Barack Obama's Sense of Drift on Space Policy

In response to a question by a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
President Barack Obama has made a statement about his plans for NASA
that has sown confusion and just a little bit of concern among
supporters of the US space program.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...icy.html?cat=9

On Mar 12, 12:39*pm, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:
In response to a question by a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
President Barack Obama has made a statement about his plans for NASA
that has sown confusion and just a little bit of concern among
supporters of the US space program.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._sense_of_drif...

I don't know. I think he's clear he needs to pick a new NASA Leader to
head NASA. He used the word "drift" to imply that NASA has been
boring, which is true.

Obama has 50+ days in office and everybody forgets we had Bush
screwing things up for 8 years!

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote:

:In response to a question by a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
:President Barack Obama has made a statement about his plans for NASA
:that has sown confusion and just a little bit of concern among
:supporters of the US space program.
:
:http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...icy.html?cat=9
:

Earth science and environmentalism. I've been rather expecting this.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Mark R. Whittington wrote:
In response to a question by a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
President Barack Obama has made a statement about his plans for NASA
that has sown confusion and just a little bit of concern among
supporters of the US space program.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...icy.html?cat=9


If he really wants to make everyone crap their pants, he should come out
and say:

"After careful consideration, we have decided to cancel the Ares/Orion,
and the manned Moon program... we shall now begin a program to solve the
United States' and world's energy problems without pollution by building
a vast constellation of solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit.
This will take decades to accomplish, and cost a zillion dollars.
Luckily, as part of the economic stimulus plan, the Department Of The
Treasury has just purchased one hundred new hi-tech printing presses,
each capable of printing over a million dollar bills per minute.
Good night, sleep well, and Goddamn the British SOBs who tortured my
Grand-dad.
No electrical power for them...no electrical power at all."

Now, _that_, by God, would be a speech people would remember! ;-)

Pat

"Bruce Scott TOK" ] wrote in
message ...
Fred McCall wrote:

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote:

:In response to a question by a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
:President Barack Obama has made a statement about his plans for NASA
:that has sown confusion and just a little bit of concern among
:supporters of the US space program.
:
:http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...icy.html?cat=9
:

Earth science and environmentalism. I've been rather expecting this.

Sound scientific policy. Not surprised you're put off by it though.

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

==============================================

This question of where to go about space looks circular to me. There's
a good way out. Imagine a large field out in the country, nothing on
it. What's that *for*? Now put a house on it, or a large industrial
complex. It acquires a "for" and the business is finished, work
proceeds.

In a like way, what is space *for*? There seem to be any number of
interpretations about that. So let's put some settlements and an
economic business network out there. Then people will say, "Space is
for *people* (and I knew it all along.)"

*That* is the simple and effective way to do away with ever so much
noise and talk here that goes nowhere.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Mar 13]

Bruce Scott TOK ] wrote:

:Fred McCall wrote:
:
:"Mark R. Whittington" wrote:
:
::In response to a question by a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
::President Barack Obama has made a statement about his plans for NASA
::that has sown confusion and just a little bit of concern among
::supporters of the US space program.
::
::http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...icy.html?cat=9
::
:
:Earth science and environmentalism. I've been rather expecting this.
:
:Sound scientific policy. Not surprised you're put off by it though.
:

Introspective navel gazing. Not surprised you're in favour of it.
Cowards generally don't like looking outward.


--
"Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
Bruce Scott TOK ] wrote:

:Fred McCall wrote:
:Earth science and environmentalism. I've been rather expecting this.
:
:Sound scientific policy. Not surprised you're put off by it though.

Introspective navel gazing. Not surprised you're in favour of it.
Cowards generally don't like looking outward.

How can one explore the world around himself without first understanding
himself? ;-)

Kidding a bit here, but seriously, knowing more about our own planet will
help us understand other planets better and vice-versa. This isn't an
either/or choice. We can do both, especially since earth observation
satellites generally cost a lot less (total program cost) than
interplanetary ones. Even if the satellites are the same cost, launch costs
and tracking and data relay is a lot cheaper for something in earth orbit
than say Saturn's orbit.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: Bruce Scott TOK ] wrote:
:
: :Fred McCall wrote:
: :Earth science and environmentalism. I've been rather expecting this.
: :
: :Sound scientific policy. Not surprised you're put off by it though.
:
: Introspective navel gazing. Not surprised you're in favour of it.
: Cowards generally don't like looking outward.
:
:How can one explore the world around himself without first understanding
:himself? ;-)
:

It's quite easy, actually. Just open eyes and look. :-)

:
:Kidding a bit here, but seriously, knowing more about our own planet will
:help us understand other planets better and vice-versa. This isn't an
:either/or choice. We can do both, especially since earth observation
:satellites generally cost a lot less (total program cost) than
:interplanetary ones. Even if the satellites are the same cost, launch costs
:and tracking and data relay is a lot cheaper for something in earth orbit
:than say Saturn's orbit.
:

I think the translation works better going the other direction; we
learn more about Earth by gathering more examples of how planets act.
I think what we can expect from the Obama administration is mostly
studies of global warming. While it may need to be done, it certainly
shouldn't be the entire space program.

Pat Flannery wrote:
If he really wants to make everyone crap their pants, he should come out
and say:

"After careful consideration, we have decided to cancel the Ares/Orion,
and the manned Moon program... we shall now begin a program to solve the
United States' and world's energy problems without pollution by building
a vast constellation of solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit.

Hrm. I thought the plan was to install windmills around Wash. DC
in 1 degree intervals for 360 degrees?

Dave

On Mar 12, 10:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Mark R. Whittington" wrote:

:In response to a question by a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel,
:President Barack Obama has made a statement about his plans for NASA
:that has sown confusion and just a little bit of concern among
:supporters of the US space program.
:
:http://www.associatedcontent.com/art..._sense_of_drif...
:

Earth science and environmentalism. *I've been rather expecting this.


Yeah, rather than bombs and stuff as is your want.