...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???

"....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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news
Morons of a feather, and all that...

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Jonathan wrote:
:
: I'm astonished that anyone here actually believes that
: President Bush's motivation is to save the world from
: an asteroid or other calamity by building colonies.
:
: This is a huge program designed to maintain
: our aerospace capabilities for future military
: needs, as they arise. This is a gigantic make-work
: program for the military industrial contractors.
:
:Unfortunately, to a degree, so was Apollo.

Wee what I mean? Loon to loon communication.

:
: If you think Bush and Cheney are moved by
: visions of grandiose space colonies that
: usher in a trekkian utopia....you need to
: aquaint yourself with this concept
:
:
:Again, despite that Bush/Cheney making their claim, you are right,
:there is a military aspect to it.

Oh? What military aspect would that be?



This commision was the first step of the Bush administration to
revamp Nasa and the space industry. Which eventually
became the Vision. Notice the word 'defense' is used
270 times. But don't read it, God forbid you should
know what you're talking about and no longer be
able to mindlessly call everyone a loon.


Commission on the future of the United States Aerospace Industry
http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/aerospace/...inalReport.pdf





:Again, so was Apollo.

Oh? What military aspect would that be?

:
: We get nothing, at least they could've come
: up with a military industrial welfare program that
: also benefited society. But then they'd have
: to actually accomplish something, produce
: a product that mattered to us. With the Vision they
: don't have to create anything new or valuable
: for society, just repeat what's been done before.
: And watch society go ho-hum-been-there-done-that
: -who-cares. Which is just fine with them.
:
: As they don't care what we think about it.

That's because you're certifiable.

:
:Use their money and make it the way we want, like Apollo.
:

Whose money do you think you're getting to use, Eric?

Oh, and you calling yourself a 'scientist' is absolute
misrepresentation.

--
"I'll learn to work the saxophone.
I'll play just what I feel.
Drink Scotch whisky all night long
And die behind the wheel."
-- "Deacon Blues", Steely Dan

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:28:41 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


We all know President Bush announced his Vision for
Space Exploration in early 2004. My question is who
came up with the idea? What was the pre-history of the
Vision that intends to guide our national space policy for
the next forty years or more?

All I have found so far follows...

"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


I would like to know who the ..."anonymous junior staffers"
of the 'Splinter Group' were. Who were the Nasa officials?
Who were the members of the 'Rump Group'?

Who put this idea into the head of our President?

I think we have a right to know, at the very least
we should know so we can gauge their competence
and independence of such entities as Lockheed etc.

There is nothing in the VSE that intrinsically benefits Lockheed.
You're a conspiratorial idiot.

That is well- known. Since Lockeed merely specializes
in stealing Department Of Transportation Crap.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 23:18:37 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

This commision was the first step of the Bush administration to
revamp Nasa and the space industry. Which eventually
became the Vision. Notice the word 'defense' is used
270 times.

Unsurprising, since its a report on the Aerospace Industry, and not
just NASA, and defense is an enormous fraction of that industry, far
more than is NASA. By most (sane) accounts, the Columbia accident is
what spurred the Vision, and that didn't happen until three months
after this report.

"Recommendation #3
The Commission recommends that the United
States create a space imperative. The DoD, NASA,
and industry must partner

I was wondering if you'd see that part. What this
says to me is aerospace needs a big infusion of govt
cash so the industry doesn't fall apart.
I don't have a problem at all with the govt preventing
the loss of an important capability.

But if we're going to pump hundreds of billions into
the industry, it should be done in a way that
benefits society as much as possible.
So the program isn't just make-work.

It's like the govt bailing out GM by having them
build a hundred million buggy-whips.
It's just plain stupid at best, most likely ignorant
and at worst flat-out corrupt.

Of the benefits listed below, national security, the
defense dept, is getting the lions share
of the benefits. Missile defense is the priority
of this administration. The other benefits are
tokens and you know it.

Those billions could be building something
that changes the world, and makes Nasa
relevant again. That deals with problems
facing society.

But since the foxes are guarding the hen-house
it only makes sense they'd design a program
for themselves that doesn't break any new ground.
That doesn't sove any hard problems. That just
repeats what we've done before. Why put any
pressure on themselves when they don't
have to?

This is about their bottom line, not about us.

s




in innovative aerospace
technologies, especially in the areas of propulsion
and power. These innovations will enhance our
national security, provide major spin-offs to our
economy, accelerate the exploration of the near and
distant universe with both human and robotic missions,
and open up new opportunities for public
space travel and commercial space endeavors in the
21st century."

Oh yeah, that's a bunch of war-mongers at work, alright...

But don't read it, God forbid you should
know what you're talking about and no longer be
able to mindlessly call everyone a loon.

If the mating call fits...

Brian

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote:
:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : Morons of a feather, and all that...
: :
: :Top posting, Freddy? How desperate are you?
:
: It's preamble, you moron. The posting is in-line, as usual.
:
:Preamble, like the Constitution? The only constitution you really know
:is the you take, or I should say leave, each morning.

And once again we see El Chimpko make an ignorant statement and then
act as if it's 'true' to say something even more stupid.

:
: :
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :Jonathan wrote:
: : :
: : : I'm astonished that anyone here actually believes that
: : : President Bush's motivation is to save the world from
: : : an asteroid or other calamity by building colonies.
: : :
: : : This is a huge program designed to maintain
: : : our aerospace capabilities for future military
: : : needs, as they arise. This is a gigantic make-work
: : : program for the military industrial contractors.
: : :
: : :Unfortunately, to a degree, so was Apollo.
: :
: : Wee what I mean? Loon to loon communication.
: :
: :So there was no aspect of "beat the Russians" -space race- WRT to
: :Apollo? Freddy, surely you haven't gone brain-dead?
:
: What's that got to do with it being "a gigantic make-work program for
: the military industrial contractors", you stupid ass?
:
:Temper Freddy. Ad hominem really doesn't suit you, nor anyone for that
:matter.

Stupid Usenet Tricks 101.

:As far as make-work programs go, Apollo was a very good and and
:justified, IMO. Many other make-work programs like the current war are
:not.

Get back to me when you come down from whatever the hell it is you're
on.

: : :
: : : If you think Bush and Cheney are moved by
: : : visions of grandiose space colonies that
: : : usher in a trekkian utopia....you need to
: : : aquaint yourself with this concept
: : :
: : :
: : :Again, despite that Bush/Cheney making their claim, you are right,
: : :there is a military aspect to it.
: :
: : Oh? What military aspect would that be?
: :
: :Going back to the moon to set up the first lunar base? Are you mad?
:
: Let's try again. Oh? What military aspect would that be?
:
:You don't see the military advantage to having the first lunar base?

No. Neither does the military.

: : :Again, so was Apollo.
: :
: : Oh? What military aspect would that be?
: :
: :Having the first lunar landing is the de facto military superiority in
: :space. Freddy, did you miss the memo?
:
: It's got nothing to do with the "military superiority". El Chimpko,
: did you miss the reality?
:
:So then, why would we feel threatened if someone else beat us to it?

Did I say you would or should feel threatened, or are you confused by
your own delusions again.

:I
:mean are you going to tell me that if the Chinese were to establish the
:first lunar base we would not feel threateded militarily by the move?

Only insofar as the capabilities it demonstrates. A lunar base is
militarily meaningless insofar as the Earth goes.

What do you think such a base allows them to do that they couldn't do
without it?

:Counter-intelligence never was your bag, was it Freddy? You only know
:how to think one way don't you?

True. That way would be 'correct'. You, on the other hand,
apparently never even learned to think ONE way...

: : :
: : : We get nothing, at least they could've come
: : : up with a military industrial welfare program that
: : : also benefited society. But then they'd have
: : : to actually accomplish something, produce
: : : a product that mattered to us. With the Vision they
: : : don't have to create anything new or valuable
: : : for society, just repeat what's been done before.
: : : And watch society go ho-hum-been-there-done-that
: : : -who-cares. Which is just fine with them.
: : :
: : : As they don't care what we think about it.
: :
: : That's because you're certifiable.
: :
: :Be clear on who you are posting to, as you claim to have a
: :certification to being sane and stable.
:
: It's in-line posting, you moron. Any idiot can tell what (and who)
: it's in response to.
:
:Sure what ever you say, McClod. What happened your latest advances get
:rejected? Ex-wife get an increase in alimony. You're actually much
:nastier than usual, if that is possible.

No, you're just stupider than usual (if that is possible).

:
: :
: : :
: : :Use their money and make it the way we want, like Apollo.
: : :
: :
: : Whose money do you think you're getting to use, Eric?
: :
: OD and NASA along with NSF and others. Do you want to go to Mars or
: :not?
:
: And you think DoD money is going into that? What the **** are you
: smoking NOW?
:
:Sure would be nice. How much DOD $ went into Apollo? None? Shuttle?
:None? Where is the NASA/DOD line drawn WRT $, Freddy? Can you predict
:it?

Can you actually cite a fact for a change? I'm betting not.

[Shuttle got DoD dollars from USAF, but only because it was supposed
to be used to launch their satellites. When that stopped, USAF
support ended.]

:
: : Oh, and you calling yourself a 'scientist' is absolute
: : misrepresentation.
: :
: :No Freddy, sorry to burst your bubble. Your taken math and econ degrees
: :vs. my earned CompSci degrees beg to differ.
:
: Sorry, but CS degrees don't make you a 'scientist', you silly ass. I
: have one of those, too, you see.
:
:Yes, but you don't seem to know the difference between OS-9 and OS/9.
:And maybe you are just a programmer with your CS degree, I'm a
:scientist.

snicker

:
: :I'l stand toe-to-toe with
: :you on any subject and have. You have no inherent superiority here,
: :never have.
:
: The government has a book that gives job classification and title by
: function. I seriously doubt yours is 'scientist'. Your head is far
: to far up your ass for that.
:
:You're right. I'm actually both a computer scientist (senior, actually)
:and an engineer (software, systems, computer). All of the above.
:Currently, my title is Test Data Engineer, before that it was Systems
:Engineer and before that Sr. Computer Scientist. Now unless they
:stripped me of my title since I switched jobs.

That last isn't a complete sentence, but yes, they did.

I'll simply note that you're avoiding the question (again).

: :P.S. Come to MD. Look me up. I will take take you to places in the
: :Smithsonian and DC in general you have never seen.
:
: Unlikely. Been there, done that.
:
:Yes, I'm sure.

Yes, you usually are. Of course, you're usually wrong, too, but you
don't let that affect your surety.

: You need to make up your mind. I have no choice but to believe your
: previous threats to visit bodily harm upon me, which means should I
: ever find myself in your presence I would feel compelled to act in
: self-defense.
:
:Yes, I think you're too chicken so best we don't meet. I'd completly
:undo this whole business have you posting a retraction, with no
hysical harm.

Quite right. You have threatened to inflict serious physical harm on
me, which terrifies me to the point where I feel compelled to do
whatever is necessary to defend myself should we ever meet.

: :Further, when done,
: :we will raise a glass and you will come back to this board touting me
: :as a friend and take back well over 50% of what you have stated about
: :me. That is a promise not a threat.
:
: If you want people to take back things they've said about you, try not
: acting like quite such a colossal git.
:
:What, seek your approval? Is that what you're asking of me? I don't
:need your approval, Freddy.

In other words, you are unable to act like anything other than what
you manifestly are -- a colossal git.

--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Now we're really down to an aerospace duopoly. So if Dubya & Co. decide to
give NASA a goal again (which the CAIB and others had urged, and a follow-on
to ISS was coming due as ISS spending began to drop off) it was inevitable
that the Axis of Incompetence would benefit, so the anti-monopoly
corporatism conspiracy theories are flying fast and furious. But, alas for
the True Believers who are Reich on America, Reich on Business, and Reich on
the money (even moreso than Kudlow who at least claims to dislike the lack
of competition in the Offense industry), this is still not a case of
corporate wealthfare for Lockheed and Boeing.

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

This commision was the first step of the Bush administration to
revamp Nasa and the space industry. Which eventually
became the Vision. Notice the word 'defense' is used
270 times. But don't read it, God forbid you should
know what you're talking about and no longer be
able to mindlessly call everyone a loon.

Checked for terror, wack-job, "Kool Aid drinker," and other favorite Faux
News terms and phrases?

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/200...ol-aid-bof.jpg

"Jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

I was wondering if you'd see that part. What this
says to me is aerospace needs a big infusion of govt
cash so the industry doesn't fall apart.
I don't have a problem at all with the govt preventing
the loss of an important capability.

I'd rather replace antiquated capability.