Instead of creating another thread with the same topic, I found this one and figured we a bump was in order ...link
NOTE** I linked this site because the liberal and the conservative sites just started with their spin instead of giving the actual info. This one actually quoted what was said.


I am not familiar with NASA's goals from the past, but I would have thought they would be more about the functioning of the organization and space travel/exploration - not about this stuff which seems so much more diplomatic in nature.
I think these are worthwhile things, but not his responsibility. Anyway - thats all I'll say on it for now. I'm interested in what you think.

I think there were an awful lot of pepople who spent 8 years claiming science is best served by keeping political objectives far, far away. They were right then and they would be right if they said it today under a different president.

IMO, NASA should be about space exploration for the benefit of the US. Participation in mulitnational programs should be pursued when it is in our national interests.

I don't see how making a religious group feel good about themselves intersects with space exploration at all.

Sorry, wrong button !

Having been alive and interested i NASA since it's inception, I disagree with most of what Bolden said, and definitely about the politics Obama injected into it and foisted onto Bolden.

I guess you're gonna re-task that space mission Griff.

Oh, and I'd put a massive frigging telescope on the moon and repeaters on as many planets as possible, then Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control it all the way baby!

1) Has always been a NASA goal. Perhaps one of its most important goals, albeit one that has become much more difficult as people became more jaded to space news. Administration of current space projects is fine, but the future strength of the nation is based on the future engineers of the nation.

2) Gets more and more important, especially with the ending of the Shuttle. NASA will rely on foreign vehicles for transportation, for a while at least. During the Cold War, NASA was a de facto diplomatic channel, for both competition and cooperation with the USSR.

3) Seems out of place, but both it and its relative prominence ("perhaps foremost") are probably owed to the venue of the interview. I agree that, as stated, it doesn't seem to be relevant to NASA, but I also agree that it is a "worthwhile thing". If Obama made that a goal, and then picked NASA to do it, that would be odd. But if Obama has a general goal for all of his foreign policy, and wanted NASA to consider that goal with particular focus on engineering in its international dealings, that would make sense.

Well said... in fact (1) was a primary goal when Sputnik caught the US by surprise

For (3) it's not an unknown practice for Obama or the US to try.
Think of a model of what happens with military production contracts... that is, spread the manufacture of parts around thru every state in the union and you immediately have support from each Senator and Representative if/when problems arise.

The reaching out to "Muslim nations" was rather crudely put, but the concepts and pressures are the same.

Well said, but it just seems out of place. I tend to agree with Lookout.
I didn't know that...

I'd like to see NASA build a space elevator, and found a permanent settlement on Mars. Including muslims may reduce the chance that they would fly a plane into the space elevator.

Then, there's always this:

With our countries increasing and in many ways exclusive reliance on near earth vehicles to control much of our current navigation we had best not neglect rapid movement and defense of space and the equipment it occupies. To do so would be to do so at our own peril.

The North Koreans have pulled ahead. :3_eyes:

"I'm going to pee any second now!" :eyebrow:

HAAAAA! :)