Good day. See Dennis Wingo, "Some Thoughts Regarding Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger's Speech on Space Exploration and Utilization" as posted on spaceref.com - link here and snip below.
- LRK -

-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1116
Google Alert for: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

Some Thoughts Regarding Presidential Science Advisor John ...
Space Ref - USA
... A look at the payload of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter for its contribution to prospecting for possible valuable lunar resources is the first step. ...
-------------------------------------------------------------

You see when you look for items on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter you find information on how the government works or doesn't work. It all takes money and the money goes where the politicians divert it.

Also, if you read the links you will see a bit of how the political and budget scene change with time and how it may affect the vision for space exploration.

If you are not in the USA, then maybe not a concern, still, if you want to see the LRO in action and see humans back on the Moon, there will have to be the money to fund it and a justification for spending the tax payer's money.

You may find it interesting to read what Dr. John Marburger, head of the Office of Science and Technology, has to say at two of his recent talks, as well as what Dennis Wingo comments.
- LRK -

Do you want the solar system incorporated in our economic sphere, or not?

Thanks for looking up with me.

Larry Kellogg

Web Site: http://lkellogg.vttoth.com/LarryRussellKellogg/
BlogSpot: http://kelloggserialreports.blogspot.com/
RSS link: http://kelloggserialreports.blogspot.com/atom.xml
Newsltr.: https://news.altair.com/mailman/listinfo/lunar-update

=============================================================
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1116
Some Thoughts Regarding Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger's Speech on Space Exploration and Utilization

Dennis Wingo
Saturday, April 29, 2006

Recently Dr. John Marburger, head of the Office of Science and Technology gave the keynote address at the 44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium in Greenbelt, Md. To me, as a long time space advocate, this speech is the most important statement on the development of the space frontier from the government since John F. Kennedy's fateful endorsement of the Apollo program. There was an incredible statement made early into the speech:

>>> As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the solar system in our economic sphere, or not.

I, and I would grant most space advocates, certainly want to incorporate the solar system into our economic sphere. Mining the Moon? Gathering resources of the asteroids for our use on the Earth? Living and working on Mars? L-5 habitats? The key to the entire success or ultimate failure of the President's Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) is the proper definition of "economic sphere". Here is the definition that Dr. Marburger offered:

>>> Our national policy, declared by President [George W.] Bush and
>>> endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act,
>>> affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance
>>> U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust
>>> space exploration program." So at least for now the question has
>>> been decided in the affirmative

Does the current VSE have the goal of executing on the "advancing U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests" aspect? This is a key question that Marburger seems to be asking as the next paragraph in his talk explains:

>>> The wording of this policy phrase is significant. It subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security and economic interests. Stated this way, the "fundamental goal" identifies the benefits against which the costs of exploration can be weighed. This is extremely important for policy-making because science, security and economic dimensions are shared by other federally funded activities. By linking costs to these common benefits it becomes possible, at least in principle, to weigh investments in space exploration against competing opportunities to achieve benefits of the same type.

I don't think that NASA as an agency - or the aerospace industry - has seriously thought about the restating of the space program within the context that Marburger has laid out. This new policy that is being implemented by the Bush administration is more focused toward "ensuring future economic competitiveness" and space is placed at a lower priority as it is not perceived to contribute as strongly as other fields such as nanotechnology, infotechnology, and biotechnology. Supporting future national economic competitiveness is at the core of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) that was announced by the president in his state of the union address. NASA is losing out in the battle for funds when compared to other activities, as space and space science is not considered to contribute as strongly as the other fields to economic competitiveness. This is the key implication of Marburger's speech.

Snip
=============================================================
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999
Speech by OSTP Director John Marburger to the 44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium STATUS REPORT Date Released: Monday, March 20, 2006
Source: Office of Science and Technology Policy http://www.ostp.gov/

http://www.ostp.gov/html/jhmGoddardSymp03-15-06Release.pdf

44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium Greenbelt, Maryland March 15 Keynote Address

John Marburger
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President

It is a privilege for me to speak in this Symposium. My first job as a scientist, before I went on to graduate school, was at Goddard Space Flight Center. I had worked there during the summer of 1961, and returned as a full time employee in what was then called the Thermal Systems branch in the summer of 1962. Goddard was booming in those days, and the challenge of making scientific instruments work in the space environment attracted many fine scientists and engineers. I worked with a team trying to understand and optimize the properties of materials that could be used as thermoelectric generators for space applications, which shows you how broadly the spectrum of science and technology must extend to support missions in space. In the fall of 1963 I became a NASA graduate trainee in Stanford's then-new Department of Applied Physics, and ever since have combined my love of basic science with an interest in practical applications. The topic of this year's Symposium, "Engineers, Scientists and the Vision" reflects the combination of mental attitudes needed to accomplish great things in space, and I am pleased to add a few thoughts of my own this morning on these topics.

I am always puzzled by debates over the vision for space exploration because the choices are so constrained by physical reality. We humans dwell in a vast universe whose chief features only became apparent during the twentieth century. We have known for a long time that a huge gap separates the objects trapped by the gravity of our star, the Sun, and everything else. Information about phenomena beyond that gap can come to us only through the rain of photons and other elementary particles spewed out by the awesome processes of the cosmos. Our observations of that part of space began in prehistoric times and they continue to sustain the growth of science in our era. Phenomena on our side of the interstellar gap, in what we call the Solar System, are potentially amenable to direct investigation and manipulation through physical contact, and can reasonably be described as falling within humanity's economic sphere of influence. As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.

Snip
=============================================================
http://www.ostp.gov/html/JHMAAASpolicyforum.pdf
2006 AAAS Policy Forum
Washington, D.C.
April 20, 2006

John Marburger

Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President

Thanks to AAAS for inviting me once again to address this important annual policy forum. The pace of scientific discoveries far exceeds the pace of science policy, so you would expect these annual forums to be rather repetitive and boring, especially when you hear from the same people – like the President's science advisor – year after year. This is the fifth time I have spoken in the Forum, and I will try to avoid repeating myself, although I admit I am tempted. Instead I will repeat the words of other science advisors starting with Allan Bromley. In his book about his experience as science advisor to the first President Bush, Bromley said one of his most surprising discoveries about Washington was that "it took longer to make anything happen than I could have believed possible!" This fact of Washington life means that often years go by between the emergence of challenges and effective responses to them. And yet things do happen and government can act decisively when the path forward is clear.

Snip

I am approaching the end of my talk, and I have said little about the budgets of other areas of science, or the details of how the ACI can be funded without serious negative impacts on other areas of science funding. The fact is that the FY07 cost of the ACI is dwarfed by the $2.7 billion in current year earmarks in the research budget. Earmarking has increased rapidly during the past five years, and has reached the point where it now threatens the missions of the agencies whose funds have been directed toward purposes that do not support the agency work-plans. From the point of view of transparency in government operations, earmarking at this level erodes the value of reported budget numbers for inferring agency resources. For example, the $137 million in earmarks on the $570 million NIST core budget in the current year lead to a gross exaggeration of how much money NIST actually has to satisfy its needs, particularly its physical plant requirements. The ACI request would increase the amount actually available to NIST by 24%, but because the earmarks mask the actual current amount, a comparison of the FY07 request with the FY06 appropriated suggests a reduction of 5.8% for NIST. This is a very serious problem. Media reporters attempting to identify "winners and losers" cannot even get the sign right on the budget changes inferred this way.

The White House Office of Management and Budget has criteria for identifying and accounting for earmarks, but those criteria are not employed by AAAS analysts, and the AAAS earmark methodology is not transparent. Unfortunately OMB does not publish earmark data, or include the effects of earmarks it in its tables. Consequently the dramatic growth of earmarks has seriously undermined the usefulness of the historically valuable OMB and AAAS analyses. Published budget numbers from either source no longer consistently reflect the actual resources available to science agencies to carry out their programs. This is not a satisfactory situation, and I urge AAAS to work with OSTP and OMB to develop a mutually comprehensible approach to the problem of taking earmarks into account in analyzing the annual science budgets.

Earmarking and prioritization are clearly related. One person's priority is another's earmark. One of the drivers for earmarking is the reluctance of individuals or institutions to participate in the merit based review procedures that are best practices in most funding agencies today. Another is the absence of funding programs for categories of expense that are deemed important even sometimes by the targeted agencies. I believe that where science stakeholders can form a consensus on priorities, the negative impact of earmarking can be greatly diminished.

Snip
=============================================================

WHAT THE MIND CAN CONCEIVE, AND BELIEVE, IT WILL ACHIEVE - LRK

=============================================================