Campaign Roundtable in Florida
Keith’s note: An election-oriented, invitation-only roundtable discussion is being held today in Melbourne, FL. Sponsored by the Economic Development Commission of Florida’s Space Coast, the event features former OSTP Chief of Staff Jim Kohlenberger and Obama for America Florida Policy Director Laurie Watkins. The topic is education and aerospace sector issues affecting Brevard County. Local educators and aerospace companies with a presence in Florida are sending representatives.
Obama campaign to Romney on Space Coast: Where are you on space?, Orlando Sentinel
“Dale Ketcham of the EDC said the Romney campaign has been invited to address the EDC-Space Coast about his space vision, but has not responded. “There’s always a standing invitation from the EDC and this community. We did it for past presidential candidates and candidates for governor, senator, congress. There’s been a tradition and expectation of the candidates coming to this district and talking about their vision for space,” Ketcham said. “There’s certainly time for them, but it would be a little puzzling if they don’t. They’re certainly handing the president a chance to beat them over the head.”
Space Coast leaders pushing presidential candidates on space policy, 13 News
“Jeff Bechdel, Florida Communications Director, Mitt Romney For President issued this statement Friday: “Governor Romney will provide the clear, decisive, and steadfast leadership the space program requires. As President, Romney will bring together leading officials, researchers, and entrepreneurs to establish clear goals and missions for NASA that fulfill its objectives of spurring innovation, pursuing exploration, and symbolizing American exceptionalism.”
This event went well today. Similar events have been held with other candidates, including with Gov. Mitt Romney during the 2008 campaign. They hope to host Romney-2012 campaign folks soon. Kohlenberger cautioned the participants that Romney has not established clear positions on space policy, aside from pledging to “fire” anyone proposing audacious space goals (like a lunar base) and supporting a proposed GOP budget that would dramatically reduce government investments in NASA, education programs, and science and technology development.
Lunar base – audacious? I think not.
I would think that thinking voters might be concerned by such a platform.
Judging by commenters on this site, “thinking voters” aren’t a significant number.
They are outnumbered by:
a) the willful, dare I say enthusiastically ignorant voters,
b) by the panicked fearful voters revved up by some autistic mob,
c) or the pseudo intelligent “what’s in it for me” voters that are catered to by populists of varying stripes who actually secretly promote a special interest behind the scenes out to loot the taxpayer by appearing to favor certain taxpayers under the guise of government “efficiency”.
and, of course, the ever present favorite of
d) the cynical, “its all crap and never going to be different” voters who seem to enjoy “sliding down the razor blade of life” – and vote accordingly.
You forgot the fatalist, “both sides do the same (therefore both sides are exactly the same.)”
Comparing the 2 presidential candidates, here is what we know. 1 pledged to “fire” anyone proposing audacious space goals (like a lunar base) the other actually “fired” the people working on going back to the Moon
Many want to read into candidates what they’d like to hear.
You point out correctly what the candidates actually communicate.
What is truly ironic is how badly both position themselves about space.
The Shuttle program contractors were laid off, though only when there were no parts left for more flights. Constellation became SLS/Orion and is still in place. If anyone working on going back to the moon has been fired, please explain who.
Orion is laying off engineers so fast now it will be down to just managers by the end of the year. I read Nasa Watch almost daily. Most comments are correct but sometimes you people have no clue. Someone must be spending the money Orion does not get because they are out of money.
Did any space policy promised by a presidential candidate in the past 20-30 years ever come to fruition?
http://www.politifact.com/t…
Politicians focus on schmoozing voters to get elected; nothing else. Talking about their childhood dream of shooting rockets is not appropriate until they get elected. Shooting rockets, BTW, is the fun part of being (not getting) elected.
“nothing else.”
Many people have said this or similar over the years. So tell me, when one is facing an election — where elected representatives of the people are being chosen — how do you decide who to vote for?
If they are all just “schmoozers” with no interests except getting voted into office, doesn’t that make anyone who voted for any politician a hypocrite? Doesn’t that make the entire election process a complete sham?
If what you are claiming is true, what are you, as a conscientious citizen, doing about correcting the situation?
Steve
Look well at the faces of those involved with the MSL mission. They are
young and way into their work and undoubtedly want to see it continue –
and they vote.
Mr. Obama never pledged to support Mr. Bush’s Constellation program. Indeed neither did Mr. Bush, who failed to fund it at the level needed to provide any prospect of a lunar landing. Mr Obama, and Mr. Romney (and Mr. McCain in 2008) recognize Constellation would cost much more in tax dollars than American taxpayers are willing to provide.
President Obama did pledge to support the US space program, and he has done so very effectively, replacing Constellation with the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program, which will soon restore US human launch capability.
I will feel the same way. He turned out to be worse than Nixon with space policy. However, Mr. Romney doesn’t seem to have a love for space travel either. His advisors don’t seem to care much either, look at his vague statements on space travel.
attempt to kill Orion is unforgivable.
Is George Bush’s killing of Shuttle support contracts back in 2004 unforgivable? Is killing X-38, X-33, OSP/spirals (that he started!) unforgivable. I could go on for dozens more programs.
The explanation for all of these … was that through the lens of how each president (all from Eisenhower one BTW) sees how to go forward.
Killing Orion makes sense if there’s a circle jerk going between SLS and Orion, simply eating taxpayer dollars, when you can do better with a different program. In that case, wouldn’t you blame Congress … for specifying SLS/CxP/Orion in a stupid manner?
We all can agree that Orion (and X-38!) could have made it to manned flight status BEFORE Shuttle conclusion.
To do so would have meant that it fly on EELV AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED BY VSE.
That’s your original sin.
If you’re going to blame, get it right!
Orion doesn’t need to be killed, it just needs to be split into a universal service module and a commercial crew capsule. The capsule should be given no preferential treatment over the others and should be burdened with no more NASA oversight / interference than the others. Crew transport beyond LEO should be done with commercial crew capsules under free competition. It’s the Orion monopoly that needs to be killed. Whether Orion itself would survive such a change is up to LM.
Undoubtedly the work being done on Orion isn’t being done efficiently, but that doesn’t mean it is completely useless. Kill the monopoly, and let the market sort out if anything can be salvaged.