Campaign '08

Obama’s detailed space policy

Sorry to be a little late in the game on this (I’ve been traveling and dealing with flaky Internet access at a hotel) but the Obama campaign today formally released comprehensive space policy. By comprehensive: the document runs just over six full pages, and covers a wide range of issues. Some highlights:

  • He formally signs off on one of the key milestones of the current Vision for Space Exploration: “He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.”
  • Obama says he will “expedite the development of the Shuttle’s successor systems” for carrying people into space (although does not mention Orion and Ares by name). The policy adds: “This will be difficult; underfunding by the Bush administration has left NASA with limited flexibility to accelerate the development of the new systems.”
  • As previous stated, he supports one additional shuttle flight “to fly a valuable mission and to keep the workforce engaged” (the “valuable mission” referred to here is apparently the AMS payload.) He adds that he would work to ensure there is “adequate” additional funding for that mission so that it doesn’t interfere with other programs.
  • He includes support of commercial activities in several places, calling COTS a “good model”. Elsewhere: “We must unleash the genius of private enterprise to secure the United States’ leadership in space.”
  • On a topic that’s important to a lot of people in the space industry, but obscure elsewhere, the policy states that Obama “will direct a review of the ITAR to reevaluate restrictions imposed on American companies, with a special focus on space hardware that is currently restricted from commercial export. He will also direct revisions to the licensing process to ensure that American suppliers are competitive in the international aerospace markets, without jeopardizing American national security.”

There’s a lot more in there (which I’ll leave to you to discuss in the comments), but one broader thing stands out: it’s remarkable that any candidate for president, regardless of political party, would develop and release a six-page space policy white paper. That’s pretty remarkable, and difficult to explain outside of an effort to try and secure some votes in one small part of a battleground state.

41 comments to Obama’s detailed space policy

  • Bob

    I think Obama has learned how valuable NASA is to the development of new technology that can create an economic boom. It is good to see that he is committed to the space program.

  • Anon

    “That’s pretty remarkable, and difficult to explain outside of an effort to try and secure some votes in one small part of a battleground state.”

    OR is it at all possible — even slightly, remotely, a fraction of a percent probability possible — that Obama employs people WHO ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT POLICY?

    I know, what an insane and naive statement. Except that all of his policy statements are this detailed. People should be ashamed of themselves for not at least acknowledging this possibility.

  • OR is it at all possible — even slightly, remotely, a fraction of a percent probability possible — that Obama employs people WHO ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT POLICY?

    It’s possible, but not likely, on empirical data. More likely is that Lori forcibly insinuated herself into the campaign when she realized that Hillary! wasn’t going to be the candidate. Not that that’s a bad thing…

  • Chuck2200

    “More likely is that Lori forcibly insinuated herself into the campaign”

    Unlike McCain, who never actually fires anybody, Obama runs a tight ship. Lori Garver would not be able to do this without Obama’s personal and considered consent. Look at his other policy advisers; experts, every one. It tells me that he is employing people for policy positions who actually know what they’re doing and really care about their areas of coverage.

    Imagine. A politician who not only surrounds himself with quality people and puts them in positions to exploit their expertize, but who actually listens to those people when they tell him what’s real and what’s not. That’s amazing.

  • Brad

    Yep, I too wonder if this is Obama’s space policy or if it really is just Lori Garver’s space policy with an Obama signature.

    Well if Obama is elected I guess we will have a chance to see how faithful Obama will remain to an obscure campaign document which is only of interest to a tiny minority of voters. Expect disappointment.

  • Brad,

    No, you can expect sound judgment – despite your claim, the left-wing of the Democratic Party is NOT inherently against manned spaceflight. Read my comment in the previous thread

  • MarkWhittington

    This is either the biggest conversion since St. Paul on the road to Damascus or the most cynical flip flop in political history. Considering Obama’s history of flip flops, I would bet on the latter.

  • Brad

    Ferris,

    If President Obama supports manned space exploration he will be the first Democratic President since LBJ to do so. Expect disappointment.

  • red

    Jeff: “it’s remarkable that any candidate for president, regardless of political party, would develop and release a six-page space policy white paper. That’s pretty remarkable, and difficult to explain outside of an effort to try and secure some votes in one small part of a battleground state.”

    It’s probably fair to say that Obama and his staffers didn’t have much of a background in space policy a year ago, and his earlier education/space policy document showed that. That’s the bad part, and it may reflect his inherent perspective on politics.

    Another somewhat bad aspect is that there isn’t much doubt that the detailed policy must be at least in part prompted by the local politics in a state like Florida. However, in his favor on that point, that sort of strategy is to be expected from any candidate trying to be elected. Keep in mind that, if he’s elected, Florida isn’t going away; space will still be an issue there in some form in the next election. He will be inclined to not want to unnecessarily offend those voters, so he’ll need a very good reason to go against any of the provisions in the policy that Floridians would favor.

    On the positive side, it looks to me like it’s a good, sensible policy document. It offers a grab bag of things for the space community, but I don’t see it as necessarily an unrealistic budget buster. Promoting Operationally Responsive Space is a good, cost-effective idea. Reforming ITAR, if done carefully, can be cost-effective, helpful to the economy, and more effective for security if it focuses attention on real security needs. Offering innovation prizes can be done in a cost-effective way. COTS can be done in a cost effective way. So, there’s a reasonable chance that such efforts might actually happen.

    Many of the things that would probably cost more money are the kinds of things that have been in his plan all along and fit well with his overall political inclinations, like more environment monitoring space missions and education efforts. Again, there’s a reasonable chance that such efforts might actually happen.

    Another positive sign is that, if Obama didn’t have much experience with space issues before, he’s probably getting more familiar with them now. That in itself makes him a better candidate. I think that can only help if he’s elected; I assume he knows the policy document and could discuss any of the items in it. It’s good to have the candidates familiar with the problems with ITAR, the potential of commercial space and approaches like COTS, the potential of innovation prizes and student design competitions, the pros and cons of different ways of dealing with the Shuttle retirement, and so on.

    One of my biggest worries with Obama 6-12 months ago was inexperience. I think the original Obama space policy document showed inexperience and a lack of grasp of issues. It wasn’t even that it used space funds for an education program – that’s a position that you could reasonably take (although I wouldn’t take it). An even bigger worry was that it didn’t make sense, because he was for the ISS mission, and wanted to delay the lunar mission (based on later clarifications), but that wouldn’t leave him with the funds he’d need to even make a dent in the education program, since the lunar mission ramped up later. It’s good to make efforts to show how you’ll pay for programs, but they need to add up.

    Now it seems that he’s started to surround himself with policy makers that have experience and know the issues (like Lori). That’s a good sign.

    Now let’s see what McCain’s response is. Keywords I’d like to see: commercial, suborbital, COTS, prize, ITAR, ORS, data purchase …

  • Dr. Brown

    Now it seems that he’s started to surround himself with policy makers that have experience and know the issues (like Lori).

    It’s too bad that Lori Garver, or anyone else on Mr. Obama’s staff, don’t have a clue about what constitutes a viable or sustainable launch vehicle architecture. Lori Garver has ZERO engineering or scientific experience, and that’s what we need more than anything else, besides courage. Ares I is the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM facing NASA today, and until more people with the proper technical experience somehow gain enough courage to step up to the plate and CONFRONT THE PROBLEM that is the Ares I, America is going nowhere.

    Americans are afraid to confront George Bush, and they are afraid to confront Michael Griffin.

    It is a subservience and submissiveness never before seen in the history of the United States.

  • Jack Burton

    My god, how many times did the name “Obama” show up in that policy?
    Like twenty?

    “Obama’s NASA”??????

    Wow.

    Why should I trust this guy after a few short months ago he was ready to axe Constellation for five years?

    He has already angered many on some very large flip flops.

    Now he has released something more of a manifesto then a space policy.

    This all seems like electioneering pandering. Sorry.

  • Aremis Asling

    “Ferris,

    If President Obama supports manned space exploration he will be the first Democratic President since LBJ to do so. Expect disappointment.”

    I take issue with this only because there have only been two democratic presidents since LBJ and one, Carter, has gone down in history as being almost completely ineffective in the Oval Office. This is hardly a fair statement. NASA has been woefully underfunded, horrifically wasteful, and aimlessly thrashing about for decades, political party be damned.

    Given the climate in the space community at the time of his earlier statements he could very well be forgiven for thinking canning the VSE for more effective programs, especially those dealing with science and exploration, was what the space advocates were calling for. The space community griped for years following VSE about the severe damage to the scientific research side of NASA. We’re still griping about it. A surface read of comments from the field would have left a candidate whose platform doesn’t revolve specifically around space with the fully justified belief that we all thought VSE was horrifically cannibalizing the science side of things.

    So upon further review he realized there was more depth to the space community’s position and he changed his platform. Hardly a flip flop. If it’s not your area of expertise, in my opinion you damn well better be listening to your constituents whose interests do lie in that area. The last thing I want is a leader who knows jack squat about space to make a partially informed decision and be unwilling to change his position in the face of further research simply to avoid appearing wishy washy or as a flip flopper. If nothing else it’s severely unscientific. I would argue more for arrogant and bone-headed personally.

    Like it or not, Obama’s got a heck of a shot at the White House. McCain calls himself the underdog after all. So if he gets in, would you rather he stick with his original policy plan without any chance at all of giving you what you want in the space arena? Personally even if there’s only a 5% chance of him following through, it’s better than 0% in my book.

  • Clint Sharpe

    excellent to see he opposes weapons in space!

  • SpaceMan

    If I didn`t know better I would think this is a 4th grade class room that went without their naps.

    Jeez people, get a clue how the real world works and quit whining just because “the people in charge” don`t do what you want them to.

    Grow UP

  • Dr. Brown,

    We thought we had that in the form of Dr. Griffin, if anyone else remembers the universal cheering he recieved when he was first nomniated. Actually, I would argue that Lori DOES understand the need for a sustainable architecture, and the point is, she knows where to go to find out what it would constitute – the fact that Obama is reconstituting the NASC, I think, points to this very well

  • Jack Burton

    Lori Garver is nobody I trust.
    She hopped from Kerry, to Hillary, to Obama.
    What is the common thread there?
    She wants to work for a President.
    This plan/manifesto wouldn’t survive two months into an Obama admin.
    He never supported it before.

    Now? all of a sudden?

    Give me a break.

    Florida is clearly the goal. NOT the moon.

    Just like all the promises he gave to get the nomination, then he dumped many of those positions once he had it.

    Look out folks.

    Don’t fall for this!

  • Dr. Brown

    get a clue how the real world works and quit whining just because “the people in charge” don`t do what you want them to.

    Like most other casual observers, you completely misunderstand the problem. Ares I is already, by any credible metric, a complete failure. It has everything to do with ‘how the real world works’ (which is physics and engineering, for the benefit of your understanding) and nothing to do with ‘not doing what we want them to’. The problem is that people with little or no understanding of physics and engineering (you, for instance) are completely unable to comprehend the magnitude of the failure, and that most of those who do have the necessary understanding of physics and engineering, are completely unable to admit the failure, and are unwilling to confront the appropriate authorities about that failure. The failure of Ares I is very real, and completely independent of your understanding of it.

  • sc220

    Dr. Brown: Ares I is the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM facing NASA today, and until more people with the proper technical experience somehow gain enough courage to step up to the plate and CONFRONT THE PROBLEM that is the Ares I, America is going nowhere.

    This is really the main issue. And Ares I IS Mike Griffin. It is his centerpiece program, and his tenure needs to be measured against it. Any space policy that results in the axing of this monstrosity would be OK with me.

  • reader

    Just a note, but there is a lot more sniping at the persons putting forth this document, than the arguing with contents of the document itself in this thread.

  • Bill White

    IMHO, Lori Garver is now Obama’s space policy wonk but John Glenn and Bill Nelson are the people who changed Obama’s mind on space exploration and Bill Nelson (and John Glenn) are the source of Obama’s political motivation. Jeff Foust first reported on this back in May.

    Will Obama’S mind remain changed come Spring 2009?

    IMHO? Of course it will because if Obama fails to follow through with his announced policies current Senator Bill Nelson will be very angry with Obama as will former Senator John Glenn and even as early as Spring 2009, November 2012 will begin to loom large.

    The policy document includes a great many common sense items and an extra $2 billion is what Democrats in Congress have been calling for for years. In Spring 2009 POTUS Obama has everything to gain and nothing to lose (except a measly $2 billion) by standing by his plan.

  • Brad: If President Obama supports manned space exploration he will be the first Democratic President since LBJ to do so. Expect disappointment.

    However, he is not the only candidate: both Mr. Gore and Ms. Clinton clearly support human spaceflight.

    Dr. Brown: Lori Garver has ZERO engineering or scientific experience, and that’s what we need more than anything else, besides courage.

    While I have grown to agree with you about the Ares architecture, I think you are dead wrong here. What is needed in Ms. Garver’s (apparent) position is political skill, first; budgetary reality second; and technical knowledge a distant third. She and Mr. Obama can hire technical smarts, but the politics of getting any strategy through the burocracy and Congress are far, far more difficult than mere technical issues or picking the correct strategy. After all, lack of followthrough and budgeting are where Mr. Bush has fallen through, even though the “wrong architecture” is the immediate problem.

    The failure of Ares I is very real, and completely independent of your understanding of it.

    All that said, Ares-1 has not failed quite yet. I think that outcome very likely, but I also think it is important that I am a knowledgeable layman, not and expert, and I could well be proven wrong. I think that is true of most of us here, though not all.

    — Donald

  • John

    This looks like a boilerplate stasis program to me, for the most part, nothing bold or new — in fact much of it is already current policy — though it will certainly keep people employed, so it has that “get the votes” quality to it. I did note two areas that are of concern.

    One is his “Better Coordination with Other Federal Agencies Involved in Space” section. In reading the language several times, in the context of his drum beat on climate change, it makes he concerned that he’d want to re-task DOD systems to other purposes. Example, would recon sats end up tracking “climate change” stuff on a tasking basis instead of being focused only on security threats?? Would this be cover for a NASA space-turf grab to gain political control over NOAA and DoD assets? They’ve done this kind of thing in the past to protect their turf and expand their influence, for example, getting the X-20 Dynasoar and MOL programs in the 1960s killed, and then killing the DC-X program in the 1990s. And they also muscled in on NOAA in the 1990s with TOMs and other programs.

    Then of course is the “Opposing Weaponization of Space” stuff which would shut down missile defense efforts at a time when we see some serious emerging threats.

  • Dr. Brown

    Ares 1 has not failed quite yet.

    A space policy paper that doesn’t specifically mention Ares I by name isn’t credible. We need fast hard decisions on this, not inane glossy platitudes.

    Denial is a river in America. Until you cross that river, nothing will change.

  • MarkWhittington

    Looks like McCain now wants to add two billion to NASA’s budget to close the space flight gap:

    http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080818/BREAKINGNEWS/80818009

    Considering that McCain supports space and Obama says he supports space, the question really comes down to who do you trust most. I have my problems with McCain, but one of his more endearing qualities is that he tends to say what he means, something Obama lacks,

  • Jack Burton

    Agreed.

    McCain has supported VSE from the get go.
    NOT so with Obama.
    Plus Obama has abandoned positions on issues that won him the nomination.

    Again, this is about winning Florida, not going to the moon.

  • Adrian

    “Considering that McCain supports space and Obama says he supports space, the question really comes down to who do you trust most. I have my problems with McCain, but one of his more endearing qualities is that he tends to say what he means, something Obama lacks”

    wonderful. and you quantify this how? heading back to objectivity:

    I live in Florida. presently in the military/conservative/WASP panhandle, but ive also lived on the Space Coast and in St. Augustine. I can assure everyone that reads this forum, regardless of what you’ve read or heard, the vast, overwhelming majority of Floridians dont give a rat’s ass about space policy or NASA. most of them dont care about the environment either, and will happily trade their beaches and risk losing their tourist economy at the mythical prospect of cheaper gas for drilling off their coasts. Neither Senator’s NASA policy will influence how Florida votes, so all discussion in that field is a completely mute point. I assume they know this too, so cease with the cynical talk of trying to win Florida votes with NASA handouts, because Florida votes have nothing to do with anything as intelligent or rational as space policy. people here vote mainly out of self-interest and identity politics. get over it, move on.

  • Mark: Looks like McCain now wants to add two billion to NASA’s budget to close the space flight gap

    If so, I like the way this is headed. Maybe Obama could now bid $3 billion!

    — Donald

  • Aremis Asling

    “people here vote mainly out of self-interest and identity politics. get over it, move on.”

    Yup, sounds like most of the US electorate. Frankly, I think the candidates are only coming out on this so that they can be seen as having a comprehensive platform, Florida be damned. Since Kennedy, presidents haven’t been able to say their platform is complete without some kind of plan for space regardless of whether they actually give a damn, which I’d put money on the fact that neither of them do. Obama in particular has a need to fill all the gaps with specifics as he is constantly being beaten with the ‘we don’t know you as a candidate’ stick.

    I don’t believe either of them will follow through to the letter, personally. The right side is desperate for a fiscal conservative after a series of social conservative budget busters which doesn’t bode well for NASA and the left is heftily focused on social services and employment. In short, as they say, it’s the economy, stupid. NASA is, and always will be, a footnote so long as the economy is in the toilet.

    As a result I’m not voting on this issue and focusing on other issues. Therefore in my eyes space politics is simply icing on the cake. I’m happy to see them make gestures in the right direction regardless of how disingenuous I believe them to be.

  • John

    Oh no…Lori Garver is his advisor. Bully for her, I suppose, but IIRC she is very pro-status quo as regards NASA, and she fought *against* RLV systems in the 1990s and *against* broader space commercialization outside of NASA’s sphere of influence. Not much innovation there.

  • factchecker

    Hmm… same Lori Garver that was at NSS for 13 years? As I recall, she was a huge champion of DC-X (took her 1 year old son to the launch 15 years ago)… NSS is one of the groups most supportive of commercial space. Her NASA job from the mid-’90’s to when Bush came in was also largely supporting commercial space and RLV’s. She testified on the Hill a couple times supporting govt. guaranteed loans for RLV’s, supported Rotary, Beal, Kistler, Kelly etc. Her office initiated Alt Access, drafted the prize legislation which now allows for Centenial Challenges and her early portfolio at the NASA policy office was all commercial space. She obviously got supportive language in the Obama policy about COTS, prizes and ORS, so you must be referencing a different Lori Garver.

  • Al Fansome

    Factchecker,

    Thanks for adding some facts. Ms. Garver also persuaded Dan Goldin to support CATS, as well as to say he would “hand off the keys to LEO to private industry”.

    I think this is a pretty amazing 6-page policy document, and if it is true that Lori persuaded Obama to approve it — then bully for her. We should all thank her. It is also says something about Sen. Obama that he listened to her.

    Too bad that none of the many Republican space advocates have gotten to John McCain. I can assure you that it is not for a lack of trying. I do hope that somebody — from the pro-space-commerce community — gets to Sen. McCain soon.

    I never would have predicted, a year ago, that it would be the Democratic candidate for POTUS that was the most overt champion of ORS, COTS, and space privatization.

    For those Republican policy professionals — instead of whining about Obama — spend your valuable time now getting to McCain & Team, and pointing out that he is letting the Democrat beat him to the punch on policy issues that he should own.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Norm Hartnett

    A brief Bio of Ms. Garver, since there doesn’t seem to be one on the web.

    1983 Bachelors degree in Political Science and Economics from Colorado College
    1989 Masters degree in Science, Technology, and Public Policy from the George Washington University
    1987 Ms. Garver was the Executive Director of the National Space Society, a space advocacy organization. As Executive Director, she served as the organizations’ primary spokesperson, appearing on national television and regularly testifying on Capitol Hill.
    President of Women in Aerospace.
    1996 Special Assistant to Dan Goldin, the NASA Administrator.
    1996 Ms. Garver served as a Senior Policy Analyst for the Office of Policy and Plans 1998 Until January 2001 Ms. Garver was the Associate Administrator for Policy and Plans at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), where she oversaw the analysis, development, and integration of NASA policies and long-range plans, the NASA Strategic Management System, the NASA Advisory Council, and History Division.
    2000 Honorary Doctorate of Laws from Colorado College
    Founder and President of Capital Space LLC, a Virginia-based consulting firm
    President of the American Astronautical Association
    2001 Astro-Mom http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1003/1
    2001 – 2003 Affiliated with DFI International as Director of Space Program Development and later VP of DFI Corporate Services
    2003 Senior Advisor for Space at The Avascent Group, a strategic consulting firm
    2008 Advisor to the Secure World Foundation. http://www.secureworldfoundation.org

    This doesn’t include her political activism that dates back to Senator Glenn.

  • John

    “As I recall, she was a huge champion of DC-X (took her 1 year old son to the launch 15 years ago)”

    She initially fought like hell against it since it was not a NASA program (it was an evil DoD thing) and then bowed in and joined it. While she was head of the NSS it became the “NASA Space Society” which is why competing organizations like the Space Frontier Society saw their membership levels increase.

  • While she was head of the NSS it became the “NASA Space Society” which is why competing organizations like the Space Frontier Society saw their membership levels increase.

    It was like that pre-Lori as well. L-5 was pretty quickly digested by NSI in the merger, and the purpose of NSI was always to build public support for NASA. She was just doing what the board wanted her to do.

  • […] Space Politics » Obama’s detailed space policy […]

  • Al Fansome

    “As I recall, she was a huge champion of DC-X (took her 1 year old son to the launch 15 years ago)”

    JOHN:She initially fought like hell against it since it was not a NASA program (it was an evil DoD thing)

    Please be more specific, and provide some specific DATA to back up your assertion. What did she do (to fight against it), when did she do it? References would be nice.

    “In God we trust; all others must bring data.” — W. Edwards Deming

    The data I see is in conflict with your assertions. In this April 1994 Space Access update here:

    http://www.islandone.org/SpaceAccessUpdates/940405-SAU33.html

    “Meanwhile, we hear the National Space Society (NSS) has sent out a letter to all their members asking for donations for an effort to promote SSTO. They too are now saying a lot of the right things about what’s wrong with US space launch policy, and are proposing to do some fairly useful things in the way of advancing SSTO.”

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Michael Fulda

    As a retired political scientist and life-long space advocate, with some
    experience in fashioning presidential campaign space policies, I am
    delighted that the Obama campaign has produced a comprehensive
    space policy relatively early in the campaign calendar. Previous space
    pronouncements were snippets developed by a skeletal primary
    campaign issue staff with little policy or budgetary guidance. This
    is now the real thing, the policy declaration of the Obama campaign
    fashioned, one presumes, with the blessing of the candidate and the National Democratic Party, including its key constituents at the congressional level.

    The Obama space policy is a comprehensive civilian space policy
    referenced to national security space and foreign policies, and science and technology and science education policies. The civilian space policy
    budget assumes filibuster proof- Democratic party control of congress, a speedy end to the Iraq war and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. The Obama space policy could have been written by a consensus of pro-space organizations (Lagrange points, indeed!) Bravo, Lori and colleagues. This triumph should make up for the heartache of not being able to raise the money to hitch a ride on the Soyuz…

  • John

    I’m seriously disheartened by the lack of knowledge on our space industry and just who it was who killed our space program. LBJ and his team killed our space program and turned it into a private pork project for Congress, the Senate and the Presidents. The Space Treaty killed any real incentive for extensive space exploration.

    LBJ was by far the worst President for space we’ve had.

  • […] of these policy changes in the last year, though, represent a significant change from Obama’s 2008 campaign white paper on space policy, which included an endorsement of the Vision for Space Exploration’s central goal of a human […]

  • […] for president in 2008, Obama “had promised a bold space program”, a reference to his space policy white paper the campaign released in August 2008. However, according to the New Yorker article, those plans […]

  • […] space is a sharp contrast to 2008. By this point (the beginning of September) in the 2008 campaign, the Obama campaign had released a detailed space policy white paper, just a few days after the John McCain campaign released its own policy paper. At that time, […]

Leave a Reply to SpaceMan 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>