Griffin: Shuttle-CEV Gap Unacceptable

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
The part that says it's a "direct and explicit promise from the
president of the United States to the American people." It's just a
frickin' policy statement. Policy statements are made to be changed.

That is just such lame backpedalling. The man was on national television,
alone on camera with a prepared, vetted manuscript. He looked straight
into the camera and told the American people, "In 2010, the space shuttle,
after nearly 30 years of duty, will be retired from service." Not only
was it a direct national address, it was Bush's last direct national
address on space policy. So it both a direct and unqualified statement
about NASA's future. And anyone who missed it is free to download this
direct national address from the White House web site:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040114-3.html

It is also a plainly explicit statement about NASA's future. Bush did not
say "About 2010", he said "In 2010". He did not say "we will try to" or
"we hope to" or "we might" retire the shuttle in 2010. He did not say
"I hope that my successor will" or that "I pull put NASA on a path"
to retire the shuttle. He said that the shuttle "will be" retired.

Not only did he explicitly promise this in this one address,
his office repeated it verbatim in the FY2006 NASA budget request
issued in February of this year:

On January 14, 2004, the President said in announcing his Vision:

The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help
finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space
Shuttle - after nearly 30 years of duty - will be retired from service.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/nasa.html

Unlike you, Bush isn't backpedalling from this at all.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *