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.
Commercialization

2013 National Space Transportation Policy Released

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 21, 2013
Filed under , ,

2013 National Space Transportation Policy
“The United States has long been a leader in space, and President Obama remains committed to maintaining America’s competitiveness in the aerospace sector. The National Space Transportation Policy the President signed today will ensure that the United States stays on the cutting edge by maintaining space transportation capabilities that are innovative, reliable, efficient, competitive, and affordable, and that support U.S. interests.”
President Obama’s National Space Transportation Policy: A Bold Vision for Space, NASA
Boeing Statement on President’s National Space Transportation Policy, Boeing
New National Space Transportation Policy Reaffirms that Investment in Space is a Good Investment for the Future of Our Nation, Coalition for Space Exploration
Committee Democrats Comment on the National Space Transportation Policy, House Science Committee

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

5 responses to “2013 National Space Transportation Policy Released”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    It’s telling that the first two items in that list are basically

    1. Protect Aerospace Industry Jobs, with some research funding, and

    2. . . . .Protect Aerospace industry jobs.

    That pretty much describes the primary focus on space funding at this point, particularly the manned program. Keep the existing stuff going, and protect the aerospace industry jobs lest you lose valuable votes in places like Washington and Florida.

    • Rocky J says:
      0
      0

      If this was the extent to which politicians managed NASA and otherwise permitted the NSF to oversee R&D objectives and selection and/or approval of missions (manned and robotic), then we would have a better functioning NASA. I do not think legislators meddle with other R&D agencies to the degree they do with NASA. That may be a matter of profile and also the cost of big projects which attracts flies (politicians).

      The present mix of politics, economics and objectives/goals in which politicians oversee NASA (most significantly the manned program) does not work. The mix of NSF, NAS and NASA decadals and advisories and mission selection for SMD (robotic missions) seems to keep congress and the white house from meddling in details. Setting manned objectives and mission selection in the same way would be a vast improvement over the present chaos; not perfect but much better.

      Politicians have to this day been holding onto the jobs and economy provided by big NASA projects, mostly manned program. HEOMD is downsizing after Shuttle but from Saturn to Shuttle, there was a manned program that has been labor intensive and involved a lot of manufacturing and maintenance. Turning to commercial for not just Commercial Crew but also Heavy Lift as well as the smaller commercial vehicles already used, will permit NASA to right-size HEOMD. The manned programs need to be humanely down-sized to make NASA function. HEOMD (manned) destabilizes the whole NASA budget.

  2. cynical_space says:
    0
    0

    Nothing like another hand-waving, fuzzy, interpret-as-you-like, government document. There are actually a few nuggets of good policy in the document, but the whole thing is couched in such imprecise language, full of escape hatches, that the government can do almost anything, or do nothing, and still be within the policy.

  3. rb1957 says:
    0
    0

    interesting choice of words …

    if “The United States has long been a leader in space”,
    then wouldn’t you want to “maintain America’s leadership (or superiority) in … aerospace”
    but instead you’re aiming to “maintaining competitiveness” ?
    being competitive means you’re comparably equal with a bunch of other competitors; being a leader is something else (it’s means running ahead of the pack, rather than alongside them).

  4. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    No mention of using taxpayer assets, the centers. They just want to subsidize private business and Boeing etc. loves it. They do not want to use taxpayer funds efficiently. Boeing has no interest in saving tax payer money. Just how much they can grab.