Campaign '04

Bush and Kerry in Nature: Nothing new

This week’s issue of the journal Nature features a special report on the science policies of President Bush and Senator Kerry. One of the 15 questions asked of the two Presidential candidates was the following:

Do you think the United States should send astronauts to the Moon or Mars in the next 10 to 15 years? If so, why send humans instead of robots? If not, what is the purpose of the space shuttle and space station?

The answers (which may be easier to read in this PDF file or in an HTML version provided by Discovery.com) don’t break any new ground. Bush’s response looks like it was primarily taken directly from his January 14th speech. (The BBC interprets his response to mean that Bush has “back-pedalled from his ‘man on Mars’ ambition”, but that would seem to be an erroneous conclusion: Bush publicly voiced little “man on Mars” ambition in his original address or other statements.) Kerry reiterated his support for the ISS but his opposition to the Bush plan because it doesn’t contain what he believes is sufficient funding for carrying it out. He added that “John Edwards and I are committed to increasing funding for NASA and space exploration”, but doesn’t specify how it would be spent.

16 comments to Bush and Kerry in Nature: Nothing new

  • Mark Zinthefer

    This is strictly boilerplate stuff at least from Kerry. Isn’t that almost word for word from his Space.com interview?

  • Dogsbd

    After about the third-fourth “John Edwards and I…” I started chuckling. ;-)

  • Mark Zinthefer

    Fake Quote:

    John Edwards and I believe that the same junk science that built his career is exactly what America needs to think it is in the lead.

    I know, I know, the Bush administration has a bad science rep too. No need to post a thousand links about stem cells, creationism or whatever.

  • mike shupp

    My great curiosity is how precisely John Kerry would go about steering NASA from its new Vision for Space Exploration back to long term bondage in low earth orbit. I mean, RFPs have gone out, program offices have changed, personnel have been reassigned, etc. You don’t wipe out all this with a single stroke of a pen and expect NO repercusions.

    I’m sure Kerry could find an Administrator who’d give him the space agency he wants — Robert Parks or one of his acolytes would probably volunteer in a flash — but what impact would this have on the rest of the NASA workforce? It’s hard to believe everyone will return with increased zeal and enthusiasm to thirty more years of nothing but Whirled Class Science.

    –mike shupp

  • Dogsbd

    “Kerry reiterated his support for the ISS but his opposition to the Bush plan because it doesn’t contain what he believes is sufficient funding for carrying it out.”

    So if Kerry would continue the Vision, why doesn’t he just say “I support a renewed quest to explore beyond Earth orbit and unlike President Bush I will fight to ensure NASA has the funds to carry out such a mission”

    Maybe becuase that is exactly what he will NOT do.

  • Jeff Foust

    You don’t wipe out all this with a single stroke of a pen and expect NO repercusions.

    Actually, it would be fairly easy to wipe out what’s been done to date with the VSE in the event Kerry won the election and decided not to continue the effort. All that has been done to date are some internal reorganizations and studies, all easily undone.

    I’m sure Kerry could find an Administrator who’d give him the space agency he wants — Robert Parks or one of his acolytes would probably volunteer in a flash

    If Kerry supports the ISS as strongly as his comments indicate, then Bob Park would be one of the last people he’d pick to run NASA.

  • Jeff Foust

    This is strictly boilerplate stuff at least from Kerry. Isn’t that almost word for word from his Space.com interview?

    It’s “boilerplate stuff” from both candidates, which should tip you off regarding how important space policy is to both campaigns.

  • Anonymous

    “It’s “boilerplate stuff” from both candidates, which should tip you off regarding how important space policy is to both campaigns.”

    An interesting question is whether or not this type of stuff is even making it to the space people in both camps, or is simply being handled by the people who do the regular boilerplate press responses. I suspect that it is the latter and that whenever they get a space question, someone says “Just fax them reply #1058.”

  • John Malkin

    Kerry wasn’t smart coming out against the vision and having said at the time we couldn’t afford it, he has back peddled a bit and modified it to “can’t afford it on Bush’s budget”. I was looking for the original quote from Kerry after the vision originally came out but I couldn’t find it, maybe someone else can post it.

    I would love to find an archive of political quotes.

  • Dogsbd

    It’s “boilerplate stuff” from both candidates, which should tip you off regarding how important space policy is to both campaigns.

    Well seeing how the current “Space Vision” is Bush’s doing, I hardly see how one could draw the conclusion that he finds space policy totally unimportant. Per “New Moon Rising” he is evidently quite an ardent supporter of a strong space program, and again that is evidenced in the “Vision”.

  • Jeff Foust

    “Dogsbd”,

    Well seeing how the current “Space Vision” is Bush’s doing, I hardly see how one could draw the conclusion that he finds space policy totally unimportant.

    I don’t think anyone is arguing that Bush (or Kerry, for that matter), considers space “totally unimportant”. It is, however, not a high priority for either candidate, and thus gets the corresponding attenting from their staffs. (As someone else noted above, it’s quite possible questions like the one in the Nature article are being handled by low-level staffers using boilerplate text.)

    I know this will break the hearts of hardcore space advocates, but space will not be a deciding issue in this election. Sure, there will be a handful of people who will base their decision on whom to vote for based on space issues, but many, many more will be focused on Iraq, the economy, terrorism, hot-button social issues, even the perceived shortcomings in the military records of the candidates. It’s certainly worthwhile to try and ferret out information from the two campaigns, but don’t be surprised when they don’t have much to say about space.

  • Robert G. Oler

    –mike shupp

    Posted by mike shupp at September 17, 2004 10:53 AM

  • Mark R. Whittington

    This discussion is largly academic. While anything can happen in politics, I’m not sure I see how Kerry is actually going to get the chance to muck up the Moon, Mars, and Beyond vision. The momentum Bush has and the chaos in the Kerry Campaign seems to me to make a Kerry Presidency rather unlikely.

  • Cindy

    While I support both manned and unmanned space travel, I do not believe the strategy outlined in the new space policy will be appropriate to support the future space industry. The creation of a “commercially based” manned space industry will be required if we hope to develop a sustainable “exploration” policy. However the creation of a commercially based, manned, orbital space flight industry will NOT occur if NASA continues to put forth strategies such as the “Moon to Mars” mission. This program will only lead to a space industry that will be totally reliant on government funding for it’s survival.

    If we ignore these commercial aspects specifically; a commercial sector that is independent of government programs, we will find that the cost associated with manned space flight will remain to high to justify the expenditure. That is why we should direct our strategic space policies toward developing infrastructure elements and incentives that support a commercially based, manned space industry that is not exclusively funded by the government.
    We will struggle to sustain any manned space exploration policy until we can show the American public that the manned space flight industry can have a direct, positive economic impact independent of government programs. Science and spin-off technology arguments, while valid, will not be enough incentive to sustain public support.

    There is an interesting, alternate strategy at the following website: http://dserweb.echoechoplus.com

    You should listen to BOTH audio presentations as well as read the report to get a full understanding of the importance of this strategy. I don’t think this idea should be dismissed out of hand.

  • Dogsbd

    I really don’t understand the reasoning behind the “If government runs things commercial space will never take off” arguments.

    If commercial entities had wanted to go to the Moon in the last 20 years, they could have done so. If NASA returns to the Moon in 2015-2020, commercial entities will still be able to go then, or anytime they choose afterward. If Boeing or Lockheed or whoever decides to go they could even have a welcome mat out for NASA when NASA does get there.

    I just don’t see this as a zero sum game. NASA’s building the infrastructure, the launch vehicles and the spacecraft to go back to the Moon only makes it easier for a Lunar Tours or Lunar Mining Company to go as well. If Lockheed is building moonships and Boeing is building rockets for NASA I’m sure they wouldn’t mind using the capital investment NASA would have already paid for to build some extras for “Sea of Tranquility Mining Company” and others.

    As a space enthusiast I think it’s that we just return to the Moon, as soon as possible. And when we’ve returned maybe some mining company or tourist group will be inspired to take a chance also. We’ve waited 30 years on those companies to take the lead and they haven’t, maybe they need a push.

  • Cindy

    Commercial industries in general are built on business models. With a well thought out business model, a strategic approach to building the industry and the required technologies can then be developed. In short, strategy drives technology. What we have seen in the space industry the past 30 years is the reverse. We develop technology with no real strategy directed at commercialization.

    I highly recommend you review all the information on the web site mentioned above. The strategy outlined therein does not exclude government from the space industry; it simply re-defines the role of government within the industry to better support commercialization while producing a value added component that will support scientific and exploration agendas.

    As great as prestigious missions like Moon to Mars sound, we still have to finance them. To do this I feel we need a new overall strategy and the strategy outline on the above mentioned web site makes sense.