Campaign '08

McCain “intrigued” by human Mars exploration

Republican presidential candidate John McCain is willing to spend more money on NASA and consider human exploration of Mars, according to a report on washingtonpost.com. McCain, meeting with Florida newspaper editors, said, “I’d be willing to spend more taxpayers dollars” on NASA. How much more money, he doesn’t say (or at least washingtonpost.com doesn’t report), nor how that would fit into his plans for a discretionary spending freeze if elected.

He added that he had an interest in sending people to Mars that dates back to reading Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles. “I’m intrigued by a man on Mars. I think it would excite the imagination of the American people… Americans would be very willing to do that.” Exactly how that intrigue would translate into policy (if it would at all), though, isn’t mentioned.

The AP account of the meeting brings up a different issue: McCain would “support continuing space shuttle missions” beyond 2010 and that he wants the US to have “a better set of priorities” for the space program. That last point sounds a little bit like what Barack Obama has been saying about reviewing the agency’s direction.

70 comments to McCain “intrigued” by human Mars exploration

  • spectator

    I’d like to read a story with quotes from McCain, not an AP writer interpreting what he said. At FloridaToday.com there is this

    Eberle asked if McCain would spend taxpayer money to extend shuttle missions another year or two, noting the U.S. will have to rely on Russia to maintain the International Space Station. McCain said yes.

    “Of course I’m disturbed when we have to rely on the Russians or any other country. As you know, the Chinese are getting also very big into the space business,” McCain said.

    I don’t recall Obama bringing Chinese space ambitions up as a motivation to advance the US space program. I read this very brief article in Flatoday.com as McCain suggesting or hinting a bigger budget for Nasa. That is most definitely not what Obama has suggested.

  • Habitat Hermit

    I vastly prefer McCain over Obama but I think this is grasping at straws in order to come up with a vanishingly thin batch of soup cooked from those very same straws and copious amounts of water ^_^ Can you really taste the difference?

    My interpretation would be that the freeze remains in full and that this is nothing much but an indication of future support and openmindedness after the freeze.

    Heinleinians take notice: McCain reads science fiction, you’ve got an approach there for applying some libertarian influence ^_^

  • GRS

    This sounds like a step in the right direction. At least a McCain Administration could get us out of this ESAS rut.

  • Great news! Now there’s a chance space will be back on the agenda or maybe on the back of the agenda :)

  • Heinleinians take notice: McCain reads science fiction, you’ve got an approach there for applying some libertarian influence ^_^

    No, he doesn’t. He reads Ray Bradbury, who is (by his own admission) a writer of fantasy, not SF. And is no libertarian (nor is John McCain).

  • dan

    There are just three alternatives. 1. Pull out of the ISS program. 2. Postpone the moon landings indefinitely. 3. Increase taxes.

  • Vladislaw

    A politician visits florida and says he is in favor of Nasa, the space program and the shuttle? Go figure.

  • anonymouspace

    “I read this very brief article in Flatoday.com as McCain suggesting or hinting a bigger budget for Nasa. That is most definitely not what Obama has suggested.”

    Obama’s representative at ISDC did suggest funding increases for NASA, repeatedly:

    “Steve Robinson, an Obama staffer who works primarily on education issues, said that space policy was part of the campaign’s broader science policy.”

    “He also said Obama would create a ‘supportive environment for scientific research and space exploration’ in the public and private sectors, ‘including the new generation of entrepreneurs who are interested in space exploration.'”

    “‘My boss, Senator Obama, has come out and said that, overall, science funding, nationally, needs to double, and that includes an increase in NASA funding,’ he said.”

    “Robinson added that a National Research Council study concluded that NASA was being tasked with more work that it could afford to do with its current budget. ‘The rallying cry, I think, for NASA now is that we will go as we can afford to pay. That’s not exactly an inspirational message, and that’s something I think my boss would like to look at and decide how to do this.'”

    See (add http://www):

    thespacereview.com/article/1142/1

    Whether either of these Presidential candidates is going to find spare change in the federal non-defense discretionary budget for NASA (or anything else) is not clear. The best of luck with that to both of them, but I would tend to take their other statements regarding discretionary budget freezes and major reviews of human space flight priorities as more realistic and more seriously. It will be interesting to see which McCain or Obama shows up in the White House with regards to NASA spending next year.

    FWIW…

  • Chuck2200

    Wow! We’re going to go to Mars! John says we should send a man to Mars. I got excited, so I went to John’s website to read about his Space Policy. If he wants to send human crews to Mars that must mean that he has finally worked out a coherent space policy. But I couldn’t find it. It must be the webmaster’s fault. He must have forgotten to make the hyperlink. Somebody email him and ask him to fix it please.

    Let’s see, where was John when he said that? Oh – Florida. Go figure. I guess that means that he’s going to pay for the Mars mission with all the money we will save by the 2008 Summer Gas Tax Holiday bill. Anybody know what that bill number is? I want to track its progress. There are several investments I plan to make with the windfall.

    Let’s see. The Mars mission is when? 2030? Like that’s going to really help the space coast in 2010 when Shuttle is furloughed, along with 90% of the space coast workers. That’s really going to be an economic boom to them.

    Mars (pie) in the sky. A chicken in every pot. Gas tax holiday windfall. Vote for me! Maybe John is the man that needs to go to Mars.

  • SpaceMan

    “…Maybe John is the man that needs to go to Mars” – Chuck2200

    Not unless he can package his copious hot air as the energy to get him there and no space suit allowed cause he`s such a manly man he doesn`t need one

  • spectator

    Anonymous.space. Great links. Only problem your are muddying what is crystal clear waters. Obama has stated repeatedly what he thinks of the VSE and that is to use large but undefined Nasa budget to fund his education priorities.

    As your links show, Obama has “said” he wants to grow Nasa but he has also said “NASA is no longer associated with inspiration..” Together these two Obamaisms would imply he has some other vision in mind besides the VSE and ISS that he would like to fund. Yet he hasn’t stated or hinted his new vision nor hinted at the cost of his new vision. Do you know?

    All we are left with is just his one very specific proposal, to use Nasa to fund his new proposals for the Department of Education. Of course there is one huge flaw in Obama’s proposal. Money for the heavy lift portion doesn’t begin to flow until after 2015, just when an Obama Presidency will be winding down his second term. He will have to use 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013 dollars to fulfill that campaign promise to the kids, so what will he cut from the 2009 Nasa? Aeronautics? ISS? CLV? Science and outer planets?

    I hate to publicaly display leaps of logic, but if he doesn’t like the VSE and he doesn’t like the CEV, maybe he doesn’t like the CLV either?

  • Doug Lassiter

    My understanding is that Craig Steidle is formally advising the McCain campaign, and may be determining McCain’s NASA policy.

    Of course, Steidle was an O’Keefe appointee to the ESMD AA position, and was purged almost immediately by Griffin.

    I would not assume that he signs on to the ESAS architecture, and the path that Constellation has taken. My recollection was that he was much more Mars-forward than what the Vision has turned out to be.

  • GRS

    Admiral Steidle has also adopted an EELV-based approach for Shuttle replacement, albeit with the Orbital Space Plane (OSP). I think it would be very easy for him to embrace an approach using a downsized Orion/CEV on top of an EELV.

    The Admiral had a very forward focused program that didn’t play favorites with any of the NASA centers, particularly Marshall. This ticked off several of the congressional delegations. But I have a feeling that the Alabama contingent may not hold as much sway over the upcoming years.

    It’s interesting that you brought up the Admiral here. I’ve heard rumors from several sources that he would be the likely NASA Administrator if McCain is elected. Unlike the current Soviet-style Design Bureau Culture at NASA, Steidle is a believer and practitioner of good old American free enterprise and competition.

  • The specific question McCain was asked was whether he supported continuing Shuttle missions past 2010, a la Weldon. The text of the story seems to indicate that he does (“that he was worried about future funding of the space shuttle program”). However, in watching the video of his comments, McCain never says any such thing. He points out that he is worried about the problem of the gap and is open to spending more money to fix it. This is more likely to be a reference to the Lampson plan on accelerating Orion/Ares than the Weldon plan on continuing Shuttle flights past 2010.

  • GRS

    This is more likely to be a reference to the Lampson plan on accelerating Orion/Ares than the Weldon plan on continuing Shuttle flights past 2010.

    If you’re really interested in “closing the gap,” then you need to dump Ares I and start work on an EELV/Orion option. It would also be prudent to ramp up investment in the COTS options.

    I apologize for stating what’s been stated ad nauseam before, but you just can’t avoid it when you have something that’s so out of kilter with reality.

  • If Steidle really is advising McCain, and would be his administrator, that would be very good news (assuming McCain wins). He would certainly undo ESAS.

  • anonymouspace

    “If Steidle really is advising McCain, and would be his administrator, that would be very good news (assuming McCain wins). He would certainly undo ESAS.”

    Steidle and McCain are both ex-Navy pilots, and O’Keefe and McCain are close (and O’Keefe comes from a Navy family), so it’s possible.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous.space

    “Only problem your [sic] are muddying what is crystal clear waters.”

    How can I (or anyone else) muddy waters by directly quoting the representative of a campaign? If you don’t like what the campaign is saying, blame them, not me. I’m just repeating their words.

    “Money for the heavy lift portion doesn’t begin to flow until after 2015, just when an Obama Presidency will be winding down his second term.”

    Very wrong. The Ares V development budget ramps up starting in 2011, after Shuttle retirement, not 2015. McCain or Obama are going to have to make a decision one way or the other on whether the human lunar return elements of the VSE get carried out on schedule in their administration’s first full budget cycle.

    “I hate to publicaly display leaps of logic, but if he doesn’t like the VSE and he doesn’t like the CEV, maybe he doesn’t like the CLV either?”

    Huh? The Obama campaign is the only one of the three remaining campaigns (counting Clinton) to have supported Ares I and Orion by name and in writing:

    “The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will leave the United States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States’ reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designed with technology that is already proven and available.”

    See (add http://www):

    spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

    My 2 cents is that it’s a mistake for the Obama campaign to support Ares I and CEV by name and that this position will come back to haunt an Obama White House. But the Obama campaign has clearly made a written commitment to those vehicles.

    FWIW…

  • I betcha McCain is talking about Mars Bar, the chocolate candy bar. “..Send a man to Mars [factory]”. It’s difficult to tell where his promises vs commitment really are.

  • Someone

    Really, now that Senator Clinton is no longer in the campaign, Senator McCain is the only hope to save the space program. Otherwise it will be gutted to just robots and photos by Obama’s education people.

    Imagine, sending a High School teacher to talk space policy at a national forum. He looked so totally lost. You would have to wonder who Obama would pick to run NASA? I hope it wouldn’t be Dr. Robinson. He gives Lost in Space a new meaning as regards the Obama campaign.

    I never voted Republican before, but this year there is no other choice thanks to a messed up primary process and Super Delegates too timid to save the party from a train wreck.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Imagine, sending a High School teacher to talk space policy at a national forum. He looked so totally lost. You would have to wonder who Obama would pick to run NASA? I hope it wouldn’t be Dr. Robinson. He gives Lost in Space a new meaning as regards the Obama campaign.

    A bit simplistic.

    As I understand it, the guy is a molecular biology PhD, was on the faculty in a respectable department, and has worked on the Hill for several years as a science and technology policy staffer. I think he ended up doing some high school teaching because he followed his wife’s professional move. I don’t count that against him, and sort of envy the school district that hired him. I saw the forum too, and did not get any impression of lostness from him. (Though we could argue over facial expressions, I think that’s kinda pointless.) Perhaps he just looked uncomfortable, which is how many of us feel about a space program that is going off the rails. Let’s talk about words, rather than about facial expressions.

    Imagine sending a lawyer to talk space policy at a national forum! Er, well, Shana Dale is a really smart lady, and while she has zero engineering or science background (probably at least a lot less less than Mr. Robinson), she has brought great insights to national space policy and space transportation architecture meetings.

    Do vote for your choice, but I hope you base your choice on more than facial expressions.

  • spectator

    Anonymous.space, I do appreciate your devotion to what Mr. Obama says, but we delude ourselves to think that Obama will support a space program that funds major DOD companies. The man comes from the far left of Democratic party politics and they aren’t known to feel much love to what companies such as Boeing, Lockheed, ATK actually do. McCain has cast a jaundiced eye their way too, but for wholly different reasons, rip-offs mainly.
    I hope I never see an Obama Administration, but if I do, I expect Nasa will learn to live on life support. McCain will insist on good finances, good performance but won’t gut Nasa the way Obama intends.

  • Someone

    The Einstein Fellows page only stated he was from a district in Eugene Oregon. With that background you would think he would be teaching at the University of Oregon and not at one of the High Schools. Yes, they would be lucky if that is his background and if he decided high school teaching was better then teaching at the University. A background in molecular biology would also explain why he favors robots over humans.

    But again, where are his credentials on space policy? I could see education since he teaches at a high school. But you think Obama could do better for a represntative for space policy at ISDC, if Obama even cared about space other then an election one-liner.

  • Doug Lassiter

    I won’t speculate on his employment history. But it looks like he’s done some good stuff.

    A background in molecular biology would also explain why he favors robots over humans.

    I think you’re saying that a scientist would value robots for doing space science over humans for doing space science. That would be generally correct, in terms of cost value. I myself think human space flight is great for adventure (which is important), but not obviously great for most science.

    So as Obama’s legislative assistant and campaign advisor for science and technology, why would Richardson believe any differently? Obama has yet to name a human exploration advisor. Such a person might have other views.

    A science and education advisor might well be a bit out of place at an International Space Development Conference. ISDC is run by NSS, which is a self declared organization dedicated to the creation of a spacefaring civilization. Such a goal is (unlike science and education) hardly an identified national priority. But Obama seems to see space exploration through those lenses of science and education. In terms of established national priorities, that could give it some real heft, policy wise, that it simply doesn’t have right now.

    As to Richardson’s credentials on space policy, there’s your answer. Though sure, getting someone to comment confidently on creating a spacefaring civilization may well be outside his expertise.

    Obama may well care about “space”, but evidently not quite the way you care about space.

  • anonymous.space

    “Anonymous.space, I do appreciate your devotion to what Mr. Obama says”

    I have no “devotion” to the Obama campaign. (My candidate exited the contest long ago.) I’m just repeating what Obama’s campaign has published and what his representatives have stated, which is nearly the opposite of your misportrayals earlier in this thread. Setting the record straight does not equate to “devotion” to a candidate.

    “…Democratic party politics and they aren’t known to feel much love to what companies such as Boeing, Lockheed, ATK actually do.”

    Do you have any evidence for this overly broad and inaccurate mischaracterization?

    In point of fact, the U.S. defense industry gave more to the Democratic candidates for President last year than it gave to the Republican candidates, by about 20%. See (add http://www):

    huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

    “I hope I never see an Obama Administration, but if I do, I expect Nasa will learn to live on life support.”

    Again, there’s no indication that NASA generally, or civil human space flight specifically, will be put on “life support” under an Obama Administration, from either Obama’s representative at the ISDC event or from the campaign’s space policy statement.

    It’s fine if you don’t like Obama for other reasons, but don’t falsify his positions on civil space issues — or slander whole political parties — to justify your dislike of the candidate.

    FWIW…

  • Doug Lassiter

    I can’t resist underscoring Rand Simberg’s interesting point way up above about Ray Bradbury, whose “Martian Chronicles” seem to have captured McCain’s fancy.

    That book is one of my all time favorites but, as noted, it isn’t science fiction, but fantasy. It’s about expatriates from Earth who witness things that challenge their humanity. In many respects, the book is a metaphor for loss and grief.

    Now, Obama seems to have been a Trekkie. There’s a show that features human space travel as about discovery and adventure, and expeditions that adhere to codes of ethics and project intense national pride.

    Yeah, I know, this is like analyzing facial expressions, but I know which story I’d want to represent my space program.

  • anonymous.space

    “but I know which story I’d want to represent my space program.”

    Battlestar Galactica. It would finally settle the ridiculous humans versus robots debate.

    FWIW…

  • Habitat Hermit

    Yes it’s fantasy rather than science fiction, I should have made the point differently.

    And laughs to anonymous.space –nice one ^_^

  • Doug Lassiter

    “but I know which story I’d want to represent my space program.”

    Battlestar Galactica. It would finally settle the ridiculous humans versus robots debate.

    Well, not obvious that the Cylons offered a lot of cost value for doing quality science. But I don’t hold that against them.

    BG is good, but they didn’t have tribbles …

  • Someone

    Doug,

    As to Richardson’s credentials on space policy, there’s your answer.

    I thought we were talking about Robinson, not Governor Richardson.

    And how would seeing space as a science and education mission give it heft? More robot missions? Or another teacher in space program? Really I don’t see either opening space for human settlement. NASA’s mission should be what it was created to do, open the space frontier for all humanity, not just a few robots.

    As a side note and a question for Obama supporters? Has Obama, in his whole Three Years of Senate experience, ever even voted or commented on space legislation?

  • Al Fansome

    It is interesting that some people spend so much time interpreting the words of somebody who will almost certainly have ZERO impact on national space policy in an Obama administration.

    Part of this discussion reminds me of the story of the man searching for his lost car keys at night under a street lamp. When a passerby offers to help, and asks where he lost them, he says “I lost them halfway down the block but I can see better here.”

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science. Which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • Doug: Obama seems to have been a Trekkie

    Interesting. And, depending on how seriously he took it, that could have a philosophical impact on any Obama Administration, one that I would probably like.

    not obvious that the Cylons offered a lot of cost value for doing quality science. But I don’t hold that against them.

    Which exactly sums up my problem with many space scientists. Their tools cannot answer their many of their questions, but “don’t hold that against them.” They favor them over admittedly far more expensive ones that potentially can. At best, you should use the tools you have now while investing in the tools that can provide better science in the future. By spending a lot of money on automated space science while learning how to do orbital construction and attempting to return to Earth’s moon, I would argue that NASA is doing just that, albeit with regrettably poor planning and consequent low efficiency.

    Anonymous: I have no “devotion” to the Obama campaign.

    I agree. While I agree with most here that Obama may well not be a big supporter of human spaceflight, the operative word is may. Until proven otherwise, we should take Mr. Obama at his word. Based on their words, the best choice for government spaceflight investment by far would have been Ms. Clinton. That aside, I strongly appreciate Anonymous’ balanced discussion, something that is regrettably rare on this site.

    — Donald

  • Someone

    Al,

    Who Obama sent to the ISDC says as much about his space policy as what was said on it. If Obama doesn’t care about space other then a piggy bank to raid for education during a election why would he care after he wins the brass ring?

    Often first impressions are the best and the first statement Obama made was he would raid NASA for education. None of the educational advisors that have been speaking about space for Obama, Or Obama himself have directly countered that statement since. All they done is try to muddy the waters by saying they would look to see if they could make space inspirational again. Yep, they will look, decided its a waste and then cut it.

    I agree Senator Clinton was the best, but she lost. So now the only hope for space is McCain. Uness you want to sepnd another 8 years wishing and dreaming and hoping.

  • Someone: Unless you want to spend another 8 years wishing and dreaming and hoping

    Unfortunately, if it comes to that, I will vote for this. While I believe spaceflight is one of the single most important issues facing humanity, there are other issues that I consider more important for my country. Mr. McCain (for whom I once had a great deal of respect) had his chance to distance himself from what I consider the grossly incompetent and ideologically inappropriate management of our country over the last eight years, and he has declined to do so. In fact, he appears to be subscribing to much of what I consider most dangerous (e.g., credit card economics, the determined concentration of additional power in the executive, and the confusion of religion with government), so unless there is a clear and believable repudiation of the current direction of the country, I will not be voting for Mr. McCain no matter what his space policy.

    Moreover, I agree with Anonymous that Mr. McCain’s endorsement of human spaceflight is hardly more ringing than Mr. Obama’s. So far, I am not presented with the kind of clear choice that might make this a harder decision.

    — Donald

  • Someone

    McCain at least has a record on Human Spaceflight. Obama doesn’t. His supporter, like you, don’t seem able to name a single peice of space legislation he voted on, or any mention of space pre-dating his infamous educational plan that seeks to raid NASA funding.

    As for national leadership, its quite hard to believe that someone whose only claim to national leadership is Three years in the Senate, one of which he spent running for president, qualifies him on the economy, national defense or any other area.

    Being President is not for those with a lack of experience, no matter how noble your advisors are. Its a pity that the Democratic Primary system was so messed up that some slick marketers were able to hijack it. I keep trying to think of a candidate with less experience, but the closest I come is Hebert Hoover, and he was a Vice-President for 4 years.

    But this is a space politics board, so the focus is on their space policy, not their other qualifications, or lack of qualifications.

  • Someone, that is why I supported Ms. Clinton. However, unfortunate as it may be, unless he changes his song on a lot of non-space issues, Mr. McCain is a non-starter for me.

    — Donald

  • Chimpy McBush

    As for national leadership, its quite hard to believe that someone whose only claim to national leadership is Three years in the Senate, one of which he spent running for president, qualifies him on the economy, national defense or any other area.

    At any point in time during this administration, a real chimp could have done a better job than the chimp. But we know you must maintain your delusions.

  • Someone

    I also supported her. And I think its better to endure Four years of McCain followed by Senator Clinton, then Four of Obama followed by whatever Republican runs againist him. Or even worst, 8 years of Obama. I see McCain as basically keeping the job open for Senator Clinton in Four years. While a Democratic Congress will keep him in check from day 1, unlike Bush.

  • anonymous.space

    “McCain at least has a record on Human Spaceflight.”

    Yes, a rather mixed one. McCain has been quite negative on the VSE in the past. See (add http://www):

    .globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/2004_h/040128-mccain.htm

    .cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/28/space.senate.ap/index.html

    I don’t think any of McCain’s comments in these references are bad. He’s quite well reasoned.

    But if we support McCain because we think he’s steady and fast supporter of NASA’s human space flight program, then we’re fooling ourselves. He hasn’t been.

    “Mr. McCain’s endorsement of human spaceflight is hardly more ringing than Mr. Obama’s.”

    Exactly. McCain releases statements about flatlining the federal non-defense discretionary budget while entertaining the idea of human Mars exploration. Obama releases statements committing to broken Orion and Ares I vehicles while discussing a fundamental rethink and reform of the civil human space flight program. Both candidates have talked out of both sides of their mouths on NASA generally and civil human space activities specifically. Even after the November election, we won’t really know which “space” candidate is going to show up in the White House in January.

    FWIW…

  • Doug Lassiter

    But if we support McCain because we think he’s steady and fast supporter of NASA’s human space flight program, then we’re fooling ourselves. He hasn’t been.

    Precisely. This isn’t about favoring one candidate over the other, but just about who is making Kool Aid.

    OK, I’ll bite, what major NASA legislation has McCain supported that Obama has opposed? Yeah, tough call, as there is rather little major NASA legislation, aside from naming highways after astronauts. I believe S. 1281 in the 109th was passed by unanimous consent, such that no votes were recorded. Sure, McCain is a little more in the NASA loop through his committee assignments, but those committees have not exercised particular leadership in getting NASA where we want it to be. Senate Commerce is dragging their heels on the latest authorization bill, that would reauthoriza the Vision.

    So, let’s see. If voting record on space issues is a predictor of Presidential commitment for space, I guess the President who created VSE would be expected to have a humdinger of a voting record on space. No, I suppose he doesn’t, at least in part because he never got a chance to make any contributions to federal space policy whatsoever. I don’t count the abortive efforts by his dad. Well, judging by the last couple of years, I guess the commitment of this president to VSE has to be considered suspect.

    In fact, rumor has it that during his years as TX governor, Dubya never even visited JSC. JSC certainly wasn’t under his purview, but other governors in states with NASA centers have, I believe, shown more conspicuous interest.

    So I’m going to have to judge their commitment to space issues on what they say in their campaign. So far, they haven’t said much.

  • Someone

    Doug,

    First I pose the question again. What is Obama’s voting record on Space? A list of bills please. Since you are a supporter YOU should know his voting record in the Senate.

    Bush was never in the Senate or House so, unlike Obama, never had a chance to vote on space legislation. Of course as Governor in Texas Bush did support the development of a commercial spaceports in Texas and ordered a study in 1998 on potential sites for commercial spaceports in Texas.

    http://www.governor.state.tx.us/ecodev/ecodev/aerospace/txspaceports/pecos_county/view

    But I guess support for New Space doesn’t count as support for NASA before becoming President.

    BTW is Obama even aware of New Space? Dr. Robinson seemed about as lost on it as he is lost in space generally.

    As for McCain, he has a long history of tough love for NASA. Yes, he may kill ESAS, but VSE will likely continue in a new more affordable mode, perhaps with EELV as discussed here.

    Obama by contrast states he supports Ares I/Orion as anonymous.space keeps noting in his Obama apologetics. Of course he will also probably keep his promise to take money from NASA for education since he has NEVER recanted it and still leaves space policy in the hands of his education advisors, not his technology people. And he may easily do both without being inconsistent by just limiting funding for Ares I/Orion without killing both out right.

    But go ahead. Drink the Obama Kool-aid. Just don’t be complaining when you find yourself mugged after he gets in. Ask the People of Illinois how he promised during his Senate election he would not run for President during his first senate term the strong correlation between his election talk and his actions.

  • anonymouspace

    “BTW is Obama even aware of New Space? Dr. Robinson seemed about as lost on it as he is lost in space generally.”

    Simply not true. Robinson made specific references to supporting new, personal spaceflight entrepreneurs at the ISDC panel. Here’s one such reference:

    “He [Robinson] also said Obama would create a ’supportive environment for scientific research and space exploration’ in the public and private sectors, ‘including the new generation of entrepreneurs who are interested in space exploration.’”

    See (add http://www):

    thespacereview.com/article/1142/1

    Although the Clinton and Guiliani campaigns have also referenced the emergent private spaceflight industry, I know of no such reference from the McCain campaign.

    Please, let’s listen to what the campaign’s are actually saying and writing, instead of what we think or want them to say or write.

    “As for McCain, he has a long history of tough love for NASA. Yes, he may kill ESAS, but VSE will likely continue in a new more affordable mode, perhaps with EELV as discussed here.”

    Based on what evidence? The McCain campaign has said nothing about altering ESAS, making it more affordable, or EELVs. It would be good if they did, but they havn’t.

    However, McCain does have a prior record of opposition to the VSE. Again, see:

    .globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/2004_h/040128-mccain.htm

    .cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/28/space.senate.ap/index.html

    McCain has also promised to flatline the non-defense discretionary budget, and he’s also evidenced interest in a human mission to Mars. Under either of those scenarios, the chances that the human lunar elements of the VSE will remain intact go way down, on top of McCain’s prior opposition to the VSE.

    Please note that I’m not saying that McCain’s positions on and related to the VSE are bad or good. Simply that they are what they are.

    “Obama by contrast states he supports Ares I/Orion as anonymous.space keeps noting in his Obama apologetics.”

    Two points:

    1) There has to be something to apologize for in order to write an apologetic.

    2) Setting the record straight is not the same thing as an apologetic, not by a long-shot.

    “Of course he will also probably keep his promise to take money from NASA”

    On the contrary, the Obama campaign was making repeated arguments to increase the NASA budget at the ISDC panel:

    “Steve Robinson, an Obama staffer who works primarily on education issues, said that space policy was part of the campaign’s broader science policy.”

    “‘My boss, Senator Obama, has come out and said that, overall, science funding, nationally, needs to double, and that includes an increase in NASA funding,’ he said.”

    “Robinson added that a National Research Council study concluded that NASA was being tasked with more work that it could afford to do with its current budget. ‘The rallying cry, I think, for NASA now is that we will go as we can afford to pay. That’s not exactly an inspirational message, and that’s something I think my boss would like to look at and decide how to do this.’”

    Again, see (add http://www):

    .thespacereview.com/article/1142/1

    And again, please, let’s listen to what the campaign’s are actually saying and writing, instead of what we think or want them to say or write. Arguments based on false notions that are obviously contradicted by the evidence at hand just aren’t worth the bandwidth.

    FWIW…

  • Doug Lassiter

    Doug,

    First I pose the question again. What is Obama’s voting record on Space? A list of bills please. Since you are a supporter YOU should know his voting record in the Senate.

    I never said I was a supporter of Obama. I think both are honorable and qualified candidates. I just think that (as cogently stated by anonymous.space) he deserves a fair shake, and in many respects, he’s not getting it here.

    And I pose MY question again … what major NASA legislation that would benefit NASA has McCain supported that Obama has opposed?

  • Someone

    Doug,

    Actually the answer to both questions is none. I have not been able to find any evidence Obama has ever voted on any space legislation in his VERY short time in the Senate. None. Scary huh?

    Anonymouspace,

    Look up a formal definition for Apologetics and see if it doesn’t fit you “setting the record straight…”.

    Interesting that one staffer is now claiming Obama wants to increase NASA’s budget while the Obama website still displays his education policy paper saying he plans to cut NASA funding. Now want do you want ot believe? The written policy posted on online, or a staffer talking to an audience that believes differently? How long would it take to delete that line in their education paper if it no longer applies? Especially for a tech savey campaign?

    Also, as long as you are quoting from the debate article (and don’t seem to have been there), note this from the article in the space view by McCain’s staffer.

    DesChamps said McCain was a strong supporter of NASA’s exploration efforts, including having introduced authorizing legislation during his tenure as committee chairman explicitly supporting the Vision for Space Exploration.

    Gee, sounds like support for the VSE to me. Interesting you didn’t include this in setting McCain’s record straight…

  • anonymous.space

    Look up a formal definition for Apologetics and see if it doesn’t fit you “setting the record straight…”.

    It doesn’t. First there has to be something to apologize for. There is nothing to apologize for here. Second, an apologetic is a constructed argument. Merely repeating what a campaign representative has said or what a campaign has written in a statement is not an argument. It’s just setting the record straight.

    “Also, as long as you are quoting from the debate article (and don’t seem to have been there)”

    How do you know that I wasn’t there?

    I’m quoting from Mr. Foust’s article because it’s a public record available to anyone with an internet connection. It’s confirmable, unlike many of the statements made earlier in this thread.

    “DesChamps said McCain was a strong supporter of NASA’s exploration efforts, including having introduced authorizing legislation during his tenure as committee chairman explicitly supporting the Vision for Space Exploration.

    Gee, sounds like support for the VSE to me.”

    You’re selectively quoting from Mr. Foust’s article. Mr. Foust also wrote:

    “DesChamps, though, was less optimistic about NASA’s budget. ‘I’m not sure we can grow the budget given the total situation,’ he said. Human spaceflight, he said, was the ‘face of NASA’, but there was a need to balance spending on that versus earth sciences, given the growing concerns about climate change.”

    “One issue that did not come up during the panel, though, was a proposal floated by McCain several weeks ago to freeze non-defense discretionary spending—which includes NASA—for a year. That, coupled with the possibility that NASA might spend much or all of fiscal year 2009 under a continuing resolution, which would fund the agency at 2008 levels, raises the concern that NASA have to extend the Shuttle-Constellation gap. Asked after the panel if it would be possible to exclude NASA from such a spending freeze because of those concerns, DesChamps said he was not optimistic it could be done.”

    Again, both of these campaigns have spoken out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to funding for NASA generally and civil human space flight activities specifically.

    I’m glad that you’re finally reading the source material, but we need to take it in its entirety — not just the parts we like. That’s as bad, or arguably worse, than making up positions for the candidates, as was done earlier in the thread.

    FWIW…

  • Someone

    anonymous.space

    Since you did bother to look up the term here is a definition.

    Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations.

    wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

    Sounds like what you are doing wtih Obama in “setting the record straight…” point for point.

    As for McCain’s representative comments. Unlike Obama he has not endorsed the Ares I/Orion which leaves him open to substiting it with other mode cost effective systems like capsules on a EELV. This would allow NASA to continue with the VSE.

    But I know you will disagree and will keep up your Obama Apologetics to muddy the issue when the choice between the two, if you are a TRUE space advocate, is very clear. One will gut the agency for educational welfare. The other would move it forward.

    But then you only have to look at the title of this thread, where McCain indicates he would be willing to spend more and support Mars as a goal.

    Has Obama indicated any interest in humans to Mars?

  • Doug Lassiter

    And I pose MY question again (and again) … what major NASA legislation that would benefit NASA has McCain supported that Obama has opposed? Let’s not compare apples with oranges.

    So Obama hasn’t voted on major space legislation, eh? How about McCain? Both voted for omnibus approps bills, which says ZERO about their space policy. McCain happened to be around when the last auth bill went through, and his support for that was important, but he’s old enough to have his fingerprints on a lot of stuff. There are positives and negatives in that.

    I’m not saying that Obama is going to be the savior for space exploration, but I’m sure not going to accept from his meager voting record on things of real relevance to space that McCain is either.

    Grasping for straws.

  • anonymous.space

    “Since you did bother to look up the term”

    I don’t need to look it up. Apologetics were originally tracts written to defend religions against persecution, like early Christians against Roman persecution.

    This is a blog about space policy. Why do you want to portray this as a religious discussion? Are you having trouble differentiating between fact and faith?

    And why do you want to portray yourself as a religious persecutor?

    “Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations.”

    That’s the definition of an apologist, not an apologetic. You’re not being consistent in your terminology.

    And why are you now resorting to name-calling by calling me an apologist? I have not called you any names. Debate the post, not the poster

    Regardless, the definition still doesn’t apply. I’m not the author, writer, or editor of a scientific log or academic journal, especially in this forum. And again, this is not a persecutory examination.

    And even if it was accurate, this whole apologetic/apologist terminology is weirdly off-topic. I don’t understand why you’re so obsessed with turning this into a pseudo-religious discussion and branding others with this term, but I’d suggest that you take it elsewhere if you’re really that hung up on the terminology. I’m sure there’s a blog somewhere that discusses the language of theology.

    “if you are a TRUE space advocate”

    That’s a faith-based, pseudo-religious argument. A “true space advocate” is one that supports McCain? That’s like saying that to be a Christian, I have to be a Lutheran. Or that Mohammad (or Jesus or Abraham) are the one true representative of God, and that I can’t have faith in the latter unless I follow the teachings of the former.

    This is a forum about space-related politics and policy. It’s not a forum about religious absolutes. There is no one “right” way to think about these issues. Debate the facts and logic in the other poster’s posts. Don’t apply litmus tests to debate the posters themselves.

    “But then you only have to look at the title of this thread, where McCain indicates he would be willing to spend more and support Mars as a goal.”

    You’re still selectively quoting. Titles mean little. It’s the text underneath that’s important. In the very first paragraph of the post that started this thread, Mr. Foust also wrote:

    “McCain, meeting with Florida newspaper editors, said, ‘I’d be willing to spend more taxpayers dollars’ on NASA. How much more money, he doesn’t say (or at least washingtonpost.com doesn’t report), nor how that would fit into his plans for a discretionary spending freeze if elected.”

    Mr. Foust is pointing out that McCain has spoken out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to NASA and the civil human space flight program. McCain is for exploring humans to Mars and a bigger NASA budget, but he also wants to freeze the same part of the federal budget that NASA is part of and is on the record as being opposed to the VSE. The latter contradicts the former.

    Obama is no different. Mr. Foust even points out:

    “…he [McCain] wants the US to have “a better set of priorities” for the space program. That last point sounds a little bit like what Barack Obama has been saying about reviewing the agency’s direction.”

    The bottomline is that both of these candidates have contradicted themselves on NASA and civil human space flight activities, and even after the election, we won’t really know whether we have a pro-NASA or pro-civil human space flight President in office until after they start making decisions with regard to NASA goals and budget.

    Again, if you’re in love with McCain or are deranged by Obama (or both), that’s fine. Folks can get passionate about the candidates. But this is suppossed to be a reasoned discussion of space policy. Don’t make your case by repeatedly falsifying one candidate’s position and then selectively quoting from the other candidate’s position. And certainly don’t start invoking faith-based arguments and calling other posters names.

    And if you’re incapable of that, then please, just don’t participate.

    FWIW…

  • Someone

    anonymous.space,

    You are the one on a crusade to make Obama something he is not, a supporter of space. All evidence points to him never caring about space until the negative reaction to his proposal to raid NASA for his education program.

    Since then his education people, NOT his technology advisors, have been doing their best at damage control by making people think he won’t gut space, and people like you and Doug, and Bill White, have been buying the snake oil hook, line and sinker.

    But then you will probably believe anything a political candidate says, no matter how crazy. That is faith, believing a political candidate. But his words are not reality, just a campaign pitch. The reality is Obama will destroy human spaceflight at NASA. And where will you be in 2-3 years when that happens? Doing a Sagan and admitting that perhaps you were wrong is helping to get him elected… That it wasn’t as good for robot science missions as you thought it would be?

  • Someone

    Doug,

    That is the point. Obama has NO record, just a lot of voting the partying line and making promises of what he may do, someday.

    Its the difference between someone that has proved themselves, McCain, and someone that just talks about proving themselves, on space as much as other issues.

    O’Keefe has endorsed McCain.

    johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/55664206-f780-4d30-a150-65d73a946e6b.htm

    How any of the past adminstrators endorsed Obama?

    BTW here is McCain speech when he introduced the NASA Reauthorization Act in 2004.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26818

    It closes with

    Curiosity and a drive to explore have always been quintessential American traits. This has been most evident in the space program, which continues to show great advances in human knowledge. However, we are fully aware of the inherent risks and costs of space exploration, and the need to mitigate them wherever possible. Based on this knowledge, let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us.

    I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and look forward to working with them to ensure passage of this bill this year.

    Really, I could go on, but what is the point? You have a choice between knowledge and experience on space and a rookie full of talk. Take you pick and live with the consequences.

  • Vote Recorder

    Obama has NO record, just a lot of voting

    Hmmm … can you see the contradiction there? Somehow, I doubt it.

    Really, I could go on, but what is the point?

    Indeed, your credibility is nearing zero as fast as you can open your mouth.

  • anonymous.space

    “You are the one on a crusade… That is faith, believing a political candidate. ”

    How can I be on a crusade when I’ve been critical of the Obama campaign’s civil space positions, such as their support of Ares I/Orion in their policy statement, at several points throughout this thread?

    For the umpteenth time, just repeating written evidence to correct false statements and partial quotes about what a couple campaigns have and have not said doesn’t amount to a crusade. It’s just setting the record straight.

    And why are you still obsessed with using religious terminology like “crusade” and “faith” in this discussion? This is a discussion about space policy, not theology. If you want to go to church, then go to church tomorrow. Enough already.

    “But then you will probably believe anything a political candidate says, no matter how crazy.”

    Huh? At the ISDC panel, Obama’s representative talked repeatedly about increasing the NASA budget and supporting new private human space exploration efforts.

    Do you really think that increasing the NASA budget is “crazy”?

    Do you think that private human space exploration is “crazy”?

    “Doing a Sagan… That it wasn’t as good for robot science missions as you thought it would be?”

    Sagan was a great educator but not so good at policy. History shows that the budget for NASA’s science programs moves in an opposite direction to the budget for NASA’s human space flight programs.

    Look, I think I’m done with this conversation. You repeatedly falsified the positions of one candidate. When called on that and shown evidence that you were wrong, you selectively quoted the positions of another candidate. When called on that and shown evidence that you were wrong again, you resorted to really weird and inappropriate pseudo-religious name-calling. When then asked to debate the posts and not the poster, you continued personalizing the debate. On top of that, you appear to using multiple screennames, when Mr. Foust has warned posters to stick to one screenname in prior threads.

    I don’t know if you’re a troll acting this way on purpose or if you have an unfortunate problem with reading comprehension, a brain chemical imbalance, or other condition that causes you to act this way. Regardless, it’s a waste of my time and yours to continue this discussion. I hope you can find a more appropriate forum for your interests and/or get help for your problems.

    FWIW…

  • Someone

    anonymous.space,

    You are the one that seems to be fixed on accurately reporting every word Obama says on space and always “setting the record straight” for him while steam rolling over those who support other candidates with 1000 word post that reads like a revisionist essay. Really you act more like a historian then a space advocate.

    Words are cheap to political candidates which is why you need to look at their record and who is in charge of policy for them, not just focus on their words which seems to be your. Words are cheap in Washington

    McCain has a history of supporting NASA, a history of tough love for the agency to perform better, and strong relationships with individuals like O’keefe and Admiral Steidle to help formulate space policy. Obama has high school teachers and educational policy advisors working on his space policy as a sideshow to education. (and only in response to the negative reaction to his call to gut NASA for his educational programs). Guess who is likely to develop a more balance plan for NASA when in Office? Someone familiar with the problems or someone who doesn’t care.

    But go on and keep focusing on words versus record. And promises versus experience.

  • Vladislaw

    “The reality is Obama will destroy human spaceflight at NASA”

    How can he do that? He will be president, that means all he can do is PROPOSE a budget for NASA. ALL money bills have to originate in the house. IF and when Obama PROPOSES axing NASA and 10,000 jobs I am sure that ALL the house members and senate members from space districts are going to jump on the band wagon for that. Like all presidents he will end up signing a continuing resolution or some other pork filled bill to get what programs he can and Nasa will get it’s 20 billion.

  • Doug Lassiter

    The President is functionally more of a leader than an implementor. The President gets WH and agency staff to do implementation, but his/her role is to get a nation to sign on and buy in to an overall policy direction that links to national needs and concerns.

    You quote McCain in his intro to the 2004 NASA authorization act. He was the chair of Senate Commerce then, which is the authorizing body for the agency. So while his words about space exploration were warm and fuzzy, his congressional role was to say exactly what he said. It was his responsibility, as Chair, to say warm and fuzzy stuff. Was this a future President McCain talking, or a committee Chair talking?

    Thanks for finding that quote. I remember being somewhat confused by it. (Perhaps McCain had already begun “losing his bearings” then.)

    Curiosity and a drive to explore have always been quintessential American traits. This has been most evident in the space program, which continues to show great advances in human knowledge. However, we are fully aware of the inherent risks and costs of space exploration, and the need to mitigate them wherever possible. Based on this knowledge, let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us.

    Now, this quote might be sufficient blather about authorizing NASA, but it is not representative of Presidential space exploration leadership. I hope his campaign will reach for a space policy that is more engaging. For example, he says that we need to do this journey to find what awaits us? Uh, sorry. A national leader better come up with something better than that for why our country is spending so much on NASA.

    Obama, at least, has reached out to make the connection between space exploration and science, technology, and education. Those are issues that the American public care about. Finding “whatever may await us” is sure not what the American public cares about.

    I wish Mr. McCain well, but right now it is not at all obvious that he’s the one who sounds more presidential with regard to space.

  • Someone

    Vladislaw,

    Obama is not that stupid to cut it out right. He will merely delay it to death by reducing the NASA budget to add years to its development as he stated in his educational policy. And not delaying the Ares V with continual studies. There won’t be one climatic battle, just a thousand cuts one at a time while he continues to hypnotize space advocates with his talk of how inspirational NASA is. Just as he has been doing since the same community’s first negative reaction to this plan to raid NASA.

  • Someone

    Doug,

    Yep, the grand connection – NASA is taking all the money that should be going to education. NASA needs to give it to education so it will be able to hire smarter engineers to build better robots….

    Just a note, eloquence does not equal competence.

  • Someone

    Well anonymous.space, if your calling is to set the record “straight” on Obama;s space policy you have your job cut out for you. You may as well start with yesterday’s op-ed by Dr. Ben Bova that is spreading the ‘falsehood” that Obama wants to take $8 billion from NASA for education.

    http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jun/14/ben-bova-presidential-candidates-should-endorse-se/

    Sen. Barack Obama has, however, indicated that if elected president he plans to strip some $8 billion of funding from NASA’s exploration initiative and devote that money to education.

    ………

    Obama’s stated objective of slashing human space exploration is a mistake, as big a mistake as the mullahs made when they drove Omar Khayyam into obscurity and destroyed the brilliant civilization that Islam had created.

    Guess you better get busy and post a comment at the end of the story that Dr. Bova is in error and is misrepresenting Obama’s position on space. Hopefully your “evidence” will convince Dr. Bova of the error of his ways…

    And don’t forget to get on Dr. Bova’s case for comparing Obama space policy to the mullahs… I am sure he will enjoy hearing your informed opinion on it.

    Meanwhile I have work to do in making sure that someone who won’t clear cut America’s space program is elected in the fall. I bid you and your revisionist history adieu…

  • Doug Lassiter

    Yep, the grand connection – NASA is taking all the money that should be going to education. NASA needs to give it to education so it will be able to hire smarter engineers to build better robots….

    Just a matter of looking at national priorities. If human space exploration can’t justify itself to the taxpayer (and I desperately hope it can come up with a marketable way of doing so — it has not yet), then I could think of worse things to do with the money than putting it into education. Sorry, but smarter engineers building smarter robots might contribute more to our country more than putting a few more footprints on the lunar surface.

    At least Obama is challenging the human space flight community to make their case to the taxpayer. His $5B-to-education line seems to me to be just a red cape being waved in front of that community. That seems to have gotten the attention of some of them.

    ———-

    BTW, pointing to a former NASA administrator who has endorsed McCain is amusing. O’Keefe came out of, and was hired on at NASA by, a Republican administration. What do you expect? Now Dan Goldin who, to my knowledge, has not yet made an endorsement, was also hired on by the GOP, and yet might have second thoughts about McCain. See this account of McCain’s treatment of Goldin. Yeah, it’s from a yellow journalism blog — http://mccaininsults.wordpress.com/, but it’s kinda thought provoking.

    One bureaucrat who felt McCain’s wrath was former NASA administrator Daniel Goldin, who was called in by McCain in 1999, not long after a $125 million probe crashed on Mars because of confusion over the use of metric units. McCain’s Senate Commerce Committee had oversight over NASA.

    “McCain went ballistic the moment Goldin walked into McCain’s office,” said a participant in the meeting.“ He was shouting and using profanity, saying he was sick of NASA’s screw-ups. It went on for a few minutes and then he kicked Goldin out of the office.” Goldin started walking down the hallway but was summoned back to the senator’s office by a McCain aide.

    When he came back in, McCain started yelling at Goldin all over again. And then McCain kicked Goldin out a second time, before he ever said a word,” the source said.”

    Sound presidential? Actually, some renewed sickness about NASA screwups may just turn out to be appropriate. We’ll see.

  • Vladislaw

    “Obama is not that stupid to cut it out right. He will merely delay it to death by reducing the NASA budget to add years to its development as he stated in his educational policy”

    Obama can PROPOSE reducing the NASA budget, he CAN NOT reduce the budget UNLESS congress votes in those reductions.

  • Someone

    Vladislaw,

    9 times out of 10 they go with what the President proposes. As for changing NASA, look at how hard its been for Congress to get a little extra money for NASA for Katrina, etc., against the wishes of the White House…

  • Someone

    Doug,

    Guess you were never in the military.

    To me it just sounds like a Navy flight commander chewing out a subordinate for a boneheaded mistake that cost the taxpayers an expensive spacecraft. And screwing up the conversion from Metrics to English is a pretty boenheaded mistake.

  • Doug Lassiter

    I wouldn’t assume I was never in the military. Wherever do you get that?

    It also sounds to me like a Navy flight commander chewing out a subordinate for a bonehead mistake. I’ll accept that characterization. (Except Goldin didn’t make the mistake.)

    My point in this was just that such behavior might be like a Navy flight commander, but it isn’t like a President. That’s the kind of behavior that can alienate and sow discord, and that’s not what a President is supposed to do. That’s not what leadership looks like. That’s not how successful programs manage mistakes.

    I think we’ve drifted way off topic here, so I too will say adieu.

    You’d better get to work making sure, as you’ve said, that someone who won’t clear cut America’s space program is elected in the fall. Um, who was that, again?

  • Someone

    Goldin as NASA administrator was responsible for the actions of his organization.

    What would you have preferred? That McCain say he “felt Goldin’s pain” and was so sorry that the mission failed? That the indivudals responsible shouldn’t feel bad, mistakes happen…. Its ok, its just a spacecraft.

    Have we become such a nation of wimps that its not acceptable to chew someone out for a bonehead mistake under their watch? Try telling that to your drill Sargent next time you screw up :-)

    Also I should note there has been no more bonehead mistakes in Mars Missions since the 1999 Mars screwup. Perhaps Goldin passed McCain’s sentiments down his chain of command. Maybe McCain should have given Goldin the same kind of dressing down when the chute door fell off of Columbia on Glenn’s flight.

  • Chance

    “Have we become such a nation of wimps that its not acceptable to chew someone out for a bonehead mistake under their watch? Try telling that to your drill Sargent next time you screw up ”

    If you ever read FM 22-100, or took any military leadership training, you’ll realize that there is a heck of a lot more to leadership than just chewing somebody out. In my military experience, yelling at someone was usually just a way for the “leader” to seem like they were doing something, while not actually correcting the problem.

  • Someone

    Yes, its far better to get a “sensitive” president like NObama who doesn’t care about NASA and won’t hurt its administrators feelings. Intead NObama will just gut it for education.

    By contrast McCain clearly cares for NASA or why would he demand that NASA, and its Administrator, preform at a level to match its potential? You don’t chew someone out for messing up if you don’t care what about them or their mission.

  • anonymouspace

    I can’t help myself…

    “Well anonymous.space, if your calling is to set the record ‘straight’ on Obama;s [sic] space policy you have your job cut out for you. You may as well start with yesterday’s op-ed by Dr. Ben Bova that is spreading the ‘falsehood” that Obama wants to take $8 billion from NASA for education.”

    That statement is a falsehood. The Obama campaign has never stated that it will cut $8 billion from NASA’s budget. With all due respect to Bova, he needs to substantiate his statement with a source. Bova has a PhD in communications — he should know better.

    Moreover, why are we taking the unsourced commentary of a science fiction writer over the first-hand written and spoken statements of a Presidential campaign?

    “You don’t chew someone out for messing up if you don’t care what about them or their mission.”

    There’s no evidence that McCain’s episode with Goldin had anything to do with how much McCain cared about NASA or that it was a military-style dressing-down. McCain has a long history of opposing wasteful government spending, which ~$300 million in lost Mars spacecraft certainly qualifies as. Moreover, McCain has been known for years in Washington as having a very bad temper. See (add http://www):

    .washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991031/aponline183823_000.htm

    .boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

    FWIW…

  • Someone

    anonymouspace,

    I didn’t see your correction of Dr. Bova in the article comments. Are you going to let it pass? Or do you feel correcting here is enough?

  • Jim Hillhouse

    GRS, are your rumors from those working within the McCain campaign?

  • anonymous.space

    “anonymouspace,

    I didn’t see your correction of Dr. Bova in the article comments. Are you going to let it pass? Or do you feel correcting here is enough?”

    Other folks have already pointed out the inaccuracy of Bova’s statement on the Naples News website and neither Bova nor the paper have responded. I don’t see much point in signing up for spam from a local newspaper, just so I can post on their website and make the same correction that others have already made (and be just as ignored).

    FWIW…

Leave a 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>