Floridians Continue Waiting For Answers From Mitt Romney On Future Of Commercial Space, Obama Florida Press Office
“This week, Mitt Romney’s Republican allies in Congress finally dropped their effort to eliminate the competition among the private space industry after the successful launch of SpaceX’s Dragon. While this is a step in the right direction, Floridians still deserve to know where Mitt Romney stands on space issues. While the world watched the historic first commercial spacecraft dock with the International Space Station, Romney’s campaign refused to say if he supported President Obama’s efforts to support and grow America’s commercial space industry. Despite his promise to fire anyone who suggested spending billions of dollars on building a colony on the Moon, after Romney’s Space Advisor Mike Griffin called for just that, Romney still refuses to say if he kept his promise to fire Griffin.”
Obama to Romney: Will You Fire Mike Griffin?, earlier post

63 replies on “Obama Hits Romney Over Space Policy Inconsistencies”

  1. Folks:

    Nice to see the Obama campaign making Spacex the ‘poster boy’ for commercial space policy (although the folks at Spacex may have a different opinion on that).

    I guess Dragon’s flight really was one of those ‘space shots heard around the world’.

    tinker

    1. Tinker

      Falcon Dragon, is an example of what We, the United States of America are capable of. It was a shot straight to the the heart of the pork machine that is stealing are future.

      Obama is a wise man to have have seen Spacexs potential early on. 

      I don’t know all the politics, but at least Obama understands that government should nurture a future space economy instead of burning dollars on Space exploration. But then again he signed off on shovel ready SLS.

      Also Obama seems to like a drone light military foot print as much as I hate drone strikes, that’s smarter than big wars for the next decade. He seems to have learned how to say no to the military war machine.

      A president learns a lot his first term.

      Anyway, whatever

      You and I know Elon Musks and Spacex are the critical path to mars as well has all the other places in space.

      Didn’t I hear Elon say if this doesn’t work nothing will.

      I heard flip floppers like me make up 40 percent of the electorate now. 🙂

      Predator nation

      Charles Ferguson

      Maybe a good read 

      After reading on NASA watch about how a few congressman are not listening to the people. And seem to have robbed us from a future in space I was wondering how similiar that is to the all controlling banking machine that buys our congressmen.

      Privite manned space flight before 2012 no LAS safer than shuttle.

      Falcon heavy shoots a dragon around the moon by 2014

      Upppp!!!

        2. I’m certain neither Orion(EFT-1) or SLS will by then. You many quote me on this.

          1. I don’t believe that the SLS program has ever said they will fly in 18 months.  December 2017 is the date I’ve seen published.  I realize you are being facetious, so no harm no foul.

    2. Obama was “on the right side of history” with COTS.

      I thought the GOP was supposed to have an exclusive on “right side”‘s? What went wrong?

        1. The right talks itself into a rathole all too easily.

          Then they relentless dig themselves in, doing denial.

          Eventually, they “reset”, accommodate, reinvent principles accordingly, and become relevant.

          Then they become excellent. Waiting for this …

    3. SpaceX has finally caught up to where NASA was in the mid 1960’s not really much to crow about now. But if they can man that capsule and dock to ISS they can replicate what Neil and Dave did in Gemini. Then they are only 46 years behind what NASA has done. That is quite a marching army they have in their control room.

      1. Considering that they did what NASA did at dramatically reduced cost, its not really an apples to apples comparison.  Their efficiency is the impressive part, not the act per se.  And even if they are where NASA was in the mid 60’s capability wise, it only took NASA 5 more years to land on the moon.  I think that with the right funding Spacex and company would be not far behind their timeline for going beyond LEO.

      2. >not really much to crow about now.

        Yes, SpaceX doing what NASA did in the 1960s is not much to crow about. However, at this time NASA ***cannot*** do any Gemini/Apollo/Shuttle type missions. It may be years and years before putting a simple capsule (Orion) into orbit. So having SpaceX provide a capability to put humans into space from US soil is impressive.

      3. “Then they are only 46 years behind what NASA has done.”

        So how far behind does that make NASA?

      4.  This is a rather “sour apples” approach to things. Meant to be disingenuous with the objective to harm.

        Perhaps to “buy time” for a different source of success that might be more palatable?

        Soyuz and Shenzhou are the only operational capsule systems right now. Russia finds it quite a challenge to modernize Soyuz, and not without significant risk. China can’t fly Shenzhou except every few years. Clearly Dragon’s got significant advantages – both Russian and Chinese “arsenal space” experts have mentioned already. If SpaceX can compete contemporaneously with two major countries HSF programs, that is a more significant comparison?

        As to Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, the standards to measure against have changed – Chris Kraft was said to have said that Apollo was too dangerous to continue flying. There is no way that NASA would ever let Dragon would even start with as dangerous a base technology in the first place. In fact, Orion is said to be taking as long as it has, because the difficult cost of developing a safe enough environment to pass modern standards.

        So in what way can Dragon be seen like Gemini? Perhaps mostly by the consideration of weight class as a payload.

        So does that mean that we upgrade Dragon to be seen like Apollo or, say MOL, when it flies on a Falcon Heavy?

        And do we again change the standard of comparison when Dragon does a propulsive landing, and gets reused on another flight, by  seeing it like Shuttle?

        Preposterous.

        Perhaps if one is so motivated, a better approach is to apply why Dragon/Falcon is so successful, to improve Orion/SLS success?  Have people work more efficiently in schedule/budget? Or refine architecture / approach / components to hasten/make more competitive it as well?

        Or do we run down, withdraw budget, “poison the well” for one … so we don’t feel so bad about our less successful favorite?

        The American way??? Only if American’s are “two bit”.

      5. John,

        Which Orion contractor do you work for?  Or was your comment somehow supposed to be favorable to NASA?  Either way, I think it backfired.  NASA and SpaceX are on the same side — America’s.

        Steve

  2. Let me see if I can get this write…. Right.  
    W. cancels the Shuttle
    In 2008, while W. was President, NASA signs on with SpaceX. Or the other way around?
     
    Barry adds an extra flight to the Shuttle Program.
    SpaceX successfully fulfills it’s obligations to support the ISS.
    Under Barry, the SLS is born or hatched.  And the Orion still breathes life.
    Barry also ask congress for my commercial funding, 800 million?  They got 500 million?
     
    I will say this, a lot of what I choose a President on, is who is most likely to support NASA and Manned space flight programs.  So, I am fair game to be persuaded to ether candidate.

    1.  Oh..and BARRY CANCELLED Constellation…mmmm and CONGRESS breaths life back into Orion/SLS….

    2. Barry is struggling to win Florida in the next election. I don’t think a lot of the folks are happy around Orlando and Cocoa Beach with the abrupt end of the shuttle program. It would have been politically smarter to string out the shuttle program and gradually disolve it until the next program picked up. But he didn’t do it. Oh well.

      1. President Bush cancelled the Shuttle program in 2004. President Obama added an additional shuttle flight – thus “stringing out” the program longer than would have been the case had President Bush’s plan been followed.

          1.  “Who cancelled the Constellation program and said we had already been to the moon?”

            For what its worth I credit Griffin and congress with killing Constellation through mismanagement and non-support.  Obama, however, did sign the Death Certificate and that upset A LOT of people. 

            As far as the moon “been there, done that” thing goes, I think it was mainly just political.  At the time the Moon First types thought they had hijacked the American space program and diverted it towards their favorite goal.  I think Obama, listening to the space cadets he had hired, jerked the program right back and put it all back in play.  He did that in one speech and in one afternoon.  Very Impressive.

            I’m not a Moon First person or a Mars First person or a ‘Roids First person.  I want a well balanced program that can lead to them all.

            It is my belief that Obama, with what ever other problems he may have, has given the American people their space program back and now we might be able to get somewhere.

    3. >Or the other way around?

      People are already confused about who and what space policy decisions made in past ten years and just think what it will be like in 50 years! Appears your facts are correct but it is confusing how the politicos operate. Reading an article on Wired and so many people commented of how it was Nixon that killed the Apollo program. I guess when a President makes a major space program decision, have it take effect in the next adminstration so the next guy gets the blame (or credit).

    4. President Obama added two flights, if I remember history correctly, the second flight was to bring up the Alpha Magentic Spectrometer?

      Actually President Obama in the 2010 budget requested more funding for heavy lift than it had under President Bush for both his terms.

      He called on NASA to design a new domestic engine and completed and to have the heavy lift design finalized NO LATER than 2015.  It would have actually put us on a faster track then we are now.

      In the 2010 budget President Obama requested 6 billion over 5 years to fully fund multiple  commercial crew teams with two finalists.

  3. W cancelled Shuttle in 2004.
    W Initiated Vision for Space Exploration 2004
    Under W CxP created in response to VSE 2005
    Under W CoTS created 2006
    Under W CoTS Space X selected 2007
    Under O CxP cancelled 2010
    Under O, Bipartisan reaction to Obama’s reckless CxP cancellation forces administration to fund SLS and Orion otherwise everything else at NASA is DOA. O’s  strong arm tactics fail and a stalemate for the agency ensues. 2010-2011
    Under O CCP is initiated, but with bad taste left in bipartisan Congress’ mouth from CxP cancellation it will be painful. 2010-2011
    Under O not much expected on horizon 2012
    Under R not much better 2013

        1. CxP like SLS shares the “eyes too big for one’s stomach” effect.

          Want to have the aircraft carrier per launch vehicle budget (all that yummy pork) … yet not pay for it right now. So give a fat budget and don’t expect anything near term, because it’ll be too small and a compromise will be forced to go with the developmental vehicle as is (too small) before it grows big – why no incrementalism.

          So you get screwed when, guess what, someone does an incremental approach and it works …

          Tough luck.

          1. Incremental approach lolololol
            That’s what I was trying to say lol

            Inner Solar System Incremental Railroad PLAN

            Building our way to affordable Space using commercial Space backed by wise NASA R and D and smart pubic programs that foster commercial development creating the highway to the solar system.

            Inner Solar System Inc.

    2.  CxP cancellation wasn’t reckless, IMHO.  It was a recognition that the project was, as usual for big NASA projects, way behind schedule and over budget.  In this era of shrinking budgets, the architecture chosen for CxP (Griffin’s Ares I and Ares V) was just too big and too expensive and was showing every sign of being economically unsustainable. 

      If anything, the Congress and the Senate restoring funding for a (barely scaled back) Ares V was dumb.  We’re still on the path of an economically unsustainable manned space architecture.

      1. In my opinion, CxP cancellation was reckless. Perhaps it was necessary, but it caught NASA by surprise and there was nothing to replace it. There were ideas about how commercial space would be great, but no contracts towards commercial crewed spaceflight. Even now, there are study contracts but no contracts for actual spacecraft, other than Orion.

        1.  It was actually worst than you might think. The CxP cancellation was decided amongst a handful of senior administration officials with limited input from career NASA people, Center directors were shut out of the process because they were/would not following the script.  The more traditional expectations for a “go forward plan” from NASA were there from all Stakeholders. The shock came when the only plan coming out of the ninth floor was hand waving.  Many were incredulous and thought there was some grand well thought out scheme, but their wasn’t. That’s why there was such strong bipartisan response from the congress to the ill conceived plan to cancel CxP without a believable alternative. Senior career NASA officials reluctantly jumped on the band wagon because they could read the writing on the wall and liked their ninth floor jobs.  Go review the congressional hearings around that time on youtube and you can see for yourself the bipartisan support for CxP and the hilarious “caught in the headlights” look from Bolden. That was the turning point of support for him within the Agency and he has yet to recover. That was the point where his incompetency as a leader was widely revealed. That may be why he has maintained such a low profile in the agency, except for his messages on celebrating Memorial day and other holidays he is absent. 

          1.  This total avoids the objective realities of the commission, which I’m sure you’ll just as easily dispute. Those numbers speak more than any words can do – but you don’t want to hear them, so you don’t.

            No one argues CxP could have been done, the numbers say it shouldn’t be done. The human opinion was biased in wanting it to be done.

            Because it wasn’t enough to be doable.

            Just like the Taos Shuttle compromise shouldn’t have been, as we all know now.

            And because we  can see now that an alternative approach (Dragon) can get just as far – one that “no one” would have dared try to fund back in the Taos days.

            Nostaglia is deadly for NASA HSF.

        2. Cancelling CxP wasn’t reckless, it was good leadership.

          And the only people it ‘caught by surprise’ were the NASA folks with their heads in the sand. It sure as hell didn’t surprise me, or most anyone I know with knowledge of HSF. The only surprise was that it had taken so long.

  4. Much ado about … nothing.

    Face it – ideologues of both will selectively edit history to own advantage. Boring.

    Florida electoral advantage – zip right now. So the effect of this is to say to Florida – “I didn’t screw you”. Romney doesn’t care either way, because he’s not going to get any lift at the moment from, and risks exposure of a)not having anything real to point to, b)stupid space advisers, c)misstatements of position. He doesn’t need it.

    Arsenal space advantage – “I saved you from a dead end CxP and now you have a chance with SLS”. Any non-ideologue at least thinks twice, especially if they know anything about what went on at MSFC/JSC. Better than Romney”s “soft position”.

    Commercial space advantage – slam dunk. Made worse by Wolf’s approach to dealing with COTS 2+, which provides a peculiar situation for Romney. Clearly they were betting on failure and it bit real hard, inept damage control.

    But for most space doesn’t matter … so like I said … nothing.

  5. Who in the Senator Obama election campaign actually made a statement about the five year delay? What that actually ever spoken by Obama or was that an off the cuff statement from some staffer and it was immediately retracted?

    1. A COMMITMENT TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
      Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year.  He will 
      maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue 
      sources in other parts of the government.  The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the 
      NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the 
      government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and 
      reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the 
      CEO pay deductibility loophole.  The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings 
      associated with fighting the war in Iraq. 
      http://obama.3cdn.net/a8dfc… 

      1. I asked where did Senator Obama ever publically speak about this? It was my understanding he never spoke a word about this publically, it was only floated ONCE in a suggested policy statement.

        It was my understanding that a 15 page policy statement was floated. The quip about NASA was exactly EIGHT words in a 15 page policy statement that was floated to see the reaction.

        As Constellation was falling behind 1 year for each year it ran … and was not going to have the Ares 1 until 2 years after we splashed the ISS and the Ares V until 2028 and the Altair lander until 2030+ … I do not understand why there was so much angst about those 8 words in a suggested policy statement that was floated during an election.

        It is the same for Romney’s fire any lunatic that mentions a moon base. I do not take that as serious policy until he actually gets sworn in.

        Politics of what a candidate will do on the campaign trail always seems to differ once they are sitting in the big chair.

    2.  From Wikapedia
      “Barack Obama’s plan for lifetime success through education” (PDF). Obama for America. November 26, 2007. Archived from the original on January 2, 2008. Retrieved November 1, 2011. “The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years…”

  6. I wouldn’t touch this thread. It is way too politicized. I agree with the other story running today that space is becoming/has become too politically polarized.
    Science is, at root, non-political and the nation needs to develop a non-political way of managing federally funded science policy. And they need to do it fast. The stakes are high, and if the parties and their partisans keep shedding blood over table-scraps (which, relative to the federal budget, is a good description of NASA) this country is going to take a major techno-industrial hit in this century.

    1. You were talking about space, and then you suddenly started talking about science. How are they related ?

    2. … if the parties and their partisans keep shedding blood over
      table-scraps (which, relative to the federal budget, is a good
      description of NASA) this country is going to take a major
      techno-industrial hit in this century.
      It already has.

      add:
      OS – yes, but, there’s the realities. Politics is all about playing god with budget. Usually ineptly. And in this case with non-trivial ramifications for national security. Unfortunately, all sides say these things, so its hard to see the bad stuff.

      I started out working on NASA programs. Later got pulled into DC “dark side” by the players on/off til departing. Seeing how the sausage gets made, makes it hard to be objectively “distant” about it. Especially when watching successful projects defunded in favor of unsuccessful ones.

      2. no one of consequence One day, you should write a book or something. So many of us only the outside with limited knowledge- making our best guesses based on supposition and inference. I myself don’t really know much more about the real space policy “sausage making”, as you put it,  than I did 20+ years ago as a student under John Logsdon.Taxpayers really don’t know what goes on- We see billions spent- read that some NASA spacecraft programs are cancelled at 70-90% complete,  read that Air Force and NRO have the same (or better) stuff… The waste! From both parties… since what, the late 50’s? So, I ask you, (and anyone else close to this), is there any prescription/mechanism possible in today’s political climate which can move us back to  seeing a project through to completion?

        As a staunch democrat, I’ll take my half of the blame for the years of previous pork without purpose, and I certainly would have liked more to have come from Constellation than Orion redux , One Ares X launch, and a possibly unneeded reconfigured launch pad at the cape.

        Perhaps some on the GOP side could have seen to finishing up the X-33 (even without the composite tanks for the first flights) and seen to finishing the X-38 for true ISS crew rescue without reliance on bone smacking return of the soyuz.

        In the GOP’s defense- it did see the X-37 through to completion- but that was seen as a military program.

        The takeaway? We still can finish things if there is a perceived National Security value, (and we taxpayers are unaware of any cost overruns until much later) or if the programs are cheap enough to fly under the radar.

        Under a billion? OK and safe. Over 5 billion? Probably military and safe from annual fiddling (except for egregious overruns). 

        NASA’s spacecraft development for that last 12 years has been is in the unfortunate position of that 1-5 billion dollar/year target range. (AKA the “Kill Zone”)

        I am reminded of how long GM limped along (70s-’08) before it made the changes to its culture to return to profitability and relevance (although still not nearly as respected as the late 60’s) 

        In Contrast, despite it’s many small failures (NRO satellites, etc) Boeing never seemed to totally fall behind, or seem irrelevant. It satisfied its most important customers, and bought competitors, even as some of its high profile programs went bust.

        NASA’s customers, in this case, are the myriad scientists that have lost faith in the agency, and the general public, which sees little return on investment. (Spinoffs? really?)

        NASA has to get better, faster at making public what it does well now, identifying and strengthening what it is best at doing, and then either stop funding or transfer out programs and teams which might flourish elsewhere under a different style of management/constituency.

        I don’t want NASA to become irrelevant (the equivalent of a GM bankruptcy)- but without significant change – and soon! I fear that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

        1. I don’t want NASA to become irrelevant
          Nor do I. The issue is about NASA’s role such that it isn’t used so much as a tool as historically it has been.

          … NASA has to get better, …
          It’s trying. The issues are more about what not to do at this stage, while keeping as much heritage intact.

          NASA’s customers, in this case, are the myriad scientists that have lost faith in the agency, and the general public, which sees little return on investment.
          Scientists and engineers have long been cynical of all government agencies, yet if they are going to do anything it certain areas, they have to put up with the nonsense – gets at my issues with practicality mentioned with “old scientist” in a earlier post here.

          In addition, the only way we’ll approach an economic return of any kind, is to expect it to function like existing earthbound institutions while we are continuing to invest carefully, wisely. The conflation of national security blurs this sometimes, so the point is lost for all components – this gets used against rational policy.

          Those like Rep. Wolf get locked on the arms race mentality as cynical outlet too soon, seeing the rest as waste.

          many small failures (NRO satellites, etc)
          No – more the fault in this case of  a grand vision (heh!) not meshing with developed technologies of the time. And not everyone is adept at architectures as they think they are.

          how long GM limped along
          Had a friend who was on GM’s board, and told me a story that fit what I’d seen in other large firms. The issue was they always kicked the can down the road for the real changes, because things were always such that it would shoot too many quarters. Finally, they could do a “reset”.  There are some parallels with NASA – Congress so determined to get advantages for their districts that they pass over  better options in favor of continuing obsolete ones. Where COTS made a difference.

          (AKA the “Kill Zone”)…
          Staffers know this too. Sometimes things are “setup to fail”. My feel is that the smaller programs get more harshly treated, because of the overweening importance of the larger missions outside the “zone”. Unfortunately, the marketing of missions to the public creates a “too big/important to kill”,  especially when we are in “frugal” mode that they then maddeningly get wasteful in the pursuit to save budget. Descoping is thus broken.

          military and safe from annual fiddling
          Not really – they have the same problem, but larger. They are a bit better at adapting, that’s all, and its because they are so much bigger (number of FTE’s).

          We still can finish things if there is a perceived National Security value, (and we taxpayers are unaware of any cost overruns until much later) or if the programs are cheap enough to fly under the radar.
          I wish it were that simple. I think its more about having an architecture for evolving that stays constant over many administrations, rather than having each one wanting to put an imprimatur on how things are rationalized. So immense waste is due to subjective differences not objective ones, to please policymakers who are usually lawyers and caught up in the subjective too much.

          X-37 was all about achieving a military need.  NASA’s interests were dismantled as the then cleaning house went way too far. The cleaning house again cost more than it attempted to save.

          X-33 was a classic blunder with rushing for the wrong reasons. X-38 got hit sadistically for no good reason, at the very worst time for the nation – in hindsight many of these decisions were extremely bad.

          In short, it’s opposing notions of what waste is that drives up total waste, because they are hell bent to only fund one “perfect world” … which is imperfect.

          certainly would have liked more to have come from Constellation than Orion redux…
          Many of us got suckered, myself included. Because one kept expecting a tactical shift in how MSFC would work, which couldn’t happen based on history, given old bad habits.

          The key was asking yourself one question – what was MSFC’s actual, immediate vehicle history of what they had built, not what they thought they could build…

          you should write a book
          John writes much better. Kudos for having such a professor. I’ve learned to appreciate his perspective, especially on mistaken choice of economics with Apollo and Shuttle.

          is there any prescription/mechanism possible in today’s political climate which can move us back to  seeing a project through to completion?
          Yes – in part the COTS model works for disrupting arsenal space “reapportionment”. IMHO that is exactly why Wolf is manipulating commercial crew to in part avoid generating a new industry segment. That makes it hard for his imaginary “perfect world”.

          Elements to make it work – as many non traditional firms that can climb the milestone ladder fast enough to the point that policy makers can’t step in to barter away to an assemblage of primes.

          This comment’s getting too long – you deserved though a response to your reasonable observations/questions.

          1. Salient points all- and 100% agree with conclusion-

            “Elements to make it work – as many non traditional firms that can climb the milestone ladder fast enough to the point that policy makers can’t step in to barter away to an assemblage of primes.”

            Could not agree more. Kinda like escape velocity. Work faster and smarter than those protecting their fiefdoms and trying to keep ya grounded.

    3. Let’s not confuse science policy and space policy here. Yes, science is, at root, non-political. But much of space is not science and is hugely political. Most of human space flight, especially these days with advanced telerobotics, can’t be assumed to be science. That’s not a criticism of human space flight. There are other needs that have to be served.

      I do accept that at this stage in Obama’s campaign challenge, that campaign didn’t have a clue about space policy. It does now. I can’t fault Romney for not having any space policy yet, but it’s fair to point out that Obama has one, and Romney does not. The fact that Obama came up with one gives me no assurance that Romney will. In fact, if you believe his (likely self-declared) space advisers — Mike Griffin and Scott Pace leading a group of achingly old astronauts, Romney would call upon them to create his space policy. There’s a scary thought.

      1. “Most of human space flight, especially these days with advanced telerobotics, can’t be assumed to be science”

        Hobart,

        Could you elaborate on what you mean by this statement, please?  Thank you.

        Steve

        1. Steve 6/8/12

          Why not send private astronauts on falcon dragon which is safer than shuttle?

          Steve,

          As always your thoughts are thro, measured, wise, conservative, and you are most likely correct. (I no longer use the word right when I mean correct lol)

          But  consider this!

          Lol deleted by author till an other time lol

          Anyway 

          I spent an hour with Charley Rose and Jeb Bush last night. Seemed pretty straight forward guy. Good communicator, well I think I know who he is. 

          Who is Mitt Romney????

          Pass the TV remote lol

          Joe Q

      2. What is Obama’s space policy? After his comments early into his first term, I’m somewhat confused.

        He’s in favor of commercial space providing crew transport. I guess he’s in favor of crews going to an asteroid, but not the moon. When is he planning on going to an asteroid? If this hasn’t been decided, when will it be? He’s against any more Moon landings until 2020 or later.

        Anything else?

        Since he’s against going to the moon because we’ve done that before, once we go to an asteroid will he be against going back since we would have then done that? What else is he for? What direction does NASA have for future space activities?

  7. Gentleman, I respectfully disagree with you. I feel President Obama is at best ambivalent to the human exploration of space. I doubt that he really believes in Commercial Space either, he’s just embraced the concept because it involves less money going to NASA.  I’m sure that you’re tired of hearing the same old song from me; but I believe great nation’s should be willing and capable of at least committing one penny of each Federal dollar towards the exploration of space.  The federal government has always had to do a difficult, dangerous and unprofitable. Business is in general are very risk averse, and live & die by the next quarterly profit statement. They’re subject to the laws of torts and can be sued for rainy day. Passenger transportation by air is at best a marginally profitable enterprise; and in the harsher more unforgiving environment of space… well, let’s just say very significant unknowns there.
     
    I believe that the President feels that spending 1% of the federal budget on the exploration of space and development of space technology is at best a waste of money; and at worst would interfere with his socio-political agenda for the country. Nothing I seen in the past 4 years has convinced me otherwise. Many on this website have made much of the irony prominent Republicans, embracing every form of private sector growth, had appeared at times ambivalent to Commercial Space. I see the contradiction in this situation, but suggest it may be explained by Republicans general embrace of both the military industrial complex; and desire to maintain the “high ground” in the new frontier.
     
    I find the opposite argument much more perplexing. Why is it that a president throughout his entire political life has sought to expand the role of government in American life; and has sought to increase governmental employment as a way of improving the economic status of the country; been so persistently adversarial to NASA his employees and contractors? He said because he thinks that the Department of Health and Human Services is much more efficient then NASA? I think not. It’s because transitioning space dollars from the public to the private sector and a discount rate is very attractive to him and “green eyes shade boys”. It’s like the death of 1000 cuts; a few years down the line when the boys from California eventually stub their toe; he is far easier to zero out a funding line to a company like Space X, than it is to cut the knees out from under the Flag Ship Space Expiration Program of the American people. This is especially true if the predictions on the business model our office by a few decimal points. We all know that’s never happened in aviation… don’t we.

    1. Sorry…my Dragon hiccuped.  Here is the edit.

      Gentleman, I respectfully disagree with you. I feel President Obama is at best ambivalent to the human exploration of space. I doubt that he really believes in Commercial Space either, he’s just embraced the concept because it involves less money going to NASA.  I’m sure that you’re tired of hearing the same old song from me; but I believe great nation’s should be willing and capable of at least committing one penny of each Federal dollar towards the exploration of space.  The federal government has always had to do the difficult, dangerous and unprofitable. Business are in general are very risk averse, and live & die by the next quarterly profit statement. They’re subject to the laws of torts and can be sued for rainy day. Passenger transportation by air is at best a marginally profitable enterprise; and in the harsher and more unforgiving environment of space… well, let’s just say there are very significant unknowns there. I believe that the President feels that spending 1% of the federal budget on the exploration of space and development of space technology is at best a waste of money; and at worst would interfere with his socio-political agenda for the country. Nothing I’ve seen in the past 4 years has convinced me otherwise. Many on this website have made much of the irony of prominent Republicans, embracing every form of private sector growth, but have appeared at times ambivalent to Commercial Space. I see the contradiction in this situation, but suggest it may be explained by Republican’s general embrace of both the military industrial complex; and desire to maintain the “high ground” in the new frontier. I find the opposite argument much more perplexing. Why is it that a President who throughout his entire political life has sought to expand the scope & role of government in American life; and has sought to increase governmental employment as a way of improving the economic status of the country; now and on this issue become so persistently adversarial to NASA, its employees and contractors? Is it because he thinks that the Department of Health and Human Services is much more efficient than NASA? I think not. It’s because transitioning space dollars from the public to the private sector; and a discount rate is very attractive to him and “green eyes shade boys”. It’s like the death of 1000 cuts; a few years down the line when the boys from California eventually stub their toe; it is far easier to zero out a funding line to a private company like Space X, than it is to cut the knees out from under the Flag Ship Space Exploration Program of the American People. This is especially true if the predictions on the Comercial Business model ore off by a few decimal points. We all know that’s never happened in aviation… don’t we.

      1. A great nation should get its act together, politically, budgetarily, … – compete sensibly with multiple efforts new/old for space.

        Our country chose to have its head up its ass – for various reasons, the political factions want to be the “survivor” only. Bipartisanship is only about patsies/ graft rather than seeking to find a rational mean.

        Who gives a rats ass whatever Obama’s motivations are? Judge what’s actually being done – we’re getting HSF capability again, that’s what matters.

  8. I agree with Rand Simberg that the only reason Obama got space policy “right” is because he doesn’t care about it.  Given his ideological proclivities, if he did think space was important, he would undoubtedly have proposed some massive, centrally-planned government initiative.

    It’s a classic case of a blind squirrel finding a nut once in a while.

    I am concerned about Romney’s space advisors, though, as well as the (mostly Republican) opponents in Congress.  Somebody once said that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats don’t believe that the free market works within the Earth’s atmosphere, while Republicans don’t believe it works outside it.

    Hopefully, the stunning success of the COTS 2+ mission will speak for itself, and stifle any political attempts to undo it.

    1. It’s a classic case of a blind squirrel finding a nut once in a while.
      This is why I don’t bother with Rand Simberg any more. Too disingenuous. Never underestimate, it leads to intentional misrepresentation. I’d rather take it at face value.

  9. NASA and congress is sold out to corporate interests just like our govt is. Romney or Obama shake it up to a minimal degree.

    If any of politician really had some sense, the would RIF/lay off every single civil servant admin / manager under the age of 50 and retire the rest on reduced benefits. NASA needed that reset button at least a decade ago.

  10. Two arms two arms 

    Grab your iPod, Grab your cell phone, Man  your computer stations! 

    We are at war!! 

    We must defend ourselves, 

    We have the weapons. 

    We have our own arsenal, Spacexs falcon 9 dragon.
    Our arsenal just fired it’s first inexpensive rocket straight  at THEM. It was a bulls eye. 

    THEY have fired back.

    We will fire another missile strike in September. 

    We need boots on the ground!

    We, must be the infantry!

    Our mission, remove those from power that feed their own States pork at our futures expense.  

    How many other space groups are there to go after wolf and company.
    To mount some kind of campaign 
    How could we get a message to go viral before the election.

    It occurred to me that the posts between Steve, Tinker, And No one of Consequence could be the bases of a message that gets copied over and over.

    Or something similiar 

    We the People that want a future in space need to be heard.

    We the people of all countries that want an expanding economy need to be heard.

    We the people of the USA need to STOP those that want to prophet on our Space program and bloated defense dollars shamelessly 

    YOUR future is under attack!!!!

    We have the tools to throw them out. 

    We can create dynamic future. We DO NOT have to settle for THEIR pork hand outs.

    Parallel lines

    Joe Q Voter 

    PS Read below

    From other earlier post where Steve tells us USA voters to do get active.

  11. What does Gov. Romney think about the exploration of space? Why I don’t think he thinks about it at all. He won’t have policy statement on the subject until it’s been vetted by the green eyeshade boys, massaged by the Message Meister’s, and poll tested to within an inch of its life. Before the ink is dry, we will all be sitting around here trying to read the tea leaves contained therein. It will be as good a predictor about the behavior of any potential Romney Administration, as President Obama’s statements about space exploration were during the last election cycle.
     
    If my father were alive, he would say that it’s “beans & squash time boys.” “Belts will be worn tighter for the foreseeable future.”
     
    Thank God for the Department of Defense. If it weren’t for them we wouldn’t have a space program.

  12. “Floridians
    Continue Waiting For Answers From Mitt Romney On Future of Commercial
    Space”

    After watching the 60 minutes story about KSC and how Obama
    flat out lied to the KSC workers, I doubt many of them would put much stock in
    what any politician would say.  That
    being said, it is harder to believe someone who has recently lied to them, so I
    doubt they care what the Obama press office says.

    1.  All that matters on the space coast is flying HSF ASAP again. They remember the post Apollo, and now post Shuttle “lean and mean” times.

Comments are closed.