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.

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.

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.

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).

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.