NASA Responds to 60 Minutes Space Coast Profile
By Keith Cowing on April 3, 2012 1:56 PM. 6 Comments
Strengthening America's Leadership in Space Exploration
"Charles Bolden: On Sunday, 60 Minutes aired a story that captured some of what the space shuttle era meant to Florida's Space Coast. Unfortunately, the piece also missed an awful lot of important context about the end of that era and where we're headed from here. As a former shuttle astronaut and the Administrator of NASA, nobody has higher regard for the incredible men and women who worked on the Space Shuttle Program. And I certainly understand that for some of those men and women, this transitional period will not be easy."
Categories: Commercialization, Shuttle News
Tags: Bolden, florida
inShare
Like No
Post as …
oldscientist
4 hours ago
One unspoken contention behind the 60 Minutes story was that NASA is a jobs or economic development program. If it is, disappointing as it would be, we should acknowledge that and fund it properly.
NASA might also be about science, exploration, human potential, and national pride. Again, if it is, we should say so and fund it properly. Another aspect of the story that was more hinted than stated is that the transition from Shuttle to its successor system was bungled by the Bush administration, NASA, the Obama administration, and Congress. I think everyone can agree on that--especially as we watch Congress attempt to convert the potential victory of commercial crew to a defeat by under-funding and attacking it. We need to recognize the fact that what motivates Congress is not what motivates anyone enthusiastic about space. In fact, Congress has shown again and again that it not only does not understand what a space program is all about, but also that it's more willing to take dictation from lobbyists than to attempt to learn.
hide 1 reply reply
dogstar3
3 hours ago
I agree that everyone could have done better. The Augustine commission failed to produce any new information. Obama could have been more decisive; he left Constellation, obviously a loose end, consuming most of the budget forever. But the biggest failing, the greatest audacity, was that Bush totally violated the CAIB recommendations. This is understandable since apparently neither he nor any other politician bothered to read the report. Bill Nelson has publicly said that the CAIB required Shuttle to be retired at "assembly complete". Where did he get that idea???? The truth, which anybody can verify, is that the CAIB recommended the shuttle be retired when a replacement system was operational. The CAIB report says in black and white that the Shuttle replacement, if it is designed for anything more ambitious than human flight between the ground and LEO, will fail. Bingo.
NASA has a tough choice for the current generation of human spaceflight, but its a choice we can no longer postpone. BEO or LEO. There no chance that we can continue supporting both. And there is no chance that BEO human flight, with the technology of SLS/Orion, will be sustainable. If we, the space advocate community, cannot come to a consensus we have no expectation Congress will do so.
reply
schlermy
5 hours ago
Very political answer from Charlie, his boss must surely be proud.
reply
newpapyrus
2 hours ago
The week before, 60 minutes presented the perspective of Elon Musk and Space X. Last week 60 minutes showed some balance by presenting the views of some of NASA's private vendors. The Augustine Commissioned determined that the space shuttle could be continued if a shuttle derived architecture was selected. It eventually was only after the Obama administration tried to completely stop NASA from developing any manned spaceflight capability. But President Obama still terminated the shuttle program.
Was there enough money to continue the shuttle program until the SLS/MPCV was ready? The Shuttle/ISS program was about $5 billion a year and the Constellation program was $3.4 billion a year. The SLS/MPCV program cost are currently only $3 billion a year. Bolden claims the SLS development is doing so well that they can even lower SLS/MPCV funding below $3 billion:-) So yes! There was enough money after the Constellation program was canceled.
Plus Congress seemed perfectly willing to even increase the NASA budget if the Obama administration had any clear near term goals for NASA's manned space program. Unfortunately they didn't!
Marcel F. Williams
reply
Monroe2020
5 hours ago
While the story was about SpaceX, I was a little bummed there was no mention of the SLS and Orion. That would have been a great opportunity for the public to know about this bold program. A simple but effective message: Commercial to pick up LEO transport to the ISS. SLS for deep space missions that will one day trump the Apollo feats.
hide 1 reply reply
dogstar3
4 hours ago
The reality is that we can have one or the other but not both. And I see no indication that SLS/Orion can ever produce any product worth its cost.
reply
No comments:
Post a Comment