Obama on Space - Page 4

tofu · #91 (**permalink**) 08-December-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaiYeves

Well, en sure concerned us!
(En is a gender-neutral pronoun created by my friend.)

"Per" is more common. It's short for "person." But even among those for whom this is an important issue, it's considered acceptable to use the gender-specific forms when the gender is known, as in this case.

HypothesisTesting · #92 (**permalink**) 08-December-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

If you'd cancel Ares 1, you could "scale back" the capsule to nothing at all. After all, who needs a capsule without its launcher?

And how about Ares5? ...

You know what, cancel NASA alltogether. Yes. At least you're sure they run nicely break-even that way.

Sarcasm aside, can they really not think beyond the "cancel" concept to make an agency more money-efficient?

I don't think the federal govt. is serious about space flight any longer. I agree with the intrepid RCH there. But I part company with him when he talks about an off-budget "dark mission" .
I watched the moon missions in high school, and it's been all downhill since then, except for Voyager, Cassini, and Mars Rovers , which are pretty important. But how much teeth pulling did the involved scientists have to do to even get those funded? Where is President Kennedy literally pushing NASA on, regularly making photo ops big launches, having ticker-tape parades for astronauts like WWII heroes, Rose Garden ceremonies for them? Where is vice president Johnson holding "Texas style" barbecues for the Mercury 7? Where are those days

This year marks the 50th anniversary of lunar exploration, so the "space baby" is now 50 and old enough to join the senior club. Could it be that the novelty is wearing off for the politicians who really just used the scientists for political purposes all along any way?

matthewota · #93 (**permalink**) 10-December-2008, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HypothesisTesting

I don't think the federal govt. is serious about space flight any longer. I agree with the intrepid RCH there. But I part company with him when he talks about an off-budget "dark mission" .
I watched the moon missions in high school, and it's been all downhill since then, except for Voyager, Cassini, and Mars Rovers , which are pretty important. But how much teeth pulling did the involved scientists have to do to even get those funded? Where is President Kennedy literally pushing NASA on, regularly making photo ops big launches, having ticker-tape parades for astronauts like WWII heroes, Rose Garden ceremonies for them? Where is vice president Johnson holding "Texas style" barbecues for the Mercury 7? Where are those days

This year marks the 50th anniversary of lunar exploration, so the "space baby" is now 50 and old enough to join the senior club. Could it be that the novelty is wearing off for the politicians who really just used the scientists for political purposes all along any way?

I know for a fact that Cassini was on the chopping block on more than one occasion and the only thing that saved it from Congress was the addition of the European Huygens probe. The mission became untouchable to the bean counters after that.

Nicolas · #94 (**permalink**) 10-December-2008, 06:27 PM

You may thank us, let's see, through my bank account.

KaiYeves · #95 (**permalink**) 10-December-2008, 11:35 PM

I know I've praised Australia and cooperation in general, but if I haven't said this already, I'd like to take a moment to get it out:

ESA rocks!

Ara Pacis · #96 (**permalink**) 11-December-2008, 01:24 AM

The main problem with NASA is that it's the only game in town. I'd like to see private space access. The problem is that they raise raise the bar while appearing to set the bar. How can you convince investors in cheap access to space when all they see is expensive access to space. I wish NASA would "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

01101001 · #97 (**permalink**) 11-December-2008, 03:59 PM

Not directly space-related, but suggestive of possible direction, is the coming nomination for US Energy Secretary.

AP: Officials: Obama chooses energy, enviro posts

Quote:

The president-elect has selected Steven Chu for energy secretary, Lisa Jackson for EPA administrator, Carol Browner as his energy "czar," and Nancy Sutley to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Democratic officials with knowledge of the decisions said Wednesday.
[...]
Chu was one of three scientists who shared the Nobel Prize for physics in 1997 for work in cooling and trapping atoms with laser light. He's a professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and has been the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory since 2004, where he has pushed for research into alternative energy as a way to combat global warming. It is the oldest of the Energy Department's national laboratories, doing only unclassified work, and in recent years under Chu has been at the center of research into biofuels and solar technologies.

Wait. It mentioned 'solar'. Space-related!

KaiYeves · #98 (**permalink**) 12-December-2008, 01:58 AM

Quote:

The main problem with NASA is that it's the only game in town. I'd like to see private space access. The problem is that they raise raise the bar while appearing to set the bar. How can you convince investors in cheap access to space when all they see is expensive access to space. I wish NASA would "Lead, follow, or get out of the way."

I think both have their place, with the private sector focusing on suborbit and LEO and NASA focusing on the Moon and points beyond. Different niches allowing coexistence, like in ecology.

Ara Pacis · #99 (**permalink**) 12-December-2008, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaiYeves

I think both have their place, with the private sector focusing on suborbit and LEO and NASA focusing on the Moon and points beyond. Different niches allowing coexistence, like in ecology.

Actually, I wonder if it might be better to move space access to the Department of Transportation and attach Space Exploration to the Department of Education or Technology and leave space-based solar to the Deptartment of Energy.

I don't think there should be a niche. It should be a highway that anyone can drive on. Let governments set up a launch schedule and big orbital stations and a moon base and then lease space and mass allowance to private companies who can try to make a profit.

KaiYeves · #**100** (**permalink**) 12-December-2008, 08:50 PM

Your idea actually does sound better.

01101001 · #**101** (**permalink**) 18-December-2008, 01:14 AM

AP: Obama announces energy and environment team

Quote:

"Obama selected Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary [...]
His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action," Obama said.

Now, let's see about NASA...

01101001 · #**102** (**permalink**) 18-December-2008, 03:38 AM

Wall Street Journal: Tough Decision Looms on Space Shuttle's Fate:

Quote:

President-elect Barack Obama's NASA transition team faces a tough early choice between extending the life of the aging space shuttle and accelerating its replacement.

Mentioned in the above:

Wall Street Journal: Obama Team Considers NASA Use of Modified Military Rockets

Quote:

President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, considering ways to reduce the cost and risk associated with manned space exploration, has broached the idea of using modified U.S. military rockets to launch the eventual replacement for the space shuttle.

No decision has been made and the concept raises major technical, funding and policy issues. But in recent weeks, the transition team assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has been asking aerospace industry officials about the feasibility of such a dramatic shift in priorities.

Argh. Full article requires subscription. Google News may bypass that.

Nicolas · #**103** (**permalink**) 18-December-2008, 09:21 AM

What is the idea, somehow convert a military rocket to a manned launcher faster than developing AresI, and then after a few years we have AresI, and then...? I could use the full article

.

01101001 · #**104** (**permalink**) 18-December-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

I could use the full article

.

Google News may bypass that.

Google News search on "No decision has been made and the concept raises major technical" should yield the WSJ article in full without subscription nagging.

I just tried it again and the News search now also yields a Discover Magazine blog article -- but the site's not responding so I can't say if it's in full there.

01101001 · #**105** (**permalink**) 19-December-2008, 12:13 AM

More clues as to direction...

Scientific American: John Holdren to advise Obama on science, reports say

Quote:

President-elect Barack Obama is poised to name John Holdren, a well-respected Harvard physicist [...] as his pick for White House science advisor, according to online reports.

The anticipated appointment was first reported today by Science Insider, a news blog published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). According to the blog, Obama will name Holdren, who served as AAAS president in 2006, on Saturday.

AAAS Science Insider blog

Quote:

Strong indications are that President-elect Barack Obama has picked physicist John Holdren to be the president's science adviser.

A top adviser to the Obama campaign and international expert on energy and climate, Holdren would bolster Obama's team in those areas. Both are crowded portfolios. Obama has already created a new position to coordinate energy issues in the White House staffed by well-connected Carol Browner, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and nominated a Nobel-prize winning physicist, Steve Chu, to head the Department of Energy. That could complicate how the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which Holdren will run, will manage energy and environmental policy. "OSTP will have to be redefined in relation to these other centers of formulating policy," says current White House science adviser Jack Marburger.

Quote:

Holdren is well known for his work on energy, climate change, and nuclear proliferation. Trained in fluid dynamics and plasma physics, Holdren branched out into policy early in his career. He has led the Woods Hole Research Center for the past 3 years and served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes ScienceInsider) in 2006.

KaiYeves · #**106** (**permalink**) 19-December-2008, 12:42 AM

Well, Woods Hole is good stuff. At least the environment will be in good hands.

timb · #**107** (**permalink**) 19-December-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01101001

Wall Street Journal: Obama Team Considers NASA Use of Modified Military Rockets

What are "military rockets" anyway? I assume he is talking about the Atlas V or Delta IV, neither of which is exclusively military. Man rating the heavy versions of either of these has been discussed on BAUT before. I hope the Obama team goes through NASA like a dose of salts.

01101001 · #**108** (**permalink**) 20-December-2008, 07:22 AM

LA Times: NASA's spending is under scrutiny

Quote:

Of 74 questions submitted to the agency by Obama's NASA transition team, more than half asked about basic spending issues, including cost overruns.
[...]
For nearly two decades, NASA and its out-of-this-world projects have made a "high-risk" list compiled by government auditors because of cost overruns totaling millions -- sometimes billions -- of dollars.
[...]
NASA says that part of the problem is the cutting-edge nature of what it does.
"We start these things out, and we admit up front we don't completely know how to do them. That is what makes them interesting," Griffin said recently.
Agency officials said they had improved financial controls -- including forcing managers to better estimate costs.
But the problem is so bad that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that NASA's new moon rocket would go over budget by as much as $7 billion. It based the estimate on an analysis of 72 other programs that blew their budgets by an average of about 50%.

GOURDHEAD · #**109** (**permalink**) 20-December-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KaiYeves

Well, Woods Hole is good stuff. At least the environment will be in good hands.

More than good hands are needed. We need more rigorous models and analysts as well as definitive explanations to voters and lay people.

01101001 · #**110** (**permalink**) 21-December-2008, 12:18 AM

BA Blog: Is Obama going to gut NASA?

Quote:

And now there are reports that Obama is looking very closely at NASA’s budget. I agree — quite strongly — that NASA really needs to tighten up its budget management.
[...]
NASA doesn’t need budget cuts. It needs better fiscal management, and it needs more money. Money to build bigger telescopes that take pictures of surpassing beauty, images of distant realms that inspire children and make adults gasp in awe. Money to build satellites that study our home planet and see what man has wrought. Money to research how to build better airplanes (that’s what the first "A" in NASA is, after all). Money to reach out and touch other worlds. And money to design cheaper access to space to make all this possible.

Quote:

Studying the Universe, exploring it, trying to understand it, is part of what makes us human.

We need that, and it costs so little. I hope some of the brilliant scientists Obama has chosen to advise him can make that point to him. I would consider it one of their most important duties.

Nicolas · #**111** (**permalink**) 21-December-2008, 10:04 AM

Question: am I the only person working in a private company that also regularly has budget overruns? Somehow it's hard for me to believe that NASA would be the only agency with this problem. That said, I do agree that they need better financial management.

Ara Pacis · #**112** (**permalink**) 21-December-2008, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Question: am I the only person working in a private company that also regularly has budget overruns? Somehow it's hard for me to believe that NASA would be the only agency with this problem. That said, I do agree that they need better financial management.

In this economy, you might be the only one here working.

01101001 · #**113** (**permalink**) 21-December-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicolas

Somehow it's hard for me to believe that NASA would be the only agency with this problem. That said, I do agree that they need better financial management.

I don't think anyone is asking people to believe NASA is the only government agency with a budgeting problem.

They are a flashy agency so they get scrutinized more. And they do space and astronomy, so their actions get special notice here. And if NASA has a problem, it's not mitigated by pointing at the other agencies doing as badly, or worse.

Maybe, as it has so often, if NASA decides they have a problem and they figure out brilliant ways to solve it, NASA can once again be a leader, and show other agencies how things should be done.

Nicolas · #**114** (**permalink**) 23-December-2008, 10:14 AM

I agree with what your said.

What I meant was that "NASA has budget overruns" shouldn't be an argument to step away from the VSE, because nearly everyone has budget overruns. On the other hand, as you say, that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do something about the overruns. let's hope they can be leaders both in space exploration and financial control

.

publiusr · #**115** (**permalink**) 13-January-2009, 01:09 AM

Frankly, I think Obama has lied about supporting space exploration. I will continue to call him a lier until proven otherwise. His first instinct was to delay VSE by years.

The opposition made him change his tune. The Vice-President is actually friendly to pro-space advocates.

01101001 · #**116** (**permalink**) 27-April-2009, 08:00 PM

BA Blog: Obama champions science… but where’s NASA?

Quote:

[...] speaking at the National Academy of Sciences today, President Obama confirmed what most of us in the reality-based community have been hoping for: a massive reinvestment in science. In his speech today, he outlines a tremendous increase in science investing by the government. It includes a doubling of the budget for the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both of which are fundamental supporters of basic research in the U.S.

But, then there's the NASA situation...

Quote:

But whence NASA? When will you find the time to make sure our most famous and one of the most important agencies gets your attention, the attention it deserves and so desperately needs?

(Beware some political content in BA Blog.)

Edit: Just for status: Florida Today: With leader unnamed, clouds shroud NASA

Quote:

The retirement of the shuttle was identified as one of 13 urgent national issues facing president-elect Barack Obama last fall, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

But nearly 100 days into his administration, Obama has yet to nominate a leader for NASA, and uncertainty swirls around the future of the shuttle and its replacement program, which will affect thousands of Brevard County workers.

The three-month wait for a new administrator is not unprecedented, "but it's certainly producing high anxiety," said space industry expert John Logsdon, a fellow at the Smithsonian Institute's National Air and Space Museum and professor emeritus at George Washington University.

01101001 · #**117** (**permalink**) 07-May-2009, 08:37 PM

Planetary Society Blog: NASA 2010 Budget: Strong Support for Science and Exploration

Quote:

Planetary Society board members gave a thumbs up to the proposal for NASA's 2010 budget that was released today, with Executive Director Lou Friedman commenting that the Administration's "strong support for science and exploration makes it clear that President Obama indeed wants the American space program to inspire the world with new discoveries."

Planetary Society press release

NASA news release

Quote:

NASA to Hold FY 2010 Budget Briefing May 7; Marshall Center Acting Director Robert Lightfoot to Speak with Media at 3:30 P.M. CDT

What: NASA Associate Administrator Christopher Scolese will present the agency’s fiscal year 2010 budget proposal in a briefing at 1:30 p.m. CDT on Thursday, May 7. The briefing will originate at NASA Headquarters in Washington and will be broadcast live on NASA TV. Scolese and other NASA officials will answer questions about the budget only from members of the news media in Washington.

NASA TV (or NASA TV Yahoo! source or high-resolution) (about one hour from posting time; check that -- NASATV schedule has it 1430 EDT; 1330 CDT; 1130 PDT; press release has 1530 CDT in headline, but 1330 CDT in content)

Tuckerfan · #**118** (**permalink**) 07-May-2009, 09:20 PM

I'm gonna say it, only $18.7 billion!?! (See the PDF of the budget which can be found here.) For frack's sake, that's almost nothing in terms of a budget increase for NASA and a mere pittance when compared to money the government has, as even they will admit, urniated away to some extent.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, we should be "grateful" that there wasn't a cut, but I, for one, am tired of being "grateful" that the worst didn't happen. Having Obama hand NASA $100 billion is out of the realm of possibility, of course, but I don't think increasing NASA's budget to $25 billion is unreasonable.

KaiYeves · #**119** (**permalink**) 07-May-2009, 10:57 PM

It's funny to look back at my old posts on this thread and see how scared I was about Obama and space. He really seems to like hanging out with astronauts, for one thing.

bunker9603 · #**120** (**permalink**) 08-May-2009, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuckerfan

I'm gonna say it, only $18.7 billion!?! (See the PDF of the budget which can be found here.) For frack's sake, that's almost nothing in terms of a budget increase for NASA and a mere pittance when compared to money the government has, as even they will admit, urniated away to some extent.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, we should be "grateful" that there wasn't a cut, but I, for one, am tired of being "grateful" that the worst didn't happen. Having Obama hand NASA $100 billion is out of the realm of possibility, of course, but I don't think increasing NASA's budget to $25 billion is unreasonable.

I think NASA also gets an additional 1 Billion from the Federal stimulus funds for a total of 19.7 billion. I do agree with you though that 25 billion would be much better.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Privatization of Space	The Bad Astronomer	Space Exploration	177	28-August-2009 08:13 PM
The Future to Exploration of Space	StarLab	Astronomy	31	18-August-2005 01:05 AM
Favourite astronomy book(s)	kashi	Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories	40	10-June-2004 10:36 AM
100+ Space products and services	cygonaut	Space Exploration	0	07-October-2003 10:55 PM