Space Is Now In The Democratic Party Platform (Update)
2016 Democratic Party Platform DRAFT July 1, 2016
Keith’s 7 July note: There is no mention of NASA or anything remotely close to space. No surprise. Platforms are just documents that are more focused on letting party people exercise their narrow interests than being close to anything that will ever really become a presidential administration’s future policies. Besides, space is a niche issue – at best – one that usually becomes a punch line when it does creep into presidential campaigns (Newt Gingrich’s moon base, John Kerry in the bunny suit, etc.) But I worked on the staff of two of Jerry Brown’s campaigns (Gov. Moonbeam), so what do I know? Beam me up.
Keith’s 22 July update: The revised version of the platform (as of 21 July) says: “Pushing beyond the boundaries of what we know is core to who we are as Americans. Democrats are immensely proud of all that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has done-through its achievements in science, technology and exploration-to better understand our place in the universe and inspire and educate generations of young people in this country to pursue careers in science. Space exploration is a reminder that our capacity for curiosity is limitless, and may be matched only by our ability to achieve great things if we work together. Democrats believe in continuing the spirit of discovery that has animated NASA’s exploration of space over the last half century. We will strengthen support for NASA and work in partnership with the international scientific community to launch new missions to space.”
Election 2016 postings
It’s about what I expected. When I think of Hillary Clinton’s space policy, I think basically “more of the same, with maybe more money for SpaceX”.
It’s almost a pity none of her major donors are big space exploration fans who could lobby her to fund a few more robotic missions.
I think you would see this from Trump as well.
For a very long time there have been some at Marshall and Goddard who opined for standards for both HSF and SMD alike. With SpaceX “announcing” they “intend” to go to Mars in 2018 (and working with JPL) maybe we will get more missions.
As for formal space planks in presidential campaigns I am fearful. I do not see it come up at all on the right (I cannot speak for the left). I do know that some congressmen, left and right, genuinely want to do cool stuff with NASA but they always defer to the usual suspects.
Hope I didn’t push it up too much… I just know what I know.
Respectfully,
RE327
About Trump on space:
Donald Trump is all over the place on NASA and space exploration. “It is very sad to see what @BarackObama has done with NASA. He has gutted the program and made us dependent on the Russians,” he tweeted back in 2012 but has also states that he “loves what it represents.”
More recently, though, Trump’s comments on NASA suggest that he has no plans to prioritize its funding. “Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We’ve got to fix our potholes,” Trump told a 10-year-old boy who asked about NASA during a town hall last year.
Trump also seems excited about the privatization of space exploration, saying during the town hall that he “likes that maybe even better” than a public space program. He also suggested that a manned mission to Mars is a lower priority than infrastructure. “Honestly, I think it’s wonderful; I want to rebuild our infrastructure first, ok? I think it’s wonderful.”
As Trump’s campaign continued to gain legitimacy with its growing delegate count, Aerospace America asked both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump 10 questions about space exploration. While Sanders was much more detailed, Trump did give some insight into what he thinks about NASA. When questioned on NASA’s budget, for example, Trump said “our first priority is to restore a strong economic base to this country. Then, we can have a discussion about spending.”
Thank you for posting this but this is nothing formal. This is just Trump’s off the cuff remarks because right now – just being honest here – neither Trump or Clinton has NASA on the mind.
Trump does know (and I think likes) Elon’s 2018 mission to Mars.
Why would anyone oppose a company using its own resources?
Well, LockMart and Boeing come to mind, because these kinds of missions make their Orion/SLS programs look ridiculously expensive. And we can assume that their political puppets would oppose them too.
That would be valid if they only used their own resources. I may be wrong, but I thought SpaceX originally said they would fund a crewed ship to orbit, but in reality relied mostly on NASA funding.
Clinton has spoken fondly of NASA and in 2008 she spoke several times about increasing its budget (in speeches I listened to). She even wrote them a letter about being an astronaut as a teenager… add in her interest in UFOs, and I think that at the very least she’ll be supportive of NASA’s exploration budget.
Based off Trumps quotes above, from a NASA perspective, seems like Clinton is the better candidate (all other issues/factors aside).
On the other hand it’s probably just as well.
But I worked on the staff of two of Jerry Brown’s campaigns (Gov. Moonbeam), so what do I know? Beam me up.
Hey, I ran as a delegate for Jerry Brown for prez to the Dem convention. Great minds think alike….
yeesh
Different Strokes for Different Folks
What a surprise.
Maybe the Trump approach would actually WORK with NASA:
“Let’s stop it completely until we figure out what the hell’s going on.”
I would expect Mr. Trump to be in the ‘starve the beast’ camp, and for those uninformed an argument made easy by pointing to SpaceX.
Hard to tell. Coverage is of the race, not of policy. Candidates aren’t asked serious questions. Newspeople think they are moving the ball when they ask candidates about polls.
Not that this is any indication of future policy, but Mr. Trump is a very good acquaintance of one of the top officers of TEA Party in Space. He has in the past discussed a commercial based space policy. fwiw
Gee, three top officers of Tea Party in Space are listed on your website – and you are one of them. So … which one of the other two are tight with Trump? Isn’t this something you should post on your website? Oh yes – your “organization” is apparently only a website – a website that has not been updated in more than 2 years. Not sure what the relevance of your group is. Just sayin’
You’re suprised they omitted this? I would be surprised if they had included Space in their platform.
Clinton is well aware that Congress is calling the shots right now for NASA so a campaign position would serve no purpose. She has considered Garver for administrator but this looks unlikely as powerful senators suspect she would try to cancel SLS and Orion and would oppose her nomination.
Me 2.
Here is a site that tracks any space policy during the election.. im not sure how often its been updated… but yes.. on both sides space policy has been lacking…
http://www.planetary.org/ge…
It should be stated that this is a draft copy and PREdecisional..
I was correct about the draft but this was not as much as I would have hoped. I would have like to seen how democrats had to fight for commercial space.
This simply says if you are running for president, ***never*** talk about the space program. Look at what happened to anyone in recent years, they get flamed on the space forums, but no real loss as very small percentage of voting population reads these. I also think many people (and politicians) get confused what NASA does based on perception of space systems and related activities comes from fictional sources. Other small agencies don’t seem to have this problem i.e. NOAA, USGS, NIST.
It doesn’t matter. Whoever is elected will need a new commission to look into the future of NASA before they do anything. Then they will hit the reset button afterward so they get their photo op. Then just forget NASA.
As Yogi would say its Déjà vu all over again
Yes, just an endless “do loop” and I remember what a pain those were to fix.
I don’t think we will see much in the GOP platform about space, either. Maybe a mention or a meaningless policy to spite the Democrats for having nothing. As someone else already alluded, I think NASA is now, for better or worse, classified with other agencies like NOAA, USGS, and NIST. Those are definitely really important agencies, but you won’t see many candidates talking about them.
NASA has been in that category for decades, just look at their budget.
Too bad that the platform didn’t also give a boost to private space, a source of immense pride and accomplishment, and an example of the entrepreneurial spirit that is one of pillars of the American Experiment (pardon my unrestrained patriotism).
Well, you can’t get much more generic than that.
In the immortal words of Emil Faber: “Knowledge is Good.”
I wonder what Hillary or Tim say if asked to identify one of the “achievements”?
Apollo!
Yikes, then there has been quite a “dry” spell if they have to go back that far or……….they know squat about NASA and use it as a political prop to counter the Republicans.
Crewed ship. You know, a Dragon with people inside. Into orbit.
The Mars effort is just beginning. We’ll see if they fund it all on their own or get NASA money.