Rep. Pete Olson Needs A New News Watcher

it doesn't matter really when it was first said...
it's still rather ridiculous that it should be the "foremost" goal...

the work the agency does in space and science should be what inspires young and old alike, in all nations and in all cultures...

NASA international agreements on cooperation in space generally do not involve transfer of U.S. funds to the partner countries, who are responsible for funding their own contributions. So NASA funds mainly go to jobs for Americans. Major exception is payment to Russia for launch of our astronauts to ISS. If we expand the range of countries, including those of the Muslim world, that have interests in space, those countries then become markets for sale of commercial space technology including launch services. If we are to compete in this expanding global market, then expanded outreach to a significant fraction of this emergent market in the Muslim world, also including long-term partners such as Turkey, is an essential part of strategy to maintain economic and political competitiveness. But if outreach would include the cost of a few rides to ISS for astronauts from emergent space powers in the Muslim world, this could still be a far cheaper way to win the global battle for hearts and minds than the hundreds of billions we are now forced to spend on fighting the misguided radical children of Islam far from our shores. How many American lives might be saved in this battle by one free ride to ISS for an Indonesian or Turkish astronaut? Listen to Reagan and Nixon, we must boldly go on behalf of all, and in partnership with, humanity to win this battle. Or as Lincoln said long ago in his famous pre-election speech at Cooper Union in New York in another battle for hearts and minds within our own country, right makes might.

This issue isn't going away as long as NASA is incapable of setting before the Congress a clear path that incorporates and prioritizes their technology development program. To pass muster, it must set forth timetables, goals and destinations for exploration missions. The fact that both Democrats and Republicans doubt the White House commitment speaks volumes about the state of NASA today. Simply put, it ain't good.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-the-National-Academy-of-Sciences-Annual-Meeting

The President is not kidding about the above, The pork barrel activity within NASA is coming to an end.

The corrupt nature of the agency and its complete lack of respect for the scientific process over the last administration while trying to obtain additional funding for a program that was not supported by the Nation was the worst condition for NASA since 1958.

The directed work for NASA will take a second tier position. The proposal/peer review activity for valid scientific research and technology development will be primary as it was for NACA.

I do not expect any form of clarity on the budget until after Oct 1st 2010. NASA will continue to push science and technology into the face of the lets build something from 1961 again. The crying will continue for sometime to come.

I agree with many of the points in both yours and Frank's comments.

I believe there is still a large contingent,maybe a predominant portion of the NASA and contractor management, who are hanging onto the Constellation/Ares program and planning in the hopes that the poor orchestration of the current Administration's change in plans will continue to be muddled and fouled up, and in 2 years a new Administration will refocus the program one more time so they can save their own jobs, contracts and organizations.

When the Lockheed people say they are continuing with Orion on a schedule to be able to launch it in some form in 2014, that is what I am hearing. I don't know what they will launch it on?

At least in human space flight, NASA needs a dramatic reinvention of itself. The organization is not set up to do R&D. It was not set up to do DDT&E for Constellation. There is no shortage of civil servants and no shortage of training and experience, though it is poorly organized. At JSC I do not see change happening. I hear and see senior managers saying "things need to change", but I do not see any of them embracing change.

Having been at the center since the last vestiges of Apollo, I have seen tremendous change to the organization, personnel and competencies over the last two decades. The way in which Constellation was established demonstrates the basic lack of organizational equanimity and the corruption in the personnel selection processes. But it extends well beyond Constellation.

ISS is another great model of how not to do things. For two decades some of us in HSF tried to simplify and expedite integration processes and schedules in order to make it easier to fly, and now you have a lot of inexperienced people who only know one complicated way of doing things and they are trying to make their processes more complicated and time consuming - mainly because so many of them have so little experience in anything other than what they have been doing in ISS.

NASA human space flight needs to dramatically reinvent and reorganize itself. But the people in the lead positions have essentially no experience in leading such change. This includes Bolden, who has no such experience at least in the space program, and it includes Gerstenmaier who has mainly been a good technical administrator who has come in on the tail end of programs to follow them through, and it includes Coats who has never had a leading role in programs and it includes Suffredini who has a very narrow focus.

NASA needs to be looking for some serious leadership, probably outside the agency, who can and will instigate organizational management. Maybe they need to look for someone from the past or maybe they need someone out of DOD or another industry.

If you want hope we need serious change, and so far that is not happening.

Miles Gray is a great man. He explains NASA dysfunction. But he can't explain how to fix it. That is where the big picture comes in:

The fix is failure. This the way of nature, the free market, and NASA if Obama has his way.

It is so obvious when you aren't bathed in bias. The cost of one organization succeeding is many others failing. So when the failure keeps coming back without penalty, what happens to the successes? Puts them out of business?

Without a cleansing action after failure, an organization evolves downward into an organization of pure failure.

Miles, you ARE RIGHT ON