As part of my continuing shameless self-promotion, let me point out a few space policy articles of interest in this week’s issue of The Space Review:
- Douglas Jobes discusses Rohrabacher’s space prizes act, HR 5336, and whether Congress is really serious about such legislation;
- Last Friday at the SpaceVision2004 conference at MIT, Lori Garver talked about the formation of John Kerry’s space policy, which I summarize in an article;
- Greg Zsidisin weighs whether or not President Bush will be willing to spend some of his political capital to support the Vision for Space Exploration, particularly given the other challenges the administration faces in its second term.
The defining feature of the Kerry space policy was a transparent grab for votes in the swing state of Ohio.
Summary of the Kerry policy:
(1) Increasing funding
(2) Pursuing a more balanced space and aeronautics program
(3) Ensuring that space exploration is a global undertaking
(4) Putting an emphasis back on aeronautics R&D
(5) Improving the management of NASA
Policy statement no. 4, and to a lesser extent no. 2, were aimed at the people of Glenn Research Center, Ohio.
Another example of using space policy for political gain, not for space, was the admission of poll-driven policy making: “Garver said that the agency did a poll last year surveying the public on what they get out of the space program … This led the campaign to adopt a policy that called for a balance between the various facets of NASA’s mission.” There is a difference between doing what’s right and doing what the polls tell you to do.
After all this, the Kerry campaign had the nerve to call the VSE “a purely political stunt”, and even attempted to fool voters in Florida (another swing state) while at the same time pitching the policy to voters in Ohio.
Greg, having called Bush Hitler and his supporters Nazis, is certainly looking at a heaping dish of sour grapes. Sam’s piece seems to jump the shark, which surprises me as he is usually sensible.
The article about Lori Garver was also very entertaining.
As far as I am concerned the Zsidisin article is a waste of virtual ink, as I will not be reading anything else he writes after his previous “Hitler” article.
As far as I am concerned the Zsidisin article is a waste of virtual ink, as I will not be reading anything else he writes
You know what they say: a closed mind gathers no thoughts.
Minds should be closed to some ideas.
Warning to “Dogsbd:” don’t read this…
Whittington: Agitprop is one thing, outright slander is another entirely. If you can’t learn to read or reason, you should at least stay on the proper side of the law.
As I said in the piece, I would not compare Bush to Hitler. I would say each represents a threat to the United State and to the world in his own way.
I never said Bush supporters were Nazis. In fact, I think most are just horribly misguided people, hammered by a campaign of hate and fear, who don’t see the danger they’ve invited in.
Your suggestion that Bush supporters are Nazis, not to mention your attempt to attribute that to me, is offensive and reprehensible.
Zsidisin’s piece sounds like a space version of the New York Times editorials that have been running since the end of the election.
I see two ways we can continue from here. 1) Keep sniping at each other over Red/Blue associations
2) Move on and discuss space again.
I suggest the latter, though I do find sniping fun on occasion.
I guess its up to the writers at TSR and the posters here.
I have to admit a little surprise at being accused of being a criminal (and slander is, after all, an actionable offense.) Greg engages in the cute rhetorical trick of claiming that he is not about to do (compare the President to Hitler and his supporters to Nazis) what he then proceeds to do. I can only suggest that Greg reread the hate filled words that he wrote and then engage in a little bit of self examination.
Per Jeff Foust:
The heart of New Moon Rising is the account of how the new space policy was formulated within NASA Headquarters and the White House. Surprisingly, much of the early work on the new policy was made by a group of anonymous junior White House staffers who, by the book’s account, had a genuine interest in space exploration and sought to create a new vision that would reinvigorate the space agency. This “Splinter Group” spent months meeting informally, reviewing white papers and proposals, before inviting more senior advisers and, eventually, NASA officials into the discussion. This led to the creation of two “Rump Groups” that narrowed down proposals for a new exploration plan, keeping in mind fiscal limitations that ruled out any plan that required significant additional funding for NASA. The result of these deliberations, spread out over most of 2003, was a plan the President approved on December 19 and announced to the world at NASA Headquarters on January 14.
Link to original.
What astonishes me is how this back room deal is now being openly peddled as “America’s Space Plan” especially when the Aldridge Commission itself openly disavowed any intention to debate the merits of the “vision” – – when and where was the open debate about America’s future in space?
Why are we still peddling the canard that the Moon is a “steppingstone” to Mars? Moon? Sure there are great things to do on the Moon but it is NOT a steppingstone to Mars.
Permanent settlement? John Marburger wrote a piece for a special issue of Ad Astra saying that colonization is not part of the VSE.
Frankly, the VSE remains marvelously vague, thus able to be all things to all people.
= = =
Once Congress approves the VSE it will become “America’s space plan” but not before such approval. Until then, this plan belongs to a circle of policy wonks and big aerospace types as endorsed by GWB.
On this issue I am relieved that the GOP controls Congress. If the VSE fails, we will only have Republicans to blame.
Sherwood Boehlert is a GOP guy, correct?
WHITE: What astonishes me is how this back room deal is now being openly peddled as “America’s Space Plan”
Gee, let’s see: 1. American President Bush announces the plan. 2. Bush then gets re-elected by a numerical majority of those Americans who vote. 3. Ergo Americans have chosen him to continue to develop such things for America. Congress (also voted into office by Americans) gets to have their say starting this week as a check and balance.
If this isn’t America’s plan, then whose plan is it?
You are clearly suffering from sour grapes, Bill. Get over it.
Just how many government policies are devised from their very inception fully in the public arena? I suspect some would rather Bush would have conducted extensive polling on what NASA’s goal should be and then implement a “policy by committee compromise”. Luckily he instead showed a trait that is lacking in the people/party that opposes him at every turn, leadership.
Keith Cowing, how many people where thinking “space policy” when they pulled the lever on November 2nd?
Not many IMHO.
Frankly, I very much do hope Congress enacts the VSE as it is the only game in town for the next four years, maybe longer, despite it flaws. As far as current voting in the House and Senate, I have and will continue to support FULL FUNDING for the VSE in FY’05 and FY ’06.
But if Congress does not enact the VSE then VSE will not be “America’s space policy” and it won’t be anyone’s space vision, it will only be “what might have been” – – and to seek to squelch debate and discussion to push the VSE through as a fait accompli merely creates resentment that will resurface in the future.
While Zubrin versus Spudis ain’t good for anyone telling Zubrin to just “shut up” won’t work since Zubrin won’t just dry up and go away, especially after General Worden (for example) has now started calling for privately funded one way human trips to Mars, ASAP.
= = =
Bigger picture, I hope that we Americans can learn to discuss these issues without making personal attacks or fueling personal animosities.
If I have ever attacked anyone personally, I apologize and will resolve not to do it again. If any one seeks to attack me personally because my views differ from their views, well, I am sorry but I am an SOB with strong opinions. But I will still buy the beer if asked nicely enough even if we disagree.
Neither Zubrin or Spudis (or their followers) are going to disappear from the scene. Therefore we need to find a way to share our disagreements without letting it get personal or feeling the need to shout the other guy down.
Ignoring all the usual space advocate suspects, I believe William Langewiesche nails the critical issue here. Keep Media allows access to the full essay, IIRC.
If we are to become a two planet species spreading American values (and babies) out into the solar system, full speed ahead. If not, or if becoming a two planet species is more than a century away, send robots and end ALL humans in space funded at US taxpayer expense.
Branson wants to pay? Hey, no problem mate, its a free country.
That’s my position in a nutshell.
Langeweische is also correct that people on all sides of space advocacy debates tend not to argue fairly.
I really wish people would stop throwing around legal terms they know little about and that add little to a rational discourse. Mark, slander is not a crime, it is actionable as a civil claim (not offense). Accusing one of slander is itself not slanderous per se. But Greg’s statements don’t come anywhere close to slander regardless. In my opinion he merely made an observation about the relationship between agitprop and slander, then talked about you. While there is a class of slander by insinuation, it is disaproved (rightly) by the courts in that most heated debate can imply technically slanderous statements. Greg, Mark’s statements, while inacurrate according to interpretation, in my opinion almost certainly does not amount to actionable slander. He just made a questionable association in the course of a public argument. (none of the above is intended as legal advice)
“Bigger picture, I hope that we Americans can learn to discuss these issues without making personal attacks or fueling personal animosities.
If I have ever attacked anyone personally, I apologize and will resolve not to do it again. If any one seeks to attack me personally because my views differ from their views, well, I am sorry but I am an SOB with strong opinions. But I will still buy the beer if asked nicely enough even if we disagree.”
Well said Bill. I ditto that.
The election is over and now we just have to work with the circumstances at hand. Neither complaining nor gloating seems functional or becoming. I for one think the VSE is a huge step up from the space policy that existed previously, and we should all try to unite to ensure it gets funded.
However I think it’s important that we voice our concerns to our representatives. It’s one thing to fine tune your opinions by listening to counterpoint but debates here have limited impact in our government who will make the policies for the future of space. We as world citizens must be vigilant and voice our opinion to the people that matter including participating in activist groups.
Actually, Nathan, Greg accused me of slander, not I he, though I take your point about it being a civil rather than criminal matter. However, even a casual reading of what he wrote shows the Nazi comparison. Greg’s “moveon.org” form of political discourse is poison, in my opinion.
Sniping it is!
>Sniping it is!
That is rich. Any and all manner of lies can be told of the Bush administration and it’s policies but as soon as someone from MY side of the aisle counters it’s deemed to be “sniping”.
Cowing hit the head square on the nail, many are “clearly suffering from sour grapes”.
Hey, Dogsbd, I’m on your side! I guess I’d better start taking potshots.
Greg, did we really have to read your leftist propaganda in Space News, too? First you said your values told you you had to vote against space and for Kerry. Now, you try to deny that the only president who has said anything of interest about space in a decade really doesn’t mean it? He just lied to win the votes of the vast untapped pool of space activist voters? Bush can do no right!
Oh, and Sam Dinkin, do you have to bring up Imperial hubris? Please, leave the MoveOn cliches at home! International relations isn’t your strong suit.
>Hey, Dogsbd, I’m on your side! I guess I’d better start taking potshots.
So sorry, I thought you were directing that… well somewhere other than where you were