A week before President Obama is due to visit Kennedy Space Center, NASA chief Charlie Bolden will speak to employees today, at noon, about the next steps the space agency will take to push further down the President's proposed path. Hi_j0099.JPG Coats What is significant about today's talks is that center directors now appear to have some idea what the new budget means for their interests. To that end, Johnson Space Center director Michael Coats will meet with reporters in Clear Lake this afternoon. Given that the space shuttle program will likely end later this year, and that Constellation is probably going to end (some contractors have even abandoned lobbying efforts in its favor) as well, Johnson Space Center is likely to be losing two of its three main programs. That leaves the International Space Station. Hopefully we'll get some answers today from Coats on what (if anything of substance) might replace these activities at Johnson Space Center. Chron
I've been waiting for it my whole life, and now we may be closer than ever to having Pigs..... In..... Spaaaaaaaaaace!
Broken. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RQhNZENMG1o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RQhNZENMG1o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> I don't agree with every dime that NASA spends, but it shouldn't be anywhere near first on the chopping block. I used to think that NASA was kind of standing in the way of our progress outside of the cosmos, but it really isn't true. NASA is kind of the spearhead of science and tech for this country... need to keep it sharp. It is possible to fix our infrastructure and other stateside problems while keeping NASA humming. No need to kill the Golden Goose to eat for a day. (This is not an argument against privatization, mind you... just an argument *for* science/tech funding... whether it is NASA doing it or another org focused on sci/tech is not so much the issue, a rose by any other name, as it were.)
Asteroid detection and defense ... the possible extinction of life on the planet makes this seem like a worthwhile endeavor.
Fixed again. I don't think inspiring kids to be astronauts or sending earthworms into space is a worthwhile way to spend tax dollars. The technology we need to protect the earth from rogue asteroids as well as the technology to explore beyond our own solar system are both things that can be done here on earth by private organizations or other government agencies. At the very least, NASA needs to be overhauled.
It has been overhauled, that is what you are not understanding. For instance, one of the biggest offices @ NASA over off of Gemini in Clear Lake once held about 5,000 employees as of Spring of last year, as of last week, there is about 100 people in the massive building. Stripping the programs all together is not the answer, and that is what this administation seems to have interest in doing. Contracting privately has been done, and it seems to work, but the contractors work hand in hand with the folks over in Clear Lake. If you completely remove 2 of the largest programs at NASA it would be a mistake for the country and as for this area, would kill much of the infrastructure in this area. Like it or not, this city and the surrounding communities have becomed intertwined with NASA in one way or another, removing it would be devistating for this area in particular.
UPDATE: Word is starting to trickle out. Not surprisingly Mission Control will remain in Houston. Kennedy Space Center will get the commercial crew office. In a significant new program, Johnson Space Center will oversee the Flagship Technology Demonstrators program, which seeks to develop such technologies as on-orbit propellant transfer, inflatable modules for space habitation and automated rendezvous and docking. 2nd UPDATE: Here's some more detail on what's coming for Johnson Space Center. • Flagship Technology Demonstrations: New Program Office to manage $424 million in FY 2011 and $6 billion over five years, with the Deputy Program Office at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), to demonstrate transformational technologies for next‐generation space flight capabilities. • Commercial Crew Development: New Deputy Program Manager to manage, with KSC's ProgramOffice, $500 million in FY 2011 and $5.8 billion over five years to foster private‐sector transportation services to Earth orbit. • Commercial Cargo: The FY 2011 Budget provides a one‐time increase of $312 million to add new capabilities and demonstrations to this program, and to ensure commercial cargo servicing of the ISS through 2020. • Human Research Program: Augmentation of this JSC program of $63 million in FY 2011 (42% increase) for a total of $317 million over five years to further research on human habitation in space. • International Space Station: An addition of over $3 billion over five years to augment ISS functionalities, enable maximum utilization of the ISS, and extend ISS, likely to 2020 or beyond. • Constellation Transition: Funding of $1.9 billion in FY 2011, and $600 million in FY 2012, is provided to transition and closeout the Constellation Program.
It's not about inspiring kids to be astronauts. It's about keeping the pipeline for engineers, scientists, and other technical disciplines open. This isn't some silly "everybody can be the POTUS" nonsense. We're not inspiring kids to all be astrophysicists (which, like the POTUS, are extremely rare), we're inspiring them to the fields which actually DRIVE our economy and make that "infrastructure" thing better for all of us, and also inspiring them to be critical thinkers, which we can never have enough of! If you think NASA is all about silly pet projects which have no bearing on what happens to us on Earth, I'd say you're mistaken. And apparently if you want to argue that it is a bloated, inefficient mess, that argument has all but sailed now as well. If you believe the private sector can do 100% of what NASA does better, cheaper, quicker, etc... then fine, that's an argument for another day perhaps. But as long as we both agree that sci/tech funding should be a cornerstone of our budget, I think we can put this argument to bed.
I don't particularly agree with his argument, but dang Neil deGrasse Tyson is a good orator and storyteller. I could listen to him lecture all day.
To be fair, Morgan Freeman had something like 1 year to get ready for that comet. Considering the circumstances, he did pretty well. He also managed to make the US and Russia BFF through cooperation on avoiding the comet. Basically what I'm saying is Morgan Freeman for president. He may not know a damn thing about politics but he'll comfort you like no one else.
This is definitely a great next step for NASA, whose mandate (IMO) is pushing the frontier, boldly going where few or none have gone before. Plus, it actually makes sense that we would want to have experience intercepting, landing on, and perhaps influencing the flight of an asteroid. This kind of activity could, in the big picture, distinguish us from the dinosaurs if we are able to avoid their fate through our technological prowess. I agree with Tyson, low Earth orbit is "boldly going where several hundred have gone before" and is not pushing the bounds of our knowledge, our capability, or our scientific progress. It would have been nice to actually SEE a moon shot, but I am thrilled that man may make contact with an asteroid while I am still breathing.
