16 thoughts on “What Do The Candidates Think About Space Policy?”

  1. You guys, the only reason I understand anything about space policy is because of this blog and the comments here.

    FWIW, it seems to me that Newt understands space policy. I’ve watched his speeches for the past months and Newt actually understands the implications of science and engineering, brain science breakthroughs. Newt is brilliant in his speeches. He gets it.

    Newt is also really good on the economy and American energy policy. I was watching this speech tonight and IMO it is hard-hitting, direct, clear, suitably aggressive and right on target. Newt, CPAC 2011 speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBPiKSg9jjo

    1. You think that book would encourage Paul to be more enthusiastic about government involvement in space development?

      Hmmm, a book where
      1) government involvement in space development leads to it being used as a tool of oppression,
      2) space development is part of a future in which a repressive United States has been relegated to a sub-unit of the North American Directorate,
      3) the government looses control of its outer space property anyway, because it is trying to control places too far from home, and last but not least,
      4) where government involvement in space development leads to Texas being subject to a deliberate devastating attack.

      A book sure to convince Paul that government should be involved in space development.

      2. You think that book would encourage Paul to be more enthusiastic about government involvement in space development?

        Yes, or more specifically about what KIND of government involvement really should be necessary. His 1988 position below is a good start, but realities of politics could turn this somewhat extreme and broad brush view into something workable.

        Like, cease all government involvement in space transportation specifically, repurpose the remaining useful NASA centers on case by case basis ( turn them into national labs or whatever ), reestablish some sort of technology leadership incubation function ( like NACA ), what sort of incentives and regulations are necessary for the supposed private industry, if any at all, which international regulations to support and from which pacts to withdraw and so on.

        Ultimately, he needs to answer the question : would he support the end foal of some extraterrestrial territories claimed as part of US ? If not, the policies become relatively simple. If yes there is a bunch of followup policy questions that need answers, meaning government needs to be involved in some fashion. That involvement would be very different from todays NASA though.

    2. Ron Paul’s policy on space is simple and one I would support.

      Kill NASA, get out of the way of private space ventures. Period.

      http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html

      [[[NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.

      Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. The reciepts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed.]]]

      Yes, this is a 1988 White Paper, but there is no evidence to show he has changed his views on space, just as he hasn’t changed his views on the Fed or foreign policy. It also used to be the Old SFF policy before so many of the firms they support became addicted to NASA funding…

      1. Ron Paul’s policy on space is simple and one I would support.
        Kill NASA, get out of the way of private space ventures. Period.

        Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators.

        Really, Tom?

        As you will recall, I gave a talk a few years ago at ISDC where I suggested the manned space program should be transferred back to the military. You were lurking right outside the room.

        I don’t recall you supporting anything of the sort at that time.

        Shortly after that, Bush announced his new Vision of Space Exploration, which placed responsibility for all programs firmly under the control of NASA. As I recall, you were one of the first to jump on the BVSE bandwagon.

        Not long after that, you were supporting increased NASA expenditures to build Constellation, Orion, Ares, and (when Ares failed) Shuttle C.

        When I said the Bush Administration should kill Orion and transfer the money to DoD for Military Space Plane, you rambled about how Orion was going to defend the Moon from Chinese hordes.

        I can’t recall you ever saying you wanted to “kill NASA” (or even cut NASA) until NASA did the unthinkable — it began to support private space initiatives instead of undermining them.

        When, exactly, did you decide the US should “kill NASA,” Tom? Show us a quote. Link, please.

        1. Edward,

          Ah, the troll emerges…

          I don’t recall you babbling about that, but then I never waste my time listening to your talks anyway. If I was outside the room it was probably because I was discussing something important with someone instead of listening to your nonsense.

          As for military manned flight, the military has little if any need for humans in space. Indeed, its rapidly doing away with the need to have them in aircraft. Look at one of the justifications for cutting the number of F-35’s its buying, basically its finding that RPV are more effective then manned aircraft. Why should they go the other way in space?

          As for my support for those programs, as I ALSO noted at the time it was to keep NASA from distorting private markets as its doing now with COTS/CCDev. If NASA is busy building its own rockets it was not trying to assimilate private firms like its doing now. If anything what NASA is doing now that is undermining the industry. Before it was just ignoring it despite the urban legends folks like you and Rand like to spread, but never seem to be able to support.

          1. As for military manned flight, the military has little if any need for humans in space. Indeed, its rapidly doing away with the need to have them in aircraft.

            I see you’ve swallowed the marketing hype from the UAC manufacturers. Not surprising.

            I’m sure you would seen little need for military airpower, either. Or tanks, for that matter. “The cavalry has plenty of horses….”

            If there’s no military need for humans in space, why did you babble incessantly about Sinonauts invading the Moon? Are you telling us you didn’t really believe that?

            As for my support for those programs, as I ALSO noted at the time it was to keep NASA from distorting private markets

            So, completely taking over the market is not “distorting” the market, huh?

            Just like electing candidates who want bigger government is “supporting smaller government,” I suppose.

            So, no link. Naturally. You never wanted to “kill NASA” until NASA started to help private enterprise.

            The Troll Matula strikes again.

          2. Edward,

            [[[If there’s no military need for humans in space, why did you babble incessantly about Sinonauts invading the Moon? Are you telling us you didn’t really believe that? ]]]

            Maybe if you didn’t lie so much your political buddies like Ron Paul would take your policy recommendations seriously instead of doing the opposite.

            [[[So, completely taking over the market is not “distorting” the market, huh? ]]]

            Before COTS/CCDev private space firms didn’t need to worry what NASA wanted. Now they will likely be forced to meet NASA safety standards in order to get launch insurance for HSF, just as I noted here when the new policy was announced, and folks like you and Rand dismissed.

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?na=&se=&sm=&flr=&ercode=&dateBrowse=&collection=&historical=false&st=Commercial+Space+Transportation+Advisory+Committee&psh=&sbh=&tfh=&originalSearch=&sb=re&sb=re&ps=10&ps=10&granuleId=2011-33353&packageId=FR-2011-12-29

            [[[The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) have agreed to prepare a study on the availability of commercial insurance sufficient to meet the needs of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program commercial providers for missions transporting NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station. ]]]

            And as I also warned about,it looks like the FAA AST is going to just follow the NASA safety requirements when it licenses non-NASA flights. So American commercial HSF firms will be forced to meet NASA standards, via their insurance policies, even if they have nothing to do with NASA. And you seriously claim that won’t be distorting the PRIVATE market?

            Maybe you should call your “buddy” Ron Paul and tell him you support it so he will argue against it 🙂

      2. Ron Paul’s policy on space is simple and one I would support.

        Kill NASA, get out of the way of private space ventures. Period.

        I don’t think so.

        In 2010, Ron Paul wanted NASA to continue building Constellation.

        http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/reps-tells-nasas-bolden-stop-damaging-constellation.html

        That’s hardly the final word, but it’s probably a better indication of his current position than a paper written in 1988.

  4. Why don’t you just ask Ron Paul about it on his next telcon

    That’s hardly necessary, given how many times I’ve visited his office.

    I don’t spend my life in Elko pretending to be a space policy expert.

  5. [[[That’s hardly necessary, given how many times I’ve visited his office. ]]]

    And he has since changed his views from killing NASA to supporting Constellation? I guess your visits didn’t go that well given he’s doing the opposite of what you post should be done 🙂

  6. You two should really get a room.
    ( Can we have a “trolling highjack alert” button underneath the comments please ? )

Comments are closed.