Campaign '04

Debate notes

I attended the debate between the representatives of the Bush and Kerry campaigns this morning on the aerospace platforms of the two candidates. There were no major revelations from the event, as you might expect, but a few interesting items, which I’ll try to summarize below (while finishing my lunch.)

  • Lori Garver, representing the Kerry campaign, said she had been volunteering for Kerry for about eight months. Frank Sietzen, representing the Bush campaign, said he had recently decided to stop writing about the exploration plan and start defending it, clearing up any potential conflicts with his journalism work.
  • Sietzen’s main argument was that people had griped for years, particularly after the Columbia accident, that NASA lacked an overarching vision. Now that President Bush provided one, it’s time to support it, and him, and not risk handing that over to someone (Kerry) whose views are less clear.
  • Garver argued that while exploration is important, it should not be the only thing NASA is working on; it must be done in balance with aeronautics, earth sciences, and space sciences.
  • Both said that their candidates would keep open the option of restoring a shuttle servicing mission to Hubble.
  • Sietzen described the current relations between the White House and NASA as the closest since James Webb was NASA administrator during the Kennedy and Johnson administration, adding that O’Keefe talks with the president almost every other day.
  • Garver said that both Kerry and John Edwards were inspired by space during the Kennedy days, but didn’t go into specifics.
  • One of the interesting claims made in the debate, particularly by Garver, is that NASA has become too politicized and partisan; she noted that a Kerry administration would work to depoliticize the agency. While O’Keefe has been more involved in party politics than previous administrators, Sietzen noted that Goldin made at least one campaign appearance during him time at NASA. Support—and oppostion— of NASA programs still crosses party lines: Democrats worked with Republicans in the Senate last month to add money to NASA’s FY05 budget, and Republicans have been as critical of aspects of the exploration plan as Democrats (recall Trent Lott’s comments last month.)

I’m sure other readers attended the debate, so feel free to add or correct the points made above. Standard disclosures and disclaimers apply; I’ll also note I’m registered to vote in Maryland with no party affiliation.

66 comments to Debate notes

  • Did Garver make any reference to the private enterprize aspects of the vision? That’s my major fear: that Kerry will succumb to his Big Government roots and we’ll just flags ‘n footprints again.

  • Mark Zinthefer

    Flags and Footprints? We should be so lucky if Kerry gets in. From a friend who went there, it seems like NASA’s exploration will play second fiddle to Earth-centric programs.

  • Dogsbd

    “NASA’s exploration will play second fiddle to Earth-centric programs”

    IE more of the same, circling the globe endlessly as we’ve done since 1981.

  • Dogsbd

    Anyone who believes Kerry is a strong supporter of manned space exploration evidently has not studied his record on the subject. If one looks at Kerry’s voting record in the Senate over the past 20 years you’ll find that he has never been an avid supporter of space programs. He worked vigorously to cancel ISS yet now claims it is of great scientific value, obviously as a counter to Bush plans to minimize US involvement with ISS past 2014 or so. Although he now speaks about the great science that is/can be done on ISS, he made claims to the polar opposite when he was trying to get ISS cancelled. Based on his past record on NASA funding I don’t have a lot of faith in Kerry being a big supporter of any visionary changes at NASA.

    George W. Bush put O’Keefe in charge of NASA originally to straighten out the terrible financial mishandling that agency had suffered through under the “leadership” of Dan Goldin. But plans for more than just a financial revamping were also formulated on Bush’s watch, plans that were brewing even before the Columbia accident and plans that received Bush’s support and active encouragement once they were presented to him. I have serious doubts that such a plan would have received support from any of the other serious contenders to the US Presidency over the past 10 years or so, or from any present to foreseeable future contenders other than Bush. His vision is a Godsend to those of us who have yearned for a stronger, bolder NASA.

    Many berate Bush for not mentioning “The Vision” in other speeches since January, but how many times did John F. Kennedy speak of sending men to the Moon in 1961? Only once or twice after the original announcement, so why is Bush’s not making speeches about a Moon return such a big deal? Why would he mention it when the overwhelming majority of people are much more concerned with the war on terror, the economy and so forth. Why does Kerry mention space at all? Only to counter Bush’s plans, otherwise he has little to no interest in NASA. On his visit to NASA a couple of months ago (remember the bunny suit incident) what did Kerry talk about? Healthcare. If Kerry thinks the Bush plan is a good idea only under funded why doesn’t he announce he’ll fight to insure NASA gets the money to carry out the plan? Why doesn’t he announce his own plan for NASA rather than the vague “I am committed to increasing funding for NASA”? Think about that, and then go back and look at Kerry’s voting record on NASA and see if the answer isn’t there in black and white.

    There has been no President since John F. Kennedy that has advocated such a far reaching and actually achievable goal for the US national space program as has George W. Bush. On that count, if no other, as space enthusiast’s I think he has earned our support. You may not agree with him on Iraq, the economy, jobs or any other issue, and may choose not to vote for him based on those other issues, but on the subject of a strong national space program I believe Bush is the clear choice. I strongly believe that too many space enthusiasts have allowed their disagreement with Bush on other issues color their opinion of his obviously stronger position on space exploration in comparison to John Kerry.

  • John Malkin

    Does Garver know that there is little change in funding for aeronautics, earth sciences and space sciences in the near term? Did she even look at the NASA budge for 2005?

    I’m so disappointed with the political debates in this age; they seem such a waste of time. It’s too bad the space policy had to become center stage (relative to the past) in an election year. I’m worried that Kerry will commit to something and not be able to back out later. The vagueness in the Kerry campaign could leave flexibility during the debates for the 2006 budget but who knows. In the 2005 budget congress has asked for recommendations on science and I think much of the future of NASA will be based on these recommendations which include science possible from the exploration vision.

    I agree that the Kerry campaign is vague at best on the future of manned spaceflight and Bush is very clear. Kerry should commit and live with it, one way or the other. Is Kerry’s vision NASA to leave earth orbit in 15 years or 50 years? I’m learning Chinese just in case.

    Our nation cannot depend on private sector to maintain our leadership in space, however NASA should do everything within its power to utilize and promote companies like scaled composites.

  • Mark Zinthefer

    “I’m learning Chinese just in case.”

    Chris McKay, one of NASA’s big Mars guys said almost the same thing at the Mars Society conference this summer.

  • Keith Cowing

    Debating Space: A Tale of Two Policies – One Real, One TBD
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=987

    Keith Cowing

    “A day after the last of the Presidential campaign debates, a hundred or so space professionals gathered this morning in Washington, DC to hear a debate between representatives of the Bush and Kerry campaigns on space policy. One campaign talked about what it was doing in space – the other talked about what it might do.”

  • Mark R. Whittington

    To paraphrase John Bolt, Lori, it little profits a man to gain the whole world at the cost of his soul. But NASA Administrator?

  • Dogsbd

    Very good article Keith! Except for the “Editors Note” part ;)

  • Mark Zinthefer

    Just out of sheer curiosity, is anyone willing to defend Kerry’s “plan”?

    Judging by the responses here, Kerry will unite and galvanize all the space advocacy groups if nothing else. they’ll all be crying for his blood.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Judging by the responses here, Kerry will unite and galvanize all the space advocacy groups if nothing else. they’ll all be crying for his blood.

    Posted by Mark Zinthefer at October 15, 2004 12:22 AM

  • Robert G. Oler

    “I’m learning Chinese just in case.”

    Chris McKay, one of NASA’s big Mars guys said almost the same thing at the Mars Society conference this summer.

    Posted by Mark Zinthefer at October 14, 2004 05:56 PM

  • Keith Cowing

    Ah Bob Oler, the wannabe Kerry space policy advisor and washed out pilot, has graced us with his rambling presence.

    Your name did not come up this morning, Bob.

    I wonder why.

  • Anonymous

    There is an issue that both parties agree on: shuttle replacement.

    Both parties realize that the space shuttle should be replaced by a conservative-design vehicle, ie. CEV. (If they don’t realize that, they should read the CAIB report again.)

    Bush wants the CEV to do Earth orbit and the moon. Kerry probably just wants it to do Earth orbit. But they should both agree to develop the CEV, ie. “Shuttle Replacement Program”.

    The shuttle replacement issue is tied with the Hubble issue, too. If the CEV is available, we could do orbital repair work with a greatly reduced risk of catastrophe.

  • John Malkin

    Well at the pace the US is getting out of Earth orbit, the Chinese could hire Virgin Galactic or other space entrepreneur to help them. Do I really think they will beat us to the moon or mars? No way, a new age of space has begun with or without NASA and either Kerry or Bush.

    I believe congress requested at least two redesigns of ISS contributing to its cost. This was in the report from an independent review just before Columbia accident. The report said that a project should be allocated for multiple years for the life the project. This would of course require better cost estimates.

    Is a government run program more expensive? Yes. Can it get us to space faster? Yes. Reagan’s goal was short term and didn’t really define a true focus or purpose. Space Station wandered for years under Bush and Clinton adding to its cost. Many shuttle mission tested concept for construction and materials for the space station, remember we had Challenger. The first two year after it was approved was just doing design concepts. The equipment to build the components had to be design and contructed and people trained. Meanwhile congress kept hacking at that station budget. The cost of the station is largely due to congress not NASA. Today is very different than the 80s, we have 20/20 vision and in the markups, congress is not willing to repeat its mistakes, we hope.

    Being the 21st century I think ‘Reds’ is a bit offensive. There are many American, Australian and other Chinese around the world.

  • Anonymous

    To be accurate, the CEV is not a Shuttle. Not being designed for LEO missions. Not a cargo system. Not a “return” vehicle. Certainly not an autonomous lift system. Not even remotely related to ISS servicing. All requirements that must be met elsewhere.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Being the 21st century I think ‘Reds’ is a bit offensive. There are many American, Australian and other Chinese around the world.

    Posted by John Malkin at October 15, 2004 01:31 AM

  • John Malkin

    You have many good points and at least basis unlike what Garver was saying at the debate.

    I just read the article from space.com and I’m tired of the Kerry campaign’s people acting like robots. Does Garver know the stand of other democrats? Everything I have read has her saying Kerry campaign space junk. I think John Edwards would have creamed Bush but I think Kerry could easily loose to Bush. Kerry doesn’t even listen to the advice of Clinton. He is bull headed and short sighted, just like his campaign. He has run a very negative campaign since primaries.

    http://www.space.com/news/space_debate_041015.html

    I think that much of the language of the markup of the apparition bill is aimed at fixing NASA’s problems. My point is congress is the real managers of NASA since they will not make it a department and therefore they are sponsible for fixing NASA. The NASA administrator can’t blow his nose without consulting congress. The aerospace companies are the biggest problem becase they have a monopoly on NASA contracts. The 2005 appropriations bill begins to address these issues but it will take several years to see if this makes a difference. The ISS is a masterpiece of technology and the biggest problem is we can’t get equipment or people to it.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Cowing has posted disparaging remarks about somebody here. I don’t think that ad hominem attacks against posters are useful for this forum because they drag it down into the mud. If Mr. Cowing wants to engage in name-calling, he can use NASAWatch for that, as he has in the past.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by John Malkin at October 15, 2004 01:18 PM

  • I am truly torn by this. I think Bush’s policies, by and large, have been an almost unmitigated disaster for both our nation and the world. However, I think his space plan is the right plan at the right time. I hope the plan survives while the man does not.

    — Donald

  • Mark Zinthefer

    Donald,

    Here’s the way I’m viewing it, or at least rationalizing it to myself:

    If Bush is reelected, there is a good chance that his space policy could kick off a chain of events that will result in the permanent settlement of space. Mars, Moon, Asteroids, L5, whatever your space fetish is. I don’t see any of the terrible things he has done having detrimental implications for more than a couple generations. However settlement of space would be a new epoch of human existence.

    Kerry, even if he is able to reverse Bush’s bad policies and mistakes, has given every indication that he will kill the Moon/Mars push and kill our reach out of LEO. We will continue to be a one-planet species for the undetermined future. This could set us back 30 years a-la shuttle or 300 years depending on what chain of events occur. It could literally set us back as a civilization.

    With regards to the distant long term (hundreds and thousands of years), voting for Bush now might make the difference between life as we know it being stagnant or practically invincible. Wars and deficits are mundane compared to the possibility of starting a true space age.

    All that and Kerry is a doofus and Edwards is a sleazebag.

    I will be very, very upset if Bush fumbles this though.

  • John Malkin

    Kerry is more indecisive than Carter and that is just scary.

    Everything coming out of congress is a fairly bi-partisan and point to a future in space. I think Kerry would be open to anything as long as he didn’t take the blame for any failure. Bush isn’t afraid to break a few eggs.

    I like the idea of the X-prize being extended beyond space. We need to try new things instead of spending 100s of billions treating same symptoms of civilization over and over again. We need to be bold on earth and in space.

    My university economics teacher use to say “Innovate or die!” The US must innovate or before you know it Bin Laden will be going to the moon. Well maybe not Bin Laden…

  • Doug Lassiter

    Let’s see now. It was a Democrat, an individual who Kerry worships, who sent us to the Moon, wasn’t it? And c’mon Keith, the shrub isn’t “doing” anything. Talk is cheap on both sides.

  • Mark,

    You make very good points, and ones that, when I was younger, I would have agreed with without histiation. Today, to put it mildly, I have greater reservations. First, it is no longer true, if it ever was, that the future is solely dependent on the actions of United States. There are plenty of examples in history of dictatorships opening a new frontier (Spain and Russia in our own “New World”), so I am less willing to pay the price of turning ourselves into a dictatorship with the likes of John Ashcroft and “Homeland Security” to make it happen. There are plenty of dictatorships in the world, some of whom are spacefaring nations, and we don’t need another one. More importantly, too many people and peoples are getting hurt, some of them close to me. It is fine to say that the greater good two centuries from now is worth a few broken eggs — which I agree with — _if_ that is truly necessary. In this case, it is not, and I am tired of these barbarians from Texas pretending that it is in the all-too-simple persuit of raw power.

    At this point in time, since I do not believe that the solar system is depending on the outcome, that is too high a price to pay.

    — Donald

  • Anonymous

    This is a good debate, however I think the new space policy is more of the same GRAND VISION; NO COMMITMENT policies we’ve seen since the end of the Apollo program. The cultural, political and military climates have changed since 1960. Therefore we cannot expect to sustain any grand, manned space exploration vision until we can show the American public that a manned, orbital market can have a direct, positive economic impact that is independent of government programs. The American public has grown immune to the spin-off technology and human need to explore arguments, especially in the area of manned space flight.

    What is required is a space policy that’s directed at commercialization and re-defines the role of government within the manned, orbital space flight industry. This policy should not exclude government from the industry, but re-define its role in a way that will support commercialization. Once a commercially viable manned space flight industry is developed, public support for exploration will follow. If we continue to use the same paradigms to establish space policy, it is my opinion that we will be having this same debate 15 years from now.

    As far as the commercial capabilities of the international space community is concerned, I can only suggest that we remember what happened to the United States automotive industry. In 1960 very few people were concerned about the Asian automotive manufactures, by 1980 imported vehicles had crippled the U.S. auto industry, driving some manufactures into bankruptcy. Business can be as brutal as war, never under estimate the competition in any industry.

  • Actually, we are in the process of giving away our satellite industry by treating our commercial spacecraft as munitions. This, apparently, is how the Republicans intend to secure our commercial future in space.

    — Donald

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Mark Zinthefer at October 15, 2004 04:16 PM

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Actually Oler, the world changed because 19 guys, representing a world wide terror network, killed more people on 9/11/2001 than the entire Japanese Navy managed to on 12/7/1941. Sometimes healthy fear is a good thing. It’s better than burying one’s head in the sand, like Kerry wants to, and pretend that Al Qaeda is just a “nuisence.”

    But that isn’t really your beef with Bush, isn’t it. Neither is his space policy, which you know in your heart is a great one, or any of the other BS excuses you’ve give over the years. The real source of your beef with the President is something you will never admit to anyone, not even yourself.

  • Anonymous

    Neither is his space policy, which you know in your heart is a great one. . .

    Huh? What space policy?

    All I have seen are puffed up sound bites about exploration NEXT decade which even his own Congress won’t pass.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 15, 2004 11:52 PM

  • Robert G. Oler

    better than burying one’s head in the sand, like Kerry wants to, and pretend that Al Qaeda is just a “nuisence.”

    Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 15, 2004 11:52 PM

    POST THEM MARK.

    you wont. And that Sir labels you.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anonymous

    better than burying one’s head in the sand, like Kerry wants to, and pretend that Al Qaeda is just a “nuisence.”

    Ah, the joyful sound of lost credibility.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, I don’t need to post anything. I refer you to the NY Times story of Sunday last, which “posted” them quite adequetly.

  • Dogsbd

    ” It makes no firm steps on his watch (or even that of a second term)”

    This is a silly statement that reveals either the authors’ ignorance of space flight matters or his willingness to say anything in his vendetta against George W. Bush.

    What President could or would start a far reaching space program to go to the Moon and beyond had have it fulfilled in as short as 4 or even 8 years?

    Anyone who has followed the progress thus far of the Constellation project would know that it has moved at an astonishingly rapid pace in the few months since it’s inception. And that is primarily the result of Sean O’Keefe’s dogged determination to get money out of congress to insure that it does move forward, and O’Keefe has the full backing of his boss by the way.

    Regardless of anyone’s childish kindergarten chatter and name-calling, George W. Bush has done more to move space exploration to new and greater goals, rather than just marking time, than anyone since John F. Kennedy.

  • Anonymous

    looks like oler has been hounded off of the kerry blog again

  • Robert G. Oler

    Oler, I don’t need to post anything. I refer you to the NY Times story of Sunday last, which “posted” them quite adequetly.

    Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 16, 2004 04:21 AM

  • Robert G. Oler

    looks like oler has been hounded off of the kerry blog again

    Posted by at October 16, 2004 08:20 AM

  • Robert G. Oler

    George W. Bush has done more to move space exploration to new and greater goals, rather than just marking time, than anyone since John F. Kennedy.

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 16, 2004 08:01 AM

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 16, 2004 08:01 AM

  • Dogsbd

    Again more irrelevant commentary, Columbia’s loss is now GW Bush’s fault? That is ludicrous to say the least. If there’s a President who shares any blame for that tragedy it would have to be Clinton, for his part in keeping Goldin at NASA for his 8 years in the White House.But Congress is as much to blame as any political office/body.

    And yes there will be a huge difference in human space flight if Bush is re-elected. We will AT LEAST begin the preparations to finally leave LEO once again. No it won’t happen during Bush’s time in office, but neither would the original moon landings have taken place during a second Kennedy admin had JFK lived and been re-elected. I have enough common sense to realize that such long ranged and far-reaching plans take time. At any rate this sort of space exploration plan, although Bush has given the idea life at long last, must outgrow 4-8 year presidential “cycles” and become normal parts of our world rather than exceptions. It has to begin somewhere and with someone, and though many loathe admitting it George W. Bush is that someone.

  • Theresa

    I agree the previous post that stated we must develop space policies directed toward commercialization before embarking on another grand exploration vision. Another grand exploration vision will not be support over multiple decades unless we have manned orbital space flight industry that can have a positive economic impact independent of government programs.

    Neither candidate is suggesting this type of space policy. Not surprising since space exploration is very low on the priority list of the average American and a candidate’s stand on space policy will not affect the outcome of the election to any significant degree. Space policy direction for the U.S. will be determined by industrial lobbying efforts within Congress, the White House and NASA, not by the individual Presidential candidate or sound economic analysis.

    The new space policy as defined by NASA in January 2004 is based on the same old assumption; if we spend a lot of money on exploration missions, the independent commerce sector will naturally follow. As we have seen in the past 40 years, this assumption is not correct. A friend of mine in Houston sent me this link to a website that discusses an alternate approach to planning space policy. This approach is based on a sound macroeconomic analysis and industrial models that can be used to guide our space policy in a way that will lead to an independent commercially based industry that can support scientific and research objectives as required. While some technological improvement will be required, it does not require the development of space elevators, warp drive or molecular transporters to successfully implement this strategy.

    http://dserweb.echoechoplus.com

    After reviewing the information on this website and discussing the strategy with the author, we’re both convinced this strategic direction is correct. According to the author, several individuals, including some government representatives, have recommended he pursue international interest in this strategy.

    I see this strategy having the same impact as W. Edwards Deming’s strategy of applying statistical methods to control manufacturing processes (SPC). The U.S. rejected these strategies 1946. However, in 1947, the Japanese manufacturing industry accepted Mr. Deming’s strategies, and with his help, became a world leader in manufacturing low cost, high quality products in the electronics and automotive industries. International competition within the space industry should be a serious consideration when establishing a new space policy. Unfortunately, due to industrial lobbying efforts by the large aerospace companies, I feel these type of strategies will fall on deaf ears in Washington DC.

    Heaven help the U.S. space industry if the international community focuses on the implementation of these types strategies while we’re wasting our time on old, worn out policies like the Moon to Mars program.

  • Anonymous

    “Anyone who has followed the progress thus far of the Constellation project would know that it has moved at an astonishingly rapid pace in the few months since it’s [sic] inception.”

    Astonishingly? What have we seen in nine months? Just some study contracts for overall architectures for using the CEV. Not only has no hardware been built, the Level 1 requirements have not even been completed, as best as I can tell. Worse, there’s no guarantee there will be enough money to continue development in FY05, based on what the House and Senate did to NASA’s budget. A 2008 flyoff looks pretty uncertain at this date.

    Anyone who thinks this is “astonishingly” rapid must have spent too long working on Space Station…

  • Anonymous

    > Anyone who believes Kerry is a strong supporter of manned space exploration evidently
    > has not studied his record on the subject.

    Anyone who believes Bush is a strong supporter of manned space exploration has not studied his record, either.

    Instead of sending astronauts to Hubble, the Administration is building a $2 billion robot. The Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter is getting another $2 billion. There’s more money so that Mars can be explored by robots — not humans. All of the early lunar flights are to be unmanned. So are the first few cycles of Constellation. The operating budget for ISS goes to zero in 2016. Shuttle will be replaced by a CEV that carries fewer people and flies less often. Astronauts in Houston are expecting layoffs.

    As for the private sector, the Aldridge Commission says human spaceflight is to “remain the province of government.”

  • Anonymous

    > Anyone who believes Kerry is a strong supporter of manned space exploration evidently
    > has not studied his record on the subject.

    Anyone who believes Bush is a strong supporter of manned space exploration has not studied his record, either.

    Instead of sending astronauts to Hubble, the Administration is building a $2 billion robot. The Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter is getting another $2 billion. There’s more money so that Mars can be explored by robots — not humans. All of the early lunar flights are to be unmanned. So are the first few cycles of Constellation. The operating budget for ISS goes to zero in 2016. Shuttle will be replaced by a CEV that carries fewer people and flies less often. Astronauts in Houston are expecting layoffs.

    As for the private sector, the Aldridge Commission says human spaceflight is to “remain the province of government.”

  • Mark Zinthefer

    Hi Donald,

    While it’s true that the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, private individuals, etc. could start a new space age, I don’t want to trust to hope that it will just take care of itself. The US is at a pivotal position that so far comes about every 35 years or so. I think it would be a tragedy if it were killed before it got off the ground.

    Regarding dictatorships that are spacefaring, I guess you’re talking about the ex-USSR and China but I think calling them dictatorships at this point is a bit of a stretch. Russia holds regular elections and China will no doubt be there in a few decades. Authoritarianism is declining there as we speak. I very much disagree that the USA is anything close to a dictatorship. I’ve got serious reservations with some of Bush’s policies but he’s still one member of one branch of government. If he dissolves the congress and has the Supreme Court gunned down, then we can talk. In any case, Ashcroft, Bush & co. will be out in 4 weeks or 4 years. They’re not a permanent fixture. I’m sorry for any loss you may have suffered due to Bush policy but I don’t think the prospect of a President Kerry outweighs the potential for a new space age.

    Perhaps if someone other than Kerry were in the running, that would change. I’m not just blindly backing anyone who is pro-space.

    Trying to bring some civility back to the thread,
    Mark

  • Anonymous

    Dogsbd wrote:
    “Anyone who has followed the progress thus far of the Constellation project would know that it has moved at an astonishingly rapid pace in the few months since it’s inception.”

    Can you justify this statement with facts?

    The last I heard, they have actually delayed the next formal step in the CEV contracting from October to November. In addition, although NASA initially released graphics that implied a moon landing by 2015, all their current information now indicates that it will not happen before 2020. So in nine months the moon landing date has now been postponed by five years.

  • Bill White

    We will AT LEAST begin the preparations to finally leave LEO once again. No it won’t happen during Bush’s time in office. . .

    Unless its truly bi-partisan, it will die no later than January 2009 if only because Bush is creating so much pent up hostility on other issues.

  • Bill White

    Regarding dictatorships that are spacefaring, I guess you’re talking about the ex-USSR and China but I think calling them dictatorships at this point is a bit of a stretch. Russia holds regular elections and China will no doubt be there in a few decades. Authoritarianism is declining there as we speak. I very much disagree that the USA is anything close to a dictatorship. I’ve got serious reservations with some of Bush’s policies but he’s still one member of one branch of government. If he dissolves the congress and has the Supreme Court gunned down, then we can talk. In any case, Ashcroft, Bush & co. will be out in 4 weeks or 4 years. They’re not a permanent fixture. I’m sorry for any loss you may have suffered due to Bush policy but I don’t think the prospect of a President Kerry outweighs the potential for a new space age.

    How does the Bush initiative (however we choose to assess it) survive into 2009?

    CEV launched on EELV is simply the WRONG road.

    Especially when the plan was hatched in smoke filled back rooms as Cowing/Seitzen have explained. This last point is enough for Dems to kill it as soon as possible. 2009 or 2013.

  • Dogsbd

    “Can you justify this statement with facts?

    The last I heard, they have actually delayed the next formal step in the CEV contracting from October to November.”

    You justified it with the above statement. In the past 20 years nothing in the manned space realm has moved from “idea” to contracts in 10 months. And that is with O’Keefe having to beg for dollars out of Congress, going so far as to get authorization to re-program monies.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 16, 2004 11:35 AM

  • Dogsbd

    LOL and when has any space project by the US or anyone else moved as fast as the Mercury-Apollo programs? Never before nor since, and likely never again. That’s because we’re not in a race to beat anyone this time, yet.

    But my point was that even when we WERE in a race the program did not move at the pace YOU expect from Bush.

    You’re being intellectually dishonest; you reach a conclusion and then try to find a way to back it up. We call that “bass-ackwards” around here.

    At least Cowing is honest in admitting Bush has Kerry beat hands down when it comes to space, even though he’s otherwise a Kerry supporter. I don’t agree with him on supporting Kerry (on space, Iraq, taxes or anything else), but I can appreciate his honesty.

    Oh yeah, I’m a pilot too so don’t start your faux naval aviator BS.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 16, 2004 08:12 PM

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 16, 2004 08:12 PM

  • Dogsbd

    So I guess Johnson was responsible for the Apollo one fire? Nixon almost killed the Apollo 13 crew? Reagan responsible for Challenger? Why I guess you think Johnson was even responsible for the Forrestal fire huh? Actually that would make more sense than Bush/O’Keefe being responsible for Columbia.

    To turn a blind eye to the way Goldin ran NASA and how Congress starved NASA of funds is just, once again, intellectually dishonest.

    And just what was Bill Clintons space policy? Pumping money into the Russian economy by way of RSA?

  • Dogsbd

    Civil? You don’t know the meaning of the word Oler. Every post you write, on every board you visit, is replete with childish name-calling and intellectually dishonest rhetoric. You ignore facts and simply draw conclusions that fit your preconceived view of the world. You don’t have to know me, everyone who’s spent much time at all on any space related board knows you and your narcissistic ways.

  • Anonymous

    “In the past 20 years nothing in the manned space realm has moved from ‘idea’ to contracts in 10 months.”

    This statement is a bit misleading. First of all, the CEV is still in the conceptual stage: any contracts to be awarded soon will cover design work; no hardware will be built for at least a couple of years. Second, much of the CEV work carried over, in practice, from the OSP program that dates back to late 2002.
    And let’s not forget that there’s no guarantee that Congress will fund the CEV in 2005…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 16, 2004 10:00 PM

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 16, 2004 10:42 PM

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Dogsbd at October 16, 2004 10:00 PM

  • IE more of the same, circling the globe endlessly as we’ve done since 1981.

    That’s only a problem to people who confuse Buck Rodgers stunts with science and exploration.

    As for the lunar program. Had Jack Kennedy got a second term by the time it was over Jan 20, 1969 well the lunar landing was less then 6 months away. The heavy lifting had been done and Kennedy would have been Potus when 8 went around the Moon.

    That makes the strong and unfounded assumption that Apollo recieved any significant support from Kennedy. Before his death he was already backing away from it. After his death it recieved a groundswell of support as his monument.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by Derek L. at October 16, 2004 11:45 PM

  • Anonymous

    oler lives in a fantasy world – you can safely ignore whatever he writes

  • Robert G. Oler

    Posted by at October 17, 2004 09:37 AM

  • Anonymous

    oler likes to post after he’s had a few sips – for courage

  • Jeff Foust

    Given the decline in the quality of this discussion, I am closing comments for this post.