Comments on: JFK visits JFKSC

By: Dogsbd

Dogsbd — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:36:24 +0000

Tell us how you really feel Perry!

By the way, I agree.

By: Perry A. Noriega

Perry A. Noriega — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 07:28:39 +0000

I personally would be proud to be inside such a cleansuit,and have the chance to go inside an Shuttle orbiter. If Kerry is thinking NASA owes him something, he can think again, because they are doing him a favor,not the other way around. I also consider him, being the leftist, liberal, two faced, talking out of both sides of his mouth to say anything to get elected, to be treading on sacred ground. He needs to get a clue, and get a life, instead of just bitching about getting a chance to do something I would give my left *** to do.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 06:09:30 +0000

Kerry declares war on NASA?

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc7.htm

This story from the Drudge Report suggests that the Kerry campaign is blaiming leaks from NASA for the embarrassing “bunny suit” photos of John Kerry.

Sounds to like like revenge will be uppermost in the mind of any incoming Kerry administration when it comes to new NASA policy.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:41:36 +0000

No heavy lift by Presidential fiat, without open debate. That worries me.

Even disregarding the issue that the Aldridge Commission and the Planetary Society are mistaken, why does it worry you so much? What’s new about this? There is rarely any open debate about space policy decisions. There certainly wasn’t during the Clinton administration, when they decided to simply turn the space station into a foreign aid program.

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:41:28 +0000

Until a bill gets to the House or Senate floor there will be nothing to debate. The battle ground is in the congress with the appropriation bill and the NASA authorization bill. I think congress is clear where the Whitehouse stands. The battle will be when these go to the full House and Senate. Another thing the vision never said the vision should be fully funded by NASA, it said they should look to the private sector and international partners. However American cannot be left without its own spacecraft to access space so the CEV must be American built and owned for national security. That’s why I feel that the military should give some R&D money to it. It is stupid for the Air Force to develop its own Crew Reconnaissance & Fighter Vehicle as in the past. Shuttle has also taught us that we need a variety of orbital access technologies. I think it’s a bad idea to depend on one company for EELV services.

Unfortunately congress has a shorten year because of the election, see NASA Authorization bill status on this blog, so the results won’t be know until next year. On the brighter side it gives time advocates and lobbyist to work there magic. Where is David Copperfield when you need him?

By: Bill White

Bill White — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:44:28 +0000

We will see in September.

Like I said, the jury is out. I hope I am wrong – – – I very strongly support full funding for the VSE in FY ’05 – – yet its just too early to tell if the “veto threat” is real or kabuki theater.

By: Dogsbd

Dogsbd — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:38:15 +0000

There has never been a Presidential veto due to a NASA funding cut, if the threat of one doesn’t show that Bush is not only talking the talk but also “walking the walk” I just don’t know what would.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:31:47 +0000

Mark, I very strongly support full funding for the VSE in FY ’05. The House Appropriations Committee FUBAR is an all-Republican dance.

That said, what the VSE will be in the out years remains astonishingly vague.

The Aldridge Commission (and the Planetary Society) both said the VSE needs heavy lift. Perhaps a point for debate, yet just last week the Wall Street Journal reported that the current Administration is advocating EELV downselect and a mandated NASA reliance on EELV for exploration.

No heavy lift by Presidential fiat, without open debate. That worries me.

I agree that Congress is the real battle ground yet to leverage an anti-space President may well be easier than to leverage a President who talks the talk but won’t walk the walk.

After all, there is that old Vulcan saying “Only Nixon could go to China and only Clinton could sign welfare reform.”

By: Mark Zinthefer

Mark Zinthefer — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:23:29 +0000

“An anti-space bunny suited Kerry may be better than a “space tease” who promises BIG but then fails to deliver.”

Read that UPI article above. Bush can’t really do much for the program by talking it up but he’s threatening a veto if congress cuts the NASA budget. He’s supporting the VSE where it counts, in legislation. Giving it lip service wouldn’t do anything anyway. Have some patients. It’s only been a few months and not much has been done or could be done. If in 5 years we don’t see any progress or public comment on it, then we can say he hasn’t delivered.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 19:09:29 +0000

An anti-space bunny suited Kerry may be better than a “space tease” who promises BIG but then fails to deliver.

The jury is still out on whether Bush will deliver or not. With Kerry we will know we need to to press the case vigorously in Congress.

Everyone should read “Spaceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership” co-edited by Roger D. Launius. A bi-partisan vision that will survive 25 – 30 years cannot rely upon the political stature of one man.