In this week’s issue of The Space Review, Dwayne Day has an interesting article comparing the rollout of the Space Exploration Initiative 15 years ago this month with the rollout of the Vision for Space Exploration six months ago. The brief summary of the article is that while NASA and the Bush Administration learned some lessons from the failure of SEI, they have still stumbled in several areas, including cost and budget credibility and various issues with the rollout itself (such as not giving the new policy an official name until several months after its announcement.) A noteworthy quote about the plan’s future: “One gets the distinct sense that Republicans, Democrats and America’s potential international space partners are all marking time, waiting for the election, before they will invest much energy into the new policy.”
By that time and a few months for the dust to settle. The shuttle will be flying again if Nasa can keep to it’s words.
I admittedly have no direct evidence that people are just waiting for the election before they get moving on the VSE. However, anybody who has spent any time observing how bureaucracies work (and we all know how exciting that can be, don’t we?)knows that this is typical. And it does not have to be nefarious–even if you _support_ a policy, you do not have much incentive to work on it if all that work is going to be rendered pointless by an election. In addition, as should be obvious to even the most casual observer of Washington politics, Washington a) slows down in the summer, particularly August, and b) slows down around election time.
I think that Kerry’s statements that he does not support the VSE provide greater incentive for people to sit and wait. If Kerry had been silent on this issue, they might not be inclined to wait for the election. But now they have a clearer choice.
Memories are short in Washington, but it helps to remember back to 1992/1993 when it was unclear that Goldin was going to stay on as NASA administrator. At that time there was open defiance of him at NASA Headquarters. I remember reading articles in Space News about how Goldin would issue one order and then his head of the Office of Space Science and Applications would issue an opposite order. And nothing would get done. Once it became clear that Goldin was going to stay on (and I believe that he himself used the term “mandate” after he secured Clinton’s support for the space station), then things started moving again.
On the question of what the international partners are thinking, I think they are caught in a really tough position. On the one hand, they want early clarity from NASA so that they can figure out how to respond. On the other, they want to be involved early on establishing the priorities. These positions tend to contradict each other. But that has been a dilemma for America’s allies for decades in all kinds of endeavors: they don’t want to be treated as second class partners, but they want America to take the lead (see: Bosnia).
I noticed that when a number of their representatives spoke in Washington recently that they often referred to “President Bush’s plan” rather than NASA’s plan. They seem to identify the new Vision as closely associated with the current president. And their own timetables for developing a response to the Vision seem somewhat vague, as if they are waiting for something. This could be clarity from NASA, but it is equally likely that they are waiting for clarity from the election.
And nobody should think for a second that space is unique in this regard. There are undoubtedly other issues where people are waiting for the election to happen before they make decisions. I believe that both the Air Force tanker decision and the selection of a new presidential helicopter have been pushed off to the fall, and articles in Aviation Week have hinted that this is to move them away from election-year politics.
Finally, it helps to think of politics in terms of chunks of time required to accomplish things. If, for instance, Bush loses the election, it will be many months before a Kerry administration gets around to naming a new NASA administrator. And many more months before it gets around to developing a new space policy. So a Kerry win in November is likely to lead to a certain lack of clarity in what happens next–everyone will pretty much assume that the VSE is dead, but it will be months before they begin to know what the follow-on policy will be. Unfortunately, this is simply the way politics works.
I think NASA will keep there word since they said the shuttle launch when it’s ready. Schedule pressure contributed to both Challenger and Columbia disaster. I think the NET (Not Earlier Than) will become standard in NASA scheduling; besides it keeps the Terrorist guessing too.
I think Kerry would keep O’Keefe as NASA Administrator. Comparing him to Goldin, he has his people behind him 100% and he made many improvments in NASA finance.
I think the NASA updates are great too. Recently I’ve notice a new spirt in NASA and that the Rover, Cassinni and such get front row seats at the Updates. Sorta like employee of the year.
“I think Kerry would keep O’Keefe as NASA Administrator. Comparing him to Goldin, he has his people behind him 100% and he made many improvments in NASA finance.”
You are extremely wrong about this. Go and do a media search for the 2002 election. O’Keefe became the first NASA administrator in known memory to actively campaign on behalf of a Republican congressional candidate. As a result, he was instantly labeled as a Republican by Democrat congressional staffers. If Kerry wins, the Democratic establishment will insist that O’Keefe goes. No doubt about it.
Too Bad…
Dwayne wrote: “O’Keefe was apparently involved in drafting the new Vision, although his objections and contributions to the plan remain unknown. O’Keefe appears to be an enthusiastic supporter of the new policy. Even if his enthusiasm is partially an act, it could hardly be worse than the Space Exploration Initiative experience, where then NASA Administrator Dick Truly was widely reported to be completely opposed to the new policy.”
Instead of just guessing about O’Keefe’s involvement, questioning his motives, and jumping to conclusions, why not ask him (and others) Dwayne? Isn’t that what Logsdon taught you to do?
International Academy Has Its Own Space Vision
While we were busy discussing the American Vision for Space Exploration, the International Academy of Astronautics was working on its own vision, ‘The Next Steps In Exploring Deep Space’. Both the Vision and the Next Steps want an integrated robotic-human program with science and exploration objectives. While the Vision focused on the moon and Mars, the Next Steps highlighted four destinations: the moon, libration points (specifically SE L2), Near Earth Objects, and Mars (including the Martian moons). The Next Steps recommend goal-driven programs, separation of cargo and crew, one major new development per destination, and the use of existing transportation.
I think it’s good the International Academy has its own vision but this is only a ‘vapor vision’ unless there is financial backing. In order to colonize space the world governments will need to adopt a space policy to support these endeavors.
Looks at first glance that the European Space Agency is aligning its goals and business to fit the Space Exploration Vision. Some key points are to be goal- driven, to have a seperate cargo and crew transportation system. To basically build from where they are in a spiral method using the existing rockets and tools to get them there.