Space is not a key issue is most Congressional campaigns, something most people understand (even if they don’t like it.) However, in the last week space policy issues have cropped in a couple of Congressional races in locations not typically considered space hotspots:
The Gainesville (Fla.) Sun reports on a race to win the Democratic Party nomination for Florida’s 5th district, in west-central Florida. the paper asked three candidates questions on a number of issues, including immigration policy, Iraq, offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (a big issue in Florida), stem cell research…, and space:
ISSUE: Do you support indefinite continuation of NASA’s manned-flight space program?
Rick Penberthy: I think we have to take a good look at the space program, especially the shuttle and see if that is the best way to continue with space exploration.
John T. Russell: Yes. The mission of humanity is to explore, and manned space flight as a means of exploration must remain a component of our nation’s science program.
H. David Werder: I would like to see a man on Mars.
Not necessarily the most insightful answers, but it was interested to see space elevated to the same level as Iraq and immigration.
Meanwhile, Courier-Life Publications, which publishes a number of neighborhood newspapers in Brooklyn and Queens, recounts a candidates’ forum whose participants included Congressman Anthony Weiner, a Democrat who is not facing a challenger his party’s primary. After the forum, Weiner got a question about his proposed amendment to an appropriations bill earlier this year that would have cut funding from NASA’s Mars exploration program:
After his talk, Weiner was asked by one of the few public observers at the forum, Eugene Cervone, secretary of the National Space Society Chapter of New York, about his amendment to cut the NASA budget by $477 million and give the funds to the COPS Program to hire more police. His amendment was defeated in June, but Weiner said that the NASA budget is being increased. “I support the space program,” Weiner said.
Supports it so much he tried to take money away from arguably one of the more productive and popular parts of it, it would seem.
“but it was interested to see space elevated to the same level as Iraq and immigration.”
Or Iraq and immigration lowered to the level of NASA. Either way works.
Many political candidates vote to support what they think thier local voters want – duh. They want to keep the folks back home happy.
But in many ways we would be better served if they used their access and expertise to find out what the voters SHOULD want and vote that way.
In the Texas 22nd district race – both Lampson and Sekula-Gibbs want full funding for NASA. Not that they say what NASA should do with the money.
The only thing keeping VSE alive is the contingent of senators and congressmen that have NASA interests in their states and districts. These lawmakers hold influential spots on their respective appropriation committees and maintain the spigot for whatever keeps their NASA constituents gainfully employed.
As long as NASA keeps within its budgetary box, VSE will stay clear of the national radar screen. However once the true facts of the outlays required to implement the Griffin plan become apparent, then it will draw more scrutiny.
Of course, the ’06 election could usher in a more critical senate and congress, which would cause a pushback on NASA’s budget. The likely outcome is a drawout on schedules and the start of the all too familiar slow death spiral. It will take several more years until VSE is mercifully expunged from the books and NASA can resume what it does best – conducting scientific-driven exploration.
Tom, NASA hasn’t done any exploration, science driven or otherwise, since Apollo. At best, they have done initial, and mostly remote, reconnaissance from orbit that is one step above telescopic observation, or from point locations on a very small number of surfaces. This undoubtedly an impressive achievement, however, it has been executed at great expense and with very little real knowledge of what the worlds of the Solar System are like to show for it. The only significant possible exceptions are the three Martian rovers.
That said, I fully agree with your first two paragraphs. That is why Dr. Griffin’s decision to develop new launch vehicles was a bad one: it will inevitably push NASA out of its budgetary box and draw budgetary attention to the VSE. That is a bad thing if you want to see any real exploration of the Solar System in our lifetimes.
Charles: we would be better served if they used their access and expertise to find out what the voters SHOULD want and vote that way.
That may be true, but I like to pretend we are lucky enough to live in the remains of a citzen’s democracy.
— Donald
“Tom, NASA hasn’t done any exploration, science driven or otherwise, since Apollo.”
What were all those rovers and probes for then?
Chris:
What were all those rovers and probes for then?
Possibly a tiny bit of science but mostly reconnaissance. Determining that water may have existed at some undetermined date in the past constitutes reconnaissance, not science; science involve determining when the water existed, over what area, how often — the who, what, when, where, why, and how, information can only be obtained by extensive, detailed field work that no foreseeable rover will ever do.
Or, to quote myself, At best, they have done initial, and mostly remote, reconnaissance from orbit that is one step above telescopic observation, or from point locations on a very small number of surfaces. This undoubtedly an impressive achievement, however, it has been executed at great expense and with very little real knowledge of what the worlds of the Solar System are like to show for it.
To call what humanity has done on the planets so far “science” grossly overstates what we have accomplished, and lets “scientists” get away with pretending that you can automate real, creative, hands-on science and exploration.
— Donald