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.

"
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

Well, I'm not optimistic. This sounds almost as romantic as a science
fiction story to me.

The one salient fact about humans is there is no real reason to go out there
and explore. Nobody seems to know why we want to do it. Because its there,
as many say about mountains, but I think, much like the so called arts,
exploration is something humans need to do. I don't know why, and if its all
boiled down to money then nobody would invent anything unless it was
salable.

So, lets just say, we have evolved in the way we have, and are still doing
so. For whatever reason, we have succeeded by going to new places. We have
no idea if the strategy is still useful when applied to off planet, but at
the very least, lets remove the bean counting aspect and go do it.


I agree, it needs to be the world which does it. We really do not want to
create the divisive borders and territories we have here on earth again.
Maybe this is the reason we are driven, is it to get away from it all, or
to cooperate in a new society?

One thing to me is certain though. We need a better less energy wasteful and
dangerous way to get off planet. Maybe the physicists can actually find the
source of gravity and let us harness the force instead of fighting it.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

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

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

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

This is absolutely false.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

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.

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!

The question is not whether we explore or not - we always will.

The question is when.

What's the rush? After all, it is not like the moon and Mars are going
anywhere. Last time I checked, they have no plans to relocate or
disappear.

-Ramon

On Feb 5, 10:26*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ramon F Herrera wrote:

:
:The question is not whether we explore or not - we always will.
:
:The question is when.
:
:What's the rush? After all, it is not like the moon and Mars are going
:anywhere. Last time I checked, they have no plans to relocate or
:disappear.
:

And the answer becomes 'never', because 'later' is always good
enough...

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
*man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
*all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --George Bernard Shaw

Scenario: Chris Columbus never persuaded Isabella to finance his trip.
Result from your reasoning: here we are, in the 21st. century and the
new continent remains to be discovered.

-Ramon