Campaign '08

Trading places

Tuesday morning the Space Transportation Association (STA) hosted a breakfast featuring what it billed as something of a debate between Lori Garver and Jim Muncy on the various presidential candidates’ stances on space policy. In reality, the event was more of a discussion of the candidates’ views on space than a debate, although there was a Freaky Friday-like twist: Garver, a Democrat, talked about the Republican candidates, while Muncy, a Republican, talked about the Democratic candidates. “This gives you respect for the other side, how challenging it is,” Garver said.

For those who have been following what the candidates have been saying about space here and elsewhere, there was not much in the way of new insights about the candidates views. Garver said that John McCain has a “nuanced” position on space from his time in the Senate, and procurement has been a big issue for him in regards to aerospace. McCain introduced a bill in 1991 to cancel the space station program, she noted, but has since been supportive of the effort. She called McCain’s statement on space policy “a very good statement” and “very positive”, and added that McCain would “in general be supportive” of commercial space initiatives.

Muncy said that Barack Obama’s space policy is “fairly well thought out” overall, although he did identify one conflict between the policy and previous statements by the campaign to delay Constellation for five years to help pay for his education program. The Obama statement explicitly supports the continued development of Orion and Ares 1, but Muncy noted that Constellation funding will be dominated by those two efforts through about 2011 or 2012, when development of the Ares 5 and other Constellation components ramp up. Muncy also lauded Obama’s technology and innovation policy: “It would have been nice to have seen some of those folks who wrote the technology policy, as thought out as it is, writing the space policy.”

Muncy also discussed the Clinton campaign’s follow-up statement in November on space policy (which, to the best of my knowledge, has not been posted online), which tried to make clearer Clinton’s support for an eventual human return to the Moon, also included support for additional investments in aerospace and aeronautics R&D, “including through incentives and cooperative ventures”. He called that the one statement by any candidate other than now-withdrawn Rudy Giuliani that referred to commercial and entrepreneurial space. “For that reason, this Republican probably would, if he was voting in a Democratic primary, endorse Senator Clinton.” That statement was greeted with a chorus of “ooohs!” and claps from the audience.

Garver and Muncy also used the event to step back and address the relative importance of space policy in the overall campaign. Space is not a top-tier issue, Muncy said, but it does have “tentacles” that reach into other topics, from the environment to the military. Moreover, most of the space policy discussion to date has focused on civil space, with little or no mention of military or commercial space issues. Still, he concluded, “short of a 21st century version of Sputnik, it’s hard for me to imagine what would cause more attention to space in February of an election year.”

15 comments to Trading places

  • The People

    If a Clinton or Obama administration would let this ESAS silliness continue, albeit at a slower pace, perhaps I will vote Republican, after all. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Griffin hanging on to his job if either of these two is elected.

    McCain is the candidate of the Forever War, but he doesn’t seem to be swayed easily by fringe interests, like the human exploration zealots.

  • MarkWhittington

    One caveat about McCain. He has exhibted some hostility toward the idea of making money through the sale of goods and services (“profits vs patriotism”) that might spill over to commercial space, a subject he has not addressed yet. This needs some clarification, especially now that he’s the front runner.

    Both Clinton and Obama have suggested that they would delay or even cancel the Vision for Space Exploration, Obama more directly (as a way to pay for an education scheme) than Hillary.

  • Hillary Clinton has agreed to particiapte in a debate in Houston on February 28th before the Texas democratic primaries. Barack Obama has not agreed. This is another fantastic chance to get them talking about their space policies, as the differ on their plans and Houston would be particularly impacted.

    Email, fax, visit, and call Obama at (866) 675-2008 and tell him how important it is to you, and your vote, that he participate.

  • Given that Bush and Griffin have destroyed VSE, through the ESAS implimintation, whoever takes office will have to put it into complete overhaul.

    VSE is mom and apple pie – ESAS is what count, Mark

  • Ferris,

    I think it’s fair to say the George Bush has had bigger fish to fry since Columbia which help bring forth the VSE policy that was enacted into law. I actually fault his advisors for being asleep at the wheel with regards to ESAS despite repeated attempt to bring these problems to their attention much earlier.

    Until the recent GAO report on the just the programmatic problems with Ares-I Congress has been awfully quite as well while Mike fiddled way. The good news is that I think everyone is finally waking up to this disaster. The bad news is that we won’t get the money and more importantly time we wasted in building the components (disguised as an Ares-1) Mike wanted for his Ares-V rocket in a vain attempt to eclipse Wernher Von Braun’s SaturnV.

    The pressure on the discretionary budget only grows as we go forward. With the Space Shuttle ‘scheduled’ retirement just two year away we are faced with few good options out of this mess for manned space exploration. At this point even well thought out and efficiently implemented plans are going to have a tough time.

    Ares was sure a fitting name for all this being the Greek god of unnecessary and aggressive war after all. Truth in Advertising.

  • MarkWhittington

    “Given that Bush and Griffin have destroyed VSE, through the ESAS implimintation, whoever takes office will have to put it into complete overhaul.”

    Ferris, that sentence doesn’t even make any sense. How can something be overhauled if it has been destroyed? It’s that knid of rhetoric that makes people wonder if space advocates are not insane.

  • reader

    Guess which candidate:
    America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.

    This was posted on slashdot monday evening.

  • Stephen,

    Feel free to replace “Bush and Griffin” with “Bush administration”

    Yes, any president has a lot on his plate, but thats why he appoints competent people (which, frankly, I think we agree, he didn’t).

    As for Congress, yea, their oversight has been wanting as well. But the primary group of who to blame – the Bush administration

    Mark,
    what I am getting at is that the Bush administration has destroyed the VSE. In its place is ESAS, which is a mess. Whoever takes over, whether its a Dem or an R, won’t be facing VSE – they’ll be facing Constellation, and more importantly, ESAS. And it is ESAS that has destroyed VSE, and damaged Constellation to the point that the whole program needs overhaul.

  • MarkWhittington

    “Mark,
    what I am getting at is that the Bush administration has destroyed the VSE. In its place is ESAS, which is a mess. Whoever takes over, whether its a Dem or an R, won’t be facing VSE – they’ll be facing Constellation, and more importantly, ESAS. And it is ESAS that has destroyed VSE, and damaged Constellation to the point that the whole program needs overhaul.”

    Sonce the program seems to be fully funded and on schedule, I still don’t understand in what sense you mean “destroyed.”

  • anonymous.space

    “Sonce [sic] the program seems to be fully funded”

    ESAS/Constellation are not “fully funded”, not by a long shot.

    The President’s FY 2009 budget proposal for NASA overall is about $500 million below the planned VSE budget. This continues a annual budget shortfall trend that has existed since O’Keefe left NASA and Griffin came on board.

    The President’s FY 2009 budget proposal for Constellation reduces funding for both Ares I and Orion, by some tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each, versus the FY 2008 budget plan.

    Congress removed $200 million in prior-year carryover funds from Constellation in the FY 2008 budget.

    COTS received a major cut in FY 2008 and it remains to be seen if that funding will be restored.

    Worse, the December GAO report on Ares I states that NASA cannot provide firm cost estimates for that vehicle, so even if the White House and Congress had been meeting prior budget commitments, we don’t know if it’s enough to get Ares I built.

    “and on schedule”

    ESAS/Constellation are not “on schedule”, not by a long shot.

    The VSE (or National Space Exploration Policy) called for a Shuttle replacement by 2014. Ares I and Orion have an initial operating date of late 2015, putting them at least a year behind schedule. Even then, based on the budget, they only a 65-percent chance of meeting that date.

    The December GAO report on Ares I puts 2017 as the most likely operational date for Ares I based on its J-2X engine long tent-pole, putting it two or three years behind schedule.

    Multiple design reviews have been delayed. Major decisions the abort systems and landing modes have been delayed. Hanley has made multiple attempts to delay PDR this year.

    And worse, the December GAO report states that NASA cannot provide firm schedule estimates for Ares I, so even if the program was meeting prior schedule commitments, we wouldn’t really know if Ares I was on schedule or not.

    “I still don’t understand in what sense you mean ‘destroyed.'”

    Even if we set aside the budgetary and schedule issues, the technical and safety issues plaguing Ares I and Orion are legion. The Ares I upper stage and Orion are down to single-string redundancy on many safety-critical systems. Orion still has potentially unsafe abort, orbit insertion, and landing modes. The Ares I first-stage has acoustic issues that are at the limits of human endurance (not to mention space-rated systems) and practically no mass margin to deal with them.

    And even if we set aside Ares I and Orion technical issues, decisions to start funding Ares V, EDS, and Altair (LSAM) have been pushed out to 2011, a time period in which at least two of the four remaining Presidential candidates have made detailed statements about terminating or deferring Constellation’s lunar return elements.

    And then there’s all the other VSE programs and budgets that were sacrificed to afford Ares I and Orion. Griffin halved the budget for what became COTS, eliminated most ISS research, killed nuclear power and propulsion, and reduced many other human exploration technology efforts just to get Ares I and Orion started. Mars missions, extrasolar planet telescopes, and outer moons missions — all integral parts of the original VSE document and roadmap — have also been terminated or deferred to afford Ares I and Orion.

    Mr. Valyn may be a little overblown when he states that the VSE has been destroyed by ESAS/Constellation/Ares I/Orion, but he’s not that far off the mark.

    FWIW…

  • Don’t confuse Mark with reality, Anon.

  • MarkWhittington

    Anon suggests that any technology development project that has technical problems is ipso facto bound to fail, something which history does not suggest is necessarily so. As far as I can see, Ares/Orion is still slated to be operational in the spring of 2015. The first return to the Moon is still scheduled for the summer of 2019. Hence, on schedule and on budget.

    The slippage from 2014, which happened over a year ago, was caused by a budget cut initiated by the Congress, not by anything the administration or NASA has done.

    “Griffin halved the budget for what became COTS, eliminated most ISS research, killed nuclear power and propulsion, and reduced many other human exploration technology efforts just to get Ares I and Orion started. Mars missions, extrasolar planet telescopes, and outer moons missions — all integral parts of the original VSE document and roadmap — have also been terminated or deferred to afford Ares I and Orion.”

    I’m not sure what Anon is talking about by halving COTS. When did that happen? The rest, most of which have been delayed and not cancelled, are part of what we call remaining inside a budget. If Anon is who he claims to be (something I’m not convinced of), then he should recognize the concept.

    Ferris was not being “a little overblown.” He was raving nonsense.

    Rand, by the way, is often confused about reality.

  • MarkWhittington

    BTW, Anon seems to be confused with this:

    “The President’s FY 2009 budget proposal for Constellation reduces funding for both Ares I and Orion, by some tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each, versus the FY 2008 budget plan.”

    A lot of personel and administrative costs have been moved to Cross Agency Support, hence no cut.

    Also, there’s a new start for an Outer Planets Moon orbiter, which Moon to be chosen later.

  • Anon suggests that any technology development project that has technical problems is ipso facto bound to fail

    No one has suggested that. These kinds of straw men are the reason that so few (if any) take you seriously.

    Not all “technical problems” are equivalent (for instance, your comparison on your blog of the pogo problem that Saturn had to the SRB vibration problem is a ludicrous one).

  • […] as Jim Muncy pointed out at a Space Transportation Association event last month, much of the Constellation-related spending in the initial years of the next administration would […]

Leave a Reply to anonymous.space 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>