Campaign '08

Initial thoughts from the Mars Society debate

The transportation gods were smiling on me Thursday, and I was able to make it to Boulder just in time for Thursday evening’s space policy debate at the annual Mars Society Convention at the University of Colorado. The debate pitted Lori Garver, representing the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, with Apollo 7 astronaut Walt Cunningham, representing Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The 90-minute debate didn’t produce a lot of new revelations, but did offer some insights into the campaign’s philosophies, particularly on the Obama side.

There was a sharp contrast between Garver and Cunningham. Garver has been working space policy issues for a long time, and recently has been working with the Obama campaign (she noted that she has had the opportunity to talk with Obama several times, including recently). Cunningham, on the other hand, does not appear to have an active role in the McCain campaign, at least on space issues; he mentioned that after he was invited to participate he had to read up on what both campaigns had said on the issue. Or, as he put it, “I don’t talk to the senator. He calls me.” This made it difficult at times to separate what Cunningham was saying on behalf of the campaign and what were his own opinions.

One of the better insights from the debate was when Garver was asked why Obama had changed his stance on funding Constellation. Obama and his staff early own, she explained, “did feel that Constellation was a Bush program and didn’t make a lot of sense.” That was reinforced by feedback from the scientific community, she added, that didn’t think human spaceflight was as valuable as robotic scientific work. However, after hearing from people in both the space and education communities, “they really thought it through, they recognized the importance of space.” Now, she said, “he recognizes that Constellation really is exploring with humans and robots beyond low Earth orbit” and that he truly supports it, rather than supporting it only as a tool to win votes in Florida.

Constellation is generally defined in the near term to be primarily the Ares 1 launch vehicle and Orion spacecraft, but she dropped a hint that a President Obama might be willing to reconsider that architecture. “Senator Obama has talked about Constellation and has not specified a specific architecture,” she said. “I think one of the reasons for that is that until you have the office, until you’re there and know what’s going on with these programs, you’re not going to make a commitment to it.” (The answer came in response to a question about the use of EELVs in the exploration program, not about alternatives like DIRECT.)

Cunningham, meanwhile, expressed support for keeping the shuttle flying past 2010 as the best way to deal with the gap. (Although it wasn’t clear if he was speaking for the campaign or simply expressing his opinion.) “It’s going to cost a couple of billion dollars a year to extend the life of the shuttle, if you can do it still,” he said. Trying to accelerate Constellation, by comparison, is “getting to be a much stickier wicket, in fact, that may not be possible.” However, he was not impressed with Obama’s pledge in his speech earlier this month to fly at least one additional shuttle mission. “Adding one more launch isn’t going to do diddly for either the workers or the space program or Florida, but it might buy a few votes from those people who are down there.”

On the commercial side, Garver said that an Obama administration would support “the COTS model” and would have an interest in prizes. Cunningham, on the other had, was more skeptical of COTS. “I don’t expect a whole lot to come to NASA out of COTS” other than some technology, he said. Companies like SpaceX, he noted, are learning how difficult it is to do things like human spaceflight. “There’s a reason why manned spaceflight is so expensive: it takes a whole lot more in terms of capability, redundancy, and things like that than any of the civilian rocket developers are doing today.”

Garver also hinted that more details about Obama’s space policy may be released in the weeks to come. The quasi-official plan released in January is being expanded upon and refined, she said, with input from campaign officials and people like her.

One final note: the video of the full debate will be on the Mars Society web site in the near future, perhaps as early as Friday, according to society officials. (Update: the video is now available.) I also shot a little bit of video of the opening statements of Cunningham and Garver (which will be undoubtedly of lower quality than the official video, since I was shooting it with a handheld video camera while trying to take notes) that I’ll see about posting here as time permits.

39 comments to Initial thoughts from the Mars Society debate

  • MarkWhittington

    One can be forgiven for taking Garver’s spin on the Obama space flip flop with a heavy grain of salt. Most politicians do not have that kind of road to Damascus experience during a campaign where the primary consideration is not getting votes. Besides, Obama has a history of flip flops on issues ranging from oil drilling to the War in Iraq. Against that backdrop, the idea that Obama has turned from William Proxmire to Jake Garn in the space of a few months does not pass the laugh test.

  • On the commercial side, Garver said that an Obama administration would support “the COTS model” and would have an interest in prizes

    Well, that would be quite a change of position, given the way that he criticized McCain’s proposal for an automotive prize.

  • Chance

    I don’t recall Obama being against prizes in general, just that particular prize program. If my memory is correct, then that wouldn’t be a change of position at all, just apples and oranges.

    Also, did anyone else find it strange that the Dem is the one supporting (at least rhetorically) COTS and private space initiatives, while McCain’s guy had some unenthusiastic words, to say the least?

  • I don’t recall Obama being against prizes in general, just that particular prize program.

    His criticism at the time seemed to be aimed at the concept of prizes in general. He derided it as a “game show” strategy.

    Also, did anyone else find it strange that the Dem is the one supporting (at least rhetorically) COTS and private space initiatives, while McCain’s guy had some unenthusiastic words, to say the least?

    Not really. Political conventional wisdom often seems to be suspended when it comes to space policy (one of the reasons it’s such a mess). Anyway, as Jeff notes, it’s not at all clear that Cunningham is “McCain’s guy.” I suspect that he was expressing his own views, and astronauts, particularly of that generation, tend to be stuck in the past and the NASA mind set.

  • Flip flop flip flop flip flop.

    Doesn’t the right ever get tired of repeating a mantra that means nothing?

    To quote Keynes:

    “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?”

  • I don’t have a problem with a politician changing his mind, as long as he explains why (e.g., McCain’s support for drilling because gas has gone to four bucks a gallon). My problem with Obama is that he not only doesn’t explain why he switches positions, but he won’t even admit that he’s done so. The past one is simply down the memory hole. I agree, though, that “flip flop” is overused (by both sides of the debate). As I noted in another post, it used to mean that multiple switches occurred, generally only for reasons of political convenience, not just a single change of position (which would only be a “flip”).

  • Al Fansome

    RAND: Anyway, as Jeff notes, it’s not at all clear that Cunningham is “McCain’s guy.” I suspect that he was expressing his own views,

    I suspect the same. McCain’s policy is quite clear about retiring the Shuttle, but Cunningham goes off and talks about extending it indefinitely as a solution for the gap.

    I would also be quite surprised if Cunningham was given permission to criticize COTS.

    If Cunningham was up to date on space policy, and wanted to go venturing off into new territory, he could have talked about many things that were consistent with McCain’s existing policies. For example, he could have emphasized McCain’s support for prizes — and talked up the possibility of some big space prizes.

    Instead, it sounds like the Obama campaign is going to beat the McCain campaign to the punch.

    RAND: I don’t have a problem with a politician changing his mind, as long as he explains why (e.g., McCain’s support for drilling because gas has gone to four bucks a gallon). My problem with Obama is that he not only doesn’t explain why he switches positions, but he won’t even admit that he’s done so.

    But the fact, in this case Rand, is that the Obama campaign is doing what you say you wanted … they have 1) explained why, and 2) admitted that they have done so.

    – Al

  • But the fact, in this case Rand, is that the Obama campaign is doing what you say you wanted … they have 1) explained why, and 2) admitted that they have done so.

    In this case, yes. It’s almost unprecedented…

  • Al Fansome

    Rand,

    I am still waiting for you to show some consistency in your criticism. I don’t expect it from Whittington, who is admittedly a partisan, but you repeatedly argue that you are not.

    For example, McCain has clearly changed his position from the one he stated in 2004, where he reportedly cared about the fact that NASA programs always comes in over budget, and was skeptical about the VSE (and NASA).

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

    McCain said the public is justifiably apprehensive about the initiative.

    “When we look back on the past cost of programs at NASA, there has been one constant and that’s been that the costs have exceeded the initial estimates,” said McCain. “What’s different?”

    Paraphrasing McCain in the story, “What’s different” now about his views?

    In your words, why did McCain change his views? Or perhaps he has not changed his views. If so, that would be useful to know.

    In your words, when will McCain had admit that he has changed his views? (or that they are the same?)

    If McCain really plans to cut NASA spending (like his current commitment to hold the line on discretionary spending suggests), what is his alternative approach to NASA? (There are plenty of good ones. Pick one.)

    Has McCain really thought about how he would run NASA? (He was Chairman of the Senate committee with NASA oversight responsibilities, so he should have.) What is his real opinion?

    Who is obfuscating here?

    When will McCain treat space as important enough (e.g., a 2nd tier issue for Florida) that his campaign will find a space policy surrogate who express opinions that are John McCain’s views, and not his own (e.g., extend the Shuttle indefinitely)? (I think even Whittington would do a better job than Cunningham did.)

    Yes, I am looking for a little bit of the Straight Talk Express.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Just to follow up on Jeff’s comment about the video, we are processing the digital video taken last night and plan to have it available on the site ASAP (hopefully by early afternoon East Coast time). Anyone subscribed to the Mars Society newsletter will receive a note when the video is up with a link to its URL.

  • <In your words, when will McCain had admit that he has changed his views? (or that they are the same?)

    I have no idea. As I’ve said numerous times, I am no fan of John McCain. If you’re looking to someone to defend him, you’ll have to look elsewhere. I don’t think that either candidate has given serious thought to space policy.

  • Mark

    “I suspect that he was expressing his own views, and astronauts, particularly of that generation, tend to be stuck in the past and the NASA mind set.”

    I don’t consider his views of the difficulty of human space flight and safety as “stuck in the past”. He makes a valid argument about how maybe all the COTS hype wont pan out at this point in time, and we don’t have the technology yet to do space flight safe and cheap at the same time. I don’t understand why COTS gets so much hype when there has not been one successful orbital launch. Show me a concrete example of why it is so great and I might be a little less skeptical. Just saying how great it will be with no evidence doesn’t make sense to me.

  • Jeff: Thank you very much for getting there and posting your (as usual execellent) analysis. Having Lori Garver on Mr. Obama’s campain — and, hopefully, his Administration? — certainly makes me feel better about the candidate. And, I see Mr. Obama’s willingness to change his opinion upon getting better data — in sharp contrast to the current Administration — a breath of fresh air.

    Al: Yes, I am looking for a little bit of the Straight Talk Express.

    I completely agree. Given that the Democratic candidate has turned out to be little known, and is someone I’m relatively suspicious and distrustful of on technology-related issues, it was more than conceivable that I could have voted for Mr. McCain — if it was the McCain who served in Congress, told it as it was, and played his own hand separate from either of the parties. Unfortunately, that Mr. McCain is no longer with us. The energy ad in the Olympic ceramony was especially disgusting, especially since Mr. McCain apparently could not even be bothered to show up for eight energy-related votes. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/opinion/13friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

    It’s way too bad: I genuinely liked the old Mr. McCain. I wish he were running for President.

    — Donald

  • Regarding COTS, I agree with both positions. Orbital Sciences, and now SpaceX, are (re)learning that there is no easy way to space using chemical propulsion. Private efforts will prove far more difficult, and expensive, than many of us would like.

    On the other hand, I also believe that COTS-like efforts are the only economically, politically, and technically likely route to relatively easier spaceflight.

    So, COTS-like projects will prove much harder than we hope, but are a;sp essential to moving forward.

    — Donald

  • He makes a valid argument about how maybe all the COTS hype wont pan out at this point in time, and we don’t have the technology yet to do space flight safe and cheap at the same time.

    He makes an argument; I’m not sure it’s a “valid” argument. I’m not saying that COTS is the solution per se, but it’s pretty clear that NASA building another monolithic system for its own purposes isn’t, either. We have to put policy in place that gives us a true transportation infrastructure, with low cost and redundancy. We’re a long way from that.

  • FYI in case any of you aren’t on our newsletter list, the video of the debate is now available at http://www.marssociety.org/portal/c/Conventions/2008/Obama-McCain-Space-Debate-01.mov/view. Don’t be surprised if it’s a bit slow for a while – we’ve done everything we can to optimize the server, but there are a lot of people who’ve said they wanted to watch this thing, and I make no promises about the machine’s ability to withstand that much traffic at once. :-P

  • red

    Jeff: On the commercial side, Garver said that an Obama administration would support “the COTS model” and would have an interest in prizes

    Rand: Well, that would be quite a change of position, given the way that he criticized McCain’s proposal for an automotive prize.

    Chance: I don’t recall Obama being against prizes in general, just that particular prize program. If my memory is correct, then that wouldn’t be a change of position at all, just apples and oranges.

    Rand: His criticism at the time seemed to be aimed at the concept of prizes in general. He derided it as a “game show” strategy.

    +++++++

    From Motor Trend: Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow seconds Obama’s belief,calling McCain’s proposal a “game show”

    Here’s an excerpt from an Obama speech shortly after McCain’s $300M improved car battery prize proposal:

    “After all those years in Washington, John McCain still doesn’t get it. I commend him for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. I’ve been talking about this myself for the last few years. But I don’t think a $300 million prize is enough. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn’t put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win – he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people. That’s the kind of effort we need to achieve energy independence in this country, and nothing less will do. But in this campaign, John McCain offering the same old gimmicks that will provide almost no short-term relief to folks who are struggling with high gas prices; gimmicks that will only increase our oil addiction for another four years.”

    Obama called the McCain prize a gimmick (a description Climate Progress used a day before his speech) in a way that sounds like innovation prizes are gimmicks. He didn’t mention anything particular about McCain’s specific prize proposal he thinks is wrong, and doesn’t suggest a better or improved prize idea. In fact, his energy statement almost sounds like he’d prefer “Apollo on Energy Steroids” to prizes (and other small-scale commercially-oriented efforts).

    However, he’s had a Cellulosic Ethanol prize proposal on his campaign site since at least Jan 12 (when I posted on it):

    “Support Next Generation Biofuels

    Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.”

    So, it’s hard to say where Obama stands on innovation prizes in general. It would be interesting to know if Lori has actually discussed prizes with him.

  • red

    Mark “He makes a valid argument about how maybe all the COTS hype wont pan out at this point in time,”

    That’s possible – there are 2 companies, and it’s possible that they’ll both fail. The NASA COTS investment is pretty small for the job at hand, and the companies don’t have a bottomless pit of money. However, there have been any number of failed launchers and space transport vehicles using the in-house NASA/cost-plus contractor approach. At least with COTS the companies are fully engaged in doing their best to make it work, since they have lots of money on the line too.

    Mark “and we don’t have the technology yet to do space flight safe and cheap at the same time.”

    “Safe” and “cheap” are relative terms. Safe and cheap compared to the Space Shuttle or other NASA vehicles? Probably considerably more so (especially since the current COTS round is for cargo). “Cheap” may not be so much about technology as business, operations, and flight rates. As difficult and unforgiving as it is, rocketry is not new science.

    Mark: “I don’t understand why COTS gets so much hype when there has not been one successful orbital launch.”

    Some reasons for the hype:

    – NASA’s $500M COTS investment for multiple companies stands in sharp contrast with the tens of $B investment to build the Space Shuttle and Constellation systems.
    – The companies have full incentives to make their efforts succeed.
    – There’s the prospect, if it works, for competitive commercial launchers and space transport systems that can do more than just ISS transportation (e.g.: Orbital keeping NASA’s Delta II class science missions alive, SpaceX sending astronauts to Bigelow hotels).
    – If it fails, the taxpayer is shielded from much of the downside.

    Mark: “Show me a concrete example of why it is so great and I might be a little less skeptical. Just saying how great it will be with no evidence doesn’t make sense to me.”

    Since the particular COTS program has just started, it’s difficult to give concrete examples of it having worked or failed. We will have to wait. We do know what happened in the Rocketplane case: NASA exited the relationship having spent a relatively small amount of money. Compare that to various cases of cost-plus contracts abandoned mid-stream. We also have many examples of commercial companies in our economy using incentives to help successfully start useful businesses where they might not have done so without the incentives.

  • […] Society’s 11th Annual International Convention (for a great writeup on the debate, check out Jeff Foust’s post on Spacepolitics.com). The original file was a ~1.4GB QuickTime .MOV file – a massive chunk of data if ever there was […]

  • Rand,

    I have to disagree with one thing you say:

    >>>>I don’t think that either candidate has given serious thought to space policy

    That’s not true. At a minimum, Florida has obviously forced Barak Obama to think through his staff’s hasty early position on the VSE.
    He’s engaging directly with smart people and laying out some reasonable (just one more shuttle flight) and some not so reasonable (we should accelerate The Next Vehicle to reduce the gap) positions.

    The fact that Florida forces the rethinking process does not mean Florida totally dominates the result, so let’s not dismiss it as purely craven. (He could easily have promised to fly the Shuttle more, and might have if Nelson had convinced him to use the lapse of the Bush tax cuts to simply employ a few thousand more Floridians past his 2012 reelection date.)

    For the record, I am not at all worried about the change from that early education and budgetary staffer-written policy, but am concerned by the implied change of the new space policy from Barak’s own personal declaration a few months ago that NASA is no longer exciting and motivating. If his continued statements seem to pretend that NASA’s just fine but needs more money, then I want to know:

    1) what happened to his super-accurate personal “gestalt” view
    2) whether the focus on NASA’s lack of money is possibly just a tool for bashing Bush/McCain fiscal policy, rather than a commitment to actually provide more money

    What pleases me beyond words is that the reality of the Shuttle’s demise, both for Florida and in the current foreign policy climate, is forcing McCain and Obama to go at each other ON SPACE.

    I’ll take more Presidential attention, even if it isn’t perfect attention, over inattention any day.

  • In terms of Obama’s rejection of a prize for new battery technology, there is no need for such a prize, there is plenty of VC and other funding for new battery development. In other areas, prizes can have value, such as the glove prize that was won recently. A cellulosic ethanol prize might work, as a small group might be able to develop a solution to this intractable biological problem. Prizes that require a huge investment, with no clear commercial purpose, like the lunar Google prize, are silly.
    I know that some fox news commentators like to pigeonhole candidates as ‘tough on crime’ or “tax and spend” or whatever, but I would prefer a candidate who thinks about each issue carefully.
    It is good that they are both talking about space, like Jim mentioned, but I think that space is pretty far down on the list for most voters. One thing that we should keep in mind is that Bush seemed pro space with his VSE, but instead he has nearly destroyed NASA by giving them an difficult task with insuffuceint resources and attention.
    In any case, the most important thing a candidate can do for a strong space program is improve the economy in general and manufacturing and engineering in particular Encouraging speculation with capital gains taxes that are half the income and corporate tax rate is a terrible policy.

  • Doug Newton

    “My problem with Obama…”

    Your website is basically one long rant against Obama. You seem to be obsessed with bashing him, and bashing Democrats in general. So I don’t know why anybody should take your opinions on him seriously.

  • Doug Newton

    “who is admittedly a partisan, but you repeatedly argue that you are not.”

    And you believe him? On his website he regularly attacks Obama (and almost never McCain) and constantly refers to “the Democrat Party.” He claims to be neither Republican nor conservative, but he clearly shares Republican and many conservative views. The denial is just cover.

  • red

    Steve: “In terms of Obama’s rejection of a prize for new battery technology, there is no need for such a prize, there is plenty of VC and other funding for new battery development. In other areas, prizes can have value, such as the glove prize that was won recently. A cellulosic ethanol prize might work, as a small group might be able to develop a solution to this intractable biological problem.”

    That might be the case, but I’m not aware of Obama making such an argument (Climate Progress blog made much the same argument you outlined, though). Obama could have pointed out any problems with McCain’s proposal, and/or could have suggested a different and better prize proposal (for example, he could have made the case that the cellulosic ethanol prize is better than the battery prize). He could have suggested some kind of extension of the Automotive X PRIZE that already exists and obviously has numerous (mostly) small teams engaged. He could have suggested an existing technology deployment energy prize rather than a technology innovation prize. He could have suggested a generic suite of energy prizes akin to NASA’s Centennial Challenges. There are all sorts of ways he could have responded to McCain’s prize proposal that wouldn’t sound like prizes are gimmicks and the only way to respond to national innovation needs is a giant monolithic Federal effort like Apollo or ESAS. As far as I know, he didn’t do, and still hasn’t done, anything like that; he’s just presented McCain’s prize idea as a gimmick, leaving the suggestion that innovation prizes are gimmicks. Of course there’s nothing holding him back from clarifying all of that if he wants to.

    Steve: “Prizes that require a huge investment, with no clear commercial purpose, like the lunar Google prize, are silly.”

    The huge investment part of this is debatable. Clearly prizes have a special strength with small teams eager for publicity, glory, or the fun of competition. These advantages don’t translate well to large corporations. However, numerous academic papers debate the pros and cons of prizes compared to the patent system, for example. The typical example they use when carving out and comparing the area of slices of supply and demand curves for patents and prizes is the large pharmaceutical industry. Also check out the idea of “priority review vouchers” – a prize for (often large) pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for neglected diseases where the reward is a voucher for jumping to the front of the FDA review line for another drug. Another example is Tata motors joining the Automotive X PRIZE. It’s possible that Tata will make a huge investment to win the prize if it’s somewhat aligned with their business plans.

    As for prizes with no commercial prospects being silly, I disagree (although commercial prospects are crucial to many innovation prizes). I can think of all sorts of cases where offering, and going after, a prize with no commercial prospects is productive. The usefulness could be scientific, charitable, educational, PR, simply entertainment, etc.

    The commercial prospects of the Google Lunar X PRIZE could be debated. Google and the X PRIZE folks seem to intend it to have commercial applicability, and so do some of the teams. I’ll hold my judgement on whether or not it will work out that way. It won’t be easy, but if it were easy, there’d be no need for the prize. There are potential commercial payoffs: government business for lunar rovers, commercial use of technology developed to win the prize, sponsorship/advertising, deployment of lunar hardware for science foundations (see Odyssey Moon’s plans and deals), data selling, games, entertainment spin-offs, sending photos, ashes, or other small objects to the Moon, etc.

    Steve: “Encouraging speculation with capital gains taxes that are half the income and corporate tax rate is a terrible policy.”

    I could be wrong, but doesn’t the low capital gains rate only go into effect after a couple years? To me that would put it in the category of an investment, not speculation. However, I wouldn’t mind lower income taxes, if that’s what it took to balance things. I wouldn’t even mind making up the difference with, say, a raised gas tax or a carbon tax – at least those don’t directly discourage “virtues” like having a job or business.

  • Chuck2200

    However, he’s had a Cellulosic Ethanol prize proposal on his campaign site since at least Jan 12 (when I posted on it):

    “Support Next Generation Biofuels

    Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.”

    So, it’s hard to say where Obama stands on innovation prizes in general. It would be interesting to know if Lori has actually discussed prizes with him.

    It has to do, imo, with the relative difficulty of the task at hand. On the one hand (Cellulosic Ethanol), no new technology needs to be developed. We can already do this. The only reason we don’t is because it’s so expensive to get this kind of an operation underway. Hence the prize. On the other hand, developing new battery technology is the result of pure research. We don’t know how to do this yet and this effort would truly require an huge financial commitment just to figure out how, if indeed we actually can, which is not assured. Hence an federally backed Apollo-style effort with the resources of the government backing it.

    For Cellulosic Ethanol it’s just a matter of making the case for a realistic ROI, and a huge prize can have a positive effect. That’s why Obama has offered the prize; it is realistic. For new battery technology however, it’s pure, and expensive research, with no guarantee of any ROI what-so-ever. The investor would have to spend huge sums of money just to figure out how to do what no one else in the world can do, and then, IF successful, spend additional $millions to get an operation underway. That is not realistic. No prize in the world is going to temp anyone to invest in that. But it might get a few votes from the uninformed. Hence Obama’s calling it a gimmick.

    Prizes have their place, getting someone to pony up and invest in something we know how to do.
    But offering someone a prize to develop totally new battery technology, which no one knows how to do, is just a gimmick.

    Obama is right on both scores; offering a prize for the Cellulosic Ethanol is reasonable, and calling the battery prize a gimmick because it is not.

  • Chuck2200

    What I saw when I watched the debate was one very knowledgeable person actually representing the views of a candidate (Garver/Obama), and one very knowledgeable person talking about a candidate (Cunningham/McCain) along with his own opinions.

    Walt Cunningham is a hero of mine. I watched all his flights, all of them. But it quickly became obvious from this debate that there is not much going on between him and McCain. He said so himself. He said he doesn’t talk to McCain, that McCain calls him when he has a question. So it’s pretty obvious that Walt is not actually involved in any McCain Space Policy.

    Lori Garver, on the other hand, has had, and continues to have, many one-on-one conversations with Obama. And she even spoke of ongoing work to provide more detail, to actually flesh out the broad strokes Obama laid out in Titusville. She is intimately involved in Obama’s Space Policy, actually working Space Policy, while Walt Cunningham is not.

    It would appear, from this debate, that an Obama administration will have a clear and well-thought out space policy, and that Lori Garver would likely have a place in his administration. The same cannot be said of a McCain administration. I still don’t know who is leading his space policy team, or even if he actually has one. It obviously isn’t Walt, and that disappointed me, because he has a lot on the ball.

    Regardless of the details that came from this debate, and there were lots, it was obvious to me at least, which of the two candidates has the most on the ball in terms of an honest to God space policy. One may or may not agree with it, but it’s there; it’s real, and it’s realistic.

    I’m looking forward to seeing the work Lori spoke of being completed in the next couple of weeks, the details of Obama’s policy. As for McCain’s actual “policy”, I’m still looking.

  • I agree that Senator Obama now has a real space policy and a real space policy adviser, and that Senator McCain does not, and needs one. I think, though, that Walt Cunningham would be a disaster in that regard, and hope that it’s not him.

  • red

    Chuck2200: On the one hand there’s the argument you’ve laid out that the battery prize depends too much on difficult and risky research for investment that you’ve laid out. On the other hand there’s the argument that Steve lays out above:

    “there is plenty of VC and other funding for new battery development”

    A similar argument to Steve’s was offered against the battery prize by Climate Progress: “First off, every energy and car company on the planet knows they’ll get rich by improving batteries. The world is probably spending $1 billion a year in this quest. This $300 million prize is a pointless gimmick, just a cynical move to get some good PR.” (CP also makes the argument that the cost depends on mass production more than technology, although of course a prize could also be offered for technology deployment rather than innovation).

    One of these arguments might be true, and it might also be true that a cellulosic ethanol prize would be more appropriate. Personally I’d rather wait to see the details on the prizes before making a call one way or another for either prize. The point I was trying to make is that, even if McCain’s prize is a gimmick and Obama’s isn’t, Obama hasn’t explained why he thinks that. His statements make it sound like prizes in general are gimmicks, since he hasn’t gone into (as far as I know) what might be wrong with the battery prize. The implication I draw, in the absence of any contradictory statement from Obama, is that he probably considers space-related prizes to be gimmicks, too, and would probably be more in favor of an Apollo-like space effort.

    Of course that conclusion is balanced somewhat by his cellulosic ethanol prize proposal. It’s also balanced by Lori’s statement on prizes and COTS, although it’s difficult to judge how much of Lori’s and Walt’s statements reflect the actual campaign policy. Hopefully we’ll see more official details like she suggested we would. I’d like to see both campaigns come out with specific statements one way or anther on support or lack thereof for:

    – COTS, COTS D, and similar efforts
    – NASA/NOAA/DoD use of commercial suborbital vehicles
    – NASA use of commercial lunar vehicles (Lunar X PRIZE follow-on)
    – funding for Centennial Challenges
    – ITAR streamlining for commercial space
    – CATS demos/X planes

    I’d also like to see comments in the policies on:

    – emphasis on smallsats vs. large missions (Mars Sample Return, etc)
    – human Return to the Moon vs. other options (Lagrange point servicing, asteroid, Mars first, LEO only, etc)
    – directing NASA to work on important Earth-oriented problems (beyond climate, which Obama’s policy already covers)

  • Brad

    Thank you for your report on the debate. Very enlightening.

    If what Lori says is accurate, then the earlier stance of the Obama campaign did indeed reflect a hostility towards manned space exploration. I love saying ‘I told you so’ to all the Obama apologists and wishful thinkers who claimed back then that the Obama space policy was nothing of the sort!

    I hope that the current Obama stance accurately reflects what he would do as President, but I have my doubts. The anti-manned space exploration crowd have always found more of a home with the left-wing and with the Democratic Party, and Obama is a left-wing Democrat. I believe the initial Obama space policy more accurately reflects Obama’s own political instincts (why waste money on space instead of helping the poor?).

  • AT

    Walt Cunningham is a hero of mine. I watched all his flights, all of them

    Uh, you mean all one of them?

    nd you believe him? On his website he regularly attacks Obama (and almost never McCain) and constantly refers to “the Democrat Party.” He claims to be neither Republican nor conservative, but he clearly shares Republican and many conservative views. The denial is just cover.

    Yeah, Simberg thinks he’s non-partisan. Anybody who can read, and bothers to look at his Sycophant Club blog, knows that.

  • red

    Well, it looks like updated Obama space policy document that Lori mentioned is out. I don’t know if it’s on the Obama campaign site, but it’s on Spaceref:

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28880

    I suspect Jeff will have another post for it, so I won’t say much here. It does seem to answer lots of the questions I had a few comments ago: on ITAR, COTS, COTS for crew transportation, prizes (like Centennial Challenges and student design competitions), and using NASA to solve Earth-oriented problems (it mentions the environment, energy, aeronautics, education,and national security, for example).

  • Yes, I put up some thoughts on it this morning.

  • Brad,

    I wanna thank you for getting in that dig, implying that spaceflight and space development is somehow at odds with the left-wing of the Democratic party – its always good to know who is trying to keep false myths alive.

    As for Obama, and the left-wing of the Democratic Party (of which its probably accurate to consider me).

    I don’t think it was outright hostility, so much as what has manned spaceflight done for me lately. No matter how much we’d like to claim otherwise, tha fact is that the ROI for manned spaceflight is by no means that great. If it was as great as we’d like to imagine it, then why is it only a 2nd tier issue, even in places like Texas and Florida?

    The reality is that, much more likely, Obama hasn’t had much interaction with Space, given that Illinois isn’t a big space state (or really close to a big space state, for that matter), and, from Lori’s comments, he initially asked the scientific community there thoughts, since there is a common association to think that science = space. Most people, and in fact most politicians I suspect, think that the space community is inherently equal to the science community. The reality is, as most of us in the space community know, there is major difference between the space community and the science community.

    But what Senator Obama did show is that
    1. He is open to listening to large segments of the community
    2. He is willing to change policy when presented with evidence

    In short, he showed what I consider to be sound judgment.

  • Chuck2200

    At: “Uh, you mean all one of them?
    Yea, my mistake. In my haste to post I was actually thinking of Gene Cernan of Apollo 17 as Walt’s 2nd flight. That’s what I get for posting before my 2nd cup of coffee. Thanks for the correction.
    Chuck

  • Brad

    Look Ferris,

    Obviously I’ve hit some buttons and caused a defensive reaction. So I’ll restate my case to clear up any possible confusion since your characterization of what I said is inaccurate.

    I appreciate the fact that you are pro-space and I recognize that you are a left-wing democrat. But I did not accuse all left-wing democrats as anti-manned space exploration. As your own example shows, left-wing democrats encompass a wide variety of opinions on space.

    What I said before, and I still believe, is the anti-manned space exploration crowd have always found more of a home with the left-wing and with the Democratic Party. That does not mean all left-wing democrats are anti-space or that all anti-space people are left-wing democrats. And I fail to see why my statement should arouse such resistance.

    Opposition to manned space exploration has boils down to three main objections:

    1) That it bolsters nationalism. (This relates more to the old space race, so is almost obsolete today)

    2) That it is a misdirection of national resources, especially when there are poor people who need help. (The appeal to social justice)

    3) That is fails to deliver as much of a science payoff as unmanned space exploration. (Frequently the claim of those heavily involved in unmaned exploration who see manned exploration as budgetary competition)

    To this list one might add the new ‘green’ objection about contaminating space with the icky presence of mankind, but this objection is more aimed at all space exploration instead of just manned exploration.

    The fact is all of these political inclinations find a natural home more in the left-wing, and in the Democratic Party than elsewhere. Why is that controversial? The left-wing and the Democrats are the groups which are less nationalistic, more green, and more concerned with notions of economic equality.

    As for the true goals of the original Obama space policy, take up the argument with Lori Garver. I remember the debates back then over what the Obama policy meant, and I noticed the typical attitude and code words of hostility towards manned space exploration as well as the substance of the Obama policy. Garver now seems to have confirmed that judgement of the Obama policy. So the people who once claimed the Obama policy was not anti-manned space exploration were guilty of wishful thinking.

  • Brad,

    you can apply that 2nd point, which is usually the main point when it comes to opposition to the space program, to more than just economic justice – in point of fact, Ron Paul, who doesn’t really need an introduction here, has consistently opposed funding NASA. The opponents from the left might pick economic justice, the opponents on the right might pick tax policy.

    As for 3 – actually, I would say that most people, regardless of what side politically they fall on, would agree with that. Hell, Rand even did a post, not that long ago, about how if we are going to do manned spaceflight, it will have to be based on something other than science. But thats not a debate between the left and the right – its a debate between the science and the space community.

    As for the green arguement – I would point out that many people, who are “green” have a positive view about space, and space utlization. Being green, and concerned about the enviroment, does not make you a Luddite.

    As for your final comment, about Garver, click my name, and read my blog – in particular, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/19/162910/524/294/553973

    The point here is that its not a question of his personal opinion, but who he might, or might not, be talking to.

  • […] Space Politics » Initial thoughts from the Mars Society debate […]

  • […] worked with the Hillary Clinton campaign, is helping the Obama campaign on this issue; she noted at the Mars Society conference debate that she had talked with Obama several times on this. He is also getting input from others, as well, including, as Roll Call reported today, a group of […]

  • […] Obama campaign; and Floyd DesChamps for the McCain campaign. Garver represented the Obama campaign in a debate last month at the Mars Society conference in Colorado, while DesChamps represented McCain at the May ISDC debate in Washington that also featured Garver, […]

Leave a Reply to MarkWhittington 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>