Republican Party Platform Verbiage on Space
America’s Future in Space: Continuing this Quest, Republican Platform (page 28)
“The exploration of space has been a key part of U.S. global leadership and has supported innovation and ownership of technology. Over the last half century, in partnership with our aerospace industry, the work of NASA has helped define and strengthen our nation’s technological prowess. From building the world’s most powerful rockets to landing men on the Moon, sending robotic spacecraft throughout our solar system and beyond, building the International Space Station, and launching space-based telescopes that allow scientists to better understand our universe, NASA science and engineering have produced spectacular results. The technologies that emerged from those programs propelled our aerospace industrial base and directly benefit our national security, safety, economy, and quality of life. Through its achievements, NASA has inspired generations of Americans to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, leading to careers that drive our country’s technological and economic engines.
Today, America’s leadership in space is challenged by countries eager to emulate–and surpass– NASA’s accomplishments. To preserve our national security interests and foster innovation and competitiveness, we must sustain our preeminence in space, launching more science missions, guaranteeing unfettered access, and maintaining a source of high-value American jobs.”
“To preserve our national security interests and foster innovation and competitiveness, we must sustain our preeminence in space, launching
more science missions, guaranteeing unfettered access, and maintaining a
source of high-value American jobs.”
If I had my human space flight proponent hat on while reading this, I’d be quaking in my boots. To the GOP, the looking-forward words here are evidently about science, jobs, and unfettered access (whatever that means). Access to space is quite different than HUMAN access to space, and even human access to space can be achieved without sending anyone anywhere. I’m guessing that self-declared Romney adviser Mike Griffin wasn’t ever asked to contribute to,or even review these words.
Folks:
“NASA this, NASA that. National security this, Jobs, jobs, jobs…”. Not a single word about commercial space accomplishments over the last four years… Oops! Oh, the GOP can’t mention that! Voters might construe that their ‘opponent’ might be somehow responsible for said successes.
Space isn’t a big issue for either party (aside from the rhetoric about relying on foreign crew transport to ISS) because space ‘policy’ has outgrown the need for political intervention. If fact, the space industry would do better if politicians just left it alone. Their interference can only hinder at this point in time.
tinker
This is one of the worst party platforms regarding space ever. I would have more respect for them if they just came out and said. “We hate NASA….abolish it.”
This is one of the most non-existent party platforms regarding space ever. I would sum up their thinking slightly differently, as: We have no real interest in space, except with respect to how it may affect our national security. We don’t think developing space in any way is important, although we can’t give you any reasons why not, because we don’t really know. Our space policy is to avoid the issue for as long as possible and then figure out something at a later date when we’re forced to, because, at his time, we really haven’t got a clue, and don’t much care. Our platform revolves around money, period. Every other issue is in distant second place.
That’s how I see it.
Steve
No matter whether its Obama or Romney in the White House from Jan. 2013, don’t expect much support for NASA from either side. Even if one party controls both houses of Congress things won’t improve. What matters here is what they are NOT saying – specifically that the combination of sequestration and tax rises will mean discretionary spending by government – irrespective of the governing party – will be cut way back. The NASA budget is low hanging fruit, and Obama will cut it because he does not see it as important and wants to minimise pain on social welfare programs, and Romney will cut it because he wants to preserve Defence spending, and reduce debt. NASA is in a classic lose-lose situation either way. Senate pork-barrel programs such as SLS may continue, sucking out whatever is left, but forget high-vision ideas like manned spaceflight beyond LEO. Its simply not going to happen until some external event – such as a clear Chinese attempt at a manned lunar mission – emerges to galvanise the US government into action. Once again – as it was in 1961 – we will be coming from behind.
If I were thinking about where I’d place my bets on the US future human spaceflight program, I’d be solidly supporting commercial space, and hoping that they can do more than haul cargo and people to the ISS and back. Putting faith in NASA’s ability to deliver is a very bad bet, in my view.
Dr. Malcolm Davis
Gold Coast, Australia
Malcolm,
I agree with assessment completely, but there is one thing I see a little differently. You seem to completely unlink government spending and commercial space. Quite aside from its likelihood, there is no reason that tax dollars couldn’t be applied to commercial space contracts without including NASA in the loop. The COTS program, and related programs, are already pretty much defined and in place, so pulling NASA involvement out of the process (if they receive no budgeting for it specifically) would be equivalent to changing the program manager, and would likely actually turn out to be cheaper overall (assuming that NASA doesn’t sabotage things). In fact, this would be a precedent that I’d like to see set — let NASA manage the requirements and program definition stages and then get completely out of the way and let the contractor who wins the job manage the program, just like in other industries. The only TBD that I can see is who, on the government side, handles the contract management job, but there are several candidates. Then the whole thing becomes little different from any purchased product procurement. This wouldn’t work for all “space” programs, but I think it would be both effective and cost effective for those programs where it is appropriate, since it utilizes NASA’s strengths and gets them out of those functions that they’re weak at. We need to think less about NASA’s gains and more about the country’s (people’s) gains.
Steve