You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Does Bush just want to get votes from people when he says that we should go back to the moon or is this real?
Offline
IF this new space plan is just an "election year stunt," it looks like it's backfiring. 60% of America would rather spend more money on social programs instead of having a robust and exciting space program.
My guess is that Columbia was a much bigger factor than re-election when this policy was hammered out. My sources tell me that the CAIB report in August really prompted the president to ask Sean O'Keefe and others to put together a plan for exploring space. Of course, the original plan of retiring the Shuttle in 2003 and aggressively exploring the moon was rejected, but NASA and the White House put together a plan that reflected the broad concensus on Capitol Hill.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
IF this new space plan is just an "election year stunt," it looks like it's backfiring. 60% of America would rather spend more money on social programs instead of having a robust and exciting space program.
My guess is that Columbia was a much bigger factor than re-election when this policy was hammered out. My sources tell me that the CAIB report in August really prompted the president to ask Sean O'Keefe and others to put together a plan for exploring space. Of course, the original plan of retiring the Shuttle in 2003 and aggressively exploring the moon was rejected, but NASA and the White House put together a plan that reflected the broad concensus on Capitol Hill.
Perhaps space advocates should lobby John Kerry to propose retiring shuttle before it flies again and pursuing an aggresive exploration agenda based on the budget numbers Bush has just proposed.
(He claims he will do more with the same money. . .)
Kerry can give his plan a NASA-ESA multi-lateral spin (to satisfy his party) and adopting a more aggressive space policy would allow him to "appear" more to the right without really spending much money, given the big picture.
Kerry could posture/spin about doing whats best for America regardless of the poll numbers.
Since Kerry's space policy varies between "incoherent" and "I don't have one" it seems to me we would be working with a blank slate. Besides, some bi-partisan consensus will be needed as a "Bush space plan" could well be DOA in January 2009, unless we amend the Constitution to allow a 3rd term.
Offline
There are more ways to secure a third term than just relying on 'us' to change the Constitution. Afterall, you need to have an election to have a new president... when do elections get postponed? Nevermind, enough of the cynical conspiracy view.
If any Democratic canadite adopts the tag-line, "Bush:Space Policy, not enough"; he is basically making a campaign promise- so there HAS to be results, or NASA not doing something is all his fault, he also would create an atmosphere for comparisons to be generated- which plan is best... it also means he can't harp on the Space Policy as misdirected government spending, since he is in essence agreeing that it is worthwhile. That dosen't get heard, and the polls don't support the position.
Just a frank assessment. I wish it were otherwise.
Offline
I have yet to hear anything from any of the Dem candidates about space programs, and my hopes for good plans from them are not big.
I wish President Bush would just say "hey, let's ease regulations and encourage private sector spaceflight!"
[url=http://nightskylive.com]Night Sky Live Project[/url]
[url=http://apod.nasa.gov]Astronomy Picture of the Day[/url]
Offline
Where does the money come from for Bush's space plan?
Offline
What money? And what plan?? Bush has essentially said: "I'm directing NASA to do new things like go to the moon in the next decade and mars in the next lifetime. Here is my lunch money for the job. Have a nice day".
Face it: Bush's "space plan" is empty and it's an insult to all of us. There is no money for anything. There is no direction or plan whatsoever. The plan was dead after he finished his press conference and was just something to talk about during an election year. I'm so angry with him it's incredible.
Danny------> MontrealRacing.com
Offline
What money? And what plan?? Bush has essentially said: "I'm directing NASA to do new things like go to the moon in the next decade and mars in the next lifetime. Here is my lunch money for the job. Have a nice day".
Face it: Bush's "space plan" is empty and it's an insult to all of us. There is no money for anything. There is no direction or plan whatsoever. The plan was dead after he finished his press conference and was just something to talk about during an election year. I'm so angry with him it's incredible.
The bush space plan is being pushed out of proportion to what it is. Its a mission statement, mission statements are well known in the corporate world but non existant in politics and the governments. Its not heres a ton of money and this is what we are going to do.
Its more of here is what we are going to "try" to accomplish with the available resources and "what" we are not going to try to do.
After Columbia, Nasa needed just that, the most important piece is the redirection of funds from the ISS/LEO and towards a more focused abjective.
I wonder if the next shuttle launch would of been pushed back to 2005 if this plan wasn't proposed, if the ISS was the sole focus would there have been pressure on nasa to accelerate that schedule.
Like a company in chapter 11 reorg, nasa has been given some breathing room to restructure and make wise decisions. Some key events this month show that maybe there's some substance to the plan.
1) push back of the shuttle launch to 2005
2) conversations with the navy about joint development of the reactor for project jimo, they have much experience in that direction.
3) serious discussion about using Shutttle C to launch prometheus.
If your implying that Kerry would do any thing positive for the space program maybe there IS something empty headed headed around here.
portal.holo-spot.net
Offline
wgc writes:
1) push back of the shuttle launch to 2005
2) conversations with the navy about joint development of the reactor for project jimo, they have much experience in that direction.
3) serious discussion about using Shutttle C to launch prometheus.
IMHO, this vision is better advanced by using orbiter + shuttle C to finish ISS. 6 orbiter flights and 6 shuttle C flights equals 24 orbiter flights and America will possess HLLV by 2010 or 2011. If we move in this direction, I will be far more encouraged that the Bush vision will actually get us somewhere.
While our dear friend [http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04d.html]Jeffrey Bell is probably wrong about the President's intentions, the possibility does exist (albeit remote?) that the orbiter will be grounded and CEV delayed and all human spaceflight by Americans limited to military needs only.
If your implying that Kerry would do any thing positive for the space program maybe there IS something empty headed headed around here.
Whether or not Kerry has any space vision (probably not) unless America has a bi-partisan space policy, it won't survive the next transition in political power. Ownership of the vision must be spread as widely as possible rather than seeking a "Pied Piper" to lead us to the promised land.
Offline
The Bush vision of Jan. 14 is a statement of a goal. The ball is now in NASA's court to come up with a plan to meet that goal. Remember back to 1989. First the president set the goal, then NASA got back to him in 90 days of how it could be done (with a very conservative estimate being $450 bil.) Fast forward to 2004. Pete Aldrich and the rest of the study panel have been given 120 days to essentially repeat what was done in the 90-day plan.
This "history repeats itself" approach sounds cynical, but I still have some faith that it can be accomplished. For starters, we hopefully have learned that we need to be realistic about what we can accomplish for a given amount of money, and we won't frighten the public with numbers like $450 billion. Even $50 billion for NASA's 1993 plan sounds large, but the public will buy into it if they are told what the (low) yearly spending levels will be, what miniscule fraction of the GDP it represents, and how much it will cost the average taxpayer.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
The Bush vision of Jan. 14 is a statement of a goal. The ball is now in NASA's court to come up with a plan to meet that goal. Remember back to 1989. First the president set the goal, then NASA got back to him in 90 days of how it could be done (with a very conservative estimate being $450 bil.) Fast forward to 2004. Pete Aldrich and the rest of the study panel have been given 120 days to essentially repeat what was done in the 90-day plan.
This "history repeats itself" approach sounds cynical, but I still have some faith that it can be accomplished. For starters, we hopefully have learned that we need to be realistic about what we can accomplish for a given amount of money, and we won't frighten the public with numbers like $450 billion. Even $50 billion for NASA's 1993 plan sounds large, but the public will buy into it if they are told what the (low) yearly spending levels will be, what miniscule fraction of the GDP it represents, and how much it will cost the average taxpayer.
If we see the January 14th speech as the first step of a long journey, I agree completely. I also agree with this quote from Chairman Aldridge at the first commission meeting:
"I think the biggest stumbling block is ensuring sustainability. The continuation of support for such a program has to survive multiple presidencies, multiple Congresses, [and] multiple generations," Edward "Pete" Aldridge, the commission?s chairman, said after the panel?s first public meeting. "If we can?t do that, we will achieve what we have achieved in the past ? spikes and valleys in space budgets subject to the whims of the political leaders of the time."
We need to establish a broad base of ownership for the space vision the Aldridge commission is working on. Forging the political consensus to survive January 2009 and January 2013 and January 2017 is the mission critical task. This cannot be done by bashing Democrats. For better or worse, they must be wooed.
Part of why I favor shuttle C for ISS complation is that we will have created institutional inertia by virtue of our possessing a deployed HLLV system come 2010. Especially since Prometheus may well need shuttle C. Folding a 50 meter vessel into a Delta IV payload fairing (or two) will not be easy.
If 2011 arrives, and we have finished ISS with the orbiter, and CEV is delayed and zero work has been done on shuttle C or any other HLLV and we have a Democrat in the White House, a window exists to simply cancel humans in space.
If shuttle C is already flying come 2009 or 2010, it will be that much harder for a Democrat President to scrap the space program and lay off all those workers in Florida and Louisiana. If orbiter is terminated and shuttle C is flying and ISS is complete, what is there for shuttle C to do except support humans to the Moon, and later Mars?
Suppose its 2010 or 2011 (President Bush is off in Crawford writing memoirs after two terms in office) and CEV hasn't yet carried a human into space and no work has been done on shuttle C and the orbiter is further aged and deteriorated and unsafe there might be real temptation to roll all the STS savings into domestic programs.
Offline
I think Jimo might be the savoir for shuttle C, rather than a slow sprial up from leo, they want to put it into a higher orbit from the start.
there's one more factor here, what about the international community, both the esa and china have announced new plans.
I always find it quite astonding you get these democratic candidates up there and they talk about rebuilding jobs, putting americans back to work. But at the same time they propose cutting back on basic research and exploration.
Where do the future jobs come from. Advanced physics and research.
The way the progression is supposed to work, is as the new industrial powers develop , they take over the older technologies abandoned by the more advanced powers.
ie. automobiles and steel are replaced by adavanced metalurgy, electronics, high energy systems and selling of launch systems.
Than those techs are replaced by revenue from even newer areas.
Doesn't work that way much anymore.
I'm happy to see the JIMO program being refered to as a test bed for developing the advanced systems for future perhaps manned exploration. Just as the Nautilus was the testbed for advanced ballistic missile submarines. Incidentally do we still need such a large ballistic missile force, could not some of that money to repurposed to social programs rather than every picking on the meager sums invested in the space program .
portal.holo-spot.net
Offline
My feeling on JIMO is that it's ideally suited for a shuttle orbiter mission, per NASA's policy of assembling space reactors from sub-critical components after achieving orbit. Of course, JIMO won't launch before 2015, but there are some people in NASA who are trying to get a stay of execution on flying the shuttle past 2010.
Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin? Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.
Offline
Anybody have any idea what this is about?[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-8.html]Statement by the President
-- memento mori
Offline
It appears to be a means of getting NASA out of its present rut: "The Act strengthens the ability of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to manage effectively the NASA personnel upon whom the future successes of America's civil space program depend." Said personnel weren't properly focused, I assume. Sounds okay to me, as long as it makes 'em pull up their socks and get their act together.
Offline
Just sounds a bit scary - that bit about "withhold[ing] information"
Well at least the White House is doing something in follow-up to the nice speech.
-- memento mori
Offline
Pages: 1