There are rumors that during the Bolden meeting with Obama, the subject of a potential need to decrease NASA’s future budget came up, and that Bolden discouraged the president from doing so.
One of the ways that Goldin ingratiated himself with the Clinton administration was to actually take pride in and volunteer for budget cuts, which simply strained the agency, and some think, led to the Columbia disaster. But it is possible to spend less money on space, and it’s even possible to get more for less than we’re currently getting (simply getting NASA out of the launch-vehicle development business would go a long way toward that goal). The problem is that it’s not politically possible, because the primary goal of the money remains keeping cafeterias and parking lots full in Huntsville, Houston and the Cape
“The problem is that it’s not politically possible, because the primary goal of the money remains keeping cafeterias and parking lots full in Huntsville, Houston and the Cape”
Even under that constraint much more sensible things are possible.
Watching the developing food fight between ESAS and Direct, I am increasingly persuaded that an all EELV or “dry launch” lunar program wouldn’t be possible without replacing a great many managers at NASA, a process that would take years and consume enormous political capital.
George Bush chose not to do that and if Barack Obama were to do it, Right wing media would pummel him for eviscerating NASA.
Therefore, he won’t either.
= = =
A metaphor occurs to me – from a Space Access Society perspective, “ESAS versus Direct” has to be a little like a Buddhist listening to Catholics and Lutherans argue about theology.
Problem is converting all those Catholics and Lutherans to Buddhist might not be feasible and removing a sufficient number of Catholics and Lutherans from NASA’s ranks and replacing them with Buddhists might not be feasible either.
Therefore, maybe NewSpace should fight for political acceptance of rules and regulations which will facilitate a MirCorp II type of effort – an effort that creates a human destination in LEO that falls outside NASA’s aegis – that might bear more fruit that yet another effort to reform NASA from the inside.
A major budget cut could convert a lot of NASA managers to Buddhism: life is suffering. It would also make megalomaniacal schemes impossible.
A metaphor occurs to me – from a Space Access Society perspective, “ESAS versus Direct” has to be a little like a Buddhist listening to Catholics and Lutherans argue about theology.
Yes, that’s exactly what it’s like to me, and I’ve said as much.
Yes, that’s exactly what it’s like to me, and I’ve said as much.
At least Direct 3.0 appears poised to incorporate propellant depots into the architecture for building up lunar infrastructure. Without depots, a single launch of a J-246 probably won’t be able to push a cargo LSAM through TLI.
That could force NASA’s hand on accepting depots.
” Goldin ingratiated himself with the Clinton administration was to actually take pride in and volunteer for budget cuts, which simply strained the agency, and some think, led to the Columbia disaster. ”
Goldin was appointed in 1991, he resigened in 02, Columbia was in 03.
If Goldin had screwed the pooch it would have happened then. O Keefe screwed it up by driving up the flight rate.
Goldin knew the safe rate and stayed in it.
“If Goldin had screwed the pooch it would have happened then. O Keefe screwed it up by driving up the flight rate.
Goldin knew the safe rate and stayed in it.”
Where is your supporting documentation jack?
If Goldin had screwed the pooch it would have happened then.
Incorrect. Read the CAIB report.
Yes, Goldin’s cheerleading of NASA budget reductions was a damn annoying trait. That and choosing the most technologically audacious design for X-33, of course.
Read the CAIB report.
Don’t confuse poor “jack” with reality and history.
> At least Direct 3.0 appears poised to incorporate propellant depots into the architecture for building up lunar infrastructure.
If they were serious about this, it would have been the first thing on their agenda. Look how much they have been distancing themselves from depots in the rebuttal. Depots are a threat to NASA’s in-house launchers and they know it. That’s why they want to build the launchers first. It’s starting to look very much like a ploy.
> That could force NASA’s hand on accepting depots.
I don’t think they will ever do that. High Isp propulsion for prepositioning propellant and hypergolics for storability could take them to Mars with EELVs.
No, I think the best thing to do would be to cancel Ares, suspend Constellation, fully fund COTS-D, man-rate the EELVS and extend the shuttle until COTS-D has enabled commercial launchers to catch up with NASA in LEO. This preserves the shuttle stack for a bit longer and ensures NASA does not leap ahead without creating an open cis-lunar transport infrastructure.
“If Goldin had screwed the pooch it would have happened then.
Incorrect. Read the CAIB report.”
So why didn’t it happen on Goldins 10 year tenure?
I guess by this line of reasoning, everthing now wrong with the economy is Obama’s fault.
Hey everybody, jack agrees! It’s Obama’s fault now!
So why didn’t it happen on Goldins 10 year tenure?
Why do you ask stupid illogical questions?
I notice he didn’t have a comback for my retort Rand. Mabey the paradox caused him to explode ala Nomad.