Houston? You have a problem. Obama sets space summit to change Bush's Moon plans. Mars maybe

Mark the calendar again for April 15. It's a Thursday.

In addition to your income taxes being due, President Obama has called a special space summit in the politically important swing state of Florida that day to change the fundamental direction of NASA in coming years because he believes in change. Bold change, in fact.

This Florida change probably has nothing to do with Obama's presidential predecessor being from Texas, a state that didn't vote for the Illinois Democrat when he ran against Hillary Clinton (51-47) and disliked him even more when he ran against John McCain (55-44).

While you were watching the Academy Awards' red carpet parade and "Avatar's" James Cameron not win an Oscar for his space-based, highest-grossing, movie-directing in the entire cinematic history of both Earth and Pandora, the White House announced the....

...April space summit on the president's new directions and the implications for the Sunshine state and the nation. Because what red-blooded American politician wants to appear opposed to exploration?

Now that the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus plan has in only one year's time stimulated the nation's unemployment rate from about 8% to a now steadily-unemployed rate of 9.7%; and since healthcare has helped heighten Washington's partisan tone despite overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress; and now here comes immigration reform to hopefully divide Republicans, the 44th president has decided to multi-task his free time with reform of space exploration.

It turns out nobody can describe an ordinary tax-day space summit quite like the galactically-inspired, solid-fuel-boostered, earthbound writers of the White House Press Office.

So here it is. 3-2-1:

After an independent review panel found that the previous program to return astronauts to the Moon was fundamentally un-executable, the President included an additional $6 billion for NASA in his FY2011 budget over the next five years. This funding will help us achieve our boldest aspirations in space. 

The President’s ambitious new strategy pushes the frontiers of innovation to set NASA on a more dynamic, flexible, and sustainable trajectory that can propel us on a new journey of innovation and discovery.

The President and the NASA Administrator both believe that we have to be forward thinking and aggressive in our pursuit of new technologies to take us beyond low-Earth orbit. The President’s plan does this.

A foundational element of this new strategy is to invest in the development of a targeted set of inter-related technologies and capabilities that can help us travel from the Earth’s cradle to our nearby Solar System neighborhood in a more effective and affordable way, thus laying the foundation to support journeys to the Moon, asteroids, and eventually to Mars. (Editor's Note: See photo, not shown actual size.)    

After years of underinvestment in new technology and unrealistic budgeting, the President’s plan will unveil an ambitious plan for NASA that sets the agency on a reinvigorated path of space exploration.

OK. "Boldest aspirations in space." "New journey of innovation and discovery." "Forward thinking." "Foundational element." "Targeted set of inter-related technologies and capabilities."

In English this translates to Obama's new budget would cancel for now the return of NASA astronauts to the moon to explore and possibly colonize. The ex-senator wants new space directions with emphasis on milking more years out of the International Space Station and developing technologies to go somewhere else maybe someday who knows.

And to accomplish that he's prepared over the next five years to spend an additional $6 billion.

To put that once-enormous sum in perspective, "Avatar" fans have already spent a third as much on movie tickets to watch blue creatures. Not to mention money the patrons dished out for overpriced popcorn and Twizzlers.

All of which makes this space reform seem less like bold aspirations and more like a cheap short subject.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Click here to receive Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item all day every day. Or follow us @latimestot. You can also go to our new Facebook FAN page here.

Photo: Pete Souza / White House

Comments

[RobInAl]

I'm personally offended by the White House press release. The most insulting part is the following statement: "The President’s ambitious new strategy pushes the frontiers of innovation to set NASA on a more dynamic, flexible, and sustainable trajectory that can propel us on a new journey of innovation and discovery."

This is nothing but a series of hollow buzzwords and political jargon that is attempting to inspire and excite, but really just condescends. The Obama administration cannot hide behind fancy language. If NASA isn't given a well-defined mission, the agency will go nowhere for the remainder of the Obama administration, and possibly beyond. Those that really want to take part in accomplishing incredible things will go elsewhere, and NASA will lose the competency they've worked to achieve since before President Kennedy.

Congratulations President Obama and Administrator Bolden. You are about to kill an American institution.

[Alan]

1) The program to return astronauts to the Moon was deemed un-executable for financial reasons (namely NASA not getting the money it was promised under the Bush administration), not technical reasons.

2) The President's new strategy of research and development without a goal, objective, and destination lacks accountability. The Constellation program does this. The first step in any design process is to know your design requirements, hence the new vision is fundamentally flawed. "Go somewhere else maybe someday who knows" is not the mission objective policy needed in space exploration.

Constellation is not without flaws, and perhaps serious architecture changes are needed, but abandoning human space exploration in favor of research that might "someday" lead us somewhere is not the correct approach. Our country has invested too much in space exploration to abandon it in favor of a radical direction without accountability or objectives. The new vision might indeed be flexible, but it is not a path, and it is flexible enough that one of its outcomes is to doom human space exploration (and its technology derivative benefits to our society) for decades to come.

[Cesar Vega]

The time is coming when only people with fanancial freedom and social status will save themselves and leave the rest to die. In the present course more people are becoming underprivilaged and less becoming wealthy. It is a course in action. I can see it and hope you don't have or developed a problem wich unables you to see the facts.

[kadamson]

So now he's the savior of space exploration? He knows better than anyone what next should be targeted by NASA? omg, his genius knows no bounds. Whew! to think we almost landed humans on the moon for extended lengths of time to learn what it would take for sustained living on another planet, like, maybe, mars.

[gordo]

Not to worry guys. We can always hitch a ride with the Russians, the Chinese, or the Japanese. Yet another technology pushed to the limit by Americans and then abandoned, leaving other countries to get ahead of us.

[Charles A. Gardner]

A fun read Andrew. American's spend more on facial tissues, or cosmetics, or science fiction movies than they are willing to spend on NASA. But it seems unfair to blame the "ex-senator" for that. Along with the public’s unwillingness to pay, NASA has been saddled with past technological moondoggles and boondoggles (like the International Space Station) for years. The huge expenditures required for such political goals have prevented it from doing what it should do: develop game changing technologies to achieve what the independent review panel said we should do: "chart a path for human expansion into the solar system." We can't do that with Constellation (Apollo on steroids). With this new and audacious goal we should focus our research and technology development on two objectives: (1) physical sustainability of humans in space, and (2) economic sustainability of a human presence in space. Our choice of a destination should be driven by these objectives. And it should involve public-private partnerships beyond the usual suspects in the aerospace industry (consider mining corporations, and energy corporations). Note that doing science isn't one of these objectives. Mars would give us interesting science, and it has water and perhaps other resources to make a human presence there physically sustainable. But it is very far away and down a deep gravity well. Not economically sustainable. The Moon and Near Earth Asteroids and spent comets are close, have water and metal resources to make our presence in space physically sustainable, and if we develop technologies to extract metals, Rare Earth Elements or something else we haven't thought of yet -- might have a remote chance of stimulating private investment and creating economic returns. Space-based solar could be another route, sadly missing from the President's strategy (as far as I see). We need to stop obsessing on a destination, to realize that our need to go to Mars and even the Moon is driven more by science fiction fantasies like Avatar than by practical technological and economic realities. For the first time in history, NASA is on the right path (almost) to develop game changing technologies that could make a human presence in space both physically and economically sustainable.

[Fleiter]

Our space program is dead. Most of the $6 billion goes for the Global Warming satellite, otherwise known as the Al Gore exoneration program. China, maybe even India will eclipse us in space. Maybe NASA should raise money with nationwide bake sales.

[Artie]

More waste of taxpayer money.

[LibsAreCommies]

Now Barry Hussein wants to be a “Space President” like JFK??? Gimme a break.
What a sham. Everyone knows Liberals hate NASA. They see it as a big waste of money they could otherwise spread around to their lazy friends to buy their votes.

[john]

This was double-speak of the worst (best?) kind. It says absolutely nothing with way too many words. Bottom line is we're done in space.

[zorbee]

Mr. Obowman wants to give NASA jobs to muslims in other countries.
FACT.

[Andrew W]

In order to continue with the best features of the current 2011 plan, the administration needs to roll out a series of applicable milestones....not just say the word "Mars" at the end of their presentation, in some distant decade. The public needs to be engaged with a series of exciting milestones. Progressive achievements will also serve to test and drive the technology forward. The budget also needs to more clearly and aggressively include useable Constellation technology and people or it simply won’t get accepted.It must attempt to weave technological objectives, reasonable budgetary targets and increased public engagement into a logical framework, all designed to drive results. This can be accomplished through a series of clearly explained exploration milestones, every three to five years. These are largelly outlined in the Augustine Report. When done right, bipartisan compromise can actually result is something exciting and rewarding. The administration needs to blink a bit on this one. www.spaceprogress.com

[Paul Dale]

(All of which makes this space reform seem less like bold aspirations and more like a cheap short subject.)
No Kidding! Obama has no vision. What is his plan? What kind of magical new invention will NASA create in 10 years of NOT launching American astronauts into space or the Moon? ("Boldest aspirations in space." "New journey of innovation and discovery." "Forward thinking." "Foundational element." "Targeted set of inter-related technologies and capabilities.) WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHERE ARE WE GOING? Can the President be more VAGUE?
The Constellation program only needs another 3 Billion a year to do what NASA was created for. TO explore other WORLDS, not sit on Earth making untried and possibly over rated technology that MIGHT or COULD make Space travel cheaper. Cheaper than WHAT? His TRILLION dollar heath plan that nobody likes or wants. The Shuttle was supposed to make Space travel cheaper and more reliable. IT DID NEITHER! This President that was so articulate in the election has lost his skill at communicating new ideas.

[john m]

Isn't it amazing that a President that is so bent on government takeovers is willing to privatize spaceflight so quickly, and with zero - ZERO - proven companies to do the job.... despite whatever spin they try to put on it this President is effectively trying to kill American manned spaceflight. Obviously he doesn't care about American manned spaceflight or that the next two flags on the moon are Chinese and Indian. Obviously he doesn't care about American exceptionalism, or strategic technological advantage, or inspiring our kids to take the tough STEM courses to which he pays lip service.

[Bill Simpson in Slidell]

The pie-in-the-sky road to nowhere space plan with an increase in unemployment to boot. No JFK here.