Bush boldly going...

TKalbfus wrote:

NASA does what the President of the USA tells it to do.

Since JFK/LBJ, the USA hasn't had any presidents with an
interest in space exploration - you know, "the vision thing".




Until now. Once NASA is pointed in the right direction, its going to take
considerable effort to point it in another direction. What direction would you
point it toward instead? Why is the fact the people should travel in space up
for debate in the 21st century, isn't it about time?

Tom


eh?

Reagan and Bush both pushed certain programs. The Space Station.
Space Plane. SEI.

There have been several examples of the whole "Vision Thing" with
essentially zero additional results.

There was really *nothing* in this proposal that was not pushed
by Nixon and Agnew back in 1970 or by Bush in 1991.

The main obstacle over the years is actually the same one present now.
NASA is only going to be running one major program at any given time.
It went with Apollo from 1961 to 1972. As it was winding down Apollo,
it had to chose one program to replace it. It went with Shuttle from
1971 to about 1982. (I know the initial flight was earlier, but this
was when they were facing the huge cuts in manpower from having no
program in the works). Then, space station from 1984 to the present day.

It is generally the opposite, btw. The President goes to NASA and asks
them what is within the range of possibilities and asks which is the
most likely to accomplish certain goals. (Usually related to criteria
that has nothing to do with space). That was the case with Apollo,
Shuttle, and the station. It was also what brought on the disaster
related to SEI. This was really more a case of applying roughly the
same policy that NASA has been floating for 30+ years. The current
case is a bit different though. The core plan was something that NASA
has been pushing, but they really did not talk to NASA that much.
The big thing was the Shuttle retirement. It was something that was
growing in force once they sat down and started mapping out the
Shuttle replacement concepts and asked hard questions about why they
should keep it in service.

I don't think there has been an anti-space president. JFK and
Johnson were big behind space. Nixon started the Shuttle program.
Carter could not initiate a second program or much else, but that was
more a product of the times. Ford had the same issues as Carter.
Reagan and Bush both started major programs and Clinton's administration
had more probes launched than the previous 4 or 5 administraitons put
together.

It is a bit misleading to cite democrats as being more anti-space.
Carter and Clinton both came into office at the 8 year mark of
major NASA programs. No chance of implementing anything new until
those were completed.

TKalbfus wrote:

NASA does what the President of the USA tells it to do.

Since JFK/LBJ, the USA hasn't had any presidents with an
interest in space exploration - you know, "the vision thing".




Until now. Once NASA is pointed in the right direction, its going to take
considerable effort to point it in another direction. What direction would you
point it toward instead? Why is the fact the people should travel in space up
for debate in the 21st century, isn't it about time?

Tom


eh?

Reagan and Bush both pushed certain programs. The Space Station.
Space Plane. SEI.

There have been several examples of the whole "Vision Thing" with
essentially zero additional results.

There was really *nothing* in this proposal that was not pushed
by Nixon and Agnew back in 1970 or by Bush in 1991.

The main obstacle over the years is actually the same one present now.
NASA is only going to be running one major program at any given time.
It went with Apollo from 1961 to 1972. As it was winding down Apollo,
it had to chose one program to replace it. It went with Shuttle from
1971 to about 1982. (I know the initial flight was earlier, but this
was when they were facing the huge cuts in manpower from having no
program in the works). Then, space station from 1984 to the present day.

It is generally the opposite, btw. The President goes to NASA and asks
them what is within the range of possibilities and asks which is the
most likely to accomplish certain goals. (Usually related to criteria
that has nothing to do with space). That was the case with Apollo,
Shuttle, and the station. It was also what brought on the disaster
related to SEI. This was really more a case of applying roughly the
same policy that NASA has been floating for 30+ years. The current
case is a bit different though. The core plan was something that NASA
has been pushing, but they really did not talk to NASA that much.
The big thing was the Shuttle retirement. It was something that was
growing in force once they sat down and started mapping out the
Shuttle replacement concepts and asked hard questions about why they
should keep it in service.

I don't think there has been an anti-space president. JFK and
Johnson were big behind space. Nixon started the Shuttle program.
Carter could not initiate a second program or much else, but that was
more a product of the times. Ford had the same issues as Carter.
Reagan and Bush both started major programs and Clinton's administration
had more probes launched than the previous 4 or 5 administraitons put
together.

It is a bit misleading to cite democrats as being more anti-space.
Carter and Clinton both came into office at the 8 year mark of
major NASA programs. No chance of implementing anything new until
those were completed.

eh?

Reagan and Bush both pushed certain programs. The Space Station.
Space Plane. SEI.

There have been several examples of the whole "Vision Thing" with
essentially zero additional results.

There was really *nothing* in this proposal that was not pushed
by Nixon and Agnew back in 1970 or by Bush in 1991.


But it has come back to the fore. I think, this time it may go through. NASA
doesn't really have anything better to do with its manned space program. A
Moon/Mars program doesn't really require a major push, just steady as you go
funding that NASA has experienced with its Shuttle Program.

Tom

eh?

Reagan and Bush both pushed certain programs. The Space Station.
Space Plane. SEI.

There have been several examples of the whole "Vision Thing" with
essentially zero additional results.

There was really *nothing* in this proposal that was not pushed
by Nixon and Agnew back in 1970 or by Bush in 1991.


But it has come back to the fore. I think, this time it may go through. NASA
doesn't really have anything better to do with its manned space program. A
Moon/Mars program doesn't really require a major push, just steady as you go
funding that NASA has experienced with its Shuttle Program.

Tom

TKalbfus wrote:

eh?

Reagan and Bush both pushed certain programs. The Space Station.
Space Plane. SEI.

There have been several examples of the whole "Vision Thing" with
essentially zero additional results.

There was really *nothing* in this proposal that was not pushed
by Nixon and Agnew back in 1970 or by Bush in 1991.



But it has come back to the fore. I think, this time it may go through. NASA
doesn't really have anything better to do with its manned space program. A
Moon/Mars program doesn't really require a major push, just steady as you go
funding that NASA has experienced with its Shuttle Program.


The president is pretty irrelevant though.

We're seeing NASA adjusting it's workforce to Core Complete
on ISS. That's about it.

There isn't any real reason why the program won't get approved in
broad terms. There is no real money committed to anything other
than Shuttle replacement. And, both parties pretty much are willing
to fund NASA at current levels.

Which brings up the major point of all of this. The President and
Congress have, for the past 40 years, pretty much stayed around the same
level of funding and allowed NASA some degree of discretion in it's
programs. It is only the obvious major items that get munched in
congress or blatantly political programs that get axed.

Until now, NASA has always requested additional substantial funding
for it's big ticket programs. This time, it's a small number spread out
and the programs most impacted (Shuttle/ISS) are ones who have had their
legs cut out from under them already. It has *always* been an option for
NASA to go with programs within it's budget all along. They just never
asked for, or defined, such a program.

TKalbfus wrote:

eh?

Reagan and Bush both pushed certain programs. The Space Station.
Space Plane. SEI.

There have been several examples of the whole "Vision Thing" with
essentially zero additional results.

There was really *nothing* in this proposal that was not pushed
by Nixon and Agnew back in 1970 or by Bush in 1991.



But it has come back to the fore. I think, this time it may go through. NASA
doesn't really have anything better to do with its manned space program. A
Moon/Mars program doesn't really require a major push, just steady as you go
funding that NASA has experienced with its Shuttle Program.


The president is pretty irrelevant though.

We're seeing NASA adjusting it's workforce to Core Complete
on ISS. That's about it.

There isn't any real reason why the program won't get approved in
broad terms. There is no real money committed to anything other
than Shuttle replacement. And, both parties pretty much are willing
to fund NASA at current levels.

Which brings up the major point of all of this. The President and
Congress have, for the past 40 years, pretty much stayed around the same
level of funding and allowed NASA some degree of discretion in it's
programs. It is only the obvious major items that get munched in
congress or blatantly political programs that get axed.

Until now, NASA has always requested additional substantial funding
for it's big ticket programs. This time, it's a small number spread out
and the programs most impacted (Shuttle/ISS) are ones who have had their
legs cut out from under them already. It has *always* been an option for
NASA to go with programs within it's budget all along. They just never
asked for, or defined, such a program.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:54:31 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


It is a bit misleading to cite democrats as being more anti-space.
Carter and Clinton both came into office at the 8 year mark of
major NASA programs. No chance of implementing anything new until
those were completed.

??

What eight-year mark of what major NASA program did Carter come into
office at?

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:54:31 -0700, in a place far, far away, Charles
Buckley made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


It is a bit misleading to cite democrats as being more anti-space.
Carter and Clinton both came into office at the 8 year mark of
major NASA programs. No chance of implementing anything new until
those were completed.

??

What eight-year mark of what major NASA program did Carter come into
office at?

TKalbfus wrote:
The United States does not have a Parliamentary system of government.
Instead, the President is elected separately from members of Congress.
The positions of House and Senate Majority Leader have only limited
real power.


People here will resist any attempt to take the power to elect the President
away from the people. I don't understand why the Parlimentary system attempts

People don't elect the preseident. People elect the people who elect the president
- and sufficently many of those aren't actually bound to vote in any specific way.


Tom

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

TKalbfus wrote:
The United States does not have a Parliamentary system of government.
Instead, the President is elected separately from members of Congress.
The positions of House and Senate Majority Leader have only limited
real power.


People here will resist any attempt to take the power to elect the President
away from the people. I don't understand why the Parlimentary system attempts

People don't elect the preseident. People elect the people who elect the president
- and sufficently many of those aren't actually bound to vote in any specific way.


Tom

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++