This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Policy

NASA: To Boldly Go or To Quietly Fade?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 30, 2012
Filed under ,

NASA Simply Stopped Being a Priority, Huffington Post
“For the past four decades, America’s budget made it clear that space was not a top priority. As we think of America over the span of centuries and not from budget cycle to budget cycle, will we look back and ask ourselves whether the decision to abandon space was a wise decision? Or will historians look back and identify this decision as a textbook example of when America sacrificed long-term strategic goals for short-term interests?”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

57 responses to “NASA: To Boldly Go or To Quietly Fade?”

  1. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    Countries that stop exploring become third-world countries.

  2. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

     The author is absolutely correct. This is not a republican vs. democratic thing. As his graph clearly shows, for almost half a century space has not been important regardless who was in congress or the White House. (NASA also played a prominent part in its own demise as anyone who follows Keith already knows.) Heavy launch capability for the far future will no more happen than Reagan’s plans to colonize Mars by now.

    I fear historians will indeed “…look back and identify this decision as a
    textbook example of when America sacrificed long-term strategic goals
    for short-term interests…” As with our decaying infrastructure, there will be no quick fixes.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I disagree with the authors whole idea. Funny that people say that we should spend ten time the cost of space flight to say that we care. I think the money spent was probably about right. Problem was and still is that the government never took it upon itself to try to turn space over to the privite sector 30 years ago!!!

      Cancel SLS and Orion let’s start doing affordable Smart space flight/settlement now!!!!

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         The right and left can agree or disagree about space. And both still be dicks about it.

        It is about the appropriate use of budget not amount.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Before reading you comment Mr. C. I was going to say far from fading it’s getting NASA/gov to get NASA to do it’s proper NACA role which is far more important than doing far out decades away, throw away apollo like, Hulk chest pounding exploreration programs.

          Lol I forgot to throw in the word Hulk for dangerous solid boosters that no mere mortal should fly on lol

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            I’d agree with you except NASA is clueless as to what it means to do a NACA like job. It hasn’t had that since the 1950s. They would not know where to start – nor do they want to let go of what they’ve got.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Doesn’t seem like NASA is going to have much of a choice.
            Commercialization 1355 Most popular topic chosen by NASA watch.

          • Jerry_Browner says:
            0
            0

            NASA is clueless as to what it means to do a NACA like job

            Keith is right, however I think that thanks to the poor management they have already lost what they used to have. They have no Constellation. They have no Shuttle. They have no replacement for Shuttle for a decade and maybe longer. Even then its not much of a replacement. ISS is in, at best, a holding pattern. NASA needs to start some fast learning about just what change means. Maybe commercial will help. Not letting go of what they used to have is no longer an option. They’ve already lost it.

          • frosty says:
            0
            0

            I’m not sure I would say that NASA is clueless but rather that higher NASA management is clueless. Business degree is not very useful when you try to lead bunch of engineers. The “old guard” wants their cushy little do nothing jobs so they can chat with their friends about the way it used to be. Meanwhile the gung-ho kids that want to do stuff more efficiently and use modern equipment get yelled at and suppressed because that is not the way the old guard did it and the current (30 year old junk) works just fine so why can’t they use it as it is.

            When I started at NASA, I was in R&D, and I used to love to listen to the real engineers (that knew vonBraun) tell their stories. Back then NASA meant top of research and technology, when industry couldn’t figure something out, they came to NASA for help. Then something happened and NASA went from engineering to welfare office, handing out money, and engineering became that little building in the back where the janitors keep their stuff.

      • frosty says:
        0
        0

        No government owns space, it is free for anyone to explore and  do what they wish.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          As soon a something of value is found. You know we humans will fight over it. You are a dreamer.

  3. richard schumacher says:
    0
    0

    We got tired of funding stunts.  NASA should have spent 40 years doing technology development in support of the private sector instead of pouring $300 billion down the rathole of Shuttle and ISS operations. 

    Bad as that waste was, far worse was our abandonment of high-energy physics.  We might have answered all the fundamental questions with profound implications for energy production and other practical applications.  I think history will note the end of the SSC as a key point.     

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       IMHO what killed SSC was/is the same thing dooming CxP/SLS/…

      Simple greed and lack of proportion.

      I remember the overruns. The games with contractors favored by certain factions. SSC died with every inch those tunnels were dug. It was maddening to watch, … and you couldn’t tell people that it was going to get canceled – they flat out didn’t believe it. Same was true with CxP. Is true for SLS.

      A quote from Jane Austin comes to mind – “There’s no limit to the impudence of an impudent man”.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Agree. SSC could have been built at Fermilab much less expensively, but Bush forced it to be moved to Texas where the infrastructure didn’t exist and the tunneling was much more difficult. It was even designated the “Ronald Reagan Center for High Energy Physics”, to memorialize the great scientist’s contributions to the field.

        But there is a bright side. The best US grad students go to CERN, where they get to work with the sharpest minds in the world. Let’s see, would you be more creative living in Geneva …. or in the middle of Texas? All they really need is a little more funding for NSF fellowships.

        • damallette says:
          0
          0

          Hang on dogstar, I have no idea what “infrastructure” you are talking about “existing,” but I don’t know anywhere that had 54 miles of tunnel in easily worked, cheap land near a major US metroplex.   While it’s no secret politicians tend to place things in their constituencies, in this case it can’t be really argued that it was not a good choice. 
           
          SCSC was killed by a Texas and Bush hating Arkansas demogogue who seemed to end every speech with “SCSC delenda est!” because it was an easy vehicle to prominence.  He would publically query physicists as to just what practical products would emerge from this “toy.”  I became so incensed I’ve forgotten his accursed name, but he gets the blame, IMHO.  I cried the day it was canceled, like Hindenburg, just short of the mast.  Our hopes as a first class science power destroyed in seconds.

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            I have no idea what “infrastructure” you are talking about “existing,”
            Tevatron as first stage of SSC. Like the PS/SPS is for the LHC.
            54 miles of tunnel in easily worked, cheap land near a major US metroplex
            LHC is only 17 miles. More than enough farmland around Batavia,Ill (where Fermilab is) for this.

            54 miles was to scale up (like SLS/CxP) to take away that option.

            It was idiocy like this that turned SSC into the “pork barrel” collider.

            It died long before the first spadeful of dirt got moved. So your crocodile tears were wasted.

            Again “There’s no limit to the impudence of an impudent man”.

            This crap is killing the US. A once powerful nation overrun with whackos wasting our time.

      • rjr56 says:
        0
        0

        Umm…the way I remember it, the choice was funding for either ISS or SSC but not both.

      • rjr56 says:
        0
        0

        The $8 billion (cheaper) SCC was cut to save the $30 billion (!?!) space station.  Bone density measurements top searches for the God particle every time.

        http://community.seattletim

  4. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    I do not disagree with DTARS or No One of Consequence. Certainly spending an appropriate amount for given performance is an appropriate topic.  My point was that whether you look at how much is being spent (politician’s fault) or what it is being spent on (NASA’s fault) space has not been important for 40 years and is not important now.

    Want to change my mind and fill my heart with hope? Canceling SLS and Orion and starting ambitious projects with clear goals for the near future – not decades away when it will never happen – would be a good start.

  5. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    We get them doing the right kind of stuff and I bet they would get more funding and every tax penny spent could be worth ten times it’s value instead of a tenth.

  6. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    Google Lunar X Prize (cited in article)
    http://www.googlelunarxpriz

    Virgin Galactic
    http://www.virgingalactic.com/

    Bigelow Aerospace
    http://www.bigelowaerospace

    SpaceX
    http://www.spacex.com/

    Stratolaunch Systems
    http://www.stratolaunch.com/

    Planetary Resources
    http://www.planetaryresourc

    Armadillo Aerospace
    http://www.armadilloaerospa

    Masten
    http://masten-space.com/

    Blue Origin
    http://www.blueorigin.com/

    Space has stopped being a priority for the federal government, but space has not stopped being a priority for The United States. We are simply seeing a shift from the public sector to the private sector. It will probably be a bumpy transition with lots of failures along the way (aren’t most transitions?), but we are definitely making a transition.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Unfortunately, the federal government still has the ability to interfere and slow private sector space down.  Whether we’re talking NASA or private sector, compliance with legislation is the biggest impediment to progress in either exploiting or exploring space.

      Steve

    • Christopher Miles says:
      0
      0

      Cadet- Your comment was clear, simple and effectively makes the case. Well done. Oh, but don’t let Kay Bailey Hutchison see it, else she give it’s effectiveness the Space X treatment: that “It’s about time” or “Boeing would have written it better” 

      Anyhow- You should copy your comment verbatim, keep it handy and simply paste it in any comments section where the “We’re falling behind!”&  “We have no U.S. Launch!” meme gets out of hand.

      I’m looking at you Scientific American and Technology Review comment sections.

      I didn’t see Orbital or Space Dev in your list. I know for sure I would have forgotten them too- had I not been reading someone elses list.

      I wonder what that says about that pair?

      And why does everyone forget the AirForce winged orbiting spy thingie?

      I wish that it were more clear that rather than viewing Space Policy as slowing down or hitting the brakes folks would look more to 2010-2012 as changing gears. Just wish Obama, Holdren, et al had been a little more forthcoming with the Transmission fluid. This transition was clunkier than a tranny on a Chevy Cavalier.

  7. x_nasa says:
    0
    0

    Countries in the past have engaged in exploration because of immediate economic, military or politics benefits. Usually, a combination of all three. When we went to the moon, there were clear military and politic benefits of demonstrating our space superiority over the Soviet Union. Since that time, NASA has become a jobs program supported by the politicians that benefit from bringing these jobs or money to their states or districts. I think it is deluded to think that the politicians are motivated by more than this fact. 

    If you come up with a better political, military or economic argument beyond this one that NASA can support and you will start seeing more money go to NASA. Hopefully, one that goes beyond the stuff learned from watching old re-runs of Star-trek. Else, you should expect decreased NASA support.

    NASA is really cool (or whatever is the current vernacular for coolness). Space exploration is really cool. Playing video games and watching Sci-Fi on TV is really cool. NASA on doesn’t have a monopoly in regards to coolness. There are plenty of things that are just as worthy as NASA that we can be spending our resources. Please recognize this fact.

    Please recognize that NASA is not synonomous with “space exploration” nor entitled to it. Please recognize that NASA in its current form as a politically motivated jobs program may not deserve or be the best place to spend resources dedicated to space exploration. And for God’s sake, please, please, stop whining that the rest of us don’t get it and don’t appreciate space exploration or the inherent awesomeness of NASA.

    From an X-nasa employee.

  8. Vince Banes says:
    0
    0

    Question:  What do yo call a country that stops exploring?

    Answer:  Portugal .

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I don’t think Mr. Musk is going to let us stop exploring. Just won’t be in a 50 billion dollar rocket. You may just have to settle for a few billion dollar spaceship.

      • frosty says:
        0
        0

        …. paid for by NASA

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          You mean paid for by earthlings. Wheather it’s paid by us citizens through NASA or commercial customers or x prize groups or other countries I’m pretty sure this man plans to put us on mars before he stops breathing.

          Think of the small two person mission that could be done with a few falcon heavy flights that Robert Zubrin outlined.

          I still find it hard to believe that we will not have humans in a dragon before 2017 as NASA says????

          Can they do it faster if they fly from Texas without NASA?????

          • Anonymous_Newbie says:
            0
            0

            They won’t do it at all without NASA.  That’s the dirty secret all the commercial companies try to avoid.  NASA is paying them to develop a capability that NASA can use and that they can also sell to private customers as well.  Yes, the US government is a venture capitalist providing seed money.  I am not trying to qualify it as good or bad, I am merely saying you need to recognize this for what it is.

    • damallette says:
      0
      0

      Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

      I remain clueless as to our national “leadership” attitude towards the
      single area of American world leadership that has both the power to build a recession proof economy and sustain our national security for an indefinite period into the future. It is incomprehensible. In rage, I’ve said it’s either an act of treason or incredible ignorance. Please don’t seize on that as I am only underscoring my inability to understand our policies and NOT accusing anyone of treason!

      However, lately I’ve become encouraged by the commercial space initiatives and now believe the “real” space age began with the Planetary Resources announcement. Whether they make it or not, it is intitiatives like this that will take us into the Solar System.

      But the government still has a role to play. The west would not have been settled anywhere near as quickly without the railroads, and without the massive grants of land and the US Army guaranteeing security those railroads would have taken
      far longer to build. I now believe we should leave LEO to the commercial interests and use public money to build the deep space ships that will be required to have a first class “Navy” to put government out there to protect our interests. We should build “Fort Apache” on the moon and the trading posts and miners will follow.

      I am no engineer or scientist, but my readings of the remaining reports of the NERVA project suggest that engine is an ideal deep space booster that passed ground tests with flying colors. As it shares a nuclear reactor as a power source with VASIMR and similar engines, paired together these would give us free run of the
      solar system using technology that only needs development, not invention. Such ships could use NERVA to provide an initial rapid acceleration and continue to accelerate with the lower thrust, more efficient engines, then rapid decelerate with NERVA on arrival. About as ideal a situation as one can ask for at this point in our technology.

      For the first time in a decade I now believe we are on the verge of a real space age. It remains my hope the people will wake up and realize that it is STILL our manifest destiny to move out and occupy our solar system, and that the USA should lead the world into a new frontier of peace, prosperity, and plenty.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

          … realize that it is STILL our manifest destiny to move out and occupy our solar system …
        See Dennis Wingo … “manifest destiny” … like I said.

        … Such ships could use NERVA …
        Urp. No, you don’t want NERVA … left a radioactive zone that’s still a major hazard to human health. It ejected a 40lb fragment of the fission core once, exploded another time, and never exceeded 2x specific impulse of a hydrolox stage (needs to do 4-10x). Using a fissile pile to directly superheat to a hyperexpanded gas means radioactive debris in the plume.

        Never going to happen. NTR’s like thorium pebble bed reactor rockets are a better choice for first stage w/o such debris. And if you want specific impulse and thrust to get between planets, suggest Zubrin’s nuclear salt water rocket, where if you scatter debris it is disposed of into interstellar space – presuming you are careful where the plume is aimed.

        Right now my level of trust isn’t up to believing in rational use of chemical rockets by Congress/voters. Trusting them with nuclear power is more of a challenge.

        We could use such technology right now. But we indulge nutbags routinely, even seem to favor them at times. Going to have to wait for irrationality to burn out first. Sigh.

        • damallette says:
          0
          0

          You are suggesting the official NASA reports are lies?

          Please provide a citation.

          Here is the official version: http://pbhistoryb1b3.grc.na

          Seems to support my suggestions of solid performance.

          If the above link isn’t working, apologies. It isn’t working for me as it appears truncated. I just opened this message to replace it and it appears intact. I don not know how to deal with that. However, if you search for “An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Program” you should find the NASA archive site where it’s located.

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

             Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems: Enabling Technologies for Space … By Paul A. Czysz, Claudio Bruno
            reference: Kiwi/TNT explosion

            SPACE NUCLEAR POWER /
            NUCLEAR THERMAL PROPULSION

            NERVA Rocket Engine Detail Specification
            Various mentions in document – appendixes.

            Incident reports are AF only.

            In liu of Los Alamos reports:

            Nuclear Thermal Rocket Tests

            Other items about NERVA at fas.org:
            Search for NERVA

            Too tired to search NTR but they are there. They should be at Los Alamos too.

          • damallette says:
            0
            0

            Maybe I don’t understand the system, but I am not seeing a reply button on nooc’s reply to my post.  Hence, I am replying to myself.

            Your first citation to the Czysz/Bruno book states that the NERVA design was inherently one of the safest designs and mentions no accidents or incidents.  Nor could I find any such mentions in the other citations as you didn’t point to anything specific. 

            In any event, unless you can provide a direct link to an accident report from an official or credible source I’ll prefer to stay with the official NASA version and the other sources that are readily available on the web. 

            NERVA is a sound, safe, and reliable technology.  Some current submissions to NASA say it should be revived for translunar and deep space use. 

            I believe they are right. 

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Thanks for the link Mr. C. It’s Robert fault that I got interested in all this as an adult because of his case for mars book.

        • frosty says:
          0
          0

          NERVA was a solid design, no radioactivity was ever released, the only incident was intentional explosion to see what happens to the core. It was and still is safe, until recently (may still be there) the shell was sitting in the back parking lot of MSFC Advanced Propulsion Building.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      “Question:  What do yo call a country that stops exploring?”

      China?

  9. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    NASA could be and should be doing lots more exploring. Exploring is pushing the limits, extending the envelope, trying something new. Putting all of our money into continuing operation of an already existing, never to be further developed, never to be updated system is not bold exploration. And reverting back to a too expensive, throwaway capsule is not exploration when there are great new technologies and capabilities to be developed. NASA should be, and should have been all along, looking for opportunities to excel at new development and new capabilities. Look at what we have not gotten after the billions invested in Constellation. Shuttle was cutting edge, complete, and awaiting further development 30 years ago. 200% more of nothing is still nothing.

  10. LPHartswick says:
    0
    0

    Until the political class comes to the understanding that it is in the nation’s best long-term interest to invest at least 1 cent of every Federal tax dollar on space exploration we are not going anywhere much beyond 800 nautical miles. To accomplish that exploration it will take multiple initiatives in several areas of technical innovation. There needs to be advancements made in robotic exploration, life sciences, nuclear propulsion, heavy lift, and in situ resource utilization. NASA has to have enough resources to do more than one thing at a time to really explore the solar system.
     
    I hope that commercial space is successful at the resupply of the ISS. Perhaps crew transport will also be successful in 4-5 years. Maybe they can even scrape out a marginal living doing either… time will tell. But I caution you want to remember, that aviation is a graveyard littered with the bones of those who have had a better business plan or the New Business Paradigm.
     
    As an academic question; does anyone know how long it was before the European countries bank rolling exploration of the New World made a profit? Please don’t count the gold, silver & jewels that the Conquistadores managed to wrest from the natives through murder and exploitation. Remember, those civilization had gained their treasures through decades, perhaps centuries of development. No, I’m curious how long it took the Europeans to recognize a real profit from the New World’s resources, and what the body count was to accomplish those profits. Remember, the environment was one were you could breathe the air, drink the water, and eat anything you could catch. No micro-gravity, solar flares, cosmic radiation, vacuum, or toxic metals to deal with. Do you guys really think that Elon Musk, et al is going to explore Mars on a couple of billion dollars? If you do, I would respectfully suggest you put the Jolt Cola and bag of Cheetos down, and go check your blood sugar.
    I wish it were true fellas.
    I read “The Man Who Sold the Moon” to.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      LP,

      If your question, how long?, were answered, it would then have to be adjusted by the fact that the tools, experience and understanding that we have today with which to realize a return are much improved, and work much faster.  Also, please consider that those who funded the exploration of the New World were not thinking in terms of long-term profit or the welfare of their people.  Those “leaders” did what they did to increase their own personal wealth and power during their own lifetimes.

      Steve

      • LPHartswick says:
        0
        0

        Steve,

        You make a valid point, but the task is also proportionally more difficult.  Things are always more difficult than they seem at first blush…and this seems very tough at first blush.  I feel that it will only be accomplished by a motivated nation enterprise, and that the benefits to our posterity would be as profound as they will be long in coming. You can have a wonderful discussion as to whether our political system is capable of such a sustained effort, but sadly I see no evidence of it.

  11. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    The US got goaded by the Soviets/Russians. Beat em.

    But by the time they did, they’d lost perspective … on how, why, when.

    They never recovered that perspective. Because by that time, the cold war was over, so they didn’t need to.  Both sides of the political battle fell into self-centered delusions of grandeur. NASA has been whipsawed by them, drunk on its own success, and enfeebled by its need to toady for budget, and be dragged off by a load of nonsensical battles.

    So called “commercial” space is simply a way to have elements of NASA without the political nonsense getting in the way – which is why it threatens Congress. Success in “commercial” points out the failure (by choice) of our political institutions in deciding cost effective space technology.

    By the way, everything is a “jobs program” that Congress does. But some decisions get far more jobs … because they build economies with even greater cash flow, with substantial reasons to employ far more.

    If you haven’t noticed, industrial policy for 30+ years (both sides of the aisle) has been to transfer out manufacturing and get in services (including financial services, who supposedly make more off of financial schemes like sub prime morgages, credit defauit swaps, derivatives, and the like) that actually have shrunk the number and quality of jobs. This needs to be reversed. Supposedly even China can’t do a Falcon 9, an Antares, an Dream Chaser …. shouldn’t that be a hint?

    The political sides have made quite a distraction to get people to fight over nonsense, so they won’t notice how they’ve been “had”. Simple solution – ask what you’re getting “hard nuts” bottom line from each.

    Otherwise, you get multibillion dollar SLS launches. Why should you complain? Its “jobs” after all, right? And being a bigger/larger rocket, that means “we’ve got the biggest”, cause no one else would dare spend so much money to make one like it or bigger. See – that makes America great(?).

    Its morning in America. We’re basically a results culture. We don’t need the totems of the past – I don’t carry around the worlds biggest computer, but a 8 oz Iphone. Bigger isn’t better. Cheaper/smaller/quality is. More for my money, higher reliability, higher standard of care.

    Because with those better tools, we’re better as a skillful people to do something hard.

    Space is hard.

    Results here – what am I getting for my money?

  12. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Friedman does not seem aware of why we went to the moon, or of the misison and accomplishments of NACA as an element of American industrial policy.

  13. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    astronaut Mike Massimino.

  14. damallette says:
    0
    0

    Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

    I remain clueless as to our national “leadership” attitude towards the single area of American world leadership that has both the power to build a recession proof economy and sustain our national security for an indefinite period into the future. It is incomprehensible. In rage, I’ve said it’s either an act of treason or incredible ignorance. Please don’t seize on that as I am only underscoring my inability to understand our policies and NOT accusing anyone of treason!

    However, lately I’ve become encouraged by the commercial space initiatives and now believe the “real” space age began with the Planetary Resources announcement. Whether they make it or not, it is intitiatives like this that will take us into the Solar System.

    But the government still has a role to play. The west would not have been settled anywhere near as quickly without the railroads, and without the massive grants of land and the US Army guaranteeing security those railroads would have taken far longer to build. I now believe we should leave LEO to the commercial interests and use public money to build the deep space ships that will be required to have a first class “Navy” to put government out there to protect our interests. We should build “Fort Apache” on the moon and the trading posts and miners will follow.

    I am no engineer or scientist, but my readings of the remaining reports of the NERVA project suggest that engine is an ideal deep space booster that passed ground tests with flying colors. As it shares a nuclear reactor as a power source with VASIMR and similar engines, paired together these would give us free run of the solar system using technology that only needs development, not invention. Such ships could use NERVA to provide an initial rapid acceleration and continue to accelerate with the lower thrust, more efficient engines, then rapid decelerate with NERVA on arrival. About as ideal a situation as one can ask for at this point in our technology.

    For the first time in a decade I now believe we are on the verge of a real space age. It remains my hope the people will wake up and realize that it is STILL our manifest destiny to move out and occupy our solar system, and that the USA should lead the world into a new frontier of peace, prosperity, and plenty.

  15. Bill Adkins says:
    0
    0

    Measuring any program as a “percentage of the federal budget” is a
    handy, but almost always misleading metric. It’s an interesting chart
    and makes s snappy talking point, but is hollow. Has NASA shrunk since the heyday of Apollo or has the federal government grown? It’s both, of course, but in constant dollars NASA’s buying power for the last couple years is just about as high as it’s ever been, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wik….
    Moreover, since Apollo the federal government has grown tremendously
    with new cabinet agencies, departments (e.g DoE, EPA, Homeland, etc.)
    and countless programs added over the past 40 years. Also, existing
    departments (eg DOD, Vets, DoT, etc.) have grown as well. Does this
    metric take into consideration these factors? If not, it should.

    NASA is the largest space agency in the world. Though it doesn’t have a
    blank check, it has a healthy check. The taxpayer can’t afford to bail NASA out of its troubles anymore. Instead it needs clear, achievable (not grandiose) goals, and leadership at NASA to make tough choices and have an ability to sell it to politicians. NASA
    itself needs to chart the course; and not look to the White House or
    Congress to bail them out or fill the void. Expectations on what can be
    done need to be reset. NASA needs to get real, and real quick.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      NASA itself needs to chart the course

      AMG40,

      If that situation was allowed, everything would be different.  However, as we all know, that’s not how the American federal government works.  In theory, NASA does as the President directs them to.  In practice, Congress has to approve the money allocations, and Congress, over the years, has increasingly used this to become the real director of NASA, since they effectively either approve or disallow whatever the President “suggests” for NASA, at a level of increasingly restrictive detail, and insert their own plans instead.  So, as I’ve posted in the past, NASA could sit down and develop 20 different fabulous plans for the national space program, but they are absolutely powerless with respect to what actually will be done.

      Steve

      • Bill Adkins says:
        0
        0

         Your point about the role of the President and Congress is a good one, no argument.  I agree it is not NASA alone who decides the policy and funding…far from it.    My point obviously wasn’t clear.  I’m saying that NASA has fallen far short in making the case for their own plans and programs–NASA abdicated it’s seat at the table when it in effect walked away from the table in defending the new plan before Congress after CxP was cancelled.  NASA didn’t have any cogent explanation (go watch the videos of the hearings). As a result Congress took the matter in its own hands, filled the vacuum, and came up with its solution.  Point is that NASA left a vacuum, arguably the Administration set them up or more likely didn’t know what they were doing either.  

        Congress’ actions on NASA, especially on SLS, resulted in a perfect political solution to the problem as they saw it.  Problem is: it doesn’t appear that the plans add up to a real program.  NASA and the Administration simply rolled over.  So, what I mean by NASA charting the course is that NASA needs to step up and offer a complete and coherent plan scaled to a reasonable budget.  NASA needs to be honest about what it can and cannot do.  If NASA leaders are uncomfortable with it, they should make it clear and resign if they have to.  Too often, NASA has looked to Congress and the White House to solve it;s problems, (eg. Mikulski will $2B to pay for Shuttle return to flight, Congress and the WH approved the vision, but neither funded it, etc.).  NASA needs to take stock of where they are now, what they can realistically expect to get for funding (did I say realistically?), and build the best program based on that.  If NASA doesn’t have a plan, there are plenty of politicians that will step back in and redo to it solve they problem as they see it.         

        • Littrow says:
          0
          0

          Well said AMG40.

          Constellation’s problem from the start was, even if the road map of repeating Apollo had made sense (which it never did), NASA never did the job of selling why it was doing what it was doing and why the outcome would have been significantly better or different than Apollo. I watched a video thats still on UTube that Constellation people did close to the end of their abortive mission and basically we were going to land 4 instead of 2, stay for a week instead of 3 days, and land at a few more places.

          The problem that I’ve seen for the last couple of years is that there is no one in NASA laying out a reasonable plan. The BIG rocket and BIG capsule approach is dumb. The closest to a plan anyone has come was Paul Spudis’ develop Cislunar Next plan. Its simple, straightforward, provides rationale, is eminently achievable. Why can’t NASA with all its high-powered engineers and operations experience  put a plan together? Instead its off chasing its tail with Orion and SLS. No one in NASA is leading the way.

          I get a kick out of the ISS people. Its the “greatest engineering  achievement ever”, but we have no way to access it and its purpose as a research lab languishes because we forgot to provide a way there and back. That is not only the lack of transportation, but the lack of a workable integration process too. Its a bit like building the Golden Gate Bridge except we forgot to provide the roadways to carry traffic or people. ISS-pretty to look at though!

          The whole CASIS affair seems to be a cover story to deflect criticism of why NASA didn’t do its job after how many years and how many tens of billions of dollars ? The entire NASA management and leadership situation is sad for the country. You can talk about how America might be turning inward and lost the exploration initiative, but in this case its just sheer management ineptitude on all fronts that put us in the situation we are in today.

  16. SpaceTeacher says:
    0
    0

    History will look upon this country as ignorant–a land where reality TV and malls were more important than knowledge.
     

  17. frosty says:
    0
    0

    One penny for NASA is a great idea until it gets into the congress where they will turn it into .3 penny for NASA and .7 penny for commercial space.

    What is so commercial (invest-profit) about space when NASA is paying for it. That is not commercial, just another way to squeeze more money out of the government without having to answer for lack of results.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      “One penny for NASA is a great idea until it gets into the congress where they will turn it into .3 penny for NASA and .7 penny for commercial space.”

      What universe do you live in? $0.6b for Commercial, out of $18b. Even within “Exploration”, it’s only 15%, and fighting to stop the House from zeroing it in every budget. Congress hates anything but the Primes.

  18. damallette says:
    0
    0

    I agree…outstanding post, CadetOne…at ease!
    Virgin Galactic suddenly made a connection.  If White Knight II has the ability to lift a 7 passenger SpaceShip II to reach 70 miles, I wonder if it could lift a SpaceShip I with beefed up engines to give it LEO ability for a single passenger or two…
     
    Just the musings of a layman.

  19. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    5/1/12 NACA Steve 

    You have said that NASA should do R and D

    Others here have said that NASA should do NACA type support for the new Space providers.

    Could you help me to understand what that means by making a list of programs or tasks that NASA / NACA should do to support the provider sector to settle and explore Space in the near future.

    I’m playing what if here. 

    You know what if we could get NASA to play there proper rule.
    What would the projects be. What NASA jobs would that create. What jobs would have to go.

    Seems to me that if we were to try to persuade NASA to change, that painting a picture of that new NASA/NACA rule with respect to Spaceflight would help.

    Humor me  should you have the time.

    George

  20. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    On the late late show with Craig Ferguson there was a NASA astronaut Mike Massimino on there. And after making jokes. He explained how NASA is doing two things. It’s helping commercial get us to Leo and then it’s doing the Big exploring thing. And I thought how easy it would have been for me to have swallowed his line had I not been here to learn differently.

    I don’t recall if he said anything about building big rockets or not.  I don’t think he did.

     My point is we need to make some noise! But that’s hard to do when so many here have such different views. 

    It’s easy to sell the we need a big rocket to EXPLORE SPIN  to the uniformed which of course is like 99.9 percent of the people. 

    Joe Q is easily duped 

    Joe Q out!!!!!

  21. nasa817 says:
    0
    0

    It’s pretty simple, really.  This country would rather wage war in every corner of the globe than explore space.  Instead of spending billions on the Vietnam War, Apollo could have gotten the funding it needed to evolve into von Braun’s vision of space colonization.  If not for spending hundreds of billions on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Constellation could have gotten the funding it needed to establish a colony on the Moon (in spite of NASA’s incompetence).  Space will never be a priority for the US as long as there is booty to plunder on this planet.