I would add that Obama's position becomes easier to understand if you enumerate Obama's unwritten priorities for NASA:- serve as an integral portion of the nation's laboratory and research infrastructure- contribute to long term technology developments as that enhances US competitive stance- contribute to mid term technology development for military purposes- help contribute to the economic power of the United States- motivate the young to strive to excel in education and overall achievement- serve as an outreach tool to the nations of Earth- monitor all interesting bodies and phenomena in the universe, starting with the most important planet: Earth
VSE has been considered by many ... but consideration is not deliberation. In this case, vSE has been considered most through political lenses as to benefiting political groups most assuredly - boy and howdy.
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 07/24/2010 09:45 pmVSE has been considered by many ... but consideration is not deliberation. In this case, vSE has been considered most through political lenses as to benefiting political groups most assuredly - boy and howdy.Can you elaborate on the difference? I don't have much of a problem with the VSE, at least Marburger's take on it.
Um Mr. Gagnon, you left out the most important one: that NASA reach out to the Muslim world in order to make them feel better about themselves because of the Islamic world's contributions to astronomy 500 years ago....
Nowhere does the President mention HSF, which he does not like. IMO he wants to funnel the money to his education buddies. And that doesnt inspire the nation, playing with chemistry sets in a lab. There must be a defined and active inspirational program, that is what motivates many many people.
[...] Obama's unwritten priorities for NASA:[...]- motivate the young to strive to excel in education and overall achievement- serve as an outreach tool to the nations of Earth
I don't have much of a problem with the VSE, at least Marburger's take on it.
Am jet lagged and groggy so not doing my best ATM. An example:VSE assumes "establishing an extended human presence on the moon". Primarily because in going to Mars ... you'd have an extended presence by definition. Reductionism. Yet the two are very different, as Zubrin's often pointed out. You don't plan on occupying the moon for no dedicated reason.Minimalism / deliberation - we venture to NEO's to develop the skills for deep spaceflight as a bubble checkoff for an independent set of a few of the skills needed to get to Mars. As you complete the check offs, you then build up to the next level.
Prestige and "soft power" are what the U.S. buys with NASA human spaceflight funding. That's what the Senate is trying to buy with heavy lift funding. It's not clear Dr. Spudis totally gets that....
Quote from: mmeijeri on 07/24/2010 10:21 pmI don't have much of a problem with the VSE, at least Marburger's take on it.Back in 2006 Marburger said, 'Questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.' (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999)But now, in 2010, that decision isn't quite so clear. President Obama doesn't really seem to share the vision of incorporating the Solar System into the human economic sphere.
Of course someone like Bowing can build a gemini-style capsule.
Back in 2006 Marburger said, 'Questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.' (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999)
Quote from: sdsds on 07/25/2010 04:55 amBack in 2006 Marburger said, 'Questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.' (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999)Thanks for that quote, I did not know he said that. Advancing U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program is a much less ambitious goal than incorporating the solar system in our economic sphere. I'd say the question was either not decided or decided in the negative.
Why do you take Marburger for an inaccurate?
Clearly, what he said is that advancing scientific, security, and economic national interests is basically equivalent to incorporating the solar system into the human economy.