.....Meet Your NEW House Science and Space Committee Chairman

Lockheed needs to start bribing democrats.



Now that the democrats have won the House, It should
be fairly safe to assume the current ranking members of these
committees will become the new chairman.

Bart Gordon (D), ranking member House Committee on Science
http://sciencedems.house.gov/default.aspx

Mark Udall (D), ranking member House Subcomittee on Space and
Aeronautics
http://sciencedems.house.gov/subcommittee/space.aspx

In a letter from a few months ago, the likely priorities of the now
Democratic controlled House committees oversesing Nasa
are listed.

Most notable is that a return to the Moon is given the
lowest priority, and only after space science and shuttle
replacement funding is settled. And the costs of a Moon
mission are detailed, which should be a huge blow.

Also notable is a restoration of the cuts to space science missions
including astrobiology, Terrestrial Planet Finder,
Earth Science Pathfinder, Space Interferometry Mission
Beyond Einstein and Beyond Europa.

http://sciencedems.house.gov/Media/F...ps_09may06.pdf


All in all, a good day for America, In my humble opinion~

Jonathan


s

Emulating JFK.. to Restore Nasa to Greatness.


A goal should be designed with the same thought and
care as any piece of hardware, yet this is rarely the case.
Look at Nasa's desire to go back to the Moon.
Even the administrator admitted it's a matter of faith, that
we should have faith that somehow it will produce
discoveries and benefits. Yet no one can really
say what those will be.

That's not a rational goal, it's more of a prayer.

I'm simply asking that we should apply our best efforts and science
to the initial goal, before launching a twenty or forty year program
costing hundreds of billions.

I believe President Kennedy showed us how to design a goal
that inspires the American people, while setting in motion
a program that cannot fail to accomplish greatness.


His goal was optimized is three key ways.

1) To have the greatest potential to deliver tangible benefits to society.
From winning the Cold War, to wondrous new technology.

2) To inspire believable dreams of a brighter future.

3) To create a sense of urgency, through a demanding time frame.


If we were to reproduce these three key elements in creating
a new goal for Nasa, what would result?

The question then becomes, solving which problem(s) would
simultaneously produce the greatest tangible benefits and
inspire the brightest 'Vision' for the future?

I believe the 'elephants in the room' for the present and future
of this planet are our dependence on fossil fuels.
And climate change due to Global Warming.

Even if other global problems rival these, they have the
added appeal in that ....a single solution...should
solve both at once. As fossil fuels lead directly to
Global Warming. And since climate change may
become irreversible in just a few decades, it has
the needed urgency.

The following goal. I believe, would satisfy all three key aspects
of the..."Perfect Goal"...that gave greatness to JFK, Nasa and
America. And one of the purest moments in all of history.

To find a sustainable replacement for fossil fuels before
climate change becomes irreversible.


This goal would be optimized for the following reasons.

It will appeal to the broadest base of people possible by

Maximizing potential tangible benefits
Cheaper energy costs in the future
Reduces chances of wars over oil
Increases economic independence

Maximizing inspirational appeal
Potential to bring prosperity to the world
Potential to turn ...America.. into worlds energy supplier
Changing our view of the future from pessimistic to
optimistic

It will simultaneously address two of our greatest long term anxieties

The impending shortage of fossil fuels
The impending destruction from Global Warming


I believe the ultimate solution to this goal would converge upon
solar power and space. Such as Space Solar Power.
But the idea is to inspire enough support and a determination
to solve these problems at all costs. And let the answers find
themselves. Just as the Apollo program found the answers
to one technological hurdle after another from the excitement
a world-changing goal generates.

I believe this goal would restore Nasa to a inspirational
focus for America, while Saving our Future.


Jonathan Maatsch





"THE BONE that has no marrow;
What ultimate for that?
It is not fit for table,
For beggar, or for cat.

A bone has obligations,
A being has the same;
A marrowless assembly
Is culpabler than shame.

But how shall finished creatures
A function fresh obtain?-
Old Nicodemus' phantom
Confronting us again! "



s

Assuming, of course, the Va race goes to Webb, and
the ranking member becomes chairman.

(Lockheed doesn't need to bribe, ah, I mean hire
any democrats in this case)

Subcommitte on Science and Space
Bill Nelson (D) Florida (Ranking Member)

As one of the leading congressional experts on NASA,
Nelson underwent intensive training and flew as a crew
member on the 24th flight of the space shuttle in 1986.
Now a member of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee
on Science, Space and Technology, Nelson continues
to play a role in NASA's activities. He's fighting the
administration's budget cuts and the potential loss
of jobs they could cause at Kennedy Space Center
near Orlando.
http://billnelson.senate.gov/issues/...fm?code=iSpace


s

"jonathan" wrote in message
...


In a letter from a few months ago, the likely priorities of the now
Democratic controlled House committees oversesing Nasa
are listed.

Most notable is that a return to the Moon is given the
lowest priority, and only after space science and shuttle
replacement funding is settled. And the costs of a Moon
mission are detailed, which should be a huge blow.

Also notable is a restoration of the cuts to space science missions
including astrobiology, Terrestrial Planet Finder,
Earth Science Pathfinder, Space Interferometry Mission
Beyond Einstein and Beyond Europa.

http://sciencedems.house.gov/Media/F...ps_09may06.pdf



you wanted Democrats in control of Congress, Pat. You got your wish.

Be careful what you ask for in the future, hey?


--
Terrell Miller


"Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com

Terrell Miller wrote:



you wanted Democrats in control of Congress, Pat. You got your wish.

Be careful what you ask for in the future, hey?



I completely agree with that funding agenda; we'll learn much more with
those missions than we would going back to the Moon, and probably at a
lower cost to boot.
Terrestrial Planet Finder is particularly interesting.

Pat

"Terrell Miller" wrote in message
...
"jonathan" wrote in message
...


In a letter from a few months ago, the likely priorities of the now
Democratic controlled House committees oversesing Nasa
are listed.

Most notable is that a return to the Moon is given the
lowest priority, and only after space science and shuttle
replacement funding is settled. And the costs of a Moon
mission are detailed, which should be a huge blow.

Also notable is a restoration of the cuts to space science missions
including astrobiology, Terrestrial Planet Finder,
Earth Science Pathfinder, Space Interferometry Mission
Beyond Einstein and Beyond Europa.


http://sciencedems.house.gov/Media/F...ps_09may06.pdf



you wanted Democrats in control of Congress, Pat. You got your wish.

Be careful what you ask for in the future, hey?


The dems want to add half a billion to the budget, that's bad?
And Sen Nelson from ...Florida.. is a huge supporter of all things
Nasa, and an influential Senator.

Shifting to more sensible priorities can only help Nasa with
the public and Congress.




--
Terrell Miller


"Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com

NASA was created by Dwight Eisenhower in 1958 after the failure of the
Vanguard rocket to match the Russian's orbiting of Sputnik in October
1957. Eisenhower purposely created the agency without a strategic
planning head, like a CEO in a company, because he didn't want
America's enthusiasm for space exploration to a) divert funds needed to
sustain the cold war, and b) serve as an avenue for missile
proliferation. This despite a clear call in 1958 for the National
Academy of Sciences to provide strategic long-term direction of the
agency.

Jack Kennedy latched onto the popular interest in space exploration and
enunciated a grand strategic vision, part of which was US going to the
moon (and the other things - which included nuclear rockets and
interplanetary travel) before this decade was out. Yet, Kennedy and
later Lyndon Johnson failed to correct this organic shortcoming in the
Agency which cannot provide its own strategic direction, but must rely
on a President to provide it and a Vice President to carry it out.
Under Johnson, Kennedy's vision of interplanetary space being a vast
new ocean of discovery and development to sail upon, was reduced to a
man on the moon. Johnons also allowed NASA to be balkanized by
political interests in that time - with Johnson and McNamara being the
central participant in the balkanization in December 63 and January 64.
Johnson was behind dramatic funding cuts in the agency in 68
(submitted in 67) when it was clear that we would beat the Russians to
the moon. The failure of the N1, the discrediting and arrest of
important Russian scientists that supported the Russian space program,
are indicators that the Russian space program may have been given some
negative attention by US intelligence operations in order to minimize
the importance of space in international relations.

Richard Nixon was instrumental in ending the Apollo program early,
forcing the end of the program even while Saturn Vs were in production
that would never fly and end up as museum pieces.

He asked NASA to submit a list of programs for the future. It had
great difficulty creating an integrated vision, but it came up with
one, including a low-cost reusable space plane, a space station, a
nuclear rocket, a return to the moon, habitats on the moon, and
expansion to mars - and Nixon chose the first element in the laundry
list that NASA inevitably produced (lacking the ability to operate
strategically) - based loosely on von Braun's Mars Project of the 1940s
and 50s. Nixon chose the low-cost reusable space plane and called it
the Space Shuttle.

Early design proposals were further reduced in capability by demands
that they use SRBs and have very high cross-range by the Army and Air
Force, and by politically driven demands that acceleration be limited
and that the SSME have superlative performance, and that the Thermal
Protection System involve brand new technologies - even while all these
escalated costs. Higher costs due to huge development costs related to
new technologies and performance features, combined with low launch
rates, and lack of investment in launch infrastructure to support the
vehicle, were presented to the public as failures by NASA. In fact,
there has been a consistent and clear call for the dissolution of the
Agency by OMB and others since the first Bush Administration.

So, Kennedy's bold vision of America being the first among nations to
sail the vast new ocean of interplanetary space was reduced under
Johnson to Man on the Moon, and under Nixon to Man in Space - which
meant the shuttle's man on orbit. Since Johnson/McNamara cutbacks of
67 (fiscal 68 budget) - NASA's budget has remained around 1% of the US
federal budget - echoing the early direction provided by Dwight
Eisenhower.

Rising concerns of missile and nuclear proliferation have flown in the
face of any true efforts at commercializing space access or making
rocket technology more accessible or cost effective.

At the end of his Administration Nixon was embroiled in Watergate and
eventually resigned. At the height of trouble for Nixon his vice
President, Spiro Agnew, proposed sending men to Mars along the lines of
vonBraun's Mars Project. But this was roundly ignored. Even so, this
sort of political use of the agency arose again following negative
public reaction to the invasion of Iraq by the second Bush
administration!

Gerald Ford oversaw the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, and laid the
foundations for today's cooperation between space agencies of the US
and former USSR despite his limited time in office and despite his lack
of authority to direct the nation following Watergate. Had he been
elected it would have been interesting to see what he might have come
up with. After all as Vice President under Nixon, he had time to come
to know the agency unlike any President before or since..

Jimmy Carter ended support of the nuclear space propulsion program,
completing what Johnson had started and subsequent president's left
untouched until another democrat was in office. While the civilian
space sector lagged under Carter expanded the use of space assets by
the intelligence community (PD 31) and enunciated a vision that we had
plenty of problems at home on Earth to resolve before wasting money in
grand adventures in space.

The first president to provide a new strategic direction to the agency
after Kennedy was Ronald Reagan with his Strategic Defense Initiative.
Where Kennedy saw space travel as a unifying force in international
relations that provided an alternative to nuclear conflict in the
modern nuclear age, Reagan embraced space as a needed new frontier that
would spur American innovation and leadership in an age of increasing
international commercial competition.

Here the assets of the civilian space sector would have a dual role,
support an expanded military use of space to provide unprecedented
security for the United States and its growing list of allies, while at
the same time supporting an expanded commercial side. Reagan's vision
of the inevitability of a unified world marshalling resources to
explore and exploit our common frontier, was much the same as
Kennedy's, except where Kennedy saw the US as the leading nation among
a diverse group of competing nations, Reagan saw the US as a role model
at all levels. The push toward lower costs combined with accelerated
launch rates, and increased commercial access were bold moves in this
vision. His teacher in space program was the public face of this
commercial vision. This ended with the first ever loss of a manned
space vehicle in flight by the US, including the death of America's
first teacher in space. SDI died a quiet death during Reagan's second
term as the military viewed the program as a non-starter. Even so,
Russian inability to match this new vision, combined with the failure
of Chernobyl and defeat in Afghanistan, served to hasten the end of
Communism in the USSR and usher in a post-Soviet age for the region.

SDI was pushed by the major aerospace firms, even in the face of
downsizing to survive even through 9/11, and even as they reorganized
their money losing space launch assets as United Space Alliance
following the loss of the first shuttle in flight.

The First Bush administration saw an enhanced role in the use of space
assets in the intelligence communities, both for military intelligence
and CIA. George Bush, like Gerald Ford served as head of the agency
prior to taking the Presidential spot, so was intimately famliar with
what the agency had to offer. But unlike Ford, Bush 1, was also head
of the CIA prior to becoming Vice President. So, this attention to
these intelligence uses of the agency was a natural consequence of
that.

Bill Clinton saw the agency in tactical rather than strategic terms.
His idea was to convert the agency into a national high-payoff R&D
center, akin to Japan's MITI, and use earth directed space based assets
to improve remote sensing and provide enhanced services to the
commercial and military sector. He did declassify the GPS technology
developed through the 1970s and 80s by the US Navy, and this had
significant commercial and military benefit.

The Second Bush administration pushed for the restart of SDI even while
Graham Rudman warned of terror threats against the US. With the
successful attacks of 9/11 the focus of the new President turned
laserlike upon these threats leaving any grandiose vision of the future
of humanity until after we win a war on terror. So, the agency and its
capabilities were further treated only in a tactical sense rather than
a strategic one.

I would say that projecting hundreds of thousands of US troops on the
opposite side of the world, spread throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, and
being pulled into Iran and Syria, to create a band of horror throughout
the region, combined with increasing demand for oil from places like
India and China, while discovery and production of oil moderates and
then declines, will create a period of excessive inflation for the US
over the next two to three decades.

So, even if we pulled out of the warzones created by 9/11, the US faces
difficult economic times ahead. If the war expands or continues things
could be far worse.

To combat this reduction in value of the dollar Democrats may increase
taxes to help fund the expenditures, but as rates are near their
economic limits, this would only re-introduce a period of stagflation.
If this persists and grows worse, one might see the flight of foreign
capital in the coming period and a hyperinflationary period for the US
as the US dollar is abandoned by the international community and finds
safe havens backed by valuable commodities like oil.

Even if this worst case scenario is not realized and a more reasonable
period of 7% to 8% inflation over the next 20 years is encountered, we
would see a reduction of the dollar to $0.21 by 2026. In this scenario
the US enters an economic downturn and the only way the US space agency
could survive is as a public works project. Gone are the opportunities
of the 60s, under Kennedy, gone are the opportunities of the 80s under
Reagan, and the calls by OMB to end manned space flight altogether may
be chosen rather than a follow on for the Shuttle which was the point
of Nixon's maneuvering at the height of success for the agency during
the moon landings of 1969 through 1973.

What should America do with its space launch and space technology
assets? First and foremost, the National Academy of Sciences should
provide real strategic direction for the agency, not Presidents.
Second, operations should be integrated and streamlined with the
closing of some centers and reorganization of other centers to be more
efficient and less politically driven. Third, the agencies libraries
and research centers should be accessible to qualified users through
the Aerospace Corporation. Basically, NASA should have the same
relation to the development of commercial and military space travel as
NACA had to the development of commercial and military air travel.
Fourth, the same property rights that spur the economic development of
property within the United States, should be applied to the world's
oceans and to all celestial bodies in the solar system. The US should
lead the way in claiming the economic assets of the solar system for
commercial use by all humanity, and seek to organize itself to achieve
this goal. Fifth, the US should set up a legal and enforcement
infrastructure to administer these new commercial rights. Sixth, set
up a body to oversee the transfer and use of commercial missile and
nuclear technologies.

All of this need cost the US very little, and it all escapes the
programmatic based approach to space travel. It would also help the
commercial sector to raise trillions of dollars in the markets to
develop important new space based assets. What might these include?

1) Global wireless broadband
2) Solar power satellites
.. 3) Nuclear pulse propulsion
4) Factory satellites
5) Asteroid capture
6) Space colonies (artificial ecospheres)
7) Farming and forestry in space
8) Colonization of the moon
9) Colonization of Mars
10) Terraforming Venus and Mercury
11) Broad industrial use of asteroid belt
12) Sun centered solar power for solar system

Which would ultimately lead to the first interstellar voyages.

wrote:


10) Terraforming Venus and Mercury


I have never before heard anyone suggest terraforming Mercury.
It's going to be a tad hot for habitation.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:


10) Terraforming Venus and Mercury


I have never before heard anyone suggest terraforming Mercury.
It's going to be a tad hot for habitation.

Just increase the albedo a lot and have the inhabitants wear really hip
sunglasses. ;-)

wrote:
Basically, NASA should have the same
relation to the development of commercial and military space travel as
NACA had to the development of commercial and military air travel.

I think I hear an echo....

Dave