endeavors? Why?
I have a problem with the U.S. being reliant for other countries in the coming years for transportation into space. That is relinquishing a until now dominance of space exploration. It gives up the independence of doing what we need to do when we need to do it. We are destined to "rent" a ride from countries who will have their own space agenda, funded in part by US astronauts "renting" a ride.

We will be surrendering in the short term the advantages and technologies that come from the development of space hardware and software. Not to mention being placed on the "taxi" countries time table instead of ours.

As is typical with this administration, Obama has espoused a concept of private development with no guidelines or objectives. Just let private industry sort it out. NASA was and should remain the focal point of the US continuation of space exploration. Private industries job, as it has been, is to provide hardware and software that meets projects, programs, expectations, time tables and objectives established/dictated by NASA.

Private industry space development will not have the same objectives or the same vision.

I believe this is another example of Obama's short sighted and lack of management capability by not setting the expectation just as Kennedy did when he set the direction for accomplishments in space during his day.
Once again he has articulated an anecdotal description how our mission could be accomplished by other means.....third parties....whether US private industry or other countries.

We would be handing a leadership role to countries who in the past have not been on the friendliest of terms with the US. What makes anybody think that they now can be relied upon to take care of our needs in space, for the foreseeable future?

There must be leadership....responsibility...accountability by NASA or another agency DEDICATED to the US needs and objectives in space. LEADERSHIP, RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY...traits I personally find absent in Obama's requisites to date.

Another step towards second place or less status in the world. What a shame.

btk

No, I would much prefer to have our own robust U.S. space program.

But, yes, I agree with the decision. This is just one of what will become a long, long string of changes in the U.S. because we simply can't afford to continue to fund this kind of program. If we are to even come remotely close to balancing the federal budget, there will have to be lots more visible and emotionally-charged spending cuts than this one.

By the way, we won't be totally reliant on the Russians. As I understood the decision, that will be only until 2015. I think the plan is that by then the space program, or a large part of it, will be privatized.

What does that mean? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess that the federal government would provide some "seed money" for research and maybe agree to turn over some facilities to private companies. I'd be pretty sure that whatever documentation that underlies this decision will outline what it means. But whether or not the space program continues would depend on whether the private sector could see some economic benefit in investing in the program. Like anything else in the private sector, if private companies can see a way to make a profit, they'll invest. If not, they won't. Kind of takes all the politics out of the equation, doesn't it?

Am I missing something, but I can't figure out why this Administration wants to privitize the U.S.A. space program but "govermentize" our health care.

Go Figure???
_

NASA is a flawed agency.

NASA is also the incubator of our heroes.

There's a rumor going around that Obama will bring back the Orion (space capsule) part of the slated-to-be-cancelled Constellation program. This will save jobs and keep the money spent on Orion from being wasted.

Going down the list of what was in Constellation..

Ares I - almost a complete waste of money, though I didn't say that when the program started. What has changed in the meantime? SpaceX, founded by PayPal founder Elon Musk (who also founded Tesla Motors). SpaceX is currently flying their Falcon 1 rocket and is about to fly the Falcon 9. Their Dragon capsule is going to be ferrying supplies up to the ISS via a contract with NASA. This is technology that is working NOW. The Ares I-X cost billions more, was smaller, wasn't even the final Ares I design, took longer and was, in many ways, a failure when compared to the Falcon. Replacing the Ares I with Falcon is good, prudent and far more efficient. Musk says they can adapt the Dragon module to be man-rated (it was designed to be modified) in very little time, if NASA wants to hire them to do it.

Ares V - The "Heavy Lift Vehicle". Obama says to continue funding for a HLV but, so far, didn't mention the Ares V. I can't really comment on this except to say that SpaceX is preparing the Falcon 9 Heavy.

Orion - the capsule. Appears to be saved. Might be used as an emergency evacuation vehicle for the ISS, from what I'm reading. I don't know how a man-rated Dragon would impact this but competition would be good. Keep in mind that Orion was designed to go not only to the ISS but to the moon as well.

Antares - the Lunar Lander. Apparently cancelled but today's meeting might shed some new light on it.

You say private industry doesn't have the same vision - well, I submit that Elon Musk might very well have it. He's filling a need and stepping up to the plate to volunteer to make the committment to fill the gap in getting astronauts to the ISS. I think it would cost the treasury less for him to do it rather than NASA or even Boeing or Lockheed.

You may not have heard much about Elon Musk (unless you're a real space fan like myself). But I think you WILL be.

Oh - and the Falcon 1? That rocket has already delivered satellites into orbit. He's already started getting his payloads up there.

I'm very much AGAINST us losing our capabilities in space exploration and exploitation. Google the YouTube video from when Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently talked at the University of Buffalo. My feelings are quite well summed up by that.

Originally Posted by billethkid

endeavors? Why?
I have a problem with the U.S. being reliant for other countries in the coming years for transportation into space. That is relinquishing a until now dominance of space exploration. It gives up the independence of doing what we need to do when we need to do it. We are destined to "rent" a ride from countries who will have their own space agenda, funded in part by US astronauts "renting" a ride.

We will be surrendering in the short term the advantages and technologies that come from the development of space hardware and software. Not to mention being placed on the "taxi" countries time table instead of ours.

As is typical with this administration, Obama has espoused a concept of private development with no guidelines or objectives. Just let private industry sort it out. NASA was and should remain the focal point of the US continuation of space exploration. Private industries job, as it has been, is to provide hardware and software that meets projects, programs, expectations, time tables and objectives established/dictated by NASA.

Private industry space development will not have the same objectives or the same vision.

I believe this is another example of Obama's short sighted and lack of management capability by not setting the expectation just as Kennedy did when he set the direction for accomplishments in space during his day.
Once again he has articulated an anecdotal description how our mission could be accomplished by other means.....third parties....whether US private industry or other countries.

We would be handing a leadership role to countries who in the past have not been on the friendliest of terms with the US. What makes anybody think that they now can be relied upon to take care of our needs in space, for the foreseeable future?

There must be leadership....responsibility...accountability by NASA or another agency DEDICATED to the US needs and objectives in space. LEADERSHIP, RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY...traits I personally find absent in Obama's requisites to date.

Another step towards second place or less status in the world. What a shame.

btk

Same old, same old. Your hatred of the President leads you, as usual, to jump to any negative conclusion you can possibly dream up.

Did you read the proposal that the 'rent-a-ride' is temporary, and likely a huge cost savings? What the heck do you know about the guidelines which are being EXPLORED for privatizing segments of the space program? How do you know they are shortsighted? Do you know more than Buzz Aldrin for example? He has endorsed every element of the President's suggestions.

It takes some guts to even suggest new directions for the largely revered space program. Naturally some NASA employees will experience job shifts or even lose their jobs to a whole new batch of bright new space geeks itching to go in the newer directions. So if you just listen to those who fear change you will miss the point of this effort and simply help support the expensive status quo. Fear of change and the unknown is not how we've arrived where we are, from Kennedy's pipe dreams to the present. Good leadership means proposing, questioning, and displaying willingness to change, and ignoring those who will do anything to twist your ideas around and try to bash you with them.
Set aside your total bias for a moment and try to look at something the administration is working on with an open mind.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

Set aside your total bias for a moment and try to look at something the administration is working on with an open mind.

That's funny. If this guy said the moon is made from chese, you guys would agree.

For those with partisan thinking only, maybe it is same o same o. That is not what drives my assessment of Obama or anybody else in Washington. I know it is difficult for some of the opposition to even think that way....as I said you are entitled, but your allegation about the basis for this thread or any other opinion you refer to is wrong.

Of course we know the "taxi" is temporary!!! Is that supposed to make it OK? Well it does not for me as well as a lot of the people in the space and related businesses.

I said last year I would reserve judgment on Obama until his first state of the union address. My opinion, along with many others, is he did not and is not fulfilling the promises made during his campaign. He has not stepped out and changed Washington one bit. If you really want to talk about same old same old, how about addressing his not doing business in Washington for the better, as promised. In fact he has brought what some refer to as the Chicago style back room politics to the equation. Get er done no matter what it takes (really....NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES!!!) and oh by the way hurry up.

VK I understand the budgeting issues....however the continuation of space exploration as a national priority, to me is no different than budgeting for a war. Some how or another this country, when it was half the population could play what ever war game was on the screen at the time as well as play catch up in space and leap frog the the lead position as we should be.
There is no doubt in my mind it could be again. Unfortunately the budget is a meaningless measure for the government. They have arbitrarily chosen to ignore it (due today as a matter of fact) since there is so much unknown in it....and most importantly there is far too much embarassing information in it they do not want to address going into the campaign season. Isn't that convenient? The budget is not what drives an issue or not in Washington. It is the politics.

NASA is a failed organization? Sounds like partisan rhetoric to me. Maybe it needs to be fixed in some regards....not shut down.

I hold Obama accountable no differently than I did any executive who ever worked for me. And if they were not cutting it, I was not/am not one to pussy foot around. One owns the job and ALL that goes with it from day one.

And, ijusluvit, I never knew what their party was nor did I care then. I did not care then what color or religion they were either. My assessment of Obama doing the job is based in the same fashion. I know that is disappointing and difficult for partisan minded people to grasp.

btk

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av8FdVGvnIA&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

IMHO, there are many interesting facets to this discussion. Not to say NASA has not been a hellofagood thing. But it shows what happens in the long-term when government gets too involved in free market enterprise. Different people have different values and ideas on what is important. This discussion proves that.

The letter, signed by 27 people, including 21 former astronauts, veterans of the Apollo, Mercury, Gemini, and space shuttle programs saying the president is “throwing away” America’s dominance in human spaceflight after “50 years of unparalleled achievement" shows this. Support of Obama's plans by Sally Ride and Buzz Aldrin shows this.

It is what happens when a federal government, which produces nothing on it's own, instead controls and is put in charge of "running something" instead of keeping it's place established by the US Constitution. A new President and representatives are elected, things can change. When the government representatives control monies for enterprises like NASA, this too can change.

I'm afraid of Obama's socialist leanings and his eagerness for a one world government nanny system and what his changes to NASA may mean. I don't like that he is wanting to give more funding for NASA's Earth Science Division. Not that there is anything wrong that division, unless it is to study global warming and carbon changes. We know where that is headed.

In 1915, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was formed as a government agency by President Woodrow Wilson. It purpose, "to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution, and to determine the problems which should be experimentally attacked and to discuss their solution and their application to practical questions."

Looking at history, which we must do, Orville Wright was appointed to the board of this agency. I love the fact that two private citizens, publishers of their own newspaper, without any government assistance, got us where we are today.

billthekid: Just in case you were referring to my original comment, I said NASA is a *flawed* agency, not a 'failed' one. "Go fever" and dropping the ball (occasionally) on safety issues along with a lack of vision and leadership (which is what should come from whatever administration is in power, followed by FUNDING, otherwise it's all empty rhetoric).

Originally Posted by tpop1

Am I missing something, but I can't figure out why this Administration wants to privitize the U.S.A. space program but "govermentize" our health care.

Go Figure???
_

Good question.