Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link]Obama Moves to Counter China With Pentagon-NASA Link

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: "Obama, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Obama, you're no Jack Kennedy."

Awesome! Do we get to have space weapons now?

Good move.

Nasa needs to be utilized.

That ought to help with funding, I would think.

ew

Of everything Obama has done, his direction and handeling of NASA is one of the only things I think he has completly struck out on thus far.

The headline of this thread is preposterously misleading.

Here's the gist of the article:

Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team.

A possible collaboration between NASA and the DOD that utilizes the best of both departments in order to speed along a moon-landing program. Okay. What's controversial about this exactly?

this only makes sense as ALIENS start to become a greater and greater fear of our government.

Haven't we contaminated Earth enough?

The question is not about what's controversial about going to the moon. That's a separate issue. The question here is what's wrong with NASA using the DOD's rockets to get there.

If the rockets are cheaper and ready to go then what's the problem with sharing between agencies?

They need to get moving on the Bussard Ramjets!

What's controversial is that Bush appointed a NASA head that has done wonders for the program, by all accounts, he's a great guy, more than capable and finally has NASA back on track. Everyone has been lobbying for Obama to keep him, and it looks like he may.

However, he also appointed someone to oversee the direction of NASA, and she wants to take the new shuttle program in a new direction, a direction that doesn't make sense. She was never an engineer, was only involved in NASA via a non technical aspect. She now wants to take the DOD type rockets and put men on them, something everyone in NASA is up in arms about, because it's unsafe, stupid, and a step backwards. It does however save money and bury the program they've been working on!

It's not about the press release, it's about the impending battle between Obama and NASA, this being the start.

That's a bit of an overstatement. They've made zero policy decisions. They are simply asking questions about how to do the mission cheaper and faster. The DOD has said that their rockets would work, and Garver and others are looking into whether that's viable.

If not, they will not go forward with such a plan, end of story. But there's nothing at all wrong with looking into other solutions. Political pressures and slip-shod decisions are a reason to be concerned, but I haven't seen that yet.

Overstatement if based only on what they've said publicly. If you believe what you hear from behind the scenes, then not so much.

The rockets would work, but were never designed for that, are a step backwards, and simply aren't the right answer. Chaplain just doesn't seem to get it, and I really hope I'm proved wrong. NASA is the one agency I've always loved. I love space, I love what they stand for, and I'd love to see them grow under the right leadership. I just don't think Chaplain is it.

I have not yet heard of anyone definitely replacing Griffin. The rumors I've heard name Charlie Bolden as a possible replacement. What do you think of that choice?

To be honest, I just don't know. The reason I don't know is simply because I am undecided as to what direction I think the replacement should go. I don't mean direction of NASA, though that's obviously important, but direction meaning the type of person to appoint.

Griffin is kind of the smartest guy in the room type leader. He's helped turn the program around not because of his leadership, but because of his sound technical vision. You could argue that he's a terrible leader, a terrible head, etc, and you wouldn't be far off. The important part here is that everyone at NASA loves the guy, and they love him because he knows and understands what they are trying to accomplish, they bought his vision.

Bolden is not the smartest guy in the room, he lacks that technical background. What he does have going for him is he's a natural leader, a great guy by all accounts, and a seemingly great head of the agency. You can always surround yourself with technical expertise, the question is will he, does he have a vision, or is he just a puppet?

I haven't heard anything from him regarding his plans, vision, etc, so it's hard to really say. What he does do is markedly change the type of leader at NASA. You're going from a 'Scotty' to a 'Kirk', and who knows, it could be a good change.

But make no mistake, regardless of what happens with Bolden, Griffin is out whenever Obama finds someone he likes.

I get the need for a leader, I agree with the need for a leader. I don't however believe that there is not a single capable leader with a more technical or experienced background. I don't care how good of a leader you are, if you don't understand what you're leading, then you're just groping about in the dark.

He's going to be at a big disadvantage from the jump, hope he's up to it, I really do.