Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was in Houston yesterday to make a speech at the “Houston Presidential Energy Summit”, the only one of the three major candidates to speak at the event. According to a report at PoliGazette by someone who is clearly a supporter of, or at least sympathetic to, Clinton, the candidate did briefly mention human spaceflight in her speech:
Differentiating herself with Obama regarding space exploration, Clinton said that she would accelerate development of the space shuttle’s replacement to ensure that America continues to lead in space and does allow “a ten year period in which Americans will have to hitch a ride from Chinese or Russian-made vehicles”.
The “ten-year period” appears to be a calculation based on the current five-year gap between Shuttle and Constellation plus previous statements by Barack Obama that he would delay the Constellation program by five years to help fund his education initiative, although later statements have made it unclear exactly what parts of Constellation Obama would postpone.
Update 1:30 pm: Clinton also addressed space policy at a rally later Thursday evening, as reported by a Huffington Post blogger:
A few minutes later, she moves on to the space program. “And let’s continue to look toward the stars. Houston is the center of space exploration. We need a president who wants to keep sending Americans into space. . . . That’s one difference between me and my opponent. I want Houston to remain the capital of the space program. I don’t want to be sending Americans into space on a Chinese or a Russian manned vehicle.” If her supporters think this is an odd remark, they clap and ululate nevertheless.
I wonder, does this mean she will now sign on as a cosponser of Hutchinson-Mikulski? Or is this empty capaign rhetoric?
Clinton was an original co-sponsor of the Mikulski-Hutchinson Bill. She and Senator Salazar (D-CO) were the only Senators without a NASA Center in their state to co-sponsor.
[…] Posted on February 29, 2008 by hoppin  (originally posted as a comment on a post at SpacePolitics.com […]
China and Russia may build (and sell to NASA) also an heavy lifter since (also) the Ares-5 seems have big problems to fly… http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/required022708.xml&headline=NASA%20Needs%20A%20Bigger%20Ares%20V&channel=space
To add to “factchecker”‘s statement, here’s an excerpt from a Space News article about the Senate’s approval of the “Mikulski Miracle” on October 4:
Space Politics Junkies –
Shh! Don’t tell Hillary, who is quoted as saying: I don’t want to be sending Americans into space on a Chinese or a Russian manned vehicle. that we ALREADY ARE sending Americans into space on Russian manned vehicles.
Perhaps she meant that she does not want that to be the only way for Americans to get into space. If so, she is probably already too late.
[Dire Prediction Alert] If relations continue to worsen, we might be happy to fly on Russian launchers but they might not let us.
Charles
Mark, I have to say that I’m curious. You say, in effect, that no Democrat ever vocally supports human spaceflight. When one does, you say (falsely, bu your own example) that it is empty retoric. Just what is it that a Democrat has to do and / or say regarding spaceflight in order to avoid being attacked on that subject by you?
— Donald
“I wonder, does this mean she will now sign on as a cosponser of Hutchinson-Mikulski? Or is this empty capaign rhetoric?”
“Clinton was an original co-sponsor of the Mikulski-Hutchinson Bill. She and Senator Salazar (D-CO) were the only Senators without a NASA Center in their state to co-sponsor.”
Pinnochio #1 for Mr. Whittington.
Alright, I do regret the error. However, if you parse words (as oine must do with anything a Clinton says) you will note that there is not specific support for the Vision for Space Exploration, just for the Orion/Ares as a replacement for the shuttle. To answer Donald’s questoion,. considering the recent record of most Democrats, a Democrat like Ms. Clinton has to not only be more specific in their support, but to match their support with deeds. I’ve acknowledged people like Mikulski and Senator Nelson for doing.
I’ll have to finish by noting that the probable Democrat nominee is hardly proving himself a friend of space, eithe public or private.
Just another thought. Ms. Clinton is running, at least in part, on her husband’s record. It is acknowledged that Mr. Clinton’s record on space is pretty horrible. I wonder if Ms. Clinton will acknowledge this fact.
Btw, “Annoymous Space”, it is spelled, “Pinocchio.”
“Alright, I do regret the error.”
Just this one?
“However, if you parse words (as oine must do with anything a Clinton says) you will note that there is not specific support for the Vision for Space Exploration, just for the Orion/Ares as a replacement for the shuttle.”
This parsing is incorrect. Clinton has repeatedly called for speeding up Shuttle replacement vehicles (plural), but has not called or supported Ares I or Orion by name.
“considering the recent record of most Democrats”
And that record would be? Evidence?
“I’ll have to finish by noting that the probable Democrat nominee is hardly proving himself a friend of space, eithe public or private.”
On the public side, Obama is the only candidate to have endorsed Ares I and Orion by name. If you’re a friend of ESAS/Ares I/Orion, then you should arguably count Obama as the best friend of NASA’s human space flight program among the three candidates. Clinton supports accelerating Shuttle replacement vehicles without reference to Ares I/Orion, and McCain has not stated what he would do with NASA going forward, only what he has supported in the past.
And, unlike Clinton’s commercial space references, Obama and McCain have said nothing about private human space flight.
“It is acknowledged that Mr. Clinton’s record on space is pretty horrible.”
By who? References? Evidence?
“Btw, ‘Annoymous Space’, it is spelled, ‘Pinocchio.'”
And “oine” is spelled “one” and “eithe” is spelled “either”.
Oy vey…
Charles in Houston said…”I don’t want to be sending Americans into space on a Chinese or a Russian manned vehicle.”
that, also if the future price of a spacecraft “made in China” will be 20% than build in USA and Europe?
after all, nearly 100% of the computers we buy come from China or other asian countries… despite, the computers, are MUCH MORE strategic for our economies!
just imagine that, someday, China will want to kill us… they won’t need to launch the ICBM but only STOP sell computers to us…
will come a day that, China and India will export spacecrafts like now do with consumers products, and buy them will be not so strange
.
Being called a liar by someone who choses not to do so under his/her own name is a little rich.
“Anonymous Space’s” point about Hillary Clinton not being specific about what “shuttle replacement” she supports is an interesting one. There is only one shuttle replacement being developed by NASA, so far as I know. Does “Anonymous Space” know about another project? (COTS, by the way, I’m not sure qualifies, since it suggests commercially developed and operated vehicles; Ms. Clinton has been silent on commercial space, except to suggest that she will raise taxes on all commercial enterprises.) In any case, “Anonymous Space” is correct that Ms. Clinton is not actually calling by name what she supports and that is something to consider. What is it that she supports if not Orion/Ares? Does she even know?
Obama has, by the way, at various times, called for delaying Orion/Ares by five (further) years and has expressed doubts about even the concept of human space flight. He is also silent on commercial space,e xcept (as with Clinton) promising to raise taxes on all commercial enterprises. That does not give one any confidence that he would be anything but a disaster.
Feigning ignorence about the dismal record on space during the Carter and Clinton years, not to mention the constant attempts by Democrats in Congress to zero out this and that NASA project as well as Rep Oberstar’s desire to regulate commercial space out of existence, will do nothing to buttress “Anonymous Space’s crediblity.
McCain has expressed warm support for the Vision for Space Exploration. Does “Anonymous Space” suggest that Senator McCain intends to change his mind and do the opposite as President as he has done as a Senator? Be specific and cite sources. (McCain, btw, is also silent on commercial space, a fact I have criticized him for.)
BTW, it occurs to be that while Hillary Clinton was, after all, a cosponser of the Hutchinson/Mikulski amendment, her rhetoric could still be empty. Being a cosponser of a piece of legislation is as easy as making a phone call. How much did she exert herself to get the amendment passed? I’m thinking of not only lobbying fellow Senators, but also House members, where the thing died last time.
“Being called a liar”
Where did I call you a liar?
I and others have repeatedly called out multiple factual errors in your posts on this website. But I have never called you a liar. I have no way of knowing whether your errors are due to intent, delusion, or misinformation.
And for the umpteenth time, please don’t put words in my mouth. If you can’t construct an argument without misportraying what other posters have said, then please don’t waste your or our time participating in the discussion.
“by someone who choses not to do so under his/her own name is a little rich”
Mr. Foust welcomes anonymous comments on this website. If you are uncomfortable posting on a website with anonymous posters, then simply don’t post on or visit this website. No one is forcing you to be here.
And for the umpteenth time, please do not engage in ad hominem attacks. Debate the logic and evidence of the arguments, not the poster’s status.
“COTS, by the way, I’m not sure qualifies, since it suggests commercially developed and operated vehicles”
Sigh… COTS doesn’t “suggest commercially developed and operated vehicles”. Like EELV, COTS vehicles have joint public and private funding, and may (probably Space-X) or may not (probably Taurus II) have commercial customers if and when they become operational.
And if they can service the ISS and LEO, why wouldn’t COTS vehicles qualify as a Shuttle replacement? Why would partial private funding or commercial customers prevent a vehicle from replacing the Shuttle’s technical functions? Are you opposed to all private investment in human space flight and commercial space activities? Or just private investments to support NASA human space flight activities? And by what logic?
“Ms. Clinton has been silent on commercial space”
Wrong again.
Jim Muncy, a former Republican staffer covering NASA and civil space issues in the House and current lobbyist for various commercial space firms, argued at an STA breakfast that Clinton has the “one statement by any candidate other than now-withdrawn Rudy Giuliani that referred to commercial and entrepreneurial space.” See Mr. Foust’s earlier blog entry here (add http://www):
.spacepolitics.com/2008/02/06/trading-places/
Clinton’s campaign also held a breakout session on “Commercial and Civil Space” at a Washington issues forum back in June (add http://www):
.comspacewatch.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1219
Pinocchio #2 for Mr. Whittington.
“He is also silent on commercial space,e xcept (as with Clinton) promising to raise taxes on all commercial enterprises.”
Totally and utterly false.
Obama has proposed closing special interest loopholes in the corporate tax code and eliminating international tax havens. Those loopholes and havens do not apply to “all businessesâ€, not by a long shot. The rest of Obama’s proposal deals with the personal income tax, i.e., tax breaks for middle class workers, lower income senior citizens, and homeowners and a repeal of Bush II tax breaks for the very wealthy (top 1%).
Clinton has similarly proposed a repeal of Bush II income tax breaks for the very wealthy. I am not aware of any Clinton proposals regarding corporate taxes.
We may not agree with the economic philosophy behind these tax proposals, but that doesn’t give us carte blanche to paint them with highly inaccurate and misleading statements.
Pinocchio #3 for Mr. Whittington.
“Feigning ignorence about the dismal record on space during the Carter”
You were attacking the Clintons and “recent” Democrats. What does the Carter White House, an administration that ended almost three decades ago, have to do with your argument?
“and Clinton years,”
What is dismal about the Clinton Administration:
— Bringing Space Station design cycles and spiraling costs to an end;
— Saving the ISS from Congressional cancellation (and later technical failure after Columbia) by bringing the Russians into the partnership;
— Funding NASA’s first attempts to develop low-cost launch vehicle technology in two decades;
— Funding NASA’s first attempts to procure commercial human space flight capabilities; and
— Ending a one-mission-a-decade syndrome in NASA’s space science programs, replacing a broken Mars program with a program that (until Griffin) has sent missions at every 26-month launch opportunity, and starting programs of competed planetary missions (among other NASA science achievements).
Again, who has called the Clinton record on NASA “dismal”, where are the references to their statements, and what is their evidence?
“not to mention the constant attempts by Democrats in Congress to zero out this and that NASA project”
What “constant attempts”? Cite the bills, amendments, and sponsors, and list who (Democrat and Republican) voted for what.
“as well as Rep Oberstar’s desire to regulate commercial space out of existence”
This statement confuses and conflates the emergent private suborbital human space flight industry with all commercial space activities. Oberstar’s proposals have nothing to do with existing commercial satellite and launch vehicle activities and have nothing to do with potential future private orbital activities by Bigelow, Space-X, etc.
“will do nothing to buttress “Anonymous Space’s crediblity”
I’d take this comment seriously if every statement in the paragraph that preceeded it wasn’t:
— irrelevant (the Carter Administration is not “recent”);
— inaccurate (the Clinton Administration record on NASA, like every Presidency, is mixed, not “dismal”);
— lacking in evidence (where are the “constant attempts” by Democrats to “zero out” NASA programs and how do they stack up against the Republican record); and/or
— confused (Oberstar’s amendment would not “regulate commercial space out of existence” because it don’t affect most commercial space activities)
If you want to argue credibility, then your posts have enough credibility issues to keep you fully occupied in that vein. You don’t have time to spare to worry about other posters’ credibility.
And “crediblity” is spelled “credibility”.
“McCain has expressed warm support for the Vision for Space Exploration.”
Again, if we’re going to parse candidates’ statements, then McCain’s “warm support” is in the past tense only.
“Does “Anonymous Space†suggest that Senator McCain intends to change his mind and do the opposite as President as he has done as a Senator?”
I have no idea what McCain plans. I doubt anyone else does either. Unlike Clinton and Obama, who have released statements and made comments about their plans for NASA, there is no evidence that McCain and his campaign have given any thought about what to do with NASA going forward.
“Be specific and cite sources.”
Sure. You never have, but I will.
The McCain campaign’s only statement on NASA to date can be found here (add http://www):
.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/7366faf9-d504-4abc-a889-9c08d601d8ee.htm
Again, nowhere does the statement articulate what McCain would do with NASA going forward. It’s all past tense.
“McCain, btw, is also silent on commercial space”
Thanks for repeating a point that I already made in my prior post.
[rolls eyes…]
“BTW, it occurs to be that while Hillary Clinton was, after all, a cosponser of the Hutchinson/Mikulski amendment, her rhetoric could still be empty. Being a cosponser of a piece of legislation is as easy as making a phone call. How much did she exert herself to get the amendment passed?”
If we’re going to ask this question about Clinton or Democrat sponsors, then we also need to ask it of Republican sponsors. How much time and effort has Hutchison put into trying to get the “Mikulski miracle” passed?
Ugh…
I’m seeing an lot of hard to swallow spin regarding the Clinton administrations management of NASA.
‘Saving’ the space station by turning it into the ISS is hardly an example of good management or good leadership. How does the ISS project advance manned space exploration? It mainly seems an expensive distraction that only continues post-Columbia due to prior international obligations. It would have been more appropriate to fund ISS from the budget of the State Department than from NASA since international relations, in particular with Russia, seems the primary mission of the ISS.
And there is no denying that NASA was being slowly squeezed for cash over the course of the Clinton administration. Declining budgets despite inflation was the pressure that led to failures such as the Mars Polar Lander. Trying to push the ‘faster-better-cheaper’ concept too far as a means to cope with ever smaller budgets was such a consequence.
During the 1990’s I heard the term ‘death-spiral’ applied to NASA because of the budget squeeze. The reality of the squeeze was one reason why ‘manned space exploration’ became a forbidden phrase, as NASA was battling just to hold onto the toehold of LEO manned operations with an ever aging Shuttle fleet.
I don’t care for the negative spin on the McCain space policy either. So it’s ‘all past tense’ is it? The McCain statement seems about as forward looking and unambiguous as one could reasonably ask for.
“John McCain is a strong supporter of NASA and the space program. He is proud to have sponsored legislation authorizing funding consistent with the President’s vision for the space program, which includes  a return of astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars. He believes support for a continued US presence in space is of major importance to America’s future innovation and security. He has also been a staunch advocate for ensuring that NASA funding is accompanied by proper management and oversight to ensure that the taxpayers receive the maximum return on their investment. John McCain believes curiosity and a drive to explore have always been quintessential American traits. This has been most evident in the space program, for which he will continue his strong support.”
Â
I agree with this:
And there is no denying that NASA was being slowly squeezed for cash over the course of the Clinton administration.
ISS is / was very much about extending a hand to the Russians.
But the cash squeeze is also true today and the cash squeeze was also true in Spring 2007 and in Spring 2006. The $17.6 billion proposed by President Bush ALSO leaves NASA trapped is a death spiral as long as ESAS is the chosen architecture. Does John McCain propose to change that?
ESAS is not being funded at the levels it needs to succeed. Mileage may vary on whether ESAS would be sufficiently funded with $1 billion more per year, $2 billion more per year, $5 billion more per year or whether ESAS is fatally flawed.
People do disagree on that question.
However, does anyone disagree with the assertion that we need to take a close look at whether we “stick with the Stick” or not and if we do whether a $17.6 billion budget is both sufficient, and coherent?
= = =
Anyway, is John McCain committed to “stick with the Stick”
= = =
Personally, I believe ESAS could be made to work IF Congress added a few billion dollars to the budget each year but IF Congress and the next President do not increase NASA’s budget we may well see another budget death spiral, if we stick with the Stick.
And of course that April 2009 test flight looms large. IF (note that I type “if”) Ares 1 proves to be the “mother of all paint shakers” THEN NASA could be forced to choose a new direction regardless.
Not to defend Mark, anonymous but when you call his statements “Pinocchios” it is tantamount to calling them lies (since the nose grew every time the puppet lied, not merely told a mistruth). I don’t think that Mark lies. I just think that he’s severely delusional.
” you will note that there is not specific support for the Vision for Space Exploration, just for the Orion/Ares as a replacement for the shuttle.” Mark Whittington.
In today’s political climate of the whole red state blue state dividing line, what democratic candidate for president is going to praise ANYTHING Bush? Not even praise but even mention in a positive light? If you scour through all of the speeches of all the candidates from day one, find me some examples where ANY democrate praised ANYTHING bush or signed on to it. The only real example is no child left behind, and even that gets trampled as a negative because bush under funded it.
To find that Clinton does not mention VSE by name is not a surprise at all what democratic candidate has ever mentioned VSE by name? No democrate in this political climate is going to move towards bush if they can help it, only distance themselves. By answering the way she did Clinton has effectively moved herself away from VSE and Bush for campaign purposes and showed support for manned flight and the current system without showing any outward support for a Bush program.
Forunately the British may save us from Obama so this discussion on his space policy may be moot.
Obama, Rezko, Auchi Connections per Times Online UK
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/28/155937/434
Obama, Rezko, Auchi Connections per Times Online UK
by Vote4Hillary, Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:59:37 PM EST
From The Times
February 26, 2008
Mansion ‘mistake’ piles the pressure on Barack Obama
It also explains a lot about Obama’s “success” in fund raising.
Wrong link. This is the correct one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece
I see a lot of arguing here — but little of it deals with reality.
We have a huge budget deficits … as far as the eye can see.
The baby boomers are starting to retire, and Medicare and Social Security are about to explode. The budget deficits are only going to get worse, unless something drastic is done about federal spending, taxes, or both.
CONCLUSION: The last 16 years at NASA will soon be seen as good years.
I don’t care who wins — McCain, Clinton or Obama.
A really bad storm is coming. There is going to be blood on the floor. In real dollars, spending for a civilian space agency is going to be going down for a long time to come.
That is, unless somebody does something totally different.
– Al
C’mon, Al — we’ve got a lot of deck chairs to rearrange here, and there you go again with your “iceberg” obsession.
Me, I’m over it. I used to think that big tax cuts + deficit-financed war + stagnant growth+ inflation + high energy prices was a sequence all too reminiscent of 1964-1974, but for several weeks now Very Serious People have been assuring us that it’s Nothing Like That At All. So if we all clap our hands hard enough, Tinkerbelle should be just fine.
Fortunatly America is actually a corporation, USA Inc. and will beable to declare bankruptcy in no time.
Apologies for replying to the off-topic conversation.
Vladislaw:
no, comparing the US (or any nation state) to a company just doesn’t hold water on so many levels and particularly in respect to economics, and that’s a good thing. The comparison is ok for soundbites and general spirit of approach but beyond that it doesn’t make much sense if any.
To the debt-mongers:
the US debt situation isn’t nearly as bad as a lot of people (would like?) to believe, in fact the US public debt (what one always hears referenced simply as the US debt) as a percentage of GDP (the only measure that has substantial meaning) is now less or close to what it was from about 1985 to about 1999.
So less hyperventilation and more reasoning please.
Sure there are issues about future changes and particularly demographic ones and GWB in particular has (unsuccessfully) been trying to get Congress to address those pretty much since he came into office. That’s eight years with Congress under control of both major parties, too bad the Republicans didn’t have an absolute majority or the initiatives would likely have gotten through and wouldn’t be a worry any more.
Another thing about debt and foreign debt-holders in particular; the debt is bought by foreigners and Americans alike. Many don’t seem to get that and don’t understand that the reason for doing so is that it accumulates returns and various other benefits depending on what kind of economic entity the buyer is. I.e. when someone buys US debt in the form of bonds (nearly all of it is) they do so as an investment. There is also a limit on just how much foreigners can hold and as far as I know Japan is the only country that has maxed out that limit, not China.
A tad less economic xenophobia would be good ^_^
So less hyperventilation and more reasoning please.
It’s people just like you that have destroyed America.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
A tad less economic xenophobia would be good
You are a first class American ahole. This war and debt is catastrophic.
Go peddle your conservative free market flim flam hucksterism to ignorant school children. School children now amenable to your propaganda from 30 years of your neglect of basic science and rationality over republican nonsense and verbal inanity.
It’s kind of amusing that Elifritz is so stupid as to think that Habitat Hermit is an American. Or a Republican.
So just like you, Rand, he is an ARMCHAIR debt warrior.
Only he has nothing at stake, and nothing to lose. Figures.
Meh Elifritz, and pfft too.
Oh and a thank you: a hobby of mine is collecting genuinely unprovoked hurled insults of the laughter-inducing kind (at least to those who know me in person) and I’ve just added “destroyer of America” ^_^
Ok a few clarifications: any sensible economist (not saying I’m one) would of course work in a comfortable armchair so your idiomatic use of “armchair” flounders. It’s not like they’re out in the wilderness hitting inflation over the head with a mallet… doesn’t work that way.
On politics I’m somewhere in the vicinity of what has to be called classical liberalism in the US, otherwise known simply as liberalism in the rest of the world. I would be extremely likely to vote Republican if American.
Oslo, Norway is where I’m located and yes I’m Norwegian.
Obligatory hidden message to Elifritz included.
!