During a press briefing with White House press secretary Scott McClellan, a reporter (not identified by McClellan other than as “Greg”) surprisingly asked about the status of the Vision for Space Exploration, and whether it was, in the reporter’s words, “on the back burner”. McClellan’s response:
It’s reflected in our budget and I think it will be reflected in our upcoming budget, as well. Remember, this is a long-term vision that the President outlined for NASA, that made sure that they were focused on a very clearly-defined mission that is based on 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the road. So he remains committed to it.
McClellan also claimed that Bush mentioned the exploration vision on the campaign trail “a few weeks ago”, adding that “we had an astronaut traveling with us one day.” This appears to be a reference to Bush’s speech at Space Coast Stadium on October 23, when Buzz Aldrin spoke before the President. However, as previously noted here, there’s no evidence, from the campaign’s own transcript of Bush’s speech or press accounts, that Bush actually mentioned space himself other than acknowledging Aldrin’s presence.
Well to be fair McClellan did not make a definitive claim “that Bush mentioned the exploration vision on the campaign trail” what he said was:
“I believe he just talked about it a few weeks ago; we had an astronaut traveling with us one day.”
There’s a difference in claiming definitively that the President talked about the Space Vision and saying, “I believe” he talked about it. At least he was honest in clarifying it with “I believe”.
This is a program that stretches out 40 years? I wouldn’t expect it to get a lot of direct presidential attention. For comparison, Bush mentioned (a total of one time) that there is a 300 year plan to pull Russia back into union with the West, presumably undoing the consequences of the Great Schism. I’m sure that the plan is quietly accommodated in our budgets and statements where relevant and that one seems to be on track.
How realistic is it for politicians to be frequently referencing decade plus goals?
“How realistic is it for politicians to be frequently referencing decade plus goals?”
Can you say SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM?
Whatever other disagreements us space cadets may have amongst ourselves, if entitlements don’t get fixed, there will be NO domestic discretionary spending and NO investment in seed corn. (And taxation will be so high that there won’t be much private investment in space either.)
So be glad Bush addressed one multi-decade policy goal over and over again during his campaign. Goodness knows he got pilloried for it by his opposition.
The $3bn Bush bypass
American scientists wanted Kerry to win the election. What do they do now, asks Ian Sample
On space
In January, Bush announced ambitious plans for Nasa. With the phasing out of the currently grounded fleet of space shuttles in the next decade or so, the agency will look to set up a permanent base on the moon, and eventually send a crewed mission to Mars. While the plans grab headlines and ensure Nasa officials have plenty to think about, many scientists believe that manned space missions are an inefficient way of doing science.
“The Bush administration has caused a delay in important projects designed to do cosmology and astrophysics because of their desire to have humans orbit the globe and perform acrobatic feats, or whatever it is they do on the International Space Station,” says Lawrence Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. “There’s a place for manned space missions, but it’s not to do science.”
~~~
NASA is a space agency, not a science agency. Science is one of its many missions. Manned space missions do science, technology and colonization.
“How realistic is it for politicians to be frequently referencing decade plus goals?”
Politicians do it all the time with regard to infrastructure projects and development plans. There is nothing inherently implausible in government plans that are decades from fruition.