Traditionally, though it’s not a written rule, vice presidents have been in charge of space policy, though some are more so than others. Johnson was very much so, Agnew was somewhat, Ford and Rockefeller not much, Mondale tried to kill the Shuttle and succeeded in reducing the fleet size, GHW Bush wasn’t particularly involved as far as I recall, but Quayle was considerably, as was Gore. Sean O’Keefe was supposedly a friend of Dick Cheney’s, being groomed for bigger things when he was tapped as NASA administrator.
So I was over at Barnes & Noble, and picked up a copy of Cheney’s new book, and turned to the index. Mentions of O’Keefe? None. Mentions of the moon? None. Mentions of the Vision for Space Exploration? None. Mentions of NASA? None.
Come to think of it, I didn’t do a search for “Shuttle” or “Columbia,” but it’s hard to see how they would have been mentioned without mentioning NASA or O’Keefe. Basically, it wasn’t important enough to him to discuss it in a several-hundred-page book.
I would also note that, thankfully, Joe Biden doesn’t seem to be involved with space policy.
Other than the space between his ears?
Quayle was chair of the National Space Council created by Bush Sr. which gave us the DC-X. That seems to be the high water mark of actual interest.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1196/1
I’ll have to double-check when I get home, but I think “New Moon Rising” references an episode post-Columbia in mid-03 where Cheney wanted to retire the Shuttle fleet altogether, immediately, with no successor.
Mondale was surprisingly prescient in his Shuttle criticisms.
I would also note that, thankfully, Joe Biden doesn’t seem to be involved with space policy.
Shhhhhhh….Be Very, Very Quiet.
I bet that under Biden, NASA could, before this decade is out, land a man safely in Mars, Pennsylvania….
Yup, once free enterprise success occurs they will run to front of the parade. I knew of Bidens plagerism before, but his debate with Sarah really showed his empty suit status.
He can sound presidential while saying the most foolish things. She is exactly the opposite. I often have to reread the text of one of her interviews or speeches to realize the profoundly deep understanding she has of issues. The thing is her reference to obscure truths feeds the idiots that think they’re smart and she’s dumb.
I particularly like how they went after her for referring to 57 states.
I’m really looking forward to seeing her fight like a girl when the shackles come off next month. Unfortunately for space policy, she’s too soon. The president that will get the most praise will be in another decade when private space transportation companies start to come into their own.
SpaceX isn’t important because they’re only 1500+ jobs. But the real wealth is all out there and once people realize that, it will become very important. I’m hoping govt. doesn’t notice until many, many private ventures are firmly established.
SpaceX, Bigelow, et. al. need lots of competition.
Thought of this yesterday and just had to post it on my blog: If Dick Cheney was Darth Vader, then Joe Biden is Jar-Jar Binks.
“thankfully, Joe Biden doesn’t seem to be involved with space policy.”
That’s only because we’ve been calling them space elevators. Heaven forbid someone with the patience to explain these things to him would make a parallel to that of a space train. Joey would immediately throw on his conductors cap and run around the White House yelling, “All aboard the Space Train Express! Next stop — Uranus!”
Heh, he said “Uranus.”
Biden is Jar-Jar
Didn’t he bring down the govt. to produce the empire?
Jar Jar fer sure.
And to think, Walter Mondale, like Senator Proxmire, used to be considered villains to space advocates. Senator Proxmire was even written up that way in Science Fiction. Now New Spacers proclaim them heroes 🙂
Now New Spacers proclaim them heroes
They do? Can you provide a citation?
Cheney wanted to retire the Shuttle fleet altogether, immediately, with no successor.
The official story says that Bush was presented with a “range of options,” from shutting NASA down entirely to an immediate sprint to Mars, and the President chose an intermediate option.
That is a classical bureaucratic ploy: give the boss three options, two of which are politically unacceptable and the third being the one you actually want. This gives him the illusion of being a decisionmaker while rubberstamping your decision. This can be highly effective if you control the flow of information to prevent other options from being presented.
“Cheney wanted to retire the Shuttle fleet altogether, immediately, with no successor. ”
Well, there was already a successor program in place in the Orbital Spaceplane Program, which would have seen a capsule for crew transfer and return on an EELV for ISS. Thus, a rough framework for an immediate change in direction could have been formed:
1. Accelerated OSP capsule on EELV for crew
2. A payload container for ISS modules for launch on EELVs.
3. Licensed domestic production of the HTV for EELV launch.
4. COTS/CRS
Those last two points could be combined to: establishment of more ISS resupply lines, of various methods possible.
This would have overlaid the gap we are facing on top of the return to flight gap. It would have also injected the more than 15 billion that was spent on a dead end path, Shuttle, into establishing a path forward. It was also when the “Shuttle mafia” was at their weakest and the safety card could be played in favour of the capsule with an abort system on top of widely used mlv rockets.
There are many points I would have shut down the Shuttle program, but that was an opportune one lost. All of the people who whine about the recent Shuttle shutdown don’t realize that it was given an unjustly granted sunset at great expense, in both monetary sums and opportunity cost.
libs0n, I second.
No mention of NASA or VSE doesn’t suggest space isn’t important. Rather it means NASA and VSE wasnt important. And I think that is true today and for the future. Still, I doubt space was as important to Cheney as foreign policy during a time of two wars. VP’s are usually tasked as secondary SecStates as well as given NASA stuff.
No mention of NASA or VSE doesn’t suggest space isn’t important. Rather it means NASA and VSE wasnt important.
As opposed to what, Leland? In his space policy address, Bush talked only about NASA. Commercial and military space didn’t merit a single mention. He spent billions on VSE, or Constellation, or whatever it’s called this week, and virtually nothing on Military Space Plane.
If NASA and VSE were unimportant, commercial and military space were less than unimportant.
For years I’ve thought Mondale and Proxmire got bum raps on space (go back to Usenet archives years ago and you can find me saying so). They were far closer to right than the NASA boosters ever were. But they stood between some people and the iron rice bowl, so of course they had to be demonized.
As opposed to what, Leland? In his space policy address, Bush talked only about NASA.
Then apparently it is important to Bush and not Cheney. Anything else I can help you with today?
Then apparently it is important to Bush and not Cheney.
Yes, it was apparently so important to Bush that he didn’t give it 10 seconds of reflection before falling for what O’Keefe and Griffin told him.
And so important that he, like Cheney, never bothered to mention it in his autobiography.
Anything else I can help you with today?
How about helping me out with a little honest discussion, instead of “spinning” your words?
Is it your claim that space was more important to the Bush Administration than either NASA or VSE, as you said yesterday?
Or is that they were important to Bush and not to Cheney, as you say now?
Do you think A equals not-A?
Is it your claim that space was more important to the Bush Administration than either NASA or VSE, as you said yesterday?
Can you point to where I said such a thing? Seriously, I made no comparison of degrees, much less made any such claims.
Or is that they were important to Bush and not to Cheney, as you say now?
I can see where you could get that impression. But it wasn’t my point either.
So here’s a question to you Ed, do you think for space to be important, the federal government must have a stake in it such as “NASA with a plan”? Are you upset that Biden isn’t involved?
Can you point to where I said such a thing? Seriously, I made no comparison of degrees, much less made any such claims.
Are you channelling Tom Matula? Yes, I can point to where you said it:
Leland Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
No mention of NASA or VSE doesn’t suggest space isn’t important. Rather it means NASA and VSE wasnt important.
That was less than 24 hours ago. What’s the point of pretending?
So here’s a question to you Ed, do you think for space to be important, the federal government must have a stake in it such as “NASA with a plan”?
If space is important to the government, yes, the government will have a stake in it. Not necessarily, “NASA with a plan,” it could be the Air Force with a plan, or AST, or Department of Commerce, but someone will definitely be involved.
Which is irrelevant to this discussion. The Bush Administration did have a plan — but not a plan that was important enough for Bush or Cheney to even mention in their autobiographies.
Are you upset that Biden isn’t involved?
No, I’m not upset that Biden isn’t involved, nor am I sure he isn’t involved. For all I know, he could be wandering around the National Air and Space Museum looking for General Bolden’s office right now. 🙂
Ronald Reagan used to have breakfast with space entrepreneurs — even though commercial space was in its wee infancy back then. He considered it important enough to give his personal attention when he clearly didn’t have to. When Bush was in office, SpaceShip One made the front page of every newspaper in the world, and Bush didn’t consider it worth more than a perfunctory congratulatory phone call. It’s obvious that Reagan considered space important and Bush didn’t. (And no, I don’t see much evidence that Obama does, either.)
Ed, can you provide a quote where I said Space isn’t important? A quote where I suggest NASA is not the end all of space doesn’t suffice.
The Bush Administration did have a plan — but not a plan that was important enough for Bush or Cheney to even mention in their autobiographies.
Actions vs Words, which speaks louder?
Still, I appreciate your point about Reagan. And I assume you are starting to understand my point. Certainly it would have been nice to hear a comment about US space policy. Then again, it would have been better for Bush and Cheney not to have to talk about 9/11. I’m sure they would have preferred that that day wasn’t such a big part of their memoirs.
BTW, have you read Cheney’s memoir? I haven’t got to it yet. I liked Don Rumsfelds, so I’m looking forward to reading Cheney’s. Cheers.
Yeah! “In My Time” now available via Audible. Much easier listening to such books during the commute. And Edward Hermann narrates, so it should sound pretty good.
I tried ordering it through Rand’s link, so I hope it worked.
Ed, can you provide a quote where I said Space isn’t important?
Why should I? I never said you said space isn’t important.
Could we possibly discuss what I actually said, rather than things I didn’t say?
I still see no evidence that space was personally important to either the Bush or Cheney.
Actions vs Words, which speaks louder?
Meaning what, exactly? For politicians, words *are* actions. Words — speeches, laws, executive orders, regulations, etc. — are their stock in trade.
What “actions” do you think Bush or Cheney took, or might have taken, that speak louder than words about their personal interest in space?
If one of them has bought a ticket from Virgin Galactic, for example, I’ll consider that, but I’m pretty sure that hasn’t happened.
BTW, have you read Cheney’s memoir?
No. If I find time to read a political book, I will select someone like Newt Gingrich who has interesting ideas.