Obama to kill Moon mission?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think the big concern for the scientist types in NASA is whether or not their pet projects will be canceled for the lack of military value. But I would wait and see how things develop.

[phongn]

Well, didn't see that coming. I think it's a good idea. And a great way to get NASA out of the way of the commercial space business. NASA has been too spineless for too long; maybe making it an Air Force venture, or its own branch, will make things a bit more dynamic.

What commercial space business? NASA hasn't been in that business since 1986.

And yes, why should NASA spend a lot on developing a SRB derived EELV when we can use the Pentagon's EELV program?

Depends on how much it'd cost to modify the EELVs to be able to launch Orion.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well, didn't see that coming. I think it's a good idea. And a great way to get NASA out of the way of the commercial space business. NASA has been too spineless for too long; maybe making it an Air Force venture, or its own branch, will make things a bit more dynamic.

What commercial space business? NASA hasn't been in that business since 1986.

And yes, why should NASA spend a lot on developing a SRB derived EELV when we can use the Pentagon's EELV program?

Depends on how much it'd cost to modify the EELVs to be able to launch Orion.

I'm pretty certain the only thing stopping Boeing from turing the Delta IV Heavy into a 75ton lift vehicle with 7 core boosters is the current launch platform configuration.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, didn't see that coming. I think it's a good idea. And a great way to get NASA out of the way of the commercial space business. NASA has been too spineless for too long; maybe making it an Air Force venture, or its own branch, will make things a bit more dynamic.

No, no, no. It is important that America have a civillian space program, as the bulk of the valuable work done in space is civillian in nature. The last thing America needs to do is turn the Space Program into just another branch of the military. For one thing, I doubt that the Pentagon views space as being much more than the ultimate high ground. I can see a PR advantage, as their will be less of a political will to cut NASA's funding if its part of the military, but America should continue to have a sepperate civillian space program.

That said, Nasa is spineless as hell. What Obama needs to do is make sure he has someone with balls running the show, then step aside and avoid the kind of political interference that has killed good Nasa programs in the past.

[Starglider]

I'm pretty certain the only thing stopping Boeing from turing the Delta IV Heavy into a 75ton lift vehicle with 7 core boosters is the current launch platform configuration.

That's probably harder than it sounds - other bits of the rocket might have to be uprated to take the stress - but it isn't really required. The Ares I has a payload to LEO of only 25 tonnes, which a standard Delta-IV-H should be able to match. The Ares V is supposed to loft 188 tonnes, an entirely different proposition. NASA is arguing that the parts commonality between the I and V (i.e. they both use SRB segments and J-2X engines) is essential for cost savings and to prevent the Ares V from being canceled, but frankly that looks like bunk to me, it seems to be more about NASA not-invented-here and keeping more engineers on payroll.

[phongn]

Boeing actually has a number of future Delta IV proposals. This 2004 PDF, page 7, has a chart. More detail can be found in Delta IV launch vehicle growth options to support NASA's space exploration vision

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Boeing actually has a number of future Delta IV proposals. This 2004 PDF, page 7, has a chart. More detail can be found in Delta IV launch vehicle growth options to support NASA's space exploration vision

Don't suppose there's a non-abstract version for public viewing out there?

[hongi]

This may not be relevant to what Obama's administration is planning (it seems like he's ruminating strictly to those rockets, not the whole organisation shebang) but I don't like the idea of a military space organisation replacing NASA.The military and the civilian programs have different interests and different goals. Will a new military organisation fund research for the sake of research e.g. Hubble? Will it share this information with the public, or heck, other national space programs?

[Broomstick]

This may not be relevant to what Obama's administration is planning (it seems like he's ruminating strictly to those rockets, not the whole organisation shebang) but I don't like the idea of a military space organisation replacing NASA.The military and the civilian programs have different interests and different goals. Will a new military organisation fund research for the sake of research e.g. Hubble? Will it share this information with the public, or heck, other national space programs?

The US military, including the aviation areas, actually do have a long history of sharing their developments with the civilian world. Two notable items that were originally US military research and development projects the entire world is familiar with are the internet and GPS. In the US, military aviation radio navigation beacons are routinely used by civilian pilots at no cost to the civilians. The E6B flight computer required by civilian flights schools during primary training and still carried by a lot of pilots as a backup navigation/computation tool originally was developed for WWII combat aviators. The MRE's were developed for military needs but are utilized by relief organizations, campers, and people wanting home emergency kits. Battlefield medicine had a lot to do with our our modern emergency rooms/triage/trauma centers operate. Plastic surgery and burn medicine techniques developed to help wounded soldiers are used every day on civilians, as are things like stored blood, which the military early in the 20th Century was very interested in and participated in research to make feasible. That's just off the top of my head, there's probably a lot of other examples out there, some I'm not aware of.

Yes, the US military does fund research. The military is, of course, looking for military applications but there can be considerable overlap between military and civilian interests. Both require reliable navigation, for example, and reliable communications. Both will need reliable life support systems if they plan to put people in space. Both need good instruments like telescopes. Both will need spacesuits. Both are interested in feeding people in space. The military is also interested in the mental health of people locked into small areas for long periods of time and has extensive experience with this in the navy's submarine program. In fact, the military may have a better grasp of the need for human downtime on long missions than NASA has had in the past.

I don't doubt that military developments in space will make their way into the civilian world. I would prefer to see civilian space travel alongside military, and I'd also like to see private civilian space travel, but the civilian world isn't doing it right now. Civilian US aviation pretty much stopped during the Great Depression and WWII, but when it came back it flourished and a lot of that had to do with the continuing progression of military aviation during that time period.

[Broomstick]

Whoops - missed edit window when I had additional thoughts:

Would the military have supported something like Hubble? You know, I kind of doubt it. Yes, that would be a shame to lose. But if the civilian world can't or won't support a Hubble then we won't have one. Yeah, that sucks, but that's also reality. I don't know how open the military is to tag-along civilian projects. I know some military facilities have been used by civilians for either development projects or record-setting attempts (Rutan has some sort of relationship with Edwards Air Force Base - several record-setting attempts such as the Voyager round-the-world-with-no-refueling flight started and ended there and he's used some of their domain for test flying new things) but not the details. During the great age of sea exploration some military ships carried "non-essential" personal like "naturalists" and artists for various reasons or others, it's not unprecedented that a military launch could carry something civilian along with it. The question is how open the military would be to that today. There is also the factor that if the commander in chief states he wants military cooperation with some very basic research things, like a Hubble, the military might take a different view of it than if approached by civilians on their own. If nothing else, it would give military personnel further experience in working on space projects. The folks doing military research are not dumb grunts, they understand that basic research is important, too.

Yet another factor to keep in mind is that the US military does employ a small - >ahem< - army of civilians as well. I have a sister who worked many years on some sort of military research project (what I don't know - the details are classified) and she is and always has been a civilian (hell, during the 1960's she was an anti-war activist). Again, there is considerable overlap between the military and civilian worlds. People do move back and forth between them in this country. Any given NASA civilian may have a military background, and any NASA civilian might wind up working for the military in the future. I don't think the line between them is as hard and fast as people think it is.

[Lonestar]

Yet another factor to keep in mind is that the US military does employ a small - >ahem< - army of civilians as well. I have a sister who worked many years on some sort of military research project (what I don't know - the details are classified) and she is and always has been a civilian (hell, during the 1960's she was an anti-war activist).

Then it wasn't very classified.

[Broomstick]

Not anti-war like the weathermen, you ninny - on the level of wearing POW bracelets and showing up for demonstrations. That doesn't tar you for life. She didn't do anything to get arrested and she was a high school kid at the time.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Nor do the animal rights protesters at my place, but we don't then employ them. The very fact that they oppose the position is enough to sideline those kind of people for good. It's too risky to have such people near sensitive areas, be it medical research or military.

[Broomstick]

Right - objecting to the Vietnam war makes one a security risk for all time 20 years later and a person couldn't possibly have changed her mind. I'm sorry if the facts bother you, but that is the case. My sister engaged in public protest of the Vietnam War AND she worked as a civilian contractor for the DoD on a classified project about 20 years later. Does that mean it was at the level of the Manhattan Project? I rather doubt it. Perhaps the DoD determined that her objecting to a particular police action was not the same as being disloyal to her nation or a security risk on a project. The DoD did a background check on the whole damn family, including having someone talk to me at the time. They also dug into whether or not our family had any connections to the Soviets due to our Russian background (they were disappointed we hadn't kept up the language). They don't do that for cursory job check, I know this because I underwent a security background check myself this summer as part of applying to a Fed job. It's their call, not yours.

[Admiral Valdemar]

And I've been vetted through civil and military intelligence and work in a sensitive environment. Over here, I very much doubt that blemish on the record would gain her such access. Again, anything truly sensitive will not be given to anyone with even the smallest doubt about the party they're working for. Who's to say they can be trusted over future events? "Oh, sorry we've started another war you don't like, but please don't divulge those critical details to parties unknown out of spite. It's mean."

[Broomstick]

And I've been vetted through civil and military intelligence and work in a sensitive environment. Over here, I very much doubt that blemish on the record would gain her such access. Again, anything truly sensitive will not be given to anyone with even the smallest doubt about the party they're working for. Who's to say they can be trusted over future events? "Oh, sorry we've started another war you don't like, but please don't divulge those critical details to parties unknown out of spite. It's mean."

The problem is that there was such a shitload of people who protested one way or another during the 1960's that excluding everyone in that cohort would seriously deplete the pool of available talent. Lots of people marched in anti-war demonstrations, anti-draft demonstrations, wore POW bracelets, lobbied for an end to the war, an end to the draft... Is what you're saying is that someone who wrote, say, a senator saying "I don't like this conflict, can we find a way to end it" is not trustworthy to hold a security clearance?

I've stated the facts. How sensitive her work actually was or wasn't I couldn't say, as I don't know what she did (although I have some suspicions), but she did get a security clearance and she did do her share of marching in the 60's. Make of it what you will. US citizens do have a right to speak their minds (although in the military they are not allowed to publicly oppose their employer and they must still follow lawful orders whether they like them or not). Not repeating the mistakes of Viet Nam has been a bit of an obsession in the US for about 4 decades now so a history of objecting to it may not carry the mark of disloyalty here that you think it does. Or perhaps her work was not directly involved in combat technology, in which case an opposition to a particular conflict would not matter so much. As I don't know more particulars than I've already related it's impossible for me to debate this further. I have stated the facts, make of them what you will.

[Ender]

Not anti-war like the weathermen, you ninny - on the level of wearing POW bracelets and showing up for demonstrations. That doesn't tar you for life. She didn't do anything to get arrested and she was a high school kid at the time.

He's speaking to the degree of classification. Someone with a track record of anti-governmental activism is pretty much not going to be given a clearance greater than "Restricted", the lowest level it is (if that, depending on what they did). I'd expect that a "Confidential" would be out of the question except in special circumstances, and higher levels are pretty much not going to happen. One of my uncles donated to the IRA back in the 60s (it was apparently fashionable for ignorant Irish descendants over here to contribute back then) and it held up my clearance for a few months.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What Ender said. I cannot form decent concise posts when eating salmon, it seems.

[Lonestar]

Not anti-war like the weathermen, you ninny - on the level of wearing POW bracelets and showing up for demonstrations. That doesn't tar you for life. She didn't do anything to get arrested and she was a high school kid at the time.

It still might restrict her "Public Trust" or "Secret". Or even "working in HR right outside the boundaries of the SCIF", as Ender said.

[Broomstick]

Not anti-war like the weathermen, you ninny - on the level of wearing POW bracelets and showing up for demonstrations. That doesn't tar you for life. She didn't do anything to get arrested and she was a high school kid at the time.

It still might restrict her "Public Trust" or "Secret". Or even "working in HR right outside the boundaries of the SCIF", as Ender said.

She wasn't working in HR or as any sort of traditional woman's-work or administrative role. Clearly, as I said, she wasn't working at the top levels and in accordance with job requirements she has never discussed anything about the job except in the most very vague terms. I know it involved computer programming of some sort because that was what she was doing in those years. Her level of "anti-government" activity also impacts on this. Wearing a POW bracelet and marching in a few end-the-war peace rallies while in high school is a lot different than, say, chaining yourself to the White House fence or getting an arrest record as a 30 year old adult. My original point is that the DoD does employ civilians as contractors and there's no reason to think civilian contractors would be somehow barred from a military space program. The DoD seemed much more concerned with a possible family connection to the Soviet Union than they were about her opposition to the Viet Nam war.

[Lonestar]

She wasn't working in HR or as any sort of traditional woman's-work or administrative role.

(1)I just threw HR out there(which is a guy in my office, by the way), there are jobs she could have had on a classified project that didn't actually deal wiht classified material, so a clearance wasn't required.

(2)The really "good stuff" classified jobs include what's called "counter-intelligence" or "full-scope" polygraphs. My experience with a CI poly is that it's extremely easy...but I know of coworkers who had to go back multiple times because they tripped on simple questions like "Have you ever knowingly joined a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the American government"(go figure, it turned out they were thinking of protests. In one case it was a libertarian who was against the idea of Federal taxes). Full-scope, I've heard, is a nightmare.

(3)Which is why I think it likely your sister worked on a project that only required a "Public Trust." If you work at NASA, you have to get what's called a "Public Trust", which is something a foriegner on a work-visa can get. So, while I fully agree to the possibility that your sister worked on a "classified project", there is classified and then there is Classified. One of those is going to hire someone other than your sister if they can help it.

[Publius]

Put another way, not all security clearances are made equal. Merely having a clearance is like having permission to enter a building. It does not mean one has been given the keys to every room and the combination to every safe inside the building.

[Broomstick]

(2)The really "good stuff" classified jobs include what's called "counter-intelligence" or "full-scope" polygraphs. My experience with a CI poly is that it's extremely easy...but I know of coworkers who had to go back multiple times because they tripped on simple questions like "Have you ever knowingly joined a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the American government"(go figure, it turned out they were thinking of protests. In one case it was a libertarian who was against the idea of Federal taxes). Full-scope, I've heard, is a nightmare.

Well, OK, but so far as I know my sister never joined an organized group - she wore a POW bracelet and went on a few marches like a LOT of people did back then. So she could have truthfully (as far as I know) have answered that question with "No, I have never knowingly joined a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the American government". She was involved in peaceful protests and very much was into non-violence when protesting. Being against a war does not mean you want to instigate a violent revolution. Whether or not she took a polygraph test I have no idea. I do know they investigated the rest of the family, but only because I am part of "the rest of the family".

(3)Which is why I think it likely your sister worked on a project that only required a "Public Trust." If you work at NASA, you have to get what's called a "Public Trust", which is something a foriegner on a work-visa can get. So, while I fully agree to the possibility that your sister worked on a "classified project", there is classified and then there is Classified. One of those is going to hire someone other than your sister if they can help it.

I do know that what she went through was more than just a standard government background check. What level of security she passed I don't know - like I said, she doesn't discuss it. You can speculate all you want, I suppose. When I spoke with her about what I had to go through she tossed off a comment of "oh, that's not as involved as what I went through" and I know the job I applied for last year a foreigner could NOT get (they made that clear during the screening process - US citizens only). So whatever. It's even possible that requirements and red flags have changed over time.

All of which is considerable detour from my original statement that the DoD DOES employ civilian contractors on research projects, and has done so for some time. Presumably, if NASA and the military space operations were merged many of the NASA guys could reasonably apply for a job with the military operations. Indeed, the military might even seek some of those people out, especially those with particular areas of expertise.

Put another way, not all security clearances are made equal. Merely having a clearance is like having permission to enter a building. It does not mean one has been given the keys to every room and the combination to every safe inside the building.

I never said otherwise. I don't know why everyone here leaped to the conclusion I was somehow saying my sister was a vital scientist on a Manhattan Project level - I'm pretty sure she wasn't. Maybe it's because I come from a family that has had a number of members work for the DoD as civilians and I know very well that the VAST majority of clearances are pretty low level.

[Adrian Laguna]

If all Broomstick's sister did was wear bracelets and attend marches, how would the government know about it? They don't keep records of everyone who goes to marches or gets symbolic bracelets. If the government doesn't know about it, then it would not affect her ability to get a security clearance. For all we know there are people with the highest clearance who were at some point involved in "subersive" activities, but nobody knows about it because they and their cohorts have kept their mouths shut.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If all Broomstick's sister did was wear bracelets and attend marches, how would the government know about it? They don't keep records of everyone who goes to marches or gets symbolic bracelets. If the government doesn't know about it, then it would not affect her ability to get a security clearance. For all we know there are people with the highest clearance who were at some point involved in "subersive" activities, but nobody knows about it because they and their cohorts have kept their mouths shut.

*shrug* It depends how picky anyone is, or whether the FBI has records.

For one thing though, I would imagine someone paranoid up there might worry that the person in question might leak information to "subversive elements" all in the name of free press/speech.