-So, now you’re blaming Obama for a possible JWST ccancellation. Wonderful. You apparently don’t know that Administrator Bolden is planning to raid other missions to fund JWST, should Congress stop doing so. In other words, you don’t know what – and who – you’re talking about.

We’re talking about facts right? Right. Not what Biden may or may not be planning to do which is a matter of possibility rather than fact.

Cancellations~wise note from here :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/14/congress-threatens-americas-future-in-space/

I’ll iterate once again that the Shuttle was canceled by Bush, and the followup rocket system, Constellation, was canceled by Obama .. The House subcommittee in charge of NASA’s funds recommended totally cutting the budget for Hubble’s successor, the James Webb Space Telescope. The House committee above them approved it on Wednesday. So that decision to axe JWST will go into the House budget bill.

The Bush decision on the Space Shuttle could have been vetoed and reversed by Obama had he chosen to do so. The Space Shuttles were still flying when Obama took over – they will not be when he leaves office.

Ditto the House committe on the JWST – the US President I believe has power and responsibility over it. I have not heard Obama say one word against the JWST cancellatuion or the retiring of the Space Shuttles. he’s president and yes, the buck does stop with him. Yes, Congress is a pain and a problem, yes, he’s bene left with difficult problems and doesn’t have an easy job but he *is* the Commander-in-Cheif, the ultimate power in the land. The Presidency is seen by almost everyone on the planet as the job that sets the agenda and the most powerful man on Earth. If he didn’t want the responsibility and wasn’t up for the task – a task which includes overseeing the running of NASA’and America’s space program – Obama should NOT have chosen to run for or accept the office.

Obama played a direct role in scrapping Constellation :

In 2009, concerned by price increases on the program, U.S. President Barack Obama ordered a review of the project which indicated that both returning to the Moon and manned flights to Mars were out of NASA’s current budget.[32] .. [snip] .. After reviewing the report, following congressional testimony,[24] the Obama administration decided to exclude Constellation from the 2011 United States federal budget.[34][35] On February 1, 2010, the President’s proposed budget was released, which included no funding for the project.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program#President_Obama

Obama ordered the Augustine panel, he decided to scrap Bush’es vision for a manned Lunar return. That’s fact. So Obama gets the blame is a reasonable conclusion.

I’ll also note as this link shows :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36470363/ns/nightly_news/

that some of the greatest astronauts and space program directors such as Neil Armstrong,Jim Lovell – and I’ll add many others have strongly criticised and condemned Obama’s plan.

I’m with Neil Armstrong and his fellow astronauts on this – not the side of a politician whose slogan was the highly misleading “Yes we can” without saying that what that “yes we can” was supposed to mean.

you think you’re entitled to a blissful opinion, without correction?

I’m entitled to my opinion – blissfull or otherwise – and to express it publicly just as you are.

You are welcome to correct me if you think I’m wrong and we can discuss the situation reasonably.

Equally, I’m entitled to correct your opinion if I think you’re wrong as, oddly enough, I do. It’s called debate.

When you accuse me of being “factually incorrect” though you need to have the facts on your side. Facts not your opinion, not plans and future possibilities.

You are entitled to your own opinions NOT your own facts.

It is a fact that Obama has scrapped the Constellation program.

It is a fact that today the USA is relying on its former Cold War enemy & Moon race loser Russia to get its astronauts into orbit.

It is hoped and planned – but NOT (at least not yet) – a fact that SpaceX or anything else has been able to lift American astronauts into orbit on American rockets.

Hopefully Obama’s space exploartion plans will work out. But they’ve yet to do so and as a skeptic who has seen all too many plans fail to launch I’ll believe it when I see it not before.

So, let’s fill the table:
-”we’re not going back to the Moon”- factually incorrect by your own admission

What? “Factually incorrect?” I wish.

Where’s the plan to get people back on the Moon? That’s what I was talking about there which I thought was rather obvious in context.

Oh right, Obama cancelled it and mocked the whole concept with a derisive throwaway line.

Robotic missions such as GRAIL & the LRO are good but not the same & NOT what I was referring to.

-”nor are we exploring further”- simply wrong on its face.

It is? Name the date scheduled for a manned lift-off then to Mars, to an asteroid to somewhere beyond Low Earth Orbit. Go on. Name the rocket they crew will be flying and while your at it the names abd numbers of tehpeople being sent to explore. Show us the images of the spacecraft actually under construction and being readied for launch with folks aboard.

I bet you can’t – but I hope I’m wrong.

-”having seen the Shuttles retire without successor”- factually incorrect, and Phil agrees

Factually incorrect – Really? What successor?

NASA successors – I’m not talking about private companies like SpaceX or what the Russian space agency is doing. I’m talking NASA here and human spaceflight – human spaceplanes specifically – remember.

-”having cancelled the Ares-Constellation program and the James Webb Space telescope”- factually incorrect

If you’ve got news that the JWST hasn’t been cancelled then its the first I’ve heard of it. Have you?

Obama did indeed scrap the Constellation program – that’s well known fact so why you seem to be saying otherwise is beyond me.

-”and left the USA dependent on Russia to get its astronauts into space”- you are in denial over CCDev.

You seem to be in denial of reality.

Tell me Vince Charles how are the NASA astronauts currently being transported to & from the International Space Station?

Oh yeah, that’s right the ancient Russian Soyuz craft.

Why are they now discussing decrewing the ISS and leaving it empty?

Oh right, because we can’t totally trust those ancient Russian Soyuz craft after the recent launch failure.

Will SpaceX be used in the future successfuly? Perhaps. I hope so.

But has it yet succeeded in launching anyone? Nup.

Meanwhile we’ve got no NASA manned spacecraft and are relying on Russia as I said in an ironic twist of history to get our astronauts to the space station.

So who’s being factually incorrect? Methinks its you.

23. Messier Tidy Upper Said:

“Barack Obama will be remembered (on current form) for having seen the Shuttles retire without successor, with having cancelled the Ares-Constellation progarm and the James Webb Space telescope and left the USA dependent on Russia to get its astronauts into space.”

Wrong again. The MPCV will launch on Delta IV-Heavy, in keeping with Akin’s Law #39: The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don’t decide to develop any new launch vehicles.

Unlike Orion, MPCV is actually a well-run program, as extraneous operating modes and design configurations are finally axed. The design has been frozen in one, sensible place, so now real engineers can finally get to work. The launcher, meanwhile, is an existing system, like every previous successful manned launch vehicle. (The Saturns were under Army development before any astronauts ever flew- they were then repurposed for Apollo early in the development process.) Oh, and a likely test mission for the new capsule will be a lunar circumnavigation, Apollo-8 style.

So, let’s fill the table:

-”we’re not going back to the Moon”- factually incorrect by your own admission
-”nor are we exploring further”- simply wrong on its face
-”having seen the Shuttles retire without successor”- factually incorrect, and Phil agrees
-”having cancelled the Ares-Constellation progarm and the James Webb Space telescope”- factually incorrect
-”and left the USA dependent on Russia to get its astronauts into space”- you are in denial over CCDev.

And you think you’re entitled to a blissful opinion, without correction?

“I take umbrage at your accusation of “ignorance” – I may have a different perspective and view to yours but that does NOT make me ignorant and I thank you to remember the difference.”

.

I remember your FACTUAL ERRORS quite well. Since you openly claimed:

11. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
September 7th, 2011 at 11:35 pm

“I feel sorry for everyone that we’re not going back to the Moon nor are we exploring further…”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/07/brief-interview-on-wgn-radio-about-new-lro-pix/#comment-414980

I decided not to let someone who isn’t actually a part of any of the world’s notable space programs, organizations, vehicle contractors, or engineering services firms slide by with posting a factual error on a space board… a board from a scientist and skeptic. You see, inquiry and skepticism (and the rejection of false leads, however comforting or cherished) are as important in aeronautical engineering and vehicle design as they are in science and medicine. I have to fill you in on a lot about aeronautical engineering and vehicles, apparently. Such as this:

18. Messier Tidy Upper Says:
September 10th, 2011 at 7:26 am

The GRAIL has been lifted!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/08/grail-to-try-to-launch-again-tomorrow/#comment-415991

So… you ADMIT we are, in fact, going back to the Moon. Either you deny that this is your statement, or my “accusation” is a statement of fact- you misstated facts, and I corrected you. Just like on the Gemini program, Concorde, Shuttle, Galileo Mission, etc.

You post factual errors again and again, and are not only unapologetic but insistent. The issue of manned versus unmanned missions is a bit of a tangent, which I should have kept separate. The issue of your factual accuracy about flown hardware, mission timelines, and budgets (in many cases already spent) is not a matter of opinion. Your stating that the Shuttle was great at flying cargo is in direct contradiction to… not only the published payload requirements of both Shuttle and competing launch vehicles, and to my own project schedule and budget, but to the project schedules and budgets of numerous other space groups and organizations attempting to get access to space… and the many more who _did_not_even_bother_ with uncompetitive Shuttle launches. And yet you still insist on boasting about a vehicle you never used, and thus never had to pay for directly, nor indirectly, as a US taxpayer, which you again are not.

“President Obama inherited from his predecessor a working shuttle fleet, a plan to return to our Moon, a new space telescope design under construction and more.”

Yet ANOTHER posting of factual errors on your part:

-The Shuttle retirement had been preceded by over two decades of plans for cheaper, safer, more consistent, and in some cases more capable (i.e., lift capacity). For over twenty years, various groups (both within NASA itself, the Department of Defense, and various administrations) have been working to replace the STS with something- anything- because it fails to meet not only launch requirements, but the internal requirements of the STS program. The vehicles appeared to be “working” in the sense that they moved under their own power. However, like the Concorde, they did so by burning up massive amounts of fuel and taxpayer dollars. It is not our job but our duty, as staff on a program, to minimize waste of customer monies, and the failure to halt the STS via a less-wasteful means of access was repaid by the “Shuttle Gap” in deep-space missions. Your Shuttle insistence would have kept holding us back, failing to launch worthwhile missions, had NASA Administrator Goldin not called a spade a spade and moved probes off Shuttle launches.

-Orion/Constellation/Altair was not a working plan to return to our Moon. This is the finding of the Augustine Commission, a nonpartisan board of experts. Phil admits so himself- Orion budgets would have crashed us on the Moon, not actually soft-landed humans successfully. I have already asked you to please read the Augustine Report, so that your posts would be more informed, and I wouldn’t have to correct you. You apparently have not.

-So, now you’re blaming Obama for a possible JWST ccancellation. Wonderful. You apparently don’t know that Administrator Bolden is planning to raid other missions to fund JWST, should Congress stop doing so. In other words, you don’t know what- and who- you’re talking about.

-”and more.” Go ahead, MTU. Tell me more. Tell me what I don’t know about my own country’s programs, many of which I may be academically, professionally, and materially attached to.

Who is ultimately given “credit” isn’t proof of anything, either. The results of a popularity contest aren’t necessarily fact.

Make that :

I think robotic missions are wonderful and have their place too but I don’t think we should concentrate solely on them at the expense of the manned space program or vice-versa.

Now to :

MTU : “and pretty chessed off about that. Obama’s dismissive “we’ve been there before” nonsense.”
I won’t apologize by assuming it’s a throwaway remark from a speech, but… it happens to be true. Both light-time and bandwidth to a Moon mission are so easy compared to any other hard destination (and even some soft ones) that humans are not that compelling.

Compelling~ness is in the eye of the beholder.

Our planet’s Moon is a compelling destination for me for a number of good & logical reasons.

Obama is wrong – in my view* – to say that “we’ve been there before” because his generation hasn’t been. There’s a heck of a lot that we haven’t done there, a heck of a lot of exploration, discoveries and “firsts” and knowledge to be gained from going there still.

To use it as a throwaway line, frankly disgust me with its casual ignorance and disrespect towards the Apollo heroes and others. It’s indicative of Obama’s bad attitude and bad faith on this issue as I see it.*

@20. Robin :

In fact, the whole “President ____ is to blame for ______” is at least as myopic and facile as any of the ridiculous comments we hear from politicians looking to score political points.

Wasn’t it a President of the United States who famously said? :

“The buck stops here.”

President Obama inherited from his predecessor a working shuttle fleet, a plan to return to our Moon, a new space telescope design under construction and more.

Barack Obama will be remembered (on current form) for having seen the Shuttles retire without successor, with having cancelled the Ares-Constellation progarm and the James Webb Space telescope and left the USA dependent on Russia to get its astronauts into space.

The buck stops with him.

History will probably judge Obama with much the same bewildered contempt that the Chinese Emperor who cancelled and destroyed the boats of Zheng He (click my name for wiki-page) following that explorers footsteps gets. His choice.

Yeah, he’s not *solely* responsible for the mess we’re in – but he *is* responsible.

If he didn’t want that responsibility – and the blame that comes with it when he gets it horribly wrong as I think he has done – then he shouldn’t have run for the Office in the first place.

If his plan works out – and I hope it does – then he’ll deserve the credit for it. But .. we’ll see. History begins now – and it never concludes whilst there’s historians to write it.

@ 17. Roger : “MTU, you didn’t mention the Apollo 18 mission.”

Well, its’ not one of the ‘official’ ones so ..!

—–

* “Needless to say” it need not be said
But so many needlessly say it.
Is that because its NOT nedless to say,
And thus we must needfully say it?

11. Messier Tidy Upper : “I feel sorry for everyone that we’re not going back to the Moon nor are we exploring further”
More ignorance. We have been commissioned to send humans to an asteroid by 2025. And by “we,” I mean “those of us actually qualified, paid, and experienced, to do our job.”

Yeah, I’ll believe it when I see it. I’ve heard so many plans seen so few actually happen – so sick of that.

I take umbrage at your accusation of “ignorance” – I may have a different perspective and view to yours but that does NOT make me ignorant and I thank you to remember the difference.

It is really tiring to see you incessantly post with some sense of authority, and then have to correct your lack of authority.

Whee-yell, excuse me for daring to express myself here.

With a “sense of authority” even?

On some things where I have some knowledge, maybe.

I make no claim to be infallible, never have, very much doubt I ever will. Could I be wrong about some things?

Sure. I think I’ve always been pretty honest and up-front in saying as much myself.

You are entitled to your opinion otherwise, natch, just as I’m entitled to *my* opinion that *your opinion* is utterly mean-spirited and wrong.

I do believe that humans in space means a lot and is worth a lot.

I think robotic missions are wonderful and have their place too but I don’t think we should concentrate solely on them at the expense of the manned sapce program or vice-versa.