Quote from: clongton on 03/26/2017 12:02 pmRegardless of politics we at least now have a president who doesn't consider NASA and its mission to be an afterthought.Obama fighting to save the ISS, and creating and defending the Commercial Crew program, was not "an afterthought". And we have yet to see President Trump tour KSC.In fact Trump has stated, in direct response to a suggestion for a worthy space initiative, that fixing our terrestrial infrastructure was more important.If the bar is what other President's have done with regards to NASA, Trump is nowhere close to that bar yet. Maybe that will change, but so far he has not advocated for an increase to NASA's budget, he has not nominated a new NASA Administrator, and he has not used any "political capital" to make NASA a priority.I'm not seeing what you're seeing...
Regardless of politics we at least now have a president who doesn't consider NASA and its mission to be an afterthought.
Quote from: RonM on 03/26/2017 04:21 pmFixing our nation's infrastructure is a bigger national priority than NASA.NASA already gets a good chunk of cash from what's left in the discretionary budget. Don't count on any increases and there maybe more cuts.Congress should listen to NASA instead of their favorite lobbyists. Spend the money wisely, not on give away jobs programs and corporate welfare.Fixing the infrastructure to burn more carbon when the US cannot meet the Paris climate accord may not make much sense. Climate change will cost future generations trillions of dollars, yet focus is on coal, Keystone, gutting the EPA and Earth Sciences, and an NASA admin will similar 'thinking (?)'. WRT NASA, if part of its budget could 'do more good' than infrastructure, then it could be a higher priority. Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/26/2017 04:07 pmIn fact Trump has stated, in direct response to a suggestion for a worthy space initiative, that fixing our terrestrial infrastructure was more important.Details matter, but apparently not for Don the _on. There are 'worthy' or 'do more good' things to do, but the devil is in the details, not some Trumped up 'initiative' or 'inspirational platitudes'. Does NASA really want a Trump tweet?
Fixing our nation's infrastructure is a bigger national priority than NASA.NASA already gets a good chunk of cash from what's left in the discretionary budget. Don't count on any increases and there maybe more cuts.Congress should listen to NASA instead of their favorite lobbyists. Spend the money wisely, not on give away jobs programs and corporate welfare.
In fact Trump has stated, in direct response to a suggestion for a worthy space initiative, that fixing our terrestrial infrastructure was more important.
Obama came to KSC to give a speech in 2010. But that was it for 8 years. He almost never spoke of NASA after that. Granted, his Administration did a good job with commercial crew.
I agree with everything that you said. But you are also confirming what I said : his implications with NASA essentially stopped in 2010.
In a town hall meeting this past week the following is from my congressman:Sensenbrenner said every presidential budget proposal has been “dead on arrival” because Congress often has different priorities.http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/01/rep-jim-sensenbrenner-talks-health-care-donald-trump-town-hall/99915924/Congress will really decide what's in NASA's budget. Unless the President really cares about a specific program and is willing to negotiate and arm twist for it, Congress will get what they want.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 04/03/2017 04:26 amIn a town hall meeting this past week the following is from my congressman:Sensenbrenner said every presidential budget proposal has been “dead on arrival” because Congress often has different priorities.http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/01/rep-jim-sensenbrenner-talks-health-care-donald-trump-town-hall/99915924/Congress will really decide what's in NASA's budget. Unless the President really cares about a specific program and is willing to negotiate and arm twist for it, Congress will get what they want.I know this is true but this is so freeking wrong! Congress as a whole doesn't give 2 tinkers damn about the space program. All NASA is to them is a huge pork barrel from which to draw billions to feed to their home districts. This is why we have spent SO much money for So long and have very little to show for it. Because Congress does NOT care about the space program. This is crap and there's nothing any of us can do about it.Where the hell is the "Angry" or "I Don't Like This" button?
In short - if you want better space policy, you have to make it an issue that more people are touching. And they have to be aware that they are touching space.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 04/03/2017 04:26 amIn a town hall meeting this past week the following is from my congressman:Sensenbrenner said every presidential budget proposal has been “dead on arrival” because Congress often has different priorities.http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/01/rep-jim-sensenbrenner-talks-health-care-donald-trump-town-hall/99915924/Congress will really decide what's in NASA's budget. Unless the President really cares about a specific program and is willing to negotiate and arm twist for it, Congress will get what they want.I know this is true but this is so freeking wrong!
I have a suspicion that NASA's good reputation may make it more prone to pork, because the majority of politicos who don't pay close attention to NASA may tend to feel that whatever NASA spends on is worthwhile.
New Space Leadership Poised to Shake Up NASA, Promote Private Spaceflight
With a paradigm shift in the White House, the new leadership has made its view clear: The government should facilitate private companies to lead the way in space exploration.
A Bloated Bureaucracy?If you came out of the Ultra Low-Cost Access to Space symposium (ULCATS) thinking one thing, it would be that NASA is swollen and inefficient. By the time the Space Launch System (SLS) flies in 2019—hopefully—building the big new rocket will have taken 15 years and cost more than $20 billion since George W. Bush announced in 2004 that NASA would return to the moon, with billions spent on the Ares rockets that went nowhere. That's not counting the Orion spacecraft, which has sucked up about $14 billion itself. As former Chair of the House Science Committee Robert Walker pointed out, when it takes more than a decade to develop a technology, the technology is obsolete by the time it is finished."The elephant in the room is SLS and Orion," said Laetitia Garriott de Cayeux, cofounder of the space technology company Escape Dynamics and a continuing advisor to NASA.
"NASA requires political support driven by jobs in Congress," said de Cayeux, pointing out that this dynamic removes an economic incentive to innovate within the space agency. "You could argue that it works directly against this goal."
The Next StepsWe need to get launch costs low enough for more people to launch payloads to space. But once we do, the snowball will start to roll, and the real savings will come from a massive increase in the number of launches. Whether military, commercial, or scientific, the more we launch, the cheaper it will be."We are sitting at the edge of one of the most brilliant opportunities in history," said Gingrich during his speech, "to break into the future that Robert Heinlein wrote about."When asked by an audience member what the next step is, Gingrich said President Trump or Vice President Pence would likely soon deliver a speech that identifies low-cost spaceflight and reusability as the future. After that, a National Space Council will be established by executive order for the first time since 1993, likely to be chaired by Mike Pence—a move that is "imminent," said Robert Walker, who served as an advisor on space policy during the presidential campaign."The executive order has been written. It's all set to go," said Walker. "I can tell you firsthand that Vice President Pence is extremely excited about his ability to be the chair of that council, and I expect it to be a very active part of this administration."
There are also plenty of engineering challenges that need to be met here on Earth. Martinage argued that our existing spaceflight infrastructure will need to be upgraded, saying of ranges and launch facilities, "we don't have enough, and it's old." Richard Dunn, the first General Counsel of DARPA from 1987 to 2000, said that education would be crucial, not only to train a new workforce for space industries, but to inspire kids to study STEM subjects so they can drive the coming revolution in space technologies."I really think the next decade is going to be as exciting or more exciting than the Apollo program," said Gingrich.One of the lingering questions here was this: What should be the new role of NASA? James Reuter, the only NASA representative to speak, talked about the need to develop technologies for in-situ resource harvesting and manufacturing on other planets. "There is a large interest in places where you need to construct a habitat with indigenous materials."These are the types of projects and studies that speakers at the conference argued NASA should focus on, while handing the reigns of vehicle manufacturing over to the private sector.
The @NASA-SLS @NASA_Orion folks don't seem to know that the Mars thing is not supposed to be openly promoted by @NASA - it may not happen
Not sure what to make of this one:QuoteThe @NASA-SLS @NASA_Orion folks don't seem to know that the Mars thing is not supposed to be openly promoted by @NASA - it may not happenhttps://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/874267023496359936The Mars thing... may not happen. Hmmmmm...Any ideas where this originates? Is NASA's New Direction to downplay Mars 'happening'?