My thoughts on it or, rather, the lack of it, over at PJMedia.
69 thoughts on “The Republican Space Policy”
You lost an “a” in Republican.
There’s too many posts and comments about the lack of a clear space policy of a Romney administration and basically no discussion about what we can do with this opportunity. It gives us time to influence that policy. We have between now and somewhere in the middle of his blue ribbon panel to try to effectively make our case. But how to make that case? Who are the key individuals who might decide the administration’s policy? How to influence those individuals? Do we need more consensus amongst the space advocacy community or can this be achieved on a more individual basis.
Nah Romney does not care about space policy he is going to make the US energy independent by 2020. Hah. Maybe if he buys most of his oil and gas from his commie neighbors in Canada and the illegals in Mexico. Oh wait I thought Canada and Mexico were not a part of the US (I guess he was a different concept of independence from mine) and the US already imports more oil from each than from Saudi Arabia. If he starts talking about offshore drilling in California he will lose any voters he has there. The other places he mentioned would probably be work in progress by now had the BP Horizon spill never happened.
*If* he wins the elections he will think about space policy.
California is not in play. He can safely talk about off-shore drilling.
CNN’s Erin Burnett fact checked Romney’s statement and said that we are already on track to be energy nonindependent by 2020 so it wouldn’t be an accomplishment for him but something that will inevitably happen.
“The other places he mentioned would probably be work in progress by now had the BP Horizon spill never happened.”
Ya, they would be a work in progress if Obama had not halted oil exploration there, then told by the courts to allow it, then continued with not allowing it in defiance of the courts. Add to that the Obama administration altered scientific reports to support their politics. Talk about anti science…
Given the dismal and partisan job the so-called “fact checkers” are doing this year, I’d take her statement with a big grain of salt. What are her assumptions for energy dependence. Are they based on increasing domestic production of oil and natural gas, or are they based on windmills powered by unicorn farts and solar panels powered by sunbeams from Obama’s sheer awesomeness?
Oh, I agree. This was just her attempt to dismiss Romney’s goal. I am not sure where she got her information from, I just remember that’s what she said.
I think it goes back to Rand’s point about space not being important.
People say it is important but they tend not to back up their words with actions.
Excellent! I hope you’ve got something similar in the works for Obama.
Obama actually does have a space policy.
Whatever is in a party platform is extremely unimportant these days. Once upon a time, the state parties sent delegates to the national convention, where they would then spend days, sometimes weeks, hashing out what the current platform for the party should be, and then – and only then! – select the candidate that best reflected that platform, always allowing for personality and electability.
Today, this just doesn’t happen. Yes, the two parties still put together platforms, but they are just politically correct agendas, where the goal is to not embarrass the party. Primaries and caucuses have already selected the candidate and he is going to campaign on whatever is of importance to himself. The platform has no hold over him, no matter what it says.
So, Rand, don’t worry about the platform. But if you ghost-write a good, free-market space policy paper for the Romney campaign, maybe they will put it on their website. More people would probably see it there.
Governor Romney and the Republicans are dedicated to undoing All of President Obama’s policies, so its a fair bet since President Obama scrapped Constellation Governor Romney will restore it, and return Dr. Griffin to NASA to implement it.
And since “commercial” crew now has the brand of President Obama on it (yes I know it predates President Obama) you may bet it will be thrown under the bus.
Romney doesn’t care about space policy, but Paul Ryan isn’t that stupid. They know that returning to Bush policies would be a huge mistake in general, and returning to the Bush space policy would be a big one in particular. But please, continue with your Tea Party derangement.
They know that returning to Bush policies would be a huge mistake in general
Has Romney indicated any way in which his economic policies would be different from Bush’s? Romney’s economic plan is lower taxes, less regulation, more trade, and more domestic energy. Those were Bush’s policies as well.
Lower tax rates, not lower taxes. There was nothing wrong with those Bush policies. The Bush policies that they won’t return to are those involving big spending and new entitlements, which are the true cause of our problems.
The Bush policies that they won’t return to are those involving big spending and new entitlements
Has Ryan ever regretted his vote for Medicare Part D? Romney is declaring Medicare Advantage untouchable, in essence making it a new entitlement.
I don’t see any reason to expect Romney to spend less readily than Bush. Spending is popular, especially the big ticket items (Social Security, Medicare defense), and as Cheney noted, no one cares about deficits.
I’m inclined to agree with Jim: there’s actually not a lot of reason to believe Romney would slash spending. Sure, he talks about it, but surely we’ve all learned the hard way to take candidates’ pre-election talk with a huge grain of salt. None of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II shrank government; why expect Romney to do it?
And as for Ryan, yeah, not only did he vote for Part D, but the ten-year delay in implementing his plan for Medicare reeks of smoke and mirrors. Easy to talk about cutting spending when you’re out of the Oval Office, hard to do when you’re in.
Rand,
Any evidence Paul Ryan cares about space policy? Or are you just projecting your wishes on what is a blank slate.
You don’t have to care about space policy to see how wasteful SLS is in these fiscal times. His staff is being educated.
Romney policy will probably be written by Griffin, Scott Pace and a few others. Rand I both know Scott from way, way back, he’s a good guy but we both know which side of the debate he comes down on: the old status quo of socialism in space.
I doubt that. Romney just accepted that “advisory committee” because it was a convenient way to pretend he cared about space policy when he was bashing Newt. I doubt if he’s paid any attention to them since. There’s certainly no evidence of it.
Once the budget people start to take a serious look at NASA, SLS will be gone, particularly if Dana takes over the science committee. There will be no one left to defend it except Hatch. As I said, Paul Ryan is not stupid.
Paul Ryan is not stupid
But is Romney really going to cut spending? He’s backtracked on Ryan’s $700b Medicare cut already, and has promised to undo the defense cuts in the sequester. Why would he accept the political cost of canceling SLS?
The only places there are political costs to canceling SLS are Utah and Alabama. In other words, there are none.
The GOP won’t lose Utah or Alabama, but SLS contractors have PACs, and make lots of political donations.
The optics are bad as well. Just as canceling Constellation is routinely described as the end of US manned spaceflight, the death of SLS would be painted as the end of NASA’s hopes to ever go to the Moon or Mars. Romney’s campaign is partly built on a theme of national greatness and American exceptionalism; canceling a big rocket doesn’t gibe with that theme, no matter how overpriced and pointless the rocket.
It would fit with Romney’s image as a ruthless CEO, and if he had five minutes to examine the cost/benefit of SLS I imagine he’d be appalled, but I don’t think that’s the image he’d want to project in the Oval Office.
Florida? Texas (not that it makes any sense, but Hutchison’s been a big SLS hugger).
Rand,
You are really gambling that Rep. Paul Ryan will see the light on space aren’t you? A Representative from the same state that produced both Senator Proxmire and Rep. Aspin?
Someone who voted for anything the President Bush wanted.
I guess hope always springs eternal for New Space Advocates….
That should be “that President Bush” wanted
I suppose it’s unsporting to note that the late Messrs. Aspin and Proxmire were both Democrats while Paul Ryan is, of course, a Republican. Or is it your contention that something in the Wisconsin water supply (or the beer, cheese and bratwurst supply) inclines the state’s inhabitants inevitably in the direction of preferring more dairy price supports to more money for NASA?
Dick,
I forgot to include Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr. from Wisconsin who led the fight against the ISS in the 1990’s. He is a Republican.
Yes, there does indeed seem to be something in the water in Wisconsin given that all three of NASA’s biggest opponents are from there. 🙂
Plus as folks point out, support for space development, or opposition as in the case of Wisconsin, is a non-partisan issue…
Once the budget people start to take a serious look at NASA, SLS will be gone, particularly if Dana takes over the science committee.
I once had high hopes for Dana, but when the pressure’s on he seems to fold. In the July 2011 hearing on SLS, he pressed Bolden for a depot study that had been performed. But then at a hearing on March 7, he told Bolden that he trusted him to make the right decision on depots. And then there was the amazing Hultgren-Griffin interchange where Griffin said that Delta IV could take a crew to the moon: why didn’t Dana go in for the kill?
You are really gambling that Rep. Paul Ryan will see the light on space aren’t you?
Do I have a choice? Where is the “gamble”?
And Paul Ryan is no William Proxmire, let alone Les Aspin. There is nothing in common except he’s from Wisconsin.
Rand,
Except that he voted twice against the NASA Authorization Act, once being one of only 15 nay votes with 409 in favor, one of the few times he voted against President Bush’s agenda.
Sorry, but there is nothing to indicate Rep. Ryan will do anything on space except maybe hand it off to someone like Dr. Griffin and move on to other more important issues. NASA will likely be given a spending ceiling and let the chips fall were they may. I know you believe it will be different, but again, you have no evidence but wishful thinking given Governor Romney’s space advisors.
I have no idea why you continue to fantasize that Paul Ryan will “hand space off to Mike Griffin.” As I said, he’s not stupid. I also have no idea why you think he is. He may hand it off to someone, but it won’t be the guy that Romney said that he’d fire.
I have no idea why you [Thomas Matula] continue to fantasize that Paul Ryan will “hand space off to Mike Griffin.”
I think I have an idea why that would happen: it’s a consequence of Rand’s Rule: space is not important. I think it’s overwhelmingly likely that a Romney administration would not want to devote any political capital at all to space. Therefore, it would just throw a bit of money at space-state Republicans like Shelby, Hatch and Hutchison’s replacement, expecting no return on it aside from a little political loyalty. Those politicians seemed perfectly happy with Griffin. Why would you expect anything different from Romney-Ryan? Space is not important.
it would just throw a bit of money at space-state Republicans like Shelby, Hatch and Hutchison’s replacement, expecting no return on it aside from a little political loyalty.
Ted Cruz won’t give a damn about SLS. To the degree that the Tea Party cares about SLS, they want to kill it. Even if you really believe that Romney/Ryan won’t care about fiscal discipline, why not kill SLS as a sop to the Tea Party?
Rand,
Just because a website that calls itself “Tea Party in Space” is opposed to the SLS doesn’t mean that “Tea Party” followers or office holders are. As you often enjoy pointing out, its not an “organized” movement 🙂
Besides who said anything about keeping SLS? Governor Romney could kill it off just as easily along with “commercial” crew labeling both as President Obama’s “failed” space policy and restore the Ares I/Ares V which Dr. Griffin designed and which would not only pay off the politicians in Alabama, but also Utah, which Governor Romney has close family ties to.
Most members of the Tea Party don’t pay much attention to space — they’re much more concerned about the Constitution and spending. There is nothing about SLS to appeal to them. The only people who explicitly care oppose it.
Rand,
So what you are confirming is that Governor Romney may do whatever he wishes in space and it won’t impact his Tea Party support. So if Governor Romney needs to restore Ares I or keep the SLS to make elected Republicans happy in some states it won’t matter. It just a matter of using the right language – Restoring American glory in space after being devastated by President Obama’s policy by – Then fill in the blank.
So then the real question is who has the best deal to make the Governor? The supporters of SLS or its opponents? ATK, Utah and Alabama or NewSpacers…
So what you are confirming is that Governor Romney may do whatever he wishes in space and it won’t impact his Tea Party support.
No, not at all, but you are confirming (as is often the case) that you have reading comprehension problems.
Regarding Cruz’s attitude toward SLS, note that Hutchison is a big supporter, despite the fact that JSC would do better with a program based on medium LVs (more missions sooner). I could speculate as to why, but the point is I’m not sure Cruz would be any different. (There might actually be some data on this. How has Tea Partier Mike Lee performed vis a vis SLS since taking a Senate seat from old-guard Republican and die-hard SLS booster Bennett in Utah?)
My impression is that most Tea Partiers who don’t follow space, i.e., almost all of them, a reflexively in favor of US national strength in a broad sense and will tend to fall for the argument that a large rocket somehow promotes American strength. (After all, the fact that Obama tried to kill must mean it’s a good thing, right?) Hence, I’m not so sure that killing SLS would be a sop to the Tea Party.
Regarding Cruz’s attitude toward SLS, note that Hutchison is a big supporter, despite the fact that JSC would do better with a program based on medium LVs (more missions sooner).
Why would Cruz care what Hutchison thinks, about anything? She retired because she knew that she’d lose the primary to someone like Cruz. He knows she’s an idiot. Her support for SLS would be a point against it in his book.
I don’t mean to suggest that Cruz would care what Hutchison thinks. What I am suggesting is that she decided SLS was in her interest. Maybe that’s because of PAC money, which might also be brought to bear on Cruz. Maybe it’s because a deal was worked out whereby the only way she was going to get Orion was if she backed SLS. If so, that deal might well influence Cruz too.
Maybe it’s because a deal was worked out whereby the only way she was going to get Orion was if she backed SLS. If so, that deal might well influence Cruz too.
Cruz was the Tea Party candidate. He won’t care about Orion, either.
Cruz was the Tea Party candidate. He won’t care about [SLS or] Orion, either.
I’d certainly like to believe that Cruz would be hostile to SLS. But what’s the evidence that he’s not just buying the confused but common reasoning that that a strong NASA is important for US strength, and Obama canceled the space program, therefore the US needs SLS? That was the reasoning spouted by the Tea Partier who appeared on the PJTV clip about the Soviet lunar lander that you blogged about in late 2010, and I’ve been unable to find any evidence that either Sen. Lee of Utah or Sen. Rubio of Florida has any reservations about SLS. Can you point to any Tea Party politicians who have actually come out against SLS? Opposing it would certainly be consistent with their espoused philosophy, but then you can say exactly the same thing about the mainstream Republicans who back SLS. Obviously Tea Party in Space is opposed, but that’s just one person.
But what’s the evidence that he’s not just buying the confused but common reasoning that that a strong NASA is important for US strength, and Obama canceled the space program, therefore the US needs SLS?
What’s the evidence that he is? Why is the burden on me?
Can you point to any Tea Party politicians who have actually come out against SLS?
No one is going to take a stand on it until it becomes an actual issue in an actual budget debate, which is not going to occur this fall.
Obviously Tea Party in Space is opposed, but that’s just one person.
Tea Party in Space is not just one person.
What’s the evidence that he [Cruz] is [buying the confused but common reasoning that that a strong NASA is important for US strength, and Obama canceled the space program, therefore the US needs SLS]? Why is the burden on me?
You’re the one who’s arguing that this time is different, that the Tea Party isn’t going to behave like the most of the Republican Party. I hope you’re right, but personally I’m expecting the status quo until I see some evidence that Tea Party in Space is more than just a tiny voice within the Tea Party (and I acknowledge being wrong when I said it was “just one person” — thanks for setting me straight).
Maybe he will hand it off to Lori Garver? Or perhaps Moonbase Newt.
I figure a strong economy and domestic energy production will do a great deal to advance space development. Even if Mike Griffin remains at NASA. A clear policy in support of mining claim property rights, so far as US law is relevant, would also help. I can’t see the incumbent being friendly to any property rights he can violate to advantage.
Mike Griffin cannot remain at NASA; to remain there he must first be presently there. Mike Griffin left NASA years ago and has already moved on to work at ATK, the solid rocket manufacturer.
Ed,
And to be one of Governor Romney’s advisors on space policy. Naming him to replace Gen. Bolden would be a easy choice by Governor Romney and a Republican Congress would rubber stamp him, especially since Dr. Griffin signaled his dislike for President Obama by resigning from NASA the night before the President took office.
Dr. Griffin signaled his dislike for President Obama by resigning from NASA the night before the President took office.
Are you really this ignorant of the history of how that went down?
[[[CAPE CANAVERAL – NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned.
In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.]]]
It would appear to me the cause was because he didn’t like either the transition team he selected nor President’s Obama’s handling of NASA. But I am sure you have another spin on it.
It’s not a matter of “spin.” It’s a matter of historical reality.
Of course he didn’t like the Obama team, but that’s not why he quit. He was lobbying to keep his job, and had his wife and others start an email campaign to retain him, right up until the moment that he was told in no uncertain terms to resign or be canned. It’s nutty and historically nonsensical to say that he resigned because of his “dislike for president Obama.” He had no choice. Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself with this kind of nonsense?
Rand,
Then given your view of his leaving why do you insist that the New Space view will prevail with Governor Romney?
Likely Dr. Griffin is campaigning with Governor Romney to get his job again. And to restore the program, Constellation, he campaigned so hard to save. And with potential allies in ATK and the Utah and Alabama Congressional delegations he has a good shot at it.
All in all the odds he will be restored to power by Governor Romney are not bad, unless New Space makes a better offer.
Then given your view of his leaving why do you insist that the New Space view will prevail with Governor Romney?
Because it will align much more with his pro-business views?
Likely Dr. Griffin is campaigning with Governor Romney to get his job again.
Sorry, but there is zero evidence of that. But then, you don’t seem to base your fantasies on real-world evidence.
All in all the odds he will be restored to power by Governor Romney are not bad, unless New Space makes a better offer.
The only offer that has to be made is that the taxpayers’ money will no longer be wasted on Mike Griffin’s fantasies. All anyone need do is point the Romney/Ryan people to the Augustine report. Again, they are not stupid, even if some people arguing to the contrary are.
I don’t understand why you are so obtuse on this subject, other than you can’t stand being wrong on things that you don’t understand.
Rand,
I think you are the one that don’t understand how Washington works. You seem to think policy is made based on logic and common sense, not partisan politics and special interests. Why do you think Elon Musk spends so much on lobbyists and SpaceX has its own PAC?
In short you are the one who lives in a world of fantasy of how politics works.
If logic drove space policy then humans would have returned to the Moon decades ago instead of wasting time and lives in Earth orbit.
As for Governor Romney, he left the good folks of Massachusetts with more per capita debt then any previous governor, while Rep. Ryan voted in favor of most of the vast amounts of money President Bush’s spent during his administration that reversed the U.S. from being on track to pay off the national debt to doubling it.
“Saving” tax payer money is a recent conversion for both if you actually take the time to check their records on spending. Do you really think they will care about saving a few billion at NASA if it makes some key Republicans unhappy? And if they are able to spin it to the voters as necessary for restoring “America’s greatness”.
Let’s face it, no matter who wins the result is we will still have a Harvard lawyer running the country with a track record of running up debt.
And if you think merely whispering logical advice to their staff will have an impact on space policy you are the one living in a fantasy world.
This GOP platform statement on NASA is actually a very interesting and important two paragraphs. Don’t let the brevity fool you — these “most significant bits” actually say a great deal about where the Romney-led GOP’s priorities will be, and where they won’t.
As you might expect after Romney using this issue to thrash Newt in the primaries, it’s not good news for the astronaut fans.
I am struck by the payoff policy sentence singling out “science missions” and “unfettered access” along with the inevitable (given the theme of the convention) “jobs” as NASA’s top priorities, but saying nothing about astronauts or any other kind of HSF. Manned spaceflight is in this whole GOP statement on NASA treated only as historical — something to be proud of in our past, but not something to expect more of during Romney’s term(s). This could signal a very big change in NASA policy. It’s consistent with Romney’s primary “I’d fire them” critique of Newt’s manned lunar base/colony proposal, and with what he’s said about Neil Armstrong and Curiosity. It shows that Romney and the bulk of the delegates to this convention want to move away from retro-futuristic visions of manned space exploration (exploration being, per the first sentence of the opening paragraph is seen as NASA’s main job — not “infrastructure” or “commerce”) and towards a more practical and cost-effective approach to space exploration. Namely one that sticks with the very successful kind of exploration and science we’ve been doing beyond earth orbit since Apollo. That’s a big change for the GOP since it has previously been a stronger supporter of HSF than the Democrats.
So I can see why astronaut fans would be unhappy. But those in favor of real space exploration and science can be happy that the GOP’s platform is heading towards a more rational use of NASA. Those interested in free-market space development can also be happy about the hands-off attitude towards commercial space rather than the central planning of NASA economic fantasies that many Democrats and some misguided Republicans label “commerce”.
I expect the Dems will be moving in this direction also — since it’s actually closer to the way most Dems have traditionally prioritized programs at NASA post-Apollo. Call it the Googawization of NASA. It’s the way it’s gotta be.
> As I said, Paul Ryan is not stupid.
I wonder if there is a way to reach Ryan and suggest a good model for a cost-effective yet aggressive space policy.
Also, do y’all think that Constellation is now too dismantled for even Griffin to revive?
Googaw, I just don’t see Romney or any administration calling for the explicit ending of HSF. Too many people feel as though it is important as an example of America’s leadership. However, I could imagine a move towards a fairly different model for HSF namely to use the lower cost SAA-COTS model of HSF and to extrapolate that BEO. A Ryan might find that to be a politically acceptable approach.
> Maybe he will hand it off to Lori Garver
We know that Garver is pro-commercial space. What are her views on SLS? Also, what is the likelihood of her being given the top position?
I wonder if there is a way to reach Ryan and suggest a good model for a cost-effective yet aggressive space policy.
That is happening.
Also, do y’all think that Constellation is now too dismantled for even Griffin to revive?
Orion plus SLS is Constellation. All it lacks is the Ares I training rocket (which could be restored with a cost-plus contract to ATK for Liberty).
We know that Garver is pro-commercial space. What are her views on SLS?
She thinks it should have a wooden stake through its heart.
Also, what is the likelihood of her being given the top position?
Zilch.
Googaw, I just don’t see Romney or any administration calling for the explicit ending of HSF.
No, but it’s easy enough to announce it implicitly, by what they _don’t_ say, as they have done here. Don’t start any new Buzz Lightyear project, and let the clock and budget run out on the ISS and associated programs. It’s easy to take advantage of the wishful thinking of astronaut fans by sweeping praise of past great misisons and vague suggestions of future grand missions, which astronaut fans will erroneously translate into their cult-speak.
By the same token, if the GOP was in favor of massive governments subsidies to develop fantasy markets-of-the-future, and calling it “commerce”, it would have made “space commerce” a priority in the platform, but they didn’t. So “commercial” HSF, bereft of any substantial government funding beyond the current contracts, will be taking that long plunge into the Pacific along with the rest of it. The result will be quite good for real space commerce, as that is where companies like SpaceX will have to focus their efforts, rather than on winning more NASA contracts.
The reality is increasingly looking like it will be what it should be, a practical and effective NASA exploration program devoid of such obsolete fantasies.
Obama has quite probably come to the same conclusion. Both parties have learned from Newt Gingrich’s demise to freeze the astronaut cult out of their decision-making about NASA. But Obama is happier than Romney to spout vague allusions to fund-well-after-my-term manned missions to the astroids or Mars to keep the cult happy. Congress for its part only funds HSF for the pork, and once it finds political advantage from budget cutting, or pork without HSF, it quite likely will do so, whether in an Obama second term or a Romney first term.
Since many influential folks in Washington read politico.com, a few of them might even go over to the Space Politics blog and read the comments there.
This is may be an opportunity to have your views exposed to more folks in Washington (as well as the rest of the country).
Rand,
That is always your respond when you paint yourself into a corner.
Let’s recap.
You stated that space policy is not important to Governor Romney. I agree.
You stated that space policy is not important to Rep. Paul Ryan. I agree.
You started that space policy is not important to the vast majority of Tea Party/Republicans. I agree.
I also feel that to the very small minority it is important to will vote for Governor Romney over President Obama regardless of what Governor Romney’s space policy is. I think you will agree to that.
The difference is you feel this will lead to some enlighten space policy favorable to NewSpace.
I am more cynical. I see space policy as being up for “sale” to the highest bidder, whoever will contribute the most (in terms of money/ time/ endorsements/ volunteers) to getting Governor Romney elected.
The Republican delegations of Utah and Alabama as well as Old Space have much to contribute to Governor Romney’s election. Even though both are sure Republican states they have influence outside their borders, especially in the swing state of Nevada in terms of Utah.
New Space has what to offer? Logic and the promise of saving some NASA money if President Obama’s policies are continued? And nothing to bash President Obama on. Which is basically nothing in terms of “campaign economics”…
So the point I am making is if New Space advocates want to see an enlighten space policy they need to start thinking how they could out bid “Old Space” instead of thinking that simply whispering logic to some campaign aide will influence the policy.
This has always been the problem with space advocates, coming from technical fields they believe that logic determines policy, not campaign economics and emotions.
Unfortunately “Commercial” Crew has the mark of President Obama on it
along with the demise of the VSE. Both are going to be major hurdles to overcome in getting Governor Romney to continue them, so if you do, you will need to really out bid “Old Space”. And hope that the SpaceX cargo flight in early October is as flawless as the last test flight.
This is all irrelevant. We’re discussing what happens in January, not in the campaign. SLS will not be an issue this fall. There is no bargaining going on. The pressure will come after the election, both on the Hill and in the White House. The only Tea Partiers who will care are the ones who have been lobbying against the SLS for months, and they will make a lot more headway next year, with the new congress, and a new vice president.
Rand,
If you want them to do what you want in January you need to pay the piper now. That is how the game works in politics. So what are you doing NOW to earn their support for your ideas in January? And do they know you and your New Space advocates are doing it?
I’m explaining to them how they can cut the NASA budget while not damaging our ability to do great things in space, which is something they know they need to do. But we are all aware that this isn’t something that is important between now and November.
Rand,
Nor will it be in January. And why are you assuming they feel they need to do anything in space? Other administrations never felt a real need, unless something happened, like the Columbia and Challenger Accidents to force their attention to it.
Again, you are engaging in wishful thinking. But I guess that is the only hope you will have in space if Governor Romney is elected.
Hi All
Of course what politicians think about space policy is only of importance when you are dependent on NASA for funding your dreams of New Space.
Look at the communication satellite industry.
They could care less what space policy is, other than ITAR, because they depend on world capital markets for funding, not Congress.
And even in the case of ITAR it only hurts the U.S. firms since the global communication satellite industry itself has adapted and moved on finding suppliers and launch providers who are not affected by ITAR. That is what New Space, if it is going to expand the economic development of space beyond the Clarke Orbit, needs to do. Otherwise it will continue to be whipsawed by changes in administrations and space policy.
Of course what politicians think about space policy is only of importance when you are dependent on NASA for funding your dreams of New Space.
A very good observation. If you have to spend your time lobbying governments to fund your projects, your project is political, not commercial.
You lost an “a” in Republican.
There’s too many posts and comments about the lack of a clear space policy of a Romney administration and basically no discussion about what we can do with this opportunity. It gives us time to influence that policy. We have between now and somewhere in the middle of his blue ribbon panel to try to effectively make our case. But how to make that case? Who are the key individuals who might decide the administration’s policy? How to influence those individuals? Do we need more consensus amongst the space advocacy community or can this be achieved on a more individual basis.
John,
Simple. Michael Griffin. Enough said.
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=35257
Nah Romney does not care about space policy he is going to make the US energy independent by 2020. Hah. Maybe if he buys most of his oil and gas from his commie neighbors in Canada and the illegals in Mexico. Oh wait I thought Canada and Mexico were not a part of the US (I guess he was a different concept of independence from mine) and the US already imports more oil from each than from Saudi Arabia. If he starts talking about offshore drilling in California he will lose any voters he has there. The other places he mentioned would probably be work in progress by now had the BP Horizon spill never happened.
*If* he wins the elections he will think about space policy.
California is not in play. He can safely talk about off-shore drilling.
CNN’s Erin Burnett fact checked Romney’s statement and said that we are already on track to be energy nonindependent by 2020 so it wouldn’t be an accomplishment for him but something that will inevitably happen.
“The other places he mentioned would probably be work in progress by now had the BP Horizon spill never happened.”
Ya, they would be a work in progress if Obama had not halted oil exploration there, then told by the courts to allow it, then continued with not allowing it in defiance of the courts. Add to that the Obama administration altered scientific reports to support their politics. Talk about anti science…
Given the dismal and partisan job the so-called “fact checkers” are doing this year, I’d take her statement with a big grain of salt. What are her assumptions for energy dependence. Are they based on increasing domestic production of oil and natural gas, or are they based on windmills powered by unicorn farts and solar panels powered by sunbeams from Obama’s sheer awesomeness?
Oh, I agree. This was just her attempt to dismiss Romney’s goal. I am not sure where she got her information from, I just remember that’s what she said.
I think it goes back to Rand’s point about space not being important.
People say it is important but they tend not to back up their words with actions.
Excellent! I hope you’ve got something similar in the works for Obama.
Obama actually does have a space policy.
Whatever is in a party platform is extremely unimportant these days. Once upon a time, the state parties sent delegates to the national convention, where they would then spend days, sometimes weeks, hashing out what the current platform for the party should be, and then – and only then! – select the candidate that best reflected that platform, always allowing for personality and electability.
Today, this just doesn’t happen. Yes, the two parties still put together platforms, but they are just politically correct agendas, where the goal is to not embarrass the party. Primaries and caucuses have already selected the candidate and he is going to campaign on whatever is of importance to himself. The platform has no hold over him, no matter what it says.
So, Rand, don’t worry about the platform. But if you ghost-write a good, free-market space policy paper for the Romney campaign, maybe they will put it on their website. More people would probably see it there.
Governor Romney and the Republicans are dedicated to undoing All of President Obama’s policies, so its a fair bet since President Obama scrapped Constellation Governor Romney will restore it, and return Dr. Griffin to NASA to implement it.
And since “commercial” crew now has the brand of President Obama on it (yes I know it predates President Obama) you may bet it will be thrown under the bus.
Romney doesn’t care about space policy, but Paul Ryan isn’t that stupid. They know that returning to Bush policies would be a huge mistake in general, and returning to the Bush space policy would be a big one in particular. But please, continue with your Tea Party derangement.
They know that returning to Bush policies would be a huge mistake in general
Has Romney indicated any way in which his economic policies would be different from Bush’s? Romney’s economic plan is lower taxes, less regulation, more trade, and more domestic energy. Those were Bush’s policies as well.
Lower tax rates, not lower taxes. There was nothing wrong with those Bush policies. The Bush policies that they won’t return to are those involving big spending and new entitlements, which are the true cause of our problems.
The Bush policies that they won’t return to are those involving big spending and new entitlements
Has Ryan ever regretted his vote for Medicare Part D? Romney is declaring Medicare Advantage untouchable, in essence making it a new entitlement.
I don’t see any reason to expect Romney to spend less readily than Bush. Spending is popular, especially the big ticket items (Social Security, Medicare defense), and as Cheney noted, no one cares about deficits.
I’m inclined to agree with Jim: there’s actually not a lot of reason to believe Romney would slash spending. Sure, he talks about it, but surely we’ve all learned the hard way to take candidates’ pre-election talk with a huge grain of salt. None of Reagan, Bush I or Bush II shrank government; why expect Romney to do it?
And as for Ryan, yeah, not only did he vote for Part D, but the ten-year delay in implementing his plan for Medicare reeks of smoke and mirrors. Easy to talk about cutting spending when you’re out of the Oval Office, hard to do when you’re in.
Rand,
Any evidence Paul Ryan cares about space policy? Or are you just projecting your wishes on what is a blank slate.
You don’t have to care about space policy to see how wasteful SLS is in these fiscal times. His staff is being educated.
Romney policy will probably be written by Griffin, Scott Pace and a few others. Rand I both know Scott from way, way back, he’s a good guy but we both know which side of the debate he comes down on: the old status quo of socialism in space.
I doubt that. Romney just accepted that “advisory committee” because it was a convenient way to pretend he cared about space policy when he was bashing Newt. I doubt if he’s paid any attention to them since. There’s certainly no evidence of it.
Once the budget people start to take a serious look at NASA, SLS will be gone, particularly if Dana takes over the science committee. There will be no one left to defend it except Hatch. As I said, Paul Ryan is not stupid.
Paul Ryan is not stupid
But is Romney really going to cut spending? He’s backtracked on Ryan’s $700b Medicare cut already, and has promised to undo the defense cuts in the sequester. Why would he accept the political cost of canceling SLS?
The only places there are political costs to canceling SLS are Utah and Alabama. In other words, there are none.
The GOP won’t lose Utah or Alabama, but SLS contractors have PACs, and make lots of political donations.
The optics are bad as well. Just as canceling Constellation is routinely described as the end of US manned spaceflight, the death of SLS would be painted as the end of NASA’s hopes to ever go to the Moon or Mars. Romney’s campaign is partly built on a theme of national greatness and American exceptionalism; canceling a big rocket doesn’t gibe with that theme, no matter how overpriced and pointless the rocket.
It would fit with Romney’s image as a ruthless CEO, and if he had five minutes to examine the cost/benefit of SLS I imagine he’d be appalled, but I don’t think that’s the image he’d want to project in the Oval Office.
Florida? Texas (not that it makes any sense, but Hutchison’s been a big SLS hugger).
Rand,
You are really gambling that Rep. Paul Ryan will see the light on space aren’t you? A Representative from the same state that produced both Senator Proxmire and Rep. Aspin?
Someone who voted for anything the President Bush wanted.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79688.html
I guess hope always springs eternal for New Space Advocates….
That should be “that President Bush” wanted
I suppose it’s unsporting to note that the late Messrs. Aspin and Proxmire were both Democrats while Paul Ryan is, of course, a Republican. Or is it your contention that something in the Wisconsin water supply (or the beer, cheese and bratwurst supply) inclines the state’s inhabitants inevitably in the direction of preferring more dairy price supports to more money for NASA?
Dick,
I forgot to include Representative James Sensenbrenner, Jr. from Wisconsin who led the fight against the ISS in the 1990’s. He is a Republican.
Yes, there does indeed seem to be something in the water in Wisconsin given that all three of NASA’s biggest opponents are from there. 🙂
Plus as folks point out, support for space development, or opposition as in the case of Wisconsin, is a non-partisan issue…
I once had high hopes for Dana, but when the pressure’s on he seems to fold. In the July 2011 hearing on SLS, he pressed Bolden for a depot study that had been performed. But then at a hearing on March 7, he told Bolden that he trusted him to make the right decision on depots. And then there was the amazing Hultgren-Griffin interchange where Griffin said that Delta IV could take a crew to the moon: why didn’t Dana go in for the kill?
You are really gambling that Rep. Paul Ryan will see the light on space aren’t you?
Do I have a choice? Where is the “gamble”?
And Paul Ryan is no William Proxmire, let alone Les Aspin. There is nothing in common except he’s from Wisconsin.
Rand,
Except that he voted twice against the NASA Authorization Act, once being one of only 15 nay votes with 409 in favor, one of the few times he voted against President Bush’s agenda.
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/romney-veep-choice-paul-ryan-voted-against-last-two-nasa-authorization-bills
Sorry, but there is nothing to indicate Rep. Ryan will do anything on space except maybe hand it off to someone like Dr. Griffin and move on to other more important issues. NASA will likely be given a spending ceiling and let the chips fall were they may. I know you believe it will be different, but again, you have no evidence but wishful thinking given Governor Romney’s space advisors.
I have no idea why you continue to fantasize that Paul Ryan will “hand space off to Mike Griffin.” As I said, he’s not stupid. I also have no idea why you think he is. He may hand it off to someone, but it won’t be the guy that Romney said that he’d fire.
I think I have an idea why that would happen: it’s a consequence of Rand’s Rule: space is not important. I think it’s overwhelmingly likely that a Romney administration would not want to devote any political capital at all to space. Therefore, it would just throw a bit of money at space-state Republicans like Shelby, Hatch and Hutchison’s replacement, expecting no return on it aside from a little political loyalty. Those politicians seemed perfectly happy with Griffin. Why would you expect anything different from Romney-Ryan? Space is not important.
it would just throw a bit of money at space-state Republicans like Shelby, Hatch and Hutchison’s replacement, expecting no return on it aside from a little political loyalty.
Ted Cruz won’t give a damn about SLS. To the degree that the Tea Party cares about SLS, they want to kill it. Even if you really believe that Romney/Ryan won’t care about fiscal discipline, why not kill SLS as a sop to the Tea Party?
Rand,
Just because a website that calls itself “Tea Party in Space” is opposed to the SLS doesn’t mean that “Tea Party” followers or office holders are. As you often enjoy pointing out, its not an “organized” movement 🙂
Besides who said anything about keeping SLS? Governor Romney could kill it off just as easily along with “commercial” crew labeling both as President Obama’s “failed” space policy and restore the Ares I/Ares V which Dr. Griffin designed and which would not only pay off the politicians in Alabama, but also Utah, which Governor Romney has close family ties to.
Most members of the Tea Party don’t pay much attention to space — they’re much more concerned about the Constitution and spending. There is nothing about SLS to appeal to them. The only people who explicitly care oppose it.
Rand,
So what you are confirming is that Governor Romney may do whatever he wishes in space and it won’t impact his Tea Party support. So if Governor Romney needs to restore Ares I or keep the SLS to make elected Republicans happy in some states it won’t matter. It just a matter of using the right language – Restoring American glory in space after being devastated by President Obama’s policy by – Then fill in the blank.
So then the real question is who has the best deal to make the Governor? The supporters of SLS or its opponents? ATK, Utah and Alabama or NewSpacers…
So what you are confirming is that Governor Romney may do whatever he wishes in space and it won’t impact his Tea Party support.
No, not at all, but you are confirming (as is often the case) that you have reading comprehension problems.
Regarding Cruz’s attitude toward SLS, note that Hutchison is a big supporter, despite the fact that JSC would do better with a program based on medium LVs (more missions sooner). I could speculate as to why, but the point is I’m not sure Cruz would be any different. (There might actually be some data on this. How has Tea Partier Mike Lee performed vis a vis SLS since taking a Senate seat from old-guard Republican and die-hard SLS booster Bennett in Utah?)
My impression is that most Tea Partiers who don’t follow space, i.e., almost all of them, a reflexively in favor of US national strength in a broad sense and will tend to fall for the argument that a large rocket somehow promotes American strength. (After all, the fact that Obama tried to kill must mean it’s a good thing, right?) Hence, I’m not so sure that killing SLS would be a sop to the Tea Party.
Regarding Cruz’s attitude toward SLS, note that Hutchison is a big supporter, despite the fact that JSC would do better with a program based on medium LVs (more missions sooner).
Why would Cruz care what Hutchison thinks, about anything? She retired because she knew that she’d lose the primary to someone like Cruz. He knows she’s an idiot. Her support for SLS would be a point against it in his book.
I don’t mean to suggest that Cruz would care what Hutchison thinks. What I am suggesting is that she decided SLS was in her interest. Maybe that’s because of PAC money, which might also be brought to bear on Cruz. Maybe it’s because a deal was worked out whereby the only way she was going to get Orion was if she backed SLS. If so, that deal might well influence Cruz too.
Maybe it’s because a deal was worked out whereby the only way she was going to get Orion was if she backed SLS. If so, that deal might well influence Cruz too.
Cruz was the Tea Party candidate. He won’t care about Orion, either.
I’d certainly like to believe that Cruz would be hostile to SLS. But what’s the evidence that he’s not just buying the confused but common reasoning that that a strong NASA is important for US strength, and Obama canceled the space program, therefore the US needs SLS? That was the reasoning spouted by the Tea Partier who appeared on the PJTV clip about the Soviet lunar lander that you blogged about in late 2010, and I’ve been unable to find any evidence that either Sen. Lee of Utah or Sen. Rubio of Florida has any reservations about SLS. Can you point to any Tea Party politicians who have actually come out against SLS? Opposing it would certainly be consistent with their espoused philosophy, but then you can say exactly the same thing about the mainstream Republicans who back SLS. Obviously Tea Party in Space is opposed, but that’s just one person.
But what’s the evidence that he’s not just buying the confused but common reasoning that that a strong NASA is important for US strength, and Obama canceled the space program, therefore the US needs SLS?
What’s the evidence that he is? Why is the burden on me?
Can you point to any Tea Party politicians who have actually come out against SLS?
No one is going to take a stand on it until it becomes an actual issue in an actual budget debate, which is not going to occur this fall.
Obviously Tea Party in Space is opposed, but that’s just one person.
Tea Party in Space is not just one person.
You’re the one who’s arguing that this time is different, that the Tea Party isn’t going to behave like the most of the Republican Party. I hope you’re right, but personally I’m expecting the status quo until I see some evidence that Tea Party in Space is more than just a tiny voice within the Tea Party (and I acknowledge being wrong when I said it was “just one person” — thanks for setting me straight).
Maybe he will hand it off to Lori Garver? Or perhaps Moonbase Newt.
I figure a strong economy and domestic energy production will do a great deal to advance space development. Even if Mike Griffin remains at NASA. A clear policy in support of mining claim property rights, so far as US law is relevant, would also help. I can’t see the incumbent being friendly to any property rights he can violate to advantage.
Mike Griffin cannot remain at NASA; to remain there he must first be presently there. Mike Griffin left NASA years ago and has already moved on to work at ATK, the solid rocket manufacturer.
Ed,
And to be one of Governor Romney’s advisors on space policy. Naming him to replace Gen. Bolden would be a easy choice by Governor Romney and a Republican Congress would rubber stamp him, especially since Dr. Griffin signaled his dislike for President Obama by resigning from NASA the night before the President took office.
Dr. Griffin signaled his dislike for President Obama by resigning from NASA the night before the President took office.
Are you really this ignorant of the history of how that went down?
Rand,
FYI
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/12/nasa-has-become.html
[[[CAPE CANAVERAL – NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned.
In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.]]]
It would appear to me the cause was because he didn’t like either the transition team he selected nor President’s Obama’s handling of NASA. But I am sure you have another spin on it.
It’s not a matter of “spin.” It’s a matter of historical reality.
Of course he didn’t like the Obama team, but that’s not why he quit. He was lobbying to keep his job, and had his wife and others start an email campaign to retain him, right up until the moment that he was told in no uncertain terms to resign or be canned. It’s nutty and historically nonsensical to say that he resigned because of his “dislike for president Obama.” He had no choice. Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself with this kind of nonsense?
Rand,
Then given your view of his leaving why do you insist that the New Space view will prevail with Governor Romney?
Likely Dr. Griffin is campaigning with Governor Romney to get his job again. And to restore the program, Constellation, he campaigned so hard to save. And with potential allies in ATK and the Utah and Alabama Congressional delegations he has a good shot at it.
All in all the odds he will be restored to power by Governor Romney are not bad, unless New Space makes a better offer.
Then given your view of his leaving why do you insist that the New Space view will prevail with Governor Romney?
Because it will align much more with his pro-business views?
Likely Dr. Griffin is campaigning with Governor Romney to get his job again.
Sorry, but there is zero evidence of that. But then, you don’t seem to base your fantasies on real-world evidence.
All in all the odds he will be restored to power by Governor Romney are not bad, unless New Space makes a better offer.
The only offer that has to be made is that the taxpayers’ money will no longer be wasted on Mike Griffin’s fantasies. All anyone need do is point the Romney/Ryan people to the Augustine report. Again, they are not stupid, even if some people arguing to the contrary are.
I don’t understand why you are so obtuse on this subject, other than you can’t stand being wrong on things that you don’t understand.
Rand,
I think you are the one that don’t understand how Washington works. You seem to think policy is made based on logic and common sense, not partisan politics and special interests. Why do you think Elon Musk spends so much on lobbyists and SpaceX has its own PAC?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00411116
In short you are the one who lives in a world of fantasy of how politics works.
If logic drove space policy then humans would have returned to the Moon decades ago instead of wasting time and lives in Earth orbit.
As for Governor Romney, he left the good folks of Massachusetts with more per capita debt then any previous governor, while Rep. Ryan voted in favor of most of the vast amounts of money President Bush’s spent during his administration that reversed the U.S. from being on track to pay off the national debt to doubling it.
“Saving” tax payer money is a recent conversion for both if you actually take the time to check their records on spending. Do you really think they will care about saving a few billion at NASA if it makes some key Republicans unhappy? And if they are able to spin it to the voters as necessary for restoring “America’s greatness”.
Let’s face it, no matter who wins the result is we will still have a Harvard lawyer running the country with a track record of running up debt.
And if you think merely whispering logical advice to their staff will have an impact on space policy you are the one living in a fantasy world.
This GOP platform statement on NASA is actually a very interesting and important two paragraphs. Don’t let the brevity fool you — these “most significant bits” actually say a great deal about where the Romney-led GOP’s priorities will be, and where they won’t.
As you might expect after Romney using this issue to thrash Newt in the primaries, it’s not good news for the astronaut fans.
I am struck by the payoff policy sentence singling out “science missions” and “unfettered access” along with the inevitable (given the theme of the convention) “jobs” as NASA’s top priorities, but saying nothing about astronauts or any other kind of HSF. Manned spaceflight is in this whole GOP statement on NASA treated only as historical — something to be proud of in our past, but not something to expect more of during Romney’s term(s). This could signal a very big change in NASA policy. It’s consistent with Romney’s primary “I’d fire them” critique of Newt’s manned lunar base/colony proposal, and with what he’s said about Neil Armstrong and Curiosity. It shows that Romney and the bulk of the delegates to this convention want to move away from retro-futuristic visions of manned space exploration (exploration being, per the first sentence of the opening paragraph is seen as NASA’s main job — not “infrastructure” or “commerce”) and towards a more practical and cost-effective approach to space exploration. Namely one that sticks with the very successful kind of exploration and science we’ve been doing beyond earth orbit since Apollo. That’s a big change for the GOP since it has previously been a stronger supporter of HSF than the Democrats.
So I can see why astronaut fans would be unhappy. But those in favor of real space exploration and science can be happy that the GOP’s platform is heading towards a more rational use of NASA. Those interested in free-market space development can also be happy about the hands-off attitude towards commercial space rather than the central planning of NASA economic fantasies that many Democrats and some misguided Republicans label “commerce”.
I expect the Dems will be moving in this direction also — since it’s actually closer to the way most Dems have traditionally prioritized programs at NASA post-Apollo. Call it the Googawization of NASA. It’s the way it’s gotta be.
> As I said, Paul Ryan is not stupid.
I wonder if there is a way to reach Ryan and suggest a good model for a cost-effective yet aggressive space policy.
Also, do y’all think that Constellation is now too dismantled for even Griffin to revive?
Googaw, I just don’t see Romney or any administration calling for the explicit ending of HSF. Too many people feel as though it is important as an example of America’s leadership. However, I could imagine a move towards a fairly different model for HSF namely to use the lower cost SAA-COTS model of HSF and to extrapolate that BEO. A Ryan might find that to be a politically acceptable approach.
> Maybe he will hand it off to Lori Garver
We know that Garver is pro-commercial space. What are her views on SLS? Also, what is the likelihood of her being given the top position?
I wonder if there is a way to reach Ryan and suggest a good model for a cost-effective yet aggressive space policy.
That is happening.
Also, do y’all think that Constellation is now too dismantled for even Griffin to revive?
Orion plus SLS is Constellation. All it lacks is the Ares I training rocket (which could be restored with a cost-plus contract to ATK for Liberty).
We know that Garver is pro-commercial space. What are her views on SLS?
She thinks it should have a wooden stake through its heart.
Also, what is the likelihood of her being given the top position?
Zilch.
Googaw, I just don’t see Romney or any administration calling for the explicit ending of HSF.
No, but it’s easy enough to announce it implicitly, by what they _don’t_ say, as they have done here. Don’t start any new Buzz Lightyear project, and let the clock and budget run out on the ISS and associated programs. It’s easy to take advantage of the wishful thinking of astronaut fans by sweeping praise of past great misisons and vague suggestions of future grand missions, which astronaut fans will erroneously translate into their cult-speak.
By the same token, if the GOP was in favor of massive governments subsidies to develop fantasy markets-of-the-future, and calling it “commerce”, it would have made “space commerce” a priority in the platform, but they didn’t. So “commercial” HSF, bereft of any substantial government funding beyond the current contracts, will be taking that long plunge into the Pacific along with the rest of it. The result will be quite good for real space commerce, as that is where companies like SpaceX will have to focus their efforts, rather than on winning more NASA contracts.
The reality is increasingly looking like it will be what it should be, a practical and effective NASA exploration program devoid of such obsolete fantasies.
Obama has quite probably come to the same conclusion. Both parties have learned from Newt Gingrich’s demise to freeze the astronaut cult out of their decision-making about NASA. But Obama is happier than Romney to spout vague allusions to fund-well-after-my-term manned missions to the astroids or Mars to keep the cult happy. Congress for its part only funds HSF for the pork, and once it finds political advantage from budget cutting, or pork without HSF, it quite likely will do so, whether in an Obama second term or a Romney first term.
Rand,
A Politico.com blog is covering this issue, and cites the Space Politics blog:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/09/campaigns-scrub-space-policy-launch-134125.html
Since many influential folks in Washington read politico.com, a few of them might even go over to the Space Politics blog and read the comments there.
This is may be an opportunity to have your views exposed to more folks in Washington (as well as the rest of the country).
Rand,
That is always your respond when you paint yourself into a corner.
Let’s recap.
You stated that space policy is not important to Governor Romney. I agree.
You stated that space policy is not important to Rep. Paul Ryan. I agree.
You started that space policy is not important to the vast majority of Tea Party/Republicans. I agree.
I also feel that to the very small minority it is important to will vote for Governor Romney over President Obama regardless of what Governor Romney’s space policy is. I think you will agree to that.
The difference is you feel this will lead to some enlighten space policy favorable to NewSpace.
I am more cynical. I see space policy as being up for “sale” to the highest bidder, whoever will contribute the most (in terms of money/ time/ endorsements/ volunteers) to getting Governor Romney elected.
The Republican delegations of Utah and Alabama as well as Old Space have much to contribute to Governor Romney’s election. Even though both are sure Republican states they have influence outside their borders, especially in the swing state of Nevada in terms of Utah.
New Space has what to offer? Logic and the promise of saving some NASA money if President Obama’s policies are continued? And nothing to bash President Obama on. Which is basically nothing in terms of “campaign economics”…
So the point I am making is if New Space advocates want to see an enlighten space policy they need to start thinking how they could out bid “Old Space” instead of thinking that simply whispering logic to some campaign aide will influence the policy.
This has always been the problem with space advocates, coming from technical fields they believe that logic determines policy, not campaign economics and emotions.
Unfortunately “Commercial” Crew has the mark of President Obama on it
along with the demise of the VSE. Both are going to be major hurdles to overcome in getting Governor Romney to continue them, so if you do, you will need to really out bid “Old Space”. And hope that the SpaceX cargo flight in early October is as flawless as the last test flight.
This is all irrelevant. We’re discussing what happens in January, not in the campaign. SLS will not be an issue this fall. There is no bargaining going on. The pressure will come after the election, both on the Hill and in the White House. The only Tea Partiers who will care are the ones who have been lobbying against the SLS for months, and they will make a lot more headway next year, with the new congress, and a new vice president.
Rand,
If you want them to do what you want in January you need to pay the piper now. That is how the game works in politics. So what are you doing NOW to earn their support for your ideas in January? And do they know you and your New Space advocates are doing it?
I’m explaining to them how they can cut the NASA budget while not damaging our ability to do great things in space, which is something they know they need to do. But we are all aware that this isn’t something that is important between now and November.
Rand,
Nor will it be in January. And why are you assuming they feel they need to do anything in space? Other administrations never felt a real need, unless something happened, like the Columbia and Challenger Accidents to force their attention to it.
Again, you are engaging in wishful thinking. But I guess that is the only hope you will have in space if Governor Romney is elected.
Hi All
Of course what politicians think about space policy is only of importance when you are dependent on NASA for funding your dreams of New Space.
Look at the communication satellite industry.
They could care less what space policy is, other than ITAR, because they depend on world capital markets for funding, not Congress.
And even in the case of ITAR it only hurts the U.S. firms since the global communication satellite industry itself has adapted and moved on finding suppliers and launch providers who are not affected by ITAR. That is what New Space, if it is going to expand the economic development of space beyond the Clarke Orbit, needs to do. Otherwise it will continue to be whipsawed by changes in administrations and space policy.
Of course what politicians think about space policy is only of importance when you are dependent on NASA for funding your dreams of New Space.
A very good observation. If you have to spend your time lobbying governments to fund your projects, your project is political, not commercial.