#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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****. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Glenn speech | Jim Oberg | Policy | 77 | December 7th 04 08:18 AM |
John Glenn Loses his Soul | Mark R. Whittington | Policy | 35 | March 10th 04 10:28 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 12:22 PM |
Bush's speech: a load of wishful thinking | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 8 | January 17th 04 11:06 PM |
Bush speech on Moon cancelled/postponed... | John Ordover | Policy | 24 | January 6th 04 10:12 AM |