• Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

NASA and the White House

M
Nov 26, 2007
1,211
145
63
MI
WOLF STATEMENT AT COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE HEARING WITH DIRECTOR OF WHITE OFFICE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Press Release - Rep. Frank Wolf
February 24, 2010

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) today delivered the following opening statement at a House Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee hearing with Dr. John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Wolf is the top Republican on the subcommittee.

“Last October, the Augustine Commission issued its report titled ‘Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation.’ The proposal this administration has submitted for NASA to abandon the Constellation vision and strategy leaves a program worthy of a lesser nation than the United States.

“You are proposing the most radical change to NASA’s mission and programs since its inception, and yet the president has been silent since the release of the budget. You may recall that in August 2008, then-candidate Obama told an audience of 1,300 in Florida: ‘Here's what I'm committing to: Continue Constellation.’ This is a notable reversal from the president that will have devastating consequences for decades to come.

“Based on the little information that has been provided to the Congress, it appears that this plan was hastily developed without proper vetting from NASA’s scientific, engineering and human spaceflight experts. Over the last week, I have heard from a number of Apollo astronauts and NASA leaders. I would like to share with you just a few of their initial reactions and submit their full statements for the record.

“Former NASA Administrator Dr. Mike Griffin, wrote: ‘I believe that this budget request advocates a strategy that is, frankly, disastrous for the U.S. human spaceflight program.’ He added that this proposal clears the way for Chinese dominance in space.

“Dr. Chris Kraft, the legendary Apollo flight director and former Johnson Space Center director, said: ‘The U.S. Space Program is in great peril if the [p]resident's budget proposals are enacted.’


“Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham said this proposal ‘accelerates America’s downward spiral toward mediocrity in space exploration.’

“Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator Harrison Schmitt wrote that this proposal ‘would cede the Moon to China, the American Space Station to Russia, and assign liberty to the ages. Other [nations] would accrue the benefits – psychological, political, economic, and scientific – that the United States harvested as a consequence of Apollo’s success 40 years ago. This lesson has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors.’

“Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke said: ‘We cannot afford to lose our leadership in space. The Constellation program must be continued.’

“Perhaps most notably, I received a letter from Burt Rutan, X Prize winner and the true commercial space leader who ardently opposes this budget proposal. Mr Rutan said: ‘An observer might think that I would applaud a decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers. However, he would be wrong. Two years after Neil and Buzz landed on the moon, America led the world in awarding PhDs in science, engineering and math. Today we are not even on the first or second page…The motivation of our youth is the most important thing we do for our nation's long-term security and prosperity. NASA's role in that can be as critical as it was in the 60s if the taxpayers fund true Research and Exploration.’

“Manned spaceflight and exploration is one of the last remaining fields in which the U.S. maintains an undeniable competitive advantage over other nations. To walk away is shortsighted and irresponsible.

“By killing the exploration program in favor of a vaguely defined ‘research and development” program, you are guaranteeing that the Chinese, Russians, and others will be closing the exploration gap.

“We will be dependent on the Russians in the short-term for rides to the International Space Station and – worse – we will be forced to play catch-up to the Chinese and Russians in the future.

“When that time comes, I fear the U.S. will no longer have the resources or the political support to relaunch our human spaceflight program. James Lewis, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) said that he sees this decision ‘as a confirmation of America’s decline.’

“In the interim, our spaceflight and manufacturing base will wither and we will be forced to spend far more to recreate our current capacities at a later date. The editors of Space News argued similarly that this could have devastating effect on the U.S. propulsion industrial base – endangering DOD launch options. This has very real national security implications.

“Alternative commercial vehicles will not be available much, if at all, sooner than the Ares I rocket. Worse, these alternative contractors have no experience in manned spaceflight and the safety measures necessary.

“As Norm Augustine noted in his report, ‘space operations are among the most demanding and unforgiving pursuits ever undertaken by humans.’ NASA’s workforce has 40 years experience, having learned by tragedy and success. The Constellation program contractors have been working on these issues for nearly 7 years. As a result of your plan, at the end of this decade, we will have only a few years of flights to the ISS followed by a fleet of low-Earth orbit vehicles with nowhere to go. Worse, you will have no exploration vehicle system to go beyond the station.”

“Above all, your budget proposal leaves NASA with no clear exploration mission goal. An agency with no vision or leadership will slowly decay. It will no longer be a place for our nation’s best and brightest to work. What we need is a NASA with the vision, expertise, and support to maintain and grow our competitive advantage in space exploration.”
 
M
Nov 26, 2007
1,211
145
63
MI
Lots of follow-up coverage on yesterday’s Congressional hearings. Several key article below.

Congress to dump Obama NASA plan
Flight International – 2/24/10
By Rob Coppinger

White House plans to axe NASA's return-to-the-Moon Constellation programme and ground the Space Shuttle have sparked unified opposition from Congress, which looks determined to preserve a full spectrum of US manned spaceflight activities.

A draft Congressional bill leaked to Flight International sets out the politicians' alternate plan. It involves possibly extending Shuttle life to 2015, running competitive commercial crew and cargo programmes and continuing development of Constellation's vehicles including a heavylift rocket designed to get astronauts to the Moon in the 2020s and then Mars.

In a heated hearing on Capitol Hill, President Obama's NASA administrator Charles Bolden, a former astronaut and Shuttle commander, had to defend his deputy Lori Beth Garver and the president's plan to shift NASA's focus from missions to capabilities under the fiscal year 2011 budget request.

In the 24 February hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee's science and space subcommittee one senator criticised Garver as the alleged author of the plan and budget, which the subcommittee's members described as ending all US human spaceflight efforts with its retirement of the Shuttle fleet this year and cancellation of the Constellation.

Referring to the space programme as bipartisan, subcommittee chairman senator Bill Nelson of Florida says of the opposition to the Obama plan: "I have never seen [Congress] as unified as we are now."

Much of the Congressional opposition to Obama's plan stems from estimates pegging direct job losses from cutting Constellation, Shuttle and other programmes at 30,000, including 7,000 at the Kennedy Space Center.

Bolden told the hearing that the Obama exploration goal was Mars, but during the early February budget roll-out he said that the plan's destinations would be decided by a "national conversation".


FEBRUARY 24, 2010, 9:12 P.M. ET
Senators Vow to Fight NASA Outsource Plan
By ANDY PASZTOR
Wall Street Journal

Members of a Senate science subcommittee vowed to fight the Obama administration's plan to outsource transportation of NASA astronauts to private firms.

Calling the plans a "radical" departure from past NASA budgets, lawmakers expressed bipartisan opposition to the White House initiative. They also complained that NASA and the White House failed to lay out clear-cut goals for the agency and that the U.S. was in danger of losing its leadership in space exploration.

"You don't accomplish great things without a clearly defined mission, and this budget has no clearly defined mission," said Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana.

Sen. Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat who chairs the Commerce Committee panel with responsibility over NASA, said that by eliminating the agency's current program to build a heavy-lift booster, "the U.S. is going to be on the sidelines" on space exploration in future decades. The budget envisions long-term competition among private firms to develop such technology.

Sen. Nelson also criticized Charles Bolden, the head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for not being more assertive in establishing the agency's priorities. The White House budget office, said Mr. Nelson, "is running the space program."

The NASA chief reiterated that traditional agency programs wouldn't have gotten astronauts back to the moon in the foreseeable future. Instead, he said, reliance on private firms to perfect technology will provide "a more sustainable and affordable path" to explore the moon, certain asteroids and ultimately other planets.

In his most direct testimony yet about the long-range goals of the outsourcing efforts, Mr. Bolden said Mars is the eventual destination of NASA's latest plan. But he didn't provide any timetable. Many experts believe there won't be manned U.S. missions to Mars until at least the end of the next decade, and probably significantly later.

In a hearing marked by sharp exchanges with the NASA chief, members of the subcommittee vowed to work with other lawmakers to fundamentally redraw NASA's proposed budget. "I've never seen the appropriators and the authorizers" who sit on different congressional committees as unified as they are today about NASA's future course, Sen. Nelson said.

Sen. Vitter took the unusual step of personally attacking Lori Garver, NASA's No.2 official, for charting the agency's new direction, which he called "a big step backward." The GOP lawmaker repeatedly challenged Mr. Bolden to refute that Ms. Garver was the prime mover behind the changes. "I can't refute that," Mr. Bolden responded at one point.

Reflecting the leadership tussles underway inside the agency, Sen. Vitter said there was widespread speculation that Ms. Garver down the road would be in line for nomination for the top NASA job. "I would be a strong and fierce and active opponent," the Senator said.

Throughout the hearing, NASA and White House officials were criticized for drafting a plan that stresses development of new propulsion systems and other technologies, without identifying specific destinations or timelines linked to the resumption of manned missions following anticipated retirement of the space shuttle fleet over roughly the next year. "We should develop the technology in pursuit of a goal, not the other way around," said Sen. Nelson, who played a pivotal role in persuading White house officials to pick Mr. Bolden to run NASA. For a new NASA vision to take hold, according to Sen. Nelson, "the President has to step out and take control."

Angry senators demand answers from NASA chief Bolden
Bolden pleads for patience
BY BART JANSEN • FLORIDA TODAY • February 25, 2010

WASHINGTON — Senators lashed out at President Barack Obama and the head of NASA on Wednesday for canceling the space agency’s program to replace the shuttles with new rockets and spaceships that would carry astronauts to the moon and someday Mars.
In the first congressional hearing on the White House’s 2011 budget, which calls for retiring the shuttle fleet as planned later this year and shutting down the over-budget and behind-schedule replacement program, senators grilled NASA Administrator Charles Bolden about worse-than-expected job losses in states such as Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas. They also urged the White House to clearly set landing humans on Mars as NASA’s top goal.
Bolden, a former astronaut who flew in space with subcommittee Chairman Bill Nelson and got NASA’s top job in part because of strong lobbying from the Orlando Democrat, said he agreed that Mars ought to be the space program’s “ultimate destination.”
But he said he couldn’t set a date because first NASA needs to complete research — funded in this new budget — to identify faster propulsion systems to shorten the trip and better ways to protect astronauts against the health risks of long-duration spaceflight.
“We want to go to Mars,” Bolden said. “We can’t get there because we don’t have the technology.”
The clash came during the first of two days of congressional hearings on NASA’s budget and its future. Today, Bolden will go before a House committee expected to have its own tough questions about the proposal to cancel Constellation, which NASA now says was unrealistic because it was never adequately funded.
“We were living a hallucination,” Bolden said. “Vision without resources is a hallucination.”
Obama proposed $6 billion more for NASA over the next five years. But Obama would spend $6 billion during that period to encourage private companies to develop rockets and spaceships capable of delivering cargo and astronauts to the International Space Station. Obama also would boost research at the International Space Station, which he proposed to extend from 2015 to 2020.
However, killing Constellation also eliminates current and future jobs that were expected to offset the layoffs caused by the retirement of the shuttle fleet in Brevard County and in other communities, including New Orleans, Houston and Huntsville, Ala.

Nelson said the budget “gave the perception the president was killing the manned space program” and that the administration needs to better explain its goals. He questioned how the budget could spend $7.8 billion over five years on developing technology and only $3.1 billion on developing a heavy-lift rocket necessary for any human spaceflight missions beyond the space station.
“The goal is to get to Mars,” Nelson said. “The question is, How do you do it?”
Other senators were harsher.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., criticized NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver as the architect of the “radical” plan to abandon Constellation.
“We just fall off a cliff,” Vitter said of the workers dependent on Constellation, which includes thousands of people in Louisiana who would have worked on Ares rocket components at the factory where shuttle external tanks are now made. “I will fight this budget with every ounce of energy that I have.”
Bolden defended Garver as a capable deputy who was misrepresented. Bolden said budget decisions were made by him, Garver, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Office and Management and Budget.
Bolden said research funded under the budget would support robots that would do tests necessary to allow future human trips to the moon and to Mars. Research also could produce breakthroughs in propulsion to cut the estimated eight-month travel time to Mars and reveal ways to deal with astronauts’ bone and muscle loss from long-term space travel, Bolden said.
When Sen. George LeMieux, R-Tallahassee, asked who recommended canceling Constellation, Bolden said, “I’m not at liberty to share with anybody.”
LeMieux asked about extending shuttle flights beyond the fleet’s scheduled retirement later this year, a shutdown expected to cause the loss of at least 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center. Bolden said he wouldn’t recommend flying the shuttles longer because of cost and safety concerns.
“That is something I would not recommend to the president,” Bolden said. “There is little value in trying to stretch the shuttle until we have the commercial capability to get to low Earth orbit.”
LeMieux said that providing the agency’s proposed funding without a detailed plan, including deadlines and destinations, concerned him. Bolden replied that a plan for travel to the moon, asteroids and Mars would be developed within months rather than years.
“We’ll develop a plan over the coming months,” Bolden said. “I’m not capable of giving you a complete plan on how we get deeper into the solar system.”





Feb 24, 2010
Senators grill NASA chief on President Obama's space plan
USA Today (From Florida Today) - By Bart Jansen, FLORIDA TODAY

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) urged President Barack Obama and NASA to set a goal of getting to Mars as senators lashed the agency chief Wednesday for proposing to end the Constellation rocket program that aimed to return to the moon and to Mars.

NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. said told a Senate Science subcommittee that he and the White House agreed with the goal of reaching Mars is "the ultimate destination." But Bolden said he couldn't set a date for that goal because research funded in the budget needs to find better propulsion and research longer-term space travel on people.

"We want to go to Mars," Bolden said. "We can't get there because we don't have the technology."

The clash occurred at the first hearing on Obama's NASA budget released Feb. 1. The budget canceled the Constellation program, which NASA officials said was unrealistic after being underfunded for years.

"We were living a hallucination," said Bolden, who said "vision without resources is a hallucination."

Nelson, who has flown on the shuttle, said the budget "gave the perception the president was killing the manned space program" and that the administration needs to better explain its goals.



NASA chief says Mars is goal, lawmakers express doubt about budget
THE HILL
By Tony Romm - 02/25/10
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on Wednesday stressed that the space program's long-term goal is "eventually Mars."

The nation's top space chief told the Senate Commerce Committee at a budget hearing on Wednesday that the planet was "what I believe to be the ultimate destination" for his agency, adding the "right advances in technology will allow us to map a path there."

But Bolden could not say when, exactly, such an ambitious goal would be possible, in part because "there are too many capabilities we don't have in our kit bag" at this time.
"If you gave me an infinite pot of money, I could not get a human to Mars in the next ten years, because there are some things we just don't know," he said. He later explained the technology does not yet exist to sustain human space travel for months.

Nevertheless, Bolden's unequivocal line in support of manned space flight arrives as criticism of the White House's NASA budget has reached a fever pitch.

A handful of lawmakers, including subcommittee member Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), have lambasted the 2011 NASA spending plan as "very radical," as it seems to put more stock in research and development than space exploration.
"Our greatest accomplishment in human space flight were gained because President Kennedy said we will land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth by the end of this decade," Vitter said of the budget during Wednesday's hearing. "President Kennedy didn't say, 'We're going to spend a few billion dollars on some really unique research and development.'"
But Bolden handily dismissed Vitter's criticisms, stressing the space program is still inspiring and effective -- and that the agency ultimately wanted to reach Mars, despite the budget's changes.
He later added the White House's plan to shift funding to research and development was the only way to create the technologies needed to pursue those missions in the near future.
"We were living a hallucination. We had a vision for getting back to the Moon, getting to Mars, getting to other parts of our solar system, but we didn't have the assets to do it," he said of NASA budget until now.
"Its not a radical depart from anything," Bolden said of the new plan, "it's just a change in our [strategy] to get [to Mars]."
But Committee Chairman Bill Nelson (D-Fl.) instead pegged the problem with both the budget and NASA's current mission on the funding process itself.
Reflecting on the NASA budget put in place during President George Bush's second term, Nelson said it was impossible to achieve NASA's ambitious goals when the Office of Management and Budget is "running the space program because it's designing the [NASA]" spending plan.
"I think the president has to step out and take control, and leadership on the goal that has been articulated by the administrator... which is Mars," he said. "If you leave it to OMB when we get there, it's going to be a long time coming. But if you have a presidential decision that it's what we're going to do... and he says, Gen Bolden, make it happen, then things can start popping."
David Vitter criticizes NASA budget as lacking in ambition
By Jonathan Tilove
New Orleans Times Picayune - February 24, 2010, 7:27PM

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., on Wednesday blasted the Obama administration's proposed 2011 NASA budget as a "radical" retreat that will surrender America's leadership in space.

"I believe this budget and the vision it represents would end our human space flight program as we know it and would surrender for our lifetime and perhaps forever our world leadership in this area and in so doing would lose all the enormous benefits of the technological advantage that goes with it," said Vitter, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee's Science and Space Subcommittee.

"You don't accomplish great things without a clearly defined mission, and this budget has no clearly defined mission," said Vitter, noting that his own 12-year-old twins, Lise and Airey, would rate the president's space priorities as "so last week."

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr., said that the Bush administration's plan to return astronauts to the moon might have sounded visionary but had been under-financed to the point of making the objective meaningless.

"A vision without resources is a hallucination," Bolden told Vitter. "Prior to 2010, we had a hallucinatory budget."

Vitter said that "resources without vision is a waste of time and money, and I think that's what this budget represents."

Vitter, who also is concerned about the impact on jobs at the Michoud facility in eastern New Orleans, which produces the space shuttle's external fuel tanks, faulted the new budget for "not only ending the shuttle but completely canceling its replacement, the Constellation, with little more than a hope and prayer that commercial providers will eventually pick up the slack."
Bolden choked up when he was asked by Vitter what he would say says to members of the "NASA family" who may lose their jobs because of the new budget.

But, Bolden said, "if you gave me infinite resources I could not get a human to Mars within the next 10 years because there are some things we just don't know."

But he predicted the new budget's approach will ultimately reap greater rewards.

"We are going to get back to the moon and are going to get to Mars quicker," he said.

Senators to NASA chief: Go somewhere specific
By SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 24, 2010; 7:02 PM

WASHINGTON -- NASA needs to go somewhere specific, not just talk about it, skeptical U.S. senators told the space agency chief Wednesday.

President Barack Obama's proposed budget kills the previous administration's return-to-the-moon mission, sometimes nicknamed "Apollo on steroids." That leaves the space agency adrift without a goal or destination, senators and outside experts said at a Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee hearing, the first since Obama unveiled his new space plan this month.

On top of that the nation's space shuttle fleet is only months away from long-planned retirement, an issue for senators from Florida, where NASA is a major employer. And while the new NASA plan includes extra money - $6 billion over five years - for private spaceships and developing new rocket technology, NASA shouldn't be just about spending, the senators said. It should be about John F. Kennedy-like vision.

"Resources without vision is a waste of time and money," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said, calling the Obama space plan a "radical change of vision and approach." He vowed to fight the plan "with every ounce of energy I have."

And former chief astronaut Robert "Hoot" Gibson said the new plan "has no clear path, no destination, no milestones and no program focus."
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said after the hearing that critics were confusing the lack of a specific destination or timetable with the lack of a goal.

NASA has a goal, a big one, Bolden said. It's going to Mars. But Bolden added that getting astronauts to Mars is more than a decade away and NASA needs to upgrade its technology or else it never will get there.

"We want to go to Mars," Bolden said. "We can't get there right now because we don't have the technology to do it."

That is why he said the new NASA plan invests in developing in-orbit fuel depots, inflatable spaceship parts, new types of propulsion and other technology.

Bolden would not even guess when NASA would try to send astronauts to Mars, but said the technology NASA is studying could cut the trip to the Red Planet from three months to a matter of days if it works.

"We're oh-so-close, but we've got to invest in that technology," Bolden testified.

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Nelson, D-Fla., seized on the Mars comment as a goal that could be embraced. But the other Florida senator, Republican George LeMieux, saw the Mars comment as too vague.

"I have great concern about saying we'll get there someday and not knowing when it's going to be," LeMieux said.

Former Martin Marietta chief operating officer A. Thomas Young said he worried about "no expectation of any human exploration for decades."

That's not what's in the NASA plan, countered Miles O'Brien, a former CNN anchor who now is on NASA's Advisory Council. He said NASA's new plans are more realistic than the ones that were just canceled, which he likened to a middle-aged former athlete "spending all his time talking about the glory days."

The new NASA plans are more of "a grown-up approach to space exploration," O'Brien said. But he said the problem was that NASA, once an agency known for its public relations skill, did "a horrible job" of communicating its new goals.

Vitter criticized NASA for ignoring a 157-page report by a special panel of outside experts, headed by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine. But the "flexible path" of going to the moon, an asteroid or Martian moons next was first proposed by the Augustine panel. And it was the Augustine panel that called the previous plans unsustainable.

NASA's new plans are "consistent with the options we laid out," MIT astronautics professor and Augustine panel member Ed Crawley said in a Wednesday phone interview. And the path NASA chose is aligned with the options that were scored highest in the panel's rating system, he said.
 

ruffryder

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Aug 14, 2002
8,468
1,258
113
This is an interesting subject. It looks like NASA is blaming the govt for not providing funding, and the govt is blaming NASA for not having a clear goal.

What is the point of a clear goal when it is certainly not going to be attained in the random guess that would be the goals timeline? IE, going to MARS.

I would like to see NASA keep doing its thing, but I like the idea of solving the energy issues of this country first.

As to another issue, what is the direct benefit from being in space? What do we gain from being able to go into space?
 

ruffryder

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Aug 14, 2002
8,468
1,258
113
agreed, the technical advances of getting someone to space have created lots and lots of new technologies and opportunities for our country. I don't discount that.

But what does being in space get us? What is the direct benefit of being in space?

I look at it like this, if we were to spend the money and resources on energy, there would be many technological spin offs from technical innovation there as well. This would be in addition to the goal of solving some big energy problems that we have.

What does our country being in space do directly for us? Note I don't say you, because it provides a job and a way of life for you and people in your field.

I do agree that space flight has unified Americans, or rather it did for a little while. I do think space exploration is important, (I want to be Captain Kirk lol) but IMO there are some very pressing matters that need to be solved on the energy front.

I think about it like this. If we were to take all the money that exits our economy by buying oil, and were to keep that money in the economy, we would easily be able to fund NASA the way it should by the increased taxes and prosperity that would be created by not exporting such a large amount of our wealth every year.
 
M
Nov 26, 2007
1,211
145
63
MI
This is an interesting subject. It looks like NASA is blaming the govt for not providing funding, and the govt is blaming NASA for not having a clear goal.

What is the point of a clear goal when it is certainly not going to be attained in the random guess that would be the goals timeline? IE, going to MARS.

I would like to see NASA keep doing its thing, but I like the idea of solving the energy issues of this country first.

As to another issue, what is the direct benefit from being in space? What do we gain from being able to go into space?

Solving our energy issues is a priority... I agree! I just don't see a clear connection on how that would affect NASA? There are plenty of smart people in our country and we are not limited to just the brain-e-acks at NASA to solve our problems.

Having a clear goal to go to the moon and then eventually to Mars is very general and needs room to evolve as we proceed along that path. To say we'll be on Mars by 2030 the latest is a SWAG (Scientific Wild Azz Guess)
 

ruffryder

Well-known member
Lifetime Membership
Aug 14, 2002
8,468
1,258
113
Solving our energy issues is a priority... I agree! I just don't see a clear connection on how that would affect NASA? There are plenty of smart people in our country and we are not limited to just the brain-e-acks at NASA to solve our problems.
true, but I think it is a point that it hasn't been a national effort like NASA and going to space has been. At least not a focused national effort. I would be interested to compare the budget of NASA for the last 10 years and that with research into energy. I would hope NASA would be higher, but maybe it isn't.

Having a clear goal to go to the moon and then eventually to Mars is very general and needs room to evolve as we proceed along that path. To say we'll be on Mars by 2030 the latest is a SWAG (Scientific Wild Azz Guess)
Agreed, but it seems that congress whats one and won't give funding until they have one.
 
Premium Features