The Death March has Begun at NASA.

[Stofsk]

There's nothing with borrowing money in order to invest in something. You're just supposed to pay that money back. That's the problem.

[Simon_Jester]

Bugger. I'd planned a trip with the hope of seeing the September 16th Discovery launch.

See, this is the advantage of putting off planning.

Of course, I have the unfair advantage of living on the same continent as the launch pad, so I suppose it's easier for me.

[Kanastrous]

Front row at a space shuttle launch is not-to-be-missed. If you have a crack at it, it's worth the effort.

If they're still launching by the time you get there.

And if they don't have to scrub at the last moment for whatever reason.

[Elfdart]

Shep, I don't think you know what a 'death march' is. It's a project that is obviously incapable of reaching goals (which are generally being moved) that is forced to run to completion anyway by management.

It's not 'we are ending projects and cutting staff due to lack of funding'.

But thanks for sharing HPCA paranoia with everyone; not everyone goes there to see for themselves.

I'm just surprised he didn't refer to it as a Final Solution.

OH NOES! Teh Treasury won't pay for every toy invented by aerospace!

Maybe the war whores should have thought of this before blowing over a trillion dollars on Iraq.

[Simon_Jester]

Front row at a space shuttle launch is not-to-be-missed. If you have a crack at it, it's worth the effort.

If they're still launching by the time you get there.

And if they don't have to scrub at the last moment for whatever reason.

I'm looking at mid-row, myself; I don't really expect to get within twelve miles of the launch, as I recall the distance figures.

[Kanastrous]

We were lucky; a friend was Prop Master on From the Earth to the Moon for HBO. NASA invited anyone on the crew, or their friends, to come and see a launch from the press bleachers (right in from of the big-ass countdown clock). So we flew to Florida and were lucky that Columbia's second MSL launch didn't get scrubbed for weather. From +/- 3 miles the shockwaves from the launch ripples the water and makes the plexiglas covers on the clock go wockawockawockawocka - and it feels like your innards are doing the same...also toured Mission Control, the VAB, took a driving tour of part of the launch facility and got to hang out and chat with engineers and project people from the various companies who were there in support of the launch. Nice to watch your tax dollars at work.

[Kanastrous]

...

[KrauserKrauser]

I'm just surprised he didn't refer to it as a Final Solution.

OH NOES! Teh Treasury won't pay for every toy invented by aerospace!

Maybe the war whores should have thought of this before blowing over a trillion dollars on Iraq.

Completely a valid comparison, gutting and burying American manned spaceflight = AerospaceTOYZLOL!!!

I hear we don't need the air force, I mean shit the Navy and Army have flying things, why not completely destroy them as well while we are at it.

[MKSheppard]

OH NOES! Teh Treasury won't pay for every toy invented by aerospace!

Funnily enough, this is happening even as Obama wants to "increase" NASA's budget by $6 billion? But half of it is going to simply cancelling Constellation; and the other half is going to stupid bullshit like earth sciences.

Meanwhile, these acts to close down Constellation are flying in the face of Congress -- which has repeatedly stated -- bipartisan no less -- that Constellation should continue -- it's very rare when you find me agreeing with John Kerry; but there you go.

[Phantasee]

Why do you consider earth sciences to be "stupid bullshit"?

[Coyote]

Why do you consider earth sciences to be "stupid bullshit"?

I can't speak for Shep, but a lot of NASA's studies about climate, etc, really belong to the NOAA in my opinion. NASA would certainly assist those missions, but their primary mission is space exploration.

[MKSheppard]

Why do you consider earth sciences to be "stupid bullshit"?

Because NASA's mission should be to advance manned spaceflight.

Unmanned missions are all dandy, but they are very light compared to manned spaceflight.

The Russian efforts to explore the moon via robots brought back.... 3/4ths of a pound roughly (0.7 lbs).

The six Apollo missions brought back 842 pounds. So much that in fact, the majority are still stored in airtight containers etc so that future scientists with better equipment can have virgin samples to work with.

Apollo 15 roamed 17.25 miles on the LRV
Apollo 16 roamed 16.5 miles on the LRV
Apollo 17 roamed 22.3 miles on the LRV

By contrast; the Mars Rovers clocks read:

Spirit (MER-A): 4.8 miles
Opportunity (MER-B): 13.05 miles

[Temujin]

Yes, but with more advanced equipment we can do a lot more of the science on site now. Not to mention that we can go a lot more places and do a lot more science with a bunch of small and relatively inexpensive probes than we can with a smaller number of more expensive manned missions.

I certainly would like to see a continuation of the manned spaceflight program. I have to agree with what Lonestar said, that we could find the money in the DoD's rather bloated budget. The DoD needs a serious realignment of its budgetary priorities, including some serious cuts. If done intelligently, a portion of that money could easily go to help fund at least a minimal manned program. Carl Sagan once lamented that for the cost of one B1 Bomber, we could easily fund a fully equipped probe to rendezvous with Halley's Comet. The amount we spend on space is a pittance compared to what we spend on defense.

[Skylon]

Because NASA's mission should be to advance manned spaceflight.

Unmanned missions are all dandy, but they are very light compared to manned spaceflight.

Unmanned and Earth observation are however key to NASA's mission. The Agency's official mission statement is: "To improve life here, to extend life to there, to find life beyond." Its vision is: "To understand and protect our home planet, to explore the universe and search for life, and to inspire the next generation of explorers." It doesn't say do it "manned only", and indeed, NASA's mission is focused on Earth ("life here").

Apollo 15 roamed 17.25 miles on the LRV
Apollo 16 roamed 16.5 miles on the LRV
Apollo 17 roamed 22.3 miles on the LRV

By contrast; the Mars Rovers clocks read:

Spirit (MER-A): 4.8 miles
Opportunity (MER-B): 13.05 miles

Thanks for posting those figures as this goes back to what I was saying before with manned versus unmanned. The distances covered by the Mars rovers could have been covered in days by a human versus years. Heck, the reason for Spirit's low distance is due to it getting caught in a sand trap essentially, a problem that could be overcome by a human present, were it their rover.

Yes, a manned mission is more expensive, it is riskier, and at the moment is unable to be done without using more capital than is possible. We also get a tremendous bang for our buck from robotic probes. However, if its possible, an Astronaut on the ground will get you a greater scientific return than a robot. Which would yield greater data? A geologist placed in the Grand Canyon for an eight hour work day or a robotic rover placed there?

Please note, I don't think this applies to say, an orbital mission. There's no need to send humans to conduct something like a high resolution mapping mission of another planet.

[kouchpotato]

I'd like to see manned missions as much as the next person, but seriously, we're in the middle of a recession and billions of dollars in debt.

[Kanastrous]

It seems to me that laying the groundwork for a real anti-asteroid capability is a candidate for most-vital-space-project. Or is that alarmist?

And depending upon what approach was pursued, there could be a number of side benefits in terms of technology developed and infrastructure created to support the program.

[Stofsk]

It seems to me that laying the groundwork for a real anti-asteroid capability is a candidate for most-vital-space-project. Or is that alarmist?

A little. I wouldn't worry too much about an asteroid impacting in the near future. There are other, more immediate problems to deal with right now.

[Kanastrous]

I mean in terms of space priorities (unless you mean that, too).

[MKSheppard]

UPDATE:

Obama has released his new National Space Policy; and in it he stresses greater international cooperative efforts -- Clinton Era "We will build ISS with other nations" - rather than the singular Bush Era "we will do constellation by our selves".

This only proves that he's a retarded idiot. Bringing in the Russians and other countries into FREEDOM LITE, and rebranding it the ISS caused massive and substantial cost overruns and schedule slippages, to the point where full up DUAL KEEL FREEDOM ended up costing *less* than ISS.

As someone said it best on a blog:

"Whatever NASA convinces it self it may save by bringing in outside money, will be lost to additional layers of State Dept interaction, ITAR, foreign government political impacts, schedule slips, etc."

[Skylon]

This only proves that he's a retarded idiot. Bringing in the Russians and other countries into FREEDOM LITE, and rebranding it the ISS caused massive and substantial cost overruns and schedule slippages, to the point where full up DUAL KEEL FREEDOM ended up costing *less* than ISS.

Meet Space Station Freedom, as it existed on paper, circa 1987. It was to have modules built by the Europeans, Japan and Canada (the later apparently didn't make it to ISS, they've just supplied the station's robot arm). Bringing in Russia may have been a mess, however, Freedom, now ISS, always had the support of "other countries."

Watch the "America...FUCK YEAH!" stuff. That robot arm that flies with the shuttle has a Canadian flag on it for example.

FYI: NASA has already confirmed that this doesn't mean working with the Chinese.

[Questor]

Meet Space Station Freedom, as it existed on paper, circa 1987. It was to have modules built by the Europeans, Japan and Canada (the later apparently didn't make it to ISS, they've just supplied the station's robot arm). Bringing in Russia may have been a mess, however, Freedom, now ISS, always had the support of "other countries."

Watch the "America...FUCK YEAH!" stuff. That robot arm that flies with the shuttle has a Canadian flag on it for example.

FYI: NASA has already confirmed that this doesn't mean working with the Chinese.

I remember touring the mockup they had at the MDD facility out here as a cub scout. We were the backdrop for a speech by Bob Dole.

[MKSheppard]

Remember how Obama wants to invest in 'game changing' technologies and perform a "Study" on HLVs that won't be decided until 2015?

Lockheed 1993 study on SRB Derived 50,000 lb to Orbit Launcher
Lockheed 1993 study on F-1A Derived 50,000 lb to Orbit Launcher
Lockheed 1993 study on NLS derived cargo vessel for Lunar Missions
Lockheed 1993 study on HLVs using SRB Spam

Someone should just take these studies, file the names off them (and dates too); and then plop them down on Obama's freaking desk.

MAKE A DECISION.

[PeZook]

There's the Shuttle-derived Launch Vehicle study somewhere, too (basically, a Shuttle stack with a cargo capsule instead of the orbiter).

[MKSheppard]

Because I don't feel like spamming the forum with a new NASA thread....

WH now Defending Bolden's Comments

The White House and NASA today defended comments by National Aeronautic Space Administration administrator Charles Bolden about reaching out to the Muslim world – comments that conservatives criticized as undermining NASA’s mission.

A few days ago, in Cairo, Bolden told Al Jazeera that when he became the NASA administrator, President Obama charged him with three things: "One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering -- science, math and engineering."

This was part of President Obama’s desire, as stated in his Cairo address last year, to begin a new chapter in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world, Bolden said.
Bolden told Al Jazeera that this mission had nothing to do with diplomacy, but rather was rooted in expanding US outreach for tangible reasons. The international space station, he said, is a conglomerate of 15-plus nations, including the Russians and Japanese. Bolden said his mission to the Muslim world is a “matter of trying to reach out and try to get the best of all worlds.” No nation will make it to Mars on its own, he said.

But the comments have caused a kafuffle. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York interviewed former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, who headed the space agency during the last four years of the administration of President George W. Bush, who called Bolden’s stated charge for NASA a “perversion of NASA’s purpose.”

“NASA was chartered by the 1958 Space Act to develop the arts and sciences of flight in the atmosphere and in space and to go where those technologies will allow us to go,” Griffin said “That’s what NASA does for the country. It is a perversion of NASA’s purpose to conduct activities in order to make the Muslim world feel good about its contributions to science and mathematics.” Griffin made clear he was criticizing the policy, not Bolden, whom he praised.

On Fox News Channel, commentator Charles Krauthammer called Bolden’s comments “a new height of fatuousness. NASA was established to get America into space and to keep us there. This idea of 'to feel good about your past scientific achievements' is the worst kind of group therapy, psycho-babble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy. If I didn't know that Obama had told him this, I'd demand the firing of Charles Bolden. The way I would of Michael Steele. This is absolutely unbelievable."

Other conservative media pounced as well, including HotAir’s Ed Morrissey; National Review’s Victor Davis Hanson; and others.

NASA assistant administrator for public affairs Bob Jacobs told ABC News that “Administrator Bolden understands that NASA's core mission is exploration, both in space and in scientific endeavors here at home. Inherent to the success of that mission is cooperation and collaboration with other nations which are equally committed to this effort, including expanding the range of countries with which NASA engages and partners.”

In response to criticism, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement that “The President has always said that he wants NASA to engage with the world’s best scientists and engineers as we work together to push the boundaries of exploration. Meeting that mandate requires NASA to partner with countries around the world like Russia and Japan, as well as collaboration with Israel and with many Muslim-majority countries. The space race began as a global competition, but, today, it is a global collaboration.”

Another response was offered by the liberal media monitoring group Media Matters, which wrote a story titled “Yet again, an Obama official says ‘Muslim,’ right-wing media freak-out follows."

You know, I thought that the Bush Administration's plan of returning men to the fucking MOON as a first step towards a MARS MISSION was inspiring enough to the whole world...

As the tagline of a recent FRENCH documentary -- "In the Shadow of the Moon" said:

"Remember when the whole world looked up?"

[eion]

-The Coast Guard's original purpose was interdiction, but that expanded.
-The Secret Service still maintains its primary role as anti-counterfeiting police while they engage in the disparate task of protecting the President and other federal officials.

What's wrong with an organization taking on complimentary or even disparate tasks for the greater good that they are capable of undertaking?

If NASA can inspire Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other ME countries to dump invest their money in peaceful space exploration rather than funding people to kill us, I see it as win-win.