Romney Adopts Obama Space Policy
Keith’s note: The following was issued by the Romney Camapign:
Romney Campaign: Securing Leadership in Space (with policy paper)
“Embracing A Robust Role For Commercial Space:
Mitt Romney recognizes the exciting opportunity that the commercial space industry offers for technological innovation and commerce. He will establish a clear framework that ensures NASA serves as a constructive partner for private sector initiatives.
– NASA will set the goals and lead the way in human space exploration, working from a clear roadmap in partnership with our allies, research institutions, and the private sector.
– NASA will look whenever possible to the private sector to provide repeatable space-based services like human and cargo transport to and from low Earth orbit. It will provide clear and timely guidance as to expected needs so the private sector can plan and invest accordingly.
– The private sector will handle commercially viable activities — from satellite launches to space tourism to new businesses and industries that U.S. entrepreneurs will no doubt create if provided a friendly environment for doing so. NASA will license technology as soon as is practicable, and aim to facilitate the growth of this sector.
All of these efforts will produce technologies that can be commercialized throughout our economy, spurring growth and job creation and strengthening our competitiveness. “
There is, of course, the required bashing of Romney’s opponent and the prerequsite call for (yet another blue ribbon) panel to fix whatever it is that is broken. Otherwise, in addition to its stated commerical policy (above), the Romney team also mirrors the Obama policy i.e. no clear locations are specified, no time frame is offered, and no budget pledges are made. The space policy advisors listed on the position paper are: Scott Pace (Chair), Mark Albrecht, Eric Anderson, Gene Cernan, Bob Crippen, Michael Griffin, Peter Marquez, and William Martel.
The full text of the policy white paper reads like something out of the cold war. The words “science”, “exploration”, and “research” do not appear in the first paragraph of his signed introduction. Instead, he begins with:
“America’s space program is a strategic national asset crutial to both our security and our economy. The space capabilities of the United States and its allies create strategic military and intelligence advantages that must be maintained.”
This is the Ryan position with Romney’s signature on it. I’m not sure why they don’t just go right to the point and propose transferring NASA to the Defense Department.
The members of the proposed committee are enough to scare me off.
At last….so this is what the “the sincerest form of flattery” sounds like.
“NASA will retain the intellectual capital to conduct research and to develop new generations of spacecraft for government missions that are not commercially viable, but it will promptly transition out of routine spaceoperations in low Earth orbit as private sector capabilities mature.”
Agreed. But intellectual capital erodes when put inside NASA within about 5 years, the warp drive being a case in point. Intellectual capital needs to reside in the universities.
Isn’t this a good idea. Continuing what has already been started instead of canceling the current direction and coming up with yet another one or a variation of it, wasting tax payers money and wasting another 5 years unlike President Obama’s cancellation of the previous administration space exploration vision.
I personally think that this shows leadership and and understanding that american’s are sick and tired of the constant canclations of space programs and the ever back and forth directional changes between the two parties and wanting their vision to be recorded in the history books.
Now, whoever wins the presidency we can be assured that the current space exploration and commercialization will continue in the coming years and our tax money wont be wasted anymore.
Is everything Obama did evil? No. So perhaps he has a good idea by allowing a commercially owned/operated launch to LEO transportation system. Romney apparently agrees the commercial sector should have this access to ownership. At least that aspect will result in at least 1 new system to get people to LEO, regardless of who wins the election. Agreed there are few specifics in Romney’s plan — but I fear they don’t want to give more specifics for fear of some other goal being criticized as unaffordable — again. And for being seen as flip-flopping on certain destinations — i.e. the Moon? I mean there’s probably not much another team of experts could propose for HSF that hasn’t already been thought of or proposed before. We’ve just got to figure out the right architecture to get us back beyond LEO that is affordable (i.e. an architecture that Congress will be OK funding).
Not really sure how you got the title: “Romney adopts Obama Space Policy”? Did you even read the white paper? The only thing that was similar is that Romney agreed that the commercial sector has major a role to play. Agree that there are not a ton of specifics, but that is better than Obama making his specific promises when campaigning in Florida in the last election that he turned around later.
It has the right tone to me. Let’s quit wasting money by with a bunch of programs that have no vision. If we had a leader who could give some clear goals, perhaps we could start being more efficient. They hit the nail on the head when they said we are losing capabilities, experience and knowledge each year that passes that we don’t have a clear plan.
Of course I read the white paper. How else would I know what it says? You can just ignore half of it since the main premise is “Whatever Obama did or did not do is wrong and what I will do is good”. No details needed – none provided. But when they get into details (commerce) they want to do what the Obama folks are already doing.
I’ll grant that the critique part of the paper makes some legitimate arguments, but I’m not optimistic about the goals which haven’t been stated yet being very scientifically interesting.
The entire length of the position paper focuses heavily on looking at NASA not as a scientific or exploration agency but as some combination of national security protection and military power projection, with economic development as a bonus.
This should make anyone interested in pure research very nervous. I suspect that any scientific gains or new knowledge about the universe which may come about under a Romney administration will be accidental or somehow snuck into the details of the missions that the administration assigns to NASA. These missions are likely to all be “pragmatic” rather than bold. JWST is not pragmatic. Exploring Titan, Europa, hunting for habitable planets, none of these things are pragmatic.
Matt,
I think you’ve summed it up exactly correct. And I agree that the unspecified items are almost guaranteed to end up being “national security” programs; that’s been pretty clear all along. Good post.
Steve
“The only thing that was similar is that Romney agreed that the commercial sector has major a role to play.”
That was also the only specific “promise”. So the only thing it specifically mentions is the thing that the
evil/incompetent/leaderless/lying Obama is already doing. And which Republicans (and some Dems) in Congress have been deeply hostile to, even trying to defund entirely. Commercial Crew. Every other line is puffery and woo.
By criticising Obama over job losses, it implies, but does not actually promise, that there will be no more losses under Romney. By criticising funding under Obama, it implies, but does not actually promise, that there will be more money under Romney. By criticising the cancellation of Constellation, it implies, but does not actually promise, that SLS/Orion will continue and perhaps the entire Constellation program will be resurrected.
And by criticising the “lack of leadership” by Obama, it implies, but does not actually name, whatever goal you think NASA should have, Moon, Mars, etc. It implies, but does not actually say, that there’ll be a major Apollo-style program.
The language is very carefully crafted to imply whatever various groups want to hear, without actually promising anything. And it’s no accident. This type of manipulation of language is now down to a science, with careful tracking and testing of sub-groups and phrases that trigger the right psychological responses. Read the paper again, see if you can find a specific claim, a promise, anything other that implying but not saying. Is there a single criticism of Obama that is followed by a promise to reverse or restore that program/budget? But you felt like it did, didn’t you? Read it again. If I’m wrong, quote any specific claims/promises.
[edit: Actually it doesn’t even specify Commercial Crew. So Romney is still free to kill off CC and claim the white paper was referring to NASA’s traditional contractors when it speaks of “the commercial sector”. I’m only assuming it is referring to CC because I am a supporter of CC, and that’s the language that us supporters use. Tricky, huh.]
I don’t understand why they have to name these space policies after the presidents.
1. Space policy of the George W. Bush administration
2. Space policy of the Barack Obama administration
Why doesn’t Space Office of Science and Technology Policy come up with the proposal and direction or some bipartisan team so that the two parties don’t interfere with the future direction of the policy, funding and political battles fought over the space agency?
We just need a president to relinquish control and let Space Office of Science and Technology Policy set the direction for NASA and inform future presidencies that they are not to interfere with the space policy for their own political gains.
Agreed 100%. I’m not waiting for any President to set the “right” goal for NASA, only for some other President to set their version of the “right” goal for NASA. This back and forth, starting and stopping, has got to stop. As a citizen I expect more out of NASA than being a political card to shuffle around.
“We just need a president to relinquish control and let Space Office of
Science and Technology Policy set the direction for NASA and inform
future presidencies that they are not to interfere with the space policy
for their own political gains”
You do understand, do you not, that OSTP *is* a White House office. It is hardly an independent, non-partisan body. OSTP is basically where the “science and technology smarts” of the White House resides. So it’s a little hard for the White House to “relinquish control” of OSTP.
Civics 101. Quiz on Wednesday.
Oh, wait a minute. You want a non-elected group of people to “set the direction for NASA and inform future presidencies that they are
not to interfere with the space policy for their own political gains”? That’s a real ROTFL idea.