Bob Zimmerman listened to it, so you don’t have to. It was pretty uninspiring, at least to anyone who knows what’s going on.
[Update a few minutes later]
Keith Cowing has a word cloud of the speech.
[Update a few more minutes later]
And more from Loren Grush:
it was a speech with very little substance. There were many anecdotes about the US’s past achievements in space, Pence argued that recent administrations had failed to “match the spirit of the American people” when it came to creating space policy. Multiple times he insisted that Trump would open “a new era of American space leadership.” But the most recent presidential budget request calls for cutting NASA’s funding, as well as canceling some of the agency’s offices and programs. Space is expensive. How does Pence plan to match our ambitions with our missions if there isn’t a detailed money plan?
So, six months into the Trump administration, NASA doesn’t have any space policy priorities or definitive leadership. NASA administrators are often instrumental in steering the direction of the space agency, and without one, the agency will lack a strategy for how to move forward. This is now the longest amount of time NASA has been without a new permanent administrator; the record was previously held by President Richard Nixon, who took 164 days after his inauguration to fill the position, according to the Planetary Society. NASA’s current acting administrator Robert Lightfoot, who took over temporarily when Trump was inaugurated, has now served longer than that. And there’s no indication when a new administrator will be named.
“Depending on the details, this backwards speech could signal a backwards space policy, meaning rolling back the progress that’s being made instead of building on the commercial space policies that Reagan started and Obama continued,” says Larson.
I have no particular expectations about civil space from Trump. But I’m happy that at least milspace seems to be undergoing reform.
When SLS goes the way of Ares, can we *then* scale back the size and scope of NASA to, say, that of the FAA? Seems like JPL is the only branch generating the public good of space exploration anymore, so we can keep them too, of course…
You are forgetting probes managed by JHU/APL and Goddard. And ARC, occassionally
Civil space will probably do better without NASA which should be split into an aeronautics technology research organisation like the old NACA, a space and solar system research/exploration organisation (JPL) and not much else. If there is a need for government employees to fly in space they can buy rides from the civilian providers.
I don’t know how much subsonic/low supersonic aero research is necessary either. It seems the hypersonic stuff is mainly for military uses and the Pentagon can do that.
Having some hypersonic research outside the Pentagon means it will be available for civilian use.
NASA just isn’t a priority given everything else. They aren’t a big enough problem to get any attention.
NASA has long since become just another bureaucratic swamp, with no real mission other than its own aggrandizement. Benign neglect, if that is indeed what will result from this administration, is possibly the best option…let it die and let the private sector grow without its interference….
Multiple times he insisted that Trump would open “a new era of American space leadership.” But the most recent presidential budget request calls for cutting NASA’s funding, as well as canceling some of the agency’s offices and programs.
You can always tell a lefty by the logic that leadership = increased budgets and big government programs.
So, six months into the Trump administration, NASA doesn’t have any space policy priorities or definitive leadership.
So, not at all different than the last 8 years.
Pence was vague today about direction. He mentioned that the US “will return to the Moon and put American boots on the face of Mars.” That’s been the plan for a while now.
This is not true.
Under Obama, NASA was squarely focused on sending humans to the surface of Mars.
This is also not true.
But I don’t know why Pence doesn’t get the same credit Obama did or why continuing in this direction doesn’t count as having a direction. Pence’s speech is the equivalent of 8 years of Obama’s actions.
The article lays out details, direction, and priorities but then says they just weren’t detailed enough despite being pretty standard for a political speech. Continue public/private. Moon to Mars. Space Council. Then the article claims that building on public/private efforts could really mean getting rid of them and cutting BO and SpaceX out.
More fake news.
It was pretty uninspiring, at least to anyone who knows what’s going on.
Flowery speeches are not what is important, policy is.
NASA is unlikely to get any more attention than it did in other administrations, which is neither good or bad. It could be great as long as the trend of maximizing the use of private companies continues.
The only question is who would make a good NASA administer.
Obviously our previous last two, were not any good.