One of the things delegates to the Democratic National Convention will do during their stay in Boston this week is approve the party platform. The report of the platform committee is available, and a search of it turns up nothing about space policy in its 37 pages. The closest reference to space in the document is a discussion of how the Apollo program is an example of the nation’s “ingenuity and determination” that will be used again to give the country energy independence:
We are committed to achieving energy independence, and we know we can do it. Our ingenuity and determination built the cars we drive and the bridges we use. It electrified rural America in the 1930s, and took us to the moon in the 1960s. Our resolve helped conquer polio.
It’s this simple: When we see a problem, we roll up our sleeves and solve it. And that’s what we pledge to do now.
Yes, it’s the old “if we can send a man to the moon, why can’t we solve world hunger?” platitudes. No shock–there’s been no visionary initiative on the part of any Democrat president since Kennedy (and I’d argue that even Kennedy’s wasn’t that visionary, since the vision was mainly to beat the Russians to the moon).
I would expect to see the president’s policy in the Republican platform. It would be a monumental screwup, and indicative of its true priority, if it’s not.
As a “pro-space” Democrat, this is very disappointing.
However, the Donkey must be wooed to support space with a combination of sticks and carrots for the simple reason that one-party rule for 20 – 30 years is very unlikely.
If space advocates use only sticks on the Donkey, the next Democratic President (whether 2004, 2008 or 2012) will have little incentive to follow through with a Republican plan for space.
Sorry, Bill, but I don’t think that either sticks or carrots will be effective. There’s simply not a large enough constituency, particularly among traditional Democrat constituencies. There are many space enthusiasts who are Democrats, but there aren’t many Democrats who are space enthusiasts.
These developments bring me to the conclusion that politics as we know it, and as we practice it in 2004 America, will not get us out of low earth orbit, or anywhere else either. And the lack of success in NASA-Academia-Aerospace Contractors in doing anything but building gold plated hardware that never fulfills its originally stated goals, and makes criticism of space spending more effective.
This is why writers and advocates like John Carter McKnight have tired of dealing with conventional space advocates and their ineffective ways and means, and they place such faith in alt.space programs like SpaceDev, SpaceShipOne, and Network enterprise, to get done what NASA and the holy trinity, and conventional politics, cannot, have not, and will not.
I personally wish space advocates of whatever party would move away from placing all their hopes in conventional politics, have massive recruitment drives to get more members, stop the circular firing squads, squabbles over destinations, mission designs, competing technocratic ideologies, and most of all, build alternatives to what does not work to get us into space, and experiment with new ways of raising capital, which is the chief impediment to doing anything in space.
We could be researching such things as complementary currencies, circulating in, and having intrinsic worth only to, the space community, so we could keep our creativitiy, charity, and money at home,and look out for ourselves in the space community, which unfortunately, the Democratic Party en masse, and the Republican Party de facto care not a whit about.
This is in addition to a united front to sell VSE to the public at large, and lobby Congress and the Administration, as well as unconventional means to establish the demand for a spacefaring civilization for the common man and woman, which is where the ultimate support for doing anything in space beyond STS-ISS-stasis, begins. Create Demand for space settlement in the culture at large, and the money and technology will follow.
Personally I like the idea of Space bonds for the future and other non government cash flow alternatives for funding of the iniative.
Here’s a formula the Dems (and Reps, for that matter) would respond to:
SPACE = JOBS.
Space advocates must steer clear of lofty, flowery gibberish and speak in the practical language of the public. We space advocates can agree to disagree on how and why humans will explore and exploit space, but the bottom line for the rest of the people is this: Can I get a job, and will my kids benefit from the effort?
In a space economic plan where capitalism is the main driver of space activity (spurred on by government programs), sustained job growth is possible (though it will take a long time). Apollo-like one-time missions to the Moon and Mars will only employ people for a short time, then leave them high and dry. The delicate balance between government and commercial space cooperation is difficult to initiate, let alone sustain, but we’ll get there. Ultimately, if we agree space is key to our survival, we’ll have little choice but to iron this issue out.
Here’s a formula the Dems (and Reps, for that matter) would respond to:
SPACE = JOBS.
Space advocates must steer clear of lofty, flowery gibberish and speak in the practical language of the public. We space advocates can agree to disagree on how and why humans will explore and exploit space, but the bottom line for the rest of the people is this: Can I get a job, and will my kids benefit from the effort?
In a space economic plan where capitalism is the main driver of space activity (spurred on by government programs), sustained job growth is possible (though it will take a long time). Apollo-like one-time missions to the Moon and Mars will only employ people for a short time, then leave them high and dry. The delicate balance between government and commercial space cooperation is difficult to initiate, let alone sustain, but we’ll get there. Ultimately, if we agree space is key to our survival, we’ll have little choice but to iron this issue out.
Geez. I click twice. Sorry.
Rand, there is a majority (60%) of pro-space Dems as well as pro space (79%) Repubs. You can see this in polls and on space discussion boards (a good one to check out is habitablezone.com). When the affordable budgets are explained then people come on board. We’ll see Kerry come along to the vision once he’s elected. There may be some tweaks but essentially we can’t go back to a NASA with no mission after ISS. Edwards also came out for the vision in the primaries and NASA will be under his perview. I like Kerry coming out strong for the prizes idea too. This alone could get us back to the moon faster than the vision.
Hit “post” before signing.
…there is a majority (60%) of pro-space Dems as well as pro space (79%) Repubs.
Those numbers are meaningless. Most folks’ support for space is a mile wide and an inch deep. They’re not pro-space enough for it to be a voting issue. Neither Kerry or Bush will win (or lose) an election on the issue.
If Kerry is elected, there are plenty of people in Houston and Florida who will persuade Kerry that he should reverse the evil Bush plan to phase out the Shuttle, and resurrect Clinton’s wonderful Internationally cooperative space station program, and not waste money on sending people beyond earth orbit. I think that it will appeal to him. I hope that my prediction isn’t tested, though.
There are other factors that I’m convinced will persuade Kerry. First we are in a mini space race already with China, Europe, Russia, Japan and India to establish a presence on the moon. Next, we simply are not going to cancel the human space program. It’s not in the cards. Kerry’s voting record says how much he likes the space station. I don’t think he will sink us deeper into that pit. The shuttle has had its day and the CEV will be tough to cancel as its replacement. Intense lunar research by robotic craft could deliver a positive ice-on-the-moon verdict and that would bring certainty to a manned return to the moon (by someone) within a decade. I think space might actually become a campaign issue if China grabbed all the prime real estate on the moon.
I still agree with Rand Simberg, when he says that plenty of people will persuade him to keep the STS-ISS going, as it’s the only game in town, will keep the people working on those projects working, and will not cost “billions and billions”. At the same time, he is also right in saying that space is a mile wide and an inch deep issue for almost everyone who is not part of the tiny space community in the US,and around the world too.
That is why we need to work on recruitment and training of a new cadre of younger members of the space community who know better than to repeat the mistakes the Baby Boomers and Generation X made regarding space: i.e.: Doing what doesn’t work over and over and over again, not developing real skills useful in the real world, instead of expecting you to get training, skills, knowledge, a formal education, and then casting you loose to sink or swim out in the real world, with no support from your mentors and fellow spacers. The space community falls down flat on supporting each other like the Federalist Society did for lawyers who believed in statist advancement regarding the Justice Department.
No one skill, activity, action, or anything else by itself will get us into space; rather, a combination of different actions in different realms, like complementary currencies, multiyear NASA funding, reforming NASA, alt.space company support, training and promoting cadre, mentoring the younger generation to be successful activists, bypassing conventional lying media who have never told the truth about space, beconing slick, savvy, worldly salesmen for the idea of a spacefaring civilization in our lifetimes, or at least the lifetimes of our children and our younger charges, and just plain telling the common folk space settlement is possible, won’t bust the bank, and is something you can invest in and be a part of right now, is part of how we will get to space in a major way, not voting for the “right party”, hoping they give us handouts in our cup for space.
AvWeek writes that the funding for the new moon mars program has been cut.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/07264wna.xml
What is worse for the space exploration supporter? The president who gives one speech which causes NASA to plan for an unfunded program? Or the candidate who makes no plans when there is no funding? I am afraid that the purpose of Bush’s speech was only to gather support from aerospace companies and space exploration supporters and nothing more. I am one of the chumps who sent in a white paper on the CEV.
http://kahuna.sdsu.edu/~sharring/Pistonless_pump_for_CEV.pdf
For a good spoof of his January speech see
http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2004/011504.asp
The funny thing about the spoof is how accurate they were.
Steve
We are a long way from this being done, the appropriation committee has yet to issue there report, however in the summary they support the vision.
It doesn’t matter what a politian intend but rather what we enforce with our vote and voice. Currently O’Keefe is a chapion for the vision but his time may be limited.
Brave heart, the game is afoot!
And so we return to the perennial issue of public support, and the reflection of that support (or lack thereof) in politics.
In the end it won’t matter, someone’s administration -republican or democrat- will have a space-related crisis on their hands. When we find ourselves outmaneuvered, first by the long-term policy of others and later by technological and logistical capability, we might come to view today’s space priorities in the same light as we now view our intelligence priorities of four years ago.
Where is Congress?
Exactly. Other nations have dreams of greatness which they will someday acheive. America has way too much at stake with our space-reliant military to ignore the emerging competition. Kerry MUST see this and will continue the vision in some form. We need to dominate cis-lunar space.