Bush 'Vison' Pre-History Shows the Promises are Hollow!

"....and, eventually, NASA officials into the discussion."


Some background on the creation of
The Vision for Space Exploration


New Moon Rising: The Making Of America's New Space Vision
And The Remaking Of NASA
by Frank Sietzen Jr. and Keith Cowing

"Surprisingly, much of the early work on the new policy was
made by a group of anonymous junior White House staffers
who, by the book's account, had a genuine interest in space
exploration and sought to create a new vision that would
reinvigorate the space agency. This "Splinter Group" spent
months meeting informally, reviewing white papers and
proposals, before inviting more senior advisers and, eventually,
NASA officials into the discussion. This led to the creation
of two "Rump Groups" that narrowed down proposals for a new
exploration plan, keeping in mind fiscal limitations that ruled out
any plan that required significant additional funding for NASA.
The result of these deliberations, spread out over most of
2003, was a plan the President approved on December 19
and announced to the world at NASA Headquarters
on January 14."
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/198/1


How U.S. Civil Space Policy Is Made
Howard E. McCurdy
American University

"The Vision for Space Exploration began as
discussions among junior White House staff
(OMB, NSC, OSTP) & NASA"

"Rump group" (NSC, DOD, Domestic Policy Council, NASA)
analyzed cost and provided detail."

"Presidential approval (12/19/03): Bush, Cheney, Rove, O'Keefe, others..
Presidential announcement at NASA Headquarters (1/14/04)."
http://www.aaas.org/programs/science...ccurdy1106.pdf


Sean O'Keefe

"O'Keefe came from a background in accounting, and as such
was the first NASA Administrator to have no formal training
in science or engineering."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_O%27Keefe


National Security Council (NSC)

Membership of the National Security Council

The National Security Council is chaired by the President.
Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are
the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary
of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant
to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Director of National
Intelligence.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/


Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

"The Budget builds on last year's successful spending restraint
by again holding the growth of overall discretionary spending
below inflation, proposing to reduce non-security discretionary
spending below the previous year's level, and calling for the
elimination or reduction of programs not getting results
or not fulfilling essential priorities."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

Domestic Policy Council
http://www.whitehouse.gov/dpc/

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
http://www.ostp.gov/

Dr. John H. Marburger III (Director, OSTP)
Oct. 29, 2001 - Present confirmed in October 2001, serves
as Science Advisor to President Bush.

Dr. Marburger is perhaps best known as the source of the
ongoing criticism of the Bush administration politicizing
science.


Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue
NY TImes
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: October 19, 2004

"Dr. Marburger argues that when scientific information is
flowing through government agencies, the executive branch
has every right to sift for inconsistencies and adjust the tone
to suit its policies, as long as the result remains factual."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=4



The following, from a SpaceRef.com article, explains
how Nasa exploration will be pitted against economic
and defense priorities. Which Nasa is poorly suited
to compete against.

SpaceRef.com
Saturday, April 29, 2006

Some Thoughts Regarding Presidential Science Advisor
John Marburger's Speech on Space Exploration and Utilization

"The key to the entire success or ultimate failure of the
President's Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) is the
proper definition of "economic sphere".
Here is the definition that Dr. Marburger offered:

"Our national policy, declared by President [George W.] Bush
and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA
authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this
vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic
interests through a robust space exploration program."
So at least for now the question has been decided in
the affirmative "

Does the current VSE have the goal of executing on the
"advancing U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests"
aspect? This is a key question that Marburger seems to be
asking as the next paragraph in his talk explains:

"The wording of this policy phrase is significant. It subordinates
space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security
and economic interests. Stated this way, the "fundamental goal"
identifies the benefits against which the costs of exploration can
be weighed. This is extremely important for policy-making
because science, security and economic dimensions are
shared by other federally funded activities. By linking costs
to these common benefits it becomes possible, at least in
principle, to weigh investments in space exploration against
competing opportunities to achieve benefits of the same type."

"I don't think that NASA as an agency - or the aerospace industry
has seriously thought about the restating of the space program
within the context that Marburger has laid out. This new policy
that is being implemented by the Bush administration is more
focused toward "ensuring future economic competitiveness"
and space is placed at a lower priority as it is not perceived
to contribute as strongly as other fields such as nanotechnology
infotechnology, and biotechnology. NASA is losing out in the
battle for funds when compared to other activities, as space
and space science is not considered to contribute as strongly
as the other fields to economic competitiveness.
This is the key implication of Marburger's speech."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1116



Will the Space Exploration Vision Unravel?
Worst Case Scenario

.. Shuttle and station not retired soon enough.
.. Not enough money freed for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).
.. To reduce risk and save money, NASA falls back on Apollo
technology for CEV.
.. Which discourages innovation and basic research on the process
of reducing the cost and difficulty of getting humans to Mars.
.. Science projects suffer.
.. Which promotes a "Moon only" focus.
.. The result: movement back to incrementalism in which
the means becomes the end


"The increased complexity of a Shuttle designed to be all things
to all people created inherently greater risks than if more
realistic technical goals had been set at the start..
The greatest compromise NASA made was.with the premise
of the vehicle itself."

"Columbia Accident Investigation Board, 2003
http://www.aaas.org/programs/science...ccurdy1106.pdf


Whether in building a spacecraft, or designing a goal, if either
are meant to be 'all things to all people' ...poorly designed.
Then the intended accomplishments will end up being
lost to the struggle of just getting by.
Just like the ISS.

The means become the end.

I believe the Vision is doomed to the same fate.
This reality should make anyone that cares about Nasa
our future and space travel....thoroughly sad.

To reverse this tragedy in the making, all we need
to do is design our goals as scientifically as we
design our spacecrafts. But Nasa's goal has to be
.....'all things to all people' (that matter).

To the military, corrupt contractors and politicians
this vision is hereby dedicated.



Jonathan

s