Obama, the Houston Chronicle, and Space

As you probably know, Senator Obama was endorsed by the Houston Chronicle.  

However, in their endorsement, the Chronicle responded to a statement from Obama, and added a caveat to their endorsement.

What was the comment, and what was the subsequent caveat?  Come over the fold, and see

First, the comment, as reported by the Houston Chronicle

But, he said, the next president needs to have "a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs — and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment.""

And now, the caveat

On several issues vital to Houstonians, Obama's positions need elaboration. He recognizes the need to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in space but said he wanted to study the costs and benefits of human space exploration — an exercise that should convince him of the space program's long history of indispensable contributions.

I have, in the past, talked about Obama pulling funding from Constellation.  I have mentioned that it has the potential to cost him votes.  And of course, I've talked the space policy piece that spaceref.com posted at the end of January.  I review this history for a reason - there has been substantial concern about Obama's position on space, in the space community, espcailly after he announced he was pulling funding from Constellation for education.

Well, after his comment to the Houston Chronicle, and their caveat, the online space community has started responding.  From Clark Lindsey's comment about Obama really not likely manned spaceflight (something that I feel isn't entirely accurate) and all the people who commented there, to the comments and discussion at space politics, it really hasn't been pretty.  And while Matt Yglesias seems to think its a good idea Chris Bowers, over at OpenLeft.com, has come down against it, commenting on why manned spaceflight is important.  Actually, from some of the things said in the comments section (as well as a few of the comments in the piece), this shows why having a Netroots Nation panel on spaceflight would be very worthwhile.  However, as Bill reported over the weekend, as of right now, the panels aren't happening.  

Now, if I might take a moment, and directly address the Senator - You've said that you want to study the costs and benefits of human space exploration - well, in the coming days and weeks, let myself, and others show you why its important.  Groups like the Space Policy Advisory Group have many people, who can help explain its importance.  I know you have some specific announcements coming out within the next month, but you need to listen to everyone.

Please watch for a series of posts next week - Open letters to Senator Obama - the importance of manned spaceflight.

Update
Bill White has posted a diary wondering how much you think Nasa's budget is.  I am curious to - go and vote, please.

•  Tips for manned spaceflight

  and for a future in space

  by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:54:49 PM PDT

  •  the strongest scientific return of data

    in my lifetime has come not from the space shuttle but from the robotic explorers.  If I have a limited budget (thanks George Bush) I personally, as a citizen,  want more Voyager and Cassini caliber missions, not more Space Station and shuttle flights.

    Of course in an ideal world there will be enough money for all scientists to do the science they want.

    The data pouring in from Saturn, Mercury, and the excitement of the New Horizons craft that is currently on the way to Pluto is really where it's at for me.

    Most of the space scientists I know think that the Space Station is a relic we pour cash into.  In fact I don't know anyone who thinks it's the best place for our investment.  And our shuttle fleet is dangerously out of date.  When you say manned flight, what exactly is it you want to do?  Go to the moon?  Support the Station?  Fly shuttle missions?

    by kate mckinnon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:07:27 PM PDT

  •  Out of curiosity...

    Are you involved in the industry...or just an interested observer?

    by Morgan Sandlin on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:29:27 PM PDT

    •  Good question.

      Obama is very interested in funding new technologies and science in general. I'm a huge fan of the space programs!

      But there's a shared pot here, and honestly, when kids are starving and people can't get the healthcare they need, I'm not going to say no, it's better to put a crew on the moon than it is to fix healthcare.

      Interestingly, there was a Zogby poll asking about this recently - I wonder who sponsored it. It asked a lot of questions about the space program, and some tradeoffs.

      by BetterTogether on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:49:37 PM PDT

    •  Sorry I didn't respond sooner

      I missed your comment.

      To answer your question - yes and no.  I am currently studying Aerospace engineering, and I have provided a little advising for 1 company (very little).  When I graduate, I'd love to work for a company like XCOR, or SpaceX.  

      On the other hand, most of the convention/conferences I've attended have been paid out of my own pocket.  

      Consider me a space activist, and hopefully that can answer the question.  

      by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:59:36 PM PDT

•  George W. Bush spend the money for Space

  exploration for years to come.

  by linnie on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM PDT

  •  no, he didn't

    and further, we need to be investing in off-planet resources, if we hope to deal with the problems he created.  

    Space industrialization and space development can help us, as can space based solar power.  

    But only if we choose to invest in it.

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 04:59:05 PM PDT

    •  George W. Bush spent money in Iraq

      that could have gone to Space and other things. That was my point.

      by linnie on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:00:17 PM PDT

      •  Fair enough

        Im just saying - we can't write off space because GWB is a moron.  

        That would be like writing off schools because NCLB is a failure.

        by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:01:56 PM PDT

        •  I don't think we should write off space...

          ...but I think we should put it off for a few years while we right the ship.

          I'm with you in believing that manned spaceflight, and space colonization, are the next step for humanity, but after the number Bush has done on this country, we aren't going to be ready to start another full-scale program in the next four years.  It's just too costly for a nation that's already in debt up to its eyeballs and has deficits galore, not even including the massive spending on foreign wars.

          I say we give President Obama a chance to get our country back on track - and if it is by 2012, then we start asking when he's going to start implementing the next step...

          by mistersite on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:05:43 PM PDT

          •  We can implement it now

            to help deal with the problems that Bush has caused for this country.  Thats the point - there are a number of people who see spaceflight as a long term investment, that won't result in any ROI in the near future - thats not the case, at all IMHO.

            by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:12:59 PM PDT

      •  How about spending money to save the planet

        first. If that means space exploration can aid in that endeavor, I'm all for it.

        by tazz on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:04:18 PM PDT

    •  oh... you want to develop space.

      Gotcha.  That is a wholly separate concept from space exploration for the sake of bettering our knowledge.

      I'm sure we will ruin space shortly, just as we have this planet, but I'm not ready to fight for that funding yet.  Not at the expense of peaceful exploration.  I'd like to see us do a better job at learning to conserve on-planet resources before we unleash on the solar system, mining asteroids and colonizing the Moon.

      by kate mckinnon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:12:47 PM PDT

      •  Space is where we can learn how to do that

        Development isn't bad - Development can be done to help people.  I know that there are some who view development as basicly destruction, but that not the way it actually is.  

        Further, as I said in the title, spaceflight and space development will actually help us learn to conserve better.  But we won't learn how to do that by staying on this planet.  You cannot solve the worlds problems first, and then go into space.  What you can do is, as you move further into space, is learn to solve the problems we face.  

        Further, things like Space based solar power, and stem cell production, could go a long way towards helping people.  All of that falls under the catagory of development.  

        by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM PDT

        •  I am unconvinced by your argument

          that we have earned the right to develop space, and that we cannot learn conservation on our own planet.  It's a mysterious argument;  give me more more more resources, and only then can I learn to use them properly.

          I think that Obama has clearly stated his position on science;  he wants to hear what all of our best thinkers have to say before he makes decisions.

          by kate mckinnon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:22:44 PM PDT

          •  Okay, if I may suggest something

            Read this, and then read this, and especially read this.  

            Part of what I am getting at is, resources don't just come in the form of physical resources, like minerals.  They come in less tangable forms, like clean energy (which space can provide, much more so than other alternative energy types), and it can provide real intangible resources, in the form of new perspectives - case in point, the overview effect.

            I hope he is willing to get our best thinkers - people like Esther Dyson, George Whitesides, Jeff Krukin, and Rick Tumlinson.  

            by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:30:53 PM PDT

          •  I see settling space as an opportunity to

            discover what we can become, as a species as opposed to what we will find, out there.

            Also, believe that unles we settle space we will likely be extinct in less than 1000 years from now. And that would be a shame (IMHO) especially if there NO ONE else out there.

            If there are others out there we should go and meet them.

            = = =

            More cynically, if Obama or Clinton (as POTUS#44) terminates the human spaceflight component of NASA and lays off tens of thousands of Florida workers Democrats will suffer in 2010 or 2012 etc . . .

            by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:35:11 PM PDT

            •  I think it's all important.

              But the Station is already obsolete and the Shuttle is no longer really safe.

              We have a lot of work to do before we are ready to mine asteroids and colonize space.  I'm not sure that continuing to fly the Shuttle is our best bet for how to get there.

              by kate mckinnon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:04:42 PM PDT

              •  I am all for getting rid of the shuttle

                Whoever becomes president, if they asked me about space policy - first thing I'd suggest is to keep the retirement date of the shuttle at 2010, or even possibly move it up.  But there are other options for going into space, beyond the shuttle.  Things like the SpaceX Dragon capsule, and the Spacedev Dreamchaser, to name 2.  Looking a little further, there are also the sub-orbital guys, like Scaled Composites, XCOR, and Armadillo Aerospace.  

                Those are much better, and much safer, and will be much more cost-effective.

                by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:12:31 PM PDT

                •  what about the space station?

                  by kate mckinnon on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:32:35 AM PDT

                  •  The station has problems

                    of that I don't deny.  However, that said, I don't agree that it is obsolete.  There was a point I read (I wish I could remember where I heard it) that basically said, because of the issues involved in its construction, and transportation, we really don't have good data on whether the station can be useful or not.  

                    I do think that the station has the potential to be useful, and actually, to pay for itself in the long run.  Part of the problem that happened with the station, during development, IMHO, was that so much time was spent on the technology, and on the building process, that long term operations were not really considered (something that actually can be said about a lot of space), and its long term utility was not really dealt with (again, something that can be said about a lot of space).

                    That said, the decision to make the station into a national lab does, as I said, open up some possibilities for it to be useful, long term.  companies like Spacehab are very interested in using the station for both research purposes, and zero-g manufacturing of advanced nanotech/biotech items.  BTW, that is the first video of a 5 part video - you want to watch the videos with Tom Pickens III, at ISDC - he lays it out very well, about using ISS as a place for manufacturing.  

                    Expanding out a little further, while the station isn't perfect for a lot of things, with making it a national lab, and renting out space, I think the American section of ISS could successfully be turned into the equivalent of a space business park, and could thus pay for itself through operator fees.  Doing that, I think, could make the station very usable, and could even provide enough cash such that it could ultimately pay for itself.  

                    As I said - the station isn't perfect, but it is usable.

                    by FerrisValyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:45:28 AM PDT

  •  Actually, Dubya announced a grandiose vision

    and then consistently underfunded it to the poitn where nothing really has been accomplished.

    by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM PDT

•  It's a shame

  It's a shame that the candidate of hope turns his back on the greatest hope of mankind.

  by Anthony Segredo on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:01:23 PM PDT

  •  I am not convinced he has

    but I think he needs to see and learn a lot more about it.

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM PDT

  •  When did he turn his back...

    ...on Superman?

    by Aqualad08 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:07:13 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, I agree

    Obama's relatively weaker stance on space exploration is the only thing about his policies which gives me a real pause. I am still totally in his corner, but man, I wish he were more willing to reach for the stars in the literal sense, not just figurative!

    by Victor on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:22:04 PM PDT

    •  Me too (n/t)

      by Anthony Segredo on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:04:09 AM PDT

  •  Actually he hasn't AND the details of Clinton's

    plan appear to spend a great deal of money doing very little in terms of truly getting out there.

    by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:42 PM PDT

    •  No surprise there

      Probably wants to build the next generation spacecraft in Mexico with Chinese parts.

      by Anthony Segredo on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:05:32 AM PDT

  •  What a bunch of crap

    humanity can't hold out another couple of centuries on Earth?

    A blink of time in the cosmos?

    A blink of time in civilization?

    We face immediate peril?

    No.

    Space flight isn't a survival solution for the many, only the few.

    But if we actually solve our earthly problems we wouldn't need to scramble to find another home! The many could avoid suffering and misery!

    The space program can accomplish so much with robotics and telescopes alone.

    by Paul Goodman on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:18:03 PM PDT

    •  To answer your question

      No, actually, we can't.  Spaceflight and space development is the solution for everyone

      by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:20:06 PM PDT

      •  Thanks for the link

        I wonder if Obama realizes that the greatest turn-off to studying Science and Engineering is not a lack of teachers, but the hordes of cheap indentured H-1B's taking all the jobs. To that end, I heard Hillary on TV advocating all numerical restrictions on H-1B's, like a true DLC candidate.

        by Anthony Segredo on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:11:25 AM PDT

•  A tip for the intent...

  ...on a personal level, I am 100% pro-space, but I understand where Obama is coming from. Is it really that cost-effective to keep sending these 1980's relics up into space over and over again? Two of them have already been destroyed...

  I fully support a detailed re-assessment of where the space program stands, and where best to direct the resources we have...I know how big of an issue it is for Texas, Houston especially, but I firmly believe an honest re-evaluation by a Democrat President will be better for the nation and the world than, "We're going to Mars, bitches!"

  by Aqualad08 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:04:17 PM PDT

  •  I am all for a full evaluation

    and, I fully expect manned spaceflight can stand on its own merits.

    The problem is people are convinced that the only way space can be done is with a very expensive, government program, thats very dangerous.  And thats not true

    You are right, the shuttles need to be retired.  But we need a replacement, and the current plan, which is largely ESAS, is horrible.  

    There are other ways of doing this, though.

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:08:57 PM PDT

    •  Agreed...

      ...I think if Obama can make that new replacement part of his economic package, it would be a HUGE winner for him and for us all...

      by Aqualad08 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM PDT

      •  Absolutely!!!

        investment in space, as part of an economics package, would have incredible results.

        by FerrisValyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:46:57 AM PDT

•  I don't think there's anything wrong

  with Obama making the statement he did. Any candidate would have to re-evalute what may be most important for the American people-we sorely need healthcare and energy policies-and an end to the "war" before we can look at exploratory manned space missions. And believe me I am a major supporter of space exploration. Besides who knows the extent of bush's mismanagement of funds since he totally mangled everything in sight.

  Here's what bush just said about Iraq (huffpo FP)

  Bush: "I Don't Think The War Has Anything To Do With The Economy."

  Right!

  by valadon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:05:49 PM PDT

  •  I don't mind the re-evaluation

    because the current plan, ESAS and Constellation, have serious problems.

    The issue is what will replace that, and further, its worth people who are Obama supporters to know about some of the arguments/attacks being made with regards to their candidate and space.  

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:11:52 PM PDT

    •  no argument here

      Are you thinking non-governmental corporately financed spaceflight? Or just a better governmental program?

      by valadon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:15:40 PM PDT

      •  Both, actually

        I'd love to see the government help to create the private industry, which we are seeing, in the development of Newspace, through companies like XCOR, Masten, Scaled Composites, SpaceX, to name a few.

        I'd love to see nasa reformed, such that it gets out of being the owner operator of spaceflight vehicles, and instead is a buyer of services, with a pay for results, rather than cost-plus contracting of vehicles.  

        by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:20:06 PM PDT

        •  good thoughts

          thnx...I'd have to take a look at those particular companies to have a fairer sense of what you're describing.

          by valadon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:26:10 PM PDT

          •  Its actually fairly straight forward

            First and foremost, nasa should only pay full price if it gets exactly what it needs.  Never more, never less.  That gets it away from the traditional cost-plus contracts, and moves it much further from the Military Industrial Complex.  It shouldn't be Nasa's job to help a company make a profit.  

            Part of that is, as I said, Nasa becoming a buyer of services.  Basically, this would involve nasa moving from owning and operating the vehicle that takes astronauts to space (ie the shuttle, or CEV) to a setup much more like how commerical aviation operates.  In essence, nasa agrees to buy tickets into space, to its space station, from whoever has the best price.  That would go a long way.  And this is the approach many NewSpace companies would like to see.  

            This would allow a real competition, so that we wouldn't have a monopoly on services.  

            Other ways - as you are probably aware, there are commerical companies offering sub-orbital tourist trips - well, Nasa could buy a bulk of these tickets, and use them for astronaut training.  

            Yes, there are vehicles that Nasa will own and operate, but these should be deep space vehicles, where there isn't a near term potential of commerical activities.  

            Anyway, that should give you a good idea.

            by FerrisValyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:55:34 AM PDT

•  Bravo...

  This man impresses me more with each revelation. Unmanned space flight has made the most significant contribution. Think of the space shuttle and trillions wasted and many lives lost. The space station has been another disaster. Compare that with hubble and the other unmanned voyages to the planets and beyond. I seriously hope a president Obama will emphasize the latter. Let the Chinese waste their time in low earth orbit. Let us go to the stars with robots.

  by brod on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:15:17 PM PDT

  •  Manned spaceflight isn't about science

    its about development, settlement, and colonization.  

    And if we aren't investing in off-planet resources, then we are, IMHO, permantly screwed.  

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:21:08 PM PDT

    •  It's also about growth

      In a more metaphysical sense. We either grow, expand, test our limits -- or we stagnate.

      by Victor on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:23:32 PM PDT

    •  Honestly,

      even thinking about development with the technology we have now is like thinking about crossing the Pacific in a rowboat. It costs thousands of dollars to send one kilogram into orbit alone.

      by Desroko on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:49 PM PDT

      •  It cost a lot because of

        the way we operate - it has nothing to do with the technology.  The shuttle has always had problems all around.  But if you look at what companies like SpaceX, and Armadillo Aerospace, and the rest of the Newspace industry, you'd see that we have something much better than a rowboat.

        We are just choosing to use the rowboat

        by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:33:02 PM PDT

        •  Are these companies

          going to reduce the escape velocity of Earth? Because if not, they're not going to significantly reduce the costs.

          by Desroko on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:39:33 PM PDT

          •  You don't need to reduce the earth escape

            velocity.  You just need to use your technology and resources wisely.  WE can design a car that will break down every 2 miles, and requires it to be taken appart for every tune-up, that needs to be done every 10 miles.

            That is how we have opperated in space.  

            by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:43:10 PM PDT

•  Tips for Space Diary

  Hope you write again. I understand very little about how we should pursue space exploration in the future, and I've heard about morale problems at NASA.

  But the Mars rover has certainly been a good thing (that is NASA's doing right?)

  Tip for diary on an under-covered topic.

  by catfish on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:16:55 PM PDT

  •  The Cassini mission has been fascinating too

    Just let Carolyn Porco describe it! She's truly inspiring..

    by valadon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:19:15 PM PDT

  •  As I said, I am planning on

    doing a series, about the importance of manned spaceflight.  I should have time next week.

    I'd like to start my Space Revolution Weekly News back up, but I don't know if I'll have the time.

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:22:53 PM PDT

    •  Great I look forward to it Ferris

      by valadon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:28:38 PM PDT

•  Congress is relevant here, too

  Also, I very much fear that Clinton's space policy would give us Ares 1 combined with the cancellation of Ares V and that could be worse than useless.Ares 1Ares V

  What we most need is a genuine debate so we can forge a sustainable consensus as to WHY we should be sending humans into space rather than blindly assuming that it is a good idea, without analysis or agreement as to why, and which fails to recognize certain levels of dysfunction within NASA as an agency.

  by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM PDT

•  I kinda think that new manned spaceflight

  programs are going to be very hard to start.  Some re-thinking of the NASA mission such that private, economically self-sustaining space operations is in order.  The huge program and cost overhead for the flagship NASA manned operations stifles  many potential cost-reducing innovations in the field and delays any large scale movement in the very direction NASA seeks to lead.

  A re-evaluation has long been in order.

  by Terra Mystica on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:29:04 PM PDT

  •  A re-evaluation is in order

    your right.  And, actually, a lot of the recommendations made by the Aldridge commission, which formed the basis for VSE, embodied a lot of what your talking about, with regards to private, and economically self-sustaining operations.  

    Unfortanlty, that got supplanted by ESAS, and it is a mess.  It does need to be re-evaluated.  But I hope the Senator isn't basing the evaluation on the success/failure of shuttle, or Orion.

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:35:52 PM PDT

•  From what I have surmised from most

  of the comments in this diary is that we all have questions that are relevant to our current space program, putting aside for the moment that most of us would like a robust space program, maybe that's what Obama would have to evaluate too?

  by valadon on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:33:23 PM PDT

  •  I hope so

    but there are many people who can't imagine that we can do effective operations in space, at a significatnly lower cost, and that it can have a significant impact on society.  

    As I said, I hope that my diaries help the Senator to understand this.

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:44:53 PM PDT

•  A poll concerning NASA's budget is here

  LinkLink

  I actually am curious concering what we believe is being spent on human spaceflight each year.

  by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:45:52 PM PDT

•  Ygelsias has a new post up on spaceflight

  http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.c...

  I posted a comment inviting readers to visit our diaries here at Daily Kos.

  by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 05:56:11 PM PDT

•  China to the moon in 2010

  I don't think Obama realized that China space project target to land on the moon in 2010.  They have been working on it since 2002.

  If he knows that the thought about cutting NASA cost shouldn't have crossed his mind if he wants to maintain American prestige in the world.  He should be increasing the funding.

  by JoeySky18 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:00:33 PM PDT

  •  I doubt China can land by 2010

    An Apollo 8 circumnavigation? Yup. They could probably do that by 2010.

    by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM PDT

    •  i think China can

      the western had underestimate china technology a lot.

      but no point arguing,  we will have to wait and see.  

      But I know for sure, they will.

      by JoeySky18 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM PDT

      •  Yup, it is when, not if

        that I agree with.

        by Bill White on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:02:55 PM PDT

•  Being close to a few

  astrophysicists at Cal Berkeley, I have felt that manned space flight might be a little overblown.  That NASA should focus more on hard science.  I always hear about the skimping on funding of solid research projects in favor of these big ticket political projects.  I'm not sure that our space program is as intimately tied to our national pride as it was in the Cold War.

  I know, however, that is is probably a VERY sensitive issue in Houston and that there are more factors involved than just questions of "hard" science.

  I have a paltry science background, though, so I'm going to take some time to read through your links and mull over the issue.

  Thanks for the well sourced diary.  This is an important subject.

  by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:08:28 PM PDT

  •  The problem is

    people seem to think Nasa is a science agency, and that space can only provide for science - thats not true, and doesn't need to be true.

    by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM PDT

    •  Then maybe it should be?

      I don't want to get into an argument or anything because I'm simply not informed enough.  Let me do some reading first.  

      But I'm interested in your response.

      by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:22:18 PM PDT

      •  It depends

        If your arguement is that we need to separate manned spaceflight and space development from the science portion of Nasa, and create 2 agencies, I am very much in favor of that idea.  In fact, I think a lot of Nasa should be split up.  

        If your arguing that Space is only there for scientific understanding, well, then, I'd take issue with that.  

        by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:39:56 PM PDT

        •  Ferris, I essentially agree with you

          on most points.  I read your diary linked in your tag line and the other links you included above.

          I don't really want to get this tied up in the candidate diary wars because your case is solid, well-sourced and really not partisan.  It sounds like a valid criticism of Obama's approach.  

          Have you done a diary about Senator Clinton and her space proposals and record?  I'd definitely read it.  It sounds to me like she's essentially supporting the current NASA direction with public manned flight, but again I have little info.

          I think I agree that Obama should move more to the model that you're suggesting.  I very much agree that we can leverage private money and innovation to get space moving again.  The CEV/Aries project does sound like it might be a waste of a good opportunity to get the next generation right.  I think we could create more jobs by pursing a public-private partnership.  Rather than just pouring money into solely government projects.  IMHO, NASA is a dinosaur as far as manned space flight goes.  Its failures have been costly and terrible.  I'll be interested to see what his forthcoming policy proposals look like.

          I have to say that even though the criticism of Obama is valid and well taken.  I like the fact that he's questioning the assumption that big ticket, public, manned spaceflight is always good.  I also don't have a huge problem with Obama pulling some funding from NASA for more basic problems we have (because they are big, urgent and numerous).  That's why him pulling funding from the Constellation actually seemed like the right decision to me.  As long as it doesn't spell the demise of our efforts at exploration and advancement - which I agree is not just about basic scientific understanding, but also about exploration itself and the benefits we reap from such exploration.  Not to mention jobs.  However, I fear that it may be a hard reality that NASA might need to endure a little more pain.  I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that he wants to kill manned space flight, though.  Do you think that's the direction he's suggesting?  I'm really asking.

          I don't have a big bone in this fight so take my opinion as what it is: opinion.

          I really commend you on excellent diaries.  Thanks.  I'll read any response you have and take it into further consideration.

          by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 08:56:27 PM PDT

          •  I have been intending to do

            a diary about Clinton's policy as well.  Frankly, I find it almost as lacking as I find Obama's.  Clinton has 2 saving graces.  First, she specifically endorses the concept of prizes (because of the success of the X-Prize, this is something space activists have been promoting for a while), and because her policy person on this is Lori Garver, and I trust Lori (having personally talked with her).  The main reason that I haven't done the diary for her is there is an interview she did were she talked about spaceflight quite a bit, and I've never been able to find that interview.  This is, though, the main thing cited when people talk about her space policy.  Hopefully, I can find that interview (I actually know where it is, but I have to pay to be able to see it, and I am cash strapped for everything right now - I am trying alternative routes).

            As for what might happen from the Senator, I am not really certain what he thinks, but my fear is as follows - The Senator comes out of Chicago, from where Jesse Jackson came out of.  I know Jackson was a strong opponent of manned spaceflight, and spaceflight in general.  At the same time, I think any president would be really hard pressed to actually end manned spaceflight at this point.  So, my fear is that, as a token gesture, he would continue the Orion capsule, and the Ares I rocket, and finish the station, and would leave manned spaceflight there.  And that would really hurt manned spaceflight, because everyone could continue to see that "spaceflight is inherently expensive", and it will further convince everyone that spaceflight and off-planet resources are folly.

            The flip side is that he could really want a good understanding, and is willing to look beyond just the scientists, and I think that could be really great.  It just really hard to know at this point, partly because I suspect that both candidates don't really know a lot about space.  

            I can understand and accept a funding cut, and frankly, I think there are a lot of people who support space, who would support a funding cut of the program, provide we got some good reforms in there, like going away from a cost plus contract owner/operator model, to going to a buyer of service model.  Actually, I know I'd support it.  

            by FerrisValyn on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 10:45:01 PM PDT

            •  I agree with one question and one quibble.

              The question is, apart from the link above (which doesn't seem to address this question), do you have a link to Senator Clinton's support of the X-Prize type of approach?  I definitely agree that that's a very good model for the future.  I looked through your links in the diary, but I couldn't find a source for that.

              The quibble I have is your equation of Obama with Jesse Jackson.  I live in Chicago and I really don't see what he has to do with anything.  I also cringe a little (even though I'm sure you didn't mean it) with the association given Bill Clinton's ill chosen (and fundamentally inaccurate) remarks that Obama is running a campaign like Mr. Jackson.  The fact that they're both from Chicago really doesn't indicate much of a correlation in thinking on this, or any other, issue.

              One way or the other, I'll definitely reserve judgment until the more "official" policy proposal comes out.

              Otherwise, I concur and I look forward to a diary on Senator Clinton, if you ever have the time.

              by mrchumchum on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 11:40:13 PM PDT

              •  First concerning hillary

                I should apologize - she released actually 2-3 things, all on the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, and I tend to lump those together, without actually remembering that everything that came out wasn't covered in everything.

                She gave a major speech that day, as part of the announcment of her proposed policies.  During the speech, which can be read here, she specifically talked about prizes

                I've also called for competitive prizes to encourage innovation. Back in 1957, President Eisenhower, when he met with his Scientific Advisory Committee again, wondered if there were a way to keep people as excited about science as they were about sports and competition. And this was back when reality entertainment meant playing in the neighborhood park. Why not encourage people to innovate through healthy competition?

                Hope that answers your question

                As for you quibble - I don't really equate Obama with Jackson.  It more along this line of thought - Chicago has had its problems, between poverty, race, and a political machine that has been too powerful.  During the 60s, (and it has extended to today), it was common to go after the space program, because everyone thought (and some still think) that its nothing more than helping the military.  And Jackson argued against Nasa, and spaceflight, in an op-ed piece, and argued that the funding should be redirected to help the people of Chicago.  And I fully agree there were (and still are) problems relating to poverty in Chicago (of which Senator Obama is familiar with), and in other places.  And, in addition, there is a song, that, while I can't remember details, has a refrain about "all our problems are because whitey is on the moon" (or something close to that).  (I hope I am not coming off as racist, because I really am not)

                Now, all of that said, is that reason to be suspicious of the senator?  Not really, no.  As both you and I have said, the biggest problem is a lack of information.  But the talk about pulling money from Constellation to fund education, without having any sort of a space policy, really did raise my concerns, and struck me as being very similar to Jackson's position.  

                I don't know that that really resolves the quibble, but its the best I have to offer.  

                As I have said, I really don't have a horse in the current presidential race (some of actions of the Hillary campaign (especially on Bill's part) have really annoyed me, and I find both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama lacking when it comes to the issue of going after the Bush administration - I'd like to see whoever becomes president to initiate investigations into what happened during the Bush administration, and if need be, institute criminal proceedings against any and all parties who may have committed criminal acts - but thats really another diary).  

                by FerrisValyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:24:38 AM PDT

              •  Listen mrchumchum

                if you have any questions, or what not, feel free to drop me an email any time.

                BTW, a question, if you don't mind - are you yourself an Obama supporter?  Or a Hillary supporter?  Or like me, and remaining neutral?

                by FerrisValyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:26:13 AM PDT

                •  I'm an Obama supporter

                  but my first priority is reasoned arguments.  You make a compelling case that on the issue of manned space flight, Clinton makes a better case.  As you say, I definitely need more info from Obama to be 100% sure.  

                  I support Obama because, on balance, I think he's the better, more electable candidate.  So (not that you do) but please don't make the assumption that some make that I drank the "kool-aid" or whatever.  If reason leads me to Clinton, then so be it.

                  I like your approach and I'm definitely NOT trying to sway you either way as I can tell that you aren't either.  Thanks for the info and email.  Very informative!

                  by mrchumchum on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 12:55:05 AM PDT

                  •  You should have mail

                    at least shortly.

                    by FerrisValyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:05:27 AM PDT