has fashioned some sort of coherent opposition to the new effort.

This is not even a tempest in a teapot. It is simply a bunch of (to use Dick Cheney's words) "dead enders" who cannot figure out that the world has changed grabbing at any straw.

A year from now none of this will matter. Bolden will have his new space policy and we will all be wondering why "change" was so hard (or most of us)

Robert G. Oler

This was so bizarre.

I am too far out-of-the-loop to comprehend the global control strategy deployed by our president but I follow orders just like Charlie. I feel sorry for Bolden to have to follow orders or be dismissed like another general recently experienced. I truly admire his unquestionable devotion and loyalty to our leader to get the job done. Our president picked the right one, however, it could be at a cost. Hopefully, Charlie will stay in charge until the shuttle retires.

Just one more indication that this administration doesn't really know what NASA is about. "Amateur hour" indeed. You would think that they would at least read the Space Act, wherein one will not find any expectation of targeting specific nations or specific religiously affiliated regions, countries, or peoples for engagement or emotional support.

And, Frank, Gen. Bolden does have a choice. He can resign in protest over the obvious incompetence with which he is being directed away from his proper duties.

What happened to the old adage that "actions speak louder than words?"
Bottom line is that if our space program is not taken seriously, the forthcoming results serve as just another chink in our national armor or another cut bleeding out the future of one of the last remaining positive and inspiring national assets.

Where we are: no goals, no direction, no foresight, no understanding of basic Human psychology, no vision, no fiscal backing and no accountability - all combined with a four-year mentality, bureaucratic overburden, petty infighting, overinflated egos and adolescent behaviors.

Where we are going: loss of creditability, capability, expertise and jobs, a bored and uninterested public, and a complete inability to inspire and motivate - anyone!

Is there anyone who understands this and is in a place to make a change… a correct change?

Bob, your observation is correct. No one could have in their wildest imaginations conjured up the fix the space program is in today. Even Democrats on the Hill profess not to understand the President's plan-and apparently few in the executive branch do either. Who can speak truth to power without being branded a traitor or a heretic?

". I feel sorry for Bolden to have to follow orders or be dismissed like another general recently experienced."

Stanley Allen McChrystal was not dismissed for failure to follow orders. Stan was dismissed for his own personal failings as well as those of his staff. What he said or allowed to be said by his staff would have gotten him fired by any of the folks who have held the title Commander in Chief...including the first one.

Robert G. Oler

And the administration genuinely wonders why there is such opposition about this new policy. They readily admit that the roll-out was flawed but fail to clear things up in the following 5 months and send the chief spokesman on a glad handing trip to the Middle East.
When will this administration's apologists realize that this "New Policy" is really just a way for them to kill US human space flight.

White House Science Adviser [John P. Holdren] Advocated 'De-Development' of the United States

….Angry opposition to de-development can be expected from some technologists who are used to having their schemes for progress accepted without question by a dazzled public," the authors wrote. "SSTs (solid state technologies), space colonies, thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems, geodesic domes over cities, fission power, giant automobiles, plastic wrappings, genetic engineering, disposable packages and containers, synthetic pesticides, and the like are supposed to be accepted as self-evidently desirable.”

They [Holdren, Paul and Anne Ehrlich] added: “However, many technologists now correctly perceive that, if the ODCs (over developed countries) are to be de-developed and civilization is to persist, the halcyon days of unquestioning public acceptance of technological ‘progress’ must disappear forever.”.....

I tend to cut Bolden a little more slack than most. He was talking to a Middle Eastern audience and he was trying to make nice to them. The fact that it does not sound good back home is because context is something that we do not do well.

On a personal note, I grew up in Iran and one of my first memories is watching the moon landings on TV as a two-year old. Now that I have immigrated to the US I work for NASA and I am proud of what I do. If the US wants to reach to the Muslim world or indeed anywhere else in the world, I think the best thing that we could do is to succeed in sending manned and unmanned missions to far out reaches of the solar system instead of given PR interviews to al Jazeera.

NASA is quickly becoming completely irrelevant in Space Exploration. The destruction of America continues by Obama. And Charlie Bolden is an accomplice.

"Stanley Allen McChrystal was not dismissed for failure to follow orders. Stan was dismissed for his own personal failings as well as those of his staff. "

Do you suppose if he was following orders and achieving his commander’s goals in the area of interest that his commander would ask him to resign for personal reasons?

My point was he could have been ordered to “take a dive” via a he-said-she-said public media event so to speak to exit quietly assuming he follows orders but underachieves on the goals.

I agree with your point, based on the fact that we, the public, are allowed to see what we are allowed to see. I just believe what I saw from Charlie Bolden sealed his fate in the public’s eye. God speed, Charlie Bolden.

It is to me very sad that a lot of you cannot see the importance of the outreach. You have become so much into yourselves, sorry, that trying to do good with other countries seem irrelevant? Yes it is important that NASA follows its charter indeed! So here it is for all of you who seem to ignore the Space Act: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#FUNCTIONS

"INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Sec. 205. The Administration, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, may engage in a program of international cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act, and in the peaceful application of the results thereof, pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate."

In what way is NASA not doing its work? Please explain. And if you think that a few thousand layoffs are more important than outreach in the mid-East you clearly are not living in this world in these times.

Please grow up! Or please show me why anything else in the Space Act in more important and where it says so.

Boy, I tell ya!!! I am SOOOOO glad we elected all these clowns in 2008!!! I think it is very important for us to be all things to all people!(that's sarcasm for the unenlightened) How much does this cost us, as the author says in one of those articles. Why isn't the STATE DEPARTMENT taking care of this??????? IMHO I think that they are much better suited to do this sort of thing! I am correcting this idiotic problem starting in November!!! I suggest everyone else do the same!!!

One thing that comes to my mind and I haven't seen discussed is the "invincible America that put a man on the moon problem" that apparently shows up when dealing with for example, predominantly muslim countries. There is a belief that if America can put a man on the moon it could solve any problem - IF it wanted to. And since it isn't it must be an oppressive force instead.

Thus if we need their help to go to the moon it instantly deflates that man on the moon problem, and America as an imperial superpower.

That said- it is a absurd priority for NASA and I hope Mr. Bolden was simply exaggerating priorities given the channel he was being interviewed by. Given Hillary's recent announcement on some foreign channel that the Feds were going to sue arizona it may take a few more incidents before the administration realizes a comment on a foreign channel WILL be seen by americans.

Just what flavor was that kool-aid???

Hmmm..."pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Excuse me, but what agreements have been made with the Muslim countries with the consent of the Senate?

Hmm excuse me but what do you know? Are you saying that the NASA administrator is off on a trip of his ow? To the mid East???

All I said is that it is in NASA's Space Act to perform international cooperation. It does not include or exclude any country. Live with it.

Ahem it is more than time for Charlie to go! This guy is a complete and utter disaster along with this whole administration. Thankfully this will all start to be fixed come the next two Novembers!

Come on America, or at least Space Exploration interested America, to use a phrase made against the last President by Kanye West, Obama doesn't care about care about Space People. He stated goal as a candidate was to slow things down for 5 years to pay for his other initiatives, he back pedaled, at least publicly to lock of the nomination and now it's game on. Why is anyone surprised? I can only assume the "Space Experts" in his camp are doing their best to slow the bleeding so with that hope I feel bad Astronaut Bolden.

There was a commentary in the May 10th issue of Space News by Chuck Atkins and Elizabeth Newton that proposes that we may avoid future messes like our current space policy by turning over direction of space exploration to an agency of real experts in a similar fashion as the NSF. I for one agree, we need less political and more technical influence in how we spend our Space Exploration/Development dollars.

the U.S. can no longer reach beyond Earth's orbit without assistance from abroad. "We're not going to go anywhere beyond low Earth orbit as a single entity," Bolden said. "The United States can't do it." Its space initiatives junked, . . . "

Well, Im glad we finally got some clarity on this. At least now there is a reference that can be cited.

@common sense:

"INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Sec. 205. The Administration, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, may engage in a program of international cooperation in ***work done pursuant to this Act,*** and in the peaceful application of the results thereof, pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate."

Your reading comprehension needs work. This section refers to the use of international partnerships to perform the work authorized by the Space Act. It in no way says that international cooperation (or similar diplomatic pursuit) is the work ITSELF.

This section does NOT authorize diplomatic overtures as a NASA mission.

All:

I think that Charlie is getting a bit of an unfair rap on all
this. He is one of the three political appointees at NASA
which means he serves at the "pleasure of the president".
That implies that if he publicly does anything adverse
to WH policy, he is likely to be asked by the President
to immediately resign from his job. So, in this case he was
doing his job (being a loyal soldier) to the best
of his ability.

What Charlie does out of the public eye is likely
very different. I am sure he is arguing strongly for a strong
space program in private meetings with the Obama
administration. From what I have seen of Mr. Bolden, he is very
passionate about both space and the United States (yes I have
had contact with him in meetings, etc.). And, yes, his statements
to Al Jazeera can be construed to be adverse to what NASA's
"foremost" objective is. He most likely misspoke and I think
NASA PAO has issued a corrective statement. Realize the man
is a fighter pilot and a NASA Astronaut primarily - not a trained
diplomat or public affairs spokesperson.

That said, should he be criticized. Yes! He is making mistakes.
I definitely don't agree with a lot of the current moves on NASA policy.
But, he is human and he is trying his best and his intentions are good.
So, should he be criticized so harshly?? That answer is a DEFINITE no.
The man is a Marine general and has served his country faithfully
for his whole life. Please, treat him fairly.

Forrest

I can only assume that Bolden agreed with what he said and was just not following orders from the President. So he has some rather skewed views of NASA's mission. And he should resign for ineffective leadership, even though he seems like a nice guy.

I agree with Keith ... Bolden should stay home and work on the mess that the agency is in right now, with many jobs already irrecoverably lost and many, many more to come fairly soon.

And I agree with sshamba that the best way we can "outreach" is to perform our missions in a way that leave people starry-eyed with awe as he was as a child and as I was. We are not a diplomatic agency, and the last time I checked the "Muslim world" hasn't contributed one cent to NASA's budget.

All:

I think that Charlie is getting a bit of an unfair rap on all
this. He is one of the three political appointees at NASA
which means he serves at the "pleasure of the president".
That implies that if he publicly does anything adverse
to WH policy, he is likely to be asked by the President
to immediately resign from his job. So, in this case he was
doing his job (being a loyal soldier) to the best
of his ability.

What Charlie does out of the public eye is likely
very different. I am sure he is arguing strongly for a strong
space program in private meetings with the Obama
administration. From what I have seen of Mr. Bolden, he is very
passionate about both space and the United States (yes I have
had contact with him in meetings, etc.). And, yes, his statements
to Al Jazeera can be construed to be adverse to what NASA's
"foremost" objective is. He most likely misspoke and I think
NASA PAO has issued a corrective statement. Realize the man
is a fighter pilot and a NASA Astronaut primarily - not a trained
diplomat or public affairs spokesperson.

That said, should he be criticized. Yes! He is making mistakes.
I definitely don't agree with a lot of the current moves on NASA policy.
But, he is human and he is trying his best and his intentions are good.
So, should he be criticized so harshly?? That answer is a DEFINITE no.
The man is a Marine general and has served his country faithfully
for his whole life. Please, treat him fairly.

Forrest

"Your reading comprehension needs work. This section refers to the use of international partnerships to perform the work authorized by the Space Act. It in no way says that international cooperation (or similar diplomatic pursuit) is the work ITSELF.
This section does NOT authorize diplomatic overtures as a NASA mission."

Hmm no your crystal ball thinking needs work. How do you know for a fact that it was not the case? Please show me. Show me in what way what Gen. Bolden is doing is not "work done pursuant to this act". You are just trivializing the act.You just do not understand what this means. Sorry.

Very condescending. You can do better can you not?

wi-kiry-lan:

Given Hillary's recent announcement on some foreign channel that the Feds were going to sue arizona it may take a few more incidents before the administration realizes a comment on a foreign channel WILL be seen by americans.

Not sure how? You can take this out of public and
take your concerns to me in private at
forrest.lumpkin@comcast.net if that makes
"common sense".

Sorry no.

I re-read your post though and I will admit that I may have misinterpreted some of your comments. Maybe because of others comments...

OK

Okay, here is a question for you who are so up in arms that Charlie Bolden is doing outreach to the Muslim world. What would you have America do? Start yet another war? I think we can all see how well that worked in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, I am sure that you and ten million fine American men and women will volunteer to be on the front lines in this war that you seem to want to have so badly.

If you do not talk to your enemies, you can never understand them, and you have absolutely no chance of making them, if not friends, less hostile. Rush, beck, etc., all seem to have missed this point, probably because they have no capacity to even consider it based upon their words and deeds.

I support outreach, and I am not naive enough to think that NASA is not a tool of foreign policy as well as a space agency.

We have the State Department for direct diplomacy. Dear heavens, how hard is it to understand that NASA's outreach to other nations is when it leads by example?

Do good work, do things nobody else can do, and then do it some more. People (and peoples) are attracted to success. That's all that needs to be done.

Section 205 of the Space Act does not designate international cooperation as a NASA mission. It designates it as a TOOL to perform a mission. No more, no less.

"Show me in what way what Gen. Bolden is doing is not "work done pursuant to this act"."

Nope, that's not how it works. You claim that the space Act says NASA has a specific program of international diplomacy as a mission. YOU prove that. I don't need to prove a negative for YOU.

"You are just trivializing the act.You just do not understand what this means. Sorry."

On the contrary, you continually butcher the intent of the document every time you try to use it as justification for mission NASA has NEVER had.

There are many levels on which this particular episode is SO wrong. The main thing is that while the agency is in turmoil, General Bolden should be working on squaring things away. Not jetting around the globe patronizing people based on their religion and culture. The State Department is scratching their head trying to figure out what he's doing at any rate, so that can't bode well.

What Gen. Bolden did is to build bridges with unusual partners to prospect what these potential partners can do for NASA's mission. You can read it the way you like at this point I cannot bring a horse to the water... It really is not important. NASA does have a specific diplomatic mission in the Space Act and historically. That is the way it is. You don't want to admit it? So what? You can fight reality it always comes back at you. Like those who think Constellation will be reinstated along with Shuttle and we'll soon be on the Moon, at least in 2012 or something. Whatever.

The agency is in turmoil yes. The agency will suffer a lot in the coming months/years. And if I read posts like yours the agency will probably suffer even worse than I thought.

You say nothing of value here. Sorry. Patronizing? I assume that if it were so the Al Jazeera and others would have complained about it don't you think? Did they? Did anyone in this part of the world complain about his visit? His words? The State Dept. is doing what? I see it's a bit like NASA came up with a plan without consultation, right? After all Gates supports the plan but I assume he is not representing the DoD I mean those in the DoD scratching their heads about FY2011?

Oh well...

"Do good work, do things nobody else can do, and then do it some more. People (and peoples) are attracted to success. That's all that needs to be done."

Okay let's assume for a second that this is how it is. And let's try to focus on HSF.

Good work? Like what work? Shuttle is okay, all right i give you good work. But Shuttle is ending. Constellation? Good work???? Really?

Things nobody else can do? Like what? Fly a suborbital solid booster? You're right nobody can do it since nobody cares for doing it!

And then some more? Okay... Hm another Ares 1X?

People attracted to success. Well sure, what success?

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/07/video-nasa-bold.html

Need more to get it?

Wow, common sense, you just can't keep on topic, can you? I never said Constellation was just rosy and wonderful, but that wasn't the concern.

The concern was with General Bolden making diplomatic pronouncements about NASA's mission that seem to be getting pulled out of SOMEBODY'S BUTT and are not related in any real way to getting something done in space. Furthermore, nobody, including you, has shown where overt diplomatic missions are authorized for top emphasis at NASA. The State Department's heads are spinning as it is.

I think the good General should step back and think hard about the effect these junkets will have on morale at the agency, and what it may even do to his own career.

You can't even hang onto the simple gist of a very directed conversation, and don't take criticism well at all. But it isn't about you, so we can move past that, I do believe.

(FWIW, in following the arc of your comments, Constellation has one major flaw - Ares I solid rocket to orbit. Dumb, dumb, dumb. I've always thought exactly that. However, dumping the entire Constellation program because of Ares I is like aputating one's leg when spraining an ankle. There ARE other solutions...)

"NASA does have a specific diplomatic mission in the Space Act and historically. That is the way it is. You don't want to admit it?"

SHOW ME. SHOW US. You make the claim, YOU support it. I swear, you have GOT to be a plant.

"You can fight reality it always comes back at you."

Physician, heal thyself.

When I wrote:

"Do good work, do things nobody else can do, and then do it some more. People (and peoples) are attracted to success. That's all that needs to be done."

it should be understood that that kind of performance is contingent upon having a goal. A real goal, somewhere to go, something to do. That is my biggest beef with what Obama is trying to do with NASA. If the destination is not known, it makes it real hard to show what "success" is.

Look at public perception of NASA, starting with say, Mercury.

Mercury - Beat the Russians to SOMETHING, then Go to the Moon. HIGH Public interest, but only after we showed results.

Gemini - Beat the Russians to the moon... but not yet. Strong public interest leftover from Mercury, but a bit too cerebral a test program.

Apollo - Beat the Russians to the moon - for REAL. VERY HIGH public interest. After Apollo 12, the cerebral research started boring the publis to tears. But the prestige carried it along.

Skylab - Solid support, but not the mania of Apollo. (I have poersonally always have felt shortchanged with the loss of Skylab. ISS could have benefitted greatly from a more robust Skylab mission set.)

Shuttle - Solid support, but not at first. It took so long to develop, it was lost in the financial woes of the 1970's. The heydey of the 1980's made the program, and some true innovation was conducted there - and support grew, with some ebb and flow.

ISS - A political football from the start, and was deeply politically divided. It is, at best, deeply respected in the public sphere, if nothing more than for its tenacity in getting itself built. (I have a great personal appreciation of it on a technical level.)

Constellation - Well, the history is being re-written rapidly, who knows what evaluation will be made in the end. It will only benefit (if it survives) by having a destination and specific developmental goals. It has been, to date, hampered by the same political divisions that nearly destroyed the ISS program.

The new proposed program - Who knows? The enthusiasm for it is intense, but shallow based on public interest. Most of the public views it with boredom, because it goes nowhere. This spells DANGER.

All of the programs above received their greatest support when there was a defined goal. The least support, and most diffuse, can easily be associated with when it was performing esoteric R&D.

Is Constellation flawed? Or course it is, and more greatly than it should be. But round-filing THAT program for one that merely states with a smile on its face "Hey, we'll be better than that!" with nothing to indicate that as possible, that's crazy.

Constellation has one major flaw? Who are you kidding? Ares I only? Okay then. Ever heard of systems of systems? Ares I has a flaw therefore Orion has a flaw therefore the LAS has a flaw therefore the launching pad has a flaw therefore the recovery has a flaw therefore the parachutes have a flaw therefore the landing site has a flaw...

Only Ares I? Are you on this program? Working aerospace at all? Any idea of the cost of fixing the one flaw for Constellation?

Please enlighten us all with the "other" solutions. Solutions that you clearly know while the rest of us are impatiently awaiting.

Okay I am going to try slowly: Why did we come up with NASA in the first place? Any idea? Cold War rings a bell? It was a diplomatic act, yes diplomatic. In order to demonstrate the might of the US without going to an all out war. Diplomacy is NOT equal to nice talks in a hotel you know? Then Apollo-Soyuz? Heard about it? How do you call it? Exploration? Then Shuttle. How many foreign nationals ever flown on Shuttle? We fly them because of what according to you? Because we need the expertise for exploration? Anything else? Then ISS? What is it according to you?

A plant? Get real.

I think you and your ilk ought to get out of this process because all you provide is nonsensical angry junk.

"it should be understood that that kind of performance is contingent upon having a goal. A real goal, somewhere to go, something to do."

I see so Constellation an horrible failure is because... Because of what? They did not have a goal? A destination? A timeline? I cannot wait to see your kind out of the space program so that adults can actually do something.

"Constellation - Well, the history is being re-written rapidly, who knows what evaluation will be made in the end. It will only benefit (if it survives) by having a destination and specific developmental goals. It has been, to date, hampered by the same political divisions that nearly destroyed the ISS program."

So much nonsense it is frightening. Constellation had a goal, destination and timeline. They were unable to pursue any of them!!! Can't you come back to reality sometime? Anytime?

Again are you on this program? I was, not any more for sure. So I am not asking who you are and what you do just whether you ever worked the program? Or at the very least if you work in this industry? I do. Please tell me, tell us. On the other hand I am sure people can make up their min about your nonsense.

An earlier post of yours:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2010/02/space-policy-go.html
Outbound | February 16, 2010 1:05 AM | Reply
"That's why NASA was created - to protect the skies and maintain excellence on what really is the highest ground."

Oh yeah this really is in the Space Act: "To protect the skies and maintain excellence on what really is the highest ground". Especially "protect the skies".

http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html
National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Unamended)

An Act

To provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes.

DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.

(b) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201 (e).

(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space

vehicles;

(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;

(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.

(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and

(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.

(d) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and effectuate the policies declared in subsections (a), (b), and (c).

"Ever heard of systems of systems? Ares I has a flaw therefore Orion has a flaw therefore the LAS has a flaw therefore the launching pad has a flaw therefore the recovery has a flaw therefore the parachutes have a flaw therefore the landing site has a flaw..."

Exactly. I am sure you think this has made your point for you - not so much.

Yes, SoS architecture can have interconnected effects based on other joining systems flaws. In this case, Ares I has driven design solutions for Orion that have removed capability within the spacecraft. Remove Ares I and adopt a booster that doesn't shake your spacecraft to death or drive your abort modes to a Cosmic-sized LAS, then you're talking.

Killing the whole SoS because one system is moronic, and was moronic from the get go, makes little sense.

And fixing one flaw in Constellation is definitely expensive. But not more expensive than starting over from scratch.

"Okay I am going to try slowly: Why did we come up with NASA in the first place? Any idea? Cold War rings a bell? It was a diplomatic act, yes diplomatic. In order to demonstrate the might of the US without going to an all out war. Diplomacy is NOT equal to nice talks in a hotel you know? Then Apollo-Soyuz? Heard about it? How do you call it? Exploration? Then Shuttle. How many foreign nationals ever flown on Shuttle? We fly them because of what according to you? Because we need the expertise for exploration? Anything else? Then ISS? What is it according to you?"

All of that is quite true. Apollo-Soyuz was applied detente between two relative equals, technology wise. But we didn't go give interviews to TASS or Pravda saying "Hey, we'll make you feel better about yourselves." We built hardware, and it was a credible assumption that the Russians could match us engineer-to-engineer.

Shuttle, ditto. We did things. Sometimes we approached them, sometimes they approached us, and we worked together. But once again, no patronizing statements to third-world countries and their media outlets to broker the deal.

ISS did NOT have to be international, we bought hardware outright from thr RUssians and had it built to spec, as well as pretty much specifying and often funding the ESA and some of Japan's contributions. All good work, but it could have been built as Space Station Freedom, with the other nations as tenants, and gotten the same benefits. I do not count the SSF-to-ISS transition as a diplomatic victory, it was just the first time a liberal presidency snagged defeat out of the jaws od victory.

"A plant? Get real."

:)

"I think you and your ilk ought to get out of this process because all you provide is nonsensical angry junk."

Hmm, I dunno. I don't FEEL angry... :)

"Constellation had a goal, destination and timeline."

Yes. "Had" is the operative word - somebody has been trying to remove those things.

"(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof;"

Dang. You just can't real simple legalese, can you.

International cooperation is a tool that is authorized to perform the "work done pursuant to this Act", not the work itself.

"Exactly. I am sure you think this has made your point for you - not so much."

Duh... Yes and you did too below...

"Yes, SoS architecture can have interconnected effects based on other joining systems flaws. In this case, Ares I has driven design solutions for Orion that have removed capability within the spacecraft. Remove Ares I and adopt a booster that doesn't shake your spacecraft to death or drive your abort modes to a Cosmic-sized LAS, then you're talking."

You do not actually seem to understand hat you write. There is a cost to any of this. Do you have a number for us? Ballpark? Not an exact figure.

"Killing the whole SoS because one system is moronic, and was moronic from the get go, makes little sense."

Yes it does. Constellation is not feasible. I am not sure how to say it to you. Whenever you find time to read go and read Augustine's report. Now of course you have to understand basic engineering/financial language. Then again...

"And fixing one flaw in Constellation is definitely expensive. But not more expensive than starting over from scratch."

Hm. Number please? Ballpark? And btw if you had followed a little it is not about starting from scratch. It is about giving up the whole thing until and only until we have the technology to achieve any meaningful exploration.

"All of that is quite true."

So in essence I am right. But I am actually wrong? Right? You are just parroting what some very simple minded politicians are saying. Get an opinion of your own! For Ares sake!

"ISS did NOT have to be international,"

Ah you know what I stands for in ISS right? If it was not to be international then there would have been NO ISS. Go check your facts for once!

"I do not count the SSF-to-ISS transition as a diplomatic victory, it was just the first time a liberal presidency snagged defeat out of the jaws od victory."

Unbelivable nonsense!!! Goes to show what you actually know.

"Yes. "Had" is the operative word - somebody has been trying to remove those things."

Ah, I see. There was a very bad person somewhere who's been trying. And who might that be? Someone we know or someone else secret?