Is NASA dying?? If so, whose fault is it?

The obvious choice is Mr. O'Keefe, arguably the worst NASA
Administrator ever. If you have any doubts, check out his performance
in regards to the 3 of NASA's major programs: Shuttle, ISS and Hubble.

Since O'Keefe will likely exit NASA after the election, the bigger
question is the future of NASA. The most likely long term scenario
for NASA is that Shuttle retires itself, ISS continues to depend on
the Russians (in minimal mode), and the Moon Mars thing quietly fades
away as the other crises overwhelm the NASA bureaucracy. All the
while, private astronauts fly ever higher suborbital missions.

One could argue that there is indeed a space race - if private
astronauts get into orbit using totally private systems BEFORE NASA
can send astronauts beyond orbit, then it would obvious that we don't
NASA's version of human spaceflight - why spend billions of taxpayer
dollars to fly NASA astronauts when any idiot can simply buy a ticket
into space?

For the first time, an end for NASA is in sight. If NASA does not have
its act together soon, even Congress would be forced to cut the human
spaceflight program in the wake of private orbital spaceflight, and
Marshall Spaceflight and the other centers would no longer have the
ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on such turkeys as
Propulsion Module, X-34, X-38 and the like.

NASA *must* produce results in the near term to survive. Without the
Shuttle, no amount of feel good propaganda will help.

The end is near.

Explorer8939 wrote:

The obvious choice is Mr. O'Keefe, arguably the worst NASA
Administrator ever. If you have any doubts, check out his performance
in regards to the 3 of NASA's major programs: Shuttle, ISS and Hubble.

Since O'Keefe will likely exit NASA after the election, the bigger
question is the future of NASA. The most likely long term scenario
for NASA is that Shuttle retires itself, ISS continues to depend on
the Russians (in minimal mode), and the Moon Mars thing quietly fades
away as the other crises overwhelm the NASA bureaucracy. All the
while, private astronauts fly ever higher suborbital missions.

One could argue that there is indeed a space race - if private
astronauts get into orbit using totally private systems BEFORE NASA
can send astronauts beyond orbit, then it would obvious that we don't
NASA's version of human spaceflight - why spend billions of taxpayer
dollars to fly NASA astronauts when any idiot can simply buy a ticket
into space?

For the first time, an end for NASA is in sight. If NASA does not have
its act together soon, even Congress would be forced to cut the human
spaceflight program in the wake of private orbital spaceflight, and
Marshall Spaceflight and the other centers would no longer have the
ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on such turkeys as
Propulsion Module, X-34, X-38 and the like.

NASA *must* produce results in the near term to survive. Without the
Shuttle, no amount of feel good propaganda will help.

The end is near.


Personally, I blame the worm logo.

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

O'Keefe will likely exit NASA after the election

This assumes that Bush is defeated. It's too early to tell.

Your opinion is being published by the conservative media
since a long time, it is nothing new.

The idea is to destroy yet another collective undertaking
(NASA) and substitute it with "private enterprise".

Of course, if you are a billionaire and willing to spend
some money in your private hobby, you will be able
to get into space.

No one of them is willing to spend his entire fortune in
financing a *real* exploration of space of course. This
means that trips beyond low earth orbit are off limits
for them.

Not to speak of Mars exploration, Saturn exploration,
and all the other investments that will never get any
founding. Well, according to people like you those are
just "science" targets, and as everybody knows, space
science doesn't bring a penny to anyone.

Scrap science, and scrap scientific objectives. Billionaires
will set the objectives of society: to provide transport
for the happy few so that *they* can enjoy short
space trips for fun.

Obviously even the billionaires will never be able to
*really* finance the stuff.

Enter the russians.

They will do it.

They are *already* flying billionaires into orbit.

Your proposition will please them, since it will mean
more customers.

The practical consequences of your way of thinking is to
destroy the american space program.

"jacob navia" wrote in message ...
Your opinion is being published by the conservative media
since a long time, it is nothing new.

The idea is to destroy yet another collective undertaking
(NASA) and substitute it with "private enterprise".

The usual M.O..

Took an establisted national organization, defame it, deconstruct
piece by piece, make it to do bad things and make it look like it done
bad things on it owns, someone suggest privatization to make things
better, privatization occurs, a 'miracle' happened and things get
better, privatization is heralded as the saviour of the whole thing.

Of course, we should remember, what happened after things were
privatized? Who own them now that they're 'private' ventures?

Of course, if you are a billionaire and willing to spend
some money in your private hobby, you will be able
to get into space.

Actually, it's questionable on whether the billionaires that
previously went to LEO went there because of their cash or because of
their political status.

For example, Mark Shuttleworth's travel seems more in the term of
political purposes, and also it's noted that he too took part in doing
the experiments in LEO.

Just remember, some billionaires become billionaires not just because
they are quite saavy in the financial area, but also because they are
involved in politics. One wrong move in politics, one could be no
longer a billionaire.

[snip]

Obviously even the billionaires will never be able to
*really* finance the stuff.

Enter the russians.

They will do it.

They are *already* flying billionaires into orbit.

Your proposition will please them, since it will mean
more customers.

The practical consequences of your way of thinking
is to destroy the american space program.

"To destroy" is a such harsh thing, a much better way of putting it
is, "to weaken it so it can be take over".

The Russian space program is currently weak, the American space
program is currently weak, what is next is for a 'saviour' to come,
take over them, and revitalize them.

On 15 May 2004 22:23:30 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The obvious choice is Mr. O'Keefe, arguably the worst NASA
Administrator ever.

Truly, Goldin.

If you have any doubts, check out his performance
in regards to the 3 of NASA's major programs: Shuttle, ISS and Hubble.

How are Shuttle or ISS his fault? Hubble is the only decision that
can be attributed to him.

Since O'Keefe will likely exit NASA after the election,

How do you know that?

"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om...

The obvious choice is Mr. O'Keefe, arguably the worst NASA
Administrator ever. If you have any doubts, check out his performance
in regards to the 3 of NASA's major programs: Shuttle, ISS and Hubble.

you do realize that O'Keefe was only in office a year before the Columbia
accident, yes? He's still new at the post.

Since O'Keefe will likely exit NASA after the election,

funny how tree-huggers keep lying to themselves about stuff like this. Guess
that makes their world-view easier to believe if they keep repeating it to
themselves over and over g

the bigger
question is the future of NASA. The most likely long term scenario
for NASA is that Shuttle retires itself, ISS continues to depend on
the Russians (in minimal mode), and the Moon Mars thing quietly fades
away as the other crises overwhelm the NASA bureaucracy.

That's one scenario. Another is that NASA (a federal agency with tens of
thousands of direct and indirect employees in several key Congressional
districts) just keeps muddling along the way they've always done.

All the
while, private astronauts fly ever higher suborbital missions.

emphasis on *sub*orbital. That's orders of magnitude away from doing
anything in LEO, let alone anything productive.

One could argue that there is indeed a space race - if private
astronauts get into orbit using totally private systems BEFORE NASA
can send astronauts beyond orbit, then it would obvious that we don't
NASA's version of human spaceflight - why spend billions of taxpayer
dollars to fly NASA astronauts when any idiot can simply buy a ticket
into space?

because the gap between what private industry will be able to do on orbit
(roughly comparable to China's Shenzhou 5 up-and-back mission) adn what NASA
can do on orbit even in its current state, will not close for at least a
decade, probably more.

IOW, it will take much longer for private industry to ramp up its
spaceflight capability that you think. What we'll see is pretty much what
the Mercury program amounted to: a stream of ever-more-soundbiteworthy PR
stunts. Necessary first steps to be sure, but still baby steps.

For the first time, an end for NASA is in sight.

yes, thirty or forty years from now.

If NASA does not have
its act together soon, even Congress would be forced to cut the human
spaceflight program in the wake of private orbital spaceflight,

the two things are totally unrelated as far as the government in concerned.

NASA provides jobs and prestige for several congressional districts. That
kind of political clout isn't easily swayed by the types of argument you are
making. Government is an entity unto itself and has little or no bearing on
external (private-industry) reality.

and
Marshall Spaceflight and the other centers would no longer have the
ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on such turkeys as
Propulsion Module, X-34, X-38 and the like.

And instead, people like Rutan will spend hundreds of millions on projects,
most of which will turn out to be redundant or fatally flawed designs (in
all senses of the term) or insufficiently funded to ever amount to anything.
Same as in every other start-up industry. Some people will die, there will
be a few spectacular successes mingled with even-more-spectacular failures
and lots of quiet going-out-of-business sales...and then at some point
people like you will come out of the woodwork bitching about all the failed
promise of commercial manned spaceflight. You will demand that NASA step
back in to staunch the bleeding and provide a "voice of reason" (and
regulatory oversight) to what you will then call a loose-cannon industry.

And you will be just as full of **** and ignorant self-importance as you are
today.

NASA *must* produce results in the near term to survive. Without the
Shuttle, no amount of feel good propaganda will help.

The end is near.

time to learn a little bit about not only aerospace but also government,
sport. You're clueless about both.

--
Terrell Miller


"At one point we were this Progressive edgy group and we can't really equate
that with Brother Bear so I don't know really."
-Tony Banks

On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:32:31 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Terrell
Miller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

people like Rutan will spend hundreds of millions on projects,
most of which will turn out to be redundant or fatally flawed designs (in
all senses of the term) or insufficiently funded to ever amount to anything.

Why would they do that? Certainly Rutan doesn't have such a track
record.

"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om...
The obvious choice is Mr. O'Keefe, arguably the worst NASA
Administrator ever. If you have any doubts, check out his performance
in regards to the 3 of NASA's major programs: Shuttle, ISS and Hubble.

O'Keefe is more the solution then the problem.

ISS and to a lesser extent the Shuttle are what is bleeding NASA dry.
The current design and orbit makes the ISS worthless and a waste of the
shuttle.
Get rid of ISS and the Shuttle and NASA can get healthy again.
Unfortunately politically this can not be done quickly.
So if you need to blame somebody blame whoever came up with the idea of a
space station in a 51 degree orbit.


Since O'Keefe will likely exit NASA after the election, the bigger
question is the future of NASA. The most likely long term scenario
for NASA is that Shuttle retires itself, ISS continues to depend on
the Russians (in minimal mode), and the Moon Mars thing quietly fades
away as the other crises overwhelm the NASA bureaucracy. All the
while, private astronauts fly ever higher suborbital missions.

Under this scenario yes NASA for practical purposes will die.
On the other hand if we do go back to the Moon and follow the KISS principal
it will prosper.

One could argue that there is indeed a space race - if private
astronauts get into orbit using totally private systems BEFORE NASA
can send astronauts beyond orbit, then it would obvious that we don't
NASA's version of human spaceflight - why spend billions of taxpayer
dollars to fly NASA astronauts when any idiot can simply buy a ticket
into space?

For the first time, an end for NASA is in sight. If NASA does not have
its act together soon, even Congress would be forced to cut the human
spaceflight program in the wake of private orbital spaceflight, and
Marshall Spaceflight and the other centers would no longer have the
ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on such turkeys as
Propulsion Module, X-34, X-38 and the like.


If you can buy a ticket to space then that just moves NASA out to the Moon
and beyond.
In many ways I could not see anything better for NASA. the cheap access to
space.


NASA *must* produce results in the near term to survive. Without the
Shuttle, no amount of feel good propaganda will help.

Constellation if properly designed will do wonders for NASA.
As the specs for Constellation start to come in we will get and idea of if
it will be.
The fly off in 2008 will be a big win for NASA.
A decent Moon probe will help as well.

On 16 May 2004 10:23:13 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Why would he want to? He's got the ear of the vice president now. In
a Kerry administration, he couldn't count on any political support.
Golding survived because he was a Democrat. I can't see Kerry keeping
O'Keefe (or any Bush appointment, for that matter), or O'Keefe being
willing to stay.

A few counterpoints. All in my humble opinion.

Assuming Kerry wins...

1) O'Keefe likes NASA, and probably isn't going to abandon it unless
he thinks he's become ineffective.

Yes, but he's unlikely to think that he will be effective in a Kerry
administration, any more than Goldin was in a Clinton administration.

2) Kerry is not actively anti-NASA. He's not actively pro
manned space exploration, and might be interested in raiding
the budget some, but probably will otherwise benignly neglect
it and let it do its thing.

Possibly. It depend on what his advisors tell him to do with/about
it. Given that his war strategy seems to consist of going back to the
UN, and groveling to France, at a minimum it's likely that the
international nature of the program would be expanded, which would be
a disaster.

3) Finding potential NASA administrators who are both qualified
and willing to take the job has been... challenging, in the recent
past (last decade or so). Kerry might not be able to come up with
a replacement candidate. Goldin's tenure was extended several
times by this problem under Clinton.

And Bush, but again, despite that, I think it unlikely that Kerry will
be willing to keep anyone from a Bush administration, and even if he
is, those who got him into office won't be.

4) Kerry might well *want* to keep O'Keefe... because O'Keefe is
one of the better political / technical appointee level independent
managers in the Republican's deck of cards, and keeping him on at NASA
keeps him at least temporarily busy and unavailable for scheming and
positioning him (say) as the 2008 Republican nominee Secretary of Defense.

5) Kerry is already showing an interesting hint at bipartisanship
in potential running mates.

If you're referring to the McCain buzz, I don't think that's coming
from the Kerry itself. I think it's wishful thinking on the part of
some people desperate for a winning ticket. It's a fantasy, anyway,
because McCain wouldn't accept the nomination, and it won't be
offered, because he's pro-life.

I would hazard a guess that his current job is more in jeopardy if
Bush wins than if Kerry does: Bush may well kick him upstairs to SecDef,
a job he is unlikely to turn down.

That may be, but I think that he's a short timer either way.