Barack Obama cotinues to take hits over Spaceflight

Previously, I talked about Senator Obama's education plan, and how it pulls money from Nasa's Constellation.  I am sure there are people who thought this wouldn't get wide coverage, and wouldn't cause that much discussion.  

They are wrong, and you can see the proof over at MSNBC's Cosmic Log.  Come over the fold with me

If your a regular reader of Space Revolution Diaries and News, or you are a big fan of science, no doubt you know of Cosmic Log, over at MSNBC.  Well, Alan Boyle, the editor of Cosmic Log, saw the controversy that had been raised by Obama's plan to fund education, through cutting Nasa's Constellation, and is reporting on it with the headlines "Space vs Education?"

Now, most of the time, people commenting in the space posts aren't too many.  And its not uncommon to see a conversation happen.  

However, whats happening on there now is more akin to what we see when the post is about evolution, or stem cells.  As I write this, the comments are on their 2nd page, with a total of 89 comments.  Multiple people have commented on this being a bad idea, and I've count around 10 people who have changed their vote, or are considering changing their vote, because of this.  

In addition, this story was picked up by Newsvine.com.  Now, I don't know much about Newsvine, so if they are some rightwing website, I apologize in advance.  However, they picked up the MSNBC story as well, and again you can see the comments coming out.

As I said in my previous piece, the main problem here is that Obama hasn't fleshed out his space policy.  Lack of knowledge is what usually causes mis-understandings, and if you read the comments, you can see a lot of mis-understandings on that page, and frankly, all we know is that Obama wants to pull money from NASA for education.  

I make that last point because, while I would love to see NASA get more money, I'd much rather see reform at Nasa, and would be willing to see NASA's budget reduced if we got reforms (and, yes, unfortunately this will probably mean a reduction in workforce, which people in Congress won't like).  But these decisions will have an impact as to whether Nasa encourages the development of a new industry, or whether it stifles it.  

Senator, if you are reading this, you need to thoughtfully address the issue of space policy, or you will continue to take hits, like what is happening over at Cosmic Log.  If you don't currently have someone who can educate you on space policy, now is the time to get someone (FWIW, I am available :D ).  

If you are a supporter of the Senator, call his campaign, and encourage him to develop a space policy (or else use his answer center).  And if you have any knowledge, or wish to defend him, head out there, to Cosmic Log and other places, and defend him

•  Tip Jar

  I am going to do this a little different than I normally do my tip jar - I am going to post 2 responses, that give what I see are the best things that could happen with Nasa, or worst, within an Obama administration

  by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:36:06 PM PDT

  •  Worst Case Scenario

    This option would, because of Obama's cut, see NASA pull away from the beginnings it has made towards reform and embracing the private sector.  NASA would cancel COTS and things like Centennial Challenges, and would pull even more money away from things like science and aeronautics, and would put everything it could into funding Ares I and the Orion capsule.  

    This is the worst possible outcome, because it would duplicate an already existing launcher, and would leave a large workforce to help to operate a vehicle that will do nothing to reduce the cost of spaceflight, and will not move us out of earth orbit.  In essence, it'll be the space shuttle, but even worse (or there might even be a push to keep flying the shuttle).  In anycase, this would be a bad situation.  

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:43:00 PM PDT

  •  Best Scenario

    In this scenario, I would see Obama retiring the Shuttle as planned, in 2010, but he would freeze all development related directly to the current plan (called ESAS) for 1 year.  During that year, whoever Obama appoints to be Nasa administrator, conducts an exhaustive examination of all the various options out there (from an EELV derived plan, to Direct, to a NewSpace run-off contest, to any ideas that are credible), with the idea of sticking with the current VSE, or alternatively, that focus on moving us towards a real space faring society.  

    This would be the best scenario, IMHO.

    There are a lot of good ideas to replace ESAS with, and we need to do that.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:56:28 PM PDT

    •  How Long Do You Think That Would Take

      cause I could see it taking years, then we'd have a study on the study.

      And isn't this something NASA should be doing on an ongoing basis in the first place?

      by webranding on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:58:57 PM PDT

      •  The problem is that

        ESAS (which is the main plan that is involved in Constellation) is such a mess.  

        Ideally, I'd like Obama (or any president, really - full disclosure - I am currently not supporting any candidate) to come into office with a vision of what he wants Nasa to be, and that vision needs to be something other than "keeping Nasa contractors well paid", because thats about what most space policy has consisted of.  

        With ESAS being such a mess, the new president comes in with a vision, and then looks at the various proposals, like Direct, like EELV derivatives, various others, and really examines them, and determines what the best option.  Yes, I think this would take a year to do, but its better doing this than moving forward with a flawed plan.  

        After that, then you start bending metal

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:06:36 PM PDT

•  I settled on Obama tonight.

  I'm a space enthusiast and think that human and robotic exploration of space deserve a big shot in the arm. I hope Obama comes out in favor of speeding up the Constellation program and increasing the space science budget.

  -fink

  by fink on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:38:30 PM PDT

  •  Contact him and tell him

    to develop a space policy.  
    If you feel really adventurious, suggest me to help him with space policy :D

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:45:26 PM PDT

    •  Why not speak for yourself...

      ...John Aldin! Try volunteering, IF Obama will give
      you a listen.

      by JeffW on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:05:59 PM PDT

      •  Who is John Aldin?

        his science advisor?  

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:07:10 PM PDT

        •  No, historical figure...

          ...from the Pilgrim days...

          I may have misspelled his name, though...

          by JeffW on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:20:51 AM PDT

  •  Speeding Constellation means LESS science

    NASA always reduces the science budget to fund their rocket building.  They should be required to acquire launch services commercially (Like from these people) at a much lower cost than their in-house designs, with all the money going to Lockheed and ATK.

    by NHlib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:48:09 PM PDT

    •  A FUCKING MEN!! nt

      no text

      by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:53:46 PM PDT

•  Do you really think

  Obama would be bad for NASA as President?  I mean, thanks for the heads up if you really think this is a problem but I've heard him talk about science development in general and I'm thinking he's going to be awesome after the miserable years we've had.  

  by Sun dog on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:39:15 PM PDT

  •  I don't know what to think

    and thats the problem.  Yes, he has said he would cut Nasa, but there are more issues than just how much money Nasa will get.

    But unless he fleshes out what his space policy is, people will view him as being opposed to spaceflight.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:44:42 PM PDT

    •  They will?

      We will assume the negative even though that wouldn't seem to be in character with him at all?  To be honest, I haven't heard a single one of the candidates say the first thing about space travel.  Maybe there are some more fleshed out plans out there but it seems to me that this isn't an Obama thing so much as a political strategical thingy with all of the candidates.  

      None of the political strategists seem to find this to be a winning issue this year what with the war and the economy and the social issues and such.  Why are you focused on one out of more than a dozen candidates in terms of this issue?  

      Again, he seems to be really pro-science in general.  And in order to get elected he needs to address the hundred or so primary concerns regarding people's lives that are on the table right now.  I mean, I'm into space exploration way more than most people and even reading your diary, I'm not hearing any alarm bells in regards to Obama as compared to a single other candidate.  Based on his intelligence and respect for science I feel that an Obama administration would probably be the best chance we've had in a long time to upgrade NASA and many other areas of research/exploration.  

      by Sun dog on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:42:35 PM PDT

      •  Yes they will

        Let me give you a little background, if you don't mind.

        Most of the time, presidential candidates largely ignore spaceflight and Nasa - Bill Clinton didn't mention spacelight until something like a month before the general election in 92.  George Bush hadn't really talked about spaceflight until after Columbia.  The only usual exception to this is if a candidate has a specific reason to talk about it (in the case of John Glenn, or Dennis Kucinich, who has a Nasa center in his district, or Bill Richardson, who has had NM heavily invested in the private spaceflight industry).  By and large, though, front runners generally give a non-answer when talking about spaceflight, and nasa.  Witness John Edwards from earlier this year.

        3. If elected President, how would you balance the scientific research at NASA with the manned spaceflight program which, arguably, has dubious scientific value?

        I am a strong supporter of our space program. It reflects the best of the American spirit of optimism, discovery and progress.

        We need a balanced space and aeronautics program. We need to support solar system exploration as an important goal for our human and robotic programs, but only as one goal among several. And we need to invite other countries to share in a meaningful way in both the adventure and the cost of space exploration.

         As I said when I reported this, it was a punt, but not particularly surprizing.

        The big major exception to this has been Hillary.  In the last 1-2 months, she has laid out something that really approaches space policy (see my previous diaries, specifically here).
        By and large, as much as I don't like the punt, it doesn't surprise me, because most people believe space doesn't and won't play a major role in their future anytime soon (although that is fundamentally wrong - I'll come back to this in a second).

        But when Obama released his education plan, he specificially singled out Nasa's Constellation plan for cutting funds from, to pay for it.  Now, without any other evidence, its hard to view that as supporting manned spaceflight.  Done properly, some cuts to Nasa might not be a bad thing, but his proposal to delay Constellation by 5 years, well, as I said, its hard to view that as anything but hurtful to spaceflight, without more data.

        As for the issue of Pro-science - the problem is that what is the purpose of spaceflight (you'll note, I say spaceflight when I am talking - not space exploration or space science).  For most people, when you talk about being pro-science and spaceflight, they view that as flying more unmanned missions, to learn more about space.  

        But thats not necessarily the case.  When we talk about things like stem cell research, it isn't by and large because we just want knowledge - its because it will help people who are sick.  

        Spaceflight can do similar things - like provide large scale clean power, new industries, and help to seriously improve this world.  In the next 5-15 years, manned spaceflight will significantly change that.  And we need to be in a position to take advantage of what space has to offer us, if want to help alleviate things like global warming, economic growth, and globalization.  

        I don't want him to fund a bunch of Hubble telescopes - I want to see us begin to colonize space, and it will seriously happen, in the next 5-15 years.  But if we aren't in a position to take advantage of it, someone else will get those resources.

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:12:39 PM PDT

        •  My point about pro-science

          Is that while candidate Obama may not have the resources and connections to focus on this while trying to get elected I have faith that President Obama will show the wisdom and flexibility to take advantage of opportunities in science.  I believe the comparison of his value in this regard next to any of the Republican field is astronomically better.  (sorry, couldn't help it)

          I guess one difference in our perspectives is that you are an expert on space issues and I am really good at spotting political trends.  (maybe you are that too.)  Right now the lay of the land tells me that if we give Hillary our nomination, she could likely lose to the GOP and our talk of science is whistlin Dixie.  I know some people have a hard time seeing that but I can't help the fact that I do see that and I've been right against conventional wisdom many times before.  

          In light of that, I find myself being much more forgiving of the various imperfect statements on the primary campaign trail made by a candidate who I believe would be a lock in the general election and far better than the GOP on this issue.  

          I'm an Iowa politics junkie basically and I'm real good at calling em.  

          I love your informed, inspired take on space flight by the way.  

          by Sun dog on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:41:39 PM PDT

          •  I have to be an expert on space

            it is, after all, what I am dedicating my life towards. :D  As far as it being informed and inspired, well, I try and provide that, and if I could talk you into checking out my Space Revolution News, well, all the better.

            As far as comparing Obama to any of the republican candidates, well, I agree.  Believe it or not, I am not a single issue voter.  In fact, one of my biggest issues during this campaign cycle relates back to the issue of whether there will be investigations into whether charges should/will be filled against Bush, after he is out of office, and also the Detainee act.  And I live with a large amount of fear that we may be facing sudden ecological collapse.  You can guess how likely any of those would be to see the light of day, if an R were to get elected.  FWIW, I did a diary about some questions I wanted answered, back in August, and they are still good questions

            As far as the issue of Hillary vs Obama - well, I definitely have issues with her.  First, her space platform isn't perfect, and isn't even close to perfect.  And, if you have time to read my earlier post, you see some questions that I don't think she would necassarily want to deal with.  And yes, much like you, I do think she has an electablity issue.

            As I've said before, I don't really have a candidate I am supporting (although I could be, depending on the issues), and in the general, will be working my butt off to help them win.  

            But these past 2 diaries have largely been about the fact that when it comes to the issue of space, I think the targeting of Constellation for cuts, without having some sort of space policy, does open you up to attacks from the issue of whether you support manned spaceflight or not.  (Obama could come out tomorrow and say "Yes, I am cutting Orion and Ares I, but we need to push for further investment in the private spaceflight industry", and I would quickly shut up, and I think everyone who is being critical of him about this issue would shut up)

            And you never know how close the primaries and caucuses will be.  

            by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:11:19 PM PDT

•  All I Can Think Of When Reading This

  is I wonder how many young people today, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, how many say astronauts. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, outside of firefighter astronaut was a pretty darn close second.

  by webranding on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:41:28 PM PDT

  •  Well, manned space flight is really not worth

    the money we pour into it nor is it worth the risk to human life.  Not as the mission is currently defined.

    by Geekesque on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:43:00 PM PDT

    •  How about discovery...

      Those WWing episodes on space flight and the reaching for the stars type of moments speak to the ideas that webranding is talking about and suggest that discovery is worthy of continued effort...

      by kredwyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:46:49 PM PDT

      •  This Is What I Wrote After Columbia

        We Will Fly Again

        Americans are explorers and adventurers. We have scaled the tallest mountains. Ventured to the deepest depths of our oceans and traveled every inch of the globe in the search for knowledge. It is this desire for knowledge that allowed us to walk on the moon less then seventy years after the Wright Brothers first success at Kitty Hawk.

        Although the tragedy today and the seven lives lost won't fade from our memory for many years, we will fly again. If for nothing else but to honor their sacrifice.

        I just think in instances like this investment to explorer and learn is worth it. Worth every penny even if we can't justify on a ledger exact why it will be worth the money spent.

        by webranding on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:50:06 PM PDT

    •  Then we need to redefine the mission

      for space colonization.

      I agree, that if all we care about is science, then unmanned is the way to go.  But right now, we put it in terms of "exploration", which is not just science.  

      Frankly, I think the whole "exploration" meme is a waste.

      Unmanned spaceflight is for science, manned is for colonization.

      by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:49:38 PM PDT

    •  I think it's absolutely worth it ...

      ... but I don't think NASA is the right group of people to do it anymore.

      by Bearpaw on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:08:53 PM PDT

•  MSNBC's Space Blog is 'wide coverage?' eom

  by Geekesque on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:42:03 PM PDT

  •  If it gets on a major newsite

    its much more wider than it is on Hobbyspace.

    No fault to Clark Lindsey, but I doubt it would've gotten onto newsvine or some other places, had the article not gone up.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:47:19 PM PDT

•  Just Background On Newsvine

  Not right leaning at all, or at least that is my experience. Also just bought by MSNBC. It is a community driven news site, somewhat like Digg. Users submit stories under a content category and then readers vote if it is a good story. As the story gets more votes it moves to the front of that category. A lot like the front page here. User can also write their own stories, like a Diary.

  by webranding on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:43:54 PM PDT

  •  Thats what I thought

    but I've been known to not always realize a website/news source that is a right-wing hack job.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:18:55 PM PDT

•  What good is NASA funding

  when you don't have the scientists to work there? I believe the average age for a NASA employee is 46. Who's going to replace all these guys when they retire?

  by Daaaaave on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:45:49 PM PDT

  •  That would be part of the

    problem wouldn't it?

    I didn't realise that 46 was old...til just now.

    by kredwyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:48:50 PM PDT

    •  Oy.

      I'm a geezer, then.

      by chumley on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:50:18 PM PDT

  •  I am all for funding education

    don't think Im not.  And there is some arguements that perhaps cutting Nasa's budget can be good.  

    The problem is that Obama needs to define what his space policy is, so that the cuts can be seen in the larger context of where are we actually going.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:50:54 PM PDT

    •  Pulled the 2008 requested budget

      Lots of large numbers I don't understand.

      http://www.nasa.gov/...

      I think it's too early to believe Obama should have an articulated space plan for his Presidency. On the other hand, I don't think he should have mentioned liberating funds from NASA to pay for this without a pretty good idea in mind of where he's going to trim the fat.

      I hope he issues a clarification stating that NASA's long-term goals would not be compromised and I'll keep my eyes open to see if it comes.

      by Daaaaave on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:00:18 PM PDT

      •  He doesn't need a 20 point plan, but

        if he is going to pull money from Nasa, he should at least have a vision for it.  

        Your right, he would've been better off not mentioning, but at this point, the damage has been done.  The best thing would be to articulate, at the bare minimum, at least a vision for where he sees Nasa going.

        Its a leadership thing

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:09:36 PM PDT

  •  Gee, do ya think

    we need to put money into education in math and sciences so that we can continue to have a space program?

    Hmph.

    by think2004 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:56:00 PM PDT

    •  So you're agreeing with me?

      I think we're on the same page but your "tone" seems to disagree.

      by Daaaaave on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:57:57 PM PDT

      •  Agree. It's a no-brainer.

        I appreciate the fact that a lot of people hold NASA near and dear, and find space exploration to be important. But big picture, it just doesn't trump education.

        Find me all the mothers in the United States, and ask them if they think it's more important that money go to education, or space exploration. I suspect the answer would lean quite heavily in one direction.

        by think2004 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:13:58 PM PDT

        •  Spaceflight isn't just about science

          and, as far as exploration is concerned, well, I get rather sick of hearing about it, because a lot of people, when they say exploration, think that means only science.

          Spaceflight and space development can and will go a long way towards helping to provide things like clean energy, new industries, and provide more resources.  

          And this isn't in some off-distance future.  We are very close to seeing a revolution in spaceflight, in the next 5-15 years.  Spaceflight will take off, much like the internet did in the 90s.  

          The question is, will we be in a position to take advantage of it?  

          by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:21:50 PM PDT

•  I don't think it's a big issue with most people.

  Honestly, it doesn't rate very high in terms of what people are concerned about.

  I don't doubt your commitment to, or knowledge about space flights.  But if you think Obama's "taking hits" about this that amount to much in terms of votes or credibility, well... I doubt it.

  by chumley on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:49:36 PM PDT

  •  Did you read the comments?

    Yes, I agree, it isn't huge, but there were multiple people who said they wouldn't vote for Obama, and would switch their votes over this issue.

    Having a space policy, or at least a space vision, I think most people see it as how you view society going forward.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:52:50 PM PDT

    •  Some people on that thread said so, sure.

      But that doesn't amount to much.

      And if this was ever true, I don't think it is anymore:

      Having a space policy, or at least a space vision, I think most people see it as how you view society going forward.

      I can think of a dozen or so issues off the top of my head that most people probably think of before space flight when they wonder about how society will go forward.  Notably -- energy policy, environmental policy, globalization, health care, terrorism, religious differences.

      This isn't to say that Obama shouldn't have a space policy / vision, if he doesn't.  I'm simply talking about the relative importance of the issue for most Americans.  

      by chumley on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:00:14 PM PDT

      •  Well, 2 points

        1 - Either blogs mean something, or they don't.  If they mean something, then when people post something like that online, I think we have to take them at their word.

        2 - Three of the issues you mention could be helped by an aggressive push towards utalization of off-planet resources.  You mention energy policy - well, you want clean energy that will be able to provide baseload?  Then we should be talking about Space based solar power.  You mentioned globalization - well, space development could provide a major part of the solution to the issues raised by globalization, because the resource base offered by space development and colonization turns the current zero-sum game that is the current economic system, into a positive sum game, that will allow us to help lift everyone up.

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:14:56 PM PDT

        •  Repsonses to your ppint

          1. I didn't mean to question the blog posters' sincerity about their Obama support.  I'm sure they mean what they say.  I was simply talking about sheer numbers of people involved not amounting to much.

          2. These are good points, worth thinking about. Thank you.

          by chumley on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 07:05:57 AM PDT

  •  From the comments on

    cosmic log - this was from Jack Green

    My opinion:  the laudable but misguided goal of fixing all our ills at home before we venture off this planet has been well discussed in the writings of futurists and historians.  Taking the insular approach, we will probably not survive.  We need a balanced but bold approach to both terrestrial problems and exploration.

    In recent years, it appears that China, India, Japan, and Europe are smart enough to understand this.  Ironically, the US society may turn its back on the future, and we must now hope that these other societies (Asia and Europe) will survive.

    As decades of politicians have discovered, it isn't worth wasting political capital attacking NASA's paltry budget.  Attacking NASA says more about the political motives of the campaign than it does about fiscal responsibility.

    Obama's campaign has shown a somewhat startling lack of knowledge of the issues and benefits, and a disappointing lack of vision.  Perhaps NASA will take the time to educate him, and perhaps he will show leadership by admitting he was wrong, as Edwards has boldly done about Iraq.

    I'm having to re-think my hope that Obama is the best chance to defeat Hillary, especially because public support for space exploration crosses so many economic, political, and sociological boundaries.

    Is it costing him huge amounts of votes?  Honestly probably not, but it is hurting him, and he can and could with a fair amount of ease, formulate a good vision for space policy.

    Hell, he should do it if for no other reason than to counter Hillary's space policy.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:00:38 PM PDT

    •  I don't know who Jack Green is

      but his opinion seems supremely premature to me. As far as I'm aware, Obama has stated that the funding for his Ed Plan would partially come from NASA. There has been no mention of gutting the program or even a set figure or percentage. While I'm not saying interested people should just ignore it, it seems a little overly alarmist to react in this way.

      by Daaaaave on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:04:32 PM PDT

      •  And from the way he talks about

        Edwards' "boldly" saying he was wrong on Iraq, I think it's more than likely that he was already an Edwards supporter and was just using this to attack Obama.  That's what goes on in those comments sections.  It's less reliable than a Zogby online poll.
        Might Obama lose the votes of a handful of NASA enthusiasts?  Maybe.  But he'll probably gain many more with the boldness of his education plan.

        by MattBellamy on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:14:39 PM PDT

        •  He doesn't necassarily have to pick and choose

          at least when it comes to the issue of spaceflight.  For example, he could've provided a vision of where and how he'd see the cuts take place, or offered up helping the private spaceflight industry.

          You don't need to write of spaceflight to help education.

          by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:26:12 PM PDT

        •  Some of the commenters seem like conservatives

          who will never vote for Obama, the way they talk about how all Democrats waste money on social programs. Many of the comments read like standard GOP talking points.  

          by jj32 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:12:14 PM PDT

          •  Yes, there is that

            and I admit, the space community tends towards the economic libertarians (read GOP supporters).  

            But there was more than one Democrat there who was not happy about it.

            Above all, do not write off space, on the misguided notion that it wastes money.  

            by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:14:18 PM PDT

      •  What he said was that he'd delay Constellation

        by 5 years.  As I said in my previous piece, that could potentially mean that Nasa doesn't have space access for 10 years (Ares and Orion are already 5 years behind scheduale), or worse, it could mean we keep flying the space shuttle.

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:16:53 PM PDT

•  Well at least he was not rude about it

  and suggest that Hillary be sent to Mars like Huckabee did.  No Senator should be treated with such disrespect as the GOP has been treating her in what they have said and allowed to have been said.

  by concernednyer2005 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:53:35 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    that was rather tacky IMHO

    But lets stick to the issue of getting Obama to have a space policy.

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 06:54:44 PM PDT

  •  It wasn't the disrespect that bothered me ...

    ... I'm used to seeing that from Repubs directed at Clinton.  It was the fact that it was lame, juvenile humor.

    Isn't there still a minimum age requirement for the Presidency?

    by Bearpaw on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:05:36 PM PDT

    •  Yup! 35 years...

      ...but that doesn't mean you have to act your age.

      Just look at the current pResident...

      by JeffW on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:09:41 PM PDT

    •  Well this is also a party

      where one of the candidates (McCain) thought it was funny that a supporter asked "how do we beat the bitc*".  Can anyone tell me what would have happened if a Democrat running versus a GOP female was asked the same question and they had laughed?

      by concernednyer2005 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:40:12 PM PDT

•  How about cutting the military budget and

  leaving NASA alone? Why is Obama even thinking of cutting NASA, it's not that huge part of our budget anyway. I would prefer my tax money go to books not bombs.

  by Chaoslillith on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:24:07 PM PDT

•  What this really shows is

  that answering the demand for specific budget cuts to pay for new programs has its hazards...frankly, I'd prefer the candidates to lay out their priorities instead of detailed programs that will likely have little in common with anything that ever gets enacted. I know Obama has been criticized in the past for not being specific enough, but this sounds too specific--instead of tying educational increases to NASA cuts, I would hope he (and the other candidates) would say which programs they think should be cut or made more efficient, which programs should be exanded (or new programs initiated), without trying to balance the books now...all the numbers are going to be fiction anyway.

  by Alice in Florida on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 07:46:46 PM PDT

  •  Thats the real point, to a certain degree

    as I said upthread, by and large most candidates punt when it comes to smaller issues like spaceflight.  

    Unfortunately, thats not what he did.  And, the fact of the matter is, when you are president, you are president of all of the USA - not just the parts you like.  Therefore, when you get asked about these smaller issues, you need to take time and think about how your going to deal with them.  

    And you never know when a small issue will grow into a large issue (look at the rise of the internet during the 90s, or the poverty of New Orleans)

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 08:17:44 PM PDT

•  Shit can anybody do anything right?

  by army193 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:03:52 PM PDT

  •  huh?

    wanna expand on that

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:39:58 PM PDT

•  Thoughts from the token not-a-Democrat

  They are wrong, and you can see the proof over at MSNBC's Cosmic Log.

  It's long been an article of faith with me that no matter how passionate I feel about this issue ... the passion is not shared by a majority of the people or even enough to actually matter in an election.

  I'd like for this to change - I'm not holding my breath; color me cynical.

  Now, I don't know much about Newsvine, so if they are some rightwing website, I apologize in advance.

  Please don't.  Politics is one thing, space issues should cross the political fence.

  would be willing to see NASA's budget reduced if we got reforms

  Maybe.  It's not like NASA gets a whole lotta money as it is.

  by bdunbar on Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 06:39:34 AM PDT

  •  Public support hasn't been tested

    The NSF has been doing surveys on public attitudes toward science and technology for decades. Most of the results are pretty stable over the years. A majority of people claim to be interested in space exploration, but that doesn’t mean much. It makes people feel good to say they are interested. More useful is the numbers who say they are very well informed about space. This has been stable (within survey error) at something over 10% of Americans since 1979. That is tens of millions of people. This represents the serious space interested public. It’s not much smaller than the well informed public for foreign affairs or farm policy, and it's more than big enough to support a serious political force. See: http://www.nsf.gov/...

    I haven’t dug into the data recently, but the results I remember are that the very well informed are also overwhelmingly supportive of increased investment in space and willing to have it affect their politics. I think we don’t usually see this reflected in political debates because there hasn’t been a major policy crisis regarding space in over forty-five years. When there’s been a small crisis, such as the loss of a shuttle, support for NASA has immediately spiked upward, NOT decreased. Congress responded by increasing NASA’s budget every time. In politics, no conflict equals no public action.

    I think other reasons we don’t see more political activity around space are that almost no one asks the people what they want and no major politician has ever made an issue of giving them what they ask for. The feel good messages from NASA and the aerospace community keep most people nicely quiet. The few arguments are mostly technical, which also doesn’t respond to what people want.

    Results from the only survey I know of that asks people what they want are buried in NSSO’s recent study on Space Solar Power. See: http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpre...

    In summary, "Build satellites in Earth orbit to collect solar energy to beam to utilities on Earth" was #1 at 35%. "Develop the technology to deflect asteroids or comets that might destroy the Earth" was #2 at 17%. "Send humans to Mars" was #4 at 10%, behind "No opinion." "Build a base on the moon for humans to use for exploration of the moon" was #8 at 4%, behind "Develop a passenger rocket to send tourists into space" at 6%. Compare that with how we're spending our money and you see why people might not be too excited.

    Why should people care when no one capable of commanding mass public attention is making an issue of giving them what they want?

    by oleson31 on Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 10:49:02 PM PDT