A couple of space policy pieces in today’s issue of The Space Review:
Chris Carberry explains why it’s so critical for space advocates to ask Congress to strike the language in the House version of the NASA budget that prohibits funding of human Mars exploration projects. His concern: that if the language was left in place, it would be harder down the road to remove it, and could embolden opponents of human spaceflight in Congress to seek stricter prohibitions. “If we hand the opponents of Mars exploration an easy victory, it is highly likely that they will continue to shift the status quo again next year and the year after that,” he writes. “Soon, not only Mars exploration will be threatened, but the Moon and other things.”
Taylor Dinerman takes another look at Hillary Clinton’s proposed space policy and notes that NASA, unlike other agencies mentioned by name in the overall science policy, is not identified as receiving an overall budget increase. Since she states that she will strengthen earth sciences and aeronautics programs at the agency, “it’s hard to see how this could be done without cutting into the budgets for science and exploration.” He also touches on workforce issues, particularly during the transition from the shuttle to Ares and Orion. However, he concludes, “The junior senator from New York’s policy is probably the best and most realistic one we can expect from a Democrat.”
When reading articles posted every Monday on the Space Review, the question that always comes to my mind, is – should I barf now, or later?
CLINTON ENDORSES SWIFT SHIFT FROM SHUTTLE TO NEW ROCKET(SpaceNews-Nov. 9,2007)
Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) has pledged to pursue “a successful and speedy transition” from the soon-to-be retired U.S. space shuttle fleet to “a next-generation space transportation system that can take us back to the Moon and beyond.”
The statement, provided by Clinton campaign staff in response to a query from Space News, is the presidential candidate’s first specific mention of NASA’s planned human lunar expeditions.
Clinton was silent on NASA’s lunar ambitions when she delivered a science policy speech Oct. 4 that promised, among other things, “an ambitious 21st century space exploration program.”
Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator for policy and plans who is advising the Clinton campaign on space matters, said the revised statement was produced in response to media accounts that focused on Clinton’s Moon omission. Howard McCurdy, an American University public policy professor, said Clinton “seemed to wander away from the Moon-Mars initiative” in her Oct. 4 speech. The revised statement, he said, “at least allows her to consider the initiative if and when she is elected.”
But, McCurdy added, “If elected, I would expect her to shift NASA a bit back toward science and Earth applications.” Clinton’s statement also pledges more money for aeronautics research and development, better space program management, increased international cooperation and a robust Earth science agenda focused on climate change.
“She believes that these nearer-term goals not only strengthen NASA’s current missions, but also complement and advance the worthy ambition of sending human expeditions to Mars,” the statement reads. “We cannot effectively achieve our long-term goals — in space exploration or otherwise — without putting NASA on a sound footing today.”
Of course the “revised statement” does not commit Clinton to doing beyond LEO exploration. She still is retaining the option to defer or cancel it.
Not that the current program does anything toward getting us out of Earth orbit either.
Or for that matter, provides a longterm plan that advances the goal of space colonization
Ferris – Since that is the whole purpose of VSE, I’m not sure how you possibly get to that conclusion.
Hi Mark! Nin hao from Beijing!
Still not clear on the distinction between ESAS and VSE?
The VSE is strategic. It’s a roadmap. A guide to where we should be going. By itself it can do nothing but be words on paper. So it needs a program of implementation.
ESAS is a program to do something, although whether that something is to provide employment to people or to provide busywork for NASA remains unclear. What is clear to me is that ESAS does not implement VSE.
Instead of seeking to support a candidate who has gone quite a distance to set forth a space policy, the space weenies decide to descend upon it and cut it to shreds because they do not agree with one sentence here or one sentence there.
Keith,
I couldn’t support Hillary Clinton if she promised to fully fund a Moon base. From my POV her space ‘policy’ is irrelevant as I don’t believe a word she says. If that makes me one of the ‘space weenies’, then so be it. I’m not going to kowtow to Sen. Clinton or her promises because you want me to and will call me names if I don’t do so. Sticks and stones…
Chill out Ken. I am a space weenie too.
Rick,
Interesting SpaceNews article you referenced, it’s the first I have ever heard of it. Keeping in mind the Clinton history of waffling and sophistry I read the Garver statements very carefully. All in all it strikes me as weak tea and an attempt to contain damage from reaction to the Hillary interview published in the NYT. I didn’t see anything which claimed that Hillary mispoke or wanted to add ‘clarification’ to her earlier statement.
The Hillary campaign position on space policy as it stands today tries too much to be all things to all people without actually promising anything.
Keith,
Mindblowing. Why should I support a candidate just because she has a detailed policy? Especially when details reveal it to be the wrong policy? Back when the great splash was made about the Hillary science policy the only direct statements regarding manned space exploration came from the mouth of Hillary herself, and it was a negative statement. Why would I want to support someone who wants to kill off manned space exploration?
In fact the fallout from that Hillary quotation published in the NYT seems to have prompted Lori Garver to attempt some damage control as shown in the Nov 9 SpaceNews.
“A couple of space policy pieces in today’s issue of The Space Review”
Within the context of an online journal, Day’s piece on the causes of the current plethora of lunar robotic missions and Chinese human space flight plans is also a solid piece of space policy analysis that’s worthy of a read.
“Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) has pledged to pursue ‘a successful and speedy transition’ from the soon-to-be retired U.S. space shuttle fleet to ‘a next-generation space transportation system that can take us back to the Moon and beyond.'”
While the Clinton campaign’s reopening of the human space exploration option in their civil space platform is a good thing — and the Clinton campaign is certainly to be commended for mentioning civil space at all in their science platform — it’s a little worrisome how the topic has been handled. First, Clinton gave a speech in which she made multiple references to how Apollo inspired her as an adolescent but made no mention of whether a Clinton Presidency would pursue human space exploration beyond Earth orbit. Then, Clinton gave a statement to the New York Times that human space exploration goals would be deferred in favor of Earth science, aeronautics, and robotic space science and exploration. Now, the Clinton campaign is indicating in Space News that they would at least preserve the option to swiftly pursue human space exploration goals, if such goals are deemed important by a Clinton II White House.
Again, the Clinton campaign is to be commended for spending so much time formally expounding positions on civil space and human space exploration, something no other campaign has done or probably will do. That said, the Clinton campaign needs more clarity and consistency in its statements on these topics. One gets the sense that they were presented half-baked and may still be.
My other concern is the potential lack of fiscal realism in the Clinton campaign’s statements. Boosting Earth science, aeronautics, and space science all require the restoration of billions in budgets cuts made to those programs under Bush II and Griffin. In the New York Times quote, it appeared that those dollars would come from human space exploration — the lunar elements of ESAS/Constellation (Ares V/EDS/LSAM) — under a Clinton II White House. Now in the Space News piece, it appears that those human space exploration dollars would go towards accelerating Shuttle’s replacement — another multi-billion dollar proposition as long as Ares I/Orion is assumed — instead.
Assuming they’ve had a chance to consider the issue at all, the key question is what does the Clinton campaign want to replace the Space Shuttle with? If it’s still Ares I/Orion, then the NASA budget is going to have to be increased. There’s just not enough dollars in Ares V/EDS/LSAM — which don’t start ramping up until 2011 — to make a dent in both the Ares I/Orion schedule and also to restore Earth Science, aeronautics, and space science cuts.
The only way to have both a quicker Shuttle replacement and to restore Earth Science, aeronautics, and space science without a multi-billion dollar increase to the NASA topline is to pick a less costly and more quickly fielded alternative to Ares I/Orion (whether EELV-derived, a better Shuttle-derived solution, or something else). Since a multi-billion dollar increase to the NASA topline is almost certainly not in the cards regardless of who sits in the White House, is that what the Clinton campaign is indicating in this latest Space News piece? Do they want to replace Ares I/Orion with something that’s less costly to develop and operate and that can be fielded more rapidly?
Even if the Clinton campaign has thought about this, I doubt we’ll get an answer until after the election (assuming Clinton wins it all). Showing their hand on this question only threatens to alienate NASA civil servants and contractors. But it would certainly be interesting to see where a Clinton campaign or White House comes down on this critical question, especially as the only campaign to have formally released positions on civil space and human space exploration.
FWIW…
To all of you Clinton haters on this “space politics” blog:
1. Clinton has detailed a space policy that is far more detailed than any Presidential Candidate has released in recent memory
2. If you don’t like the messenger and/or the message – then find another messenger – and help them craft a better message – otherwise …
3. just sit down and shut up
sit down and shut up? Alllrighty then…
Keith you are not convincing anyone or helping yourself
Brad says “Keith you are not convincing anyone or helping yourself”
“helping myself”? Gee, Brad – since when has that been a concern of mine?
Earth sciences do need a boost, primarily because they were cut so much under Bush and they are so vital to understanding the condition and future direction of the climate. And NASA is in a good position to do that research. I think whoever is in the WH will have to face that reality if they’re going to take the environment seriously. So, I see Clinton’s policy statement as a plus here.
Unfortunately, Bush’s policies have run up the national debt substantially and left us in a rather large fiscal hole. The U.S. may soon enter a recession (or it may already be in one) and that could also pose a challenge for a new president if it runs into 2009. That will make the fiscal situation worse by weakening tax revenues.
Then there are the aforementioned problems with Orion and Ares. I don’t know what’s going to happen there. The only thing that seems fairly certain is that nobody’s going to deal with those problems seriously until winter/spring 2009, barring another shuttle loss or something equally serious.
I tend to take pre-election policy statements on space with a grain of salt because it’s not an issue that most candidates think through to great detail AND they won’t know the full circumstances of what they’re dealing with until they take office. As detailed as Clinton’s policy seems now, it’s apt to changed based on contingencies, some of which are not foreseeable.
Ken – I don’t think we can consider VSE even a roadmap – its a mission statement – its mom and apple pie, and thats why (looking directly at Mark) it counts for crap. As of right now, all we are getting is an EELV class vehicle, and capsule, that can do Earth orbit (maybe – if we pray hard enough).
anonymous.space – your point about what will replace shuttle well stated. FWIW, I asked Lori Garver about it at the Personal Spaceflight symposium – I got the impression that the short answer is “they haevn’t decided yet.” I suspect (both from some comments and my experince with people of the political persasuion) that there is a natural inclination to lean towards retaining the current plan (this is something that requires a high degree of specilized knowledge, of which Senator Clinton does not necassarily have, and so its best to trust the “experts”). However, the Senator can add (much like you can), and realizes there is the money issue. In addition, there will be a natural desire to distance herself from Bush on multiple issues (and this would be one way to do it – changing something fundemental). Finally, I suspect she has more than one person telling her the problems that are beginning to crop up in the Ares system, technical wise.
So the while she wants to “accerlating the next generation of rockets and spaceships”, I don’t think they quite know what that next gen will be.
anonymous.space: “Assuming they’ve had a chance to consider the issue at all, the key question is what does the Clinton campaign want to replace the Space Shuttle with? If it’s still Ares I/Orion, then the NASA budget is going to have to be increased. There’s just not enough dollars in Ares V/EDS/LSAM — which don’t start ramping up until 2011 — to make a dent in both the Ares I/Orion schedule and also to restore Earth Science, aeronautics, and space science cuts.
The only way to have both a quicker Shuttle replacement and to restore Earth Science, aeronautics, and space science without a multi-billion dollar increase to the NASA topline is to pick a less costly and more quickly fielded alternative to Ares I/Orion (whether EELV-derived, a better Shuttle-derived solution, or something else). Since a multi-billion dollar increase to the NASA topline is almost certainly not in the cards regardless of who sits in the White House, is that what the Clinton campaign is indicating in this latest Space News piece? Do they want to replace Ares I/Orion with something that’s less costly to develop and operate and that can be fielded more rapidly?”
I agree that the ESAS numbers don’t add up for a lunar program, and they certainly don’t add up with restored Earth science, space science, and aeronautics programs plus ISS gap reduction. I suspect these priorities will be preferred by most Presidential candidates over a lunar program that doesn’t return results until long after their administration, even if it succeeds on schedule.
I can imagine circumstances changing in such a way that allows a human lunar program to go forward even keeping Ares 1/Orion with their problems. That’s by changing the current policy that only NASA will build the lunar transportation infrastructure. There are commercial and international possibilities, even with Ares 1/Orion as a NASA responsibility.
There’s just not enough dollars in Ares V/EDS/LSAM …
..the ESAS numbers don’t add up for a lunar program [plus] restored Earth science, space science, and aeronautics programs plus ISS gap reduction.
a.space, Ray: Please don’t leave these big lumpy chunks of reality lying around. Someone in a hurry to make a partisan point could trip on them.
TheSpaceReview ought to have an “official” discussion forum, with the link at the bottom of the article to the discussion thread associated with it. Lots of news sites have that nowadays.
Doesnt need to be on the same site, could as easily be just a link to a corresponding blog post here or something.
I think it would benefit both the authors and readers to have a more direct feedback.
just a thought
“TheSpaceReview ought to have an “official†discussion forum”
Seconded.
Then everyone can sit around the lunar campfire singing Kumbaya.
It will be so much fun.
Lets also remember that the increases in the NASA budget that will restore Aeronautics, earth science(climate change studies) are simply minor changes in the overall federal budget. If Senator Clinton increased the NASA budget by 2-3 billion a year(remember her yes vote on the billion dollar increase to the NASA 2008 budget), eliminated Ares 1,developed Direct 2 & continued a manned lunar Mars program, we would have a “real manned spaceflight program”. Minor NASA budget increaes would allow all of this to happen.
TheSpaceReview ought to have an “official†discussion forum, with the link at the bottom of the article to the discussion thread associated with it. Lots of news sites have that nowadays.
It’s on the to-do list, but it’s an awfully long list, trust me. There are a number of issues that have to be worked out, including comment moderation and spam concerns. (Not to mention to whole barfing thing…)
Whether Clinton ends up being a strong proponent of crewed exploration or not, the eventual policy, as with the current VSE, will be very general and open to a number of different interpretations. The choice of Griffin’s successor will have the most bearing on what direction NASA takes over a year from now. I don’t think anyone has the faintest idea on who that could be.
One thing I do feel the need to complain about – Dinermann takes the atitude (a false atitude that I hear too often) is that people in the Democratic party must be fundementally opposed to manned spaceflight, and that is exceptionally far from the truth. This can and has been pointed out multiple times to multiple people, and I get a little sick of it. But people love to perpetuate myths.
If Clinton II is the same policy is Clinton I or 50% Clinton I and 50% Bush II, it may get an A for effort, but it’s tepid. NASA won’t be neglected or do worse than now. Two cheers for Hillary Clinton. Hip Hip.
I dunno – ironic that Bush managed to bleed the treasury dry while seriously underfunding his own signature program in space. His reckless spending will now hobble anyone lucky (?) enough to follow him.
Dinerman’s piece largely lacks that context, rendering it of limited value. That seems to be common among Bush supporters within the space community. Being that Bush is the first president since…well Bush to make a human lunar/Mars effort, I guess it’s understandable — to a certain point. That and the admin’s policy of kneecapping anyone who dissents.
Mike Fazan wrote:
“The choice of Griffin’s successor will have the most bearing on what direction NASA takes over a year from now.”
Only too correct and a big part of the problem. The VSE tried to change it and provide a guiding vision but in the end it’s been left up to the Administrator’s whim and interpretation.
D. Messier:
So why haven’t they gotten to you then? Or the 16-18% of the US population that are extremely vocal dissenters? It wouldn’t be hard to notice if such numbers suddenly started using crutches or wheelchairs.
Back on topic: the next Administrator –or the next President, or even the next Congress if they took an interest beyond funding their districts– could swiftly bring NASA and the VSE back on track as well as increase spending on non-VSE areas by ditching the current implementation and choosing either a Direct v2 or EELV solution as others have mentioned. The whole point from the start was to work towards the VSE without a budget increase and it’s still possible. By choosing Direct v2 (an easier switch than to EELVs since it would involve the same companies, companies which I presume have already gotten contracts) one could possibly even keep all of the Shuttle workforce and reduce it incrementally by natural attrition instead of layoffs.
Do I believe it will happen? No, no longer do. If Hillary wins in ’08 and makes it happen I will applaud her for it, just the same as if anyone else wins and does it (I find it extremely unlikely that any of them will manage, even if my own favourite Giuliani is elected).
Hbitat Hermit wrote @ November 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
D. Messier:
So why haven’t they gotten to you then? Or the 16-18% of the US population that are extremely vocal dissenters? It wouldn’t be hard to notice if such numbers suddenly started using crutches or wheelchairs.
I don’t know. I just don’t know. I do lose a fair amount of sleep over it, though.
I am guessing that you are not an American cititzen and thus has no vote in the next presidential election. Correct me if I’m wrong here.
Since insomnia wouldn’t help even if you were right and quite possibly would make everything and anything seem worse than it really is I hope you’ll start sleeping better.
You’re absolutely right I’m not an U.S. citizen; I’m norwegian.