Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand, bashing Democrats is a lousy way to form a bi-partisan consensus that will survive political transition. The Bush vision needs to survive 20 years to be successful, not merely through November 2004.

Edwards statement may not be perfect, yet it provides an opening that can be worked with.

Democracies sure are an inconvenient platform for accomplishing space policy. Had Hitler won WW2, perhaps von Braun would have put Nazi colonies on Mars by now. Yet I doubt any of us, Democrat or Republican, would have cheered for that.

Posted by Bill White at February 27, 2004 08:25 AM

I'm "bashing Democrats"?

In what way? By pointing out their unwillingness to take a clear position?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 27, 2004 09:07 AM

Had candidate Bush taken a clear position on space by February of 2000?

Essentially, your piece calls for space advocates to vote for Bush. I have absolutely no problem with that, except to ask how do we transform the Bush vision into America's vision so the next President in 2009 or 2013 or 2017 doesn't demolish the "Bush" program?

If ISS completion is delayed until 2011 or 2012 (as Rep Boehlert has hinted at) and then return to the moon gets delayed until after the 2016 election (Bush only promised return to the moon by 2020) then three Presidential elections will occur before the Bush vision really gets going.

Unless Democrats sign on, or we have 20 years of one party rule, a "Bush" vision just won't survive. Democrats need to be encouraged and wooed, not simply written off or told to shut up and get in line.

By the way, what is Bill Frist's attitude towards space exploration? Long term success may depend more on what happens between 2008 and 2012 than 2004 and 2008 since the Bush plan is for limited funding of CEV/Constellation and completion of ISS via shuttle orbiter.

All the "good stuff" happens after President Bush leaves office. Which is totally okay, we just need a broad based consensus to support that vision.

Posted by Bill White at February 27, 2004 09:57 AM

> I'm "bashing Democrats"?

> In what way?

You are not "bashing" them, but there is nonetheless a clear double standard. The media reports Flyboy supposedly has taken some belated personal interest in this year's initiative, and also that he called the shots in the end. That is of course a commendable thing. In that sense it is his program since he has selected a particular set of broad-brush options presented to him by advisors. But where is the hint of "an understanding of broader issues or purposes" or "sophistication or nuance" that Kerry's space vision supposedly lacks? Heck -- *YOU* have been criticizing the lack of tangible benefits brought by another government financed manned lunar program based on expendable technology! Maybe not using these exact words, but as a libertarian you have hardly been unequivocally positive about the President's grasp of "the key issues" regarding America's future in space. And the "vision" presented on January 14 still contains many holes and gaps, just as it seems unreasonable to expect Kerry & Edwards to present more than general platitudes at this stage. You can go back and read similar Q&A sessions from all the debates since the 1970s (or Reagan's & Nixon's space announcements on my website for that matter), and I am pretty sure none was more revealing. I have a list of the 1992 Bush/Clinton space debate arguments and promises and they were little different.

> Also, it betrays either a fundamental ignorance
> of budgetary matters, or disingenuousness

"A billion here and a billion there. And pretty soon you're talking real money". Besides, there is the issue of whether NASA's aeronautics and unmanned space programs will be raided to pay for the seemingly mandatory cost overruns associated with a major manned space initiative.

>> "An International Space Station in Earth orbit
>> is a far more practical launch platform than a
>> base on the moon. So, if we as a nation decide
>> to send manned missions to Mars, I would not
>> support construction of a lunar base.

> I don't agree with it, and he's technically
> wrong

Why? Assuming he is talking about a lunar surface outpost, he is indeed correct about it being a largely unnecessary detour if the primary goal is a manned Mars mission anyway. NASA needs to practice long duration spaceflight, it needs to test some prototype hardware in space as well as on Mars before mounting a manned mission.

> a more Clintonesque policy, with emphasis on
> jobs and international cooperation, and a lack
> of interest in actual accomplishments.

Let's see -- preserving aerospace jobs is ALWAYS one of the key drivers when proposing a new manned space project. It was in 1972 as well as in 1984 when Republican Presidents were running the show, and it certainly was 11 years ago when Clinton redirected the Space Station project. "International cooperation?" Gee, doesn't the president's plan specifically mention counting on Russian & French launch services as well as Soyuz manned spacecraft? Or honoring existing International Space Station obligations for another ten years or so? And how do you know this President will take "interest in actual accomplishments" where his predecessors (Clinton, Bush, Reagan) all failed to some extent or other?
---
Maybe he will, but after one month I see very little evidence this project will be fundamentally different than its immediate predecessors. It may or may not be worth doing depending on your viewpoint (I have mixed feelings about it myself), but so far I see little reason to believe this will prove to be radically different from Apollo, Shuttle & Station. Or do you?

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at February 27, 2004 10:41 AM

Bill, it isn't only Sen. Frist's attitute toward space exploration we need to consider - I'm curious what Colorado Governor Bill Owens, Condoleza Rice, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson all believe our space priorities should be, given that each of their names have been floated as possible candidates in '08.

Posted by Patrick Banks at February 27, 2004 10:47 AM

Although I already formed an opinion on who to vote for that comes almost entirely from other issues than space policy, as I suspect is true of most voters, I think that Rand's point with respect to the candidate's positions re space policy is fair.

Edward's statement indicates support for a space program, enthusiasm for Manned Exploration, and a caveat that he probably won't fund it.

Kerry's statement only expresses a tepid acknowledgement that the space program is "an
opportunity for scientific research". His emphasis on the "Bush budget deficit" in the same sentence as Mars Mission, while using code words and phrases like "balance funding ... for Mars ...
against critical domestic needs" clear indicates his intentions to defund that part of the space program.

Bush's proposal has several interesting effects, the sunseting of the shuttle, the proposal and design of CEV, and the potential capping at current levels of participation in ISS. These measures are very concrete as compared with the statements of the other candidates, and even more concrete than most other acting presidents at a similar point in their respective campaigns.

While the policy decisions begin in the GWBush term 1 it is clear that they are open issues again unless he is reelected. Assuming reelection, the shuttle, ISS and current budget realities dominate NASA during the next term. The budget would increase only very slightly, meaning that the policy is politically very viable and unlikely to face any serious opposition.

At the end of the next presidential term little serious money will have been spent on the CEV meaning that, politically, the option will be open for the following administration (2009) to change direction without upsetting too many apple carts. The shuttle, while slated for retirement, could easily be resusitated, as there will be pressure from those with vested interests to do so.

Posted by Fred K at February 27, 2004 10:59 AM

One month's federal education spending = $5.25 billion.

One month's health and human services total spending = $47.5 billion.

One month's health and human services discretionary spending = $0.5 billion.

Estimated cost of a NASA human mars mission = $50-80 billion.

Rand conflating discretionary and entitlement spending: Priceless. (Sorry, couldn't resist the cheap shot)

I was going to ask the elf-candidate on Friday about his thoughts on Project Constellation - but I went to happy hour instead of his question and answer session.

For an explanation for Kucinich's space friendliness - he also cosponsored the Lampson exploration bill - no need to look further than Glenn Research Center - safely ensconced in his district.

What exactly is Bush's exploration plan? So far it is the now delayed Project Prometheus, the PowerPoint only (for the next few years at least) Project Constellation, shuttle retirement (a given), and ISS "completion" (also a given, due to the international commitment), plus sundries. The federal budget crisis will have to be addressed in the tax and entitlement domain, so there will be only symbolic pressure to cut Constellation funding.

All this adds up to, at most, a delay in Constellation under President Kerry (although it probably will be renamed).

I would be curious to see who the new Administrator would be, which would be the biggest change. O'Keffe would likely be a good soldier and quit, unlike Goldin, which would be unfortunate. He hasn't done a bad job (Columbia aside), IMHO.

Posted by Duncan Young at February 27, 2004 11:12 AM

Yes, it was a cheap shot, Duncan, since I was discussing Kerry's and Edwards' conflating of them...

And I don't have time to respond to Marcus right now, but I will later.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 27, 2004 11:18 AM

If private enterprise is going to end up doing it better anyway (and likely without much gov't support in any scenario), what does it really matter? I really don't think space policy is a real "voting issue" for the vast majority of people, as Rand mentioned. As such it's simply not going to be a factor in the election, and there's no reason for any candidate, except Bush, to take a real stance. Another idea: the new space program is coming almost entirely from existing funds, merely rediverting them. Since it's unlikely that anyone would seriously cut NASA's budget, the Bush space plan is not in serious danger either way, although it could be modified.

Posted by James at February 27, 2004 11:28 AM

The key point is that entitlements are damn near impossible to cut. Look at the success of the Republican House, Senate and White House. There is no way in heaven or earth that you could shift those funds to a discretionary project - so it is a meaningless comparsion. If you do manage to cut them, the funds will go straight to other entitlements, interest payments or the angry, entitlement-deprived, taxpayer.

The only time you have options with entitlements is when you propose them, as the candidates are.

There is a limited ability to shift discretionary spending around which is exactly what is happening for NASA's Code T.

FYI Kerry's health care plan is an additional $6 billion/month and Edwards' is $3 billion/month. These numbers are, of course, meaningless and will dissolve on November 3rd.

Posted by Duncan Young at February 27, 2004 11:49 AM

> Bush's proposal has several interesting
> effects, the sunseting of the shuttle, the
> proposal and design of CEV, and the potential
> capping at current levels of participation in
> ISS. These measures are very concrete as
> compared with the statements of the other
> candidates, and even more concrete than most
> other acting presidents at a similar point in
> their respective campaigns.

As opposed to candidate Richard Milhouse Nixon in January 1972 [ http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/STS/stsnixon.htm ] or candidate Ronald Wilson Reagan 12 years later? [ http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/reagan84.htm ]. Let's compare notes:

* By January 1972, NASA & Nixon's OMB had already firmly established the Shuttle's DDT&E cost ceiling (remarkably, the final project did come in within ~15% of the original development estimate). The payload size, mission capabilities and government users of the Space Transportation System had also been firmly settled following a lengthy debate dating back to the STS Phase A studies in 1969. Even the overall "look" of the finished STS (delta wing orbiter, Space Shuttle Main Engines, expendable drop tank, recoverable boosters) was already clear although the choice of booster propellant was still open. This was a very "concrete" plan although the operational costs turned out to be way off base.

* By 1984, NASA & the Reagan Administration had also carried out 3-4 years of highly detailed space station studies. While there was little consensus about the need for a large permanently manned platform, at least NASA had a fairly good idea of the eventual size, crew capability, power level, Shuttle-supported modular configuration as well as what the eventual payloads would be. Reagan also established a research & development cost cap of $8 billion through 1992.

So what's the situation in February 2004?

* Total research & development budget: undisclosed.
* Preferred launch method? TBD...even a Shuttle derived heavy-lift launch vehicle is still being considered according to Aviation Week despite previous reports to the contrary! The Shuttle retirement date hasn't been set in stone by any means, and it seems unmanned Shuttle Orbiters may still be used. The agency doesn't know. Nor does it apparently know how it will solve the manned space transportation dilemma after retiring STS, but before the Crew Exploration Vehicle becomes available. It is not even clear if the CEV will be used as a space station taxi at all.
* Constellation/CEV particulars (including cost): virtually nothing has been revealed although NASA presumably is drawing on previous work from the NeXT program. But it's not even on the same level as Apollo/Saturn were in May 1961, when JFK made his announcement.

Etcetera. Now, none of this necessarily means the new space exploration initiative is doomed to fail. The schedule isn't as tight as it was in 1961, 1972 or even 1984 because new project will take a back seat to STS/ISS until about 2010 or so. The first manned flight is still an unprecedented ten years in the future (and that's a minimum, assuming no delays!). But isn't it just a little wee bit early for Rand and you to proclaim the President will be actively interested in this, personally committed to make things work, that 'success' and not 'aerospace employment' will be the key issue etc..?

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at February 27, 2004 12:02 PM

So just to clarify - you cant compare current, ongoing entitlement spending with current discretionary spending.

You can compare, as Kerry does, proposed entitlement spending and discretionary spending. And for the sake of balance, the "weight" of any program is not simply the cost, but the cost divided by the politically merit. In Kerry's judgement, a health dollar is politically a hell of a lot cheaper than a space dollar. And he would be right.

Posted by Duncan Young at February 27, 2004 12:11 PM

Patrick Banks writes:

>> Bill, it isn't only Sen. Frist's attitute toward space exploration we need to consider - I'm curious what Colorado Governor Bill Owens, Condoleza Rice, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson all believe our space priorities should be, given that each of their names have been floated as possible candidates in '08.

Exactly!

Rand's analysis is not wrong, it just doesn't advance the cause of getting America into space.

Democrats like Bill Nelson and Bob Graham need to be encouraged and need to develop a stronger voice in national Democratic politics. The Louisiana Senate race is another opportunity. Kerry might commit to a more ambitious space policy if it were seen to benefit Democrat candidates in FL or LA.

Bob Graham for Veep?

By the way, the leading Republican Senate candidates in Illinois (its still pre-primary) don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on space, period.

Posted by Bill White at February 27, 2004 12:11 PM

Those comparisons aren't valid, Marcus. Shuttle and Station were near-term programs with specific goals that had already been through phases A and B (or at least were well into them). The new initiative is a national goal to be achieved over the next few decades. It would be absurd to specify exactly how it's to occur at this time, or attempt to cost it, because we have no idea how the technologies will evolve over that time period, or to what degree the private sector will grow in its ability to support it.

The president has set out a new direction for the nation in space, and has set into motion the end of the Shuttle and major involvement in the ISS programs (factors that kept NASA from embracing it the last time around).

No president could lay out such a program with a guarantee that it will be seen through decades on, but people on both sides of the aisle agree that they're good long-term goals right now, and I think it unlikely that they'll be reversed even under a Democrat president in 2008 (though it would still be possible to do so in 2004, because the election of a Democrat would be seen as a repudiation of all of Bush's policies, including the new space policy).

I know that as a good bureaucrat, you're looking for a thirty-year plan, but I think that the administration is smart enough not to fall into that trap.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 27, 2004 12:17 PM

Bill Nelson is a member of the Hill's Christian mafia. He is going to be very influential after re-election. Needs to buld up seniority.

Graham isnt running for re-election. It will be a tight race. He might have been Dean's veep, but I dont think Kerry will want him.

Rep. Chris John is the likely main Dem candidate in LA, but as it is a run-off election that wont be definite until November 2.

Posted by Duncan Young at February 27, 2004 12:22 PM

people on both sides of the aisle agree that they're good long-term goals right now

At least in the House, a lot of the pro-space Democrats are going to be anilated by Texas redistricting.

Posted by Duncan Young at February 27, 2004 12:26 PM

I have to agree with Rand here. The Democrats' "positions" on space are studies in cynicism and ambiguity. It doesn't "help the cause of bipartisanship" tp pretend they are not. Kerry, since he is likely the nominee, should be pinned down on what if anything he's really for.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 27, 2004 12:29 PM

"Pin him down on what he's really for"?

He won't do it on any other topic (at least not in a way that you can count on the position being the same five minutes from now...)--why would he for space?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 27, 2004 12:32 PM

James
"If private enterprise is going to end up doing it better anyway (and likely without much gov't support in any scenario), what does it really matter?"

It matters in that ... the government can do what it's supposed to do, help and assist the people to propser and grow. The governmnt is risking irrelevancy if they fail at that basic mission.

Posted by Brian at February 27, 2004 01:06 PM

Fred K said

"Edward's statement indicates support for a space program, enthusiasm for Manned Exploration, and a caveat that he probably won't fund it."

Fred, not sure where you live but even some of my Democrat/Liberal friends are glad that Mr Edwards will soon NOT be a senator from North Carolina.

He is a joke, he went from chasing ambulances to chasing the Oval Office. That's the only firm policy he ever had.

The only space he should be concerned with is the void between his ears.

Posted by Steve at February 27, 2004 03:17 PM

Rand, you are most likely right about Kerry. But the sight of him spinning will be instructive.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 27, 2004 07:17 PM

Check out Nasawatch for Kerry's latest assinine space slander.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 28, 2004 09:27 AM

I have to agree that none of the Democratic candidates is likely to strongly advance the current space initiative. However, I'm not at all sure that raking them over the coals on the issue is the best way to advance the cause of space exploration. Democratic candidates cant and wont be pinned down because it would be seriously against their interests to be seen supporting a program that is associated with President Bush, especially one as controversial as the exploration program. If Kerry does somehow pull off a win, it will be much easier to get him to take a position when he is forced to adopt some plan for space (I know that is being optimistic, but it could happen).

Whichever way this election goes, the democrats will have to be won over at some point in the process. The easiest way to do this is to simply disassociate the program from Bush. Just as the ISS is not the Reagan space plan, the exploration initiative should not be the Bush space plan. Bush did have the courage to (re)advance the plan, but it is no more his idea than the ISS was Reagan's. The best way to protect the initiative is to let it stand on its own merits. If Bush wins then he will continue to support it, and if anyone else wins then they wont be forced to axe it just to save face.

Posted by Nathan Horlsey at February 28, 2004 10:55 AM

Nathan write:

>> I have to agree that none of the Democratic candidates is likely to strongly advance the current space initiative. However, I'm not at all sure that raking them over the coals on the issue is the best way to advance the cause of space exploration. Democratic candidates cant and wont be pinned down because it would be seriously against their interests to be seen supporting a program that is associated with President Bush, especially one as controversial as the exploration program.

Yeah thats what I am trying to say. . .

Posted by Bill White at February 28, 2004 12:20 PM

Nathan, Bill, I'm not sure what letting Kerry skate on his feckless space policy position buys us. I think that doing that buttresses the notion that space is not an issue. It's only when such people have to face criticism and scrutiny for their positions that space will be an issue.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 28, 2004 01:14 PM

While Kerry's statement was asinine, Keith's response is simply a repeat of the "broken window" fallacy. It doesn't matter where jobs are created, if wealth isn't created.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 28, 2004 01:43 PM

Mark and Rand -

Your comments about Kerrys recent statements are not wrong. As for Edwards I am less sure but on Kerrys recent space policy comments I cannot really say you are wrong.

Yet I still say to focus on those points just is not helpful.

Kerry cannot say he supports the Bush vision even if he does. And, even if Kerry is personally a lost cause bridges must still be built to pro-space Democrats. Calling their candidate - - asinine - - doesnt help bridge building, IMHO.

I posted a comment to Jeff Foust saying its like an argument with your wife about which restuarant to go to or where to go on vacation. Telling her she is simply wrong (and an idiot as well) may perhaps be true, but it wont help win the argument.

America is 50/50 Democrat & Republican and little change can be expected in the years to come. No divorce is possible. Therefore space advocates need to build bridges across party lines or else the Bush vision will die just as soon as Bush ceases to be President which will be no later than January 2009.

= = =

IMHO the 2008 election is very much more critical for American future in space than the 2004 election.

Under the Bush plan, the orbiter will fly at least until 2010 and Rep. Boehlert (a key Republican) is already hinting at a few years longer. If he can leave the reservation so soon and say extensions are possible, then neither O Keefe nor the White House are adamantly opposed to such extensions.

Only modest amounts of money are being spent on Constellation/CEV until after 2009 and if the orbiter and ISS completion is extended then Constellation shall be delayed unless new additional money is found.

In 2009 a Democrat can reverse the entire Bush plan and if Kerry wins in 2004 but loses in 2008, the Bush plan can be reinstated in 2009 with very little loss of time. Even starting in 2009 a man-rated CEV by 2012 to 2014 should be easy enough to do.

Long term, the Bush plan must become an American plan - - ownership and credit for the vision needs to be spread as widely as possible, even among people who dont deserve any of the credit.

Posted by Bill White at February 28, 2004 11:04 PM

Mark writes:

>> Nathan, Bill, I'm not sure what letting Kerry skate on his feckless space policy position buys us. I think that doing that buttresses the notion that space is not an issue. It's only when such people have to face criticism and scrutiny for their positions that space will be an issue.

= = =

May I suggest divide and conquer. Before blasting Kerry, find some Democrat somewhere (Bill Nelson?) who said something good about space.

Then write your piece saying, I sure wish Kerry could be more this this guy. . .

Perhaps spin Edwards as more pro-space than maybe you believe he is, to contrast with Kerry, and create incentives for pro-space Democrats to find pro-space positions that are not necessarily pro-Bush.

Although Karl Rove did a damn fine job of setting up a policy where Democrats must choose either to be anti-space or pro-Bush. :-) Nicely done, Karl. Yet that political coup isnt good for space advocates, long term.

= = =

Personally, I favor immediate deployment of shuttle derived because it gives an option for more rapid completion of ISS in case orbiter flights are delayed and orbiter cannot be abandoned until ISS is finished or abandoned.

Grounding orbiter forever is Job#1 IMHO and with Republican Boehlert talking about extensions to orbiter flights beyond 2010 suddenly I get queasy about the ability of a two term President Bush to enforce his vision after he leaves office.

Back to shuttle derived, since the ability to throw 75000 kg to LEO has no practical use EXCEPT to go beyond LEO institutional inertia will have been created to go beyond LEO.

Posted by Bill White at February 28, 2004 11:17 PM

Bill White said;

"Therefore space advocates need to build bridges across party lines or else the Bush vision will die just as soon as Bush ceases to be President which will be no later than January 2009."

I'm not sure that's possible. The sterotypical Progressive is against any progress in space - when you ask why you'll hear mutters of 'we can't afford it' and 'too many problems here at home'. Stuff you've heard for years but in the wake of the RTS announcement they seem to have acquired a scary vigor.

The Progressive Left seesm to inahbit the same oribt for the Democrats as the Far Right does for the Republicans; a fringe, but for some odd reason a fringe that represents a bloc that cannot be ignored while on the campaign trail.

It's late, and I'm tired and cranky but the last time that I can recall the political scene was this polarized was in the decade before the Civil War - which happpened in no small part becuase men of good will could not work together to do what needed to be done.

Posted by Brian at February 29, 2004 01:40 AM

Bill, the choice of whether or not Americans should go back to the Moon and on to Mars is a little more important than the choice of eateries or tourist traps.

Kerry can certainly support Bush's proposal in princible if he is interested in doing other than mindlessly opposing. The way he distinquishes himself from Bush is to suggest improvements.

Much as we might wish that space is bipartisan, the fact of the matter is that it isn't. We should consider ourselves lucky that one party has an interest.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 29, 2004 08:35 PM

Okay Mark, how do we establish a space vision that survives transitions in political power?

Posted by Bill White at February 29, 2004 09:24 PM

Today, Jeff Foust struck the nail squarely on the head when he said commercialization is one possible road towards developing a sustainable space policy.

As I see it, however, successful commercialization will require a surrender of control by bureaucrats at NASA, elsewhere in Washington and even in the White House.

A commercial venture, to be sustainable, will need multiple revenue streams. If NASA or the federal government becomes the sole customer of any commercial space venture, that private corporation will exist at the pleasure and discretion of the government.

Are we (NASA/America) ready to contract with a company to gather data from a lunar survey satellite and allow that same company the freedom to sell the same data to the ESA, the Russians, the Indians and the Chinese? Or accept that NASA can't get the data because someone else outbid us?

Sustainability via commercial involvement will require that government bureaucrats surrender control over the process and perhaps some of the final results. If we can't even share with Democrats, how will this be possible?

Posted by Bill White at March 1, 2004 08:02 AM

Bill White
"Okay Mark, how do we establish a space vision that survives transitions in political power?"

Rationality has not worked. Space advocates have talked for decades about space manufacturing, cheap power from space, Greening the earth by moving manufacturing 'up there' and .... people opposed to it remain unimpressed.

To mis-quote Will Rogers - "Politics got us into this mess, politics will have to get us out".

A broad coalition is needed, a "Space and Freedom" fraction that can have wings in the Left and Right, and working for a common goal of "cheap access to space".

Can this work in the US? Is it workable at all?

Posted by Brian at March 1, 2004 09:42 AM

Post a comment