Hillary second, but kiss the moon goodbye.

Obama? Kiss NASA goodbye.

Can I have some of whatever you are doing?

That is a singularly uninformed statement.

VSE and ESAS are unparalleled and unmitigated disasters.

Well, Wikipedia doesn’t claim that Carter didn’t sign it, (and it’s not always the most accurate source). I had always thought that he had–it’s long been a mainstay of L-5 Society mythology.

But in doing a search, I can’t find any evidence that he did, but abundant evidence that he would have if he could have gotten the Senate to ratify–the Carter administration was clearly in favor of it, and negotiated very hard to attempt to ameliorate the apparent implied proscription against private enterprise.

In any event, I can’t imagine Obama persuading the Senate to ratify it under any circumstances. That really is one of the least of our concerns.

The reason you don’t see much on Obama’s space policy here or anywhere is that in space, as in many other areas, he has no policy or track record, other then snipets from speech here and there on NASA wasting money.

And since Obama has missed 1 in 5 votes in the Senate (one of worst records), and votes the party line 97% of the tine he does bother to vote, and since he has never been a co-sponsor on any space bill, unlike McCain and Clinton…. Well, I guess that says it all about what he thinks about space and its importance.

If I understand your surly mentioning of powerpoint and pictures then I believe I understand your point. All too often spaceflight advocates promote emotion and empathy (inspiration, etc…) as the reasons for spaceflight. Wrong, you can’t sustain a space program on emotion and you certainly can’t justify spending $10B’s on it. 100 Words or less?

It’s the same reasons that anyone has extended the reach of human civilization in history. In order to revitalize our stagnating philosophy by founding a new settlement built upon a foundation of our best ideals.

And now that I’ve held up my end of the bargain, Keith will you answer a question for me? Why is a guy that runs a NASA news weblog seeking external advice on justification for the existance of human spaceflight? I’m being completely serious here, you run a fantastic site, always the first to press on NASA related news, but your consistently pessimistic tones have always puzzled me. Why subject yourself to something on a daily basis that you feel so negatively about? Or is just the simple altruistic inversion: bad news is fun?

Please don’t tell me what I “believe,” Jim.

I do not assume anything about whether another review will be beneficial or not. I simply believe that there’s a chance it will. Any time there’s a change, there’s opportunity.

If you’re afraid of change, well, you can for a Constitutional amendment that will allow the reelection of George W. Bush. I don’t think you’ll be successful.

> If you have ever managed a project, you would know that constant re-adjustments to a project only increase cost
> and move back the date of completion.

I have managed projects, Jim, and worked on projects with some excellent managers.

The best managers are constantly adjusting plans in response to new data and unexpected events. They don’t just mindlessly follow a plan laid down by someone like Von Braun fifty years ago. Constant change — “Thriving on Chaos” –is the key to success in modern business.

Even NASA is embracing change, at the better-run centers like Ames.

> You seem to be of the opinion that NASA’s present course is ruinous to the future of space exploration. VSE is going
> as well as can be expected for a program that is underfunded.

Every agency believes it is underfunded, Jim. That’s no excess for not spending the money you have in the efficient manner.

If VSE can’t succeed with the amount of money NASA has, that’s not an argument for continuing with the current plan. It’s an argument for finding a plan that can be executed with the amount of money available.

For example, Pete Worden once proposed that NASA should offer a ten-billion dollar prize for the first private company to put a base on the Moon.

That is the kind of outside-the-box thinking NASA needs. It’s too bad Worden’s budget keeps getting cut because of VSE.

If that’s too radical, NASA could simply cancel Ares and downsize Constellation slightly to fit on an Atlas or Delta. That would solve all of the budget problems without any major dislocations.

> The problem here is that you don’t understand the differences, just as an example, between a re-entry at 6,000
> mph cannon shot that was Spaceship One and 17,000 mph of LEO, much less 26,000 mph for the Moon.

I understand the difference just fine, Jim. That sort of ad hominem attack is a sign that you can’t support your position with logical arguments.

Just because there’s a difference doesn’t mean it is insurmountable, or that we should give up on any hope of doing anything significant or useful in space.

DynaSoar would have flown at 17,000 mph, and that was 40 years ago. The prototype was about half finished when the project was cancelled. Technology has not regressed. If we could have done it then, we could certainly do it today.

When McDonnell Douglas was working on DC-X. NASA said it would cost over a billion dollars. McDAC and SDIO did it for $60 million. Around the same time, NASA said it was impossible to do a planetary science mission for less than half a billion dollars, until the Celementine team did it for under $50 million. Later, Mike Griffin got over $100 million from NASA to build a suborbital vehicle (X-34) and failed. Burt Rutan got just $25 million from Paul Allen and succeeded.

Those are examples of what can be done with outside-the-box thinking. It may scary thinking outside the box, but the box is not your friend.

Since you invoke the name of NSS, I remember the first time SpaceShip One flew into space. The National Space Society was there handing out membership forms to everyone at the gate, and the NASA Administrator flew in just to give a speech as if NASA had something to do with it. I also believe the executive director of NSS works part time for Virgin Galactic, which is financing Rutan’s SpaceShip Two.

So, I don’t understand why NSS members are still slagging off on SpaceShip One.

> You have let your over zealousness for Obama cloud your judgement.

I have no zealousness for Obama, Jim, let alone overzealousness. I am simply trying to look at things objectively.