Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will be speaking Saturday in Titusville, Florida, near the Kennedy Space Center. In a location like that, one would expect the candidate to mention space policy to some degree. If he doesn’t, he’ll likely be asked about it since this will be a “town meeting” with Q&A. The question, though, will be whether he’ll go into any more specifics than he did during a previous stop in Brevard County in May.
Obama, by the way, was in Houston last night, but did not mention space in two fundraising appearances, instead focusing on energy.
If its a Q&A, then somebody should ask questions. Isn’t space explorations also related to energy? I’m voting for Obama anyway. Support Obama, visit WHYBOBAMA08.ORG!
Watching the video. Looks like Obama has reversed his decision to delay Constellation and know is pledging full funding. Call it a flip-flop if you like, but a politician with the guts to admit when he’s been wrong (and he did, quite openly) is a rare thing, indeed.
The question is, do we believe Obama then or now?
I’m a staunch conservative, and for me space is a high priority regarding voting issues. Yesterday, there was no chance of me voting for Obama primarily because of his stance on the space program. Today I find myself re-thinking that.
Comparing McCain’s speech yesterday at the NUL event in Orlando with Obama’s appearance in Titusville was like chalk-and-cheese.
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of noting that McCain was horribly dry, uncharismatic and seemed drained of all energy and enthusiasm in his comment. Obama came across as the complete opposite.
From a policy perspective I now find them both being supportive of the new program. I am intrigued by exactly how Obama thinks the current ‘vision’ isn’t a good enough ‘vision’. I want to know more about the specifics before I can say its a good thing, but I did like his plan to re-create the National Aeronautics and Space Council as an advisory body to direct NASA’s activities.
I don’t think there has been sufficient oversite of NASA’s activities for too many years now, and CxP seems to be in real trouble because of it. So I hope this council should get some real teeth.
I find today that I am firmly on the fence, possibly slightly leaning towards Obama because of today. And that’s quite an achievement to lever me out of my conservative corner. But I still need more from both candidates regarding space: Details.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdvAVSNRni4
Obama on You Tube
Mark –
We will have Senator Bill Nelson (and others) ready to stage an insurrection if POTUS Obama stiffs him on NASA policy. Obama made at least two clear and concise policy declarations:
(1) We CANNOT rely on the Russians for America’s sole access to LEO. Obama expressly called for shortening the Gap.
Please recall that John McCain has repeatedly called for Russia to be booted out of the G8 and his top advisers are lobbying for the Republic of Georgia to be admitted to NATO.
If we have a serious downturn in US-Russian relations, cutting off Soyuz is an easy form of Kremlin retaliation.
(2) Obama expressly called for retaining Florida’s workforce.
Neither call can be easily walked back from (given Obama’s obvious consultation with Senator Bill Nelson).
A year ago, Barack Obama may not have given two figs for space policy, however going forward the political benefits for keeping his word on this as POTUS very far outweigh saving a measly few billion dollars for education or midnight basketball or whatever other social program he might favor.
>Neither call can be easily walked back from (given Obama’s obvious consultation with Senator Bill Nelson).
There has never been a call that Obama is unable to walk back from. Every single one of his pronouncements has an expiration date.
He’ll just say “…this wasn’t the Vision for Space Exploration that I knew,” and throw it under the bus with Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, his typical white person grandmother, and the rest of the crowd under the wheels.
You know, Rand, when obvious cranks like you and Wingo come on these sites and spew your inane philosphy of life, science literate and intelligent people everywhere only have to counter it with a single simple phrase :
Global Warming.
From my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gG5kBP
“Today, we have an administration that has set ambitious goals for NASA without giving NASA the support it needs to reach them. As a result, they’ve had to cut back on research, and trim their programs, which means that after the Space Shuttle shuts down in 2010, we’re going to have to rely on Russian spacecraft to keep us in orbit.”
All of this is true, and unfortunate.
“That’s why I will help close the gap and ensure that our space program doesn’t suffer when the Shuttle goes out of service by working with Senator Bill Nelson to add at least one additional Space Shuttle flight beyond 2010; by supporting continued funding for NASA; by speeding the development of the Shuttle’s successor; and by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired”
Does anyone have any guesses as to what that 1 additional Shuttle flight would be? AMS? If there were more than 1, what would they be? All of this would cost money; one wonders where it would come from.
Most unfortunately, this doesn’t mention anything about COTS D or similar incentives to encourage private orbital crew transport.
“develop a plan to explore the solar system – a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, and enlists both international partners and the private sector.”
That sounds good though – sort of like what the VSE was supposed to be, but ESAS isn’t. Too bad it’s not more specific. By private sector does he mean contractors, or commercial space? Does he want COTS D or something like it? Does he want to use the COTS approach, or prizes, or fixed price contracts in some circumstances? With all of the recent suborbital commercial space news, does he see NASA as a customer for them?
“let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change.”
I’m one of those people that’s all for NASA aeronautics and Earth Sciences, and probably more for them than NASA human spaceflight, so that part sounds good to me. Those areas have taken some big hits in the ESAS era. Again, though, it would be good to hear what role commercial space has in the plan. Aeronautics and Earth Science sound like perfect areas for NASA to use commercial suborbital vehicles, for example.
Obama will support space exploration until Florida is in the bag, then stiff them. Senator Nelson and rest could cry foul all they want afterward, but Obama will just throw him under the bus with Rev. Wright and the mentor he stole his state senate seat from.
As for having him on the two statements – so what? Unlike other candidates he has the ability to reverse his position in an instant and have the crowds cheer him for doing so. Look as his new position on offshore drilling. Also if I recall he promised that he wouldn’t run for President until after in first term in the Senate and yet here he is.
But his supporters will learn the hard, that seems to be the only way people learn. Pity the country will pay the price for their education.
Someone – candidates like John McCain, who has reversed his position on immigration, on torture, on gay adoption, and so on?
As for off shore drilling,, might I suggest you look at the history – you’ll see that Obama had said its a possibility for a while – its just not the main plan to deal with the energy issue (and frankly, it shouldn’t be anyway)
(I am probably going to regret getting into this debate)
Ferris,
I don’t plan to waste my time on it as I know the only thing that matters about Obama to you is that he’s a Democrat. But the public is waking up to Obama and his spell is wearing off. Pity as the Democrats would have been a shoe in this year without him.
Someone,
No, its not that he’s a Democrat – its that he supports what I support – yes, its true that I support the same positions as Dems in general, but it applies to persons as well as parties.
In short – there exist major policy differences between me and the Republican party, and John McCain.
as for “the public waking up” – I must respectfully disagree.
I am encouraged by part of Obama’s space policy statement, which you can find on his website: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gG5kBP
More broadly, we need a real vision for space exploration. To help formulate this vision, I’ll reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council
A space council would be a good thing. The worst space policy decision made by the Bush White House was to let NASA decide on the implementation plan for the VSE. A White House space council will rectify that policy mistake.
so that we can develop a plan to explore the solar system
Excellent. This is is a clear slap at ESAS. We would not need to “develop a plan” if we already had a plan.
– a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, and enlists both international partners and the private sector.
Obama is explicitly pushing the private sector. This statement implies that NASA’s current plan does not “enlist … the private sector”.
While NASA does push the private sector somewhat (e.g., $500M for COTS) this suggests that an Obama administration would push it much more.
I am now waiting for Senator McCain — who is positioning himself as the free market conservative — to say something about private enterprise in space.
– Al
SIMBERG: There has never been a call that Obama is unable to walk back from. Every single one of his pronouncements has an expiration date.
Rand,
The same could easily be said for McCain.
Rather than get into a partisan tit-for-tat yelling match, can we keep this discussion focused on the substance of space policy & politics?
Please.
– Al
“Obama will support space exploration until Florida is in the bag, then stiff them.”
This should be of concern to folks expressing enthusiasm for is speech. Obama has spent very little time in Florida, given little thought to space policy and the space program and has a track record of telling whatever audience he’s speaking to whatever it is they most want to hear. Speaking to Hawaiian political activists? He supports a native Hawaiian government. Speaking to the Space Coast? Tell’s ‘em what they want to hear. He also has a track record of being expedient in his follow-through.
“Obama is explicitly pushing the private sector. This statement implies that NASA’s current plan does not “enlist … the private sectorâ€.”
How?? If NASA *really* wanted to engage the private sector it would have an energetic NACA-type space-flight systems technology program designed to help the private sector produce cost-effective next gen space flight systems from RLVs to BDBs. In 5 years it could do at least twice the manned space programs at 1/4 the cost. Instead it is re-inventing the Apollo Program and soldiering forth with VonBraun’s 1950s vision of space exploration. Because it has trapped itself in the manned space flight business we are left to hope that the Pentagon and ventures like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic may bear fruit and get us out of the mire of $10,000/lb-to-orbit launch costs that keeps us from doing anything more than having a small LEO outpost and launching expensive long-life satellites.
Anybody who wants to bring up Rev Write needs to also bring up the Keating 5 affair. McCain got away with it only because he covered his tracks better. Neither of these guys are saints, so stop pretending that one guy is and one guy isn’t. If you can’t talk about issues, then don’t talk.
Topic: Can you trust Obama means what he says given his track-record of expedient pandering?
John Cunningham,
The fact that this is what you offer up as a topic points right to what Chuck2200 was saying.
And if you want to talk about pandering, then lets talk about Senator McCain, and especially his attempts to pander to the religious right. Or his attempts to pander to GWB. Or his pandering to lobbyists.
CUNNINGHAM: How?? If NASA *really* wanted to engage the private sector it would have an energetic NACA-type space-flight systems technology program designed to help the private sector produce cost-effective next gen space flight systems from RLVs to BDBs.
And your point about Obama’s space policy is????
NEXT: Whatever your point about Obama’s policy — does the same point also apply to McCain’s stated policy?
– Al
“A space council would be a good thing. The worst space policy decision made by the Bush White House was to let NASA decide on the implementation plan for the VSE. A White House space council will rectify that policy mistake.”
A space council only makes sense if the president cares about it. If he does not, then having one is irrelevant. You can see that from the long history of the space council.
And even then, don’t bet that it is automatically a good thing. Under Reagan the equivalent space policy organization, called SIG-Space, was dominated by the military. That meant that civil space issues were subservient to military space issues.
As for NASA deciding the implementation of the VSE, the White House concurred in the decision, so they don’t get off the hook. Besides, isn’t that how it is supposed to be? After all, there was a space council under Kennedy, but NASA decided the implementation plan for Apollo. Just because you don’t like the outcome does not mean that the decision making authority belongs in a body that is ill-equipped to make the kinds of detailed decisions required.
The same could easily be said for McCain.
I am not by any means a fan of John McCain (I find many of his positions quite appalling, and ad hoc, and lacking in any consistent principles), but I disagree. There is no reasonable comparison between his few changes of policy and Obama’s complete blowing with the political winds.
And when McCain changes his position, he explains why. Obama pretends it didn’t even happen. One can derive absolutely no information about what will happen in an Obama administration from what he says during the campaign.
Whereas your position (for instance, global warming) is just plain irrational.
Rational people tend to change their postion with the evidence.
Of course, we can’t expect rationality from your crowd.
“And your point about Obama’s space policy is????”
That he doesn’t have one. Has he ever spoken of space policy in his career? Has he ever given it any more thought than “Hmmm…speaking to potential voters on the Space Coast today…tell ‘em I Iove them and support space stuff. Check. On to the next fundraiser.”
At this point a president that says nothing and does nothing would be a great relief to all Americans. How much more abuse can you take?
FANSOME: “And your point about Obama’s space policy is????â€
CUNNINGHAM: That he doesn’t have one. Has he ever spoken of space policy in his career? Has he ever given it any more thought than “Hmmm…speaking to potential voters on the Space Coast today…tell ‘em I Iove them and support space stuff. Check. On to the next fundraiser.â€
He has more of a space policy, at this moment in time, than McCain.
Now it is not that hard for Senator McCain to develop a better space policy than Obama. All he needs to do is to accept the advice of one of the private space industry policy experts in his party, such as Rohrabacher, Gingrich, or Walker.
If/when he does so, I will give Senator McCain credit.
Until he does, Senator Obama is the only one of the two candidates who has established that he supports growing the private space industry.
NOTE: You don’t get points (or votes) in Florida for talking about private space.
– Al
SIMBERG: I am not by any means a fan of John McCain (I find many of his positions quite appalling, and ad hoc, and lacking in any consistent principles), but I disagree. There is no reasonable comparison between his few changes of policy and Obama’s complete blowing with the political winds.
Rand,
Since there is essentially ZERO political wind for supporting private space in the I4 corridor around Florida. So, Obama’s willingness to say he supports the private space industry is pretty good indicator of position and views.
When Senator McCain — the presumptive nominee of the party that talks about being more pro-private enterprise — actually supports the private space industry in his stated policy, then I will give him due credit.
But at this moment in time, Obama is the only one of the two candidates on record as officially supporting the private space industry.
You can spin a story around your “beliefs” as much as you want, but this fact is clear.
– Al
Someone: Obama will support space exploration until Florida is in the bag, then stiff them.
Mr. Obama, if he is elected, will presumably want to be re-elected, and I see no reason to think that Florida would be any less important then. This is especially so if that State is in the midst of a depression caused by an extended stand-down in human spaceflight.
— Donald
So, Obama’s willingness to say he supports the private space industry is pretty good indicator of position and views.
Maybe. This week.
When Senator McCain — the presumptive nominee of the party that talks about being more pro-private enterprise — actually supports the private space industry in his stated policy, then I will give him due credit.
I’ve never seen much indication that Senator McCain has much interest in private enterprise. He thinks that profits are obscene, that business is a base calling, and that only service to country is “noble.”
I’m still scratching my head to determine why you think that my comments are “partisan,” since I don’t favor McCain, and am not now and have never been a Republican. What party is it that I’m being a “partisan” of?
This thread is about Barack Obama. I made some observations about Barack Obama, based on…observing him. I fail to see the relevance of John McCain. When John McCain makes some comments about space, then we’ll discuss the implications of that.
RAND: I’m still scratching my head to determine why you think that my comments are “partisan,
Rand,
Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse?
I am not now saying, nor have I ever said, you are a Republican. (Strawman).
If you look up the definition of partisan, it does not require that you be a member of a party. (Strawman).
But by content analysis alone, recently you have spent the vast majority of your time — of that which you spend commenting on the two presidential candidates — attacking & criticizing one of the two presidential candidates. My recollection is that you have stated that you will probably vote for McCain.
To the present — Senator Obama makes space policy statements that are more consistent with your views on space policy than those of the standard politician. Obama clearly is stating he will revisit the implementation plan of the Constellation program (dare I say “change” it), and he favors private space. Both are consistent with your views. But rather than give this politician credit for taking a nuanced and smarter (from our point-of-view) position that is heading in a useful direction on space policy, again a direction which has similarities to your views, you still attack him.
By observation, you are clearly appear to be partisan.
– Al
But by content analysis alone, recently you have spent the vast majority of your time — of that which you spend commenting on the two presidential candidates — attacking & criticizing one of the two presidential candidates.
Because most of the discussion and posts, at least recently, have been about one of the two presidential candidates, and not the other. Again, when McCain says something about space policy, I will critique it.
My recollection is that you have stated that you will probably vote for McCain.
I don’t recall saying that, but I’m certainly not going to vote for Obama. It’s quite possible that I won’t cast a vote for president. And, either way, that has nothing to do with space policy. I think that there are much more important issues on which to cast a vote than space policy.
But rather than give this politician credit for taking a nuanced and smarter (from our point-of-view) position that is heading in a useful direction on space policy, again a direction which has similarities to your views, you still attack him.
I didn’t “attack” him. As I said, I simply made an observation. As I’ve said previously, it doesn’t matter what he says (today) on space (or any other) policy, because I have zero confidence that there is any correlation between what he says during a campaign and what he’ll do in office. The fact that this may be true for Senator McCain as well is completely irrelevant (though I do think that it’s at least somewhat less true). So I still fail to see how I’m being “partisan.” Unless by “partisan,” you mean I don’t relish the thought of a President Obama.
I think that it’s quite possible to be uncomfortable with that concept without being “partisan.” Most people think that “partisan” means that you oppose someone or support another simply because they are a member of a political party. I have many other reasons for not wanting Senator Obama to be president, regardless of how it “appears” to you.
If you look up the definition of partisan, it does not require that you be a member of a party. (Strawman).
OK, I did that. Merriam-Webster doesn’t seem to support you.
1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
2 a: a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b: a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines
I don’t see how either of those definitions pertains to my criticism of Barack Obama. Even if one broadens the definition to the negative–an antipathy to a party, faction, cause or person, my antipathy to Obama is neither blind, prejudiced, or unreasoning. It’s a cold, clinical (unpartisan) observation.
Rand,
Your statement here:
it doesn’t matter what he says (today) on space (or any other) policy, because I have zero confidence that there is any correlation between what he says during a campaign and what he’ll do in office.
… is purely a matter of belief.
Words matter.
Yes, you have some “data” to support your assertion, but there is counter-vailing data too, and too leap to your conclusion is a matter of belief, not fact.
This is not a “cold, clinical (unpartisan) observation.”
To observe that Obama “changes his mind” to “fit the political winds” is one thing. He is a politician. So is McCain. I don’t know of a single professional politician who has not changed their minds at some time — however some do so less.
But you take it further — where the data does not (yet) support it — by asserting suggesting there is not ANY correlation between what Obama says and does.
To take it this far, to a statement of belief, when there is opposing data demonstrating there is some (greater than zero) correlation between what he says and does, is “unreasoning”.
Then you firmly “adhere” to your position (call it your “cause” or “faction”), showing no doubt, and then to “blindly” assert that you are just exhibiting a “cold, clinical … observation”, puts you pretty darn close to the definition of “partisan”.
FWIW,
– Al
Rand,
It is important to note that I did not use the word “partisan” first, you did.
I only observed that “You can spin a story around your “beliefs†as much as you want, but this fact is clear.”
You took this conversation to the “partisan” topic, not I.
FWIW,
– Al
… is purely a matter of belief.
No, it is a fact. I do have zero confidence that there will be any correlation between words now and deeds (and words) later, because there seems to be none between words now and words past. And as I noted previously, it’s particularly insidious with Senator Obama, because he doesn’t even attempt to explain the discrepancy–he simply pretends it doesn’t exist. And that statement remains unpartisan.
It is important to note that I did not use the word “partisan†first, you did.
Well, it might be important to note that, if it were actually correct.
The first use of that word was in your post to me, in which you wrote: “Rather than get into a partisan tit-for-tat yelling match, can we keep this discussion focused on the substance of space policy & politics?”
I was annoyed by that because a) my comment wasn’t partisan and b) I was not “yelling.” Nor was I engaging in tit for tat.
If you can find a previous usage by me, perhaps you could point it out.
Oh, also, missed this.
Then you firmly “adhere†to your position (call it your “cause†or “factionâ€)
You can call a tail a leg, but it doesn’t make it one. It is not a “cause” or a “faction.” It is an opinion, based on observation. If it will make you happier for me to admit that I was hyperbolic, and that the correlation is non-zero, I’m happy to do that. But it remains small, nonetheless.
FANSOME: … is purely a matter of belief.
SIMBERG: No, it is a fact. I do have zero confidence that …
This is the logical equivalent of a Christian, Jew or Muslim who says “No, it is a fact. I do believe in God.” Confidence and belief lie in the mind, not in the material world where they can be objectively measured.
But since you admitted in the next posting that you were hyperbolic, and that the correlation is non-zero, you have now separated yourself from somebody who is making an assertion based purely upon belief. I am satisfied.
– Al