"If you believe that if we would only give NASA more money, then everything would be fine, you won't like the story I'm going to tell you."

"A NASA administrator [Goldin] who was even more dysfunctional than anyone thought."

"Struggling against the tide of inertia at [HQ]"

"[Bush] knows more about NASA than we ever thought. Gave instructions to O'Keefe, to go over and fix that mess up (but used a different word than mess, not fit for a family blog)."

"President was very involved, even in the details. Was never interested in a specific destination, but thought that exploring the universe was important. NASA was, to him, an embarrasment, and he didn't like to be embarrassed."

"Columbia showed that NASA was even more dysfunctional than the president had thought."

"A group of low-level staff in the White House asked if they could get together to come up with a paragraph for the president to say at the centennial of flight in December 2003. They met, unaware that there were higher-level meetings going on on space policy."

"Policy advisor from Reagan administration, met with president. 'NASA is screwed up!' President: 'I know that.' Advisor: 'Not only is NASA screwed up, but we ought to go back to the moon, and I have a white paper.'"

"President comes back from Columbia memorial, and wants to develop a vision."

"Young staffers are coming up with ideas independently."

"They develop a realization that Shuttle is a roadblock to human spaceflight. The age of the Shuttle had ended on February 1, 2003. A hinge of history had opened. The age of reusability was over [Simberg note: this is the single biggest flaw in the administration (and Aldridge Commission) thinking]."

"NASA is unaware of all this, and they want a new mission, they want an Orbital Space Plane, they want everything."

"Reconstitute the low-level staff work and come up with a vision, with a strawman policy structure and a calendar. Committee eliminates options until they get down to two or three. O'Keefe continues to ask for budget increases, claiming that they could accomplish all kinds of things with budget increases. Problem was that NASA couldn't get new money in current environment."

"Looked at two options--five percent decrease, and five percent increase. Former is "going-out-of-business" budget, and latter isn't enough for the Moon."

"Independently, five Senators met Cheney, 'NASA didn't have enough money, NASA had no vision.' (Hollings, Brownback, McCain, Breaux, and Nelson--three of them Dems)"

"OMB came up with five percent for NASA. O'Keefe met with his advisors, and asked them if they'd be willing to give up something for a new vision, and got a consensus. They gave up the Shuttle, and the space station."

"Loss of SLI means that the government won't be helping develop any new technology for the next few years."

"O'Keefe would have given up anything, to save his agency. Why? Because he caught the bug from the president of the United States."

"Marburger: 'Mr. President, I think that the objective should be a return to the Moon.' President: 'This is about exploring, not destinations.' So they went back and laid out the Moon as a test bed for exploration. Bush: 'This is about going to other destinations than the moon, right?'"

"Bush decided that he wanted to address the nation about space. Bush to speechwriter: 'Get to work on a space speech.' Speechwriter (who had never heard of any of this): 'What!?' President: 'You heard me.'"

Now describing how they got their story out before the speech, and almost got scooped because no one would believe them.

[shot at Leonard David]: "The UPI editor wouldn't run the story without being able to verify this." [To Leonard] "You don't have a problem like that at Space.com."

"President to O'Keefe: If you get this mission, you can't go about it in the way that NASA does today. You have to get things operating more like FFRDCs, you have to involve entrepreneurs and private enterprise, and you have to get out of the launch business."

"Stovepiping ends on August 1st. People at centers start to report direct to HQ instead of to the center directors. Some of rank and file are fighting this tooth and nail. Can you imagine an agency that was given the greatest vision in space in the history of the space program, fighting it? There are people who are against this, because they are afraid."

"Sean O'Keefe has a trick for people who complain that he can't do something. He reaches into a desk drawer, and pulls out an application for the Post Office. 'You apparently don't want to work for NASA...'"

"Things don't look good for the initiative if Kerry is elected, and even if President is reelected, it's not clear whether Congress will fund it. To initiate reforms requires more than one group of reformers. If there is a fight over civil space, he [the president[ has to win."

"This is not the vice president's story--he only appears in the book three times. This is the president's program."

Taking questions now. Jeff Krukin: "Is there any sense that all of this could be made irrelevant by things happening in the private sector"?

Answer: "Yes, O'Keefe has met with Musk, and O'Keefe is very skeptical about the ability of the conventional space industry to do things affordably. Was particularly disturbed by cost estimates for OSP. Has been reaching out to the smaller players."

"Estimate cost of getting to the Moon by 2020 is 64 billion dollars. They found nine billion for a down payment by 2009, but they won't be able to afford it all without much lower costs from the private sector (and that doesn't mean traditional contractors)."

Andrew Chaiken: "Trying to reconcile the stories of the Texas governor who never visited JSC with this new space visionary president."

Answer: "Read Paul O'Neill's book. Describes a completely different president than the one O'Keefe described. Was confronted with embarrassment of dysfunctional space program. If it would have been Paul O'Neill as head of NASA, it would have been like talking to a wall--O'Keefe's personal relationship with Bush was key to making this happen (is personal social friend with the family). Complaint about lack of vision and money from Congress was essential, and if Columbia hadn't happened, we would not have gotten the new policies. Kids working in White House were necessary as well--everything came together."

"Different than his father's space policy, because it recognizes budget realities."

Now drawing the inevitable comparison with Jim Webb, the administrator during Apollo.

Asked about announcement today that NASA thinks that budget estimate for Return to Flight has more than doubled. Thinks will either shove schedule out, or ratchet up pressure on the Hill to get a budget passed.

"Rollout of the plan was botched, because they didn't involve Congress, which is under pressure for war and deficits. Senator Brownback is the key."

Dennis Wingo: "Is there a plan to keep centers like JSC and Goddard from sucking as many funds as possible"?

Answer: "Yes, aware of the problem, working on a strategy."

End of speech.

I'll have thoughts later.

RTTM.

Regrsssion to the Mean?
Read The Tides Matey?
Randy Transvestites Totally Men?
Race to the Moon?
Ah, Return to the Moon. Got it.

Got a link? I like the bits you quoted . . .

RTTM = Return To The Moon. A Space Frontier Foundation conference in Las Vegas that many of us are at...

I was funning, Michael. I spent the day spring (summer?) cleaning the basement. I can almost see the top of my work bench now.

Fascinating. I don't get the reusability age being over stuff. It's not a necessary part of any vision. Musk is doing reusables work, after all.

Also, what was the shot toward Leonard David? Was there a specific story that Leonard David scooped him on and he wanted to give payback?

"Also, what was the shot toward Leonard David? Was there a specific story that Leonard David scooped him on and he wanted to give payback?"

Leonard wrote an article that said that there was not going to be a big space policy announceemnt, and that no one in the White House was interested in space. He also sent us email to that effect saying that we did not know what we were talking about. A few weeks later he was proved by actual events to have been 100% wrong.

And NASAWatch and Sietzen have never gotten anything wrong before?

Try this:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040510-125812-6719r

"WASHINGTON, May 10 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush plans to make a major speech early this summer defending his plan for a new U.S. space exploration initiative, administration sources told United Press International."

It also stated that the Aldridge report would be produced in July--it came out a month ago in June.

And as for UPI having standards, it is worth noting that this article cited unnamed "sources" or "a source" a total of ten times without naming any of them. Most newspapers would not allow a reporter to write an entire article without naming a single source.

So people in glass houses should be careful when throwing bricks, even in jest.

Thanks for the information, Keith.

Saying the "age of reusability is over" is like talking about the end of California's "energy deregulation": Neither one has happened by any reasonable use of the term. Now, if you took the Shuttle, replaced the ET and boosters with a reusable first stage, replaced the engines with something didn't have to be constantly rebuilt, replaced the tiles with something that didn't require heavy, constant repair and replacement, then you would have a prototype for a reusable spacecraft. Probably still far from ideal, but at least it might be worthy of the title "reusable." The age of reusable spacecraft has not begun (except, perhaps, with SpaceShipOne).

The article states:

"OMB came up with five percent for NASA. O'Keefe met with his advisors, and asked them if they'd be willing to give up something for a new vision, and got a consensus. They gave up the Shuttle, and the space station."

Who is giving up the shuttle and station? When did that happen?

$1.1 billion for return to flight and $4 billion to $5 billion for 2004 through 2010 (extended if Congress doesn't pass a budget this year) is hardly "giving up" ISS and STS.

The orbiter cannot possible finish ISS by 2010. That is the elephant sleeping in the parlor the pro-Bush people want to ignore.

Its more like keeping ISS and STS alive so those guys can try again with the new President in January 2009.

= = =

If Congress fails to pass a NASA funding bill and STS gets extended to allow more time to finish ISS, doesn't that cost the US taxpayers $4 billion per year for the delay with NOTHING to show for the money?

Kelly - my glass house is easy to find - unlike some poeple. By all means throw the bricks. FWIW at the time that article was written that is EXACTLY what Aldrige's people were saying.

WHITE: "OMB came up with five percent for NASA. O'Keefe met with his advisors, and asked them if they'd be willing to give up something for a new vision, and got a consensus. They gave up the Shuttle, and the space station."

Yes - I guess you haven't been paying attention: shuttle is retired in 2010 i.e it is "given up" - NASA had plans to fly it to 2020 before this plan was announced. U.S. uses ISS until such time as it begin lunar exploration - NASA use was open ended before that.

What does "shove schedule out" mean? A snippet from Rand's piece:

Asked about announcement today that NASA thinks that budget estimate for Return to Flight has more than doubled. Thinks will either shove schedule out, or ratchet up pressure on the Hill to get a budget passed.

If orbiter will be retired in 2010 come hell or high water, well that is good IMHO, but ISS will not be finished. And with no orbiter to carry science racks what will we do with ISS then?

So please explain what exactly we taxpayers will be getting for our STS money between 2004 and 2010? STS will cost $4 billion plus per year and we get what? A partially completed ISS and international partners who are angry with us either way.

Make them angry at us now and get it over with and save $25 billion to $30 billion for something useful.

BTW, I picked up a copy after Franks talk and read it on the plane trip back. Here's the review.

Bill - you seem to jump back and forth between criticism about how I (and Frank) report what we know (which I can answer to) and criticism of the policy itself (which I am not really inclined to defend or critique - you will need to ask Bush). Pick one or the other - you make me dizzy.

Keith?

Fair enough on the distinction between the reporting and the policy itself. I have no intention or desire to dispute or quarrel with the messenger.

On the message (not the messenger): the plan is to retire the orbiter by 2010, right? Good idea since the orbiter is a dead weight dragging down the entire American space program. IMHO.

Except, George Bush won't be president in 2010 unless some really really interesting stuff happens in between times.

Now, suppose NASA totally rebuilds the orbiters now (and with a $1.1 billion return to flight budget isn't that what they are doing?).

Come January 30, 2009 GWB is off to Crawford and NASA then says "ISS construction isn't finished; the return to flight refurbishments justify a delayed re-certification; CEV development is going slower than expected; the 2004/2005 return to flight up-grades are doing well; and there is nothing else available to carry science racks and spare parts to ISS except Russian-made and those dang Russians are still friends with Iran."

NASA says: "Dear Congress and new President, lets extend STS by 5 or 6 years. . ."

Now, how does GWB assure that the orbiter program is not extended after he leaves office?

Bill it is a waste of time to argue with you. Reagan set the completion date for Space station 4 years after he'd be out of office, Kennedy set the Apollo goal 2 years after the end of a possible second term, The human genome project was given an end date well beyond the Administration that started it. Then there are freeway projects, missions to Saturn...

Keith, I do not wish to argue. I wish to understand. My question is:

"Why did President Bush include orbiter return to flight and ISS completion as an integral part of his vision?"

To date I have not seen any answers I find persuasive. Apparently Senator Brownback has similiar feelings. But let me buy and read your book. Maybe there are some answers in there and I can be satisfied.

Let me make a few comments this one time concerning the issues raised in my talk. First, it should be clear that Leonard David and I are old friends and I have no criticisms to offer on anything he's done. True, he and many others were writing stories last fall that were the opposite of my own. But as I tried to explain to the RTM audience, this was a very tightly held effort that was shared with few outside the administration's inner circles-especially because of their fear that the initiative would be disassembled by critics. Most likely true.
Secondly, I stand by my UPI story concerning plans for a new Bush space speech. The time for that, however, has been pushed further and further back into the fall of the year. This whole series of stories was generated by unnamed sources, I'd point out-but our editor knows who they are, so they aren't unnamed to him. As far as writing stories based on such sourcing, that is what Bob Woodward has made a career of.
Lastly, no one should doubt that Keith and I were equal partners in this project, good, bad or indifferent.
I know there are people who have issues with NASA WATCH. This book isn't NASA WATCH. It's a book, it tells what we think is a compelling story.
The only way for people to know that is to buy it and read the thing for themselves.
Cheers,
-Frank Sietzen

Let me make a few comments this one time concerning the issues raised in my talk. First, it should be clear that Leonard David and I are old friends and I have no criticisms to offer on anything he's done. True, he and many others were writing stories last fall that were the opposite of my own. But as I tried to explain to the RTM audience, this was a very tightly held effort that was shared with few outside the administration's inner circles-especially because of their fear that the initiative would be disassembled by critics. Most likely true.
Secondly, I stand by my UPI story concerning plans for a new Bush space speech. The time for that, however, has been pushed further and further back into the fall of the year. This whole series of stories was generated by unnamed sources, I'd point out-but our editor knows who they are, so they aren't unnamed to him. As far as writing stories based on such sourcing, that is what Bob Woodward has made a career of.
Lastly, no one should doubt that Keith and I were equal partners in this project, good, bad or indifferent.
I know there are people who have issues with NASA WATCH. This book isn't NASA WATCH. It's a book, it tells what we think is a compelling story.
The only way for people to know that is to buy it and read the thing for themselves.
Cheers,
-Frank Sietzen

Thanks for the comments, Frank (and Keith). I didn't mean to imply that there was anything vicious about your jibe at Leonard--I was simply typing furiously as you talked and may have missed the nuance. Anyone familiar with the history (including Leonard) knows that it was probably well deserved, but it was clearly done in fun, and I assume that Leonard took it that way as well, lest I misled anyone.