A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Glenn speech



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 1st 04, 09:10 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Yes, it's more of a goal than a plan. But at least we have one now.


...Past administrations have always had "plans" but no one ever really
cared up beyond the level of the policy wonks.


With the brief exception of Bush Sr., there has been no particular
evidence of space planning in any administration in the recent past.
Oh, they've issued "space plans", but basically what those plans have
boiled down to is "keep doing what you're doing for a while -- someday
we might make some decisions, but not today".

Even the station decision (early Reagan) is questionable -- aside from the
fact that it was over twenty years ago -- because it was not *planning* in
the sense of upper management defining a goal and a path to get there. The
lack of clear purpose behind the station program has been noted repeatedly,
and has been a big source of its problems.

Even such basics as "resume manned exploration", "Moon before Mars", and
"phase out Shuttle by 2010 but not by building a new government launcher"
are considerably more guidance than previous administrations have given.

It has yet to be seen whether
Dubya really cares, either, or if this is mere political posturing.


Now that, I agree with.

Bush Sr.'s flash-in-the-pan plan fell down mostly because he wasn't
willing to expend political capital to pursue it. The singularly inept
handling of the situation by NASA didn't help, but wasn't in itself an
irretrievable disaster. It sank SEI only because Bush made no attempt to
correct the problem -- if he'd responded with a sharp repudiation of the
infamous 90-Day Study, and a demand that NASA produce a realistic plan
rather than a union of wishlists, there was still a chance of selling
something modest and long-term to Congress.

Bush Jr. hasn't *quite* ignored his plan, but he sure hasn't been actively
promoting it much, despite some excellent opportunities to do so. Even
given that spaceflight is not a big national priority nowadays and so we
can't expect too much, his level of commitment is open to question.

So far, he's acting like it was something he was reluctantly talked into,
something he has promised to support but has no real enthusiasm for. In
which case, given that he seems to really hate publicly admitting that he
made a mistake, he can be expected to intervene when absolutely necessary
to keep a minimal effort alive, but otherwise he'll ignore it. Notably,
he won't go out of his way to endorse it or expand it. Nor is he going to
correct any big mistakes NASA makes (like opting for a shuttle-derived
heavylift launcher), so long as they don't look likely to sink the whole
thing until after he's gone.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #23  
Old December 1st 04, 10:48 PM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:07:13 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:16:24 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:


Do you have trouble reading? There is no plan yet, scare quotes or
otherwise. But this is the first administration since Kennedy to
articulate an actual *goal* for American space policy, and start to
execute it.


I guess you missed the Nixon, Reagan and Bush I administrations, then.
I'll leave it to you to figure out what those policies and goals were,
and whether/to what extent those goals were implemented.


Nixon and Reagan no grand goals, other than to give NASA a next major
hardware contract to replace the previous one (Shuttle after Apollo,
station after Shuttle). Bush I's goal of SEI was still-born, because
Truly sabatoged it.

It has yet to be seen
whether Dubya really cares, either, or if this is mere political
posturing.


Good lord, have you been paying no attention at all to what's going
on?

He threatened to *veto* the appropriations bill if it didn't have his
full funding request for NASA (he didn't veto a single bill in his
first term). He got it.


It's not entirely clear that his threat was serious or that it
motivated the recent restoration of full-funding. That said, "full
funding" is pretty damn miniscule, a point I made which you
conveniently snipped.


It's as much as any president could expect to get.

NASA is the only domestic discretionary
agency that got a budget increase this year. And if you think that
the only way to show his support for space is by ignoring national
security, then you're nuts.


Again, you snipped the comments that matter - that the war in Iraq has
consumed in excess of 13 times NASA's annual budget;


Irrelevant. There is zero relationship between the budgets of the
Pentagon and NASA.

that in
retrospect (and given all the internal administration documentation
that has come to light since, in foresight, too) it was totally
unjustifiable for the purposes and goals which were used to support it
in the first place; and (since you brought it up) the "security" of
the U.S. has not been increased in any way measurable by our actions
in Iraq.


Those are interesting opinions, but they're certainly not fact.
  #24  
Old December 1st 04, 10:54 PM
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Rand Simberg ) writes:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:16:24 -0600, in a place far, far away, Herb
Schaltegger made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Yes, it's more of a goal than a plan. But at least we have one now.


Oh, please. Stop with the one-liners.

Past administrations have always had "plans" but no one ever really
cared up beyond the level of the policy wonks.


Do you have trouble reading? There is no plan yet, scare quotes or
otherwise. But this is the first administration since Kennedy to
articulate an actual *goal* for American space policy, and start to
execute it.


LOL ! See Bush I's space initiative, announced at the Apollo 11
Plus 20 celebrations.

It would help if you, well, *knew* some actual space policy history.

It has yet to be seen
whether Dubya really cares, either, or if this is mere political
posturing.


Good lord, have you been paying no attention at all to what's going
on?

He threatened to *veto* the appropriations bill if it didn't have his
full funding request for NASA (he didn't veto a single bill in his
first term). He got it. NASA is the only domestic discretionary
agency that got a budget increase this year. And if you think that
the only way to show his support for space is by ignoring national
security, then you're nuts.

Better an accurate "one-liner" than three paragraphs of utter
bull****.


Better still, an accurate comment about prior un-realised
" initiatives "...

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
  #25  
Old December 1st 04, 11:30 PM
Gene DiGennaro
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Herb Schaltegger wrote in message ...

The fact that he's not, and that he's spent in excess of 13 times
NASA's annual budget - over and above DoD's annual budget - to fight a
war in Iraq that cannot be justified on the basis for which it was
ostensibly fought in the first place speaks volumes.



Regardless about how anyone feels about the Iraqi war, Constellation
will have a rocky course during an on-going and expensive war. While I
support Constellation, the average man-in-the-street(or woman) will
have a hard time supporting expanded human spaceflight while we are
spending money on a war.

I feel that the Clinton administration missed an oppurtunity there in
the mid to late 90's. We had no large international war on terrorists
at the time, although there are some who say we should have had one.
Naturally after Sept 11, the nation's focus was on fighting terrorism.
I don't know if Constellation can be sold to the Average Joe right
now.

Obviously, Constellation will have to last through several
administrations and probably not all of the successive administrations
will be of the same political party. However, the fact that the ESA
and RSA are also interested in an expanded human presence in space may
be a good thing. Too bad the RSA doesn't have the bucks.

Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore,Md.
  #26  
Old December 2nd 04, 12:35 AM
Richard.Glueck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Worse still, I can not possibly see how a new vehicle is going to be designed,
built, tested repeatedly until it's man-rated, put aboard an as yet unknown
heavy-lift booster, and sent repeatedly to the moon, on $15 billion. It can not
happen. I am amazed that people think it can. The dollar is worth less today
than in the 60's and it couldn't be done then.
If Bush truly wanted to push space as a goal, we'd have heard about it in the
State of the Union address, given immediatly after the announcement. Nobody
except anxious NASA employees and people like us are singing the praises of
expanding that aspect of America's destiny.
Sadly, we are mired in an expensive and untenable war which will not put
humankind anywhere closer to our greatest potential.
I want to hear politicians start actively talking about this "goal".


  #27  
Old December 2nd 04, 01:11 AM
Andre Lieven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Rand Simberg ) writes:

rest of ignorance about space policy, and policy in general, snipped


I couldn't have said it better, myself.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
  #29  
Old December 2nd 04, 03:43 AM
Richard.Glueck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:35:34 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Richard.Glueck" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Worse still, I can not possibly see how a new vehicle is going to be designed,
built, tested repeatedly until it's man-rated, put aboard an as yet unknown
heavy-lift booster, and sent repeatedly to the moon, on $15 billion.


Do you know what "man-rated" means?

Are you unaware of the improvements in design capability,
productivity, and knowledge about such things since the 1960s?


Yes I do. Were you even there to witness it when it happened the first time? You
think a national program is going to rely on impirical data without test it each
step of the way? Do you think anyone is going to put there life on the line in a
deep space vehicle made out of mathematics and good wishes? Try reading about
developing Gemini and Apollo, or even the shuttle, before you and your syncophantic
gleeclub start criticizing those who have their feet based in reality.





  #30  
Old December 2nd 04, 04:02 AM
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Andre Lieven wrote:


LOL ! See Bush I's space initiative, announced at the Apollo 11
Plus 20 celebrations.


Don't forget Agnew's trip to Mars plan.
That one got a good laugh.
I wonder if the president's great support for space exploration has
anything to do with the fact that his brother is governor of Florida?
Duh...could it?

Pat


Pat

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Glenn speech Jim Oberg Policy 77 December 7th 04 09:18 AM
John Glenn Loses his Soul Mark R. Whittington Policy 35 March 10th 04 11:28 PM
No Moon, Mars, or Space in the State of the Union Speech [was Audio of Bush's Speech] GCGassaway Space Shuttle 1 January 22nd 04 01:22 PM
Bush's speech: a load of wishful thinking Greg Kuperberg Policy 8 January 18th 04 12:06 AM
Bush speech on Moon cancelled/postponed... John Ordover Policy 24 January 6th 04 11:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.