ANGRY AT NASA!

[beblebrox]

Space used to be beyond politics.

Wrong, it was always about politics. The whole reason behind the space race for example was politically motivated, the only damn reason we went to the moon is to show our technological superiority to the Russians as it was deemed strategically important to do so. Once we realized not only had we won, but that they had no chance in hell in catching up. Well, we gave up.

Well I meant politics in the sense of Democrat v. Republican each playing gotcha on the other, opposing one another in knee jerk ideological lock step simply because the other side suggested it.

If you mean politics as in international Cold War politics, well yes, it was the epitome of politics in that sense. however, no one in congress really disagreed as to the necessity of Mercury, Gemini, and then Apollo. There may have been arguing as to the amount of funding, or whose congressional district would get what contract, but overall it was a national goal we all pretty much agreed with, even if it was all about beating those pesky Soviets.

My commentary was more about the domestic complacency. perhaps in a sense, you are right. maybe we need to whip up some good old fashioned fear over the Chinese beating us or something. I don't know. I just know that we need to be in space pushing forther and further out, and if it takes a bit of national pride, or paranoia if you will, then so be it. all i know is it keeps feeling like we are sliding further and further back.

 

[clint_dreamer]

Re: ANGRY AT NASA! Yes I am. Not the Gov't. NASA!

I do NOT get it. Spacex develops completely new technology from the ground up for a fraction of the cost of NASA. NASA should be run like a for profit company and not rely on Congress. Simply build the best vehicle for the best cost and have Congress pay for rides to the ISS, the moon, Mars, whatever congress deems in the nations best interest.

Elon Musk, Richard Branson, and other visionary entrepreneurs can make a profit and break technological barriers accessing the last frontier. Why can't NASA. Sell the results NASA, not the R&D. And conduct yourself like an efficient, profit-seeking corporate citizen and we will all be better off.

Guess what, Space X has lost two customers for the Falcon 9 so far and has only had TWO successful launches with the Falcon 1. After three failures where they promptly destroyed the payload. Elon Musk has barely begun to run a successful satellite launching company.

Richard Branson? What does he have to do with anything? He had nothing to do with Spaceshipone, and as for spaceshiptwo, they're making a profit already without even having left the earth yet? Impressive! :roll:

It just irritates me that so many people have blinders on when it comes to private industry and space. Especially when they've barely done anything yet. Not that I don't wish them all the best in the world, but lets be realistic people.

100% agreed. There are tons of articles and posts written about the future of NASA, the Ares rockets, the constellation program, and the popular thing to write in responce is what about SpaceX, or something clever about prepping the Dragon for human launches. Honestly I wouldn't let SpaceX launch any type of payload at this point. I have watched a few of their launches and the majority of them end in disaster. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see them succeed as a company but there are many many years and many many launches before they become a dependable alternative to NASA. Keep up the great work but there is a long way to go.

 

[Booban]

I am not angry at NASA, but rather, our politicians who have made really bad choices over the years. First, it was a terrible mistake to invest billions in developing the Apollo program, only to abandon that capability. There were never any cost savings associated with cancellation of Apollo.

Instead, NASA is driven by money special interests that keep the contract dollars flowing their way. As such, to the politicians, NASA is not about obtaining new discoveries and knowledge, but by keeping the right contractors happy, so that campaign cash and support flow their way.

The entire system is corrupt, starting at the very top and always has been. Until we, the American people, wake up and stop electing "leaders" that value money and power over what is right for this nation, then we will continue to get more of the same.

For the same budget NASA has had all these years, Apollo could have kept going with 2 to 3 missions a year to the Moon, and eventually, we could have gone to Mars with Apollo technology. The Saturn V was big enough to launch the components needed to go to Mars.

The key element in anything successful is consistency. When you have the technology that works, do not throw it away as we did with Apollo, but instead, keep it, use it, refine it, and evolve it.

Our nation was foolish for throwing away Apollo. The name of Neil Armstrong will be remembered 5,000 years from now, but President Nixon and Congressional members who decided to throw Apollo away will have long been forgotten, and in my view, for good reason.

Spot on analysis, well done. Couldn't agree with that statement anymore.
...
I highly respect and admire NASA for what it has contributed to space exploration and humanity. I fault the politicians and leadership in this country for not rallying the people and contributing more to NASA. NASA has done a decent job with the funding it's had. What we need is a change in thinking, and this starts at the top. Bush or Obama, it doesn't matter, same thing. They are both short-sighted and self-serving politicans who don't provide anywhere near the caliber leadership we need to be on the offensive in this country in any field, let alone space exploration.

But now the shuttle is being thrown away. I don't know if it can be 'refined', but why not. I thought the major problem was that it was trying to do too many things, the bells and whistles that were added as usual.

A simple resuable return vehicle can't be so hard. Just like the Apollo capsule, but with little wings for instance.

 

[seanmurro]

I would have to agree with mr_mark on this one..Im a big fan of space exploration and would be a disaster if the funding was cut in anyway, its very frustrating then when they pump all of our money into going to War and so called national defense when it could be put to better use...

 

[mr_mark]

Ok, Now I'm officially mad and not just mad, I'm over the top mad. I just sat through a day of listening to a bunch of bureaucrats trying to dismantle NASA's space plans (Augustine Commission). What a joke this group is! I don't know whether to be mad at NASA for it's lack of direction or the Augustine Commission's audacity at knowing what's best for America's space needs. I have one question, Are any of these people familiar with all of these launch systems? Are any of these people engineers? I think I have more engineering experience than any of these people and I'm a sound engineer. Now they propose to waist billions (14 billion to be exact) of taxpayer dollars and Nasa's time by trying to stop the Ares project and start with a new rocket design from scratch. You do these people think they are? They are crazy! Sally ride I love ya but you are not doing Nasa and America any favors.

 

[DoctorJeff]

My bigger picture and unfortunately I'm sure controversial take on the panel deliberations, at the new SDC bloggers area:

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=19403

 

[DoctorJeff]

Regarding the WH panel on NASA's Human Space Flight options-

I'd like to weigh in on what I think needs to be the fundamental strategic driver. Can I redirect you to the **NEW** SDC blogger's section? And by all means pass along its existence to the community. Let the darts and arrows fly!

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=19403

 

[JonClarke]

Ok, Now I'm officially mad and not just mad, I'm over the top mad.

Cool it, this is just an internet forum.

I just sat through a day of listening to a bunch of bureaucrats trying to dismantle NASA's space plans (Augustine Commission). [/quote]

Since the Commission has not yet finished listening to submissions or made it's report you are making a huge assumption here as to what they will say.

Most of its members are not bureaucrats and all are highly qualified to take part.

What a joke this group is! I don't know whether to be mad at NASA for it's lack of direction or the Augustine Commission's audacity at knowing what's best for America's space needs.

Wjy is the Commission a joke? Who would you chose for such a Commission?

If NASA has a lack of direction blame its political masters not the agency. Government agencies can only enact the will of the government.

The Commission audacious for knowing what is best for America's space needs? Do do realise they are not a self appointed group? You are aware that they are highly qualified people with long experience in the space sector who have solicited input across the entire spectrum?

I have one question, Are any of these people familiar with all of these launch systems? Are any of these people engineers? I think I have more engineering experience than any of these people and I'm a sound engineer. Now they propose to waist billions (14 billion to be exact) of taxpayer dollars and Nasa's time by trying to stop the Ares project and start with a new rocket design from scratch. You do these people think they are? They are crazy!

You appear to be ignorant of the make up of the Augustine Commission. Let me remind you.

CHAIRMAN
Norman R. Augustine
Retired Chairman and CEO, Lockheed Martin Corp.
Former member of the President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush

MEMBERS
Dr. Wanda M. Austin
President and CEO of The Aerospace Corp.

Bohdan Bejmuk
Chair of Constellation program Standing Review Board
Former Manager of the Boeing Space Shuttle and Sea Launch programs

Dr. Leroy Chiao
Former Astronaut
Former International Space Station Commander and Engineering Consultant

Dr. Christopher Chyba
Professor of Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs, Princeton University
Member of President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

Dr. Edward F. Crawley
Ford Professor of Engineering at MIT
Co-chair of NASA Exploration Technology Development Program Review Committee

Jeff Greason
Co-founder and CEO of XCOR Aerospace
Vice-chair of Personal Spaceflight Federation

Dr. Charles F. Kennel
Chair of National Academies Space Studies Board
Director and Distinguished Professor, Emeritus at
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

General (ret.) Lester L. Lyles
Chair of National Academies Committee on the Rationale and Goals of the U.S. Civil Space Program
Former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff and Former Commander of the Air Force Materiel Command

Dr. Sally Ride
Former Astronaut, First American Woman in Space
CEO of Sally Ride Science and Professor Emerita
University of California, San Diego

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL (DFO)
Phil McAlister
Special Assistant for Program Analysis
Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation
NASA Headquarters

I'll take your word for it you are a competent engineer, but you will need a bit less emition and more reason to make your case that the Commission is not a body well equipped and well informed to carry out its task.

Sally ride I love ya but you are not doing Nasa and America any favors.

She is not in the business of doing favours.

Jon

 

[Booban]

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html

http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19441

Has anyone read this? If you want to know why they are dropping Ares 1 just read that. The dude Augustine is from Lockheed and is recommending NASA do what Lockheed is already doing, backing another dog. This is no coincidence and is blatantly a conflict of interest. Are the recommendations really sensible or the motivations perhaps just all made up in order for "you scratch my back I scratch yours" business? Why would I not be surprised if Augustine is soon sitting on Bigelows board of directors.

 

[docm]

It doesn't take a 'conspiracy' to get Ares I canceled, that carcass had been stinking for over a year before the Augustine panel was formed. As for Ares I-X, it's time for that hangar queen to be sold for scrap or sent to The Museum Of Poorly Executed Government Programs. It's now irrelevant and continuing with it is yet another waste of resources.

Personally I think a nexus of Bigelow, LockMart and SpaceX has tons of potential for LEO operations, and perhaps beyond. If they can make a case for such activities, let them do it without yelling about conspiracies. NASA's certainly blown their shot at it over the last 30 years & heaven forbid anyone mention the revolving door between it and ATK.

Sure they come up with good concepts, but the problem is no follow through. Then these things end up being developed under Space Act contracts or bought outright. Then there is VASIMR, a project that deserved much more support than it ever got. Good for Chang-Diaz that he took it private.

Look at Bigelow. Sure he bought the TransHab tech from NASA, but since then he's scored a rather long list of patents enhancing that tech. Just balloons in space? Not hardly, especially with his mods. Look 'em up.

I'm glad he got the tech, which IMO is a great idea with potential for being used for more than space stations - habs for deep space missions etc. At least with him it's not as likely to be just a footnote in some NASA history book.

 

[JonClarke]

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html

http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=19441

Has anyone read this? If you want to know why they are dropping Ares 1 just read that.

Since the Commission has not delivered its report yet this is an assumption on your part.

The dude Augustine is from Lockheed and is recommending NASA do what Lockheed is already doing, backing another dog. This is no coincidence and is blatantly a conflict of interest. Are the recommendations really sensible or the motivations perhaps just all made up in order for "you scratch my back I scratch yours" business? Why would I not be surprised if Augustine is soon sitting on Bigelows board of directors.

And how are you going to find Commissioners that have the required expertise who don't have connections that mioght be construed as "conflict of interest"?

That is why connections are made public and the people involved are from diverse backgrounds to ensure that there is not undue influence.

Jon

 

[ZenGalacticore]

What can I say, NASA has had no direction since the end of the Apollo program. From the almost useless shuttle program, to a low flying, super expensive space station, it has been one disappointment after another. Of course some of the the robotic missions were very successful, but there should have been many more of these to compensate for the woeful lack of progress in manned space flight.

Then again, maybe it is China and India's turn to take the technological lead for humanity, and leave the Western World behind ...

What makes you seriously think that China and India can any more afford serious- beyond low Earth orbit- manned missions into outer-space?

Oh my brothers and sisters, sons and daughters!! What lack of faith in the United States you do possess!!!!!

That's right. Lack of Faith!!! Lack of Reason goes without saying!!!!!!!!!!

And if ye be from the younger generations, well, DO IT YOURSELF, YOU PUNKS!!! See what you can do on our shoulders and quit blaming the American People, NASA, and your forebears!

In my opinion, NASA has done an outstanding job for the last fifty years considering its relatively PALTRY budget! You kids do better, otherwise stop yacking and start packing!! Do something yourselves and stop negatively criticizing those who blazed the trail for you!

Get off your video games and your keyboards; learn a "Field" science or arts discipline; get involved; take action; the future is YOU!

 

[vulture4]

>>instead of visionary explorers who are willing to go over the heads of the President and Congress and go directly to the American public to try and convince and inspire them as to why we need to be heading out into our solar system, and eventually to the stars.

Sorry, but this is unrealistic. The American public is mainly interested in tax cuts.

 

[mr_mark]

Booban, thanks for the great reply. It seems alot of people here really do not understand the politics of business. Thankfully you do. This whole thing stinks to high heaven of scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. We all know where this is heading. A design will be chosen based on what the commission recommends, that design will be built by a certain manufacturer and the people on the commission will be rewarded by that company either through financial or job compensation. It's how the game is played. Let's hope it doesn't go that way but we all know how it is.

 

[halman]

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is one of the few, if not the only, government agencies which must come up with its own goals, and then get Congress to allocate the money to achieve them. Even Kennedy did not say "I am establishing a goal for our space program." That is not the role of the president, it is the job of Congress to set those goals. The president is supposed to say "This is what I think that we should do," and then Congress must decide if we are going to do it, and, if so, how.

There has never been a program of exploration established for our off-planet efforts, merely tentative goals that would keep the agency involved in space flight. When the space shuttle was proposed, it was to support the construction of a space station. Instead, it got twisted into something which no one wanted, which bore practically no resemblance to what had been proposed. When it finally flew, (surprise, surprise!) it had no mission.

The majority of the money that NASA spends goes to aviation, because that is a multi-billion dollar industry. If this country were truly serious about space exploration, a separate agency would be established, with off-planet exploration as its only mission.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I beg to differ, Halman. Kennedy said, in one of his several famous speeches: " I am committing this nation, to the GOAL, of landing a man on the Moon, and returning him safely to the Earth, BEFORE THIS DECADE IS OUT!" Congress went along and followed the president's lead, especially after so dramatic a display of Executive Oratorical Power!

Come on man, the separation of powers as defined in the Constitution are not so empirical, un-ambiguous, or cut-and-dried. If they were, we probably would never have had the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War I and II, and even possibly the Spanish/American War. Or even the quelling of the 'Whiskey Rebellion' of 1792 by George Washington.

Congress has great power and authority, but, so does the Prez!

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Booban, thanks for the great reply. It seems alot of people here really do not understand the politics of business. Thankfully you do. This whole thing stinks to high heaven of scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. We all know where this is heading. A design will be chosen based on what the commission recommends, that design will be built by a certain manufacturer and the people on the commission will be rewarded by that company either through financial or job compensation. It's how the game is played. Let's hope it doesn't go that way but we all know how it is.

You apparently have no clue as to how the "game" is played. This is not Ancient Rome, where lucrative government contracts are given to the highest "briber". While such avarice and corruption does occur wherever private enterprise and government(or just government, in the case of socialist or communist countries) is involved, it is NOT standard practice and procedure in the United States.

Private aerospace and other industries bid on gov. contracts. The gov, in the form of the Pentagon or NASA or whatever department or agency is concerned, WITH oversight of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee and other oversight committees, depending on the contract, make sure that the bidding and award of contracts is as fair as possible and that the best deal with the best quality for the taxpayer dollar(and national security and/or interest) possible is agreed upon and employed.

I'm not saying that graft, greed, corruption and waste does not occur. But come up with a better system. We didn't get to be the most powerful country on this Earth by awarding government contracts to inefficient losers and con-men. Don't think for one nano-second that when graft, favoritism, corruption, etc, occur that there aren't multitudes of separate interests out there who are monitoring and ready to pounce on, and expose, such evils.

 

[Booban]

Don't think for one nano-second that when graft, favoritism, corruption, etc, occur that there aren't multitudes of separate interests out there who are monitoring and ready to pounce on, and expose, such evils.

And you use the US contracting process as an example of corruption free practices? And as proof contracts are done on time and on budget right? No, I don't think so, instead the norm is at least a doubling of time and budget. Even better, cancel the thing when its almost done and all the money has been spent and start all over again.

Com'on now, I'm not saying the US is like other 3rd rate countries where anybody holding a rubber stamp behind the counter can make your life easier or harder.

The corruption in developed countries is much more elegant and only a few of them do it, those at the top.

Its so finely done, you can't even see it in front of you. Like those Exec. bonuses and golden parachutes. People think they actually deserve that money. They are all friends with each other and vote for each others bonuses. They can fire a person, still pay them and that person signs up a new parachute with another friends company.

Whose watching them? The media? The media has a CEO with the same bonus! They are all in on it.

You think its all legit just because they are educated and wear business suits.

 

[mattblack]

What I submitted to the Augustine Commission comments:

**Although Mr Augustine, Doctors Chiao & Ride etc have done an excellent job these last few weeks, I've come to the heart-sinking conclusion that the Commission's recommendations will be roundly IGNORED by the Obama Administration and Congress. I feel there has been, all along, an agenda to dismantle and make extinct the U.S. Manned Space infrastructure. It is my sincere hope that the Augustine Commission is not being used as a political pawn by the Aerospace Corp and politically-appointed hatchet-men to make it appear ALL taxpayer funded options for manned space are unaffordable. The figleaf rationale that America cannot afford space exploration is simply untrue: America's current leadership simply *chooses not to* afford it.

And on blogsites everywhere, "What's the point?" comments are springing up like weeds. "It's too hard", "It's too expensive", "Barren worlds give us nothing" and "Spend the money on Earth's problems" are spreading like a virus.

If I didn't know better -- and I can't at this point -- I would say these comments are part of an orchestrated campaign. We've all heard of "Yes We Can", but all I'm seeing for space is "No, we CAN'T".

In 1961, going to the Moon was seen as possible, do-able, even imperative. But in 2009, even going into Low Earth Orbit is being seen as a silly, Sci-Fi frivolity, let alone the Moon and Mars. How did it come to this? (rhetorical). American citizens who value your space program -- save it, before it's too late. Or watch other countries pick up what you wilfully threw away.**

If anybody actually does, that is...

 

[Booban]

But its rather simple really, just answer the question, "Whats the point?"

The answers so far are not good enough.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Don't think for one nano-second that when graft, favoritism, corruption, etc, occur that there aren't multitudes of separate interests out there who are monitoring and ready to pounce on, and expose, such evils.

And you use the US contracting process as an example of corruption free practices? And as proof contracts are done on time and on budget right? No, I don't think so, instead the norm is at least a doubling of time and budget. Even better, cancel the thing when its almost done and all the money has been spent and start all over again.

Com'on now, I'm not saying the US is like other 3rd rate countries where anybody holding a rubber stamp behind the counter can make your life easier or harder.

The corruption in developed countries is much more elegant and only a few of them do it, those at the top.

Its so finely done, you can't even see it in front of you. Like those Exec. bonuses and golden parachutes. People think they actually deserve that money. They are all friends with each other and vote for each others bonuses. They can fire a person, still pay them and that person signs up a new parachute with another friends company.

Whose watching them? The media? The media has a CEO with the same bonus! They are all in on it.

You think its all legit just because they are educated and wear business suits.

I didn't say the process was corruption free. Re-read the post. It's the best system anyone has come up with so far, and no one said it is perfect. If anybody came up with a better, more competitive system, I'd like to see it.

 

[Booban]

What are you saying? You are defending a process without knowing just how terrible it is, only assuming its better than other systems. It is not, you just can't trace where all the money comes from and all the forms of corruption. But it is no different than handing over the money to some rich shiek to sell your warplanes, and the amount is just the same. It just looks nicer here.

How do you put a price on decades of employment in a top job because you were a key person in just one deal? You remember that deal that defense woman made with Boeing on the tanker planes so she could get a job there later? That's just the tip of the ice berg, things like that are happening every single day but not everyone writes it down on their email! And that tanker contract still isn't done yet!

 

[mattblack]

But its rather simple really, just answer the question, "Whats the point?"

The answers so far are not good enough.

Booban, I was about to type paragraphs of replies as to "what the point" is, but I've come to the firm conclusion that even if you spoke one-to-one with Buzz Aldrin, Bob Zubrin, Neil Degrasse-Tyson, Paul Spudis, David Livingston, Ed Wieler or several others, you would be pathologically incapable of accepting their answers to anything resembling your satisfaction!! So what chance do I or others here have? Come on guys -- don't leave me out on a limb here! I'm not the only one here with an ounce of articulation ability, surely?!

Space exploration is really, really cool. There's one. One of the best, even.

To expand mankind's frontiers, habitat, knowledge base and *resources*. Also, when we examine other rocky, 'terrestrial' planets we learn a lot about where the Earth has been and where it might be going. If we can live on the Moon, Mars and Titan (my favorite), we can live anywhere and do virtually anything.

Why did Asian, Polynesian and European explorers travel and explore and settle this world for centuries? Were they wrong? Should we tell all colonists and immigrants to go back to where their ancestors came from? And before you say, "Yeah, but what you just exampled is not the same thing as 'what's the point with space?'"

Oh my friend; but it is...

 

[MeteorWayne]

Since this thread has nothing to do with a mission or a launch, it will be moved shortly.
I'm debating whether it will go in Space Business and Technology or Free Space. I'll post a notice in the Mod Actions topic at the top of the forum.

MW

 

[Booban]

But its rather simple really, just answer the question, "Whats the point?"

The answers so far are not good enough.

Booban, I was about to type paragraphs of replies as to "what the point" is, but I've come to the firm conclusion that even if you spoke one-to-one with Buzz Aldrin, Bob Zubrin, Neil Degrasse-Tyson, Paul Spudis, David Livingston, Ed Wieler or several others, you would be pathologically incapable of accepting their answers to anything resembling your satisfaction!! So what chance do I or others here have? Come on guys -- don't leave me out on a limb here! I'm not the only one here with an ounce of articulation ability, surely?!

Space exploration is really, really cool. There's one. One of the best, even.

To expand mankind's frontiers, habitat, knowledge base and *resources*. Also, when we examine other rocky, 'terrestrial' planets we learn a lot about where the Earth has been and where it might be going. If we can live on the Moon, Mars and Titan (my favorite), we can live anywhere and do virtually anything.

Why did Asian, Polynesian and European explorers travel and explore and settle this world for centuries? Were they wrong? Should we tell all colonists and immigrants to go back to where their ancestors came from? And before you say, "Yeah, but what you just exampled is not the same thing as 'what's the point with space?'"

Oh my friend; but it is...

Those talented people you mentioned don't lead NASA, it's NASA that has to answer the question to congress and the public.

I can't agree more that space exploration is really really cool, but don't mention that when you are asking for dollars because it's as embarrassing as giving a Vulcan hand greeting.

You mentioned 'resources' last, but it should come first, then everything else follows. Unfortunately we don't need a moon base to know that gathering resources seems impractically expensive and I haven't heard of any NASA plan to even try to disprove that.