Hints of a Third Bush Space Policy
Jeb Bush Wants Aspirational Goals for NASA, SpacePolicyOnline
“Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush enthusiastically called for NASA to pursue aspirational goals in concert with the private sector during a campaign Town Hall meeting yesterday. The former Florida governor has previously expressed his support for the space program. … Asked what he would do as President to get Congress to allocate more money to NASA to restore U.S. leadership in space, Bush said “I think we need to be more aspirational again.” He criticized the Obama Administration for making the United States reliant on Russia for launching people into space and stressed the need for an independent means for getting crews to the space station.”
Jeb Bush: Newt Gingrich’s moon colony idea was ‘cool’, CNN
“When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed the idea of forming colonies on the moon during his 2012 presidential bid, he got a lot of laughs. But not from Jeb Bush. The former Florida governor said Wednesday that he actually liked the idea. Recalling the skeptical responses to Gingrich’s pitch, Bush said he remembered thinking, “Really? I think it’s pretty cool.”
3rd time is a charm eh ? The first two didn’t work out too well
Third time? Hasn’t every president since Nixon ( and quite a few contenders) advanced an inspirational or aspirational or visionary or sensational manned space plan?
I’m predicting that, as usual, there’re more votes in the proposition than in the implementation.
Nothing “as usual” about it. In both previous cases, it was NASA that dropped the ball on going beyond LEO, not the administration or Congress.
Bush 41 proposed the SEI, which was DOA thanks to NASA’s unaffordable (and thus unimplementable) “90-Day study.” Bush 43 proposed the VSE, which Congress approved (twice), but NASA came up with an unaffordable (and thus unimplementable) architecture, the ESAS.
I have no doubt that if asked once more to go to the Moon, NASA will screw it up again. But we’ll get lots of pretty artwork showing astronauts on Mars “20 years” in the future. We might even get another Hollywood movie about it.
NASA put forward the architectures they believed they needed to implement the proposals, Government deemed the price unaffordable.
NASA is locked into a political system, in which their role is to distribute pork and do other things to serve the electorate needs of politicians, take that encumbrance off them and they could certainly do space cheaper.
Blaming them for the inefficiencies forced on them by the system they work under is blaming the messenger.
Which is why I support commercial space, it’s the current system that chews through money and produces little, change the people in NASA you see as at fault to those you think would make a difference and you’ll still get the same result.
There have been 17 NASA administrators since 1970, none of them managed to make any great difference.
“NASA put forward the architectures they believed they needed to
implement the proposals…”
No they didn’t — they put forward the architectures they wanted to do, not what was required to return to the Moon. A quite different thing.
Your claim is based on what?
EDIT: To be credible you need to advance an architecture that’s more realistic than NASA’s, one that can be implemented under the system NASA operates in. Then justify your belief that architecture is more credible than NASA’s
“Your claim is based on what?”
I lived through it. And there were plenty of architectural alternatives available and offered during both initiatives, all compatible with the “system NASA operates in.”
Obviously, I don’t have the credibility of an internet commenter, but the rest of us struggle along as best we can.
“Bush 41 proposed the SEI, which was DOA thanks to NASA’s unaffordable (and thus unimplementable) “90-Day study.” “
“I lived through it.”
Well, you’ve obviously forgotten much of it, as the “90-Day study.” was NASA’s plan for implementing the ESAS under Bush 43 not the SEI under Bush 41.
“Obviously, I don’t have the credibility of an internet commenter,”
From here, that’s what you are.
Thank you — you’ve just demonstrated that you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about.
http://www.astronautix.com/…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
No they put forward exactly what congressional staffers told NASA congress would fund.
Griffin was installed by congress, he implemented the 60 day study that concluded EELV’s were dangerous and to expensive and Congress got EXACTLY what they asked for the ESAS.. and endless cost plus, fixed fee, sole sourced development FAR contracts with enough escalator clauses to reach the moon without a rocket.
NASA is an arm of the Congressional members from Space states.. NASA gives them exactly what they ask for.
Actually the Executive branch has been at odds with congress over NASA since Nixon, but unfortunately, after Apollo, NASA did not have a big enough budget for any President to really invest political capital and veto the congressional insanity.
Reagan managed to get the Commercial space Act of 1984 passed and the Space Act of 1958 modified to make commerical space a prority.
Congress still basically ignored it until Clinton and the Commerical Space act of 1998, which allowed for commerical cargo and crew. President Bush managed to get commercial cargo, President Obama got the Commercial crew… Once commercial destinitions are in place, capital can go around congress/nasa finally.
At least this one can read more than a paragraph at a time and doesn’t need anyone to explain to him what he’s reading.
2 thoughts on these reports: 1) Obama is to blame again? Geez, this is getting old. and 2) I applauded Newt’s idea, and glad to see someone else in the “R” column say so.. but didn’t Newt catch holey heck from just about everyone else except us enthusiasts about his idea?
Given what has come out of camp Jeb lately, the guy is really pitching up some water balloons, hoping someone melts under the rain.
I agree that the failure has been NASA’s failure to lay out an implementable and supportable plan.
Constellation, which was the response to Bush43, is a great example. Instead of using Shuttle and ISS as the basis for new development, Constellation proposed trashing Shuttle (which was done), trash ISS, and use the budget to build a new rocket, capsule and moon lander, in order to try and replicate Apollo.
Why did anyone think that Apollo redux, Apollo on steroids, would be any more successful than the first Apollo in establishing a sustained human presence or a system for going to Mars?
The problem with both the VSE and SEI architectures is the idea that we are going to hurry up and go somewhere in order to do flags and footprints. It was going to be so exciting this time; why did anyone think Apollo redux was going to be so exciting when the 1960s Apollo was not found to be exciting by enough of the public to get the required support?
Early during VSE, there were NASA/industry panels trying to identify long term goals and from that mission and vehicle requirements. NASA management terminated that after a few weeks in favor of an architecture that was predefined, called Constellation; no need for any experts’ inputs. It might have been a Griffin idea; other managers should have stood up to his poorly thought out ideas.
In 1972, George Mueller (who has just passed) and other NASA and industry leaders recognized that .5% GNP budgets were not coming back; Saturn V was long gone (construction shut down starting more than five years earlier) and that a step-wise approach to building infrastructure, first for LEO and then for cis-lunar, would be required. In 1981, when the first element of the Space Transportation System flew for the first time, that was the plan.
Unfortunately, NASA human space flight was taken over by the Mission and Flight Operations divisions. Soon management began thinking of NASA human space flight not as a development organization, but instead as an operations organization, operating an operational system; it was deemed operational until Challenger. But even after Challenger, there was zero effort to work on further development and enhancement or expansion of capabilities.
NASA lost its way more than 30 years ago. I don’t think NASA has yet rectified that situation. Apparently they cannot even come up with a plan anymore, if the latest non-plan is any example.
Neal Aldrin wrote: “I agree that the failure has been NASA’s failure to lay out an implementable and supportable plan.”
I can not agree with that. Since the end of Apollo Congress has always informed NASA exactly what they want to hear. Congress picks what witness and will dismiss them if they are not going to sing the proper song.
NASA is a fully funded arm of Congressional space states.
This won’t hold up well in a GOP debate against Trump’s (if I remember correctly) “I get it, Space is cool. But I’d rather fix our infrastructure first” *smirks*
I would love for Bush to make a compelling argument and debate Trump on the merits of Space Exploration but the audience is bored by it.
Oh relax everyone, whoever ends up in the White House will cancel the current program and instate their version of it. And by the way, wasn’t it the last Bush that eliminated the only way NASA had to get people to the ISS?
True, though when G.W. Bush proposed the retirement of the Shuttle by 2010 in 2004, the proposed replacement, the Constellation CEV, was supposed to be flying by 2014.
Suggesting that we should not cancel a vehicle until its replacement is operational. As was recommended in the CAIB report.
In the case of Shuttle the approach was to set a final date was based on a ten-year prediction of when the proposed replacement system would be operational, buy enough inventory to hopefully reach it, and eliminate the Shuttle supply chain so as to use the money saved on the Ares.
actually it was originally 2012, only a two year gap, that immediately went to 2014 when Congress brought in Griffin and he rewrote “The Vision for Space Exploration” and replaced it with the ESAS and gave us the Ares I
So, cancelling the current program and re-instating it went from Ares V+I to SLS. Maybe the next version will split them in half again ? What haven’t they tried yet hmm .. lets go with a hybrid this time !
If falcon heavy is flying, the congressional members from NON space states will be hard pressed to stop the pork flowing to Shelby and the rest of them.
The current program has been shuttle derived for 4 decades, and Apollo redux for the last decade. Nixon added solids, a major mistake for any LV that wants to carry Class A cargo and crew economically in a cheaper architecture based on reuse.
“NASA put forward the architectures they believed they needed to implement the proposals…” “No they didn’t — they put forward the architectures they wanted to do, not what was required to return to the Moon.”
Parts of NASA and even Boeing have recommended for decades a new architecture with alternative LVs. Ironically, is not Falcon very similar to Titan I, but with the same engine on the lower and upper stage? The concept is decades old, as is the re-useable lower stage–ask the old rocket scientists.
Bush appointed O’Keefe who recommended depot centric + the DOD fleet, shifting shuttle $B to technology and missions. Oops. Bush replaced him with Griffin to restore the product lines and added one of three flaws to VSE: lunar only by 2020 and no IP participation–the reasons are self evident. So ‘NASA’ put forward what they wanted to, right, which time?
Compare Griffin’s 2004 White Paper to Constellation’s HLV architecture–almost the complete opposite was implemented. The most interesting GWP observation: “over the next several decades–the cost to earth orbit will not be less than several thousand dollars per kilogram”… a self fulfilling prophecy when you do not consolidate excess capacity and consider concepts like Falcon vs Atlas/Delta. It represents the afraid to try something and fail–the make a buck in two years or less mindset or simply cater to and not challenge ‘the base’.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lun…
Innovation and creativity are the foundation on which our economy is really founded. Challenging NASA to build ‘something else’ is part of the process. There are several Apollo engineers, assigned to completely different areas, who made a tremendous impact on the US economy. Its all NASA’s fault the US had fewer spinoffs to spur economic growth.
I do not agree, I believe that the administration most at fault for NASA’s current dilemma is the Reagan administration. Their immense push to turn NASA into into its namesake “administration” drove any kind of progress and technological inspiration out and instated private industry in its place. I have had many conversations with the old timers and all of them said that before Reagan industry came to NASA for solutions to problems, now they come for hand outs and NASA goes to them for solutions.
This would be entirely consistent with the Reagan view of government.
The plan laid out by President Bush, in “The Vision for Space Exploration”, didn’t call for a new medium lift like the Ares I, it actually said the opposite, no new rockets. When Griffin came in he did the 60 day study and suddenly EELV’s were dangerous and to expensive and simple capsule were gone. The COTS program that had a Part – D commercial crew was defunded and the money went to the Ares I. Commercial crew was specially mentioned to be started by shuttle retirement.
Congress totally rewrote the VSE with the ESAS.
Everything in space is possible when there’s a national will to do it. Without that national will, nothing is possible.
The national will — or at least a sense of urgency pervading U.S. society in regard to space — has to exist before any politician or space advocate starts talking about rockets and destinations. In short, national will creates the opportunity, and leadership can then provide the money and plans.
All the pretty brochures and PDFs and videos in the world cannot by themselves create a national will to go into space in a big way. What will? Geopolitical threat, for one. After all, it worked the last time.
Quite understandable, but if you care to point to any especially valuable or insightful books / documents you have encountered along the way, I am quite happy rummaging myself.
I don’t think anything you’ve said refutes my main point, which is that the problem we’ve had getting things done in space under the present system is a generic problem, you can point to this individual did such and such and then that a “Similar sort of thing with George W Bush” etc, but when you get in close pointing fingers at individuals is the obvious approach, one that can be, uh, ego boosting, (humans love to find fault with others, it’s our nature). I think it’s a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
If you have a system that does the same thing i.e. very little for the money spent over a long period, even though there’s been a procession of high achievers managing the system, maybe it’s time to stop singling out individuals for the blame and, you know, question if there isn’t some bigger problem.
“And the leadership at NASA, no doubt for what struck them as good reasons, totally refused to cooperate. They wanted a failure, and they worked for it.”
I think that’s a bizarre claim.
Anyway, I like analogies as much as the next guy, here’s mine:
After her defeat at the end of WW2 Germany was divided up into 4 occupation zones: American, Soviet, British and French, in 1949 the American, British and French zones were united as the Federal Republic of Germany with a democratic constitution and market economy the Soviet zone became a communist state – the Democratic Republic of Germany. The Federal Republic was a great economic success, the Democratic republic an economic basket case, a silly person would argue that the difference was the leadership in both countries, everyone else would point to the difference being the political and economic systems operating in each country and a smart person would point out that the system itself has not just a bearing on the efficiency of the running of each country but also on the selection of the leadership of each country, that, the leaders themselves are produced through the system.
And so back to NASA, I said there had been “a procession of high achievers” running NASA, and in terms of those available to run NASA they obviously were, but, were they the best people who would have been available if NASA had been run under a different system? Had not been designed as a political toy, had been a West rather than an East?
Thank you for the detailed response, some of this I am familiar with, much I am not.
History is a powerful force, even though its in the past. Does not matter really who wins the White House. The future of NASA Manned Space Flight, will look in the future, pretty much like it’s looked in the past.
Personally I feel it must evolve, just as aviation evolved, from spectacular feats of courage to routine but productive commerce and useful science. I am just not sure how Jeb Bush would reach aspirational goals without asking the public to kick in a few more tax dollars.
Follow-Up Concept for Kinetic Energy Delivery.
“…evaluating the Italian Campaign in WWII.”
I read someplace that the major planners (Gen. Marshall, Eisenhower, etc) real intentions were a Normandy invasion is the way to defeat Germany but it will take time to prepare for invasion. In meantime a landing in Italy was a means to satisfy the Soviets we are serious about defeating Germany. We needed the Soviets as allies because they provided millions of foot soldiers so we didn’t have create a thousand more divisions of infantry.
Kennedy and other major planners used Apollo as a means to demonstrate superiority of USA over USSR.
So I ask what is the real intentions of major planners these days in regards to what they plan for NASA?