Coordinated Fact Avoidance Among Romney Space Advisors
Mitt Romney: Lost in Space …, opinion, Jim Kohlenberger (former Obama OSTP official), Space News
“In 2008, the U.S. Government Accountability Office had identified poor planning around the looming space shuttle retirement and its follow-on program as one of 13 “urgent issues” that any new president would have to confront when they came into office in 2009. Because of years of mismatch between vision and resources, the independent Augustine commission found that the Constellation program was not viable under any feasible budget scenario. Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle agreed. Rather than walking away, President Obama knew we had to do better and laid out an ambitious new agenda of human and scientific missions that promise to take NASA and America’s space program to historic new heights.”
… Or Ready to Restore Lost U.S. Leadership in Space?, Opinion, Scott Pace and Eric Anderson, Space News
“Unfortunately, American leadership is in jeopardy. Today we have a space program befitting a president who rejects American exceptionalism, apologizes for America and believes we should be just another nation with a flag. President Barack Obama has put us on a path that cedes our global position as the unequivocal leader in space. For the first time since the dawn of the Space Age, America has chosen to forgo its own capabilities for putting astronauts into space and instead relies on the Russians. The space shuttle’s planned retirement was known on the day President Obama took office, yet the earliest that Americans will again ride American rockets into space is 2016.”
Keith’s note: What a pair of memory-challenged hypocrites.
Its rather odd that Space Adventures CEO Anderson would be party to such comments. in April 2010, when he was Chairman of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Anderson is quoted as saying the following about the Obama Administration’s space policy: “This visionary plan is a master stroke. It’s exactly what NASA needs in order to continue to lead the world in space exploration in the 21st century.” In May 2012, on the occasion of the first launch of the SpaceX Dragon, CSF Chairman Anderson is again quoted, saying “This is a testament to the viability of the commercial spaceflight industry … Congratulations to SpaceX for successfully completing the first steps of this demonstration flight. Elon and his team’s success today is an important milestone in achieving a sustainable space program.”
That’s quite a reversal in opinion for Mr. Anderson given what he is quoted as having said before. Curiously CSF hasn’t changed their stance and Anderson continues to serve on their board.
Its also rather curious that Anderson would be against flying American astronauts (for a fee) on board Russian Soyuz spacecraft and also a plan whereby American commercial vendors (such as SpaceX) would be used to fly cargo and eventually future American crews to the ISS given that Anderson’s company has been taking money from rich Americans to buy seats on the very same Russian Soyuz spacecraft to the ISS. Indeed each sale his company facilitates results in a large check being written to Russian companies. How is that helping the U.S. commercial launch sector? – especially when Gov. Romney has already identified Russia as being “without question our number one geopolitical foe.”
Scott Pace’s comments evidence total amnesia on his part. Regardless of whether you think it was a good or bad idea, the plan to retire the Space Shuttle and rely upon Russia to transport Americans to the ISS for a number of years was put in place by the Bush Administration – not the Obama Administration. After working in the Bush White House to develop that policy, Scott Pace spent 4 years with Mike Griffin at NASA during the Bush Administration implementing this policy. FYI I am told this phenomenon has become known as “Romnesia”
Pace and Anderson lament a gap between Shuttle retirement and first possible U.S. access to space in 2016 yet that date was already accepted as fact for Orion/Constellation while Pace and Mike Griffin were still running NASA. Indeed 2018 was cited as a more realistic estimate. As for the commercial access to space being pursued by SpaceX and others, Mike Griffin (one would assume with Scott Pace’s agreement) signed a number of agreements with private companies to bolster their involvement with NAS A including this one with SpaceX and Orbital in 2008.
In other words Scott Pace and Eric Anderson were most certainly for the things that the Obama Administration has been doing – before they were against them.
– Double Standards and Sour Grapes From the Romney/Griffin Camp, Earlier Post
– The Romney Campaign has a Space Policy Etch-A-Sketch, Earlier Post
Good job, Keith. We have to wonder how it’s possible that people in the spotlight, like these guys, can make such self-contradictory statements at different times and, apparently, not realize how hypocritical it makes them look. I guess that because they’ve labeled their statements as “opinion,” they don’t feel it necessary to reconcile those statements with the facts.
What really bothers me is the realization that they do know how it looks and they apparently don’t care. This was not a slip-up or a misunderstanding; these guys are knowingly making false statements in order to promote their personal political positions, assuming that because so many people are out of touch with actual events they can sell this BS as the new truth. To those who know the real truth, these guys have just branded themselves as not to be trusted.
Steve
Its one thing to take a stand and be consistent. I admire that even if I may not agree with it. But when an oft-quoted pundit says one thing and then reverses himself and does not admit ownership of their previous comments or the odd duality of having both contradictory comments circulating simultaneously, I have to wonder about the veracity of everything that the pundit says.
I agree. I don’t think these guys can be appointed to a position under the next administration whether or not their most recent posturing agrees with the winner or not.
What are they gaming for? Someone that is that publicly political probably shouldn’t be appointed to any science related leadership position. I hope they just revoked their eligibility.
Its nice to see Keith protecting his side in this election.
You keep reading this website. That must say something.
Protecting his side? Good grief.
How about an expectation of fact and consistency?
If Romney becomes president, he will probably embrace Commercial Crew development as his own. Although, I suspect that a certain Utah company (ATK) may suddenly be getting some of the commercial crew development funds in the future.
Marcel F. Williams
We at least have some idea what Obama’s policy is, and while he has been stymied by Congress, he at least provides a path forward. So far as I can tell, despite his rhetoric Romney has said nothing specific. Some people assume he will provide substantial increases in funding for whatever program they believe is neglected under Obama, but I see no evidence for this. He has suggested the overall NASA budget will not increase and will probably shrink. He has derided moon colonies. There appears no way that the budget increase required for manned lunar missions would be feasible under Romney.
Keith,
The Romney white paper’s problem is not with Pres. Obama’s support for commercial crew, and in fact endorses that:
“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.”
Their problem is with the President’s lack of clarity about (and perhaps commitment to) beyond Earth exploration, such that Congress had to craft a compromise plan.
And there’s nothing inconsistent about bemoaning NASA *having* to use Russian human spaceflight services because there’s no other option, and being willing to enable citizen explorers to achieve their dreams on Russian vehicles until American ones become available. The former is a failure of U.S. governmental action over decades, the latter is a temporary business constraint.
– Jim
You apparently did not read what I wrote. I notice that you make no mention whatsoever of the outright and demonstrable contradictions between Anderson’s and Pace’s previous statements and the ones they make in this op ed- to say nothing of the glaring inconsistencies between what Pace is against and what he was once for. I guess this is a preview of how NASA will be run in a Romney Administration.
I am voting for Romney. I strongly hope that he keeps the current management at NASA and does not let Scott Pace and Mike Griffin anywhere near it. Given the apolitical nature of many NASA Administrators I think that is reasonable to hope for. Dan Goldin was a good example of this. In any case NASA seems to be getting less useful all the time. The big action is elsewhere.
It is unlikely in the extreme that Romney would keep Charlie Bolden, Lori Garner and other political appointees in their jobs. Indeed I can all but guarantee that this will not happen.
I’ll wager you that Romney will keep Charlie Bolden and Lori Garner.
No way that Romney would keep Bolden and/or Garver. It is simply not going to happen. Suggest you do a little research on the topic.
I have researched. Romney will keep Bolden and ask him to reassign members under him unlike Obama who just sacked everyone and redefined the vision instead of working with NASA and enhancing its vision and goals.
Romney, like all politicians, have to reward their supporters. NASA is a plumb job for Romney to dole out.
You haven’t adressed any of the points that Jim made. The fact is that commercial crew will not be ready until 2016. Romney is entitled to criticize how long the gap is. Romney didn’t create this gap. Furthermore, your bias for the Democratic party is showing again.
…such that Congress had to craft a compromise plan.
What plan? Ordering that NASA build a rocket without a mission or destination, and a nonviable launch rate?
You call that a plan?
I didn’t say it was a GOOD plan.
There was no need for Congress to draft a compromise plan, much less the intellectually impoverished thing they eventually came up with.
Of course, many people on K Street demanded something other than Obama’s original plan and Congress is well aware of its true constituency.
Perhaps if Democrats in Congress and the White House had actually helped put together a budget that passed the SLS would not have happened. Apparently they had other priorities they felt were more important.
you are dreaming if you believe the porkonauts in congress were going to give up the pork train they have had in their state/district the last 30 years. They want their NASA workers … well …working. NASA can not do some small launch system, it just does not employ enough of the standing army. Congress wants something big .. that requires a lot of ground force personal.
It’s inconsistent when those same people supported the policies that led to a spaceflight gap.
Apparently , Romnesia is contagious…
“Pace and Anderson lament a gap between Shuttle retirement and first possible U.S. access to space in 2016 yet that date was already accepted as fact for Orion/Constellation while Pace and Mike Griffin were still running NASA”
I think the 2016 date needs to be reassessed-I think it has slipped about 7 years in the last 7 years. By my recollection at the start of Constellation in 2005, Griffin was saying that by going with simple, safe and soon they could bring forward the Orion/Ares-1 launch date to 2011 and maybe even 2010 or 2009. At one point when they were looking at the size of Orion they even considered launching it in the Shuttle payload bay so the two would overlap. By the time of the Augustine hearings, in 2008, the Constellation and Orion Managers were telling the hearing that they’d be ready to launch no later than 2014. To which Sally Ride told the hearing she thought 2017 might be achievable but 2018 or 19 was more likely.
Honesty, planning and management is what it is all about, but it has not been happening.
This is why our future in space is in jeopardy as long as we leave it to politicians.