Campaign '08, Other

Space policy in Gore’s new book

During a recent trip to a bookstore I checked out Al Gore’s latest book, The Assault on Reason. Was there anything in this wide-ranging book about space policy, perchance? There’s no entry in the index for NASA, but there is one for “Space, militarization of” (wedged in alphabetical order between Socrates and Stalin, Joseph). Gore devotes nearly two full pages in the 320-page book to his opposition to the national space policy released last year by the Bush Administration, covering much of the same ground that he did in a speech in New Mexico last October. “[The] international community is strongly inclined to view the administration’s policy as the foundation for an American effort to unilaterally and permanently dominate space as a medium for combat,” he writes. “No other major state is likely to accept the Bush space policy as permanently acceptable.” He factors in the Chinese ASAT test this January into his analysis, as well: “The administration’s shocked response to China’s recent test of an antisatellite ASAT system in an example of America’s attitude that its predilections are substitutes for international law.”

While in the bookstore I also noticed that another maybe-he’ll-run-maybe-he-won’t presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich, has a new book out as well. Although I didn’t read it I assumed that there are no new space policy insights in Pearl Harbor: A Novel of December 8th. Just a guess.

49 comments to Space policy in Gore’s new book

  • I didn’t get much of a response from him either on the subject, when I raised the issue, although he’s awfully busy right now with the book tour.

    However, the issue of space HAS been put on his table, and whether or not he responds to it will be an interesting thought experiment.

    Word on the street is that his next book will be entitled ‘Solutions’, so it will be interesting to see if space is actually a significant part of his ‘solutions’.

    Most scientists have been very slow to even acknowledge the severity of the problems (the public response has demonstrably been less than pathetic) and so it seems even Al Gore has been slow to realize that ‘conservation of energy’ is no longer a credible solution to the global warming problem.

    The state of the science has progressed to the point that only way credible solutions will be obtained is by a space based ‘attack’ on the problem.

    Conservation of energy will at best only result in postponing the inevitable.

    I leave you with the incredibly pathetic Op-ed on Space Review, in which some organization suggests that the protection of Earth isn’t NASA’s venue.

  • richardb

    Hey all you global warming aficianados, I was reading a story today about a spot check on the accuracy of NOAA’s 1000+ land based weather stations scattered around the US. Evidently the readings from these stations have been one of the inputs to the models showing rising temps. Problem is, some stations are placed too close to heat sources such as air conditioning exhaust vents, large buildings, incinerators and the like. Wish I could find that link again. Whether this is a real problem or noise is unknown, much like the debate about global warming.

  • MarkWhittington

    Well, we have Gore’s record during the Clinton Administration to surmise his views on space policy. And I believe there was an interview with Newt Gingrich last year in Space Review in which the former Speaker spoke rather extensively on space.

  • Whether this is a real problem or noise is unknown, much like the debate about global warming.

    Yes, all of science operates totally independently, nothing is interrelated.

    There are no checks and balances in science, just as there are no checks and balances in government, just as it well should be in the faith based world.

  • richardb

    Clinton’s 1996 space policy document has much in common with Bush’s 2006 document. The differences are more nuanced than dramatic, so says the CDI, a left wing think tank. Gore supposedly supported the 1996 doc since he was the number 2 man in that administration. His strident mocking of Bush is yet another flip in that flopper’s storied political career. I know, he invented the internet an all, but I’ll follow caveat emptor when it comes to Al Gore. Finally, the idea that China could whip together its ASAT technical and manufacturing skill just to answer the 2006 Bush policy is hard to accept. In Aug 2006 Bush publishes his policy. Then 7 months later the Chinese have mastered hitting a bullet with a bullet including multiple failed attempts? Not plausible. China had been working on this stuff for years prior. Possilby during the Clinton Gore administration.

  • Cliff Gordon

    “Clinton’s 1996 space policy document has much in common with Bush’s 2006 document. The differences are more nuanced than dramatic, so says the CDI, a left wing think tank. Gore supposedly supported the 1996 doc since he was the number 2 man in that administration. His strident mocking of Bush is yet another flip in that flopper’s storied political career.”

    This is really a non-sequitor. The overall tone of the 2006 policy is significantly more different than the tone of the 1996 document. You can do word counts and see how often things are mentioned or not mentioned in each document. The fact that the 1996 document was virtually ignored, and the 2006 document provoked much negative reaction, indicates some significant differences between them.

    That doesn’t prove that China launched an ASAT because of the document–an absurd claim, certainly–but the differences are clear and cannot be denied.

  • Keith Cowing

    Whittington Well, we have Gore’s record during the Clinton Administration to surmise his views on space policy.

    Yes we do: a strong interest in space and Earth science.

  • MarkWhittington

    Keith – Half right. There is no evidence I know of that Gore was responsible for any new space initiatives of any value. We do know about the gutting of NASA’s budget, bad decisions surrounding the (re)design of ISS, and a generally hostile additude at the space agency toward commercial space during those years.One can argue how much responsibility Gore had for that state of affairs. It is incontrivertible that he did nothing to stop it.

    It is debatable, considering the shoddy psuedoscience that has come out of An Inconvenient Truth, how much Gore even knows about Earth science. He was, of course, the originator of what would have been the world’s most expensive computer wall paper, the Triana, which would have beemed a picture of the Earth to every desk top that cared to recieve it. Despite NASA’s rather heroic efforts to try to make the boondoggle worth something, it was thankfully deep sixed.

    One cannot judge Gore’s effect on space as anything less than a disaster..

  • Keith Cowing

    Poor Mark. His hatred of Democrats runs soooo deep. I am beginning to think he got beat up by a liberal bully when he was a kid ….

  • Thomas Matula

    Mark,

    Triana is not deep sixed. It is sitting in storage in Goddard waiting for someone to pay to launch it. As far as I know its still there.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010715-sat.htm

  • Ferris Valyn

    Actually, there was commerical interests at this years ISDC that talked about using Triana

  • anonymous

    I’m not necessarily a Gore or even always a Democratic supporter, but Mr. Whittington’s statements are so out-of-touch with the historical facts and so full of hyperbole that I’m compelled to inject some reality back into this discussion.

    “There is no evidence I know of that Gore was responsible for any new space initiatives of any value.”

    At a minimum, the Clinton/Gore Administration gets credit for starting and funding:

    — The reconstruction of the Mars program, including the twin Spirit/Opportunity rovers at Mars today, after the failure of the Mars Observer mission (which was inherited from NASA under the Bush Administration);
    — The highly successful Discovery Program of competed planetary missions, including the Lunar Prospector, NEAR, Stardust, Genesis missions (among others).
    — The Origins extrasolar planet-hunting program, including the Webb (Next Generation) Space Telescope that will succeed Hubble.
    — The Solar-Terrestrial Probes Program, including the STEREO mission.

    Gore or his staff were involved in the budget decisions that kicked off all of these programs. To claim that Gore was not responsible for “any new space initiatives of any value” is a fatuous statement.

    It should also be pointed out that Clinton/Gore did more than just fund budget initiatives. Important NASA management reforms were enacted. For example, it was under Clinton/Gore that “battlestar galactica” missions inherited from NASA under the Bush Administration, particularly in Earth science, were brought under control.

    “We do know about the gutting of NASA’s budget”

    There was no “gutting” of the NASA budget during the Clinton/Gore Administration.

    First, the NASA budget remained flat at approximately $14 billion per year through that period, a period during which we fiscal conservatives should be reminded that the overall federal budget deficit was erased for the first time in decades.

    Second, the flattening of NASA’s budget actually started towards the end of the Bush I Administration.

    Third, there were periods (e.g., FY 1995-97) when the NASA budget was rising under the Clinton/Gore Administration.

    Certainly the NASA budget did not grow under Clinton/Gore like it did during the first half of the Apollo Program. But neither did NASA see the sort of large budget decline under Clinton/Gore that it saw during the Johnson and Nixon Administrations (which arguably is the only actual “gutting” that the overall NASA budget has ever experienced). To claim that Clinton/Gore “gutted” the NASA budget is disingenuous hyperbole at its worst.

    “bad decisions surrounding the (re)design of ISS,”

    It’s not specified what is meant here by “bad decisions”. But assuming it’s the usual Russian-critical-path-cooperation-is-bad argument, that logic has long ceased holding water. Even setting aside the fact that the bringing the Russians into the partnership arguably saved the space station from legislative cancellation, it’s undeniable that Russian participation saved the program from technical failure after the loss of Columbia.

    It’s also worth pointing out that the main reason that the Clinton Administration even considered an ISS redesign was because NASA, under the Bush I Administration, had let the Freedom design and its development costs run out of control.

    “a generally hostile additude… toward commercial space during those years”

    I’m mystified that these made-up claims about a Clinton/Gore “hostile additude [sic]” towards commercial space are appearing today when these same claims were disproven in the Clinton space policy thread on this very website just yesterday. But for the sake of repetition, here are some of the commercial space-friendly actions undertaken by the Clinton/Gore Administration:

    — Start and funding of the Alternative Access program (which support from White House staff was actually critical to).

    — ISS commercial transport studies let with “newspace” companies like Kistler, Andrews, HMX, and Microcosm (long before the term “newspace” existed).

    — Funding of a multi-hundred million Kistler flight demonstration contract.

    Heck, one of Gore’s senior aides from those years is even a trustee of the X PRIZE Foundation, and Gore has spoken at X PRIZE space events! How much more friendly towards commercial space can Gore get?

    Although no doubt there was (and still is) huge resistance in NASA’s human space flight management and workforce to commercial solutions, none of the actual evidence squares with made-up accusations about a “hostile additude [sic]” at the Clinton/Gore White House towards commercial space activities. Such a statement is pure fabrication.

    “He was, of course, the originator of what would have been the world’s most expensive computer wall paper, the Triana, which would have beemed a picture of the Earth to every desk top that cared to recieve it.”

    Triana was and is not the government’s highest priority Earth science mission. But the data it would have “beemed [sic]” back to Earth would have carried value well beyond that of a screensaver. At a minimum, Triana would have provided unique data on global trends in remote sensing data, putting in context the data we get from all other remote sensing satellites, and would have provided an early warning for solar storms. To say that Triana would have only produced “computer wall paper” is an major mischaracterization.

    “One cannot judge Gore’s effect on space as anything less than a disaster..”

    X-33, which Gore helped roll out, was no doubt a failure of program formulation and procurement selection.

    But to claim that Gore’s impact on civil space was a “disaster” – when in fact the Clinton/Gore Administration saved and fixed a broken space station program, started and funded commercial space transportation programs and companies, and initiated and fixed a long list of highly successful space and Earth science missions – is utterly unjustified. I’d apologize for such a blatant and unsubstantiated statement.

  • anonymous

    “Whether this is a real problem or noise is unknown, much like the debate about global warming.”

    “It is debatable, considering the shoddy psuedoscience that has come out of An Inconvenient Truth, how much Gore even knows about Earth science.”

    I apologize if I sound like a thread cop, but could we please stop with the Gore/bad science global warming conspiracies? The fact that the Bush White House, of all institutions, is now making international calls for carbon limits should be a clue-by-four to even the most recalcitrant that good science has proven that the phenomenon is real and anthropomorphic in origin.

    It’s fine if folks prefer to engage in faith-based environmental policy debates, but please do it on an environmental or global warming blog. The subject wasn’t even brought up in Mr. Foust’s original post for this thread, and it’s a total non-sequitur for space policy.

    Thanks for your consideration.

  • Is Gore on record saying anything about the VSE?

  • …assuming it’s the usual Russian-critical-path-cooperation-is-bad argument, that logic has long ceased holding water. Even setting aside the fact that the bringing the Russians into the partnership arguably saved the space station from legislative cancellation…

    You say that like it’s a good thing. While many of your points are well taken (the Clinton/Gore administration was clearly a mixed bag when it came to space, but was no worse than any other, given how unimportant space is, politically), X-33 was a monumental disaster, the effects of which we still live with. Reusability is only now starting to become respectable again (at least in the investment community, if not within NASA). X-33 probably set us back a decade in terms of (false and illogical) public (and industry) perception about it.

  • Al Fansome

    ANONYMOUS: Heck, one of Gore’s senior aides from those years is even a trustee of the X PRIZE Foundation, and Gore has spoken at X PRIZE space events! How much more friendly towards commercial space can Gore get?

    Anonymous,

    One of the problems is that the Xprize Foundation has only released a short clipe of Gore’s inflammatory attack on the Bush Administration’s space policy. According to this link (where others engaged in Gore bashing):
    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/10/25/gore-on-space-policy-and-commercialization/
    Gore reportedly said something positive about commercial space.

    If the claims are true, I think the Xprize would have released the video by now of the “pro-commercial” statements by Gore. I am starting to think the reports are wrong.

    – Al

    PS — FWIW, I consider Gore to be a mixed bag, at best. First, I don’t blame Gore for the failure of the X-33 … that failure was created by MSFC who does not know how to do x-vehicles. But Gore did cause the Military Spaceplane and Clementine II programs to be line item vetoed, and (more broadly) Gore adopted the policy that the DoD would not be allowed to do any RLV work. If he really did personally intervene in helping commercial companies, such as causing MSFC to give some tech money to them, it was not apparant to me.

  • Keith Cowing

    Mark Whittington dumps on Gore because he dumps on Democrats – all Democrats. Mark is incapable of looking at facts. Nor is he willing to. He must make a wonderful space analyst for whoever it is that pays him to do so.

  • Anon

    Anaxagoras: “Is Gore on record saying anything about the VSE?”

    Mr. Gore was actually asked a question from the audience, at the Xprize Executive Summit, about his opinion of the VSE. Gore stated *something* like “I am too angry with the Bush Administration to say anything good about them” or “I know this crowd probably likes the VSE … but I should not say anything … I am too angry with the Bush Administration.”

    Unfortunately, my memory is failing. Too bad the Xprize Foundation has not released the tape, or at least relevant excerpts.

    I am a little surprised at this, considering Xprize’s support for commercial space. I thought they would have understood the importance, and taken the time. It is also would be a great marketing device, assuming they want to do another Xprize Executive Summit.

    – Anon

  • anonymous

    “You say that like it’s a good thing.”

    Actually, I’m with you there, Mr. Simberg. In the absence of Clinton/Gore picking Option C (the Big Can) or the emergence of another rapidly deployable alternative, the best thing that could have happened to the space station program was its cancellation.

    (It’s sick, but I found part of myself hoping that the ISS would not be able to regain independent attitude control a few days ago. I have the same feelings whenever a hurricane comes close to KSC or during Shuttle launches. I don’t want anyone to get hurt, but sometimes the devil in me wishes that something would put the human space flight program out of its misery and let NASA start with a clean slate.)

    But for the sake of argument with someone that supports the space station program but criticizes the Clinton redesign, the point about the Ruskies saving the program legislatively (and, later, technically) stands.

    “the Clinton/Gore administration was clearly a mixed bag when it came to space, but was no worse than any other, given how unimportant space is, politically”

    I agree. There’s no overall black or white when assessing the civil space performance of various White Houses.

    “X-33 was a monumental disaster, the effects of which we still live with. Reusability is only now starting to become respectable again”

    As I wrote in the earlier post, X-33 was a failure from both a program formulation point-of-view (no clarity on whether it should be a tech demonstrator or an STS replacement) and procurement strategy point-of-view (all eggs in one basket and selection of the riskiest technical path). Although Gore certainly rolled out X-33, I’d argue that all of the procurement strategy failure and most of the program formulation failure falls at Goldin’s feet. (Of course, I’d also give Goldin kudos in the space and Earth science programs. He’s the one that pushed for the twin Mars rovers, for example.)

    I’m agnostic on the reusability debate. But it’s sad to note that NASA under the Bush Administration is essentially repeating the X-33’s procurement failure by betting so much on Ares I (nearly all eggs in one basket), not using existing LVs (riskier technical path), and reducing Shuttle heritage in the design to near the vanishing point (riskiest technical path).

  • anonymous

    “First, I don’t blame Gore for the failure of the X-33 … that failure was created by MSFC who does not know how to do x-vehicles.”

    I agree for the most part, but White House staff (Gore’s or others) should have put the brakes on X-33 early on and forced NASA to rethink and get some clarity on exactly what it was the agency wanted out of that program.

    “But Gore did cause the Military Spaceplane and Clementine II programs to be line item vetoed, and (more broadly) Gore adopted the policy that the DoD would not be allowed to do any RLV work.”

    I know RLV advocates knock Clinton/Gore for this, but that decision was made on the basis of issues that were much bigger than which agency would do a better job developing RLV technology. The ALS and NLS too-many-agency-cooks-spoiling-the-soup failures were fresh at the time, and EELV needed to work technically or many of the nation’s future national security payloads were going to be up the launch creek without a paddle. Hence the decision to split responsibilities and have DoD focus on EELV. It was a practical decision, not a decision made on the basis of space weapons theory or a knock against RLVs.

    “If he really did personally intervene in helping commercial companies, such as causing MSFC to give some tech money to them, it was not apparant to me.”

    It is doubtful that Gore personally pressured Goldin to start Alternate Access or fund the Kistler flight demo. But pressure from White House staff under Clinton/Gore was critical to forcing NASA to start Alternate Access, and Gore or his political appointees had to sign off on annual budget decisions to fund Alternate Access and the SLI program from which the Kistler flight demo was funded.

  • One other bad space policy decision that came from Clinton/Gore (I think as part of the “streamlining government” stuff) was putting the former Office of Commercial Space Transportation within the FAA. While FAA-AST has been doing some good things, it’s despite the fact that it has an extra bureaucratic layer between it and the SecDOT, not because of it. And while it’s won the battle for now, it also made it more difficult for it to argue for allowing passengers to fly at their own risk, since (after the Valuejet crash) the agency overall had its charter changed to promote passenger safety first and foremost, rather than the more traditional dual charter of safety and promotion of the industry. I hope that a new president will reverse this, and restore AST to its former office of OCST, disentangling it from FAA politics and giving it greater political clout.

    Oh, and as to X-33 being a Marshall screw up, of course it was, but the buck has to stop somewhere. The overall strategy was a national space transportation strategy, and it was above both Marshall’s and even NASA HQ’s pay grade. It was a decision made in the White House.

  • Allen Thomson

    > all eggs in one basket and selection of the riskiest technical path

    Which reminds me of the Future Imagery Architecture, another megadebacle in the space world. I know of no indications that the White House was in any involved in the lamentable selections the NRO made in the late 1990s, but has anybody heard whether FIA matters ever got discussed at or above the NSC level?

    Just wonderin’.

  • It was a decision made in the White House.

    Ah yes ,,, if we only knew then what we know now.

    The current white house was a decision made by you, the American public.

    You made your bed, and now you have to sleep in it.

    It’s time to throw that bed out on the curb.

    I’m always amazed at the lengths apologists go to justify what is easily the most incompetent, corrupt and indeed criminal administration is US history.

  • Anonymous, just a quick vote of thanks for your own defense of reason in this and other recent threads. Even when I disagree with you, it is very good to see someone taking a relatively even-handed, relatively apolitical point-of-view. The nation needs a lot more analysts (or whatever it is you do in your day job) similar to you.

    — Donald

  • Anonymous,

    While as usual I agree with most of what you say, I really must chuckle at a couple of your points, specifically the Gore roll-out of X-33 and the “Gore staff” decision to start AAS and fund the new space participation in the Space Transportation Architecture Studies.

    Some historical facts that may be of interest:

    1) a memo was written to two Gore OSTP professionals in early spring 2006 from “a staffer to a potted plant”, a reference to Gore’s dismissive attack on House Republicans on the Science Committee, laying out the political benefits to Gore of personally announcing the X-33 selection

    2) that same Hill staffer explained to the senior OMB staffer who created STAS (and separately to Dan Goldin) that it was a waste to just fund Boeing and Lockheed, and instead it should be thrown open to others, which is what gave Kelly the chance to provide real value on smaller vehicles that were commercially affordable, and Orbital (led by one Mike Griffin) to offer the Space Taxi and show how EELVs could launch people, and later expanded to give HMX, Kistler, and others contracts.

    3) that same Hill staffer provided copies of the enacted Commercial Space Act of 1998, including provisions on federal purchase of a broader range of space transportation services (not just launch), to that same OMB manager and his staff, arguing that it was possible to start buying commercially *now*, which is what led to their creation of AAS

    In short, Anonymous, I was there. A Republican Hill staffer convinced political and non-political staff in the Executive Office of the President to do some good things.

    Isn’t bipartisanship wonderful?

  • anonymous

    “Which reminds me of the Future Imagery Architecture, another megadebacle in the space world. I know of no indications that the White House was in any involved in the lamentable selections the NRO made in the late 1990s, but has anybody heard whether FIA matters ever got discussed at or above the NSC level?”

    Given that we’re talking about NRO and various levels of black programs, I doubt anyone can answer your question definitively. But at a minimum, we could extrapolate from EELV decisions, which Clinton/Gore staffers were involved in, that they were involved in FIA, too. At a minimum, the budget would have flowed through OMB. OSTP was involved in EELV, so it’s also reasonable to assume they and NSC played a role in FIA, too. Whether anyone in these offices had the necessary space optics background to second-guess the NRO decisions is hard to say.

    FWIW… sorry there’s not more.

  • anonymous

    “Anonymous, just a quick vote of thanks for your own defense of reason in this and other recent threads. Even when I disagree with you, it is very good to see someone taking a relatively even-handed, relatively apolitical point-of-view. The nation needs a lot more analysts (or whatever it is you do in your day job) similar to you.”

    Thanks, Mr. Robertson. For the most part, civil space issues have not been politicized, even by our nation’s legislators. So there’s little reason for us to engage in political hyperbole on a forum like this, and even less to let clearly false and politically driven statements stand. Thanks to a job change a few years back, I’m no longer in a position to help NASA much directly. But I still hold a strong interest in civil space policy (obviously) and can hopefully contribute positively to the discussion here and elsewhere.

    FWIW…

  • richardb

    I too would like to tip my hat to anonymous’s challenging contributions.
    But back to business, I may be a knuckle dragging neanderthal, but I do have cave-mates as this article from a Canadian papers shows.
    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

    Everyone on this forum have concluded that global warming because of man made emissions is a fact. Here’s a quote from this article that I think everyone that has settled the argument should read:

    “In some fields the science is indeed “settled.” For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.”

    I see Al Gore has an opportunist thriving in a Cassandra role to great effect in marshaling cash and publicity for the Global Warming crisis that can only be solved by “courageous” politicians.

  • Al Fansome

    FANSOME said: But Gore did cause the Military Spaceplane and Clementine II programs to be line item vetoed, and (more broadly) Gore adopted the policy that the DoD would not be allowed to do any RLV work.

    ANONYMOUS then said: I know RLV advocates knock Clinton/Gore for this, but that decision was made on the basis of issues that were much bigger than which agency would do a better job developing RLV technology. The ALS and NLS too-many-agency-cooks-spoiling-the-soup failures were fresh at the time, and EELV needed to work technically or many of the nation’s future national security payloads were going to be up the launch creek without a paddle. Hence the decision to split responsibilities and have DoD focus on EELV. It was a practical decision, not a decision made on the basis of space weapons theory or a knock against RLVs.”

    Anonymous,

    I am sure there were many participants in this decision, that there was no monolithich reason, and that many of them were of a “practical nature”. I hope you are correct, in fact my gut tells me you are, and that the large majority of decision-makers came at this from a practical perspective.

    However, I am not persuaded that is where Gore is coming from. He did not need to recommend a line item veto of Clementine II in order to stop RLV technology in the DoD. That was clearly a “weapons in space” based decision.

    Please note Gore’s recent anti-weapons-in-space statements (including at the Xprize Cup Summit). As Mr. Foust stated when he started this thread, the only thing Gore says in his recent book about space is related to Chinese ASATs and an attack on the Bush space policy.

    Mr. Gore clearly is coming at this from an ideological perspective, as opposed to a practical perspective. That is OK, but we should not confuse ourselves on where Gore is coming from.

    FANSOME: “If he really did personally intervene in helping commercial companies, such as causing MSFC to give some tech money to them, it was not apparant to me.”

    ANONYMOUS: It is doubtful that Gore personally pressured Goldin to start Alternate Access or fund the Kistler flight demo. But pressure from White House staff under Clinton/Gore was critical to forcing NASA to start Alternate Access, and Gore or his political appointees had to sign off on annual budget decisions to fund Alternate Access and the SLI program from which the Kistler flight demo was funded.

    I give huge credit, and kudos, to the key people in the WH staff under Clinton/Gore, most specifically Steve Isakowitz and his team, for making NASA do the right thing in creating AAS. There were also some really good people in the early part of the Bush Administration (Brett Alexander comes to mind) who were also willing to insert commercial into the VSE (I am pretty sure that did not come from NASA) and to fund the ISS crew/cargo services line item as part of the VSE announcement..

    My position is that we were kind of lucky to have people in either WH who cared about commercial space, and that it could as well have been people who put much less importance on creating a commercial space industry in this country. What is going on today is illustrative. Both Isakowitz, and Alexander are gone, and the current WH staff appears to be copacetic (or maybe the correct word is “resigned”) to let Dr. Griffin & company do whatever they want to do.

    That said, this thread started as a discussion on Al Gore’s views on space policy, not the views & actions of some good people well below him that we were lucky to have.

    Considering, that we don’t get to vote for OSTP and OMB staffers, and we do get to vote for candidates for POTUS, what should we do?

    Considering that whoever becomes President is not likely to make space a high national priority, what do we do?

    Maybe this can (and should) be about more than “luck”. Maybe commercial space advocates should stop trying to read the tea leaves about who would make a good “space President”, and start insinuating ourselves into all of the leading campaigns to later influence who national space policy at the operational level?

    Hey, isn’t that what Garver, Muncy and others are already doing?

    (FINAL NOTE: I think those who attack Garver, Muncy, et al. for their work along these lines are doing us all a GREAT disservice.)

    – Al

  • Al, while there is probably very little outside of space that I agree with Mr. Muncy on — I met and worked and talked with him a number of times when we were all a whole lot younger — to the best of my knowledge, I think he has done an outstanding service for spaceflight. While I probably do agree with a lot of Ms. Garver’s politics (I’ve only met her once and have never seriously talked with her), again, to the best of my knowledge she has done a great job in supporting spaceflight. As Anonymous said above, spaceflight in the broadest sense is, and should be, largely apolitical.

    Mr. Gore clearly is coming at this from an ideological perspective, as opposed to a practical perspective.

    Without picking a side (I’m actually somewhere in the middle on this debate), why is it that trying to control weapons in space is “ideological” while no or limited controls is “a practical perspective?” As China has recently demonstration, a case could be made for either route being practical, and in fact both reflect ideologies. There is nothing wrong with that, but we should recognize that both positions may have practical advantages and disadvantages that cannot be entirely quantified at this point in time, and both positions are ideological positions.

    My position is that we were kind of lucky to have people in either WH who cared about commercial space,

    Without disagreeing with you at all (except maybe to replace “kind of” with “very”!), I have argued before that this is inevitable. We have a new and younger generation of leaders. Unlike earlier generations of leaders and their staffs (and even the wider bureaucracy), the current individuals grew up with science fiction and it’s pro-space propaganda, and the later reality of spaceflight, as part of the background noise. For many people in power today, throughout the world, I suspect that spaceflight in its broadest sense is not something to be for or against, but just one other set of activities that a great nation (or a would-be great nation) undertakes, priorities to be balanced with all the competing priorities. In that cultural environment, there will always be some level of support for spaceflight, and even human spaceflight — which is why a complete retreat from human spaceflight is extremely unlikely whoever is in power. Even as recently as when the current President Bush was elected, that probably was not the case.

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    FANSOME said: Mr. Gore clearly is coming at this from an ideological perspective, as opposed to a practical perspective.

    ROBERTSON then said: Without picking a side (I’m actually somewhere in the middle on this debate), why is it that trying to control weapons in space is “ideological” while no or limited controls is “a practical perspective?”

    Donald,

    To clarify — those are both ideological perspectives. It is fine to have an ideological perspective. I was not knocking ideology per se … I have ideological perspectives on many things. I was just responding to Anonymous assertion that the WH/DoD in the Clinton Administration supported eliminating all RLV investments in the DoD based on a “practical” perspective. Specifically, our friend said: The ALS and NLS too-many-agency-cooks-spoiling-the-soup failures were fresh at the time, and EELV needed to work technically or many of the nation’s future national security payloads were going to be up the launch creek without a paddle. Hence the decision to split responsibilities and have DoD focus on EELV. It was a practical decision,

    FANSOME said: My position is that we were kind of lucky to have people in either WH who cared about commercial space,

    ROBERTSON then said: Without disagreeing with you at all (except maybe to replace “kind of” with “very”!),

    By saying “very lucky”, I felt I would take away from the hard work of those who acted to get the Isakowitz’ and Alexander’s of the world into such positions, and those who persuaded them to adopt such policies. But Thomas Jefferson probably reconciles both views, “The harder I work, the luckier I get.” Call it “very lucky” but there was some hard work on this issue by those involved.

    ROBERTSON: I have argued before that this is inevitable. We have a new and younger generation of leaders. Unlike earlier generations of leaders and their staffs (and even the wider bureaucracy), the current individuals grew up with science fiction and it’s pro-space propaganda, and the later reality of spaceflight, as part of the background noise. For many people in power today, throughout the world, I suspect that spaceflight in its broadest sense is not something to be for or against, but just one other set of activities that a great nation (or a would-be great nation) undertakes, priorities to be balanced with all the competing priorities. In that cultural environment, there will always be some level of support for spaceflight, and even human spaceflight — which is why a complete retreat from human spaceflight is extremely unlikely whoever is in power.

    Donald, I completely agree with you, which is why I see no harm in killing off ESAS, and much to gain. The Phoenix of human spaceflight will be reborn from the ashes, and this time it is likely to be much better. In fact, to the extent that politicians just unthinkingly throw their support behind a government-led effort to “eliminate/reduce the gap in human spaceflight”, we will find it much harder to get them to think about consider other options and think about “What is the BEST way to eliminate/reduce the gap in human spaceflight?”

    – Al

  • Al: The Phoenix of human spaceflight will be reborn from the ashes, and this time it is likely to be much better.

    As ESAS gets into more and more apparent trouble, I’m more inclined to agree with those of you who believe this. However, while I think your first phrase is probably accurate (though nothwithstanding my earlier comment it does involve some risk), I see no reason whatsoever to expect the second phrase will prove true. The orginal VSE was the best of all probable worlds (in my opinion), and it’s corrupted version in ESAS is still potentially better than getting bogged down in technology-led play pens. In starting over, I am very worried that we will throw out the baby (a lunar base with current or near-current technology that can “pull” better technology by giving it a reason to exist) with the bathwater (Ares-1). Likewise, once your “better” plan is excepted, everyone whose plan was not selected will proceed to pick it appart and we’ll be right back where we’ve been ever since Apollo. I am getting increasingly torn by this, but I’m still inclined to believe (though “fear” might be a better word) that we’re better off trying to make the current plan work as far as it will go, rather than starting over — especially since we’re statistically unlikely to have as much high-level political support in the next Administration as we did in this one (driven by the loss of Columbia).

    While I think Dr. Griffin has proven to be a disaster, he did one thing exactly right. He picked a plan, ignored everyone trying to pick it apart, and stuck with it through thick and thin. Maybe (probably, in retrospect) he picked the wrong plan; but if we are to achieve our goals, someone with the right plan and that kind of tenacity is essential. The trouble is, I don’t think we’re likely to see it again for a while.

    Yes, my cultural inertia will keep the human space program going — but in LEO with the Space Station and successor facilities. That is no bad thing, as it provides a market for COTS-like projects. But it would have been nicer to have a market on the moon. . . .

    I fear we had our chance, we shot our wad . . . and it wasn’t enough.

    — Donald

  • Paul Dietz

    I think human spaceflight will rise from the ashes.

    Quite possibly not in this generation, though. Indeed, unless there’s a long enough fallow period for the existing dysfunctional manned space culture to be erased, through death or retirement of its carriers, the rebirth will likely be futile.

  • Paul, what about other cultures — China? India? Even a resurgent Russia? — to pick three that have the apparent cultural and ideological interest, the money, and the technological skills to send people into space?

    — Donald

  • …what about other cultures — China? India? Even a resurgent Russia?

    None of them will be able to rival a vibrant private space program in the US.

    Once capitalism finally starts to work, it doesn’t matter what the other state socialist space enterprises are doing.

  • I agree, Rand, but none of us will live to see a “capitalist” infrastructure without a lot of government help beyond Earth’s moon, and we’ll be lucky to see even that. It will happen, and it will probably be spectacularly vibrant, but we are still a long way from that being possible now.

    I know you won’t agree, but as someone who has studied the long-term ebb and flow of human cultures, I’ll stand by it until proven wrong by actions. If I live to see a private base on Earth’s moon, I’ll happily say I was wrong, but I don’t expect to have that opportunity. Capitalism, while a very important force in human affairs, has never been the only, or even the primary, driver, and it probably won’t be in the future.

    — Donald

  • I agree, Rand, but none of us will live to see a “capitalist” infrastructure without a lot of government help beyond Earth’s moon,

    Sorry, but I don’t see that as a tragedy, given how ineffectively the government spends money on human spaceflight.

    Capitalism, while a very important force in human affairs, has never been the only, or even the primary, driver, and it probably won’t be in the future.

    In other words, you missed that part of history called the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.

    There are two primary motivations for human progress–greed, and fear. The human space program, for the past half century, has been driven primarily by fear (despite all of the lofty and nonsensical language about exploration and science). It’s time to let (non-pork) greed have its day. I think you’ll be astonished at the rate of progress we make once we do so.

  • anonymous

    “He did not need to recommend a line item veto of Clementine II in order to stop RLV technology in the DoD. That was clearly a “weapons in space” based decision.”

    Not necessarily. For example, it might not have been Gore’s decision to begin with. The President wields the veto (line-item or otherwise), not the Veep.

    But even if we assume (and it’s not a bad assumption) that Gore or his people were part of the decision loop, it’s not obvious to me that the decision was made to prevent/stall a future space arms race.

    First, the Clinton/Gore White House was pursuing RLV technology at NASA. If a space arms race was in the front of their minds and they thought RLV technology was key to that, then they wouldn’t have pursued RLVs at all (or at least pursued RLVs via classified programs to minimize proliferation).

    Second, I doubt that a space arms race was in the front of their minds, nevertheless the RLV connection to space weapons deployment. In the wake of the Chinese ASAT test, we’re all highly sensitive to the topic today, but there was no such triggering event back then.

    Third, the argument ignores the much bigger picture, that this was the first time in history that any White House had been given line-item veto power. To preserve that power, the White House needed to show that it could effectively wield it, i.e., they needed to make an example of what are obviously bad (at least to average Joe) Congressional earmarks. It may be hard for us space cadets to understand, but an esoteric program to develop reusable rockets that the DoD didn’t request and that duplicates NASA efforts is a prime candidate for such line-item veto power, regardless of the actual value of the program. (Such is politics.)

    “Please note Gore’s recent anti-weapons-in-space statements (including at the Xprize Cup Summit). As Mr. Foust stated when he started this thread, the only thing Gore says in his recent book about space is related to Chinese ASATs and an attack on the Bush space policy.

    Mr. Gore clearly is coming at this from an ideological perspective, as opposed to a practical perspective.”

    No doubt we know where Gore is coming from today on space weaponization. I would just be careful not to project that back into an historical context where much bigger issues regarding the executive/legislative balance-of-power were at play.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous

    “There are two primary motivations for human progress–greed, and fear.”

    I think Mr. Simberg’s comment is especially insightful when the history of human exploration and colonization is examined. Erik the Red was escaping political persecution in Norway (fear). Columbus was seeking new trade route to the Indies (greed). Most other early New World explorers sought gold (greed). The Pilgrims were escaping religious persecution in England (fear). Jefferson wanted an economic inventory from Lewis and Clarke of the Louisiana Purchase (greed).

    Aside from the colonization of Australia by English convicts, I have a hard time finding an exception to this norm. What that means for human space exploration is a whole other discussion, but in the meantime, does anyone know of any other historical examples that deviate from this norm?

  • Al Fansome

    ANONYMOUS: Aside from the colonization of Australia by English convicts, I have a hard time finding an exception to this norm.

    Isn’t this fear by the people in England, who sent them there?

    – Al

  • Al Fansome

    FANSOME: “He did not need to recommend a line item veto of Clementine II in order to stop RLV technology in the DoD. That was clearly a “weapons in space” based decision.”

    ROBERTSON then said: Not necessarily. For example, it might not have been Gore’s decision to begin with. The President wields the veto (line-item or otherwise), not the Veep.

    Donald,

    I was not in the room, so I can not say definitively what happened, but I did talk to some of those directly affected. They specifically told me that Col. Michael Hamel, who was an aide to VP Al Gore, recommended vetoing the MSP and Clementine II programs. The VP then took that recommendation to the President.

    ROBERTSON: But even if we assume (and it’s not a bad assumption) that Gore or his people were part of the decision loop, it’s not obvious to me that the decision was made to prevent/stall a future space arms race.

    First, the Clinton/Gore White House was pursuing RLV technology at NASA.

    I re-read my original post, and I was unclear. I never meant to state or infer that pursuing RLV technology was linked to weapons-in-space. I meant to state that vetoing the Clementine II mission was linked to weapons-in-space. Clementine II was an asteroid mission that used the DoD’s version of the “faster, better, cheaper” philosophy, but it also happened to be a demonstrator of technology that was needed by the Brilliant Pebbles missile defense program.

    ROBERTSON: Third, the argument ignores the much bigger picture, that this was the first time in history that any White House had been given line-item veto power. To preserve that power, the White House needed to show that it could effectively wield it, i.e., they needed to make an example of what are obviously bad (at least to average Joe) Congressional earmarks.

    Donald,

    You are making my point for me.

    By picking this target, Clinton killed the line-item veto power (although he did not know it at the time). If he had done what you suggest, and made an example of an egregious congressional earmark (a bridge to nowhere, midnight basketball, etc.) I believe some form of line item veto would exist today.

    There were hundreds of examples of pure pork in the budget, that were expressly targeted at some members district, but Clinton did not cut any of those. Instead, Clinton line-item-vetoed two general space policy initiatives, which were NOT expressly set aside for a Members district. MSP and Clementine II were political initiatives with strong support by the leadership of the Republican Congress. In the same vein, Clinton’s veto was a political policy statement. It was not about “good government” cutting of pork.

    What happened next? The Supreme Court ruled THIS VERSION of the line item veto to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, since Clinton’s first use of the line-item-veto was to poke Congressional leadership in the eye — the same people who gave him the power in the first place — the leadership in Congress lost all interest in sending him a NEW VERSION of the line-item-veto authority that might be constitutional.

    And today we have a LOT more pork.

    – Al

  • Al Fansome

    MUNCY: 1) a memo was written to two Gore OSTP professionals in early spring 2006 from “a staffer to a potted plant”, a reference to Gore’s dismissive attack on House Republicans on the Science Committee, laying out the political benefits to Gore of personally announcing the X-33 selection

    I am pretty sure Mr. Muncy meant “early Spring 1996″, which is when he worked for then Chairman Rohrabacher, and when the X-33 was the hot thing of the day.

    It is interesting to see how many years it takes for successful bipartisan efforts to create a real program. This memo was in early 1996. The AAS program RFP came out in early 2002. COTS, which is the son of AAS, signed two agreements in the Fall of 2006.

    – Al

  • anonymous

    “ROBERTSON: Third, the argument ignores the much bigger picture, that this was the first time in history that any White House had been given line-item veto power. To preserve that power, the White House needed to show that it could effectively wield it, i.e., they needed to make an example of what are obviously bad (at least to average Joe) Congressional earmarks.

    Donald,

    You are making my point for me.”

    Actually, I wrote that post. Not Mr. Robertson.

    “There were hundreds of examples of pure pork in the budget, that were expressly targeted at some members district, but Clinton did not cut any of those. Instead, Clinton line-item-vetoed two general space policy initiatives, which were NOT expressly set aside for a Members district.”

    This statement is totally untrue. Clinton struck 38 projects totalling $287 million from the military construction bill alone. And some (probably most) were for projects in specific districts, including a wharf in Norfolk, a Florida naval station, and projects in Georgia and South Dakota that hit Gingrich and Daschle. See this old article:

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/10/06/line.item/

    And Clinton vetoed 13 projects totalling $144 million in the bill that Clementine II was in:

    http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/101497-press-briefing-by-raines-bell-hamre-on-the-line-item-veto.htm

    Things like an extension of the SR-71 program, something called the Gallow Center, and research into the use of off-the-shelf airguns as sonar sources were vetoed along with Clementine II in that bill.

    Clementine II was not singled out, by any means. And neither was “purer” pork overlooked. Not by a long shot. Contrary to your claim, the Clinton Administration was effectively wielding the line-item veto.

    “Unfortunately, since Clinton’s first use of the line-item-veto was to poke Congressional leadership in the eye — the same people who gave him the power in the first place — the leadership in Congress lost all interest in sending him a NEW VERSION of the line-item-veto authority that might be constitutional.”

    The older, Republican-controlled Congress may have lost interest in the line-item veto, but it wasn’t because Clinton was poking them in the eye. Both of the links above reference the criteria that the White House used to identify veto targets in the bill:

    1) The project wasn’t included in Clinton’s budget request;
    2) The project was not included in future years’ defense programming (or design work was incomplete for construction projects); and
    3) The project did not offer a “substantial contribution” to the welfare of U.S. troops

    It’s hard to see how using such fair and level criteria could be construed as “poking” certain congressmen or Congress in general in the eye. The Republican-controlled Congress may not have liked the pain that their line-item veto inflicted on them, but they can’t claim that the Administration was picking favorites or playing politics in how it exercised the line-item veto.

    Finally, I’d note that the second link does a very good job substantiating exactly why Clementine II did not meet the criteria set by the White House, particularly the second criterion, in this three paragraph rationale:

    “Now, proponents of the program [Clementine II] in Congress claim benefits for asteroid research; but this is the Defense budget, not the NASA budget. We believe the main application of this technology more logically would fit within the space-based missile defense mission area. Now, obviously, there is a lot of commonality between the scientific and technological challenge of detecting, tracking and intercepting an incoming asteroid and that of detecting, tracking and intercepting an incoming missile warhead. There are differences, to be sure, but the point I want to emphasize is that the proposed asteroid intercept tests have not yet been submitted to the Pentagon’s Compliance Review Group or to lawyers in the relevant national security agencies for any assessment of the compliance of such tests with the ABM Treaty.

    And equally important, our own development program within the Department of Defense for a possible national missile defense deployment option, an option which we believe could be exercised as soon as 2003, does not include space-based weapons in its architecture. Now, the Ballistic Missile Defense Office, BMDO, is carrying out some advanced R&D on possible space-based interceptor technologies involving both lasers and rockets. But that is the kind of very advanced research that is permitted under the ABM Treaty.

    So, in summary, the Clementine II program is not needed; it’s not in budget, it’s not in our future budget; and, we are already conducting advanced research in some related missile defense areas.”

    So we had it partly right — there were much larger issues at stake. But they weren’t issues related to the first historic use of line-item veto power. Rather, they had to do with ABM Treaty compliance and programmatic choices about pursuing ground- versus space-based missile defense. We could argue about the treaty and which missile defense architecture makes more sense. But the point is that based on the bigger White hosue decisions to stick to the ABM Treaty, avoid space-based interceptors, and pursue ground-based defense, Clementine II was a dead end. It was a rational decision.

    Finally, getting back to the ASAT issue, the rest of that link is interesting because there’s also an extensive defense of a line-item veto of an ASAT development project, particularly this two-paragraph passage:

    “We simply do not believe that this ASAT capability is required, at least based on the threat as it now exists and is projected to evolve over the next decade or two.

    To be sure, there are potential adversaries such as North Korea or Iraq which could try to employ space-based assets against our forces in a possible war, including for communications, navigation, targeting or surveillance missions. But we are confident that alternatives exist to negate or disrupt such efforts, including destroying ground stations linked to the satellite or jamming the links themselves.”

    This was written almost a decade before the Chinese ASAT test. Wild, huh?

    FWIW…

  • anonymous

    “While as usual I agree with most of what you say, I really must chuckle at a couple of your points, specifically the Gore roll-out of X-33 and the “Gore staff” decision to start AAS and fund the new space participation in the Space Transportation Architecture Studies.”

    To be clear, I wasn’t claiming that AAS or the Kistler contract sprang full-born from Gore’s head or the heads of any of his OVP staffers. No doubt Mr. Muncy and other folks contributed heavily to the policy brew that led to the funding of those programs/projects.

    I was just pointing out that, contrary to Mr. Whittington’s claims about a hostile environment towards commercial space under Clinton/Gore, the Clinton/Gore White House actually did fund a number of commercial space initiatives, and by virtue of the White House budget process, Gore or his folks would have signed off on those initiatives.

    FWIW…

  • Rand: There are two primary motivations for human progress–greed, and fear. The human space program, for the past half century, has been driven primarily by fear (despite all of the lofty and nonsensical language about exploration and science).

    Anonymous: Erik the Red was escaping political persecution in Norway (fear). Columbus was seeking new trade route to the Indies (greed). Most other early New World explorers sought gold (greed). The Pilgrims were escaping religious persecution in England (fear). Jefferson wanted an economic inventory from Lewis and Clarke of the Louisiana Purchase (greed).

    I pretty much agree with this. Unfortunately, we aren’t there yet — except for suborbital and probably orbital tourism. And, indeed, we’re beginning to see greed (Soyuz tourist flights, Virgin Galactic, et al) have an increasingly large role. However, weren’t Lewis and Clarke government funded? And, weren’t the others using derivitives from already-developed military ships? These capabilities were not pioneered by “capitalists,” at least not by themselves; they were developed by militaries of the time and then used by capitalists.

    And, anyway Anonymous, if you really believe that, why do you support wasting our money on all this scientific nonesense? Lets just subsidize greed and fear (like we do with, say, the oil companies) and, if they can, let those folks take us out into the Solar System. . . .

    — Donald

  • Rand: you missed that part of history called the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution

    The Industrial Revolution involved little organizations like the British East India Company, as well as “capitalists.” We needed both then and we need both now.

    — Donald

  • anonymous

    “Isn’t this fear by the people in England, who sent them there?”

    Fair point.

    “However, weren’t Lewis and Clarke government funded? And, weren’t the others using derivitives from already-developed military ships? These capabilities were not pioneered by “capitalists,” at least not by themselves; they were developed by militaries of the time and then used by capitalists.”

    I’m just exploring the abstract rationales for human exploration and colonization in history. I’m not arguing models of implementation such as government versus private funding.

    “And, anyway Anonymous, if you really believe that, why do you support wasting our money on all this scientific nonesense? Lets just subsidize greed and fear (like we do with, say, the oil companies) and, if they can, let those folks take us out into the Solar System. . . .”

    Again, I’m not making an argument or expressing belief. Just making and testing an observation about the rationales and justifications for human exploration.

    But speaking of the science missions, an historical analogy there is probably arctic exploration. I wonder to what extent human exploration of the arctic (or antarctic) was driven by fear (Nation X will beat us there) or greed (win individual fame and fortune) versus pure scientific curiousity (like the Voyage of the Beagle).

    Hrmmm… it would be interesting to classify all these historical example and their rationales in a rigorous, academic paper and see if there’s not some lesson for space exploration.

  • Anonymous: But speaking of the science missions, an historical analogy there is probably arctic exploration. I wonder to what extent human exploration of the arctic (or antarctic) was driven by fear (Nation X will beat us there) or greed (win individual fame and fortune) versus pure scientific curiousity (like the Voyage of the Beagle).

    I’ve read speculation that Ms. Thatcher defended the Fauklands as the best logistics base should Antactica ever be opened to resource exploitation, and she didn’t want Argentina (or anyone but Britain) to have control over it (a complex mess of greed and fear!).

    Regarding the Beagle, just how purely scientific was that mission? I thought the primary intent was measuring the oceans to produce better maps for the British Navy (fear).

    I think truly pure science for its own sake is very rare, and the United States probably does more of it than any society before ours. But, even in the case of our own planetary missions, their budget is tiny compared to the budget for developing the transportation they use — which was developed for far less than pure reasons!

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    FANSOME: “There were hundreds of examples of pure pork in the budget, that were expressly targeted at some members district, but Clinton did not cut any of those. Instead, Clinton line-item-vetoed two general space policy initiatives, which were NOT expressly set aside for a Members district.”

    ANONYMOUS: This statement is totally untrue. Clinton struck 38 projects totalling $287 million from the military construction bill alone. And some (probably most) were for projects in specific districts, including a wharf in Norfolk, a Florida naval station, and projects in Georgia and South Dakota that hit Gingrich and Daschle.

    Anonymous,

    You got me.

    Much of what I said was based on an incorrect set of facts. Thanks for the sources.

    If you will permit, I want to highlight one statement from
    http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy/101497-press-briefing-by-raines-bell-hamre-on-the-line-item-veto.htm

    The next project is a $10-million project for a Military Spaceplane. It would have provided research funds for hypersonic technologies and is intended to complement a NASA program. However, the Department of Defense — this does not meet a Department of Defense requirement and, therefore, it is being cancelled by the President today.

    To be more accurate, it did not meet an “OFFICIAL” DoD requirement. Congress adding $10 million for “military spaceplane technology” was an example of Congress have a different opinion about DoD requirements … it was not about pork. You have argued, pretty persuasively, that the DoD had reason to not want to get into RLVs, as they were wrapped around the axle on ALS/NLS/EELV. I will give you that, but I still think that this a little too apologetic.

    We can and should invest in mainline near-term systems, while also putting some seed-corn into next generation breakthrough technologies. The DoD should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The historical statement justifying the line-item-veto of the MSP tech line item says much about the vision of the DoD leadership (e.g. Hamre) at that time as anything else.

    – Al

Leave a Reply to Anon Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>