As far as the Constitution itself, here’s one online version, with some commentary. It’s helpful to remember that this is a document drafted in the late 18th century, so the language as well as the intent behind it is a little archaic.

Thanks.

It’s pretty pathetic given they’ve made it a party platform to trash government at every turn. Now they’ve got a president who is saying: Let’s let the private sector do this.

And they don’t like it.

Make no mistake, the Apollo program had dick-all to do with science or exploration; it was *all* about demonstrating technical superiority over a hated enemy. That we managed to get something useful out of it was a secondary consideration.

As far as the Constitution itself, here’s one online version, with some commentary. It’s helpful to remember that this is a document drafted in the late 18th century, so the language as well as the intent behind it is a little archaic. One of the more fun arguments happening in American legal circles (for suitably small value of “fun”) is how much weight should be given to the literal text of the Constitution vs. the intent of the authors, and how that affects its interpretation in the modern day.

But ..but .. how does the President ever get anything done like the healthcare reforms he passed just recently?

It’s all about politics; either trading political favors (I’ll vote for this bill if you give me X) or applying political pressure (vote for this bill or we’ll support a challenger in the next primary). Presidents like LBJ managed to collect long strings of markers throughout their political careers that they called in once they were in office.

Sometimes it’s a matter of making your case clearly and forcefully. Sometimes it’s a matter of compromise. Sometimes it’s threatening political Armageddon. Sometimes it’s making your case directly to the American people and have them harass their representatives (this was a major factor in the HCR battle last year). Sometimes it’s gaming the press. Sometimes it’s all of the above.

How the blazes do you manage to run *anything* like that!?!

The whole point of the system is to make it as difficult as possible to get anything done. The people who designed our government were very distrustful of government so they went out of their way to limit it. Making the various branches of government have to fight each other was one of the ways they made sure that no one branch could gain too much power or get stuff done too easily. It makes it hard for them to do stupid stuff, which is good, but it also makes it hard to do necessary stuff, which is bad. Parliamentary systems make it much easier to do necessary stuff, but also much easier to do stupid stuff. It is a trade-off, by making it easier to respond to serious problems you also make abuse easier, by making abuse harder you also make it harder to respond to serious problems.

But ..but .. how does the President ever get anything done like the healthcare reforms he passed just recently?

Because he was able to convince enough members of congress to go along with it. That is why it took so long, it was extremely hard for him to convince enough people to vote for it, especially when the republican party refused to vote for it under any circumstances for political reasons. It took months and months of deal-making, modification, and compromise before he could get enough members of congress to agree to vote for it. He was totally at the mercy of congress, he could do nothing whatsoever without their approval.

How was JFK effectively able to get momentum going for Apollo then .. ?

See previous, but he didn’t have to deal with one party stonewalling the process and there was overwhelming public support thanks to the cold war so it wasn’t as hard.

How was JFK effectively able to get momentum going for Apollo then .. ?

Wow.

(Yes, yes, I’ll try and research more & read your constitution if I can find it somewhere.)

Okay. That’s a mind*** for me. Thanks for that explanation I guess.

It turns everything I used to think about US politics pretty much on its head!

The president’s power when it comes to enacting laws is more his power to make deals and use his popularity and role as the head and most public figure of his party to his advantage, rather than any enumerated powers set forth under the constitution. – The Black Cat

That’s it … that’s all? .. Yegods!! It seems pathetic really if you don’t mind me saying so. That’s .. whew, it’ll take me awhile to get my head around that.

Prime ministers have a LOT more power than presidents because their is no separation between legislative and executive branches, but they are also much more vulnerable for the same reason. Presidential systems of government are totally different than parliamentary systems for that reason.

I’m used to the parliamentary system where the PM usually – not always coz he still has to deal with parliament & his own party but generally has a majority – gets his wayand can dictate what tehpolicies and agendas are going to be.

I had thought – okay wrongly I get *that* much now – that your system was fairly similar (a western Representative democracy along the British~ish lines) to ours except witha much *more* – not LESS – powerful “Chief”. Looks like our national systems are very much more different than I thought.

If the president wants to get things done, then congress wins 100% of the time. … No, he can’t. Period, end of story. IT CANNOT BE DONE! – The Black Cat

Goshdurnnit that sucks!!

That really sucks.

How the blazes do you manage to run *anything* like that!?!

I mena I know you do, somehow it just .. it’s just .. whoah that sounds like a messed up way of running things to me.

[Shakes head, knows its true but *still* has trouble reallybelieving the President is *that* powerless vs Congress.]

So doesn’t the President lead the US, isn’t *that* his role???

Not as originally envisioned, no. The *perception* of the President’s role has changed, especially since the advent of television, and Congress has been deferring power to the Executive since the Cold War. Congress still basically runs the show, though.

You make the POTUS sound so powerless & unable to actually effect anything – more a symbolic figurehead like our Australian Governor general as opposed to our Aussie Prime Minister – which doesn’t seem to be the case.

Not at all; the POTUS *does* have real power in many areas. The Executive’s role is to enforce the laws passed by the Legislature, and to that end he has quite a bit of authority. He’s the CinC of all the armed forces during wartime; he has extensive law enforcement powers (through the Justice department); he appoints judges, ambassadors, and other federal officers (with Congressional approval required for some of them); he plays a significant role in foreign policy (again, though, some things require Congressional approval). He can direct policy in those departments under his control (Justice, Housing, EPA, etc.), which has a significant effect on the daily lives of most Americans. And the biggie is that he can decide whether a bill becomes law or not (although Congress can override a veto with enough votes). The President cannot dictate what goes into the budget, but he can control whether the budget becomes law, which gives him *some* leverage over what programs get funded.

If there’s a clash between the Congress and the President as there was in the Clinton years doesn’t the President “out-rank” Congress or its individual top dog. (Speaker?) If it comes down to the crunch in the power struggle – can’t the President overcome Congress usually unless its an impeachment and even there – that hasn’t ever happened and only been a threat?

In terms of *defined* power, Congress wins. Congress has the power to remove a sitting President (for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, a frustratingly vague and elusive term), but the President cannot remove any member of Congress (not directly, anyway). *Politically* speaking, it can go either way; back in the mid-90s, Congressional Republicans clashed with President Clinton over the budget and demanded cuts the President wasn’t willing to make, causing parts of the government to shut down for lack of funds (again, Congress determines the budget, but the President has to sign it into law for it to take effect). The idea was that Clinton would be blamed for the shutdown and suffer politically, but the tactic backfired spectacularly. Clinton wound up being re-elected, and the Speaker (Newt Gingrich) lost his seat.

So why doesn’t Obama use that leverage to double NASA’s budget for the manned program? We’re fighting two wars, the economy is still struggling, the national debt is in the trillions, and the manned program is a *money pit*. It’s a drop in the bucket in the overall budget, but we’re still talking about tens of billions-with-a-b of dollars for a *very* visible program with no visible payoff. When it comes to basic science, the unmanned program absolutely spanks the manned program; the entire Mars exploration program has proven that you really don’t need boots on the ground to perform amazing and valuable scientific research. Until someone can articulate *why* we need to send people back to the Moon or to Mars (beyond the usual lame “because it’s there” or “human need to explore” excuses), there’s no reason for the manned program to exist.

That the President could decide policy directions and essentially lead the US (& lets face it the rest of the “Free /Western world as well!) as he so chooses – with a few exceptions and a few checks & balances (eg. Constitution, Courts, Congress) but otherwise pretty much in total charge.

Completely and totally wrong. Try reading the U.S. constitution, it is pretty clear on the matter.

Okay, maybe I don’t understand the US system as well as I thought I did – but that’s how I *thought* the system essentially worked and where, ultimately, the power was vested.

You thought wrong.

So doesn’t the President lead the US, isn’t *that* his role???

There is different meanings of lead. Being able to decide how the laws are carried out gives the president a lot of power. He also is the head of all the government agencies. So congress decides their funding, but he decides what they do with it within the bounds set by congress. Also, the president is the head of the military (but he isn’t supposed to be able to start a conflict without congress’s approval). Further, he popularity gives him power, because if members of congress agree with a popular president it can increase their popularity. But that is only because it will help them get re-elected, so they obviously aren’t going to help the president do something unpopular with the everyday people. The president’s power when it comes to enacting laws is more his power to make deals and use his popularity and role as the head and most public figure of his party to his advantage, rather than any enumerated powers set forth under the constitution. I practice this seems to give him a lot more power than the founding fathers apparently intended, although the President’s power has increased substantially lately.

Isn’t that what he is elected for as the chosen representative of the US populace? To run the country together with but effectively above the Congress on the behalf of its citizens?

No.

I thought the POTUS was the head of the Executive branch of government with Congress acting as a means through which he worked and also in part as a check on his power but…

Completely and totally wrong.

You make the POTUS sound so powerless & unable to actually effect anything – more a symbolic figurehead like our Australian Governor general as opposed to our Aussie Prime Minister – which doesn’t seem to be the case.

Prime ministers have a LOT more power than presidents because their is no separation between legislative and executive branches, but they are also much more vulnerable for the same reason. Presidential systems of government are totally different than parliamentary systems for that reason.

If there’s a clash between the Congress and the President as there was in the Clinton years doesn’t the President “out-rank” Congress or its individual top dog. (Speaker?) If it comes down to the crunch in the power struggle – can’t the President overcome Congress usually unless its an impeachment and even there – that hasn’t ever happened and only been a threat?

No, quite the opposite. When there is a clash between the President and congress the president becomes totally powerless, unable to get anything done. That is what happened during the Clinton years and that is what is happening now.

I don’t want or advocate dictatorship but the system has to be one that works with somebody ultimately in charge and responsible for seeing things happen (or not as the case may be.) That guy is supposed to be the President with Congress acting as a check on his power – right? Or wrong still?

Your ideas have absolutely no similarity to reality in any way whatsoever.

Please at least read the U.S. constitution, it is not very long and the powers are pretty clearly outlined there. You don’t even need to get into the amendments, just read the initial portion.

My understanding is that makes the difference between the sort of representative democracy where you elect a President (or, in my case, the Aussie Prime Minister) and a dictatorship.

In a dictatorship, you have a single man or party or general or somebody – ruling without needing the consent of the people and without holding free and fair elections.

In the USA voters (in purest distillated essence) vote to choose a President (& /via Congressmen and a whole melee of side mechanisms eg. electoral court) along with your Congress – but power is ultimately vested in the President through the will of the People (or at least voting citizens) and thus he *is* the one chosen to make things happen and run the nation.

Ignoring your totally wrong ideas about how the U.S. system of government works, the problem is that if the President has the powers you describe, he can easily turn it into a dictatorship. For instance he can choose supreme court justices that will rule him dictator, he can set laws that will allow him to manipulate elections, he can end all funding to congress so they can’t do any work, or use the federal police or military to block them from entering. A president with no checks on his power like you describe can in a very short period of time turn the U.S. into an effective dictatorship.

Similarly, in Australia we elect our Prime Minister via our local parliament and its representatives – Senators and Members of Parliament (MPs) – and thePM is effectively theman in charge. Again, there are checks like parliament and the Courts and the Constitution but, in essence, the PM is the one in charge. Until he gets voted out at the pleasure of us citizens and replaced by the opposition party’s leader. Or, alternatively overthrown and replaced from within his own party. (BTW. Both strong possiblities for us at the moment as our current PM, Kevin Rudd, is highly unpopular & facing a possible election loss later this year & also many in his party are calling for his replacement by his deputy.)

The fact that parliament can remove the executive from power at any time for any reason means it is a lot safer to give the executive power over congress. Our system makes it very hard to remove the president from power, and even that is only supposed to be used for “high crimes and misdemeanors”, not political differences (although that has been what it was used for the two instances where it has been tried, it has never once succeeded).

So the Presient as Iunderstood was teh one who could just make it happen & yet is NOTa dicttor because he was , inessence elected “king” and restricted by afew things suchas teh Cionstititon and elections yet still able to decide most things outside those limits. Incl., specifically, NASA and the future space exploration & development policy.

Completely and totally wrong.

Is this picture wrong somewhere and, if so, where?

Yes, your picture is wrong everywhere and in every way. It does not bear even the slightest resemblance to how things work.

If Congress clashes with the President – who usually wins?

Depends on who is trying to get things done. If the president wants to get things done, then congress wins 100% of the time. If congress wants to get things done, that depends on whether they have a 2/3 majority agreeing on the issue. If they don’t, which is usually the case, then the president can veto the bill. If they do, then they can overcome the veto. But usually of things don’t get done it is blamed on the president rather than congress (even though it is congress’s responsibility), so stonewalling is usually more advantageous for congress.

I know its hard but surely it’s something that could be tried if the President cared strongly enough to do so. Surely he’s somebody whose input (unlike mine! ) really matters!

You still say this? No, he can’t. Period, end of story. IT CANNOT BE DONE!

If he cares enough and fights hard enough then he should be able to get it through – shouldn’t he?

Hope you get my meaning regardless.

If Congress clashes with the President – who usually wins?

I’ll also confess there’s a certain amount of passionate frustration in my earlier comments (eg. # 122) too.

I know its hard but surely it’s something that could be tried if the President cared strongly enough to do so. Surely he’s somebody whose input (unlike mine! ) really matters!

I should add, there is a name for a system of government where the head of the executive branch can just “make it happen”. It is called a “dictatorship”.

*Elections.*

My understanding is that makes the difference between the sort of representative democracy where you elect a President (or, in my case, the Aussie Prime Minister) and a dictatorship.

In a dictatorship, you have a single man or party or general or somebody – ruling without needing the consent of the people and without holding free and fair elections.

In the USA voters (in purest distillated essence) vote to choose a President (& /via Congressmen and a whole melee of side mechanisms eg. electoral court) along with your Congress – but power is ultimately vested in the President through the will of the People (or at least voting citizens) and thus he *is* the one chosen to make things happen and run the nation.

There are “checks and balances” (of which Congress is one) and some restrictions – but in the end, the President Of The United States is the person /office where the buck finally stops and who has to make the final decisions on what happens or doesn’t. Right?

Similarly, in Australia we elect our Prime Minister via our local parliament and its representatives – Senators and Members of Parliament (MPs) – and thePM is effectively theman in charge. Again, there are checks like parliament and the Courts and the Constitution but, in essence, the PM is the one in charge. Until he gets voted out at the pleasure of us citizens and replaced by the opposition party’s leader. Or, alternatively overthrown and replaced from within his own party. (BTW. Both strong possiblities for us at the moment as our current PM, Kevin Rudd, is highly unpopular & facing a possible election loss later this year & also many in his party are calling for his replacement by his deputy.)

Contrastingly in a dictatorship the people are either totally ignored and repressed with no say in the government at all or the vote is rigged (eg. Iran) or restricted (eg. one name on the ballot, no secret ballot, etc .. explaining why, eg., Saddam Hussein got nearly 100% of the “vote”) so that this is effectively the case and there is no free political choice.

Contrasting also there are nations where is essentially is no government where the nation is occupied or in civil war or a state of anarchy (Somalia, some other third world hellholes, Afghanistan throughout much of its history) which wrecks theplace -somebody does need tobe incharge of things and running tehshow to provide at minimum law and order and foreign policy plus ideally education, helath etc .. )

So the Presient as Iunderstood was teh one who could just make it happen & yet is NOTa dicttor because he was , inessence elected “king” and restricted by afew things suchas teh Cionstititon and elections yet still able to decide most things outside those limits. Incl., specifically, NASA and the future space exploration & development policy.

Is this picture wrong somewhere and, if so, where?

That the President could decide policy directions and essentially lead the US (& lets face it the rest of the “Free /Western world as well!) as he so chooses – with a few exceptions and a few checks & balances (eg. Constitution, Courts, Congress) but otherwise pretty much in total charge.

Okay, maybe I don’t understand the US system as well as I thought I did – but that’s how I *thought* the system essentially worked and where, ultimately, the power was vested.

(Aside from the People – voters anyhow – in choosing the President via the Electoral court which is another story again I know – or think I have an idea of anyhow! )

So doesn’t the President lead the US, isn’t *that* his role???

Isn’t that what he is elected for as the chosen representative of the US populace? To run the country together with but effectively above the Congress on the behalf of its citizens?

I thought the POTUS was the head of the Executive branch of government with Congress acting as a means through which he worked and also in part as a check on his power but with the other branches being the Judicial (ie. Supreme Court) & then the administrative – the Public Service, the clarks, lawyers, advisors, secretaries, department and agency heads, police, public school principles, etc .. who do the mundane work of drafting and enforcing laws and policies but don’t decide the policies or make the decisions themselves.

You make the POTUS sound so powerless & unable to actually effect anything – more a symbolic figurehead like our Australian Governor general as opposed to our Aussie Prime Minister – which doesn’t seem to be the case.

If there’s a clash between the Congress and the President as there was in the Clinton years doesn’t the President “out-rank” Congress or its individual top dog. (Speaker?) If it comes down to the crunch in the power struggle – can’t the President overcome Congress usually unless its an impeachment and even there – that hasn’t ever happened and only been a threat?

I don’t want or advocate dictatorship but the system has to be one that works with somebody ultimately in charge and responsible for seeing things happen (or not as the case may be.) That guy is supposed to be the President with Congress acting as a check on his power – right? Or wrong still?

I’m confused by this I must admit.

Congress does not answer to the President. He cannot *make* Congress do anything. He can encourage, cajole, beg, plead, trade political favors, etc., but that’s the extent of it. He can veto a bill he doesn’t like, but Congress can override that veto with enough votes.

As originally envisioned by the founding fathers, Congress is supposed to run the show, not the President (well, okay, they run the show *together*, but there’s a reason Article I of the Consititution is devoted to the Legislative branch and not the Executive). The U.S. government was *designed* to be slow and inefficient in order to prevent any one individual from wreaking too much havoc. The Consititution can be amended, and Congress can award additional powers to the President through legislation, but until that happens (and it will, eventually, because we are stupid) Congress is still in charge.

So, no, the President could not make anything of this magnitude happen if Congress was opposed to it. Under most circumstances, that’s a *good* thing.

And no, I do not believe NASA will ever get people out of LEO unless *radical* changes happen both within and without the program. The manned program is paralyzed by politics. Engineering decisions are secondary to political considerations. It makes no sense to spread programs across all fifty states, except that’s the only way to get various congresscritters to not cut your budget. It makes no sense to use a solid booster as the first stage for your manned launcher, except that’s how you keep a bunch of people on the payroll.

It’s always been a mess, it’s just that during the Apollo program we were willing to live with it. Not anymore.

But isn’t telling – & convincing Congress the President’s job after all?

No, the President’s job is to execute the laws passed by congress, hence the name “executive branch”. It is part of our checks and balances, congress passes laws, executive branch carries them out. Basically the only power the president has over laws is to veto them, and congress can overturn his veto.

The president, like everyone else in the country, is allowed to propose laws to congress (budgets are basically a special type of law), but once he does he is totally out of the loop, he has no power whatsoever to impact whether the law actually gets passed (except for the power everyone else in the country has to ask members of congress to pass it). The president has more clout than the average american so congress is more likely to listen to him, but he has no power whatsoever to make congress do anything it doesn’t want to do (except perhaps call a special session, I don’t recall for sure).

And no president is going to propose a law or budget that he knows has zero chance of congress agreeing to, which is the case with your proposal.

If *he* wanted it to happen I reckon he could make it happen. Surely?

No, in fact the entire U.S. system of government was explicitly designed so the President could not “make it happen”. He can say what he thinks should happen, but he has no power whatsoever to “make it happen”. And even if he wanted to double NASA’s budget so they could do twice the amount of work, there is no way congress would ever approve that, especially not when the Republican party has said flat-out they would do their best to block anything he tries to do.

Let me explain this one last time: the president has no power whatsoever to determine how much money a department in the U.S. government gets, or how money is distributed amongst the departments in the government. The U.S. system of government was explicitly designed to prevent the President from having that sort of power.

Please, please, please learn at least a little bit about the subject before you go spouting this sort of nonsense. Making a mistake up front is one thing, but to continue making the mistake after being carefully and repeatedly corrected smacks of willful ignorance.

@ 121. jfb :

Frankly, I doubt that NASA, as it is currently organized, can get people out of LEO ever again.

Yikes!

I really, *really* hope you are wrong about that.

@120. TheBlackCat :

Great, tell congress. The president cannot redirect those funds.

But isn’t telling – & convincing – Congress the President’s job after all?

I very much doubt *I* could tell or convince Congress of anything, I’m just an Aussie layperson – but the POTUS Obama, OTOH …

If *he* wanted it to happen I reckon he could make it happen. Surely?

If we could build Apollo and Saturn V’s back in the 1960’s (programs which also suffered severe criticism and teething troubles at the time btw)then why the blazes is it “unfeasible” or “unrealistic” to suggest we can build Ares and Constellation today?

Apollo was new and shiny and cost didn’t matter. 40 years later, manned spaceflight is old hat and cost *definitely* matters, especially after the Shuttle and the ISS.

The problem isn’t technology. The manned program has proven time and again that it *cannot* control (or even estimate) costs. It always oversells capability, it always lowballs cost and effort, and it allows political considerations to interefere with or outright trump engineering decisions.

Part of that’s the nature of the beast; no congresscritter worth his or her salary is going to vote to allocate billions of dollars without making sure some of those dollars wind up back in his or her district. There are always going to be demands that NASA use this contractor, or develop components in that state, do the integration somewhere else, etc. But beyond that, the manned program is simply a mess. It always has been.

Frankly, I doubt that NASA, as it is currently organized, can get people out of LEO ever again.

Obama is – at least part – of the reason for both those problems.

Obama lacks the will to fund NASA enough to do these things. Period.

You aren’t listening. Obama does not have the power to fund anything. That is congress’s decision. He can only move the funds around a little.

Yes Bush II may have been more rhetoric than action – but, in fairness to him (& I’m no great fan of his), he came up a Lunar return plan where Obama is just cancelling that plan & does NOT seem to be putting forward a real plan to go to Mars – just talk.

There is a big difference: Bush expected NASA to do twice the work with less money, while Obama is cutting projects to get enough money to get what he wants done.

I won’t pretend to be a huge expert on the US political system which isn’t mine but the US president can over-ride Congress and can direct and set a leading example directing it – no?

Absolutely not. The president can most definitely NOT do this. We have something called the separation of powers, Congress has certain powers and the President has others. The president cannot override congress. If you don’t have any clue what you are talking about then perhaps you should either shut up before you starting talking with such confidence on the subject.

A lot of money is spent on other things, for example, funding arts and sports, subsidising farms and giving aid to nations like China and India and Israel that could be put to better use.

Great, tell congress. The president cannot redirect those funds. As I keep saying, but you keep totally ignoring, it is totally outside the powers of the executive branch to move funds from U.S. department to another.

Why exactly is my suggestion of keeping the Shuttles flying longer a “flight of fancy” given we’ve already got them and know how to fly and maintain them and even build more of them?

We can’t without money. If you want the money convince congress to give it.

Alas, my opinion is just my own.

Well at least its’s nobody elses!

[Braveheart voice on] They can take my life but they can never take … My Opinion! [/Braveheart voice off.]

@ Messier (98): I guess I didn’t realize that arguments could be based on flights of fancy and didn’t have to be realistic, logical, or even remotely feasible.Heck, apparently all we have to do is just make the money appear. Who knew? Golly, that was simple.You’ve got the political speech down. You could be Kay Bailey Hutchison’s speech writer or campaign manager.

Cool – could I quote you as my reference for her then – I could use some more work right now!

Actually, I rather doubt she’d employ an Australian and someone who disagrees with a lot of the Republican party’s policies at that.

As for “flights of fancies” – remember Apollo and remember how we built the Endeavour orbiter to replace the lost Challenger.

I really think that we *do* have the technology and the knowledge, we have the capability to build new shuttles and to build their replacements and successors as well. All that is lacking is the funding and the political will.

Obama is – at least part – of the reason for both those problems.

Obama lacks the will to fund NASA enough to do these things. Period.

Yes Congress plays an important role too.

Yes Bush II may have been more rhetoric than action – but, in fairness to him (& I’m no great fan of his), he came up a Lunar return plan where Obama is just cancelling that plan & does NOT seem to be putting forward a real plan to go to Mars – just talk. Besides Bush is history – he isn’t the issue here or especially relevant to this debate any more.

The buck does now stop with the current President Of The United States who is the one in a position to get things done – or not – and that individual is Barack Obama. It is up to him – and, to a lesser degree, Congress too. (I won’t pretend to be a huge expert on the US political system which isn’t mine but the US president can over-ride Congress and can direct and set a leading example directing it – no?)

A lot of money is spent on other things, for example, funding arts and sports, subsidising farms and giving aid to nations like China and India and Israel that could be put to better use. If we really have to find the money for something (eg. War on Terror) then we find it.

Well, I think we *do* have to do this & we have to get the funds for it. It should be a priority – we should fund the space program like we did in the Apollo days.

What we’ve done before – with lesser technology available than we have now – we can do again better. Can’t we? If not, then why not?

Why exactly is my suggestion of keeping the Shuttles flying longer a “flight of fancy” given we’ve already got them and know how to fly and maintain them and even build more of them?

If we could build Apollo and Saturn V‘s back in the 1960′s (programs which also suffered severe criticism and teething troubles at the time btw)then why the blazes is it “unfeasible” or “unrealistic” to suggest we can build Ares and Constellation today?

NASA was deliberately spread out so much to give it political support in congress. This makes it really hard to cancel the US Space Programme – but also really hard to change it as well, since all the various senitors and congresspeople don’t want to loose their share of the pie. This is why things like the DC-X and X-33 get knocked down. If they worked, a huge chunk of people would suddenly become unemployed.

The Falccon 9 doesn’t need the Johnson space centre, any more than a communication satellite in GSO needs a crew of 100 to man the switchboards and replace the vacuum tubes. It’s useful in the short term, but only as long as NASA insists on it being so. And if NASA becomes less important then…

@65 Ad Hominid, If it were up to me, I would make the same requirement of existing contractors.

Ken in #76 has it right.

Senator Hutchison’s statement is simply an example of how Republicans are determined to portray every event as an Obama failure, regardless of whether that makes them seem hypocritical. Perception of Obama failure is more important than perception of GOP self-consistency.

Republican strategists view their party’s political power as more important than whether Democratic policies benefit this country, because they are so convinced that their conservative worldview is the _only_ correct worldview.