An article in Aerospace Daily today (not available online) discusses John Kerry’s views on NASA and the Bush space plan, based primarily on an interview with Jason Furman, the candidate’s economic policy director. Furman told Aerospace Daily that Kerry doesn’t support the new exploration plan “mainly because he thinks it would cost too much.” (The article doesn’t mention how much is too much for Kerry or Furman.) Furman did add that Kerry “supports human space flight in general, but thinks it should be done with the best science and in a way that is affordable,” two key criteria Kerry believes the current plan doesn’t meet. Kerry doesn’t have a specific plan, according to Furman, but “that is something he would work with the best scientists—if he were elected president—to figure out, what the goals of NASA should be and how it should be oriented.” While it’s no surprise that Kerry is against the new space initiative, given that it is a Bush Administration project, this is one of the strongest statements to that effect to date.
In other words, space is about science, and only scientists will be consulted on what kind of space program to have.
One more reason to not vote for Kerry.
Kerry seems to be against space exploration specifically (the Bush plan) and for in “in general.” Typical.
I could more readily support the Bush plan if I was more confident how Sean O’Keefe defined “exploration.”
But no matter. I am now in a great mood. I just read that Bigelow Hotels (Budget Suites) plans to build a Transhab based hotel. Money has been paid to SpaceX or so I read. Yeah, yeah you, all knew that already. But I didn’t.
Create private sector demand in LEO and what NASA does becomes less important. Private sector supply sold to NASA isn’t important. No single payor models for space.
No, Rand NASA space should be about science. Commercial space is something else entirely. All the more reason to vote for Kerry.
Space science is OK, but commercial space would benefit more from NASA’s space technology research, eg. better materials.
So now we know what who thinks of Bush’s plan to return to the Moon and go onto Mars, and it is largely a restatement of already established ideologies, destinations, doctrinal disputes, and well defined sandboxes that no one else is allowed into. Typical for the old style thinking of the typical space community membership, still stuck in the mud on this mudball flying around the sun at 105,000 Kph. Still trying to recreate Apollo- 30+ years after the fact.
I personally intend to continue writing my Senators and my representative, althought they too are largely stuck in the past, industrial age thinking of how to “do” space, with no holistic view of how to use Networked means to make real progress in space development and settlement regardless what does or does not happen to Bush’s plan. If the space community is truly smart, they will try a selection of tactics to insure that space settlement, the real key to doing anything in space, is paramount, and everyone else will go along for the ride with those that leave earth to settle a variety of destinations for a variety of reasons despite what Big Brother government(s) space agencies, and Big Aerospace does or does not do. Hedge your bets, but push like hell, and cooperate more than argue amongst each other, and above all, emphasize the common man and woman in whatever is done.
Who really knows what the hell Kerry will do? This is a campaign and he’ll say anything to gain votes, in this case the earth firster vote. Remember when Bush was running and he criticized Clinton for “nation building”? Kerry will likely come around to some kind of modified Bush plan if elected. What is the alternative? Build the Shuttle II, and then the Space Station II, and then circle the earth for another 30 years while China, Russia, India, Japan, and the ESA all send astronauts to the Moon? I don’t see that happening.
Kerry space policy retreats to Clinton era
So now we know. Kerry’s space policy will keep American manned spaceflight stuck in Earth orbit as it has been for the last thirty years, not that anyone expected any surprises from the left side of the aisle. The Kerry plan is just warmed over Clintonism. Mere pork spending and buying off the Russians, and lacking any goal beyond that. This just confirms for me how the Democratic Party is mired in the past, and has no vision for the future.
Perry writes:
“If the space community is truly smart, they will try a selection of tactics to insure that space settlement, the real key to doing anything in space, is paramount. . .”
I agree completely. One step further on this train of thought?
Settlement means babies. The ability to bear children “out there” is the ultimate mission critical assignment. Otherwise its just boys with their toys.
If a program moves us closer to babies on Mars I favor it, if it doesn’t then its a waste of time and money.
Commercial space is not NASA’s purpose! Nor is space settlement. NASA is a purely research organization. Their purpose is to do science, and develop technologies for the high frontier, but not to lead the way in opening it. NASA does the work necessary for private organizations to build businesses in space, but it’s not their place to set up colonies on the Moon or Mars.
A permanent space settlement will never be built with taxpayer money. If you want to see that happen, go write a business plan.
Then if Nasa can sell the plans, technology or other items developed.
Then why does space business lag so far behind? What can be done about the per launch costs not coming down, with all these advances by those that can do it?
No profit at this time for doing it is all that I can think of for the why.
What can be done about the per launch costs not coming down, with all these advances by those that can do it?
What “advances” are you referring to? No one has demonstrated that they can do it, least of all NASA. The only way to make launch costs come down is to dramatically increase the number of launches. It’s a market problem, not a technology problem.
The advances that I refer to are with material, alloys and such.
There has been no real decrease in cost as well due to each rocket being assembled or hand made with very little automation. There is also to wide of a variety of engines an there thrust sizes, makes or models, and country of origins. This alos means many propelent fuel combinations each require unique storage, refriguration, and tank constructions size, shape and construction techniques for rocket use.
Very few parts are directly interchangeable from one rocket to another due to these many differences.
What would the dramatic increase or launches do to bring down the cost per launch. Other than make it more often therefore less profit is needed for each one there is next to nothing that can be gained by doing such, not that I’m against something such as increasing space activity.
As for the space settlement, taxpayers may pay for it. If they get tehre moneys worth or they can further benifit their country. If not then something may have to happen under the table.