NASA has become a transition problem for Obama

[China]

NASA has become a transition problem for Obama (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html)

CAPE CANAVERAL – NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned.

In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.

In addition, Griffin is scripting NASA employees and civilian contractors on what they can tell the transition team and has warned aerospace executives not to criticize the agency’s moon program, sources said.

Griffin’s resistance is part of a no-holds-barred effort to preserve the Constellation program, the delayed and over-budget moon rocket that is his signature project.

Chris Shank, NASA’s Chief of Strategic Communications, denied that Griffin is trying to keep information from the team, or that he is seeking a meeting with Obama. He also insisted that Griffin never argued with Garver.

“We are working extremely well with the transition team,” he said.

However, Shank acknowledged Griffin was concerned that the six-member team – all with space policy backgrounds – lack the engineering expertise to properly assess some of the information they have been given.

Garver refused comment about her conversation with Griffin -- and his remark that she is “not qualified” -- during a book-publication party at NASA headquarters last week. Obama’s Chicago office – which has sent similar transition teams to every federal agency – also had no comment.

People close to Garver, however, say that she has confirmed “unpleasant” exchanges with Griffin and other NASA officials. “Don’t worry, they have not beaten me down yet,” she e-mailed a colleague.

And this week, Garver told a meeting of aerospace representatives in Washington that “there will be change” to NASA policy and hinted that Obama would name a new administrator soon, according to participants.

Those who spoke for this article, including a member and staff in Congress, NASA employees, aerospace executives and consultants, spoke only on condition that their names not be used.

Garver’s team is one of dozens of review panels that over the last few weeks have descended on every government agency. Armed with tough questions, they are scrutinizing programs, scouring budgets and hunting for problems that may confront a new president.

Though their job is to smooth the transition between administrations, their arrival also brings a certain level of anxiety, particularly when programs face tough questions, as at NASA.

Said John Logsdon, a George Washington University professor who co-wrote the book honored at the NASA party, "There is a natural tension built into this situation... Mike is dead-on convinced that the current approach to the program is the right one. And Lori’s job is to question that for Mr. Obama. The Obama team is not going to walk in and take Mike’s word for it.”

The Bush White House has pledged cooperation, and many agency leaders have told staff to cooperate fully. Griffin himself sent a memo urging employees “to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately.”

At the same time, he made clear he expected NASA employees to stay on message.

For example, transition-team interviews have been monitored by NASA officials “taking copious notes,” according to congressional and space-community sources. Employees who met with the team were told to tell their managers about the interview.

The tensions are due to the fact that NASA’s human space flight program is facing its biggest crossroads since the end of the Apollo era in the 1970s. The space shuttle is scheduled to be retired in 2010, and the next-generation Constellation rockets won’t fly before 2015.

Nearly four years ago, President Bush brought in Griffin to implement a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020 as a prelude to going to Mars. Griffin and his team selected Constellation, with its NASA-designed Ares I rocket and Orion capsule, as cheaper and safer than existing rockets. Constellation – especially Ares 1 -- is the center of what Griffin sees as his legacy to return humans to the frontiers of space.

Griffin has made no secret that he would like to stay on but only, as he recently told Kennedy Space Center workers, "under the right circumstances," including being able to finish Constellation.

But budget problems and technical issues have created growing doubts about the project. Griffin has dismissed these as normal rocket development issues, but they’ve clearly got the transition team’s attention.

When team members arrived three weeks ago, they asked the agency, among other things, to quantify how much could be saved by canceling Ares I. Though they also asked what it would take to accelerate the program, the fact that the team could even consider scrapping the program was enough to spur Griffin and his supporters into action

According to industry officials, Griffin started calling heads of companies working for NASA, demanding that they either tell the Obama team that they support Constellation or refrain from talking about alternatives.

The companies, worried that Griffin may remain and somehow punish them if they ignore his wishes, have by and large complied.

One consultant said that when Garver invited “several” mid-level aerospace executives to speak to the team, their bosses told them not to go and warned that anything said had to be cleared first with NASA because Griffin had demanded it.

Documents and e-mails obtained by the Sentinel confirm NASA’s efforts to coordinate what’s said.

Click on the link for the full article

[Koolblue13]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/90029?utm_source=embedded_video

[Predicto]

I found this quote disturbing (assuming that it is accurate)


As an example of the tensions between current and incoming NASA staff, the article reports that, at a NASA library book party, Griffin loudly expressed his antipathy towards the transition team, leading to a heated conversation between him and transition head Lori Garver. Garver said, "Mike, I don’t understand what the problem is. We are just trying to look under the hood [of NASA]." Griffin replied, "If you are looking under the hood, then you are calling me a liar. Because it means you don’t trust what I say is under the hood."

That is exactly the wrong attitude to have.

[FanboyOf91]

Smells like there's pork under the hood.

[Jumbo]

I already have a space program. I rent it out.

[SC_RedskinsFan]

Smells like there's pork under the hood.

I think NASA so much pork that we all should get some bacon out of them.

[Midnight Judges]

Sound like Mr. Griffin is passionate about his work and believes strongly in what he is doing. But he is going about this all wrong. Witholding information from the folks who need to make the ultimate decision and threatening engineers for speaking their minds is precisely the kind of BS that has plagued the Bush administration throughout its tenure. It sounds like Griffin doesn't have the first clue as to what constitutes good Governance.

This douchelord is history.

[Burgold]

I found this quote disturbing (assuming that it is accurate)





You're really reaching here, Predicto. That quote doesn't look like he has anything to hide at all.

Wait a minute. Reverse that.

[Raub]

Maybe we'll finally get access to the alien remains from Roswell.

[DeanCollins]

I found this quote disturbing (assuming that it is accurate)



That is exactly the wrong attitude to have.

Griffin's job is history. He thinks he can bully the new admin. I'd be checking his bank accounts. Someone that is resistant to inquiry usually has a lot to hide. I think that we ought to ****can space exploration, cut NASA in half and keep the military applications side of it. I mean wtf have we gained in 40 years by dicking around in space? I dunno what their budget is but half of what they spent in 40 years could probably have paid off the pre bailout National debt.

[Yusuf06]

In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.

Garver: You really want to speak directly with President-elect Obama?

Griffin: Absolutely.

Garver: Hold on......OK, he's on the phone.

Griffin: Hello Mr. President-elect.

Obama: Pack your :pooh:

[Predicto]

I'm not suggesting that Griffin has anything to hide, or that he is corrupt, or anything of the sort.

I'm suggesting that he does not have the proper attitude toward the new Administration, and he does not understand that openly defending his programs to the new Administration is the only legitimate way to advance the projects he supports.

Basically, he is acting like a feudal lord rather than a federal official accountable to higher-ups (and ultimately to the people).

[Predicto]

Garver: You really want to speak directly with President-elect Obama?

Griffin: Absolutely.

Garver: Hold on......OK, he's on the phone.

Griffin: Hello Mr. President-elect.

Obama: Pack your :pooh:

lol

If that wasn't happening before it's sure gonna happen now. And it should.

[Diggs]

In my experience, really good engineers typically dont have very good 'people skills'. But seriously egghead, know your role.

[Lavarleap56]

http://www.blackmarketchicago.com/images/adult-sex-toys/Adult-Sex-Toys-The-Pocket-Rocket-Vibrator.jpg

Always knew nasa was spending billions of dollars on these......

[DCSaints_fan]

Funding NASA was not high on Obama's list, so its no surprise there is some tension. In fact, I think he wanted to cut NASA's budget even further in order to balance the budget. They are probably looking for reasons to axe Constellation.

[Mad Mike]

I'm usually a supporter of NASA over the pencil pushers in Washington, but Griffin has lost his mind. He's hurting the program he's trying to save. :doh:

[mjah]

I dunno what their budget is but half of what they spent in 40 years could probably have paid off the pre bailout National debt.

Uhhh... No. Not even in the same ballpark.

Total cost of NASA since its inception, adjusted for inflation: $851B. ($237B of that was the Moon shot.)

National debt as of the end of September 2008, before the bailout mania: About $10T.

In other words, NASA's lifetime budget including the Moon shot would cover 1/12 of the current national debt.

Using the far more reasonable metric of NASA's 2009 annual budget ($17.6B), it would take 568 NASA years to pay off the national debt.

There are FAR bigger and better targets for spending cuts than NASA. Just as there were those who questioned the sea voyages of the 1400s and Leonardo DaVinci's dissections in the 1500s, there are those who question space exploration today.

Someday robots will do it all. But for now humans are involved, and they will be until we find a better way to thoroughly explore space. There's zero sense in cutting out such a comparatively small and important organization as the one that does real science.

(The ISS, on the other hand, isn't exactly "real science." But that's a topic for a different thread...)

[Larry]

Sounds unfortunate.

I'm one of the people who really, really, wants us Back In Space.

(Frankly, I think Mars is a colossal waste of money. But I think a permanent Lunar base, and an orbital one, with the goal of expanding them enough to become industrial centers is something we should have done 20 years ago.)

The Administrator shouldn't be hiding his work from his boss. If he can't sell his work, then he's the wrong man for the job.

[sacase]

I understand his point, but he needs to be able to turn the technical aspects of the program into something that the transition team can understand. That is where he is failing. Pollicy makers are rarely going to be true experts in the field they are in, so you have to be able to make them understand what you are doing. Not a smart move at all.

[Yusuf06]

Uhhh... No. Not even in the same ballpark.

Total cost of NASA since its inception, adjusted for inflation: $851B. ($237B of that was the Moon shot.)

National debt as of the end of September 2008, before the bailout mania: About $10T.

In other words, NASA's lifetime budget including the Moon shot would cover 1/12 of the current national debt.

Using the far more reasonable metric of NASA's 2009 annual budget ($17.6B), it would take 568 NASA years to pay off the national debt.

There are FAR bigger and better targets for spending cuts than NASA. Just as there were those who questioned the sea voyages of the 1400s and Leonardo DaVinci's dissections in the 1500s, there are those who question space exploration today.

Someday robots will do it all. But for now humans are involved, and they will be until we find a better way to thoroughly explore space. There's zero sense in cutting out such a comparatively small and important organization as the one that does real science.

(The ISS, on the other hand, isn't exactly "real science." But that's a topic for a different thread...)
I don't disagree with you Mjah. However I don't think anyone is arguing that NASA needs to go away. Rather, how much of that $18B could they save without having to build in safety and redundancy features required to support manned missions?

The space program should certainly continue but manned missions are something of a luxury that we don't have the money to pay for right about now.

[btfoom]

Griffin's job is history.

It already was. He has caused alot of problems for NASA because he is so strong headed and unwilling to work well with Congress.


He thinks he can bully the new admin. I'd be checking his bank accounts. Someone that is resistant to inquiry usually has a lot to hide.

I know Mike personally (he taught three of my Master's classes) and he is in now way, shape, or form corrupt. He is the kind of person who is very intellgent with little to no people skills. I promise you he hasn't pocketed a dime of NASA money (other than his salary).


I think that we ought to ****can space exploration, cut NASA in half and keep the military applications side of it. I mean wtf have we gained in 40 years by dicking around in space? I dunno what their budget is but half of what they spent in 40 years could probably have paid off the pre bailout National debt.

Wow, you are a little off on this part (I'll leave out the money as it was explained to you already).

Without NASA and the 'dicking around in space', you would not have:

1. SATELLITE TELEVISION: Our world would not be the same without the satellites now in orbit around the Earth – all thanks to the space programme. They not only give us satellite broadcast television and radio but also power telecommunications including mobile phones and terrestrial TV networks.

2. SAT NAV: The global positioning system on which our in-car navigation systems are based was developed by the US Department of Defense. They would not exist without the space satellites.

3. GOOGLE EARTH: Mapping was never as accurate as the images we can now get thanks to satellites which from space can even see a dog in your back garden.

4. VIRTUAL REALITY: Nasa-developed research and advanced technology devices allow users to project themselves into a computer-generated environment. When coupled with a stereo-viewing device and appropriate software, it creates a feeling of actually being there.

5. ARTIFICIAL LIMBS: Prosthetic limbs are not new but advancements in space robotics are being adapted to create more lifelike, functioning limbs.

6. DIALYSIS: Modern machines to do the work of the kidneys – for patients waiting for or unable to have transplants – were developed as a result of a Nasa-developed chemical process.

7. MRI AND CAT SCANS: Nasa did not invent magnetic resonance imaging but it has contributed to major advances thanks to research into computer enhancement of pictures sent from the moon. Digital image processing has led to enhanced images of human organs.

8. BREAST CANCER SCREENING: A silicon chip originally developed for Nasa’s Hubble Space Telescope makes the testing process less painful, less scarring and less expensive than traditional biopsy methods.

9. ULTRASOUND TO ASSESS SKIN DAMAGE: An advanced instrument uses ultrasound technology to assess the depth of burn damage immediately, improving patient treatment and saving lives in serious burn cases.

10. EAR THERMOMETER: Removing the need to use intrusive, mercury-based thermometers on newborn babies and critically ill patients, the ear thermometer uses infrared astronomy technology to measure the amount of energy emitted by the eardrum. This is how Nasa measures the temperature of stars and planets.

11. ATTENTION GETTER: Techniques used to measure brain activity in Nasa pilots are being used to improve attention spans for children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

12. ROAD SAFETY: The cutting of grooves in concrete to increase traction was developed to reduce space shuttle accidents on runways. It is now applied to roads and has cut US traffic accidents by 85 per cent.

13. IMPROVED RADIAL TIRES: Goodyear developed a fibrous material five times stronger than steel for Nasa to use in parachutes to land the Viking explorers on Mars. They expanded the technology to produce a harder-wearing radial car tire.

14. LANDMINE REMOVAL: Surplus rocket fuel is used for a flare that can burn a hole in the case of a mine and burn away its explosive content.

15. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: Nasa software engineers have created thousands of computer programs to find imperfections in aerospace structures and components which has proved invaluable in air safety.

16. WATER FILTERS: Water-cleaning technology has existed since the early Fifties but Nasa came up with ways to filter it in more extreme situations. The activated charcoal with silver ions used in commercial filter systems cleans the water and kills bacteria.

17. FREEZE-DRIED FOOD: Nasa carried out extensive research to reduce the weight of food to be carried on missions. The result was a method for cooking food, freezing it quickly, then slowly heating it in a vacuum chamber to remove the ice crystals. The end product weighs one fifth of the original, while retaining 98 per cent of its nutrition.

18. TEMPER FOAM: Nasa developed a soft, high-energy-absorbent padding to improve crash protection in aircraft. Now “memory foam” is used in mattresses, pillows, military and civilian vehicles, sports safety equipment, amusement park rides, furniture and artificial limbs.

19. SCRATCH-RESISTANT LENSES: A modified version of a process developed by Nasa involves coating the lenses with a film of carbon that helps avoid scratches and decreases friction and reduces water spots.

20. RIBBED SWIMSUITS: The swimsuit worn by Olympic sensation Michael Phelps was developed with Nasa technology. Aerodynamic research came up with material which give 15 per cent faster speeds than any other swimsuit thanks to small, barely visible grooves that reduce friction and drag.

21. AERODYNAMIC GOLF BALLS: Technology is behind the design of golf balls with 500 dimples in a pattern of 60 triangles which allows the ball to maintain its initial speed longer and produce a more stable flight for better accuracy and distance.

22. ATHLETIC SHOES: Moon-boot material has been incorporated into running shoe midsoles to improve shock absorption and provide better stability and motion control.

23. PERSONAL ALARM SYSTEMS: A pen-sized ultrasonic transmitter used by prison guards, teachers, the elderly and disabled to call for help is based on space technology.

24. SPACE PENS: Most pens depend on gravity to make the ink flow to the ballpoint. The space pen was developed for the gravity-free space environment so that the ink cartridge contains pressurised gas to push the ink towards the ballpoint, so you can write upside down.

25. CORDLESS POWER TOOLS: The household and DIY products firm Black & Decker came up with a portable drill capable of extracting core samples from below the lunar surface during the Apollo missions. The same technology has been used on cordless miniature vacuum cleaners.

I assume you use at least a few of these, so you may want to check your facts before you post something like the above again:doh:.

Please note that none of the above addresses the vase scientific knowledge that has been provided by NASA.

[DeanCollins]

Uhhh... No. Not even in the same ballpark.

Total cost of NASA since its inception, adjusted for inflation: $851B. ($237B of that was the Moon shot.)

National debt as of the end of September 2008, before the bailout mania: About $10T.

In other words, NASA's lifetime budget including the Moon shot would cover 1/12 of the current national debt.

Using the far more reasonable metric of NASA's 2009 annual budget ($17.6B), it would take 568 NASA years to pay off the national debt.

There are FAR bigger and better targets for spending cuts than NASA. Just as there were those who questioned the sea voyages of the 1400s and Leonardo DaVinci's dissections in the 1500s, there are those who question space exploration today.

Someday robots will do it all. But for now humans are involved, and they will be until we find a better way to thoroughly explore space. There's zero sense in cutting out such a comparatively small and important organization as the one that does real science.

(The ISS, on the other hand, isn't exactly "real science." But that's a topic for a different thread...)

come on now, I wrote "pre-bailout" Nat Debt. which was more like 2.75 trillion. Now figure interest on the entire Nasa budget since inception and you'd have about 20 trillion.

[Diggs]

come on now, I wrote "pre-bailout" Nat Debt. which was more like 2.75 trillion. Now figure interest on the entire Nasa budget since inception and you'd have about 20 trillion.

:laugh:

[DeanCollins]

Wow, you are a little off on this part (I'll leave out the money as it was explained to you already).

Without NASA and the 'dicking around in space', you would not have:

1. SATELLITE TELEVISION: Our world would not be the same without the satellites now in orbit around the Earth – all thanks to the space programme. They not only give us satellite broadcast television and radio but also power telecommunications including mobile phones and terrestrial TV networks. what's wrong with cable tv? :laugh:


2. SAT NAV: The global positioning system on which our in-car navigation systems are based was developed by the US Department of Defense. They would not exist without the space satellites.

that's for people who can't read maps :D



3. GOOGLE EARTH: Mapping was never as accurate as the images we can now get thanks to satellites which from space can even see a dog in your back garden.

I don't even own a dog ;)


4. VIRTUAL REALITY: Nasa-developed research and advanced technology devices allow users to project themselves into a computer-generated environment. When coupled with a stereo-viewing device and appropriate software, it creates a feeling of actually being there.
great, now my son will be buying a 15th game console and assorted games, which he's addicted to. :doh: :laugh:


5. ARTIFICIAL LIMBS: Prosthetic limbs are not new but advancements in space robotics are being adapted to create more lifelike, functioning limbs.

6. DIALYSIS: Modern machines to do the work of the kidneys – for patients waiting for or unable to have transplants – were developed as a result of a Nasa-developed chemical process.

7. MRI AND CAT SCANS: Nasa did not invent magnetic resonance imaging but it has contributed to major advances thanks to research into computer enhancement of pictures sent from the moon. Digital image processing has led to enhanced images of human organs.

8. BREAST CANCER SCREENING: A silicon chip originally developed for Nasa’s Hubble Space Telescope makes the testing process less painful, less scarring and less expensive than traditional biopsy methods.

9. ULTRASOUND TO ASSESS SKIN DAMAGE: An advanced instrument uses ultrasound technology to assess the depth of burn damage immediately, improving patient treatment and saving lives in serious burn cases.

10. EAR THERMOMETER: Removing the need to use intrusive, mercury-based thermometers on newborn babies and critically ill patients, the ear thermometer uses infrared astronomy technology to measure the amount of energy emitted by the eardrum. This is how Nasa measures the temperature of stars and planets.
no argument here, but what's that got to do with space exploration? :rolleyes: :D

I appreciate the education, and you had to know that I was mostly kidding, but don't be surprised at the cost cutting that is inevitable due to financial condition that our country is in. Maybe Nasa can do some private fund raising from the likes of those who benefited most from the previous Pres. admin. (Exxon/Mobile, Haliburton...) ;)

[SUSkinsFan]

If I were Obama, come January 20th, 12:01 PM this guy wouldn't have a job

[Larry]

If I were Obama, come January 20th, 12:01 PM this guy wouldn't have a job

Don't know. He may be perfect for the position of Alpha Geek.

He just needs a job where he doesn't get out of the lab.

[mjah]

come on now, I wrote "pre-bailout" Nat Debt. which was more like 2.75 trillion. Now figure interest on the entire Nasa budget since inception and you'd have about 20 trillion.

I was using the pre-bailout numbers! Where did you get $2.75 trillion? In 2007 dollars, the national debt hasn't been $2.75T since the beginning of Reagan's first term! And remember, the NASA lifetime budget numbers are adjusted to 2008 dollars, so it's a pretty fair comparison.

The actual history of the national debt in 2007 dollars appears at the end of this post, compiled from the government's own numbers (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf).

And could you please share the math that led you to conclude that NASA's tally should actually be $20T somehow? I sure hope you didn't model it as an $851B credit card charge in 1958.

Interestingly, the entire Federal budget including Social Security, Medicare, DoD, etc. currently runs around $3T or so -- or about 1/7 of the "after-interest" cost you're attributing to NASA's existence alone. That should tell you that something is very, very wrong with your NASA number.

By the way, let's also consider the huge financial gains the US economy has made thanks to NASA research. That previous post listed many NASA innovations, but didn't even scratch the surface as to the $$$$$ that the American corporations, citizens, and government have netted as a result.

Here's the real National Debt chart since 1940:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/350px-USDebt.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USDebt.png)

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Why do we want to return to the moon? Been there. Done that many times. Go somewhere new.

[Diggs]

Why do we want to return to the moon? Been there. Done that many times. Go somewhere new.

We left our keys.

[Burgold]

We left our keys.

and a good fondue is worth going back for.

[mjah]

Why do we want to return to the moon? Been there. Done that many times. Go somewhere new.

I tend to agree.

But the chicks there are just so damned hot...!

[DeanCollins]

Why do we want to return to the moon? Been there. Done that many times. Go somewhere new.


We left our keys.

it's time to replace the flag :silly:

[DeanCollins]

I was using the pre-bailout numbers! Where did you get $2.75 trillion? In 2007 dollars, the national debt hasn't been $2.75T since the beginning of Reagan's first term! And remember, the NASA lifetime budget numbers are adjusted to 2008 dollars, so it's a pretty fair comparison.

The actual history of the national debt in 2007 dollars appears at the end of this post, compiled from the government's own numbers (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf).

And could you please share the math that led you to conclude that NASA's tally should actually be $20T somehow? I sure hope you didn't model it as an $851B credit card charge in 1958.

Interestingly, the entire Federal budget including Social Security, Medicare, DoD, etc. currently runs around $3T or so -- or about 1/7 of the "after-interest" cost you're attributing to NASA's existence alone. That should tell you that something is very, very wrong with your NASA number.

By the way, let's also consider the huge financial gains the US economy has made thanks to NASA research. That previous post listed many NASA innovations, but didn't even scratch the surface as to the $$$$$ that the American corporations, citizens, and government have netted as a result.

Here's the real National Debt chart since 1940:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/350px-USDebt.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USDebt.png)

jeesh, I forgot about all the rocket scientist we have in here :silly:
Oh, and I failed Reaganomics, that's why my numbers are bit off ;)

[Yusuf06]

I tend to agree.

But the chicks there are just so damned hot...!
And how! Anyone who doesn't believe it should ask one James Tiberious Kirk. ;)

[Predicto]

And how! Anyone who doesn't believe it should ask one James Tiberious Kirk. ;)

http://www.imagechicken.com/uploads/1229036491075057700.jpg (http://www.imagechicken.com)

:laugh:

[Corcaigh]

I think NASA so much pork that we all should get some bacon out of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6GMrybKgbg

[Corcaigh]

But the chicks there are just so damned hot...!

The chicks are hot but the place has no atmosphere.

[Predicto]

The chicks are hot but the place has no atmosphere.

Badabing!

[DeanCollins]

Badabing!

I believe that's "Badda 'Bing" :silly:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=badda+bing

[Corcaigh]

I believe that's "Badda 'Bing" :silly:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=badda+bing

In space, no-one can hear you.

[Predicto]

I believe that's "Badda 'Bing" :silly:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=badda+bing

I believe this smiley is uniquely appropriate for this situation.

:moon:

[Larry]

I believe this smiley is uniquely appropriate for this situation.

:moon:

I feel it is strangely appropriate for me to return your :moon:

[herrmag]

I found this quote disturbing (assuming that it is accurate)



That is exactly the wrong attitude to have.

That's been the problem with NASA for too long. They have a HUGE responsibility, and it's gone unchecked for WAY too long. I have my issues with Obama, but taking a closer look at NASA is one thing I can agree with.

[btfoom]

Why do we want to return to the moon? Been there. Done that many times. Go somewhere new.

Maybe because it is much easier to 'practice' building a self-sustaining colony on a place nearby that is far easier to get to than a planet.

Maybe to establish a launching point for further space travel.

Maybe to practice launching from our planet and landing large spacecraft on other orbiting masses.

[herrmag]

Maybe because it is much easier to 'practice' building a self-sustaining colony on a place nearby that is far easier to get to than a planet.

Maybe to establish a launching point for further space travel.

Maybe to practice launching from our planet and landing large spacecraft on other orbiting masses.

Fair enough. Do you take issue with a new admin looking at how they're spending dollars?

[GibbsFactor]

I already have a space program. I rent it out.

I got one too and it's over budget and behind schedule.

:mad:

Is it really that important that we rush to the moon again at this point in time?

[Larry]

Is it really that important that we rush to the moon again at this point in time?

Who's rushing? We should have been there 30 years ago.

[GibbsFactor]

Who's rushing? We should have been there 30 years ago.

We were 40 years ago.

It's obvious that technology just doesn't exist yet. Somehow we think that this program will just magically work and we'll discover the technology needed to go to Mars. Sometimes a people just aren't ready to push the bounds. Sometimes we have to pay a little attention to home. These are one of those times.

[Larry]

We were 40 years ago.

It's obvious that technology just doesn't exist yet. Somehow we think that this program will just magically work and we'll discover the technology needed to go to Mars. Sometimes a people just aren't ready to push the bounds. Sometimes we have to pay a little attention to home. These are one of those times.

1) You were referring to the Moon, not Mars.

2) Obviously, the technology does exist, since we've already done it. (Better technology would make it a lot cheaper. But we could have done it 40 years ago, just by throwing a boatload of money at it.)

3) The total NASA budget is absolutely miniscule compared to the federal budget. The "either/or" rhetoric is simply that, rhetoric.

4) In the entire history of NASA, NASA has never spent one single dime in space. Every single bit of it's money has been spent on Earth. And virtually all of it in the US. Money spent on NASA doesn't vanish from the US economy. It stimulates it.

[GibbsFactor]

1) You were referring to the Moon, not Mars.

I was referring to the moon in my original post. You then changed the subject to Mars. The reason we want to go back to the moon is partly to test new technologies needed to go to Mars. Going to the moon is an enabler for going to Mars.


2) Obviously, the technology does exist, since we've already done it. (Better technology would make it a lot cheaper. But we could have done it 40 years ago, just by throwing a boatload of money at it.)

Technology exists on the older space program. Not the new one. That much is obvious since we haven't even attempted a moon landing in the shuttle era. What they are preparing for is far more ambitious then the Apollo missions.


3) The total NASA budget is absolutely miniscule compared to the federal budget. The "either/or" rhetoric is simply that, rhetoric.

Cuts across the board. Nothing should be safe. And it's called budgeting. What do you want to just eliminate the entire DOD budget and all entitlements instead?


4) In the entire history of NASA, NASA has never spent one single dime in space. Every single bit of it's money has been spent on Earth. And virtually all of it in the US. Money spent on NASA doesn't vanish from the US economy. It stimulates it.

Great. I love NASA and all that it does. Still doesn't mean that in times of depression, it may be wise to restructure out of control projects.

[Larry]

Is it really that important that we rush to the moon again at this point in time?


Who's rushing? We should have been there 30 years ago.


I was referring to the moon in my original post. You then changed the subject to Mars.

Please point out to me exactly where I "changed the subject to Mars".

[Larry]

Technology exists on the older space program. Not the new one. That much is obvious since we haven't even attempted a moon landing in the shuttle era. What they are preparing for is far more ambitious then the Apollo missions.

Technology doesn't go away. If we had the ability to go to the Moon 40 years ago, then we still do.

They are working on better ways to do it. On ways to make it cheaper.

(For example, Apollo had the ability to deliver two astronauts to the Moon, with enough supplies to stay there for a day. While it would be theoretically possible to send an Apollo a day to the Moon, with enough supplies to keep the astronauts alive for one more day, that would be a really expensive way to do things. But it could have been done. All it would take was a lot of money.)

[Larry]

Cuts across the board. Nothing should be safe. And it's called budgeting. What do you want to just eliminate the entire DOD budget and all entitlements instead?

I suggest you actually look at some numbers as to the amount of money spent on "the entire DOD budget and all entitlements" in comparison to NASA.

Or you can keep talking out of your Philly.

[Larry]

Great. I love NASA and all that it does. Still doesn't mean that in times of depression, it may be wise to restructure out of control projects.

Please provide support for your claim of "out of control projects".

Something that's got more factual basis than the other stuff you're spewing.

[Larry]

Fair enough. Do you take issue with a new admin looking at how they're spending dollars?

Not a bit.

I'm in favor of the goal. (A permanent, expandable, base on the Moon. Followed by one in orbit. IMO, I don't see any reason at all to send Men to Mars.)

That doesn't mean they should be handed a blank check and no oversight.

[GibbsFactor]

Please provide support for your claim of "out of control projects".

Something that's got more factual basis than the other stuff you're spewing.

Why isn't the director showing the books? Because I'd assume, and again, it's just my ignorant assumption, that he knows a rational third party entity would be in awe of the cost of it's projects.

I get that you love NASA and what it's doing. But is it necessary now? You aren't telling me why we must go to the moon right now. It ain't going anywhere.

[btfoom]

Fair enough. Do you take issue with a new admin looking at how they're spending dollars?

No, not at all. I believe that if an agency really believes it is spending its money wisely, they would not care if the current or new administration wants to look at the expenditures. IMHO, open accounting is a good thing.

[btfoom]

Why isn't the director showing the books? Because I'd assume, and again, it's just my ignorant assumption, that he knows a rational third party entity would be in awe of the cost of it's projects.

The reason Mike isn't working with the new transition team is that he believes (arrogantly, IMHO) that they don't understand NASA's workings and goals and thinks that if he goes to BO, he can make his case better.

Do I agree, no, but that is the main reason.


I get that you love NASA and what it's doing. But is it necessary now? You aren't telling me why we must go to the moon right now. It ain't going anywhere.

The problem with "going to the moon" is that traveling outside of our atmosphere is a much more daunting task than going from Cleveland to Dallas. Just because we've 'been there before' does not mean that we can just send a few folks on a trip tomorrow.

IMHO, we need to keep pushing the boundaries of space and space travel if we ever want to be able to explore beyond our own planet. You can talk all you want about our current financial situation, but the money being spent on the space program has produced technology that has created entire new lines of business (see my earlier post for a few examples). Larry said it very well when he shows that NASAs budget is miniscule when compared to other congressionally controlled items.

[Larry]

Why isn't the director showing the books? Because I'd assume, and again, it's just my ignorant assumption, that he knows a rational third party entity would be in awe of the cost of it's projects.

I get that you love NASA and what it's doing. But is it necessary now? You aren't telling me why we must go to the moon right now. It ain't going anywhere.

You haven't told me why Columbus had to go to the New World right then. It wasn't going anywhere.

You haven't told me why we need to build highways right now. They're not going anywhere.

You haven't told me why we needed to build airplanes when we did. Railroads worked.

New technologies, new frontiers, pay off. They pay off in ways that are difficult to measure directly, and which are really hard to predict in advance.


Remembering reading an article by an historian, who went back to Bell's exhibition of the telephone at the World's Fair, and examined the reaction to this invention. He observed that the reaction was almost 100% negative. That it was a useless gizmo with no practical use whatsoever. All it was was a minor improvement on the telegraph, and a really esoteric one, at that. And the telegraph, frankly, worked just fine, and didn't need this "improvement".

He did find one reporter who was enthusiastic about the idea. This one reporter wrote of the invention with gushing praise, saying that he felt that this invention would turn out to be the most important event of the entire fair, that the reporter was honored to be present at the event. The reporter said that he thought that this event would revolutionize Life As We Know It. That there would come a day, some time in the future, maybe not in our lifetimes, but some day, when every town would have one.

My reasoning about The Space Program is, I'll freely admit, a philosophical one. I don't believe it's possible to cost justify it any more than it was possible to cost justify, in advance, the colonization of America.

That's also why I support the goal of creating permanent colonies. Preferably self-sustaining ones. For several reasons.

One reason is because such colonies provide a bootstrap capability. If we have a permanent colony, on the Moon and in orbit, then we have the choice of going to Mars, or to the Asteroids (which I suspect would be much more attractive), if we chose to do so. It's good to have choices.

Another reason I support permanent colonization is to use the analogy of the New World.


Isabella sent Columbus to go, plant a flag, and come home.

George 1 sent the Pilgrims to build houses, and a port, and farms, and raise kids, and live there.

And that's why we speak English today, and not Spanish.

The "profits" from a New World don't go to the people who make the first trip. They go to the people who go there and stay.

Another, also philosophical reason, why I support it is because I believe that growth is a necessity for survival. That civilizations either grow, or they die. That there is no other option. And I don't see any opportunities for growth here on Earth. (Although I can understand the folks who point at the Seas. But it just doesn't feel right, to me.) (Feel free to refer to this as "The Final Frontier" philosophy. :) )

[DeanCollins]

One reason is because such colonies provide a bootstrap capability. If we have a permanent colony, on the Moon and in orbit, then we have the choice of going to Mars, or to the Asteroids (which I suspect would be much more attractive), if we chose to do so. It's good to have choices.

Another reason I support permanent colonization is to use the analogy of the New World.

Isabella sent Columbus to go, plant a flag, and come home.

George 1 sent the Pilgrims to build houses, and a port, and farms, and raise kids, and live there.

And that's why we speak English today, and not Spanish.

The "profits" from a New World don't go to the people who make the first trip. They go to the people who go there and stay. )

That all sounds good, but the moon is a worthless rock that you have to bring everthing (food, water, building materials....) to. Any raw material value there, would be so expensive to bring back, it would be cheaper to find/develop here. A practical analogy for today. You have to be able to maintain your primary residence before you go and buy a vacation home.
We simply could use that money to sustain our country now. Let the private sector determine if there is value there and whether they should invest/gamble development costs on it.

[LegionOfDoom]

I say we just scuttle all of that space exploration and put all of the funding into developing Warp drive technology. It would be nice to take a 5 hour flight to another galaxy that has a similiar environment like Earth. That would be so worth it.

The Earth is a dump and we need a place to create our perfect Utopian society.

[Larry]

That all sounds good, but the moon is a worthless rock that you have to bring everthing (food, water, building materials....) to. Any raw material value there, would be so expensive to bring back, it would be cheaper to find/develop here. A practical analogy for today. You have to be able to maintain your primary residence before you go and buy a vacation home.
We simply could use that money to sustain our country now. Let the private sector determine if there is value there and whether they should invest/gamble development costs on it.

You are woefully incorrect.

Just to stick with the New World analogy: What could there possibly have been in America that would be so valuable that it would be worth paying the incredible shipping costs to bring it back to Europe?

Space is an industrial location which offers:


Free energy. (Solar. Pay the initial costs, and the energy is free forever. And in many cases, the initial costs are trivial once you go there. For example, a mirror that captures all of the sunlight from a three mile area and directs it to a single point could be built for the cost of a few pounds of raw materials.)

Virtually free transportation (as long as you're not going to of from a planet). Transportation costs are mostly defined in terms of energy costs. It actually takes more energy to deliver a pound of payload from the Earth to a low orbit (say, 100-200 miles up, like the Space Station) than it takes to deliver the same payload between the Station and the surface of the Moon (250K mi.) (Going from memory, I think the asteroids have roughly the same energy cost "distance".)

Now, I assert that an industrial location that offers free energy and virtually free transportation is a place where money can be made.

What space doesn't have is raw materials. Which brings us to:

The Moon is a place which has a lot of raw materials (but not all of them), and which has vastly lower costs of delivering them into space than the Earth does.


As I mentioned above, it's cheaper (once you go there to stay) to deliver payloads from the Moon to a space station than it is to ship them from the Earth. Vastly cheaper. Like 1000 times cheaper.

If all you're delivering is a month's worth of MRE's, once a month, then it's cheaper to pay millions of dollars to launch them from Earth than it is to build an MRE factory on the Moon and save the launch costs. But if you're going to do anything BIG, then getting your materials from the Moon becomes a vast cost saver.

----------

And, again:

Drop the completely bogus "we need this money to sustain our country" schtick. It's not real. It's a complete fabrication.

The federal government probably spends more money on butterfly museums and the like. I think NASA is 0.5% of the Federal budget.

There are arguments both for and against various space technology programs. People starving because the money's being launched into the Sun isn't one of them. Claiming that NASA is single-handedly responsible for the Federal deficit, or that we have to chose between NASA or all federal entitlements and the military combined simply demonstrates the poster's complete ignorance of reality.

-----

As to the "let private enterprise do it" claim:

Private enterprise didn't develop satellite technology. Too risky. (Private enterprise figured out ways to make money from satellites after somebody else developed the technology, and gave it to them, for free.)

Private enterprise didn't create the aviation industry. The government gave it millions in subsidies, in many different forms, to create a sector of the American economy which dominated the world for decades.

Private enterprise didn't colonize the New World. Years ago, I read an historical article that compared the New World colonies created by private and semi-private ventures (like the Hudson Bay company) against those funded by governments. Virtually all of the privately funded colonies died out. And the common reason among all of the failures was that they were either under funded, or that the company demanded their money back too quickly (rather than allowing their capital to continue to grow).

Private enterprise is great at efficiently exploiting existing technologies. At making incremental improvements. It's not very good at, say, Nation Building.

[Prosperity]

I'd cut old people's medicine before NASA, but that's just me

[Riggo-toni]

Bottom line is W "I never met a pork barrel project I didn't like" let NASA spend our money like crazy, just like he did for every other gov't dept. Take an ax to NASA, please.

[Larry]

Bottom line is W "I never met a pork barrel project I didn't like" let NASA spend our money like crazy, just like he did for every other gov't dept. Take an ax to NASA, please.

How much did NASA's budget increase during Bush's administration?

[btfoom]

How much did NASA's budget increase during Bush's administration?

Sorry, Larry, but RiggoToni looks like he was right :rolleyes:. See chart:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo136/btfoom/nasa-1.jpg

See, Bush really did spend like a drunken sailor. He went from around $11,000,000,000 in 2001 to $12,000,000,000 in 2007. Man, what a maniac. He increased spending by a little over 9% (NINE whole Percent).

Please, please, PLEASE, at least do some minor research before posting stuff like 'Bush never met a pork barrel he didn't like'. I know you don't like him, and are ignorant of most facts (and refuse to acknowledge them lest you make an informed decision), but R-toni, your last post is just BS :doh::doh::doh:.

[Larry]

Phaistos Disco = First printing press 3,000BC
Magnifying Lenses = Minoans 3,000 BC
Concrete or we Could go with the Mycenaeans = Romans 700 AD or 700bc
Complex Large Scale Construction Techniques = Romans
Damascus Steel = Lost till the middle of the 20th century
Hot Air Balloons were rumored to have been invented by the Nazcans (in theory their fabric was strong and light enough to work and they have depictions of balloon like forms on their earthenware - plus why else would they make those weird rock piles)
The dark ages were not a pleasant time.

Lots of technology has been lost and rediscovered.

Right.

Obviously we lost the technology to go to the Moon when Cheney was elected. (Since that was when the Dark Age began, right?)