Clinton Campaign Op Ed
Hillary will expand our space potential, op ed, Space News
“We are fortunate to be entering a dynamic new era in space – one that will enable us to explore new worlds, expand our scientific knowledge, push the frontiers of technological innovation, and achieve our boldest aspirations in space. This forward trajectory has been fueled by pragmatic policies that have brought together our brightest minds, and newest technologies, to forge new frontiers. As president, Secretary Clinton will not only build on our progress in space, but will advance inspirational, achievable, and affordable space initiatives.”
“As president, Secretary Clinton will not only build on our progress in space, but will advance inspirational, achievable, and affordable space initiatives.” Oh brother! Here it cometh.
Yup..affordable…..forget it…
Well, if affordable means what I suspect it does, and achievable means not pushing the limits and assuring a low risk of failure, I’m not sure how inspirational this will be.
Mr. Obama had real and serious distractions when he came into office, national problems that dwarfed our petty concerns with space. Not so with Ms. Clinton.
OTOH, we don’t know how bug-nuts Trump supporters will get when he loses. He and his talking-heads are already pushing the rigged-election conspiracy theory. And the same people have already bought into the many, many previous Clinton conspiracies.
So there will be a large group of somewhat deranged voters that every Republican congressman will be trying to hold onto between November and the mid-terms. That means Congress will be obsessed with trying to justify every anti-Clinton rumour with impeachment hearings, etc, in order to paint themselves as on the side of those deranged voters. Clinton will be in constant war-mode, with no time for anything else.
We saw this during the Obama administration, everything from the birther-stuff, to the Jade Helm conspiracies. I expect it will get much worse under Clinton. Some are already “joking” about taking part in armed uprisings if Clinton wins, “I’ll grab my musket”.
[The only way out is if the Dems win Congress. And against Trump, that should have been a shoe-in. But Clinton has no charisma, no ability to actually win people over, only to remain standing when everyone else fails.]
I wonder on what basis Space News thinks that Hillary promises a bright future in space? Obama did not support NASA human space flight at all. Today it has no bona fide goal. There is nothing clear about the direction in which NASA is going. Every major new initiative since Apollo has owed their support and existence to Republican Presidents: Shuttle happened under Nixon and ISS under Reagan. Carter did his best to try and kill the program. Clinton was ready to kill ISS until the Russian justification. Both Bushes tried to initiate bold new initiatives. Obama derailed the last one.
“Obama did not support NASA human space flight at all.”
Well accept for the 6 billion of NEW funding over five years that he called for in 2010 to fully fund commercial crew and the republicans shot down.
Or the republicans in congress only funding his commercial crew proposals at 67% rate to GUARANTEE the U.S. would be dependent on the Russians for his entire eight years and could keep playing that card .. Obama hates human spaceflight… and all the time the republicans
CUT EVERY REQUEST.
Except that very last proposal.. during an election cycle.
You can see the budget requests and how much congress held back here. It was a lead pipe cinch congress was not going to let THIS president get a commercial crew launch during his presidency
http://www.parabolicarc.com…
Commercial crew…we are going to Mars, right? Or was it an asteroid? We are going somewhere, someday. After the last 8 years, I just don’t think anyone knows for sure, where.
Here maybe you forgot what you actually wrote:
“Obama did not support NASA human space flight at all. “
I just showed you the President supports human space flight over a congress that was cutting it.
If you believe THIS congress is going to fund mars, an asteroid, or even the moon, I have some ocean front property in Nevada to sell you.
This congress is funding just enough to keep the lights on, power point presentations and brooms sweeping the halls in their districts.
Commercial transportation and habitats is where the nation is heading, you can pretend it’s not and keep praying for another apollo but it is just is not happening.
NASA is required to determine the benefits and opportunities to be gained from space activities within its budget. NASA determined an affordable flexible path forward to step up to its challenges to explore and discover–economic access to space is number one.
Please take a moment to *read* the advantages of one of these Internal NASA studies linked below.
In contrast, examine today’s programs with zero BEO missions adopted over a decade ago by casting aside depot centric. To do so, the 2000s fiscally conservative Congress wrote, introduced flaws, then did not read the VSE. The VSE beauty in one phrase: “NASA plans to invest in numerous approaches to enable vehicles that may be reused, applied to more than one destination, highly reliable.”
One of the most significant ways to reduce launch costs is to increase flight rate (expendable) and then further reduce flight rate by reuse. Including multiple LVs to reduce single point failures? Then even a smaller capacity LV is required. Fixed cost are key too.
There is not one person who can honestly state SLS/Orion provides “numerous approaches” or “may be reused” or “can be applied to more than one destination”, then add “within budget”.
Its logical then that SLS/Orion cannot survive. That presents opportunities to find new work on the extremely exciting and challenging paths forward, or to where ever the funding shifts (for example renewable energy), or to being unemployed. In the event of the latter, most would prefer a country that provides health care to all. If not, then you support a capitalistic society, and if so, then how can you support SLS/Orion with no commercial launch possibilities?
The tactic played is to present bad policies based on emotions and perceived images and not offer data and evidence. e.g. “We need to explore sooner’ (emotions are driven by self interest!) The tactic is to think for you, tell you that “folks believe”, not data nor evidence.
Imagine the disappointment when shuttle derived Ares I could not get of the ground or Orion could/should not return from an asteriod. That shuttle lost out to Titan unless it flew 28 times. That solids were a major mistake. That inspace refueling is key to affordable exploration.
Leaders stand up and applaud good policy. “We didn’t deny Sputnik was up there (laughter). We didn’t argue about the science (climate change), or shrink our R&D budgets” or deny 50 yrs of oil remain.
Are your leaders based on perceptions and emotions?
=> “Bushes tried to initiate bold new initiatives” with CxP
ARES – “Together, these two vehicles combine to provide America a practical, affordable, and achievable means to realize missions to the Moon and Mars.” Whole world laughs…Note op-ed.
=>”Obama derailed the last one.”Cancelled CxP-could not do the job.
=>”There is nothing clear about the direction in which NASA is going”
NASA plans to demonstrate a deep space transportation system that crew can survive the trips to Mars, an ability to land heavy objects on Mars, ways to harvest resources from asteroids, and many other technologies needed to explore, within budget with the possibility of receiving funding for even more exciting missions forward. The simple act of shifting excessive LV and capsule $ to R&D hardware, whether successful or not, will increase the flight rate of the commercial sector, lowering launch costs, and perhaps enable new markets, like global high speed internet and a SMART Grid, transportation, and drone deliver service, for the benefit of all.
=>”Affordable..forget it” NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives….
http://www.spaceref.com/new…
* Stimulate US commercial launch industry
* Tens of billions of dollars of cost savings
* Lower up-front costs to fit within budget profile
* Allows first NEA/Lunar mission by 2024 using conservative budgets
* Launch every few months rather than once every 12-18 months
* Provides experienced and focused workforce to improve safety
* Operational learning for reduced costs and higher launch reliability.
* Allows multiple competitors for propellant delivery
* Competition drives down costs
* Alternatives available if critical launch failure occurs
* Low-risk, hands-off way for international partners to contribute
* Reduced critical path mission complexity
* Provides additional mission flexibility by variable propellant load
* Commonality with COTS/commercial/DoD vehicles will allow sharing of fixed costs between programs and “right-sized” vehicle for ISS
See other posts for links to more data and evidence….
I hammered on that for a couple years using that link. The SLS “monster” rocket was the only thing that mattered.
Brother you are singing to the choir – although in fairness there are a fair number of people posting here who take a different view on the utility of SLS, some able to make a fairly strong argument.
When the ‘flexible path’ notion was first floated I thought it would be used to support just about any project. I thought that “numerous approaches…to more than one destination” could be badly abused. I saw at the time a huge multiplicity of small and uncoordinated projects.
I was wrong.
And for anything/ everything else.
I’ve always been very active during the campaigns, this year coordinating neighborhood canvassing. Usually it is invigorating but this year it’s – not.