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.
Election 2012

Ryan Comments on Space Policy

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 19, 2012
Filed under

Ryan tells Fla. crowd: Obama ‘not telling you what his second-term plan would be’, The Hill
“Ryan was later pressed about what his administration would do about funding to NASA, a potent issue in the state that houses Cape Canaveral. The Wisconsin lawmaker used the opportunity to swipe at the president for saying “just about everything that is wrong today was the last president’s fault,” parlaying that into an attack on the Obama administration’s changes to NASA funding. “The Obama administration came in and they inherited a plan for NASA from the Bush administration. They had a plan for space. They jettisoned that plan,” Ryan said. “They put it on, basically got rid of that plan. Now we have effectively no plan. We are not putting people in space anymore.” Ryan noted that NASA now sends astronauts to space aboard Russian spacecraft, and transitioned into an attack on the looming sequestration deal that could cut defense spending.”

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

59 responses to “Ryan Comments on Space Policy”

  1. concerned citizen says:
    0
    0

    The current adminstration has a very limited vision for NASA.  They want to preserve jobs and conduct earth ecoscience.  Also, it seems they’ve watched the movie “Armageddon” one to many times as I think their desire for an asteroid mission seems more like an effort to prep a “rescue” mission.  When Obama killed Constellation he indicated the savings would go into R&D that would enable deep space missions in the future (presumably far enough in the future that he wouldn’t have to deal with it).  What his administration fails to understand is that research DOES NOT DRIVE MISSIONS!  Our country needs an administration that will set bold goals & visions; then get NASA to develop the missions, and Congress to fund them.  Then find a way to continue support across multiple adminstrations & sessions of Congress.  The missions will then define & guide the reseach, development, and techologies.  I hope that a Romney/Ryan administration will understand that.  I have exactly 0.0000% confidence that a second Obama adminstration will do anything more than they have in the last four years.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      concerned citizen,

      I’m sorry to disagree with you, but I think you’re the one who “fails to understand.”

      Missions DO NOT drive research any more than research drives missions.  It is the incorrect belief of either of these two ideas that has lead to so many overruns and canceled programs.

      Research objectives should be determined by the capabilities required for working and living in space, transportation to/from/within space, and foreseeable emergency/survival situations.  Restricting research to what’s necessary for on-going missions is not only ineffective tunnel vision, it’s very poor program planning, because an active program can not be accurately budgeted and scheduled, and involves unquantifiable risks, when the necessary research is not successfully completed BEFORE starting a mission.

      Obama canceled Constellation because it was the only intelligent thing to do. He did propose spending on R&D, a wise and necessary move, but Congress gave him a hard time about it, seemingly for reasons that had nothing to do with the logic of it but were simply political. Obama DID NOT propose research solely for the purpose of an asteroid mission; I can’t imagine where you got that idea.

      You talk about the need to “set bold goals & visions,” but you give no examples; no details. It would seem that you’re right in line with the Romney/Ryan camp. They also inaccurately criticize the current administration but offer absolutely no details as alternatives. In the debates, Romney keeps saying “I have a plan” and referring to “my plan,” but, like I said, he offers no details at all. In fact, the man can’t even answer a straight forward question. Those of us who have watched the debates have seen the same thing over and over — the moderator asks a specific question and Romney, instead of addressing that question, says “let me talk about” something else that he chooses. Your “hope” for the Romney/Ryan administration will only lead to disappointment.

      I applaud the enthusiasm of people, like yourself, who want to see missions going forward, but I must caution you, even though you don’t really want to hear it, that going ahead with any mission before the research necessary to do the mission has been successfully completed inevitably leads to failure, every single time. The idea that solving research problems necessary for a mission can be made part of that mission’s program is a fallacy that has bitten us over and over, yet for some reason the lesson doesn’t seem to sink in.

      For myself, I have much more faith in the current administration. They don’t propose exciting new missions or promise pie in the sky because they know that, right now, America is simply not in a position to start big new space programs — neither financially nor from a technical progress perspective. In terms of space-related technology we have very little in the way of ready to use tech that we didn’t have 40 years ago. The need for more R&D, in space and many other areas, has been pushed aside for too long. Other countries are catching up and passing the US in basic research. Entirely too many Americans choose not to believe this. They seem to be of the opinion that all that is necessary for any successful American space mission is the decision to do it and the money to spend on it. I sure wish things were that simple.

      Steve

      • concerned citizen says:
        0
        0

        Steve, maybe we are debating semantics.  I understand your comment that Research objectives should be determined by the capabilities required for working and living in space, etc”.  But missions DO DRIVE RESEARCH (or at least TECHNOLOGY) as illustrated by the days of Mercury, Gemini, & Apollo.  And I would suggest that the Apollo program did not have all of the research/technology needed to complete the mission prior to its start; yet it was very successful. 

        If you want me to lay out “bold goals & missions” I would start by sending humans back to the Moon (reconstitute what we did in the 1960’s) and then continue on to an asteriod and Mars.  Kennedy set the goal; NASA developed the mission (which drove the necessary research & technology required to gain the capabilities) and then Congress (and multiple administrations) financially supported.  My second “bold goal” would be to double funding for NASA.  The increase could easily be found in other wasteful programs and would do far more good for our citizens.  For further goals & missions I wish to be elected President to elaborate further.

        The asteriod comment was facetious and meant to generate a laugh; I’m sure there is good science to be gained but it seems the Moon would be a better starting point than an asteriod.

        I’m sorry if I upset any researchers (Helen, Mark); it’s important work, and certainly there is a need for basic research in all areas of science & technology.  Without research you have no foundation to build upon.  Research & technology supports missions, and missions support goals and/or strategies.  But I submit that without the GOALS or MISSIONS established up front, research may not have the focus necessary.

        Finally, I don’t believe the current administration understands (or worse cares) about space policies other than a jobs program.  And yes, I’m a conservative Republican who will vote to change the direction of our country.  Romney & Ryan may not have elaborated on their proposed space policies to the extent that interested voters would like; but I can’t imagine that four more years of the current administration would serve our nation better than anything that a Romney administration will do.  I hope everyone takes this election very seriously and votes!

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          “Kennedy set the goal; NASA developed the mission (which drove the necessary research & technology required to gain the capabilities)”

          Actually, the Apollo program was developed before the Kennedy challenge. (The original goal was 1975.) Accelerating it was one of set of possible programs that were offered to Kennedy when he wanted a show-piece to challenge the growing perception of Russian technical superiority.

          Likewise, much of the technology, including the amazing F1 engine, was already under development.

          The Vision Myth, the believe that it all happened after Kennedy’s challenge and if only, oh if only we can find the right man who says the right words… has resulted in decades of waste.

          Nixon’s Space Truck: Unlike Saturn V, which was the result of two decades of continuous development, NASA had no existing technology or experience to develop into the shuttle.

          Reagan’s Freedom Space Station: Unlike the continuous development path of the Russians, NASA had little space station research since Skylab, and little of Skylab was applicable.

          Bush Sr’s return-to-the-moon: No existing research to support it, none.

          Bush Jr’s Ares I & V: NASA hadn’t developed a new launcher in 25 years; and worse, Ares used none of the abortive launcher research that had been done (NASP & X-43, VentureStar, DC-X, X-24/X-38, etc… By comparison, many of the NewSpace players have been wildly successful using the technology was was developed by NASA. And bizarrely this fact is used to condemn them!)

          (The odd man out is Clinton, whose “vision” was much more mundane, he made NASA develop a space station with whatever they had developed up to then. His only political gesture forced on NASA was bringing in the Russians during the post-communist collapse to avoid having Russian rocket scientists recruited by other countries for missile programs.)

          For 40 years, every grand Presidential vision has failed. Every single one.

          Why persist with the myth? That maybe this time will be different. Have politics gotten cleaner? Have Presidential and Congressional candidates gotten more science aware? Or shown any greater interest in space?

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Excellent post Paul.

            Let me add, Clinton concentrated on trying to keep the country from going to where it is now — broke and in serious debt.  Rather than initiate new show pieces as a personal legacy, he did more to reduce spending and the debt than any other President, before or since, in the last half century.  If only he had kept his pants on, things might be very different today in terms of the national debt.

            Your last paragraph makes the essential point.  Politics is no cleaner today than it’s ever been.  In fact it’s getting downright childish in too many cases, while the pork and the pocket lining continue.  Congress critters are certainly no more science aware today.  In fact, we’ve recently seen yet another collection of anti-science foolishness from them, which resonates with the under educated and uneducated Americans who are still living in the past.  And whether you look at either the public or the government, it seems that interest in space, as  a percentage of the people, is lower than it’s ever been.

            So, listen to the man, people.  Dispense with the myth, and the unrealistic dreams.  Let’s get our thinking back on track.  You can’t build on knowledge that doesn’t exist and research that’s never been done.  After all this time, and all of the aborted programs, there is still a great deal of essential R&D to be done before we can embark on any of the missions that people have proposed.   And please, quit holding up Kennedy and Apollo as the shining example of how to do space, because things can never be done that way again.  Aside from the political triumph of being first to reach the Moon, Presidential Vision has never accomplished a single useful thing in space development.  “Visions” have only lead to unrealistic ideas and expectations. Space development (all aspects) is science and engineering, driven by competent management, and only by treating it that way are we ever going to start making progress again.  Look at what’s happening at places like SpaceX, Orbital and XCor.  Science and engineering are making them the clear leaders, not politics, not grand missions, not visions.  I will say one positive thing about vision and dreams; it often gets people to work longer hours toward a goal, often without overtime pay.

            Steve

      • npng says:
        0
        0

        Steve, I agree with the majority of your post to Concerned Citizen, with one exception. From observation, your statement: “Missions DO NOT drive research any more than research drives missions.” seems partially correct but partially incorrect. To explain:

        If I observed correctly, in the 1960’s, the mission (to get to the Moon) was a goal, an objective that drove 1000’s of “needs”, technical needs. Many of those “needs” were unsatisfied, e.g. – reentry material, air supply, ergonomics, etc. Much of the $30 Billion spent in that decade moved to R&D – because it had to.

        Conceptually and importantly “unsatisfied needs” imperatively drive, urge, and necessitate accelerated science, research, and testing. I’ll call this “Tensive Research” that satisfies a Need.

        In the 1960’s, through Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs the science and research and R&D were positively EXPLOSIVE in funding and in the multiplicity of domains in which activity was energized, e.g. – materials, engineering, physics, chemistry, bioscience, human factors, orbital mechanics, ad infinitum.

        MISSION Drove SCIENCE, at velocity, by gritty real NECESSITY.

        When you are starving, you ‘do research’ to find food and survive. In a systems sense, the linkage between necessity and science is in a “tension” condition. Necessity Pulls Science, Necessity Demands R&D, to secure workable Solutions.

        When you are fat-and-fed absent Need, you may ‘do research’ for curiosity, self-interest, pleasure, added money, to kill time, for belief, fame, salary increase, tenure, or entertainment. Much of that research can be termed “Compressive Research”. Compressive Research is possibly, but not necessarily, a SOLUTION looking for a Problem or Need. Research of this type, that is “looking”, is akin to Wandering.

        Wanderers usually claim great purpose. To find Gold. To discover anti-gravity. To uncover the fountain of youth or the secret-to-life. Most Wanderers are very bright and most self-recognize it. Many of their visions and much of their science is extraordinarily expensive, e.g.: I need $50 Billion to look at this prion or intergalactic quantum phenomena. Others are Pauper Wanderers. Most Wanderers know they are special and consequently conclude they ‘deserve’ money to pursue their science. Some conclude that the common citizenry owes them that and that citizens should rightly toil and labor to ensure the Wanderers are always funded – whether they produce a result, or not.

        If the system concepts and character of continuous and convergent tension (tensegrity) vs. the discontinuous divergent compression are not clear – as they apply to the pursuit of research, science and R&D – review them in Synergetics Vol I and II.

        So I contend that “Mission can Drive Research” in ways that are markedly different than where Research might Drive Mission.

        To be clear, stepwise, pure research can yield a result that then enables a mission concept and an according goal or outcome. In that circumstance though a mission is then born that in itself becomes the Necessity which circles back to Demand the science.

        Aside my observations and select and test on your own.

        For instance: Take the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF’s charter is largerly one of “Pure Science”. One might view that as – full time professional Wanderers.

        The NSF receives $7.7 Billion per year in funding. If they were in the private sector, they would be required to produce a revenue output of 10-times their funding level or $77 Billion dollars in value. So, can you point to an result from NSF that has yielded $77 Billion in value?  But the NSF is not private sector, so let’s kick the requirement down some notches, down to 1 to 1. What outputs, clear measurable U.S. GDP impacting outputs, has the NSF produced worth $7.7 Billion? Can you name them? Name one?

        But wait you say! Protest! NSF has a Pure Science charter. It is exempt from any outcomes of monetary value!  Our calling is of that which is of great illumination and knowledge.  It is not Science to respond to a Need!  And monetary outcomes are disgustingly beneath our higher calling.

        But if not tangible value, then what?  Year after year is it $7.7 Billion dollars of citizen toil and labor IN but zero dollars of value OUT?

        This is perhaps the central problem that pure science and Wandering faces. The science is that of “Compressive Research”.  Wandering that from time to time may – may lead to solutions that then look for a need.  Or Wandering that ends in a 100 page report.  Period.

        Activities like the above are so intangible, so amorphous, they assume the character of a magical-fog. Funders, like Congress and Appropriations look at the activities. Some are dazzled. Some baffled by the bullshit. Some amazed by the awesome magic of science, just in itself. Because they cannot measure its performance, they simply exempt the entire activity from accountability and performance and short-circuit to funding it – Endlessly.

        Compressive Research pursuits have always been perceived this way, defectively. And until a means to measure and account for true performance and results in these science and research pursuits is developed and put in place, until we understand how to properly align science and research with needs and missions, we will continue to languish in activities where outcomes fail to respond to the fundamental necessities and economic needs of our Nation.

        (I like NSF, it’s simply the fundamental purpose and scope of their charter and accountability that has problems.)

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          concerned citizen, npng,

          I’ve read your comments through twice, and I believe that I follow your logic, but with all due respect, I can’t change my stance on this issue. There are a lot of things I could respond with, but that would just be me pushing my opinions on others. However, there are two factors which, I strongly believe, are paramount in deciding the issue.

          First off, Project Mercury and Project Gemini were not “missions.” They didn’t go to any destinations, other than LEO, and they didn’t bring anything tangible to Earth that didn’t come from Earth in the first place. In essence, Mercury and Gemini were R&D activities, specifically R&D without which Apollo would have been impossible. And I don’t think anyone would challenge the statement that the R&D had to come first.

          Second (and this one I wouldn’t have thought necessary to repeat in view of the number of times it’s been kicked around, here on NASA Watch and in many other places), Apollo is NOT a legitimate example of how space missions should be implemented, especially these days. Being a politically motivated undertaking, the federal government spared no expense in making Apollo happen. They also interfered intensely in American industries, thereby emulating the very central economy model that they were attempting to discredit. These and other factors make the Apollo model a perfect case of how NOT to run a mission. The Apollo model is so far removed from sustainability that it is pretty much impossible for the country to ever do again (unless the US wins the Galactic Lottery!). So any examples or analogies that involve Apollo as a “good” case are meaningless. We will never go that route again, and rightly so.

          Sorry folks, but unless you want perpetual brief flags and footprints “missions,” there’s no escaping the need for R&D in many essential basic areas before you can send people back to the Moon, to Mars, or anywhere else past LEO.

          I know a lot of people are of the opinion that we’re ready and capable of going these places now, but it just ain’t so, unless your goal is to get people killed. Like it or not, we’re still children having to learn patience. Like the six-year-old who’s learning that he has to sand the fence before he gets to paint it, we have to do the necessary research before we can undertake past-LEO manned missions. In both cases, if you don’t do the prep the results won’t hold up. I’d love to be proved wrong on this, but I don’t think it’s likely.

          Steve

          • npng says:
            0
            0

            I think I understand your perspective Steve.   Good points on the Mercury Gemini Apollo activities.  Since the underlying activity, granted in a civil mode, was significantly military in motivation I was looking at the word “mission” in a very military-mission way.  Mercury and Gemini were simply spiral program steps (yes R&D-ish) to Apollo and Apollo did have a destination (Moon) and a second destination (Home, Earth).  As for tangible things we left some equipment and a flag and brought back some tangible rocks (smile). 

            I agree with your sustainability comment, although perhaps oddly, not fully.  If our go to the Moon gig was $30 Billion and as you say its architecture didn’t really fit a sustainable “lets have weekly flights to the Moon” structure, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be modified or matured in to a more efficient approach.

            As Concerned Citizen says, maybe this looks like we’re into a semantics churn here, but somehow I don’t see that as fully the case.

            I occasionally glance to the left and see these Trillion dollar wars that seem to be devoid of useful and beneficial outcomes.  A thousand billion dollars spent – that achieved what?  Comparatively the $30 Billion Moon money decade expenditure looks like chump change.  We could have done 30 decade long Apollo missions – at $30 Billion a pop each – for the cost of the last decade of wars – without any cost improvements through the 30 entire Moon efforts.  Hell, with a Trillion dollars put in to propulsion R&D we probably could have invented and built entirely new propulsion technologies or heck, figured out how to teletransport as on Star Trek, or WTF with a Trillion let your mind run wild.

            As for the value of being there (“there” being the Moon or Mars or where ever) that is a different matter. 

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            npng,

            Good points.  One difference, though: at some point, going to the Moon would have to show a continuous profit and be moved from government to commercial execution.  That, hopefully, will never be the case with wars.

            I would be inclined to dispute the idea that the Apollo accomplishments could be “modified or matured” into something more regular.  I think we’d basically have to start over again.  But that’s a discussion for another time (this reply space is getting too thin for it).

            Steve

    • Helen Simpson says:
      0
      0

       “research DOES NOT DRIVE MISSIONS!”

      Oh yes it does. Without the research that identifies new technological and engineering opportunities, missions are driven by old technology, gritted teeth, and lots and lots of money. We might have the former, but we sure don’t have the latter.

      The idea of what used to be called “flexible path”, is that there have to be better ways of achieving our long range goals than just emptying our pockets for hardware that is fundamentally based on financing opportunities that no longer exist. Propulsion, EDL, life support, etc. seem to present rich opportunities for new ways of thinking that could really make space exploration more affordable. These opportunities (“grand challenges” as they are called) are identified on the basis of at least generic goals and visions. That’s what happening right now. NEOs are one goal. Mars another. Ideally the Moon and resouce utilization there along the way. But setting bold visions and goals, and saying “we don’t need no steenking research” and holding ones nose as one presents the huge bill to Congress, just isn’t going to fly.

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        Helen, I wish you would strike for Bolden’s job. Couldn’t agree more. Of course the idea of using off the shelf tech has appeal, since, in theory, it is cheaper. But it also limits what one can do to (basically) what one has done before.

        New tech means broader scope, potentially less costly development, and faster evolution into the solar system.
        The “research is unnecessary” meme reminds me of the Reagan administration’s retreat from extension and maintenance of national infrastructure. We are paying a stiff price for that today, and will be for a long time.

  2. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    While neither the Obama administrator nor the prospective Romney administration seems to have much of any vision for at least the human space flight part of NASA, these remarks by Paul Ryan (who I must assume speaks for a Romney administration) are quite stunning in their world view. Here are some words of his in reference to NASA …

    “This administration, in my judgment, misunderstands the critical
    national security value that a space program has for our national
    security as part of our defense of our nation”

    He’s right, in that a space program has critical national security value for our nation. But it isn’t the NASA space program that offers that value. It’s the DOD space program as, in fact, the DOD is responsible for national security. So Paul Ryan evidently confuses the role of the DOD with that of NASA in national security. That confusion belies a world view of space accomplishment that seems to me to be a serious threat to any kind of exploration or commercial enablement. The work that NASA does has never been relevant to national security except, perhaps, in the Cold War when the Apollo program was highly relevant to national pride. So Ryan’s perspective is at best dated, and at worst a serious misunderstanding. I find it eyebrow raising that Ryan aserts the value for NASA in these terms.

    So while the candidates probably can’t be distinguished with their plans for human space flight (largely nonexistent), there appears to be a striking discriminant between them with regard to the role of NASA.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Helen,

      Within what I’ve watched and read, both Romney and Ryan have been associating NASA, and anything space related, with national security throughout their entire campaign.  And often that is the only reference they make, national security, period.

      I have to wonder, are they really that little informed, or little concerned, about NASA, or is one of their yet-to-be-announced spending reductions the idea of shutting down NASA and handing off the remnants to DOD?  It’s been painfully clear for a while now that everything in the Romney/Ryan world is about money.  So I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see this sort of bone-headed proposal from them, since they apparently don’t understand (or don’t care) what NASA is really all about.

      Steve

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        The GOP candidates appear to live in a bubble of right-wing misperceptions, and see the world as they think it is, rather than in its actual form. 
        Bad policy comes from bad initial premises. Romney and Ryan’s ignorance of science, engineering, and technology in general worry me greatly. Nor do their advisors inspire confidence.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          The reason for putting idiots on the House Science and Technology committee is to hobble science that they fear, and drive monies back into “arsenal space” as a means to have a second defense department to again address America’s “enemies” as another set of fears.

          Not about America’s greatness. Just about … fear.

          Which is why there is no courage for leadership in space. Fear and courage are opposites.

          They are a bunch of cowards.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

       I could see how having a robust space program on the civilian side would be conducive to national security advancement in pretty general terms (tech, engineering, R&D, labor force, knowledge), but I agree with you. There is no direct correlation and among the things that NASA works on, it’s probably a very narrow subset that can be argued to improve our national security.

      I hope next time this is addressed, someone asks Romney/Ryan specifically about the civilian space program. I get the feeling when they realize how things work, they would move all that enthusiasm to DOD space programs like Steve suggested.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      There have been many national security benefits of NASA.

      One is the international prestige of being able to put humans in space and send robots to the planets.

      Another is being able to provide R&D that can be shared between both NASA and DOD such as the X37 or testing synthetic aperture radars with humans nearby or using humans to closely monitor and troubleshoot various construction techniques that can be used for DOD spacecraft.

      You also have work on communication systems shared between the NASA and DOD such as TDRS where NASA has needed higher bandwidths and I suspect DOD has been able to piggy back on that need as well. Astronauts have tested out cameras that when pointed to the surface give the GPS coordinates for potential military applications.

      There is also work on high energy boosters such as LO2/LH2 for say moon missions that can be used for military applications. Or perhaps boosters that can keep cryogenic fuels for long periods of time.

      A lot of the same engineers working on NASA missions and spacecraft also work on DOD missions and spacecraft.

      I suspect  there are many more. Try asking that question to some astronauts.

  3. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    Ryan utters the big lie. Liars who like it endorse it as truth. Nothing here about doers. We got a real rocket with a real capsule to ISS for < $1B.

    Are Americans liars or doers? Wasting  $9B on a fake rocket? Better?

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0


      Are Americans liars or doers? 

      Mr. C.,

      All too often they seem to be fence sitters and TV watchers.  Maybe it’s past time for a wake-up and a shake-up — preferably something positive, not another terrorist attack.

      When I look at the polls and watch the man-in-the-street interviews it appears as if the majority of Americans (extrapolating from this tiny sample) either don’t know or don’t much care about many of the issues, even issues which can effect them personally and critically.  I have to wonder whether it’s simply being portrayed this way for effect to attract viewers, or is the public really that generally apathetic?  If the “people” side of representative democracy is failing, then no wonder Congress finds it so easy to do as they please.  Is accountability nothing more than a word in the dictionary somewhere between accident and actuarial?

      Steve

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Mr. Steve,
        … as if the majority of Americans (extrapolating from this tiny sample) either don’t know or don’t much care about many of the issues, even issues which can effect them personally and critically…

        They are human beings. Sometimes they despair. Sometimes  others take advantage of their despair. To the point they give up on attempting to understand that which affects them. So they vote on fear, rage, or love.

        What I’m saying to them is … are you being used, and do you want to be used that way? What does it mean to be American?

        … If the “people” side of representative democracy is failing, then no wonder Congress finds it so easy to do as they please. …
        Even the most ardent “hater” of a candidate … has to wonder … are they being used as a patsy to get something else that’s not being spoken about? This is exactly why pandering in past political elections has resulted in massive failures in America. Because you enable a political change and other forces take it places for their own end.

        That’s why America faces damage from liars like Ryan. Who even lies about his marathon time, which is stupid because it is easily proven.

  4. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

     We have not had humans beyond low earth orbit since the early 1970s under both republicans and democrats. This is not a republican vs. democrat issue. The lack of vision goes back decades, in fact it is nearing half a century. While I am not wildly enthusiastic about either Obama or his space program, it at least has specifics and a direction forward.

    Concerned Citizen says, “I hope that a Romney/Ryan administration will understand that.” I do too, because I have heard nothing in specifics from them, only bullshit euphemisms and attacks on Obama. Don’t like Obama? Fine, I don’t either. What is your plan? We need more than “hope that a Romney/Ryan administration will understand.”

  5. Yohan Ayhan says:
    0
    0

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the current Nasa plan is a strategy and not a mission.

    President John F. Kennedy set a mission to land man on the moon, that mission drove the strategy and technology.
    But the current plan is a strategy where we development the technologies and from that it will derive the capabilities to create missions. Yes, there are discussions about going to the moon, mars, asteroids, and deep space exploring but they are all talk.
     

  6. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I cannot help but think when VSE was announced in 2004, John Pike said it is an elegant way of shutting down our space program and replacing it with artwork. I don’t know what that means in the context of this thread, politicians say lots of things but there are many other things not said, which most of us whine about on the forums.

  7. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    That’s a very silly comment.

    During the 2008 campaign, the Constellation program was busy running off its rails. From his perspective, as a candidate and outsider, Obama couldn’t really see that, so he pledged to continue what the Bush administration seemed content with. For lack of better knowledge, the Constellation goal of Moon-by-2020 seemed appropriate to support.

    It was once he actually got control of NASA and, in Lori Garver’s famous phrase, looked under the ‘hood, it was clear that blindly supporting Constellation was no longer appropriate. He assembled an independent and highly knowledgeable committee to evaluate the program. They found it technically sound, but largely unaffordable, based on historical funding profiles for the agency.

    So Obama indeed changed his mind. Was it a lie? Well, maybe. But the lie would have been from the Bush administration, which continued to pretend that Constellation was fiscally executable. Maybe Obama as a candidate should have been smart enough not to believe that.

    The real promise was from W, that Constellation was fiscally executable. It wasn’t. Was he lying? Maybe. But I would not hazard a potentially racist comment by accusing him of it.

  8. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    CD,

    Congress includes 435 members in the House of Representatives plus 100 Senators.  There is one President.  That’s 535 votes versus 1 vote.  Many of the current 535 make it a point to disagree with and obstruct anything that the President proposes, for no other reason than that he proposed it.  For all of the rhetoric we’ve heard from all sides over the last four years, it seems like almost every attempt at bipartisan cooperation in Congress, or between Congress and the White House has resulted in infantile commentary and deliberate road blocking in the House and/or the Senate.  Despite the numbers, we are clearly in a period of entrenched partisanship and have been for years.  Under these conditions it is impossible for any President to demonstrate leadership.It’s worth noting that during his first term Obama used the Presidential veto only twice, and neither of these was overridden by Congress; and this was during a period of clear partisanship.  When you compare that to how many vetoes his various predecessors used, and the high percentage of them that were overridden, then perhaps Obama’s leadership has been more successful than you think.  Leadership has little to do with charisma and everything to do with making progress and avoiding conflict, which he has managed to do to a noticeable extent in the face of intense opposition.

    As for Mr. Ryan and his opinions, exactly what leadership accomplishments has he demonstrated to date?

    Steve

  9. Craig Levin says:
    0
    0

    I would also point out that the end of the Shuttle program was something done under the Bush administration, and approved by Congress, something which Ryan failed to admit.

    • motorhead9999 says:
      0
      0

      Let’s also not forget that pretty much everyone and their mother said that Shuttle needed to be retired after Columbia happened. Bush listened to people on that and acted accordingly. 

      So while yes, plans for Shuttle cancellation started under Bush, it wasn’t based on a whimsical decision. Which it seems is what Obama policy is based on.

  10. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    Yes, there is no plan. No leadership. But don’t worry about us, Ryan says. We’ll get one! Obama submits a NASA plan to Congress every year. It’s Romney/Ryan who are the ones without any plan, evidently. If you’re going to compare plans, it helps to have two.

    It is very true that nations lead on the frontiers, and I hope to elect a president who sees those frontiers more broadly than space, for things that really impact the quality of life of Americans. I think it goes without saying that over the last forty years, it has been the internet and electronic communication advances that have dictated human history. Vastly more than human space flight. Our leadership in those things has been profound. Human space flight has been a hallmark in human history, but a bit-player in determining its direction.

    Story Musgrave is a smart guy. He should take his space blinders off and look around.

  11. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    One liar at time CD. Ask Keith to take Obama to task on this and we’ll do it to death, I promise you I’ll wrestle that issue there.

    Even if I still think you’re scared of the scary black man 🙂

    Keith’s Note: No one makes race baiting comments on NASAWatch. You are banned.

    Back to Ryan’s lie that we’re discussing here – how does this assist in getting HLV going, getting back to the moon, getting a healthy “arsenal space”, or “commercial space”?

    Tell me one way it doesn’t make HSF worse? Tell me how likely it is that Romney/Ryan will do anything different in HSF then the path we’re on now?

    From what I’m hearing, its not likely any uptick in any part of HSF with “regime change” here. So all this is, is badmouthing to achieve an effect without promising to do better.

    This is not an “America’s back”. More of a “screw behind America’s back”. Tell me why I’m wrong – I’m all ears.

    Tell me CD – anything you can that’s not “so’s your mother!”

  12. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Despite current claims about shifts every four years there was little change in direction of human spaceflight between Nixon’s cancellation of Apollo and Bush’s cancellation of Shuttle. When the Bush Administration took office there was a reasonable plan in place, to continue flying Shuttle while developing new launch systems for access to LEO. Even after the Columbia loss the CAIB endorsed this plan, emphasizing developing the new systems as quickly as possible. The CAIB report even contains pictures of the Orbital Space Plane concepts, very similar to today’s Commercial Crew vehicles.

    With Constellation, Bush abandoned the LEO-first strategy and changed direction completely.  Obama initially saw no reason to change course yet again, hence the 2008 statement, however this turned out to be an error. It was not a lie, at the time he assumed the Bush Administration had a credible plan. After taking office Obama realized that the cost of Constellation was much greater than the funding actually appropriated, and that the US has insufficient resources to support a lunar or Mars base with Constellation technology. This is, incidentally, exactly the assessment made by John McCain in 2004 when Constellation was proposed. 

    Obama ordered Constellation shut down, however congressional opposition prevented this and with some modifications it has continued, with only the dropping of Ares I,. With no funds for landers or bases and Congressional demand for a mission for the huge rocket they insisted be built, Obama had to propose missions that don’t land anywhere (asteroid, L2) even though they lack credible purpose.

    Finally, and let us be clear on this, neither Romney nor Ryan has endorsed SLS/Orion or human lunar flight. An obvious funding impasse lies ahead, made worse by budget cuts needed to pay for tax cuts and the deficit regardless of who wins. SLS/Orion is nonsustainable; the only open questions are when it will be cancelled and who will be blamed for its failure.

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      I’d like to point out that unless NASA’s budget is absolutely slashed then the Orion capsule will not get cut. It is the only vehicle that is designed for BEO missions. They will put the darn thing on an Atlas V or Delta IV to launch it if they have to.

  13. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    Ryan is right …
    How?
    You mean …
    “The Obama administration came in and they inherited a plan for NASA from the Bush administration. They had a plan for space. They jettisoned that plan,”
    … is true?
    Where McCain would have shutdown Constellation when he’d have gotten into office first thing? He never had much patience for NASA – ask Dan Goldin if you don’t believe me.

    You should be mad for Bush misfunding/mispromising CxP. You should be beating up Obama for taking a year, wasting billions on beating a dead horse! These I’d believe!

    Or do you say …

    “… Ryan noted that NASA now sends astronauts to space aboard Russian spacecraft, …”

    … is true?

    Where Bush cancelled X-38 to save $50M development costs, because he’d rather use Russian Soyuz instead?

    So which lie do you want to say is true?

    C’mon CD. Tell me. Or are you selective about truths and lies?

    Face it – on the money spent years back, we could have had no gap in HSF and a credible HSF BEO program.

    What options could have worked with this?

    Clearly not SLS/CxP. Possibly a Falcon Heavy plus Dragon/other.

    There aren’t a lot of options. Personally I don’t like funding failure – do you?

  14. EliRabett says:
    0
    0

    First, let me say that I am exceedingly agnostic wrt human space flight but Administrations have always handled inconvenient programs at NASA by
    giving the agency something additional to do within the same budget,
    thus the manned push to Mars, which, intelligently, has been taken off
    the stove for all practical purposes, and in the case of the Bush administration, the inconvenient part was Earth Sciences.  The Moon and Mars programs had no other purpose than to suck money out of other NASA missions. There was real purpose in underfunding them.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Thanks for the link, it’s a great blog. With Bill Posey (R-Space Coast) proposing a bill to strip NASA of all climate science funding, and Romney promising to burn coal like it’s going out of style, it’s a safe bet Romney’s “grand vision” will include strangling any NASA program related to climate change.

  15. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

     Cessna, what seems clear to me is that Obama is capable of learning and isn’t afraid to take in new information, process it, and come to a logical conclusion that may be opposite from what he began with. Coming from outside, not really focused on NASA, he thought the Moon was a good goal. I can understand that. He got inside, saw the financial mess that was there, got a well-considered report from the Augustine Commission, and accepted its proposals, adopting them as his own. Good leadership includes listening to those who know better, not blindly pursuing old goals in the face of contradictory evidence. Didn’t we learn that during Bush II?

    • NonPublius says:
      0
      0

      That is the most creative explanation of a lie that I have ever heard in my life.  The man said one thing.  After taking office, he did another.  That’s a lie where I grew up.

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      NonPublius, it is one thing to blythly ignore or reverse campaign promises but it is quite another to appoint a blue ribbon commission to guide you on your decisions. In point of fact, would you still deliver on a campaign promise if a team of experts said that it may not be the best decision? Personally, I make my decisons based on the facts and then if the facts change then I feel free to change my decision.  To do otherwise, is poor decision making and  a liability to doing the best job that you can possibly perform. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines.”

    • Helen Simpson says:
      0
      0

      “The man said one thing.  After taking office, he did another.  That’s a lie where I grew up.”

      The man said he wanted to go back to the Moon by 2020. When he took office he cancelled the plan that wasn’t going to be able to do it. Where I grew up, that’s called “real smart”.

      Where did you grow up?

  16. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    Radical change? You bet. Obama changed his mind because he had to get into the Oval Office to be thoroughly informed about the fiscal failures of Constellation. Oh, you’re thinking that George Bush’s NASA was going to tell opposition candidate Obama that Constellation was off the rails? Nah, it doesn’t work that way.

    What kind of commitment level and leadership are you looking for in a program that is off the rails? That kind of a commitment level and leadership sure isn’t flaky. It’s solidly stupid. Take a bow, W. Except in his defense, by 2008, he wasn’t even paying attention.

    Let’s be perfectly clear. Obama never gave up on support to return to the Moon by 2020. What he gave up on was a program that wasn’t going to do it.

    Obama’s “we’ve been there before” was pretty much a public apology to a nation that had been assured by it’s leaders that we were going to make it back to the Moon in the near term.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Well said Helen.

      I’ve often thought that the first day on the job as President must be an eye-opener, and a real shock, when the newly elected President learns all those things that he/she couldn’t possibly have known before the election — things that the rest of us still don’t know.  I wouldn’t have that job for all the money in the world.Steve

  17. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    Obama had plenty of time to change that though to extend shuttle.
    Obama extended Shuttle two flights beyond Bush’s planned Shuttle conclusion.

    To restart more you’d have to refund the shutdown vendors of the Bush administration, which were shutdown to fund CxP. There was no support in Congress for this.

    So your implication that Obama shut down the Shuttle … because he didn’t rescue it from its cancelled supply contract – is disingenuous.

    …  Obama took away lunar return goal.
    There has never been a lunar program, because there is no lunar lander.

    Sir, respectfully, this is a lie.

    And, by proposing the Gateway station which is technically “lunar”, Obama has proposed more of a lunar program that is achievable, than Bush or Romney has ever.

    You’re  a political tool – denying real arguments simply to push a political, not space agenda. Otherwise you wouldn’t be so transparent.

  18. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    “Our plan is to put together a plan for NASA, so that they have a plan” – Ryanhttp://www.chron.com/de… 
    The more I hear from Romney and Ryan, the more I come to the conclusion that Krugman is right and the Republicans have no plan other than a reversion to pre-Obama. 
    This doesn’t give me any confidence.

  19. rockofritters says:
    0
    0

    you know i find it interesting that a LOT of posters on here like to refer to something called “arsenal space” as though this is something pejorative.  it appears that “arsenal space” apparently refers to companies like LM, Boeing, NG, ULA, Aerojet/Rocketdyne, maybe even Orbital, or basically anybody but spaceX and any other small group doing something rocket related in a warehouse. often emphasized by the statement : we need to just move all the money to elon musk and see what he can do.

    just for the tally books SpaceX didn’t start with a clean sheet and come up with several ideas for a rocket engine, utilize subject matter experts in thermal, structures, cfd, combustion, etc,  then go out design, analyze and build hardware that had never been built or tested before and then test concepts to find out what works. No they read papers, hired some guys from arsenal space who have particular views on architecture and started from there, which is basically 85-90% of the journey. so basically their contribution is the business and (business driven) mfg end of it. not the rocket science. perhaps instead of bagging on “arsenal space” their cheerleaders might just say thanks because without it elon musk is still sitting around figuring out how to keep the servers up at paypal. oh, come to think of it, the internet is a product of “arsenal space” too… interesting….

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      rockofritters,

      The references to arsenal space, as opposed to commercial, has never been a particularly good one, agreed. But the point that we’ve been stressing is basically the cost-plus (arsenal) versus the fixed price/progress payments (commercial) contracts. The Space Act Agreements used for COTS, for example, are not part of the traditional aerospace industry. I think the term arsenal comes from the fact that the various DOD forces have always purchased their “weapons systems,” including aircraft and spacecraft, using cost plus contracts. We can hope that NASA’s attempts to use fixed price contracts with progress payments will be allowed to continue (Congressional pork providers are already fighting against this) and that it will set a precedent that DOD will be forced to follow. The savings would be measured in billions per year, and the number of over budget, over schedule (and inevitably canceled) programs will be significantly reduced.

      So, arsenal and commercial here have been used to label two opposing procurement concepts, rather than as carefully defined items.

      As for SpaceX, they, and we here at NASA Watch, have acknowledged all along that they have been designing based on the things that NASA, and others, had developed, often long before SpaceX existed. What they’ve done is take things further, refining existing design and theory, same as everybody else in the industry attempts to do. The one thing that SpaceX does differently is their “vertical integration,” which simply means that they are their own parts suppliers. Instead of buying components and subassemblies from subcontractors, almost everything is done in house. This gives them better cost and delivery control than the traditional subcontractor/just-in-time-delivery method. It does a lot to reduce overall costs and it gives them absolute control over quality control.

      There’s nothing magical about SpaceX, but having started from scratch, they had the advantages of learning from their predecessors and being able to eliminate the middlemen and overheads that drive up prices and slow down progress. And there’s no shame in NASA taking advantage of SpaceX’s advantages. It all comes down to the best price for the required performance.

      Steve

      • rockofritters says:
        0
        0

         I still disagree. they haven’t taken things much further at all. their contribution is to smartly select open cycle kerosene engines for a first stage. hello Titan I. and there are lots of guys at Aerojet and Rocketdyne who are still around from way back who have advocated for years that they can not only do that they can do it with much MUCH greater performance and efficiency. the problem with traditional houses isn’t technical at all. it’s that they have accounting systems designed to manage typical government contracts based on progress payments for milestones hit chosen by the government customer. and for that reason they are not really all that adept and just going out and building a rocket to meet a hoped for market. that is what spaceX and Musk bring to the table. the technical end of it however is light years behind the competition’s capability at “arsenal space”. this is why it’s frustrating to hear glowing reviews of tossing 1000 lbs to orbit. big deal.

        the business model is smart and admirable, but that’s the problem with let’s just give musk the money and see what happens. they’re not technically deep enough to see what happens. they are very good at what they do. but the jury is still way way way out on whether they will soon have the capability to do technical breakthroughs within their business model… it will also be interesting to see how they do if there is a new administration next january and there is one of NASA’s typical change of directions. spaceX has a customer and it’s the government, we will see how they fare if that customer turns off the spigot for 6 months or a year. 

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          The main obstacle to practical human spaceflight is not technology, it is that the Bush Administration eliminated it as a goal. The first I can remember when the US led the world in commercial space launches; today we have none. Musk and the Obama Administration recognized the value of both commercial satellite launch services and human spaceflight at a practical and competitive cost. The Romney administration, with its sole focus on the DOD mission, will abandon this goal.

        • Michael Reynolds says:
          0
          0

          WOW! Giant hole in your argument.

          “spaceX (sic) has a customer and it’s the government, we will see how they fare if that customer turns off the spigot for 6 months or a year”

          26 of the 38 launches that are on SpaceX’s manifest are not NASA/US government contracts. Here is a link to satiate your curiosity.

          http://www.spacex.com/launc

  20. newpapyrus says:
    0
    0

    Neither Romnie nor Obama care about our manned space program! Any comments from  either side on this issue is pure politics and will quickly be forgotten by both candidates after the election is over.

    Marcel F. Williams

  21. Bernhard Barkowsky says:
    0
    0

    A return to Apollo was indeed worth killing. Now we need to mop up and finish off that “Block 3 Apollo” capsule and service module which stubbornly refuses to die.

  22. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    If Romney brings nothing but focused goals and program management towards them, that is massive compared to the listless drifting of the Obama admin on where it is we are headed.

    CD,

    “If”?  Having watched the debates, I can’t help but say that “focused” is a tricky word where Romney is concerned.  He is clearly focused on certain issues which he considers important, but he seems to have a great deal of trouble focusing on anything else that anyone puts in front of him.  As I said in another post, time and again the debate moderator would ask him a specific, straight-forward question, or ask for his comments on a specific issue, and he would ignore the issue completely and talk about something else of his own choosing.  Whether this is an inability or an unwillingness to comply, it turns out the same.  I have no confidence that a person who ignores the current topic, when asked directly, is capable of bringing “focused goals and program management towards them.”  Romney is clearly a man with his own, limited agenda.  Unlike some others in federal politics, he seems incapable of facing new facts and reassessing his strategies.  He has made it pretty clear that he intends to use the things he’s done in his state as a model for what he would do to the country if elected — nothing more, nothing less, nothing different.  How can this possibly result in “focused goals” at the federal level?  He’s already made up his mind about things, no focusing necessary.

    Now, if by chance Romney should be elected President, and if in his new position he should learn facts and details that were unknowable to him before that, and if he should then realize that a change in position or plans is advisable on certain issues, would you likewise claim that he had no plan, accuse him of “listless drifting,” condemn him for changing his mind, imply that he was lying?

    Steve

  23. Nassau Goi says:
    0
    0

    The level of straw men and pointless one liners conservatives at NASA and elsewhere leave little to wonder why Constellation was full of holes.

  24. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    Face it,folks,something from nothing leads to nothing and that’s what Obama has done which is nothing.We’ve been wanting progress being made by the administration but all we’ve gotten was hot air and lack of leadership. I’m sick and tired of it, I’m going with Romney.

  25. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltri… is a pretty even handed review of the two candidates. It is by no means all glowing about Obama, but they provide a good explanation of why Romney has serious problems. Its not surprising that Romney has no plan for space. He has no plan for anything.

  26. grassrootsofone says:
    0
    0

    “The Obama administration came in and they inherited a plan for NASA from the Bush administration. They had a plan for space. They jettisoned that plan..”

    They had a plan? Notice he didn’t say “They had a good plan.” Is Romney saying that he is going to reinstate the Constellation architecture and lunar landing project? 

    (BTW, I know it was Ryan speaking; it’s Romney’s message and position that Ryan is representing.)

  27. Gemini Nine says:
    0
    0

    In spite of his willingness to lie, Ryan said it right the first time: everything wrong is the last president’s fault. That means Bush!

  28. Gemini Nine says:
    0
    0

    Ryan said it right the first time, in spite of himself. Everything wrong is the LAST president’s fault, that being BUSH!