Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for October, 2004
October 31, 2004 at 7:43 am · Filed under Campaign '04
The Washington Times, the smaller—and more conservative—of DC’s two major daily newspapers, published an editorial describing the differences between the Bush and Kerry space policies. The Times should be praised for taking the time, in the final Sunday newspaper before the general election, to discuss space policy. However, their editorial is a little confusing.
The latter half of the editorial is fine: it clearly states the differences between Bush and Kerry on the exploration vision. It’s the first part, where it talks about Kerry’s focus on the shuttle and ISS, that’s a little unclear. A quote:
The loss of Columbia did more than reduce the shuttle fleet; it dictated either the retirement or re-certification of the remaining shuttles by 2010. Neither alternative is wise. The shuttles have never fulfilled their promise and their primary destination, the International Space Station (ISS), has proved a costly experimental platform.
It’s not clear what the writer is advocating: he appears to be opposed to retiring (or recertifying) the shuttle in 2010, but he also appears to be unimpressed with the shuttle and ISS in general. Another quote:
“Two of NASA’s top priorities,” under Mr. Kerry, would be returning the shuttle to flight and completing the ISS, according to spokesman Jason Furman.
I think one could argue that shuttle RTF and ISS completion are two of NASA’s top priorities today, and will be priorities regardless of who wins the election. In fact, as noted in the comments of a previous post, NASA is currently studying increasing the number of shuttle flights to ensure the proper completion of ISS, a move which would further delay the shuttle’s retirement date and most likely delay the exploration initiative (as it would be deprived of that wedge of funding freed up from shuttle operations.) Perhaps, despite the Times’ headline, Bush’s space policy isn’t that bold after all.
October 31, 2004 at 7:21 am · Filed under Congress
A Florida Today article Sunday suggests that uncertainty about the outcome of the Presidential election, and the resulting effect on space policy, has frozen efforts to develop a series of robotic lunar missions that would be forerunners of eventual human missions:
“They are not going to go forward with the vision until they see how the election is going to turn out, and that’s true of Congress also,” said Paul Spudis, a planetary geologist at Johns Hopkins University who served on the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond.
“Seriously, their people are running in place and they want to see what’s going to happen,” Spudis said. “My sense is that we won’t actually get moving out on this — on the detailed architecture and strategy studies — until that is resolved.”
That’s true to some degree: it seems unlikely a Kerry Administration would be so keen on lunar missions if it is as strongly opposed to the overall exploration program as it appears to be. However, the article misses the point that there is some opposition in Congress regarding how the initial mission, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), is bring run: while NASA is soliciting proposals for LRO instruments, NASA is building the spacecraft in-house even though there are any number of companies perfectly capable of building it. There have even been suggestions for data purchase and prize mechanisms to obtain the data LRO would acquire, which would seem to better fulfill the commercialization imperative of the Aldridge Commission. So, even if Bush wins reelection and the exploration program continues on, NASA lunar exploration plans as currently stated could still face opposition in Congress.
October 30, 2004 at 9:17 am · Filed under Campaign '04
In a column in Friday’s issue of Florida Today, Congressmen Dave Weldon (R-FL) and Tom Feeney (R-FL), who represent the Space Coast, respond to John Glenn’s column of a day earlier on Kerry’s space policy. The response is pretty predictable, although I think they could do better than this line in response to Glenn’s statements on shuttle and station: “Exactly where Glenn gets his facts we do not know.” Somehow, I think Glenn has a closer connection to the Kerry campaign than either Weldon or Feeney.
Near the end of the editorial the two Congressmen refer to Weldon’s campaign web site, which features a press release blasting Kerry’s record on space, with a record of Kerry’s votes against the space station through 1996. (Not surprisingly, it omits those votes in favor of ISS Kerry cast in 1997 and 1998.)
October 29, 2004 at 8:13 am · Filed under Campaign '04
Florida Today has an article Friday about the space policy positions of Bush and Kerry. Not much new here, although Lori Garver does explain those claims that a Kerry administration would sharply reduce the number of shuttle flights:
Garver said Bush backers are stretching something she said in a Washington debate with Sietzen far out of context. Noone knows how many times the shuttle must fly to finish the station or do other jobs such as maybe repairing Hubble Space Telescope, she said.
“They’re trying to get Florida votes by scaring people,” Garver said.
Frank Sietzen’s response:
“The president’s policy has been out there since January 14th,” Sietzen said. “Senator Kerry waited until the virtual last minute to publish a conflicting and contradictory space policy statement. Looks like Halloween came early, and Kerry’s plan is the trick.”
A related point: Jim Oberg has an article for MSNBC stating NASA is indeed looking at ways to retire the shuttle early. Reducing the number of shuttle flights below 20, though, would make it impossible to fulfill international agreements unless an alternative assembly approach using ELVs can be developed.
October 28, 2004 at 8:10 am · Filed under Campaign '04
In Thursday’s edition of Florida Today John Glenn has a column about John Kerry’s recently released space policy. One of the most notable comments is at the very beginning of the column:
There have been false rumors circulated that if my good friend John Kerry is elected president, he will limit future space shuttle flights to 10 or less. Kerry has no such plans.
This appears to be references to rumors that NASA Watch alleged that Lori Garver had been circulating in recent days. Another interesting statement by Glenn is that Kerry “intends to be at the return-to-flight launch of shuttle Discovery next year.” Most of the rest of the commentary is largely a restatement of the Kerry space policy document.
October 26, 2004 at 7:37 pm · Filed under Campaign '04
An Alamogordo (NM) Daily News article reports on a speech given Monday by former astronaut Rusty Schweickart in town (this appears to be a separate appearance from the New Mexico Tech talk he was also scheduled to give Monday.) It appears that Schweickart did not talk about space policy during his appearance (or else the reporter didn’t think it worthy of mention): the article focuses on what Schweickart thinks about Iraq, energy, and getting students to pursue careers in science and engineering.
October 25, 2004 at 6:05 pm · Filed under Campaign '04
The Kerry/Edwards campaign has posted a space policy statement on its campaign website. The content of the policy should not come as much of a surprise for those who attended and/or read the press accounts of the Garver-Sietzen debate. The statement calls the Vision for Space Exploration “a purely political stunt, without being backed up by the necessary funding.” The alternative proposed by the Kerry campaign has five major points:
- Increasing NASA’s funding “above current levels adjusted for inflation”, paid for (along with other R&D initiatives) by accelerating the transition to digital TV broadcasting and auctioning the existing analog spectrum;
- Develop a “more balanced” program that “assigns appropriate priority to all NASA programs”. This would appear to place less of an emphasis on exploration in favor of space science, earth science, and aeronautics programs;
- Encourage international participation in NASA programs “in a meaningful way”;
- Increase the emphasis on aeronautics R&D (a partial restatement of point 2);
- Improving the current management of NASA; which the campaign alleges has failed in its bid to reform the agency’s financial and management problems.
Again, not too much of a surprise, although it is the most detailed official campaign statement on space policy to date.
October 25, 2004 at 7:52 am · Filed under Campaign '04
On Saturday Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin appeared at a Bush campaign rally at Space Coast Stadium in Viera, Florida, just south of Cape Canaveral. The Florida Today article about the event includes one quote from Aldrin’s speech: “There is so much more to explore. We need a vision for the future.” According to an official campaign transcript, Bush did not mention space during his address other than recognizing Aldrin’s presence:
I’m honored to call Buzz Aldrin friend. I appreciate him being here today. He’s one of the great pioneers of America. I appreciate you, Buzz, coming. I want to thank you for the example you have set for future pioneers.
Meanwhile, a participant on the Kerryspace email list notes that Apollo 9 astronaut Rusty Schweickart is scheduled to speak at New Mexico Tech Monday afternoon on behalf of the Kerry campaign, in a speech sponsored by the campus Young Democrats chapter. However, Schweickart is scheduled to speak about renewable energy and “the importance of energy independence in the global context”, not space policy.
October 24, 2004 at 12:36 pm · Filed under Congress
In a New York Times article a few days ago about Congressman Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) reelection campaign—which is designed as much to position Weiner to run for mayor of New York next year as to return to Congress—aides to current mayor Michael Bloomberg referred to Weiner’s past interest in funding asteroid research when criticizing ads run by Weiner:
Mayoral aides also poked at the congressman’s own soft spot - a plan he once promoted called the Studying and Prevention of Asteroid Collisions with Earth Act, or Space Act, which sought to allocate $4 million to NASA to track “near-Earth objects.”
“In his self-aggrandizing pursuit of publicity and his naked ambition to be mayor, this ridiculous ad may very well violate the rules of both the Federal Election Commission and the New York City Campaign Finance Board,” said the mayor’s spokesman, Edward Skyler. “Two-Strike Tony should stick to press releases lauding his funding of intergalactic asteroid research.”
It’s worth noting that while Weiner promoted—and earned ridicule from—such legislation, I have never found any evidence that Weiner actually introduced the SPACE Act in the House this session; it does not show up in the list of legislation he sponsored.
October 24, 2004 at 12:19 pm · Filed under Other
When I first started this weblog, I had the naive belief that allowing comments to posts would engender discussion about space policy topics and events. In many instances it has, but, unfortunately, the comments in a couple of recent posts have spiraled out of control, featuring some rather unprofessional remarks. This includes allegations of libel, some of which have been directed towards me simply for hosting the discussion. In both cases I’ve closed those posts to further comments, but perhaps later than I should have; for that, I apologize to any offended parties.
I have, in general, kept the discussions in the comments unmoderated, restricting my role to either closing the discussions that have gotten out of hand or deleting spam posts. This no longer seems like a tenable policy, primarily because of the actions of a handful of people. For the time being, I’m taking one step by eliminating the ability to post purely anonymous (without name and email) comments, since these comments have fueled much of the hostile debate. (I do recognize that it’s easy to circumvent this by posting with a fake name and email; I’d hope people here would not be juvenile enough not to do that, but I’ve overestimated people before…)
I’m also considering other changes, up to and including banning all comments and even closing down this blog. Those are undesirable alternatives, but they may turn out to be the only alternatives. I welcome any suggestions you’d like to make, either as a comment to this post or in an email. (All emails will be treated in confidence.) Keep in mind that some alternatives, like a Slashdot-style moderation system, are beyond the capabilities of the Movable Type software that runs this weblog, and switching to another system might be too much of an expense (in time and money) to be worthwhile.
Next entries »
