Obama's HUGE space gamble

Last night, when I'd calmed down a bit, I had a mild flashback to STAR
TREK (which I loved) and AVATAR (which I haven't seen yet), and what
they had in common: They could be hits or flops, nothing in between.
Especially with all the money Cameron put into Avatar, if it wasn't
the biggest movie ever (which it is) he'd be out of a job.

Obama has taken a gamble of similar magnitude in space.

Right now, administration officials and anti-NASA coolaid addicts are
the only ones celebrating the end of Constellation. The mainstream
media has been negative, with phrases like "end of an era" common.
This story on Yahoo ....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/..._budget_impact

..... sums up the mood of a lot of people. And this says nothing of
the fact that other governments are continuing manned programs while
we, who wrote the book on it, are not. CATS cats may be celebrating,
but in the real world, people are not.

The only way to counter the negative coverage and for this to work out
for Obama is for his plans -- assuming he gets them through Congress
unaltered -- to deliver on everything and more. The commercial space
taxis HAVE to be on time, at or below budget, and awesome looking,
too. (If ULA et al know what's good for them, they'll have videos on
Youtube within a month.) The talk of NASA still sending people beyond
LEO HAS to pan out, with programs being spelled out. No way to get
away with, "no we're researching this so it can be used someday."
Uh-uh. And "re-vamping" KSC had bettern not include bulldozing LC39.
Where's the Augustine commission's heavy lifter going to fly from
without them? Unfortunately, the NASA budget page calls for RESEARCH
into heavy lifter technology, not actually building one. I don't like
the sound of that. Anything short of launching counts as staying
grounded.

So everything has to work out as advertised and more. Anything less
is putting lipstick on a pig and calling it a supermodel. And given
that Obama is already being compared to Jimmy Carter, another public
relations disaster probably won't do him any good even if, by itself,
it doesn't cost him the election (although Texas does have a lot of
electoral votes, doesn't it; and Florida decided the 2000 election.
Hmmmm). And the CATS cats who have been bashing NASA for years have
to put up or shut up. If you don't live up to your own boasting,
you'll look like idiots. No in-between, guys, sorry.

If Obama's space plan isn't a hit, it will be a flop, and he'll
probably spend the rest of his life explaining it.

I won't vote for him next time, but I still hope he knows what he's
doing.

On Feb 4, 9:55*am, Michael Gallagher wrote:
Last night, when I'd calmed down a bit, I had a mild flashback to STAR
TREK (which I loved) and AVATAR (which I haven't seen yet), and what
they had in common: *They could be hits or flops, nothing in between.
Especially with all the money Cameron put into Avatar, if it wasn't
the biggest movie ever (which it is) he'd be out of a job. *

Obama has taken a gamble of similar magnitude in space.

Comparing Cameron to Obama is a stretch.


Right now, administration officials and anti-NASA coolaid addicts are
the only ones celebrating the end of Constellation. *The mainstream
media has been negative, with phrases like "end of an era" common.
This story on Yahoo ....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/..._budget_impact

.... sums up the mood of a lot of people. *And this says nothing of
the fact that other governments are continuing manned programs while
we, who wrote the book on it, are not. *CATS cats may be celebrating,
but in the real world, people are not. *

Unless you think Constellation was poorly designed in the first place.
Reusing the solid rocket booster from the shuttle as a prime driver
for a new rocket is a poor plan. Science and engineering didn't drive
that decision, business and economics did. Again, a bad choice.


The only way to counter the negative coverage and for this to work out
for Obama is for his plans -- assuming he gets them through Congress
unaltered -- to deliver on everything and more. *The commercial space
taxis HAVE to be on time, at or below budget, and awesome looking,
too. *(If ULA et al know what's good for them, they'll have videos on
Youtube within a month.) *The talk of NASA still sending people beyond
LEO HAS to pan out, with programs being spelled out. *No way to get
away with, "no we're researching this so it can be used someday."
Uh-uh. *And "re-vamping" KSC had bettern not include bulldozing LC39.
Where's the Augustine commission's heavy lifter going to fly from
without them?

Wallops Island?

*Unfortunately, the NASA budget page calls for RESEARCH
into heavy lifter technology, not actually building one. *I don't like
the sound of that. *Anything short of launching counts as staying
grounded. *

So everything has to work out as advertised and more. *Anything less
is putting lipstick on a pig and calling it a supermodel. *And given
that Obama is already being compared to Jimmy Carter, another public
relations disaster probably won't do him any good even if, by itself,
it doesn't cost him the election (although Texas does have a lot of
electoral votes, doesn't it;

Part of the Obama decision to cancel Constellation was due to Texas
trying to run NASA rather than Washington running NASA. Bush allowed
and actually empowered JSC to drive NASA HQ, rather than the other way
around, as it should be.

and Florida decided the 2000 election.
Hmmmm). *

Yeah, and if 6 more senators become Dem instead of Rep, then
Congressional votes straight down party lines, as they have been, will
be passed rather than allowing the Republicans to filibuster, as they
do.

And Bush was appointed president in 2000 by the SC.

And the CATS cats who have been bashing NASA for years have
to put up or shut up. *If you don't live up to your own boasting,
you'll look like idiots. *No in-between, guys, sorry.

You sound bitter. What do you really want, if you allow yourself to
push your party agenda aside for a minute?


If Obama's space plan isn't a hit, it will be a flop, and he'll
probably spend the rest of his life explaining it.

There is no middle ground? Okay, then by your definition everything
Bush did, including space, was a flop.


I won't vote for him next time, but I still hope he knows what he's
doing.

Anything is better than the Bush plan was.

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
wrote:

Comparing Cameron to Obama is a stretch.


As far as the magnitude of the risk goes, yes.

....Unless you think Constellation was poorly designed in the first place.

Which comes around to my point: Outside the aerospace and space
enthusiast communities, who even debated the point? Probably nobody.
The lead sentences of the story were about the cancellations, not a
celebration of a "better choice." You can't get past that just by
arguing on usenet.

.... Where's the Augustine commission's heavy lifter going to fly from
without them?

Wallops Island?


They have LC39-sized pads I never hear of?

.... You sound bitter ....

I don't feel bitter.

..... What do you really want, if you allow yourself to
push your party agenda aside for a minute?


No party agenda involved. As for what I want, I thought Constellation
had the best shot of getting astronauts back to the Moon and on to
Mars. That program is now dead, so I want to see what happens. But
something HAS to happen, or it's a misstep for Obama.


If Obama's space plan isn't a hit, it will be a flop, and he'll
probably spend the rest of his life explaining it.

There is no middle ground? ....

Not for Obama. The messianic image that grew around him during the
2008 campaign set him up for trouble. Even in good times, he never
would have lived up to it; anything less than being awesome and his
adminstration could be considered a flop, even if he's competent a the
job (which I believe he is). Well, it wasn't the best of times, and
he elected right in the middle of a finacial meltdown and charged with
fixing the whole world. Along the way, we learned he's only human.
He and the dems have major political problems, no question. Can he
get around them? Maybe, but a gamble that doesn't play out hon't
help, regardkess of whether it directly hurts his reelection chances.

...... Anything is better than the Bush plan was.

That remains to be seen. What matters is when the rubber meets the
road.

On Feb 6, 1:17*pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko

wrote:
Comparing Cameron to Obama is a stretch.

As far as the magnitude of the risk goes, yes.

Obama would have to do lots of stupid stuff to enter the Twilight Zone
left behind by the Bush administration. I find it really fascinating
how the Republicans blame Obama for Bush's mess. The fact that things
haven't gotten worse and that we have hit bottom indicates that Obama
has managed to do something positive after many years of Bush's
negatives.


....Unless you think Constellation was poorly designed in the first place.

Which comes around to my point: *Outside the aerospace and space
enthusiast communities, who even debated the point? *Probably nobody.

No, the actual rocket scientists thought it a poor design as well. You
know, the ones that have to actually build the thing.

The lead sentences of the story were about the cancellations, not a
celebration of a "better choice." *You can't get past that just by
arguing on usenet.

Right, that goes both ways. Your points are just as worthless and good
as mine.


.... *Where's the Augustine commission's heavy lifter going to fly from
without them?

Wallops Island?

They have LC39-sized pads I never hear of?

The have area to put any size launch pads.


.... You sound bitter ....

I don't feel bitter. * *

..... What do you really want, if you allow yourself to
push your party agenda aside for a minute?

No party agenda involved. *As for what I want, I thought Constellation
had the best shot of getting astronauts back to the Moon and on to
Mars. *That program is now dead, so I want to see what happens. *But
something HAS to happen, or it's a misstep for Obama.

The reuse of the SRBs as mandatory doomed Ares I. You don't make that
kind of decision and then work around it. It smacks of an economic
decision instead of a engineering one driving the design.




If Obama's space plan isn't a hit, it will be a flop, and he'll
probably spend the rest of his life explaining it.

There is no middle ground? ....

Not for Obama. *The messianic image that grew around him during the
2008 campaign set him up for trouble. *

That is the Rush Limbaugh wish. People said similar things about
Clinton and then we had the best economy in decades.

Even in good times, he never
would have lived up to it; anything less than being awesome and his
adminstration could be considered a flop,

No, just be better than Bush and as good as Clinton without the moral
failings and we'll all be fine except for Republicans' egos. But in my
experience when Republicans aren't bitching is when we are headed into
trouble. The deafening silence during the last few years of Bush were
tell tale signs.

even if he's competent a the
job (which I believe he is). *Well, it wasn't the best of times, and
he elected right in the middle of a finacial meltdown and charged with
fixing the whole world.

Bush screwed things up badly. Bush was not qualified to run the
country for 4 years much less 8.

*Along the way, we learned he's only human.

All intelligent people knew that all along. Don't let the media sway
you. The biggest brainwash the media has done is make Republicans feel
that the media is liberal.

He and the dems have major political problems, no question. *Can he
get around them? *Maybe, but a gamble that doesn't play out hon't
help, regardkess of whether it directly hurts his reelection chances.

...... Anything is better than the Bush plan was.

That remains to be seen. *What matters is when the rubber meets the
road. *

Yep, we'll see.

On Feb 17, 9:33*am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:17*pm, Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 14:06:53 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko

wrote:
Comparing Cameron to Obama is a stretch.

As far as the magnitude of the risk goes, yes.

Obama would have to do lots of stupid stuff to enter the Twilight Zone
left behind by the Bush administration. I find it really fascinating
how the Republicans blame Obama for Bush's mess. The fact that things
haven't gotten worse and that we have hit bottom indicates that Obama
has managed to do something positive after many years of Bush's
negatives.



....Unless you think Constellation was poorly designed in the first place.

Which comes around to my point: *Outside the aerospace and space
enthusiast communities, who even debated the point? *Probably nobody.

No, the actual rocket scientists thought it a poor design as well. You
know, the ones that have to actually build the thing.

The lead sentences of the story were about the cancellations, not a
celebration of a "better choice." *You can't get past that just by
arguing on usenet.

Right, that goes both ways. Your points are just as worthless and good
as mine.



.... *Where's the Augustine commission's heavy lifter going to fly from
without them?

Wallops Island?

They have LC39-sized pads I never hear of?

The have area to put any size launch pads.



.... You sound bitter ....

I don't feel bitter. * *

..... What do you really want, if you allow yourself to
push your party agenda aside for a minute?

No party agenda involved. *As for what I want, I thought Constellation
had the best shot of getting astronauts back to the Moon and on to
Mars. *That program is now dead, so I want to see what happens. *But
something HAS to happen, or it's a misstep for Obama.

The reuse of the SRBs as mandatory doomed Ares I. You don't make that
kind of decision and then work around it. It smacks of an economic
decision instead of a engineering one driving the design.



If Obama's space plan isn't a hit, it will be a flop, and he'll
probably spend the rest of his life explaining it.

There is no middle ground? ....

Not for Obama. *The messianic image that grew around him during the
2008 campaign set him up for trouble. *

That is the Rush Limbaugh wish. People said similar things about
Clinton and then we had the best economy in decades.

Even in good times, he never
would have lived up to it; anything less than being awesome and his
adminstration could be considered a flop,

No, just be better than Bush and as good as Clinton without the moral
failings and we'll all be fine except for Republicans' egos. But in my
experience when Republicans aren't bitching is when we are headed into
trouble. The deafening silence during the last few years of Bush were
tell tale signs.

even if he's competent a the
job (which I believe he is). *Well, it wasn't the best of times, and
he elected right in the middle of a finacial meltdown and charged with
fixing the whole world.

Bush screwed things up badly. Bush was not qualified to run the
country for 4 years much less 8.

*Along the way, we learned he's only human.

All intelligent people knew that all along. Don't let the media sway
you. The biggest brainwash the media has done is make Republicans feel
that the media is liberal.

He and the dems have major political problems, no question. *Can he
get around them? *Maybe, but a gamble that doesn't play out hon't
help, regardkess of whether it directly hurts his reelection chances.

...... Anything is better than the Bush plan was.

That remains to be seen. *What matters is when the rubber meets the
road. *

Yep, we'll see.

ZNRs are always so faith-based and republican mindset predictable,
especially of those contributing within this global public information
medium of publishing via Google/NOVA and Usenet/newsgroup plus private
groups doing their own independent research, deductive analogy and
free thinking (unmoderated dot connecting) thing of sharing their
interpretation.

Of course there are a good number of our social/political and
religious special-interest cabals that have strictly moderated their
Usenet/newsgroups and otherwise protecting their private groups
whereas essentially nothing is open or much less representing free
speech.

~ BG

President Obama ends NASA's Moon missions.
Leaving the US manned space program in limbo.

I believe this decision signals the end of an significant
fifty year long era in space policy.

Unfortunately, the notion this Space-Era was about exploring, or
colonizing or various forms of pure research are the result
of looking at the US Space Program through nebula-colored glasses.
The 'Hank-ian' view, as in Tom.

Grow up please!

The manned space program is, and always has been, a military oriented
program. The civilian cover stories of the early rocket days became
institutionalized.

The finish line in the cold-war race with the Soviets was unabashedly
on the Moon. And it would be again, but this time a missile defense
race to the Moon with the Chinese. This decision brings hope that the
next fifty years will NOT be defined by the incredibly wasteful and
dangerous military spending spree between the two richest nations
of the world. A cold-war that helped generate a world full of
negative-sum games, or one ..horror.. after another.

Now we have an opportunity to not just change the focus of space policy.
But to entirely change the nature of superpower competition.
From military to economic, to positive-sum games.

The difference between positive and negative sum interactions
between the superpowers is nothing less that the difference
between ....Barbaric and Civilized.

Thank God this era is over!

Our space policy now has the opportunity to turn itself towards the
needs of the many, instead of the military. Such as creating a new
energy future.

Thank God for the 'new' era. It cannot help but be better than
the last one...now!


Jonathan


s

"
Thank God for the 'new' era. It cannot help but be better than
the last one...now!

to paraphrase LBJ - only if you wish to go to sleep to the light of a
Chinese Moon.

Val Kraut wrote:

to paraphrase LBJ - only if you wish to go to sleep to the light of a
Chinese Moon.

Well, he said "communist", and those are getting difficult to come by
outside of China (or even in it) these days.

Pat

On Feb 5, 4:38*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Val Kraut wrote:
to paraphrase LBJ - only if you wish to go to sleep to the light of a
Chinese Moon.

Well, he said "communist", and those are getting difficult to come by
outside of China (or even in it) these days.

Pat

Paranoia is paranoia. They own too much of our debt and the Repubs
don't seen scared about that!

On Feb 4, 11:31*pm, "Val Kraut" wrote:
"

Thank God for the 'new' era. It cannot help but be better than
the last one...now!

to paraphrase LBJ - only if you wish to go to sleep to the light of a
Chinese Moon.

If the Chinese want to go to the moon, then let them. What do
Americans own it? No more than we own the Earth.