Campaign '08

Curious commentary

Is there a “potential fracture in the Democratic party over space”? That’s the claim of a piece published last week by the newspaper chain Examiner.com by Patricia Phillips, a “former NASA information officer”. One one side, she claims, are people like Sen. Bill Nelson, who she perceives as strong supporters of NASA, and on the other presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, “who’s widely regarded as anti-space, despite this weeks’s Google spin.” (Google spin?) She argues a clash at the convention is possible. “Denver could bring sparks as Democratic leaders try to hammer in the planks of a party platform… That could be one of the major fights of the upcoming Democratic National Convention.”

First of all, it’s difficult to see space as an issue of such importance to trigger a fight, major or otherwise, at the convention. As one person put it at the NewSpace conference here last month, space is a “third-tier” issue for the presidential candidates in general, and even in battleground states like Florida and Virginia are, at best, second-tier issues.

Then’s there’s the fact that Obama and Nelson aren’t necessarily on opposite sides of the issue, particularly as Obama has adjusted his stance on topics like Constellation in recent months, something Nelson acknowledged in a speech in May. And, of course, there was Nelson introducing Obama at Saturday’s rally in Titusville, with Obama saying that he would be working with Nelson on issues like adding another shuttle flight post-2010.

That would seem to be enough to put to rest any claims of a “potential fracture” on the issue in Denver, yet Phillips writes in follow-up post after Obama’s speech that “rumors of a Democratic party split over space are gaining velocity.” (Maybe they were propelled by all those rumors about Mars life that turned out to be unfounded.) Moreover, if you scroll down, you see she responds to Obama’s proposal to re-create the National Aeronautics and Space Council with this rejoinder: “Re-invent NACA, Senator? The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was NASA’s ancestor, and morphed into NASA in 1958.” NACA, of course, is nothing like the space council (although there are some folks out there who would support creating a NACA-like organization devoted to R&D on space transportation.) You’d think someone who once worked at NASA would know the difference.

11 comments to Curious commentary

  • SpaceMan

    Sounds like a mole; beware

  • spectator

    As most know, Space in the generic can be a potent wedge issue. Kennedy and Johnson old hands know that from the early 1960’s. All that is missing is a catalyst. Russia isn’t likely considering she is a welfare client of the US on the ISS for the next decade. China with its huge nationalistic ego could be the catalyst in a few years.

  • Bill White

    Russia isn’t likely considering she is a welfare client of the US on the ISS for the next decade.

    If there is a five or six year “gap” in US spaceflight capabilities then the continued existence of ISS will give Russia great leverage over us, at least in the space arena.

    How can we possibly use ISS to leverage Russia when we cannot reach or service ISS?

  • Space may be a third tier issue, but it’s clearly moving toward the top of the third tier list. Who could have imagined the subject getting this much play in any prior election cycle. Space is a more important issue — as Mr. Obama appears to have discovered — but we are also lucky enough to be having this election at a time when major decisions — some involving lots of relatively high-paying, high-skill jobs in swing states; some involving key strategies for whether and how to go forward — have to be made. Whatever else can be said, we certainly do live in interesting times!

    Bill, good points. Any thoughts about what the SpaceX failures, especially if they continue, will do to COTS?

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    DONALD: Any thoughts about what the SpaceX failures, especially if they continue, will do to COTS?

    The biggest policy/political impact of SpaceX’s third failure in a row is that it probably takes the winds out their sails (at least for the moment) to persuade Congress to mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.

    Jeff has reported on recent congressional legislation, which has been approved by the House, is supported by the Senate, and appears to have a reasonable chance of being approved by the entire Congress and becoming law. This legislation includes a legal mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.

    So, in answer to your question, SpaceX’s failures may hurt the final passage of the legislation (it certainly doesn’t help), and it is also likely to impact any WH budget request and future appropriations by Congress. (IF the White House does not ask for the funding, and if the U.S. Congress does not appropriate the funding for the Category D competition, the existence of a legal requirement may be moot.)

    Since SpaceX claims that it has identified the problem, and that a simple fix will solve it, a rapid (and successful) 4th launch is truly in SpaceX’s interest. Waiting around for another year for a 4th attempt is a bad idea (in my opinion.)

    Why?

    Elon has 500+ employees now, and he has to pay their salaries whether or not they are launching anything. It is in his strategic (and financial interest) to launch again ASAP. I think he should launch a Falcon 1 once per month until they get it right. As John Carmack has demonstrated, the fastest (and cheapest) way to learn is by flying.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Al: Elon has 500+ employees now, and he has to pay their salaries whether or not they are launching anything.

    Gee, that sounds familiar. It’s the same “standing army” problem the Space Shuttle has, albeit on a far smaller scale.

    I agree with your suggestions for for Mr. Musk. These rediculous waits between his attempts cannot help his finances or SpaceX’s learning curve, and thus probably hurt more than help with “getting things right.”

    — Donald

    — Donald

  • Bill White

    To amplify my point about Russia and “the gap” . . .

    John McCain has openly advocated tossing Russia out of the G8, his top advisers have lobbied for admitting the Republic of Georgia into NATO & he supports the Central European missile defense facility.

    If McCain is elected President and if America has a five or six year gap in our ability to access ISS, a confrontation over any of the above three issues (as well as over Iran) could see Russian denial of NASA access to Soyuz.

    Or at least a very substantial increase in the prices charged our taxpayers for each NASA astronaut.

  • red

    Al “The biggest policy/political impact of SpaceX’s third failure in a row is that it probably takes the winds out their sails (at least for the moment) to persuade Congress to mandate that NASA hold a COTS Category D competition.”

    Congress should have them hold the competition anyway. SpaceX doesn’t have to be one of the winners. Hopefully any setbacks SpaceX has will encourage other potential COTS D winners to put on their own pressure for COTS D.

  • Interview Request

    Hello Dear and Respected,
    I hope you are fine and carrying on the great work you have been doing for the Internet surfers. I am Ghazala Khan from The Pakistani Spectator (TPS), We at TPS throw a candid look on everything happening in and for Pakistan in the world. We are trying to contribute our humble share in the webosphere. Our aim is to foster peace, progress and harmony with passion.

    We at TPS are carrying out a new series of interviews with the notable passionate bloggers, writers, and webmasters. In that regard, we would like to interview you, if you don’t mind. Please send us your approval for your interview at my email address “ghazala.khi at gmail.com”, so that I could send you the Interview questions. We would be extremely grateful.

    regards.

    Ghazala Khan
    The Pakistani Spectator
    http://www.pakspectator.com

  • “First of all, it’s difficult to see space as an issue of such importance to trigger a fight”

    In most of the country, this assertion is correct. Not so in Florida. Remember, Florida is considered up for grabs during the next election and is considered a swing state. If Obama was to portray himself as heavily pro-NASA, it could make a major difference in the election!

Leave a Reply to Rick Boozer Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>