NASA reorganizes to address Bush's space plan

[pinkpops]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- NASA has reorganized some of its top management to focus on President George W. Bush's newly-announced plan to send humans to the moon and Mars, the U.S. space agency said on Thursday.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/bush.space.reut/index.html

Aren't they jumping the gun here? Is this guy the President or the King?

[aquart]

1. Well, that's disgusting.

Is there anything BushCo doesn't poison?

[Columbia]

2. This is something NASA has been wanting for years

It's just sad that another President won't be able to lay claim to such a monumental prize.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. What?

What monumental prize are you talking about? The only thing monumental about this is the sheer stupidity. This will starve NASA of funds to do real science instead of public relations stunts like this.

[Columbia]

7. Real science?

The scientific progress required to undertake such a task will be quite significant. The fact is that NASA has been pretty stagnant the last two or three decades and this will provide a platform for them to jumpstart the space program once again.

[rman]

10. You think NASA is happy to dump Hubble?

The progress required to go to Mars is technological, not scientific.
NASA has been stagnant because of budget cuts and because they have layed off the engineers, in favor of subcontractors.

[Columbia]

11. Hubble was great, now it's time to move on

There are bigger and better things on the horizon.

[rman]

12. "time to move on": not yet if it's up to NASA

The next Hubble service flight was already planned, to prevent the loss of Hubble before a replacement can be put into orbit. Hubble will fail in 2007 or 2008 (the gyroscopes fail at a predictable rate), the replacement will go up in 2011 (if at all).
The Hubble service flight was canceled on request of Bush, that was not NASA's idea.

[demdave]

13. i have followed Hubble for quite some time

and the 2005 maintenance shuttle flight has been in question for well over a year. The Hubble has been great but the time has come to move on.

[rman]

17. "time has come to move on" - says who? it's not your call is it.

nor would you be able to convince many astronomers.

It's Bush's call, and so he called, not for scientific exploration of space but for militarization of space:

===

Unilateralism goes to space
EE Times
May 22, 2003
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030519S0030

From the day Donald Rumsfeld became defense secretary, concurrent with the release of the Rumsfeld Commission Report on national security in space, ....
The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in charge of all U.S. spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command about actively denying the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other nation at any time-not just adversaries, but even longtime allies, according to NRO director Peter Teets.
...

===

"PNAC sept 2000, "Rebuilding America's Defenses; Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century." http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

The subject of space comes up first under Key Findings in the Introduction (page v of the document, page 12 of the online PDF version):

------------------
Quote:
CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces - with the mission of space control.
------------------

They elaborate in Chapter V, "CREATING TOMORROW'S DOMINANT FORCE" (starts on page 50 of the document, page 62 of the PDF version).

------------------
Quote:
In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow's U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:

(Second mission)

Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas - and the protection of international commerce - defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new "international commons" be a key to world power in the future. An American incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the "infosphere" will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.
-------------------

They go on to elaborate further on each of the three missions, with Space and Cyberspace beginning on page 54 of the document (page 66 of the PDF format).

On page 57 of the report, page 69 of the PDF format:

------------------
Quote:
Thus, the argument to replace U.S. Space Command with U.S. Space Forces - a separate service under the Defense Department - is compelling. While it is conceivable that, as military space capabilities develop, a transitory "Space Corps" under the Department of the Air Force might make sense, it ought to be regarded as an intermediary step, analogous to the World War II-era Army Air Corps, not to the Marine Corps, which remains part of the Navy Deparment.
------------------

[w4rma]

42. You really think the scientists at NASA want to let the Hubble drop? (n/t)

[lovedems]

3. I don't know why they don't wait until they actually get the funding

surely they can't be so stupid. Don't they realize that he under funds every initiative that crosses his little mind?

[DUreader]

5. Funding will be no prob. combo $black ops and pub/private funding

That $3 trillion + the pentagon is missing didn't just pay for parties

[sendero]

6. NASA

They mustn't have gotten the memo.

The country is broke, we are not really going to Mars.

If we were, we'd find someone who didn't serve up Challenger and Columbia.

[Longhorn79]

9. NASA

Right, right, but what do you mean about serving up Challenger and Columbia?

[rman]

20. it's not NASA's choice, it's Bush's choice

(and it's not NASA's fault that they're on a tight budget)

Hubble casualty of Bush space plan

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/16/hubble.telescope.ap/
...
He said the decision was influenced by President Bush's new space initiative, which calls for NASA to start developing the spacecraft and equipment for voyages to the moon and later to Mars. The president's plan also called for the space shuttle to be retired by 2010. Virtually all of the shuttle's remaining flights would be used to complete construction of the International Space Station.
...

(of course it is NASA's fault that management 'solved' the budget issue by firing the engineers, and now subcontract pretty much everything - but that's another story)

[tinrobot]

8. What will the moon get us?

What will we do once we get to the moon/mars... if we ever get there at all?

-- Build space weapons to make Bush's buddies rich?

-- Or do real science that enriches mankind?

I have a sinking feeling science is going to lose out.

[demdave]

14. It is not what we learn when we get there, it is what we learn getting

there.

[54anickel]

16. I hear this argument a lot. I tend to disagree. Sure, we got a LOT of

bang for the buck out of the space program the first time around. But I think attempting to repeat it a second time will have a much lesser return on investment. Sort of a "been there, done that". We will get improvements on existing technology, but I don't think we'll get a lot of new developments.

The dumping of Hubble is sad, as we have gained much scientific insight, especially on the effects of what we are doing to our planet, how we fit in to a much bigger picture and the intricate balance of it all.

We need to focus attention on saving this planet, not looking for a replacement or "space war" possibilities. Renewable energy, providing water for everyone - all those things that are the true underlying cause so many wars.

JMHO

[DesignGirl]

40. New Oil Technology

Here is an interesting article about some new research and the company involved. Can anyone guess which company?!


http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9774

[LifeDuringWartime]

39. maybe

they'll send political prisoners there

[teryang]

15. Dim son loses war- turns to space

I guess this makes him a space cowboy.

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. These nitwits are always looking for some new distraction

like a reorganization. Gives them something to charge their hours to.

It comes as no suprise that that would jump on this right away, even if absolutely nothing comes of it, since that would be business as usual.

[colonel odis]

19. i think the thing to look at is .....

which private sector companies would benefit from massive, long-term nasa contracts. campaign contributors? companies connected with bush, cheney, or their closest buds?

there, i think, would lie the real reason this is being brought up.

[mbperrin]

21. Yes, the glorious militarization of space! No one but us allowed!

Please no questions on what we'd be doing without access to and rides from the Russians right now!

Plus it's just fucking dumb to think that every other country in the world will just let us do it!

Plus it just fucking dumb to want to do it!

I mean, there's a reason LBJ insisted on civilian control of the space program to start with!

I assume Rummy and Wolfie will volunteer for the moonbase right away! (Don't worry, guys, we'll keep the oxygen coming!)

</crossing fingers>

[Capt_Nemo]

24. What I find amazing, mbperrin, is that BOTH the space warriors...

... and most of their oponents in the US
seem completely oblivious to this reality:
"what we'd be doing without access to and rides from the Russians right now"?

The fact is that the US manned space program is in tatters and
that before even thinking of moonshots, NASA has to develop
a vehicle for safe and reliable access to low earth orbit!

Seems that everybody has bought into the hype and no one cares
to do a reality check.

[peterh]

22. The policy decisions via a simpleton…pictures…yum…

[Nederland]

23. NASA should be privatized

or at least, most of it should.

NASA is a good organization to do unmanned planetary exploration and things that have no real short term payback. At this point in time building new launch vehicles is done better by private companies. Leave the research to NASA, building and engineering to the private sector.

[The_Casual_Observer]

25. Privatizing an enterprise that has no market

except for goverment contracts. We already do that for Northrup, Boeing, SAIC, & on and on. Why make more executives,stockholders and boards of directors rich for nothing.

It is a farce to suggest that any of these really are private companies who do business in a free markeplace since they all have ONE customer.

[Nederland]

27. Not one customer

You don't understand the space business if you think getting to low Earth orbit is a single customer business. That's the part I think should be privatized. Leave the interplanetary exploration stuff to NASA, but let private companies build and maintain launch vehicles for getting to LEO. NASA simply doesn't do it well.

[The_Casual_Observer]

31. We aren't talking about low earth orbit or high earth orbit here

This is space exploration without any hope of financial gain, except by overcharging the government.

Low earth orbit and communications satellites have been privatized for a long time already if I'm not mistaken, and those haven't always been such a rousing success, Iridium for example.

[Nederland]

33. Yes we are

The vast majority of NASA's budget goes to the Shuttle and the International Space Station. Those are both LEO pieces of equipment. I agree that space exploration is the realm of NASA, but LEO is not space exploration--its well covered territory.

[The_Casual_Observer]

35. OK, please make the case for a single use of the

Space Station, or Space Shuttle any other LEO other than things related to communications satellites where a business could make an honest profit without getting paid exclusively by the the government.
Joy rides for pop & movie stars perhaps?

[Nederland]

36. Why exclude communications satellites?

Seems like you just want to exclude those because that's precisely the argument I would make. There is lots of money to be made launching communications satellites to LEO orbit. A large market for getting to LEO already exists and NASA should get out of that business for precisely that reason. Its no longer cutting edge stuff with no profit--its business.

[The_Casual_Observer]

37. From my limited experience in this

NASA involvement in Communications Satellites is limited to safety issues when they are being launched from "The Cape". Otherwise, NASA
has little or nothing to do with them, so, beyond what is already being done, what kind of things could practically be privatized in space that makes sense?

[Nederland]

38. Privatize anything LEO

NASA should ditch the Shuttle and use private firms to get stuff into LEO. They can make telescopes and planetary exploration craft to their hearts content--just contract the launch to someone else. They simply shouldn't be in the business of designing, creating and maintaining launch vehicles. They aren't good at it.

Personally, I would ditch the ISS too. I think its a big waste of money with more political than scientific value. I'm not as big on that as I am ditching the shuttle, but I toss it out as another way that large amounts of tax payer money could be saved.

[wuushew]

26. Privatising shuttle maintainence was a primary reason for Columbia loss

Deregulation is the sacred cow of the right.

[Nederland]

28. Proof?

Link? Anything to back this up?

[wuushew]

29. Expert testamony

Despite the purging of NASA critics, the reshuffled advisory panel continued to highlight safety problems. The chairman of the panel, Dr. Richard D. Blomberg, told Congress last April, "I have never been as worried for space shuttle safety as I am right now. One of the roots of my concern is that nobody will know for sure when the safety margin has been eroded too far. All of my instincts suggest that the current approach is planting the seeds for future danger."


-snip

The role of the Clinton administration underscores a critical political fact: both bourgeois parties are culpable in the degrading of the space shuttle program.

Clinton ordered the privatization of shuttle maintenance in 1996, and a joint venture, the United Space Alliance (USA), was established by the two largest US aerospace corporations, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, to fulfill the lucrative contract with NASA. The vast majority of those working on the space program are employed by USA, not by NASA-7,600 of the 10,000 in Houston, Texas, where the Johnson Space Center is located, and 12,600 of the 14,000 who work at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Some 92 percent of NASA's $3.2 billion in spending on the shuttle program goes into the coffers of private contractors, making the space shuttle the single most privatized federal program. Lockheed-Martin clears $85 million a year in profits from its share of the partnership and other space-related subcontracting. Boeing profits from both USA and separate contracting work through its Rocketdyne subsidiary, which makes the shuttle engines.


http://www.rense.com/general34/NASAcongressandbush.htm

[Nederland]

30. Response

From your own link:


Multiple Warnings Went Unheeded

In the wake of the shuttle explosion, numerous reports have already emerged of advance warnings of impending disaster received by top NASA administrators, congressional committees that oversee the agency, and President Bush himself.

Those in positions of responsibility for the space program had ample notification of mounting safety problems, but chose to do nothing. Instead they retaliated against scientists and engineers who sought to bring to the public's attention serious safety problems in the areas of maintenance and training caused by years of budget cuts. Six scientists were dismissed from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel in March 2001 after repeatedly complaining about deficiencies in NASA's operation of the shuttle program.

Less than two months ago, the Bush administration brushed off the warnings of a retired NASA engineer who wrote to the White House on several occasions urging a halt to all space shuttle launches. One such letter said immediate action was needed "to prevent another catastrophic shuttle accident."

The writer, Don Nelson, a supervisor and mission planner who retired from NASA in 1999 after a career going back to the first moon missions, wrote to Bush last August saying the shuttle astronauts were in imminent danger. He cited a series of malfunctions such as hydrogen leaks, dented fuel lines, wiring problems and computer failures.

John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology and Bush's chief science adviser, discussed Nelson's criticisms with NASA officials. He then wrote back to the retired engineer, praising NASA's safety practices and concluding, "Based on these discussions, I do not think that it is appropriate for the President to issue a moratorium on Space Shuttle launches at this time."


This sounds more like the problem is with Bush adminstration offials than with privitization efforts that occurred during the Clinton administration.

I'm wondering why you think that Clinton is to blame for this...

[wuushew]

32. Clinton is not God

And I don't see how directly quoting an article reflects what "my" opinion is on this matter. I provided that link to show the degree to which the NASA portion of shuttle maintence was reduced on Clinton's watch and which continues into the current administration.

[Nederland]

34. The problem wasn't money

The problem was that the opinions of low level engineers and scientists were being ignored. This has nothing to do with privitization and everything to do with poor leadership. When the administration in charge ignores advice, it doesn't matter if the engineers and scientists on the shuttle program are employed by the US government or by private firms. When you ignore the advice of experts--regardless of their employer--you are screwed.

That is what you article revealed, not the privatization was somehow to blame.

[sendero]

41. Whatever....

... the Challenger and then especially the Columbia convinced me of one thing. NASA is not up to the job, period. A piece of freaking foam killed 7 people and cost billions. This piece of foam is indicative of the same fucked mindset that cost us the Challenger. It may sound harsh, but I expect my space accidents to be of a more complex and unpredicable nature than having things fall off your booster.

Trash NASA and start over and then maybe I'd be interested in space. Otherwise, you'd be pouring big money down a rathole, and we're already doing that in Iraq, we don't need more.

In five years we are going to have economic problems that make even thinking about space sound like the delusional whimsy of a five year old. :)

[leftofthedial]

43. reorganizing in response to a campaign promise from The Liar King?

Ridiculous.

Why don't they reorganize to launch one successful mission for a change instead?