Media Reaction To Augustine Report

It's depressing to read stories that:
a. Misspell Bolden's name ("Holden")
b. Misstate Augustine's so-called recommendation against going back to the Moon (he didn't)
c. And reveal an overall simplistic interpretation of the whole report, which I'd wager none of these reporters have read.
At least Keith did so.

So, basically NASA (and its associated brats in the Capitol) is on its knees begging for more money from the President. Got it. It's not their fault that they sqandered 5 years and a bunch of money money stacking cardboard mockups onto a STS SRB.
Gimme money ....
Give me a *good* reason why we should after the way you treated what we gave you prior.

The media reaction to the report is exactly what one should expect from a committee approach to an engineering/budget challenge. And why not? There is something in there for every competing faction that will ultimately lead the politicians to do absolutely nothing.

Another red letter day in the history of our nation.

Because it's in the nation's interest to do so, no matter what the nature of past decisions. You're stuck with NASA, so better hope for reforms and renewal.

>So, basically NASA (and its associated brats in the >Capitol) is on its knees begging for more money >from the President.

No - you don't get it at all. Yes the program needs more funds but NASA is not begging for money - the President's commission is highlighting the fact that the program has been chronically underfunded. This has been painfully obvious since Bush announced the program in 2004.

I don't particularly care for the Ares i but it should be noted that even if it does not go forward, the information/research conducted will still be useful for building the Ares V or V Lite. This is noted in the report - which obviously you didn't read.

It's really interesting that the Augustine report got bulletized so differently by each news outlet. The chairman generously provided the sound bite version of the 157-page report: "The premier conclusion or finding of the committee is that the HSF program that the US is currently pursuing is one that is on an unsustainable trajectory. We say that because of a mismatch between the scope of the program and the funds to support the program."

So why didn't they all emphasize that? USNews and BBC chose to fabricate a recommendation to "scrap the Ares I". That's not at all what Augustine said. The Washington Post headline said "Put money into NASA or forget human spaceflight," but that's not accurate either. More like "Put money into NASA or accept a human spaceflight program that falls short."

Who are these people and why do they have a job in the news business?

You're correct Frank. I've been hoping for reforms and renewal since 1972, through every lukewarm administration, congress and committee report. No question that reform and renewal is in the best interest of the country even though this report provides no definitive direction, only options that serve to confuse the politicians.

The committee would have better served the country to say this (whatever "this" is) is the path to go. I'm not even optimistic that the U.S. will have a manned space program in LEO in ten years. We will probably be hitching rides with Russia and China if we go at all.

You're right that we're stuck with NASA but it will have been turned into a climate change study/education entity. That's one reform that I don't think is in the best interest of our nation.

And it has started. The name bashing and grandstanding of those wanting to save NASA, ect... (even though nothing has been really decided). It would be nice for the NASA leadership to pull their collective heads out of the dark place they have them, and come up with a long term, affordable, no bulls**t space program. Take the best assets of its centers and scrap the rest. Pipe dream on my part, I know, as the Princes of D.C. will keep any hope in the unlit depths of despair.

The report itself I think left open more questions then answers. I wish the panel had said more yes/no instead of maybes. I also wish the president would move more quickly on this, but I understand that NASA is on the bottom of the list. Lets hope that something comes out of this and its not another paper exercise in excuses.

KC,

Chronically underfunded? You've got to be kidding me. The ESMD budget has been over funded for the trivial things they do. They are just incompetent with the money they are give.

Frank,

No, I utterly reject the notion that we are 'stuck with NASA'

NASA (at least its HSF section) is irrelevant and should be canned for the loose behavior they've exhibited so far with our money.

I'm with Frank on this one.
I really have to wonder if these reporters actually read the report, especially the part about the purpose of the report.