This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Mike Pence Once Led An Effort Cancel Shuttle and Constellation Programs To Pay For Katrina

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
August 23, 2018
Mike Pence Once Led An Effort Cancel Shuttle and Constellation Programs To Pay For Katrina

Early Retirement for Space Shuttles Unlikely, Lawmakers Say, space.com (2005)
“A group of Republican lawmakers led by Mike Pence of Indiana last week said the $104 billion to replace the shuttles with a new spaceship and rockets to carry astronauts back to the moon ought to be canceled to help pay to rebuild the hurricane-wrecked Gulf Coast.”
Remarks by Vice President Pence on the Administration’s Space Policy Priorities Houston, TX
“The end of the Space Shuttle Program in 2011 left America without a viable human Space launch program. While I was a member of Congress, I actually had the opportunity to attend three different shuttle launches – some of the most inspiring experiences of my little family’s lives.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

53 responses to “Mike Pence Once Led An Effort Cancel Shuttle and Constellation Programs To Pay For Katrina”

  1. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Ya but but but

    that’s different …

  2. Bob Mahoney says:
    0
    0

    Perhaps ’tis growth in wisdom. It happens.

    • Donald Barker says:
      0
      0

      Everything is probability. And with human behavior, odds are that unless a person has a significant driver to change their thoughts or behaviors it does not happen. And politicians use the most masks to confuse the public as to their real intentions. He does not really care.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      It DOES happen, and it should be encouraged. Still, the term ‘flip flopper’ cost the Democrats the WH not so long ago.

  3. Shaw_Bob says:
    0
    0

    To be fair, the money spent on Constellation, Orion and SLS would have been better spent elsewhere. None of it has led to anything like a sustainable US space effort.

  4. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    The year 2005 was a long, long time ago in a world far away… A very different world where Donald Trump was a loyal Democrat, strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and he was not demonized by the press…

    https://www.youtube.com/wat

    Yes, wouldn’t it be nice to return to that era before Dr. Griffin as “Chief Engineer” steered NASA off a cliff with the Ares I, Ares V and Orion? To return to the era before the ISS became a outdated White Elephant that looks like it will now eternally burn through billions and billions of NASA funding each year for very little ROI? You know, maybe Senator Pence had the right idea even for the wrong reasons. What might NASA look like today if he had succeeded and NASA had been forced to stay with the OSP program instead?

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      “Loyal” democrat? LOL

      Did you actually type that with a straight face?

      trump is only loyal to his mafia family members

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        ROFLOL. You know it amazes me sometimes how many folks have their views so influenced by the media and wanting to be part of the crowd they forget histoy. Reality: Donald Trump and the Clintons were good friends before the election. Or were you referring to the Clintons in your comments 🙂

        https://www.newsweek.com/hi

        “Despite recent rhetoric regarding the former U.S. president, years before he secured the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential election—a feat acknowledged Thursday—Donald Trump and Bill Clinton were longtime friends.

        But now as a Republican contender, Trump is being criticized for his ties to the Clintons—Democrats and fellow New Yorkers who celebrated his 2005 marriage to Melania Knauss with him. Hillary Clinton was granted a front-row seat at the ceremony, and her husband later joined the reception at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. A snapshot taken of the Clintons and the newlywed Trumps has been widely circulated during the primary season; the wedding was dubbed the event that explains the 2016 election During the first GOP debate in August, Trump said the couple “had no choice” but to attend his third wedding, because he had donated generously to the their charitable foundation, as well as to Clinton’s Senate campaigns and her first presidential bid. Never mind that their daughters, Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton, are also known to be friends.

        Nine months ago, The Washington Post reported
        that on a private, casual phone call last spring, Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to play a larger role in the Republican Party. That conversation reportedly took place in May 2015, a month after Hillary Clinton declared her 2016 presidential bid and just weeks before Trump announced his.”

        And I thought only the Soviets were good at rewriting history 🙂

        Again, 2005 was a time long ago in a world far, far away… But it looks like Donald Trump did take his friend’s Bill advice about getting more involved in politics. 🙂

        And bringing this around to Keith’s post. Senator Pence was a fiscal conservative who felt that the increase in spending to recover should be offset by cuts elsewhere, and Dr. Griffin’s Project Constellation looked like a good option because it looked like a boondoggle, which we know it turned out to be.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I believe it’s safe to say Mr. Trump’s actual opinions and motives are a bit opaque. Give that, it’s hard to say how sincere his statements and apparent friends are or were. Maybe he really is or was someone’s close friend. Maybe he just wants or wanted to seem that way for some unstated reason. Maybe he changed his mind. It’s really impossible to say. I know that’s true about anyone, but with more consistent people it’s easier to make a reasonable guess.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I get the sense with Mr. T that his views are primarily opportunistic. The guy is just shallow.

            It’s an observation made with no sense of victory.

            I simply do not understand folks lacking curiosity or who do not read.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            True, and how does that make him any different than other politicians who run for office? Of course coming from the New York Real Estate Industry he is perhaps more outspoken and direct in his comments than those that come before him. Having been born and raised in Chicago in the Mayor Daley era I perhaps appreciate, or at least recognize, that personality more the others.

            If you ever get a chance you might watch the old Rodney Dangerfield movie “Back to School”. The President reminds me very much of the character he played in the movie, a successful NY business entrepreneur who is a returning college student. Here is a classic scene from it to illustrate the point.

            https://www.youtube.com/wat

        • space1999 says:
          0
          0

          According to wikipedia, Mr. Trump was Democratic till 1987, Republican 1987-1999, Reform 1999-2001, Democratic 2001-2009, Republican 2009-2011, Independent 2011-2012, and Republican 2012-present. I’m guessing the party switching started when he first had serious aspirations of becoming president. No doubt every politician is always looking to find that angle that will get her/himself elected… However, the particular angle that Mr. Trump has chosen (attacking the free press, fostering fear of immigrants, etc.) is perhaps more troubling than any president in recent memory.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Your little dance with historical reality is really annoying 🙂

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Yes, facts are inconvenient at times ?

        You want to have fun? Look up the Larry King interview on CNN from 2005 where Larry King is praising him for being so kind and generous or one of his old interviews on Oprah and see how nice they get along talking about how dumb Republicans are. ?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Unfortunately, that may say more about the media and other politicians than it does about President Trump. There is a long list of really nasty people, across the entire political spectrum, who were, at one time or another, hailed as wonderful people doing great things.

          That may or may not apply to Mr. Trump, but it does mean we should take some things with a grain of salt. What Larry King or Oprah said about someone over a decade ago says very little about what that person is really like. Just what some people said about him.

          I remember when Mr. Clinton was President and in trouble over an affair with an intern. Today, that would be almost a hanging offense (well, not quite, but you know what I mean.) Several people I knew who were very strongly opposed to that sort of thing privately admitted that he was probably a horrible person. But they went on to say that they had to publicly defend him since he pushed for laws they favored. So let’s not get carried away with what people publically say about elected officials.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Exactly! And you see the same in how news media reports on public figures and other events over the years. I always tell my students to take any news story with a grain of salt until they are able to verify it from other independent news sources. And always take into account how Media is concentrated in New York, California and Washington D.C. which does influence its viewpoint of the world.

            And there is the political environment at the time as well. In the case of this story on Senator Pence, he was part of a group pushing at the time for the government to be more fiscally responsible after spending exploded under President Bush and not letting the national debt balloon. Remember, in 2000 the National Debt was on track to be paid off in 2009. Indiana receives little benefit from the NASA budget, and the public often over estimates spending on space, so replacing the Shuttle with Dr. Griffin’s very expensive new rockets was a good target of opportunity for Congress members from non-NASA states opposing the expanding National Debt.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          (If this is too far off the rails, Keith will flag it, but I hope he doesn’t):

          Is this search for consistency helpful in any way? Nobody is completely consistent, and here is a personal example:

          I was very active in the civil rights movement in the early 1970s. Those were very rough days, times when carrying a sign in Louisiana was truly dangerous.

          And I’m only pointing this out because at the same time, and now as an adult, the notion that a university is obliged to reserve a certain number of seats for this group, or that, is something that I simply cannot support.

          This isn’t the place to discuss the wherefore’s. But it IS relevant as an example that people are complicated. My friends from those days are horrified by my feeling on bussing, too. But there you go.

          Looking for consistency is a good way to waste time. And the same thing goes with time: the views of thoughtful people evolve over time.

          If they do not evolve you are dealing with- shall I say it? – a politician!

  5. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    There is a stark contrast between this view and when you said (just hours earlier), “Now we have a Vice President who clearly does care about space – and then some. No argument there.”

    Pence is a politician. A really slick talking politician. But I don’t see him “caring” about space anymore than he cares about anything else. As a vice president, space is something he can “care” about since NASA is not a major focus of this Administration. In other words, the vice president only gets to do as much, or as little, as the president wants. So, what this says to me is that Trump really doesn’t care about NASA.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Our VP places much more value on the hours he spends each Sunday morning than on anything else.

      Not (necessarily) a bad thing, depending on your views. But important to understand.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      Before he was a governor, now a US VP. Larger constituency now.

    • robert_law says:
      0
      0

      It was Obama who did not care about the space program , President Trump made a promise about sorting the mess at NASA and he has deliverd , one of the most important things he has done is re set up the space council ending 30 years of drift in US space policy , He has givenn NASA a mandated to return to the Moon

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        You missed the part about how the Obama Administration kept trying to increase funding for commercial crew and send humans to Mars.

  6. Donald Barker says:
    0
    0

    In this age of mass media and instant gratification (the greatest experiment on the 200,000 year old Homo sapiens brain) more and more people are susceptible to varying degrees of persuasion that they themselves cant even detect. And absent a compete history of any given humans behavior its becoming more difficult to really know another persons true intentions. Fortunately in our political system, a certain amount of data is collected that can help us examine human behavior. Given the low probability that thought process change without clear motivation, it is “highly” unlikely that Pence or Trump really care about this countries space program or even have a clue as to where it should be going. But they do have skillful speech writers. I would like to see any one of them stand up and give a coherent 30 minute talk without their teleprompters. Not gonna happen.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Glad you agree that President Obama was anti-space and only pretended to support it to get carry the state of Florida and to get his photo-op with Astronauts as a space “visionary”. ?

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        (plopped on the couch eating popcorn waiting for the anti Obama trope)

        LOL .. you never disappoint .. incase you missed it ..

        “Given the low probability that thought process change without clear motivation, it is “highly” unlikely that Pence or Trump really care about this countries space program or even have a clue as to where it should be going.”

        He was talking about trump .. not President Obama .. I know it is hard to focus on trump longer that he focuses on a policy paper handed to him ..

        BUT

        he was talking about the CURRENT person in the white house .. not a history screed on past holders.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          But the point is that there is no difference between the past and present. It’s just business as usual.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            No actually that is not the point. The actual point is the fact you are totally predictable in that everyone KNOWS that any thing anti trump will be IMMEDIATELY followed up by you with a “but Obama did X Y Z”

            THAT is the point.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            While I am rarely in agreement with Dr. M, I appreciate his consistency and thoughtfulness.

            So I’m not sure I get your point, V?

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Tomorrow if someone mentions trump
            next week if someone mentions trump
            next month if someone mentions trump

            https://uploads.disquscdn.c

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Thank for illustrating the basic problem the Democrats have, being so obsessed with President Trump they have no message or policy other than being opposite to him. You see everything as Trump/AntiTrump. You criticize his space policy but what exactly is the Democrat Platform on space? How is it different and why?

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            “with President Trump they have no message or policy other than being opposite to him”

            Things that come to mind on reading this comment, and in no particular order:

            • the malleability of Party ‘official policy’. Mr. Gore, as an instance (and previously Mr. Clinton in the election for his second term), was hammered over the issue of ‘values’. Nowadays, as Mr. Vlad relishes, our Republican friends simply try to change the subject even though the offenses are orders of magnitude more egregious;

            • during those all-too-short years when the Democrats dominated Washington, and including one brief period when they controlled everything, Republicans loved to yammer on and on and on about ‘obvious sins’ yet provided no alternative;
            • a good example of which would be the budget issue (related as well to the first example above).

            I’ve sharply criticized by right-wing friends for inaction and failure to lead. And I’ve been very critical of those insisting that ‘all politicians’ are alike.

            It is entirely possible that I am maturing.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Because it is important to put the current Administration space policy and politics in perspective instead of treating it as being radically different.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            I do not think the historical evidence supports this view. Barack obana, while a candidate, had Lori Garver as an adviser and is the only president to have cancelled the project virtually bnone of us still support, Constellation/SLS/Orion. He used the savings to fun an agressive program in space technology and vastly accelerated Commercial Cargo and Crew using Space Act Agreements rather than the stultifying FAR process. Unfortunately Congress under Republicans took direct control of NASA by legislative micromanagement, forced Constellation to be reborn as SLS, slashed space technology and Commercial Crew, delayibng the return of human spaceflight by years, and have repeatedly tried to undercut ISS and any programs that would lower cost and lead to opening LEO to large numbers of commercial workers and tourists.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Lori Graver was working with the Hillary Clinton campaign until after the Democrat Primaries were over. Senator Obama original statement on cutting NASA and Constellation funding and using the money for education was made at the very start of primaries.

      • Donald Barker says:
        0
        0

        Actually to be fair, by assessing “realized” campaigning and ultimately fiscal support, no president or congress has cared about the space program much (Kennedy cared in as much as to whether we beat the Soviets) except where an accident occurred, which caused them to be either concerned or lose face on the world stage. Its very sad that this “enlightened” society cant get out of the mire of ego, greed and narcissism to see what really needs to be done for a long, safe and growing future. – but I’m glad your glad.

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          Here I have to disagree. Congress has created a system where you can not mess with space funding at NASA directly but has tied it with bigger spending bills making it to expensive politically to go after the pork. They have also utilized the FAR contracting as a pork delivery system.

          The executive branch as been pointing this out since President Nixon. We saw President Reagan change NASA’s mandate adding that NASA should agressively pursue commercial opportunities and did The Commercial Space Launch Act. This was followed up by white house after white house. President Clinton brought the Commercial Space Act ordering the bringing of commercial cargo and cres. With President Bush bringing in commercial cargo in exchange for constellation and President Obama commercial crew in exchange for SLS. Now we are seeing the defunding of the ISS and a possible move to commercial destinations in LEO.

          The executive branch as slowly eroded congress’s power over human spaceflight.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes. But a correction should be noted. It is not a defunding of ISS, merely discussing if a space station that was only designed to be operational until 2015 should continue to be extended beyond the current cutoff date.

            And as an international project the U.S. does not have the authority to make the decision by itself but must discuss it with the 15 other international partners and have them agree to it.

            Given that it is good thing that the discussion is start now, many years before the current international agreement runs out.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Not Congress, but President Johnson who knew how Washington worked and so he spread the NASA Centers around in states that are politically important. Texas, Florida, California, Maryland and Ohio have always been strategic politically and so they have NASA Centers, as opposed to states like Vermont, North Dakota, Idaho, etc., that have little political significance.

            You saw it in the 2008 election when Candidate Obama, coming from a non-NASA State first sought to cut its budget but reversed himself when he realized he would never carry Florida, a NASA state, if he did. Indiana is also a non-NASA state, but Texas and Florida are, and surprise of surprises you see a similar policy shift as Keith’s post shows.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            “reversed himself when he realized he would never carry Florida, a NASA state”

            Come on. Neither of us know the reasoning for this change; assigning motivation in absence of facts is repugnant. And not useful.

            Although you could be right. But who knows?

      • sunman42 says:
        0
        0

        Has there ever been a President that used NASA for anything other than political (and geopolitical) purposes?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          Not that I can think of, but how does make NASA unique? How often have Presidents used _any_ government agency for anything other than political (and geopolitical) purposes? Even the best presidential policies have generally had an element of improving his standing with the voters or his public image.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Bingo! Once you understand that then you might have a chance of formulating a space policy that will get you where you want to go.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          I wonder about that: is it fair to say that, unlike many other governmental agencies, NASA really has no constituency? Does that make a difference?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m not sure how many government agencies really have a constituency. I wouldn’t say the Department of Transportation does, and they have about for times the budget of NASA. Do people write to their congressmen about DoT funding? Or major companies pay to lobby for (or against) DoT policies and plans? Except when a bridge collapses, I don’t recall this being a hot political topic.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        I want to stress that I do not feel blanket political cricism is helpful in this context, as partisanship is divisive, undermines democracy, and prevents us from identifying useful strategies to achieve common interests. However it is pejorative to claim that “we agree Obama was anti-space.” You are of course entitled to your opinion, but not to make assertions about the opinions of others.

        Obama chose Lori Garver as a campaign adviser because he considered space an important issue. He attempted the most significant change in NASA direction since the cancellation of the Shuttle under Bush by ordering the cancellation of Constillation, including the elements that became SLS/Orion. He reallocated the funds to a major investment in space technology, and accelerated Commercial Crew and Cargo. All these iniiatives were reversed by Republican majorities in Congress, applying legislative micromanagement of appropriations. Obama could not cancel SLS and was forced to do the best he could and continue to propose increases in the most important of the programs, Commercial Crew.

        So no, there is no evidence that Obama was anti-space, only that the Republican congress, particularly the House Appropriations Committee, was both partisan and shortsighted.

  7. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Well, huh: He once backed at least one good idea.

  8. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    I read some years ago Paul Shawcross at NASA HQ said just after Columbia accident we should no longer fly the Shuttle, splash the ISS so can cut NASA budget in half. And focus remaining half on technology development. Anyone know more?

    I also remember in 1980s various mentions by Reagan’s science advisor George Keyworth wanted to cancel Shuttle. I was confused why this science advisor was “anti-space program” but maybe he was on to something: the Shuttle led NASA to become a spacecraft ops organization instead of spacecraft development organization?

    It all leads me to wonder what the real movers and shakers in Washington DC are really thinking especially now.

  9. BigTedd says:
    0
    0

    Could always build a few less Aircraft carriers and pay for the space program 🙂

  10. moon2mars says:
    0
    0

    I guess Keith has given up in frustration trying to keep political opinion out of this venue. The same ol NASAwatch suspects continually pull out their worn out opinions and biases for all to see. To say that this has all grown tiresome is a major understatement. Whenever I bother to read this political tripe it is for laughs.

  11. DJE51 says:
    0
    0

    The problem with this speech is that most of the public will assume he means return to the surface of the moon. Although he does mention the surface, he is mostly talking about the “vicinity” of the moon, ie a lunar space station, or Lunar Orbital Platform -Gateway (LOP-G). This would allow astronauts to spend a month or so in a highly dangerous environment, for one reason only, because NASA can’t afford a human lander, and they need something to do with their new hardware, the SLS and Orion. They need to start planning and funding a lunar lander so they can build a properly protected lunar base, covered with regolith. I think they should divert all the money going to LOP-G to a new lander and surface ops.