Campaign '08

Evolutionary, not revolutionary

A lot has been said about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s speech Saturday in Florida where reversed plans originally published in an education policy white paper last November to delay Constellation by five years. “I told my staff we’re going to find an entirely different offset, because we’ve got to make sure that the money going into NASA for basic research and development continues to go there. That has been a top priority for us,” he said in response to a question, and indeed that statement has been removed from the white paper.

While this has been billed as a major reversal in direction, is it really? Instead, this appears to be more of a reconciliation of contradictions between that statement in the original white paper and comments made by the candidate and the campaign since then. There are some more specific statements in the speech, like planning to “close the gap” and flying at least one shuttle mission after 2010; however, Obama previous stated that he supported continued development of Orion and his quasi-official policy from January called for continued development of Ares 1 and Orion so that “the United States’ reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period.” And he spoke about making NASA inspirational, a theme that stretches back to early this year.

Less talked about are some of the other items in Obama’s speech. Obama said that he would make sure “that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired”, although again without explaining how. Keep several thousand people whose jobs are currently slated for elimination with the shuttle’s retirement employed is not an inexpensive proposition. If the shuttle is still flying after 2010 most or all of those jobs would be retained, but that would be even more expensive.

There’s also a call in his speech to reestablish the “National Aeronautics and Space Council” to provide policy guidance for the space program (a 2004 article from The Space Reviews covers the long, often rocky history of what is more commonly known as the National Space Council). This idea has an interesting recent history. At the International Space Development Conference in late May in Washington, a group of a couple dozen people met one evening to discuss Obama’s space policy and what could be done to improve it. One of the main conclusions from that meeting, as noted here, was a recommendation to reestablish the National Space Council. Whether this discussion actually led to that statement in Obama’s speech isn’t certain—there were no formal Obama campaign representatives at the meeting, although several of the attendees had contacts within the campaign—but at the very least it indicates people within the campaign and some of its supporters are thinking on the same wavelength.

There were also some interesting comments made by Obama in conversations with the media. According to Florida Today, Obama would not commit to supporting a $2-billion increase in NASA’s budget, saying that he first wants to have “a thorough evaluation of a combination of manned and unmanned missions, what kind of exploration would be the most appropriate.” (The article is unclear whether they were asking for a $2B/year increase, or a one-time $2B increase to cover the costs of the Columbia accident and aftermath, as has been attempted through the so-called “Mikulski Miracle”.)

Obama also said that he had yet to decide whether to continue with the Vision for Space Exploration’s long-term goals of returning humans to the Moon and eventual human missions to Mars. Telling, though, is the claim in the paper that Obama would rely on former senator John Glenn for advice. Glenn was critical of the implementation of the Vision in House testimony last week, calling it an “unfunded mandate” (Obama made similar statements in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel on Friday, saying “the funding has never even come close to approaching what was promised, and so NASA’s ended up cannibalizing other programs.”) Glenn argued in his testimony that the agency’s budget should be increased by about $3 billion a year to allow the shuttle to continue operating beyond 2010.

So while it’s tempting to say that Obama has radically changed course (or that “his words really don’t matter”, as a John McCain campaign statement put it), Saturday’s speech was more of a formal opportunity to reconcile the conflicting comments the campaign and candidate have said since last November. In terms of policy detail, though, many space activists will find the level of detail lacking.

16 comments to Evolutionary, not revolutionary

  • Brad

    If one takes into consideration the totality of Obama’s legislative record and the totality of Obama’s campaign promises, I think it is impossible to predict what Obama would actually do as president on ANY specific policy issue. And not only impossible to predict, but vague enough to let Obama claim he is fulfilling a campaign promise no matter what action he actually takes.

    All in all not much to hang one’s hat on!

  • Me

    gm,

    Clueless as usual

    1. The X-37B is not a shuttle replacement, it is only a test vehicle
    2. It is not a cargo delivery vehicle
    3. The X-37 can’t 5mT of cargo. It only weighs 5mT itself.

    As usual, gm shows his true colors and shows that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

  • gm

    you’re right!
    it’s 5 mT itself
    so, it’s only a “$300 million per launch TOY”!
    and every kg. payload it will carry, could cost TEN+ TIMES MORE than a kg. carried with a Shuttle!
    then, the Shuttle has NO true replacement!
    a FURTHER GOOD REASON to SAVE the Shuttles and using them CREWLESS

  • I think your assessment is correct. It seems Senator Obama is clarifying his positions on space as he nears the general election, and this is not uncommon in any election when it comes to issues not ranked as national priorities. It is a subject he likely knows very little about, and is counting on opportunities to address it when appropriate, like a visit to Florida. Campaigns must be run efficiently, and subjects are handled strategically and tactically based on priority (Iraq, gas, medical care are more strategic, whereas space and a plethora of other subjects are handled tactically – based on visits and speech requests).

    I think his campaign probably looked at space initially as a potential source of additional funding for things like education, and was quick to identify NASA as somewhat wasteful spending during a time of economic hardship early in the campaign. He and his staff now recognize that to tap NASA for education is a contradiction to many, since NASA and its contractor base represent an innovative, high-technology industry in desperate need of fresh blood.

  • Someone

    What NASA represents to Obama are votes is Central Florida. Given how close Florida has been in the past even a few hundred votes could swing the state and the election in his favor. Afterward it won’t matter to Obama and neither will NASA.

    One record Obama has is doing ANYTHING it takes to get elected, even getting opponents disqualified. This policy shift fits that record perfectly.

    http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/archives/8271-Another-Piece-to-the-Obama-Puzzle.html

    “In 1996, in his first-ever race for the Illinois State Senate, Obama had all four of his Democratic Party primary opponents thrown off the ballot — including incumbent Alice Palmer, who won in the preceding election cycle with 83% of the vote, enabling Obama to run unopposed in his first race, which, observed iconic Chicago Democrat Abner Mikva “is a good way to win,”

  • Chuck2200

    “Someone” needs to recognize that people are not disqualified by an opposing candidate. They are disqualified by the election comminnsion in the state where they are running. Disqualification is based on laws, not on a running candidates wishes. Those people were disqualified to run because they were not qualified, by law, to run. Nothing more.

    It is incumbant on anyone who wants to run for office to fullfil the qualifications for running for office. If they don’t, or can’t, it is not the fault of the remaining candidate(s). It is their own stupidity.

  • […] Space Politics » Evolutionary, not revolutionary […]

  • Someone

    Chuck2200 needs to understand that it was Obama volunteers who microanalyze every signature on his opponents documents and challenge as many as possible, for any reason possible, timing it so there would not be sufficient time for his opponents to correct any problems or do the same to his signatures. As a result the election commission did his dirty work for him. It was a tactic that Tricky Dick would have loved.

    Also are you aware that Alice Palmer was his political mentor prior to the election? She arranged for him to run for her seat and even helped him raise funds while she ran in the Democratic primary for Congress. She lost and switched to re-election for her old seat in the state senate, She expected Obama would keep his promise to drop-out if she had to run again for it. Of course he did what Obama does best, broke his promise and threw her under the bus by having his volunteers work to have her disqualified knowing he would lose big if she stayed in the race. Disposing of others were just frosting on the cake for Obama.

    Also I point the interesting coincidence that Obama won his Senate race by having both his opponent in the Democratic Primary and his major opponent in the general election self-destruct by having court ordered divorce documents unsealed. BTW in both cases the reason they were unsealed was a result of legal action by the Chicago Tribune where his several of his staff used to work. Really Tricky Dick and Old Richard J. would be proud of such election winning tactics.

    Again the context of this is that Obama does have a Record and its a Record of Obama doing ANYTHING needed to get elected. If that means promising Florida and the space advocate community the Moon, so be it. It will be easy enough to stiff them later. And nothing compared to what he has done in the past. Really, do your research on his past record.

    The space community will come to rue the day they fell for Obama, just as they now rue the day Griffin was named NASA Administrator. If I recalled the advocate community were jumping for joy that an engineer with a commercial space background was finally going to run NASA. Then they learned that it was probably the worst thing to ever happen to NASA and the VSE.

    So mark my words when a year from now you are crying at Obama gutting space for more important national priorities. As they say, good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement. I expect the space advocate community with gain a lot of experience in the next year by supporting Obama.

    Ferris, this is probably your cue to now come in with the pro-Obama spin that he was just the innocent benefactor of his election opponents having an extraordinary series of unfortunate events. I won’t waste my time anymore here. You may do your Obama worshiping and NASA bashing unopposed. However will I come back after Obama breaks his promise and guts NASA to say with gusto I told you so.

  • Nutty Libby

    “So mark my words when a year from now you are crying at Obama gutting”

    What? The national debt?

    “space for more important national priorities.”

    Like what, more war? More corporate welfare?

    Your sworn enemy has stated he’s going to preserve Constellation, the one thing that should be gutted. What’s he gonna do, shut down SpaceX?

    Get a grip.

  • Doug Lassiter

    So mark my words when a year from now you are crying at Obama gutting space for more important national priorities. As they say, good judgement comes from experience and experience comes from bad judgement. I expect the space advocate community with gain a lot of experience in the next year by supporting Obama.

    So, um, good idea. We should just not listen to what the candidates say, and come up with our own prejudices about what they’re really thinking. Mind reading. What a concept! BTW, what was your bad judgment that led to your experience?

    I’m not concerned about a President “gutting” a space program (no, he wouldn’t be “gutting space”) that has no compelling strategic vision or national value. But I am impressed with a President who would reevaluate what is really important about space to the nation, and exercise some judgment about national priorities. I don’t put this past McCain, either.

    Er, did I understand that you were criticizing a presidential candidate for proposing to divert funds to “more important national priorities”? Why would a President NOT want to do that? I guess space exploration has to be established as an important national priority. This administration has simply not done that, and that’s disappointing. In fact, it pretended that it was a national priority, as per Presidential Directive, and then rolled the whole program under the bus. (No Obama doesn’t have a lock on using buses.)

  • The hope for NASA that those of us in Titusville Saturday felt was that an Obama admnistration will not put science and technology on the back burner, and that because of that NASA will again have a well-recognized role. He said nothing specific, and don’t fall for “politician-speak” – when he said he will make sure: “that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired”, maybe he means exactly that – that ALL of them won’t lose their jobs! We know that ALL of them won’t lose their jobs….. He didn’t say that none of them would lose their job. After all, 1,000 work on heat-resistant shuttle tiles, whichwon’t be used in the Constellation program. So if there are not enough jobs for those folks to be retrained for, they will lose their jobs.

    Both candidates are being cautious on manned stations on the moon, which makes sense. We need to look carefully at a cost-benefit analysis and be working on getting our economy in order before borrowing billions from the Chinese to build on the moon. Meanwhile, we whould support 100% the scientific research mission of NASA, including ISS, Mars robotocs, Hubble/Chandra/ etc., and earth sciences studies lookng at glopbal clikmate change. NASA has a huge role to play in our future and needs our support!

  • The hope for NASA that those of us in Titusville Saturday felt was that an Obama administration will not put science and technology on the back burner, and that because of that NASA will again have a well-recognized role. He said nothing specific, and don’t fall for “politician-speak” – when he said he will make sure: “that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired”, maybe he means exactly that – that ALL of them won’t lose their jobs! We know that ALL of them won’t lose their jobs….. He didn’t say that none of them would lose their job. After all, 1,000 work on heat-resistant shuttle tiles, which won’t be used in the Constellation program. So if there are not enough jobs for those folks to be retrained for, they will lose their jobs.

    Both candidates are being cautious on manned stations on the moon, which makes sense. We need to look carefully at a cost-benefit analysis and be working on getting our economy in order before borrowing billions from the Chinese to build on the moon. Meanwhile, we whould support 100% the scientific research mission of NASA, including ISS, Mars robotics, Hubble/Chandra/ etc., and earth sciences studies looking at global climate change. NASA has a huge role to play in our future and needs our support!

  • […] Democratic candidate Barack Obama regarding Constellation and other issues. This is an expansion of a post on the issue I made a week ago immediately after his speech: that while it seemd like a dramatic shift, it was more of a […]

  • […] been nearly a month since Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama formally repudiated his previous position on the Constellation program (although he had been edging away from it from months in other remarks), which means that just […]

  • […] the 2008 campaign, Obama also visited the Space Coast, giving a speech in Titusville where he discussed space briefly. Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, has not visited […]

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>