|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-18-2010 12:10 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
It's better to reach out than to be in continuous rivalry. Why take all our terrestrial problems into the cosmos?
That question is probably better posed to our adversaries; I don't see that we're the ones creating the problems. To paraphrase Obama, it's hard to shake someone's hand when they're offering a clenched fist. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-18-2010 12:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Committing this nation to returning to the moon by 2020 or thereabouts puts us in a decent position to exploit the benefits of Helium-3...
Chet, I realize that you've come into this thread rather late, but you could have at least read some of the earlier entries. We've already discussed Robert's point that the Apollo program was an aberration, never to be repeated, and that long term goals that require the maintenance of a former president's political legacy are doomed to fail. Please go back and refute those points, rather than ask that we re-argue them for your benefit. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-18-2010 01:27 PM
Politically, this plan was a brilliant move by the Administration. It says a great deal and promises virtually nothing. One thing it does do, is divide an already divided "space community." This practically guarantees an unstated goal--to make NASA
a fifth-rate Federal agency. The phone call to the crew the other day was a good P.R. move as well. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-18-2010 01:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Please go back and refute those points, rather than ask that we re-argue them for your benefit.
In this (so far) 13 page thread, I came in at page 5 and read all the postings that preceded my first one. Robert mentioned the uniqueness and "perfect storm" of Apollo again on just the last page, so I don't quite know what, in your view, I'm "missing" or how I may be transgressing; I'd be happy to address any point you think needs addressing if you'll be specific about it.And as far as I can tell I haven't asked anyone to re-argue anything here for my benefit; I could be wrong though and am willing to be set straight if you can better explain your admonishment. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-18-2010 01:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
I could be wrong though and am willing to be set straight if you can better explain your admonishment.
I phrased it as a request, not an admonishment. In particular, I was referring to the item you just mentioned: quote:
What was that "perfect storm", other than NASA's determination, an eager astronaut corps and a President and Congress willing to support the program?
The "perfect storm" Robert referred to was much more than what you've dismissed it as. Just to quote myself: quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
I think it's pretty clear that a "legacy" strategy for space exploration will not work. It worked for Kennedy, but as moorouge mentioned in the previous thread, Kennedy had Johnson following after him to ensure that the legacy remained funded. And as distasteful as it might be to mention, it also helped that Kennedy was a martyr to the cause.No president since then has been able to set a goal that has survived their administration intact. None have fully funded their own visions, so what chance was there that their successors would feel compelled to carry on? Where's the benefit for a sitting president taking the political heat necessary to pump money into something that will be credited to a predecessor anyway?
I hadn't bothered to mention the Cold War, but that was another of Robert's elements included in the perfect storm.Also, this thread is something of a continuation of the now closed one entitled "Review of US Human Space Flight (Augustine)" You might find some helpful points raised there. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-18-2010 08:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Where's the benefit for a sitting president taking the political heat necessary to pump money into something that will be credited to a predecessor anyway?
I'll stick to my contention that the factors that got us to the moon in '69-'72 are still in place, except for the dollars. (The cold war component you mentioned was the impetus at that time... there just needs to be a different impetus cited today by the person whose job it is to be the most prominent proponent, the POTUS). Also, in my opinion, there shouldn't have to be a "benefit" for a President to take heat over a political issue he feels strongly about... just as a President shouldn't shrink from doing what's best for the country just because the credit may go to a predecessor. It's called leadership, something we were promised, loudly and often, during Obama's campaign for the office he now holds. As Tom Hanks (as Jim Lovell in Apollo 13) said about the first moon landing... "it's not a miracle, we just decided to go". |
Go4Launch
Member Posts: 562
From: Seminole, Fla.
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 02-18-2010 09:22 PM
Although a minor point, and not really relevant to this discussion, the quote about shaking hands is generally attributed to Indira Gandhi in 1982; though I suspect she wasn't the first to coin such a memorable analogy... |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-18-2010 11:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
That question is probably better posed to our adversaries; I don't see that we're the ones creating the problems.
And that may be well be the problem. Your adversaries could claim the same thing. quote:
To paraphrase Obama, it's hard to shake someone's hand when they're offering a clenched fist.
True. But you need to ask yourself why there's a clenched fist in the first place and does my country bear any responsibility in that. But we're veering off-course, here!  |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-19-2010 03:04 AM
Our only adversaries with manned space flight capabilities are Russia and China, and I'm not interested in getting into a moral equivalency argument about comparing the U.S. to regimes that brutalize their own people and usurp the territory of others when it pleases them. Nor am I interested in any hand-wringing exercises as to whether the U.S. may possibly "deserve" the "clenched fist" treatment from other nations either. (Perhaps when you can recite the names of other nations that have shown themselves to be more tolerant, just and respectful of human dignity than the U.S. there might be something worth debating).
|
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-19-2010 06:05 AM
Why have past U.S. administrations refused to allow China entry into the ISS programme?Yes, it could be argued that 2009 poll was done at a time of patriotic fervour. But, I have never seen one poll in which Americans want to return to the Moon more than going to Mars. I think you underestimate the intellect of your countrymen and women. They know a Mars mission will be dangerous. However, it's the idea of "boldly going where no-one has gone before" which makes Mars THE destination. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-19-2010 07:11 AM
In July 1969 two Americans landed on the Moon, coming "...in peace for all mankind." True, it was the US and not the UN flag that was planted, but this was at the insistence of the US Congress who took the attitude that we paid for it so it's our flag that should be used. Nevertheless, in international law the Moon does belong to everyone with no nation having the right to make territorial claims. Presumably this applies to Mars also.Whilst the international community might not be too bothered by 'day trips' one cannot help wondering how they would react to the establishment of a 'colony' on the Moon by just one nation. There are further implications to this, especially if mining operations for minerals are the major reason for that colony. Even a scientific base might not be looked on with any favour if the sole preserve of one nation. This would seem to suggest that a return to the Moon should be international in concept. Is it possible that this was a consideration in the Obama decision? Now the question has to be "Is the international community ready to make the dream a reality?" Probably not in my opinion, but it is a question that will have to be addressed at some point in the future. What part the US will play in this may well depend on the direction NASA chooses in the coming months and years. Perhaps, instead of lobbying Congress our attention should be directed at the UN. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-19-2010 11:01 AM
Let's steer this topic closer to its subject (there is another thread for discussion of where the U.S. should be going next).Florida Today: Bill Nelson: Manned space program isn't dead yet "I think they made two tactical mistakes that gave everybody the wrong impression," the Florida Democrat said. "The first one is that the president didn't set what the goal is, and everybody knows the goal and that's to go to Mars."The second mistake was that they said they are canceling the Constellation program. That sounds like they were canceling the manned (spaceflight) program, when in the same breath he said we're doing the research and development for a heavy lift vehicle, and they were putting all their eggs in the same basket of getting to the space station with the commercial boys." ...Nelson said Congress will help form the goals of the space program, which he insisted will include the development of a heavy-lift vehicle eventually bound for Mars. "The White House has given the perception that the manned space program has been killed, when, in fact it hasn't," said Nelson, who has been a regular lobbyist in the White House for a strong space program. "And I can tell you that we're not going to let it die. That's not the president's intention." |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-19-2010 01:21 PM
Unfortunately only the packaging of the message has changed; Constellation (i.e., a return to the moon before a manned mission to Mars) is still dead, and Nelson's remarks make it pretty clear that will NOT change.Unless there's something very credible coming along soon to convince me otherwise, to my mind any man-on Mars planning without a return to the moon first is just code language for the disestablishment of NASA as we have come to know it, i.e., the agency of American manned space flight. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-19-2010 01:29 PM
If the White House gave the perception that manned spaceflight was ending, that was not an error. Administrations do not make errors such as what Senator Nelson implies. If they, the White House, gave that perception, it is because that is what they want to do.Heavy lift? If one listened to the NASA Administrator's press conference at the Cape prior to STS-130 launch, he implied heavy lift in 15 to 20 years! That is like saying you have no intention of doing it. I hope what is left of NASA spends what little money they have wisely. That is, I hope they do not now spend money looking into technology they intend to use on a heavy lift booster they really do plan to build decades out. There is no way they can see technology changes that far in the future. That is, investigation of technologies for heavy lift should start shortly before there is real intent to build. The point here...I strongly disagree with Senator Nelson's opinion about the Obama Administration's intent. Hopefully this means he will be sure to keep a manned spaceflight program of some sort regardless of the Administration desires (and give them, NASA, the necessary funding to make it happen). |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-19-2010 02:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
If the White House gave the perception that manned spaceflight was ending, that was not an error. Administrations do not make errors such as what Senator Nelson implies. If they, the White House, gave that perception, it is because that is what they want to do.
The alternative is the White House is inept... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-19-2010 02:30 PM
Suppositions aside, Charlie Bolden said it was he who made the final call for how the plan was to be announced, and that in hindsight it was his error. Now unless someone here has solid evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to suggest he was lying. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-19-2010 02:35 PM
This administration so far has a pretty well established track record of saying something first, then when it has to recoil from the reaction, saying that we just got the communicating part wrong, we've been misunderstood but we take the blame for not being clear.They're not getting that the public is reading all of their pronouncements VERY clearly. Charlie Bolden is a good man, and a good soldier... another who'll end up with only a long scar for deciding to fall on his sword for Obama. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-19-2010 02:53 PM
You can't have it both ways: either Bolden is a good man or he is a liar.As I said, unless you have specific proof that what Bolden said was not the truth, then there is no reason to reject what he said happened. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-19-2010 03:42 PM
I believe Bolden is a good man who believes in the President, and is thus stating that he (Bolden) is taking responsibility for the miscommunication on his (Bolden's) part.I didn't mean to imply that by being a good soldier Bolden was lying for the administration. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-19-2010 03:53 PM
I don't want to harp on this, but by claiming that Bolden's words were because he "believes in the President," your response could still be read as implying that Bolden was lying (a.k.a. "taking responsibility," as if it was not his responsibility from the start, as he himself said).I suggest that unless clear evidence exists to support such, that we stop introducing beliefs into this discussion and consider what was actually said as being true. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-19-2010 04:31 PM
Perhaps I was the one not communicating clearly in this instance.When I wrote Bolden is falling on his sword, I wasn't implying (or didn't mean to) that Bolden was running cover for Obama, and thus lying in the process. Bolden wouldn't be lying if he said he believes in the President's plan, even IF Bolden thought there were other, better ways to go, and I'm not even saying Bolden does believe in other ways but the President's. The "falling on his sword" comment was to describe what I see as Bolden being the front man of an agency that, in my opinion, is doomed unless there is a walk-back of the Obama administration's current plans for NASA. |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 02-19-2010 05:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...what I see as Bolden being the front man of an agency that, in my opinion, is doomed unless there is a walk-back of the Obama administration's current plans for NASA.
I concur. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-19-2010 08:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Bolden wouldn't be lying if he said he believes in the President's plan, even IF Bolden thought there were other, better ways to go, and I'm not even saying Bolden does believe in other ways but the President's.
So I think we can agree that (a) Bolden believes in the new plan; (b) Bolden does not have a desire to destroy NASA; and (c) taking his words at face value (because we do not have any reason not to), knowing everything he does, Bolden feels we can reach Mars within his lifetime.So, the crux of the issue is not if you believe the President, but if you believe Bolden. The President sets policy (and Congress funds it) but it will fall to Bolden to implement it. Since we agree that Bolden isn't looking to end U.S. human spaceflight, then we should also agree that he believes he can succeed with the new plan and reach torward his goal: Americans on Mars within his lifetime (or more specifically, in the early to mid-2030s). If you believe Bolden is a "good man" then even if you disagree with the direction (i.e. foregoing the Moon), you cannot unilaterally dismiss the plan for NASA. You must acknowledge that Bolden, joined by others at NASA Headquarters, feel that it is a viable path forward for the space agency. So with that said, why don't we agree to drop the doom and gloom prognostications and discuss the plan (and the alternatives) with a more appropriate and reasoned response. After all, commercial crew and cargo services were started by the prior administration, as was the retirement of the space shuttle, and Moon vs. Mars is a debate that extends back for decades. Nothing that was proposed is brand new, nor should it have been, and thus the shock and anger being expressed exceeds the merits of the situation. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-19-2010 10:13 PM
I do agree some of the perceived anger expressed in recent posts has been excessive. Indeed I felt a little of that in the first couple days until I managed to send off my own letters to Congress expressing my opinions on the matter. Debate is what Congress does, this is what makes democracy somewhat unique as there are checks and balances in government. As such, a president can't make policy that sticks unless he has Congressional backing.I do believe the concerns raised are valid ones, even if the rhetoric has gotten a bit overblown. Frankly in the past week I've seen a lot of back and fourth in-fighting here were it seems like people are more intent to club other people over the head with their viewpoint. This is NOT Wrestlemania, it is not even Thunderdome from Mad Max ("two men enter, one man leave"). So I would like to ask that maybe the angry rhetoric be toned down a little bit? That being said, I think such a discussion in Congress is long overdue and maybe debating NASA's budget will produce some good as we might finally evaluate whether or not my country really wants to explore space. Personally, on further analysis I like the idea of NASA giving more support to commercial firms to shoulder more of the burden of getting cargo and people into orbit. But, I do believe it is too soon when no commercial firm has yet to fly useable cargo to the ISS on their own craft, let alone fly people. My contention has always been that things on the commercial side today are too embrionic, they need to mature. I want to see results, not just hear talk and many of these companies talk a good game as it is. But so do NFL football teams in the weeks leading up to the first game of the season as the majority say they want to win the Superbowl. At the same time, Ares Orion also needs to mature in my opinion, maybe as Constellation, maybe as something else. But I don't want to see the effort put fourth into it get tossed into a garbage can as that is a lot of good money being thrown away. The development has been slow, but the progress has been steady. If given a shot, it can be ready to fly and I think it will do well, whether it goes to the Moon or not. The original path for Constellation and COTS D was a good one IMHO with NASA doing the light lifting to the ISS first, then turning it over to the commercial firms that by then would have demonstrated they knew what they were doing with several years of cargo operations to the ISS and other things. Then NASA could focus on the heavy lifting and the exploration, going first to the Moon and then on to Mars. This is the kind of stepping stone approach that makes sense as it builds on successes and goes onward. One of the problems with the Apollo program as I see it was while it did strive to hit a specific goal within a decade, it threw a stepping stone approach out the window. Von Braun's plan as originally drawn up was to start with satellites, then a manned flight. The next logical step was a shuttle vehicle supporting a space station program as then we would gather the vital scientific data we needed before moving on to the Moon. Finally, we would go to the Moon and then on to Mars. Von Braun's plan was a cautious, measured approach. In a sense maybe it was a bit too cautious as NASA and the Soviets in the 1960s showed that many of the big problems with going to the moon weren't that big at all, so both sides took bigger and bolder steps. The US won, the Soviets didn't and went back to a more measured approach with the Salyut stations, claiming that the Moon was never their goal (not exactly true). In the meantime, the world said "The Moon, been there, done that, got the T-shirt" and most of the general public never really cared about it as they figured we learned all there was to learn from it. This is not a smart and I think we are making a mistake if we abandon the moon and just try for a hail mary pass to Mars. I think back to the Viking program and how those two landers and orbiters were supposed to find evidence of life on the Red Planet. They did not find any evidence of life and for almost two decades nobody had gone back (the Soviets tried on a few occasions and failed) and many in the scientific community considered it not worth the effort to explore. Then came along Pathfinder, other probes, then Spirit and Opportunity and they showed just what sort of secrets can be unlocked on Mars. All this data is making Mars a tempting target. But that doesn't mean the Moon shouldn't be considered, just because 12 men set foot on it already. If anything, we probably know more about certain areas of Mars from unmanned probes then we do about the Moon (albeit we know a lot about the Moon). Our close neighbor has been overlooked and it still has a lot to teach us. At the same time, if we take the measured approach and go back to the Moon to stay and do so on a regular basis, technological development improves and our knowledge base in space exploration increases. Maybe living on the Moon doesn't translate well to living on Mars, but experience is still experience. Abandoning the Moon means we also abandon possible knowledge we might gain from it that could help us on Mars. We don't know what will be found there as we don't have the answers. This is why we explore. Then in a few years commercial can take over running to and from the Moon as humanity sets sail for Mars to explore it. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-19-2010 11:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Nothing that was proposed is brand new, nor should it have been, and thus the shock and anger being expressed exceeds the merits of the situation.
As the Cheshire Cat said in Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, "if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there". That sentiment, I believe, is what may underlie Bolden's continuing optimism.But just because someone has faith in something, no matter how credible that person may be, it doesn't necessarily follow that that faith is justified. This isn't a knock on Bolden, or his faith, but just a description of the way things sometimes work. I've never said it is impossible for Obama's plan to work, or even that it may not be the best thing that could happen to our space program. All I'm saying, like many others here have, is that I don't believe in it, and I don't believe in it for many reasons that apparently don't rattle Bolden, Aldrin, Gingrich or so many others who think it's a great idea. I truly wish I could share in their optimism. I could lay out, in much greater detail, exactly why I think it (Obama's plan) will mean the end of NASA, but that would lead to a debate that is much more political than I think is advisable for this board (I'm sure you'd agree with THAT, Robert!) But since the success of NASA going forward is undoubtedly more a political question than a technological one, that is where the questions and answers lie, and where all my doubts begin. Because of that doubt I don't see any reason for me personally to go on contemplating what should come next; to paraphrase a line from the film "As Good As It Gets", "if you're drowning, what's the point in describing the water"? Yes, I see it as that dire, and I'm sorry Bolden doesn't, because in my opinion it means we'll still be throwing an awful lot of good money after bad for a long while before the final curtain comes down. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-20-2010 12:57 AM
I believe that Mr. Bolden is a good man but since the NASA administrator's job is a political one, he must support his President more than the agency. Otherwise, how could you head an agency with no clear agenda for its' "star " program -- manned spaceflight. Perhaps that is one reason why it took so long to find someone to take the job. He will likely go down in space history like many other NASA bosses -- doing the dirty work for their President. And one would think that a former astronaut would fight harder for his agency. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-20-2010 01:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
And one would think that a former astronaut would fight harder for his agency.
Is Bolden not allowed to have a different opinion than yours as to what is best for NASA? Why do you feel compelled to make excuses for him, i.e. "he must support his President more than the agency," rather than take his word that what he says is true? |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-20-2010 02:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Abandoning the Moon means we also abandon possible knowledge we might gain from it that could help us on Mars.
Nixon abandoned the Moon in 1972. NASA was nowhere near returning to it at the time of Constellation's demise. I believe in the colonisation of space as part of human expansionism. And going to Mars directly would be the biggest indicator of that. And I'm sure it have a unifying effect upon the human psyche more than can be imagined. I think a Martian fossil hunt also sounds much more cool to a layperson than studying lunar rocks. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-20-2010 03:40 AM
In the for what it is worth department:Up to this point in this thread, 76 different cS'ers have commented. Of these, 14 (18%) have left comments that must be considered neutral, 15 (20%) have left comments that must be considered either supportive or optimistic about Obama's "new-direction", and 47 (62%) have left comments that must be considered either against or pessimistic about it. (Also for what it is worth, of the former Mercury, Gemini and Apollo astronauts who've spoken up on the matter, the count so far is 6-1 against Obama's plan). While acknowledging this is a completely unscientific method of measuring total sentiment toward Obama's decision on space, I don't think it bodes well for NASA when that large a percentage of our space program's biggest supporters feel this is the wrong way to go, (especially since even if those who consider themselves indifferent or opposed to funding space exploration altogether could be counted on to turn in a higher rate of approval, such groups would only be indifferent or hostile to any future additional outlays to NASA). Fairly or not, with NASA seen to be that big of a turkey moving forward, how long before it's open hunting season? |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-20-2010 05:48 AM
There also continue to be a growing chorus of astronauts who also are opposed to the administration's chosen course of action (Scott Carpenter, Gene Cernan, Charlie Duke, Frank Borman, Harrison Schmitt).
|
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-20-2010 07:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Up to this point in this thread, 76 different cS'ers have commented. Of these, 14 (18%) have left comments that must be considered neutral, 15 (20%) have left comments that must be considered either supportive or optimistic about Obama's "new-direction", and 47 (62%) have left comments that must be considered either against or pessimistic about it.
In which category am I? I'm guessing the third one but you're the one who's keeping track! quote:
...I don't think it bodes well for NASA when that large a percentage of our space program's biggest supporters feel this is the wrong way to go
The percentage may be large but that's 62% out of 76 members, members who took the time to share their feelings about all this. I'm sure that there are many more cS members out there who just read our silly comments but don't feel like writing/sharing theirs down.Maybe there should be a mandatory poll of all members, just to see what the real percentage is.  |
Michael Davis
Member Posts: 559
From: Houston, Texas
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 02-20-2010 08:20 AM
Actually, I suspect that the poll numbers are skewed for one reason in particular. I noticed that several pages ago the posters who oppose the administration’s decision became pretty outspoken on this thread. Any posting at odds with their opinion was pounced on, quoted, attacked, and used to further expand on their own views. I suspect that a lot of cS's just didn’t want to participate anymore since the same arguments were being stated over and over again. Any optimistic thoughts on the possibility of actually properly planning a budget to get out of LEO and maybe on to Mars were ridiculed pretty quickly. Any thoughts on supporting the administrations stated strategy were dismissed outright. I would be interested in not just the number of cS's on each side of the issue, but the number of individual postings by each cS's in the thread. I think you'll find that those who opposed the policy waded in again, and again, and again... It was probably difficult to get a word in among all of that shouting. Personally, I want to see plasma engines driving us to Mars in only a few weeks. So, I'm in the optimistic camp. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-20-2010 09:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Is Bolden not allowed to have a different opinion than yours as to what is best for NASA?
Of course, Mr. Bolden can have different opinions than mine. I am not making excuses for him but it does seem logical that he knew that NASA would be taking a different direction when signed on for the job. I don't think that this vision for NASA was just presented to him one day. When we take a job with significant responsibility, don't we know in a sense which way our boss wants to take things, like a general manager of a sports team? For example, are we going to build with free agency or the draft? That's what I meant. I didn't realize that disagreeing with the powers that be in Washington was such a sensitive issue. This is just a friendly exchange of ideas -- in reality, probably none of us on this site can influence events in the capital. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-20-2010 10:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I am not making excuses for him but it does seem logical that he knew that NASA would be taking a different direction when signed on for the job. I don't think that this vision for NASA was just presented to him one day.
Bolden was nominated administrator in May 2009 (he was confirmed in July); the Augustine Committee held its first meeting in June 2009. As the latter was purposely founded to provide the President options for NASA, Bolden knew the President was reviewing the agency's status but did not know the results of the committee's work until two month later. From September through February, the White House (OMB) and NASA Headquarters worked to adapt the committee's findings into a forward plan for the agency. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-20-2010 01:23 PM
The Economist: The Americans may still go to the moon before the Chinese The original Apollo project was mainly a race to prove the superiority of American capitalism over Soviet communism. Capitalism won -- but at the cost of creating, in NASA, one of the largest bureaucracies in American history. If the United States is to return to the moon, it needs to do so in a way that is demonstrably superior to the first trip -- for example, being led by business rather than government. Engaging in another government-driven spending battle, this time with the Chinese, will do nothing more than show that America has missed the point. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-20-2010 01:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Davis:
Actually, I suspect that the poll numbers are skewed for one reason in particular.
I tried to make clear (by flat out stating so!) that the stats I was citing didn't constitute a scientific poll for (at least) the reasons mentioned.And I had considered Michael's points about the possibility/probability of those more optimistic not chiming in out of not wanting to feel "overwhelmed" by the "naysayers". For what it is worth, I don't think it's quite fair to characterize the "againsts" as so "boorish" -- to the point of claiming it was "...difficult to get a word in among all of that shouting." I don't see that there was any name-calling or disparaging of points or comments running contrary to the majority, but I'm sincerely sorry if you feel I contributed to such an intimidating atmosphere. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-20-2010 04:04 PM
Can we soon reach a consensus opinion - my bum is getting sore sitting on the fence.  |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1625
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 02-21-2010 12:35 AM
Personally, I'd look forward to a member poll... I believe there'd be a good many international posters who've said nothing out of respect for the fact that this is (essentially) a U.S. based decision.Nonetheless, I'd like to see the results, perhaps split into American and "other" viewpoints. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-21-2010 12:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Dixon:
Personally, I'd look forward to a member poll...
Once STS-130 lands and I get a chance to get back onto a semi-normal schedule, I'll pull together a poll. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-21-2010 08:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Dixon:
I believe there'd be a good many international posters who've said nothing out of respect for the fact that this is (essentially) a U.S. based decision.
If there's one country that can make us dream, space-wise it's the US. Europe has yet to be unified in some way (don't laugh), Russia has to nowhere to go without the ISS, China is in no hurry to develop its space program and we can only hope to have a live feed whenever they'll be doing something. I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of all international members but as far as I'm concerned, the US holds the cards. And that's why I care. Or at least used to. Now if the US leaves the table, well... |
Topic Closed
advertisement