According to a report on SpaceRef, Hillary Clinton will give a speech this morning about her proposed science policy, which may include some discussion of space policy. (The speech is taking place on the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, so it would take some effort to ignore it.) The speech will be at the Carnegie Institute of Washington at 8:45 am this morning (and all the spaces in the auditorium there have been reserved); no word if the speech will be broadcast or webcast.
Update: according to CNN, “Clinton will guarantee to execute ‘a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities.'” That doesn’t sound too surprising.
Press release here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23711
For a space cadet like myself, it’s impressive to see NASA activities take up three out of 14 bullets in a Presidential candidate’s S&T platform, especially this early in the race.
What’s perhaps a little disappointing for a space cadet like myself is the lack of any explicit reference to human space exploration or human space exploration targets (e.g., Moon, NEOs, Mars, etc.) in the press release, which only mentions “human space flight”. We can probably read into that one of two things.
At one extreme, the lack of any explicit reference to the VSE, human space exploration, or the human lunar return effort may indicate that Clinton plans to terminate NASA’s human lunar return activities and redirect the funds elsewhere. Regardless of candidate bias for or against human space exploration, given NASA’s poor performance in this area under the ESAS implementation plan and Griffin, it would not be surprising for a Presidential campaign to see the human lunar return effort as a liability at this point, especially given arguably higher national priorities both within and outside NASA’s budget. The press release articulates a “balanced strategy” that includes “expanded robotic spaceflight”, “enhanced space science activities”, a “comprehensive space-based Earth Sciences agenda”, and “American leadership in aeronautics”. Presumably the funding for these things would come from the unmentioned human lunar return effort.
Less extreme, it could also be read as an indication that the Clinton campaign has simply not assessed the human lunar return effort to date, and is not in a position to either explicitely endorse or reject the VSE, human space exploration, and/or the human lunar return effort at this point. At a minimum, Clinton clearly plans some redistribution of NASA’s budget and resources, but that may not necessarily equate with the termination of the human lunar return effort or the forbiddance of any human space exploration effort during Clinton II. Rather, if Clinton becomes President, NASA may still have an opportunity, under a new Administrator, to come back to the White House with a more affordable, timely, effective, and sustainable human space exploration plan.
Personally, I hope for the latter, but the realist in me expects the former.
We’re probably not so lucky, but it would be great if someone who saw the speech live could provide commentary. I don’t know if there was any Q&A, but even if not, there may have been nuggets in Clinton’s speech that were not reflected in the press release.
FWIW…
One other observation…
Even setting aside the question of human space exploration, no explicit reference is made in the press release to the Space Shuttle or its replacement or to the ISS, which, aside from the press release’s use of the adjective “robust”, obviously leaves a lot of open questions about the form and shape of a Clinton II human space flight program.
It’s obviously not surprising that the press release didn’t get into human space flight details. It doesn’t do the campaign any good to do so, and they most certainly lack the information necessary to make such detailed recommendations in any case.
That said, I yearn for a campaign commitment to see Shuttle’s shut-down through. I worry that one or more candidates will commit to flying Shuttle for longer in an effort to appease voters in a couple battleground states, and hang that albatross around NASA’s neck at great cost for some number of more years.
I also yearn for a statement that everything is on the table with respect to what replaces Shuttle. Given Ares I/Orion’s safety and schedule issues, Ares I’s duplication of existing national launch capabilities at great cost to the taxpayer, the emergence of serious private LEO human space flight efforts, and especially if there is a redirection of the human lunar effort, there needs to be a thoughtful reexamination of what form the Shuttle replacement should take. Personally, I hope for a solution that makes more efficient use of commercial assets (like EELV and/or COTS) or that just doesn’t duplicate the commercial sector and actually provides a genuinely new capability (like a DIRECT heavy lifter or exploration-enabling demos like fuel depots). But the key is the commitment to put everything on the table and reexamine it.
ISS is the other 800 lb. gorilla in the room. Getting NASA out of that black hole ASAP (circa 2015) is one of the things that Griffin arguably has right, especially if the resources are directed at much more cost-effective commercial assets (Bigelow) or breaking out of LEO. But I have to admit that it’s totally unrealistic for any Presidential campaign to even consider.
Again, given the potential voter downside in NASA districts, I don’t expect the Clinton campaign or any other campaign to make such commitments. But the space analyst in me hopes for more than that. Even more than human space exploration, Shuttle, Shuttle’s replacement, and ISS are the big-ticket items that will really determine NASA’s future — a future that is either crippled by an expensive, unsafe, duplicative, and unproductive LEO human space flight infrastructure or that is freed from the shackles of NASA’s past.
FWIW…
Hillary Clinton generally supports the VSE. This fact is verified by comments reported on SpacePolitics.Com in June,2007. At that time SpacePolitics.Com stated, “Last week the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton held a fundraiser/issues forum in Washington, which, as noted at the time, included a breakout session on “commercial and civil aerospaceâ€. An article in this week’s print edition of Space News (not available online) has a few more details about what took place at the event. About 20 people attended the session, led by Lori Garver; Clinton herself did not attend but one of her domestic policy advisors, Jake Sullivan, was there. Garver and others expressed support for the general concept of the Vision for Space Exploration, but thought there should be more balance with other NASA programs, including earth science and aeronautics. Sullivan reportedly was particularly interested in emerging commercial space companies, asking how the government “could incentivize†companies like Virgin Galactic and Bigelow Aerospace.” Also Space.Com stated on June 13.2007, “Clinton Team Stresses Balance for NASA During Fundraising Event
By BRIAN BERGER
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 13 June 2007
02:48 pm ET
WASHINGTON — About 20 attendees of a June 6 fundraiser here for Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton got a sneak peak at the candidate’s nascent space policy.
Clinton did not personally address space matters during the $1,000-a-plate “issues forum and breakfast” that attracted 150-200 supporters who gathered at the Hyatt Regency Washington hotel on Capitol Hill. However, one of the half-dozen policy breakout sessions held after the candidate’s departure was focused on “civil and commercial aerospace.”
Led by Lori Garver, a senior NASA policy official during the presidency of Sen. Clinton’s husband, the hour-long session attracted about 20 people, including Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), former NASA public affairs chief Glenn Mahone, and Jake Sullivan one of Clinton’s top domestic policy advisors. Other attendees included space professionals from industry, academia and associations.
Garver, reached by telephone June 7, declined to discuss the policy session since it was a private event not open to media. According to attendees who asked not to be identified, Garver broadly endorsed the human space exploration goals NASA has been pursuing since President George W. Bush unveiled the Vision for Space Exploration in 2004, but stressed that NASA’s other long-standing objectives should not be sacrificed in the process.
“Their biggest issue was balance,” one attendee said. “They want a balanced portfolio for NASA. They support exploration and support the vision but they also believe that Earth science has been cut too much and they need to increase it significantly.”
Aeronautics research, the attendee said, likewise was singled out as a part of NASA’s budget in need of more money – a position in sync with that of many U.S. lawmakers in key positions to influence NASA’s budget.
International collaboration and commercial innovation also were talked about in the context of getting more out of the U.S. space program, attendees said.
“There was a lot of talk about space being one of the best mechanisms for strengthening international ties,” one attendee said.
Another attendee said Sullivan showed a lot of interest in commercial space companies such as Bigelow Aerospace, Virgin Galactic and others, asking questions about “how the government could incentivize them.”
Space rarely has rated a mention in recent national political campaigns, and the 2008 presidential race is proving no exception. For example, not a single space question has been asked during any of the several televised debates held so far this year.
But space advocates are taking some comfort in how space is faring in sideline events such as this.
“I think we’ve got a really good chance with her,” a Clinton supporter said, noting that the New York senator made a point of attending Elmira, N.Y., native Eileen Collin’s return-to-flight space shuttle launch in 2005 and tacitly endorsed the Vision for Space Exploration when the U.S. Senate unanimously approved the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.” Senator Clinton’s comments today that support a “robust human spaceflight program & increased funding for aeronautics & earth science are very similiar to her representatives June,2007 comments.
Also, even though Senator Clinton supports increased funding for Aeronautics & earth science ,that does not mean the funding would have to come from the VSE. My own Congressman, Chairman Alan B. Mollohan(NASA Appropriations Suncommittee), has increased the overall NASA budget to allow more funding for space science & aeronautics. He did not cut the VSE to fund these other NASA efforts. Finally, if Direct 2 is adopted by NASA, NASA would have tens of billions of dollars available to them for an accelerated VSE & many other NASA space science & aeronautics projects.
Could we be feeling a circa 1960’s moment when Space accomplishments are politically important to the electorate? The Hillraiser getting in on the act is interesting but not unexpected. Kay Baily has an opinion piece today
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5186020.html
Griffin’s comment of China beating us to the moon is getting some resonance from the usual sources, if it seeps into the 2008 campaign, we might get a useful debate about VSE.
“Senator Clinton’s comments today that support a “robust human spaceflight program & increased funding for aeronautics & earth science are very similiar to her representatives June,2007 comments.”
Good points. Without overanalyzing (which I’ve admittedly already done), I would just caution that there is a substantial difference between the reported remarks of an advisor at a party and a written campaign press release. The advisor may have unofficially endorsed the VSE and human space exploration, but the press release did not officially do so for the campaign. This still leaves the Clinton II campaign the option of rejecting, in whole or part, the VSE, human space exploration, or a human lunar return at some future date. I do hope otherwise, but the option is arguably still open.
My 2 bit nitpicking… FWIW.
A couple of points. There are two ways to have what Hillary considers a “balanced” space program. The first is to add about two or so billion to NASA’s budget and distribute the extra money accordingly. The second is to gut the exploration account and redistribute the money accordingly. Considering the Clintons’ rather poor record on space, how any want to bet about which approach she’ll pursue?
Second, I see that there is nothing here about enhancing and enabling commercial space. Considering the Clintons’ hostility to capitalism, this should not be surprising.
“Kay Baily has an opinion piece today
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5186020.html”
Ugh… where is the evidence for Hutchison’s statement that:
“In fact, China’s progress has been so substantial the Chinese are planning on landing a man on the moon by 2020.”
I referenced this in an earlier thread, but just earlier this week, Aviation Week quoted Sun Laiyan, the chief of the Chinese National Space Agency, saying that “China has yet to decide whether it will send its citizens to the Moon.†See the ninth paragraph in this article:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw100107p2.xml&headline=Nations%20Looking%20For%20a%20Piece%20of%20the%20Exploration%20Pie
Either Hutchison has some piss-poor staffers covering NASA for her or (more likely) she’s desperately grasping at false, missile gap-type straws to support NASA’s budget and/or the extension of Shuttle operations.
I’m all for a useful debate about VSE implementation, but competition with China, at least in the human space flight arena, is the wrong reason. It’s false; it sets up another unsustainable, dead-end Cold War-type race in human space flight; and (most importantly) it obfuscates the real problems at NASA.
Bleah… (directed at Hutchison and her staff, not richardb)
“The second is to gut the exploration account and redistribute the money accordingly. Considering the Clintons’ rather poor record on space, how any want to bet about which approach she’ll pursue?”
To be brutally honest, if it led to a serious restructuring of NASA’s human space flight programs to be more affordable, effective, and sustainable, such reductions would arguably benefit human space exploration.
“Second, I see that there is nothing here about enhancing and enabling commercial space. Considering the Clintons’ hostility to capitalism, this should not be surprising.”
Per Mr. Sterling’s post above, the industry press has reported interest from Clinton II campaign advisors about commercial space. That’s something that we can’t say, to my knowledge, about any of the other candidates’ campaigns, including the “pro-capitalist” ones (whatever that means). Heck, right now, to my knowledge, no other candidate has even put out a press release or given a speech mentioning civil space issues.
Also, per earlier threads, the Clinton I White House did support commercial space programs, including the ISS Alternate Access program and the Kistler’s first contract with NASA. Even when related by marriage, I’d be careful about conflating the policies of a past President with the potential future policies of a Presidential candidate, especially in an area as obscure as space policy. But if we’re going to do it, we should portray the past President’s record accurately.
FWIW…
Anon “Either Hutchison has some piss-poor staffers covering NASA for her or (more likely) she’s desperately grasping at false, missile gap-type straws to support NASA’s budget and/or the extension of Shuttle operations.” I agree with you here, given her electorate, its likely she is shilling for the Shuttle.
I think its inevitable, as the Shuttle program winds down, we’ll hear more of this. The fact that China is a whipping boy for both Dems and the Gop’ers on many issues unrelated to Nasa means she will be a part of any VSE debate in my humble opinion. I don’t agree that its bad for China to be included in the debate. Nasa has been out of the publics mind, outside of disasters, for decades. I’m all for the debate however it arrives.
“To be brutally honest, if it led to a serious restructuring of NASA’s human space flight programs to be more affordable, effective, and sustainable, such reductions would arguably benefit human space exploration.”
I think the words you are looking for are “anemic”, “Under funded”, and “very far in the future.” VSE could actually use more money, not less.
“the industry press has reported interest from Clinton II campaign advisors about commercial space.”
Interesting that “interest” did not make it into the policy paper.
“Also, per earlier threads, the Clinton I White House did support commercial space programs, including the ISS Alternate Access program and the Kistler’s first contract with NASA.”
Which had the practical effect of enabling commercial space in what way?
Sorry, but we go through this execise every year with Democrats trying to maintain that their candidate is really, really pro space, but with the facts not bearing that out.
Considering the Clintons’ rather poor record on space, how any want to bet about which approach she’ll pursue? . . . Considering the Clintons’ hostility to capitalism, this should not be surprising
What poor record? It seems to me that the Clinton Administration’s record on space was far from bad. As Anonymous points out, Mr. Clinton did at least as much to attempt to privatize space activities as Mr. Bush has. For better or worse, his administration found a political way for the Space Station to continue, without which COTS would likely not have been politically or economically possible. In terms of favoring government spending over private, Mr. Clinton was far more favorable than the current administration, on whose watch we’ve seen huge expansions of government expenditures and the on-going collapse of the dollar (which is a measure of how little investors expect out of the American economy).
As for the other Clinton, let us recall that Mr. Bush’s record on spaceflight was nonexistent before the VSE, in spite of his having been governor of Texas, yet he surprised us in one of the very few positive initiatives of this otherwise disastrous Administration. (And, let us also recall, through lack of attention, Mr. Bush is rapidly letting even the VSE turn into the kind of mess that typifies his Administration.)
I’ll risk Ms. Clinton any day over Mr. Bush, VSE or no.
— Donald
Donald, I’m not sure what universe you’re living in, but the fact is that NASA was fervently hostile to commercial space during the Clinton Administration. Under Bush we’ve not only had the retirement of the space shuttle scheduled, but a program to encourage the private sector to replace it with commercially operated vehicles, and a formal prize program. And VSE is very important, a vast improvement over the shuttle/station forever policy of Bill Clinton.
I don’t think that Hillary would cancel VSE, just that it is probable that she’ll under fund it to such an extent that it might as well be cancelled. But she will certainly be a disaster, with taxes and regulations, to commercial space.
Rick and where would these “tens of billions of dollars” magically appear from? Ares I is costing about $3 billion to develop and it will also deliver the boosters, upper stage engine and avionics for Ares V. Ares I will be the safest, most reliable and economical crew launch ever developed, why settle for less?
To be more accurate, Ares I development cost is nearer $4 billion ($1.8 B for first stage, $1.2 B for J-2X, $514 m for the upper stage and the rest for the avionics and reserve)
The full text of Clinton’s speech today is here:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3570
Below are the space-related references, most of which are more personal remembrances or analogies to past space accomplishments, rather than promulgation of new space policy, although there are clear policy positions, too.
Still no explicit references to the VSE, human space exploration, or any of the myriad issues surrounding the 800lb. elephants in NASA’s human space flight programs. But it would appear that Clinton has the most personal connection to NASA and the human space flight program of any of the candidates. If elected, hopefully that personal connection translates into giving NASA the time and resources needed to restructure its human space flight and exploration programs towards more sustainable activities, and monies going to the failing ESAS architecture are not totally redirected to Earth science and aeronautics (as worthy as those areas are, too).
FWIW…
===============
“The Carnegie Institution for Science, as President Meserve just briefly recounted, has such a distinguished history. It has a record of supporting groundbreaking discoveries from Edwin Hubble’s work in astronomy to more recent breakthroughs in our understanding of genetics and the function of RNA and as part of that work was honored with a Nobel Prize just a few years ago.
I could not imagine a more appropriate place to discuss our nation’s commitment to scientific discovery and innovation. Nor could I imagine a more appropriate day. It is not a coincidence that we are doing this today. Fifty years ago today, in a remote, sparsely inhabited region of the former Soviet Union the world’s first artificial satellite took flight. This hollow aluminum sphere named Sputnik — which contained little more than a battery, radio transmitters, and an internal cooling system — caught America off guard and changed the course of history. Sputnik transmitted a signal from orbit and through it the Soviet Union sent a signal to the world. Even ham radio operators could hear it: the Soviets had won the first leg of the space race.
Now many of you have probably known before you came today that this is the anniversary of Sputnik and I bet none of you bought an anniversary card. But I have been fascinated by Sputnik ever since I was a little girl and as I have moved on in life and become involved in the public service and public office holding of our nation, I have spent time reflecting on what Sputnik meant and what our nation did in response. Historic decisions were made in the days, months, and years following Sputnik and I think we had a great response as a nation. Less than two weeks after news of Sputnik swept the globe, President Eisenhower called a meeting of his Science Advisory Committee and asked for recommendations. He would come to rely on that panel for unvarnished, evidence-based scientific advice. Shortly after that first meeting, President Eisenhower addressed the nation. It was a sober yet optimistic assessment. Yes, the Soviets had made gains which carried implications for our security and our economy. Yes, we had work to do. But there was no reason to fear, because America, he said, stood at the ready to draw on our “voluntary heroism, sacrifice, and accomplishment when the chips are down.†Then we set about proving it.
In February of 1958, four months after Sputnik’s launch, America launched DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. By July of that year, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating NASA and ushering in the missions that would define the space race: Mercury and Gemini. In September 1958, President Eisenhower signed into law the National Defense Education Act to advance at every level our ability to compete and innovate: math and science education in primary and secondary schools, college loans, graduate fellowships, vocational training.
I remember as though it were yesterday when my 5th grade teacher Mrs. Kraus came into our classroom and told us we had to study math and science because the President said so. I was convinced President Eisenhower had called up Mrs. Kraus and told her “you tell those children and particularly that Hillary, who doesn’t really like math that much, that her country needs her.â€
In 1961, President Kennedy created the Apollo project, and declared that our nation would land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth by the end of the decade. By 1969 we had done it. By 1972, we had done it 12 times over. It was a national, bipartisan effort. It was a public, private partnership. We bolstered investment in research — and encouraged children to learn math and science. We asked young people to become scientists and engineers — and helped them pay for their degrees with new National Science Foundation fellowships. We believed that we could, by rolling up our sleeves and getting to work, do what we all knew we had to. Begin to demonstrate that America still was the leader in science and innovation. We set big goals. We didn’t give in to our fears, we confronted them. We didn’t deny tough facts, we responded to them. We didn’t ignore big challenges, we met them. Once again, we proved, as President Eisenhower had predicted, that when the chips are down it is always a mistake to bet against America.
Fifty years ago, Sputnik marked the dawn of the Space Age and the beginning of a new era filled with new challenges. Fifty years later, there is no single, galvanizing event to steel our resolve and to lift our eyes to the heavens. The challenges we face are more complex and interconnected. From the rise of globalization to the threat of global warming. These challenges require big ideas and bold thinking…
What America achieved after Sputnik is a symbol of what Americans can do now as we confront a new global economy, new environmental challenges, and the promise of new discoveries in medicine. America led in the 20th century, and we saw the benefits of that. As Richard referenced, probably half of our Gross Domestic Product increase since the end of World War II can be traced to investments in science and research in both the public and the private sector, of course fueled by non profit organizations like the Carnegie Institution. With a renewed commitment to scientific integrity and innovation, I know we can lead in the 21st century…
I’ve also called for competitive prizes to encourage innovation. Back in 1957, President Eisenhower, when he met with his Scientific Advisory Committee again, wondered if there were a way to keep people as excited about science as they were about sports and competition. And this was back when reality entertainment meant playing in the neighborhood park. Why not encourage people to innovate through healthy competition?
We’ve also seen a decline in American leadership in space exploration and science. A recent survey by the National Academy of Sciences found that “the nation’s Earth observation satellite programs, once the envy of the world, are in disarray.†The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been forced to delay the launch of important climate and weather-monitoring satellites. These technologies are critical tools to study climate change: measuring the rates of melting ice, temperature and humidity changes, sea level variations. Meanwhile, NASA’s budget for earth sciences has been cut by 30 percent and NASA climate scientists have been muzzled. Last year, the Bush administration went so far as to remove the following phrase, and I quote, “to understand and protect the home planet,†end quote, from NASA’s mission statement. It’s no wonder, the Bush administration has shown little interest in the earth sciences mission of NASA — and a hostile approach toward the study of climate change.
As President, part of my mission will be to reclaim our role as the innovation leader. I will pursue an ambitious agenda in space exploration and earth sciences. I’ll fully fund NASA’s earth sciences program, launch a new, comprehensive space-based study of climate change, and reverse the deep funding cuts that NASA’s and FAA’s aeronautics research and development budgets have endured in the last few years.
You know, this is personal for me because when I was in junior high school, I was just captivated by the space program. It caught my imagination. There was such a great burst of interest. I did my 8th grade science project on space medicine. Some of you know that I even wrote to NASA asking how I could apply to be an astronaut and got back an answer saying that they weren’t taking women. (Laughter) I have lived long enough to see that change! (Applause)
But that great burst of activity led to so many people who are the PhDs, who are the scientific leaders, who have made such a difference to our public life and our private sector. A lot of them are reaching retirement age. They came into school in the 60’s and the 70’s motivated by this desire to innovate and in our government we’re not finding the replacement for a lot of people. I know that at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the workforce issue going forward is a very big one. So this is not just about let’s have more scientists. This is how we run our economy and how our government retains or should I say regains competence to do what it needs to do for all of us. I think that we’ve got to make science research, technology, mathematics a career in those fields, exciting again…
Fifth, we need an Apollo-like effort in clean, renewable energy. Last week, the President gave a speech in which he decided to address global warming — seven years into his presidency. And what he found, unfortunately, is that the rest of the world has passed him by. He spoke of aspirational goals to reduce green house gas emissions while people around the world including right here in America actually aspire to tackle the problem…
I was heartened to learn that after Sputnik went up sales of telescopes and binoculars shot up as well. Actually in my house, my father went out and bought some binoculars, so we could be on the lookout for Sputnik. And my memory of that, of peering into the sky in our backyard in a suburb of Chicago, I don’t think we ever saw it although my friends claim that they had seen it, was so exciting that somehow we were connected to what that meant. And it was not only a thrill for a young girl, but it really did start me thinking.â€
“I think the words you are looking for are “anemicâ€, “Under fundedâ€, and “very far in the future.†VSE could actually use more money, not less.”
ESAS will eventually need a bigger, maybe much bigger, budget. The VSE, carried out cost-effectively, would not necessarily need a bigger budget.
I’d also note that the human lunar return effort is currently in a month-for-month slip due to technical issues. With an unconstrained schedule, we can no longer predict how much ESAS is going to cost with much certainty. Constellation has to get a grip on the safety and other technical issues arising from Ares I/Orion’s performance/mass mismatch before the budget becomes a factor again in delays.
“Interesting that “interest†did not make it into the policy paper.”
It wasn’t a policy paper. It was a press release.
Moreover, Clinton’s full speech did contain private sector references of interest to space cadets. Here’s one:
“In 1961, President Kennedy created the Apollo project, and declared that our nation would land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth by the end of the decade. By 1969 we had done it. By 1972, we had done it 12 times over. It was a national, bipartisan effort. It was a public, private partnership.”
And here’s the other:
“I’ve also called for competitive prizes to encourage innovation. Back in 1957, President Eisenhower, when he met with his Scientific Advisory Committee again, wondered if there were a way to keep people as excited about science as they were about sports and competition. And this was back when reality entertainment meant playing in the neighborhood park. Why not encourage people to innovate through healthy competition?”
No other candidate, Republican or Democrat, has mentioned prize competitions, or public/private partnerships as they relate to space (at least to my knowledge). Regardless of political stripes, I think we space cadets have to give the Clinton campaign some credit for that.
“Sorry, but we go through this execise every year with Democrats trying to maintain that their candidate is really, really pro space, but with the facts not bearing that out… Donald, I’m not sure what universe you’re living in, but the fact is that NASA was fervently hostile to commercial space during the Clinton Administration”
Ugh, not this again. I’m not trying to take a Democratic position here, but these statements are just not supported by the facts.
One, NASA under the Clinton White House and the Clinton White House itself are two different things. Just as we cannot assume that Griffin speaks for the Bush II White House on climate change when he makes a few, stupid, off-hand, negative remarks, neither we cannot assume that Goldin spoke for the Clinton I White House on all things commercial when he made a few, stupid, off-hand, negative remarks about the Russians flying space tourists to ISS.
Two, although there were (and still are) many human space flight managers at NASA who were (are) variously contemptuous of, scared of, or incompetent in dealing with the commercial space sector, the fact remains that NASA started the ISS Alternate Access program and its first FAR Part 10 (commercial) contract with Kistler under the Clinton White House. In fact, it was precisely because of intransgience in the NASA management ranks that several Clinton White House staffers proved critical to getting these efforts started. And that says nothing of public/private efforts outside NASA that the Clinton White House started, like EELV. To say that the Clinton White House opposed commercial space is the exact opposite of reality. The Clinton White House pushed commercial space when agency managers at NASA and USAF opposed it.
Three, to the extent that the Bush II White House is responsible for commercial activities at NASA, it’s not a great record. The final success or failure of the COTS program, which is arguably a retread of ISS Alternate Access, remains to be seen, but it’s not looking good with the pending Kistler termination, for which at least part of the fault can be laid at the feet of a budget that was off by a factor of several compared to similar public/private launch development partnerships, like EELV. And the only other Bush II/Griffin commercial space initiative to get started has been prizes, but that NASA program hasn’t been funded in years. Heck, Griffin & Co. have failed to even buy one contract for microgravity flight services on Zero-G, arguably the easiest thing they could do to back up their suppossed commercial commitment.
“Under Bush we’ve not only had the retirement of the space shuttle scheduled,”
Well, yeah, after a second Shuttle orbiter disintegrated in a fireball. [rolls eyes]
“but a program to encourage the private sector to replace it with commercially operated vehicles, ”
Which, again, is arguably a retread of the old ISS Alternate Access program, is underfunded by a factor of several compared to other, successful public/private launch development programs (EELV), and half of which currently lies in failure with the pending Kistler termination.
I hate to knock COTS because it’s a much needed and innovatively managed program. But we have to be realistic about the track record so far and the chances for success going forward.
“and a formal prize program.”
Which, again, has been abandoned by Griffin and not funded in years.
“And VSE is very important, a vast improvement over the shuttle/station forever policy of Bill Clinton.”
Again, this is just not supported by the facts. The Clinton civil space policy forbade NASA to pursue exploration until NASA was done designing and building the space station, not “forever”. The Clinton White House inherited a mess-and-a-half with a Freedom Space Station that was way outside the budget box and for which little development progress had been made. No White House could responsibly charge NASA with a human space exploration initiative after getting handed such pile of junk.
(Although I would fault the Clinton for saddling NASA with an ISS program that would still take years of assembly and not picking the much more expedient Option C from the space station reassessment.)
“I don’t think that Hillary would cancel VSE, just that it is probable that she’ll under fund it”
After reading the full speech above, I dunno. She seems pretty personally invested in the human space flight program, even if she doesn’t mention the VSE or human space exploration explicitely and talks about “balance” with other NASA programs. Hard to say.
“to such an extent that it might as well be cancelled.”
The key is to redesign the mess that ESAS and Griffin are leaving behind and make sure that it squares solidly with the budget that’s available after restorations to other NASA programs and whatever plus-ups/downs the Clinton White House imposes. There are many different requirements and approaches to a human lunar return program. As long as the next NASA Administrator picks one that is technically and budgetarily credible, a new human lunar return plan would be leaps and bounds ahead of where Constellation is stuck now.
“But she will certainly be a disaster, with taxes and regulations, to commercial space.”
There were no references to taxes or regulations in the Clinton press release or speech, on commercial space companies or any other entity.
FWIW…
http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=285039 Any question that Senator Clinton fully supports the VSE has now been answered. Senator Clinton is one of the Co-Sponsers of the Mikulski $1 billion increase in the NASA 2008 budget. The Senate bill fully funds the VSE. In addition the $1 billion increase would increase funding for the VSE!!!
“Rick and where would these “tens of billions of dollars†magically appear from?”
From cancelling Ares I to start. It’s arguably a ten billion dollar effort, alone.
“Ares I is costing about $3 billion to develop and… To be more accurate, Ares I development cost is nearer $4 billion”
I know I’m repeating old facts from earlier threads, but the NASA FY 2008 budget figures simply don’t bear this out. From FY06-FY12, the Crew Launch Vehicle (Ares I) budget totals $7.9 billion ($7,925 million), almost double or more than double the figures quoted. Link here:
http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/index.html
And that’s just the start. That figure doesn’t include monies redirected in the FY04-05 budget, future development in FY13-15, apples-to-apples budgeting at industry standard 80% certainty (versus the program’s 65% budgeting certainty), or additional costs associated with the month-to-month delays that the program is currently experiencing due to technical design issues. If pursued to the bitter end, she’ll easily break $10 billion.
“it will also deliver the boosters, upper stage engine and avionics for Ares V.”
If Ares V gets built and if NASA doesn’t revisit the Ares I design.
Two very, very big “if’s” right now.
“Ares I will be the safest, most reliable”
You have to be kidding. The Ares I/Orion system has been driven to single-string/no redundancy on all systems, has removed radiation protection, is looking at rocket motors for the LAS that have been unproven in that role, and may be restricted to water landings. Nothing about any of that is safe or reliable, certainly not by NASA’s own human-rating standards.
“and economical crew launch ever developed,”
Not true. Soyuz will still be way cheaper. Probably same holds true for Shenzhou. Arguments could be made for Mercury and Gemini, even in today’s dollars.
The only thing Ares I/Orion will be more economical than is Shuttle and Apollo and that’s like asking a fat guy whether he’s still in good enough shape to step over a threshold.
“why settle for less?”
When it comes to compromising astronaut safety, mission reliability, the post-Shuttle human space flight gap, and development costs, there is arguably nothing better than Ares I/Orion.
I have little to add to Anonymous response to Mark.
The Clinton White House inherited a mess-and-a-half with a Freedom Space Station that was way outside the budget box and for which little development progress had been made.
Unfortunately, this is part for the course. Just as Clinton-1 got stuck cleaning up the mess Republicans made of the national budget, any Clinton-2 Administration will be stuck cleaning up the mess Mr. Bush has made of just about everything he’s touched — including, unfortunately, the once promising VSE.
As to the speech itself (thanks for copying it here, Anonymous), frankly, I’m impressed. My respect for Ms. Clinton, which has not been terribly high, is much higher now than it was before I read this speech. She comes across as thoughtful, and surprisingly knowledgeable about my favorite subject. Of course, it would have been nice if she endorsed returning to the moon or some other grand project, but that probably wasn’t in the cards, and, at this point in time, I’ll gladly settle for this. . . .
With a bit of luck, some of the other candidates will be embarrassed enough to respond and we’ll get a debate going!
— Donald
im so saddened that neither of the two candidates most emblematic of change within their respective parties, Obama and Ron Paul, have taken a stance on space. i dont think our country needs a figure as divisive as Hillary for the presidency, and i hate this ‘inevitable candidate’ talk that the mainstream media keeps throwing around. America has been ruled by a Bush or a Clinton since ’88. wtf?
and if anybody should be responding and comitting to this issue, it’s bill richardson. i know he will likely end up as the VP nomination, but it would be nice to see him making some more headlines by being bold.
anonymous.space: “No other candidate, Republican or Democrat, has mentioned prize competitions, or public/private partnerships as they relate to space (at least to my knowledge). Regardless of political stripes, I think we space cadets have to give the Clinton campaign some credit for that.”
The KEI Policy Blog has some information on prize-related bills (none of which I’ve followed beyond reading these articles):
http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=39&cat=11
Here’s an article “Hillary Clinton’s Prizes for Advanced Technology Achievements” (in energy techology):
http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=39&p=20
Here’s another on “Climate Technology Challenge Program”, sponsored by several Presidential candidates (Clinton, McCain, Obama):
http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=39&p=17
I haven’t seen anything in the news one way or the other on space-related prizes like Centennial Challenges from any candidates, though.
anonymous.space: “If elected, hopefully that personal connection translates into giving NASA the time and resources needed to restructure its human space flight and exploration programs towards more sustainable activities, and monies going to the failing ESAS architecture are not totally redirected to Earth science and aeronautics (as worthy as those areas are, too).”
Personally I wouldn’t mind if all the ESAS funds were directed to NASA Earth science (using satellites and suborbital commercial vehicles), aeronautics (again including use of commercial suborbital vehicles), and other areas (lunar and planetary robotics, lots more COTS for ISS transport if not more, using Bigelow modules, Centennial Challenges, and small “New Millenium” style technology demos like refueling, tugs, sat technologies, etc). All of these strike me as higher priorities than human lunar missions anyway, and it’s so much money that every one of them could be made healthy with those funds.
To be gentle to the Shuttle workforce, I’d just suggest holding off on most or all of Ares I/Orion, or whatever else they’d do (Direct, something to get Shuttle ops going quicker like Shuttle cargo-only, or whatever) until Shuttle retirement. This would actually give them a healthy, more manageable budget. It might encourage them to include commercial and international components in their architecture, which they may find distasteful, but which might nevertheless be better. It might also encourage them to relax requirements – not safety requirements, but requirements like number of crew and mass of cargo per launch. They might also find this distasteful, but it may result in an architecture that is safer and cheaper to develop and operate, and would reduce the “drunk elephant in a china shop” effect we’re seeing now with Shuttle/ESAS and the rest of NASA.
I read Mrs. Clinton’s speech and I don’t see much to lead me to believe her interests extend to the VSE. I think she addressed some low hanging fruit on industrial base, certain pet science interests, but given the opportunity to address the big issues of the day, she took a pass.
Her husband’s Nasa oversight saw years of falling or flat funding plus of course the absurdly expensive ISS(is it possible the stick could ever equal its costs?). Obviously if she is elected, she’ll have her own ideas, but so far nothing here spells out her plans outside of a few areas of earth research to appease her base.
“Any question that Senator Clinton fully supports the VSE has now been answered. Senator Clinton is one of the Co-Sponsers of the Mikulski $1 billion increase in the NASA 2008 budget.”
Another good point from Mr. Sterling.
But again, I would add a little caution. This amendment has to be examined within the context of what’s happening with all the appropriations bills right now. Since Bush has promised to veto all the appropriations bills, they’re really not worth the paper they’re being printed on, and all sorts of crazy spending is being proposed right now. It’s a cheap way for a congressman from either side of the aisle to show support and score political points for a cause, special interest, or parochial interest back home without having to do any heavy lifting or make any real commitments.
It will be more telling to track Clinton’s voting record when fiscal reality sets in after the veto and hard choices have to be made. (It’s also possible that FY08 will devolve into another set of continuing resolutions like FY07 did, and the hard choices will be made by rote.) It might also be more telling to track Clinton’s record on NASA appropriations bills over the course of her Senate career, especially if she explained why she did or did not vote for certain bills.
“As to the speech itself (thanks for copying it here, Anonymous), frankly, I’m impressed. My respect for Ms. Clinton, which has not been terribly high, is much higher now than it was before I read this speech. She comes across as thoughtful, and surprisingly knowledgeable about my favorite subject. Of course, it would have been nice if she endorsed returning to the moon or some other grand project, but that probably wasn’t in the cards, and, at this point in time, I’ll gladly settle for this. . . .”
I too would prefer a couple scraps of meat on the bones of the civil space priorities Clinton has laid out. Between the lack of explicit VSE or human space exploration endorsement beyond an “ambitious agenda in space exploration” and the lack of any specifics on Shuttle retirement and replacement beyond “robust human space flight”, too many 800 lb. human space flight gorillas have been left standing in the room for me to give Clinton my “endorsement” (for what little that’s worth) on civil space issues yet. (Not that any other candidate has earned it or will earn it, either.) For example, I would not support a candidate that extended Shuttle beyond 2010 or did not allow a new NASA Administrator to restructure Constellation’s technical content to be more technically viable, affordable, and sustainable.
That said, I agree with Mr. Robertson that Clinton is arguably the most promising candidate from a space cadet’s point-of-view after today’s press release, speech, and vote. Although I hate the word “balance”, Clinton is right to move resources back into NASA’s better performing and arguably higher priority programs. And although Clinton’s talk and press release lacked key human space flight specifics, NASA’s Apollo-era human space flight achievements have arguably had more of a personal impact on Clinton than any other Presidential candidate in history. If someone held a gun to my head today and said pick a President based on civil space issues, I’d have to go with Clinton at this point — and hope that Richardson would agree to serve another Clinton as Veep. (Of course, I would never vote based on such a narrow set of criteria, but if forced to today…)
“With a bit of luck, some of the other candidates will be embarrassed enough to respond and we’ll get a debate going!”
I wouldn’t bet on it, but we can always hope.
“Her husband’s Nasa oversight saw years of falling or flat funding”
Technically not true. NASA’s budget did rise modestly under some (but certainly not all) of the Clinton I White House years.
“plus of course the absurdly expensive ISS”
Before we throw too many daggers at the Clinton I White House over absurd ISS costs, let’s again remember that they inherited an even more absurdly expensive Space Station Freedom from NASA under the Bush I Administration.
“(is it possible the stick could ever equal its costs?).”
Ares I alone, no. ISS development costs are typically quoted at approximately $60 billion or $100 billion, depending on whether the costs of the associated Shuttle assembly flights are counted. That’s half to a full order of magnitude greater than Ares I development costs at about $10 billion.
But the entire human lunar return effort, through the first human lunar landing mission, will be something on the order of $100 billion.
I’d argue that one of the key reforms, maybe even the central one, that any new White House should undertake with respect to NASA human space flight is to end the cycles of these barely sustainable, technically compromised, $100 billion, multi-decadal programs (STS, ISS, Constellation) whose costs are way out of whack with their benefits. We desperately need faster, more affordable, more achieveable, more easily sustained, and more cost-effective civil human space flight programs.
FWIW…
Not to quibble about Clinton I’s numbers for Nasa, but here they are and as I said, years of falling or flat Nasa budgets, anyway you look at it. Wikipedia sourced I’m embarrassed to say, but at least they claim OMB sourcing. But we’re not writing thesis papers here.
Its clear to me, Clinton II will not support the VSE and will look for savings from Nasa so similar budget trends in Clinton II shouldn’t surprise us. Will she cancel the stick? Reopen the architecture for alternatives? Keep the shuttle instead?
To kill the stick, she’ll have to fight serious congressional wars, so that will be fun to watch. Given her past behavior in the WH, I think she’ll have a very adversarial role with Congress, so the stick might survive despite her intent.
Current 1996
Year $ adjusted
billions
1993 14.305 15.301 0.9349
1994 13.695 14.351 0.9543
1995 13.377 13.692 0.977
1996 13.882 13.882 1.00
1997 14.358 14.067 1.0207
1998 13.638 13.193 1.0337
1999 13.665 12.999 1.0512
2000 13.600 12.618 1.0779
“Not to quibble about Clinton I’s numbers for Nasa, but here they are and as I said, years of falling or flat Nasa budgets, anyway you look at it.”
Unless I’m going blind, again, that’s not technically true by the numbers posted. By those Wikipedia numbers, NASA goes up in FY95-96, FY 96-97, and FY98-99.
I’m sorry to quibble, but the commonly accepted myth that NASA’s budget went down consistently during Clinton I was never true.
“Its clear to me, Clinton II will not support the VSE”
Based on the New York Times’ excerpt in Mr. Foust’s latest posting, that appears to be the case, at least for the human lunar elements of the VSE. It was something I’ve obviously long been anticipating regardless of who took the White House, but I had hoped for better.
“Will she cancel the stick? Reopen the architecture for alternatives?”
I hope this at least happens. Even setting aside Ares I/Orion’s technical problems and expensive duplication of other national capabilities, if we’re not going to build Ares V, then Ares I makes absolutely no sense. We should not go through the enormous expense of developing that 5-segment booster and new upper stage if they’re not going to be used elsewhere. Ares I’s ISS flight rate and operational costs cannot justify it.
“Keep the shuttle instead?”
Gawd, I hope not.
“To kill the stick, she’ll have to fight serious congressional wars, so that will be fun to watch.”
I dunno. With a five-year post-Shuttle gap, high costs, and falling safety, even congressmen representing NASA human space flight centers may appreciate alternatives to Ares I/Orion. A lot may depend on schedule — how much longer the current month-to-month slips last, whether exploration gets flatlined again in FY08 due to continuing resolutions, how soon a new NASA Administrator gets on board, and when the four-segment boilerplate flight test actually occurs. The longer Griffin & Co. keep screwing around with the Ares I/Orion performance/mass mismatch, the more likely a replacement becomes.
FWIW…
Anon, chart that graph and see the negative slope. Nasa’s budget fell during Bubba’s time, in constant dollars, by about 2.7 billion dollars. The slope may have changed slightly positive in minor amounts in any one year, but from start to end, the Clinton admin gave Nasa a technically correct 18% budget cut.
Clinton I did no favors for Nasa. Where was her influence during Clinton I? As her campaign promises roll out she will be faced with serious dilemma’s. For one, she will have continuing large war on terror costs. She will have a health care plan of unknown cost, but safe to say, huge. Its still 1 year from the election so more promises are on the way.
Poor little Nasa will have to give it up again and again.
Ray: It might encourage them to include commercial and international components in their architecture, which they may find distasteful, but which might nevertheless be better.
Far from being “distasteful,” I think a Clinton Administration would be likely to strongly support this. The latter is the principle reason Clinton 1 saved the Space Station project.
Anonymous: For example, I would not support a candidate that extended Shuttle beyond 2010 or did not allow a new NASA Administrator to restructure Constellation’s technical content to be more technically viable, affordable, and sustainable.
I fully agree with the first statement, and, with somewhat less enthusiasm, the second one as well.
Technically not true. NASA’s budget did rise modestly under some (but certainly not all) of the Clinton I White House years.
Let us not forget that Mr. Clinton’s Administration did this while actually moving the Federal budget toward balance, rather than just (cheaply) talking about it.
We desperately need faster, more affordable, more achievable, more easily sustained, and more cost-effective civil human space flight programs.
So long as it doesn’t devolve into open-ended technological playpens that achieve far less than the Space Station ever will (NASP, X-33, et al), I agree with this. Again, COTS is the answer, and, when allocating our support, we need to follow her statements on that very closely.
Richardb: To kill the stick, she’ll have to fight serious congressional wars, so that will be fun to watch. Given her past behavior in the WH, I think she’ll have a very adversarial role with Congress, so the stick might survive despite her intent.
Very interesting thought. It does seem to me that at least the LEO parts of ESAS have a great deal of political momentum at this point, momentum that will be politically hard to reverse.
Ray: It might encourage them to include commercial and international components in their architecture, which they may find distasteful, but which might nevertheless be better.
Donald: Far from being “distasteful,†I think a Clinton Administration would be likely to strongly support this. The latter is the principle reason Clinton 1 saved the Space Station project.
Sorry; by “they” I had in mind the NASA managers, who have at different times resisted this kind of change over the decades. Right now the main ESAS architecture is “commercial and international free” (with small exceptions like XCOR), but changing this might be a sacrifice they have to make – because their boss in the White House says so, because the budget and politics aren’t working out, etc. It all depends on the details, and certainly there are pitfalls that are tough to avoid when joining with commercial and/or international efforts, but to my mind it’s likely that making such a change would work out for the better for all involved.
Ray: to my mind it’s likely that making such a change would work out for the better for all involved.
I agree. It’s worth noting that NASA fought tourist flights to the Space Station tooth and nail at the highest level, and was effectively out-voted by the Russians. (Oh, the irony!) When you internationalize a project, you give up some control and all sorts of interesting things can happen.
— Donald
“Clinton admin gave Nasa a technically correct 18% budget cut.”
I won’t quibble with that assessment. I was quibbling with assessments such as:
“years of falling… funding”
“years of falling… Nasa budgets”
Again, simply because it’s not true that NASA’s budget was falling in all of the Clinton years.
But you are right that NASA’s budget ended up lower than when it started during the Clinton years.
FWIW…