Obama Talks Space In Florida
Guest column: Obama’s space vision, Rusty Schweickart, FL Today
“As President Obama visits the Space Coast today, we are witnessing how his policies are bringing jobs to the area and new hope to the space community. Florida’s Space Coast has become not just the launching pad for commercial rockets to the station and America’s launch pad for the largest heavy-lift rocket that NASA has ever built, but is now also a launching pad for new businesses and jobs of the future. In light of this leadership, Mitt Romney’s candidacy presents a stark choice. Romney claims to support the space program, but like many other issues this election, Romney fails to present Americans a plan for the future of NASA and the program that is forever etched in our nation’s history.”
Republicans’ plan for space program mirrors Obama’s, opinion, FL Today
“Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee have blown it on space. For two years, Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of bungling Brevard County’s signature industry. They hammered him in appearances and interviews for canceling Constellation, botching thousands of shuttle jobs and relying on the Russians for lifts to the International Space Station until private U.S. rockets fly. But given a chance to do better, Republicans in Tampa approved a platform that calls for … staying the course. Their plan is, literally, Obama’s plan.”
Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event: Melbourne, Florida (Excerpt)
“Here on the Space Coast, we started a new era of American exploration that is creating good jobs right here in this county. (Applause.) We’ve begun an ambitious new direction for NASA by laying the groundwork for 21st century space flight and innovation. And just last month, we witnessed an incredible achievement that speaks to the nation’s sense of wonder and our can-do spirit — the United States of America landing Curiosity on Mars. (Applause.)
Obama courts Florida voters over Medicare, space policy, Reuters
The president picked a tricky spot in Florida to make his case. The Melbourne area supported Republican nominee John McCain in 2008 by a wide margin, but demographic changes have made the area more friendly to Democrats, an Obama campaign official said. Mindful of the importance of the space industry to voters in a part of the state that includes the Kennedy Space Center, Obama defended his administration’s handling of the space program during the rally.
Space exploration is star-crossed on campaign trail, Washington Times
Mr. Romney drew laughter during a Republican debate in Florida in January when he proclaimed that he would have fired primary contest rival Newt Gingrich for proposing the establishment of a human colony on the moon. “If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired,'” Mr. Romney quipped. “The idea that corporate America wants to go off to the moon and build a colony there, it may be a big idea, but it’s not a good idea.”
“Rusty” not “Rusky”. I realize he’s a Dem, but calling him Russian is a bit much 🙂 .
Add:
I’m pleased that we’ve got sense back into both at the same time.
But, realistically, you’ll see Romney be a “me too” on all sorts of his rival’s positions – that’s his variation on Nixons “go right in the primaries, and to the center on the national election”. The strategy is to minimize “fear of changing presidents”, while driving up fear/dissapointment in his rival. It’s a gradual approach to wean people from the other guy they still love – a “break up”.
But realistically, either guy isn’t going to do much about HSF but the most frugal position now, which gives us “commercial” (and its derivatives). And if they want to do BEO with it, Exploration Gateway constructed at the ISS, then SEP tug delivered to EML 1/2 and visited by uprated CC is the ticket.
The real advantage of “commercial” is in decoupling defense issues from HSF, such that the national security benefit is not that of proxy mega fantasy weapons but of an efficent (in schedule, cost, and reliable time to field) systems development/deployment capability as demonstrated by HSF exploration. That is the immediate payoff from “commercial” space, where the secondary is allowing it to be used as a springboard for economic development of space based resources by real commercial entities to follow.
And arsenal space, having been reformed, comes back stronger now with a rational basis instead of manic fear mongering.
Add:
I was introduced to Rusty at Ames in the late 70’s when he was off to advise Jerry Brown (Gov MoonBeam!) by a common friend. Some of my students have contacted him over his B612 foundation.
I thought he was nuts at the time.
Vaugely remember another run in during the Shuttle ALT tests with some shared skepticism about Shuttle …
Oops. Typo. Rusty and I have known each other for more 30 years …
Keith:
I envy you your friends who’ve been to high places! 🙂
tinker
Missed a ‘c’ in Schweickart at the top
Mr. C
While watching the debates I heard Rommey saying that we need to build up our military.
Beating the drums! fear?
To me I see this as just a way to build more useless junk to blowup which will only hurt our recovery and our country. I also feel that with him in charge that arsenal space generals would just use his inexperience to their advantage.
I feel safer with a president that wants to spend money to help keep the planet from going Venus sooner than later.
What is your take on the Rommey buildup plan VS the current Obama plans as you understand them.
I feel most info I hear is BS and hopeing you might have a better feel and prehaps more facts.
JOE Q Voter
As much as I like Space. It is not the number one reason I pick a president.
commander and chief first
policies that best use our public and privite strengths second.
I’ll leave Mars to Elon if Ihave too lolol
Getting him help third lol
I’ve been rereading about the Soviet moon program – suggest you do so as well. Note that they wanted to be able at a moment’s notice translate it into a military capability, even if somewhat absurd as a weapons system.
All great countries think this way … even if they don’t talk about it. And since they do … they know the “other guy” does so as well.
Tell me, what kind of “threat” do EELV’s / Falcon Heavy’s / Antares etc … bring to the table? Right, little to none.
That’s what Romney’s alluding to. Its not to be ignored, but … if you’re going to address a range of many different threats, with finite budget … you can’t address them all, you have to hit the big ones first.
The American’s suckered the Soviet’s many times … into overestimating on the wrong “threats” … and spent them dry, causing collapse. This is exactly how China could “own” the US … because they play the reverse game.
The right has completely lost its “mojo” . They are in deep denial about it. I don’t fly with rabid, crazy people, because I don’t like my odds of fighting weather, plane, situation … and a crazy person at 20,000+ ft. Indulging “crazy” to fake “mojo” just exposes naked desperation to gain power, for just the sake of having power. And I’m supposed to believe these guys know how to make strong, “right” moves … at the right time … when the other guys do more of “do what you say, say what you mean”? For the Repub’s to do so, they have to meet a higher standard than the Dem’s (because the Dem’s “fail safe” … e.g. stupid stuff) … and the Repub’s have been working backwards here. So they can’t be trusted to cope with “national security”, because they are an “empty suit” on the subject. Thar’s the scary part.
I’m annoyed with Obama, especially with the handling of the banks. But don’t fall in to the “scary Negro” stuff behind a lot of the noise I hear here. The more nutty it gets, the more sympathy it generates. Sometimes I wonder if the right is trying to generate a landslide for Obama in all that they do.
America has to be very clear eyed about dealing with threats and opportunities, including economic ones. Remarkably little in this election sensibly (you and me and a four function calculator) deals with this.
Yes we have to go out and punch America’s enemies in the nose. But we don’t have to play “Dr. Evil” with insane weapons systems to boot.
BTW, I hate drones … but do you know … that in Afghanistan/Pakistan … they get seen as “God’s lightning bolts” by the tribes there. Can’t be helpful to Taleban, being struck by God … Sorry for all the OT.
Thanks
On this point
“BTW, I hate drones … but do you know … that in Afghanistan/Pakistan … they get seen as “God’s lightning bolts” by the tribes there. Can’t be helpful to Taleban, being struck by God …”
I wouldn’t under estimate any human. Even a simple tribesmen.
The failure of shock and awe comes to mind.
Me and Clem lolol
Just what I’ve been told by feet on the ground.
“drones … but do you know … that in Afghanistan/Pakistan … they get seen as “God’s lightning bolts” by the tribes there. Can’t be helpful to Taleban, being struck by God”
From what little I know of colloquial Arabic (which is, to be fair, nothing), “God” is sometimes used where we might say “fate” or “luck”. (Presumably because it’s blasphemy to suggest fate exists without Allah.) As “In sha’Allah” literally means “As God wills”, but is used to mean either “What happens, happens” fatalism (or “Que sera sera”, if you prefer prefer), or “Knock on wood” wishfulness. (“I’m starting a new job on Monday, insha’Allah”, doesn’t mean “AND SO GOD COMMANDS IT!”)
Hence, it’s possible that by “God’s” lightning, they just mean “random chance”, not actually a judgement from God. A way of dismissing the supposed significance of being hit by the Americans. “Could be a terrorist, could be a birthday party, could be a goat. In sha’Allah.”
Cool to learn
Thanks Paul
I have more space suit vehicle ideas for later
NASA under this administration has been in the greatest state of Chaos I have seen in the last 30 years. While the previous administration’s HSF plans were far from perfect, they did have a plan and one that could have been revectored towards a goal that people could identify with, such as waypoint, Lunar surface, Mars ets. by the current administration. But the cancellation of CxP and the way it was done showed the spite the Obama administration had for the former. Because of their determination to cancel CxP we have a bastardized program with several of the CxP elements still moving forward, but without a coherent organizing strategy. This outcome will also be a failure if some sort of leadership doesn’t step up. As for Charlie….. “God love him” as we say in the south.
Actually, the Obama administration has indeed already largely revectored the plans of the previous administration. One goal that people can identify with is shaping up to be somewhere in cis-lunar space. Most likely a Lagrange point. But also a successful commercial spaceflight program. As to a bastardized program with several of the Cx elements moving forward, you have identically Congress to thank for that. NASA has been told, by Congress, to develop an SLS, without giving any coherent organizing strategy for it. In fact, having done this, Congress is now demanding NASA come up with a coherent organizing strategy for it on their own. Huh?
Yes, the Obama administration had terrible spite, didn’t it, for a program that was understood by leading aerospace engineers and policy experts to be fiscally unexecutable. Gee, I’d have some spite for such a program too!
So thanks to Congress, where we find ourselves is with a marginally, and even perhaps arguably executable program, but that happens to be pretty bastardized. I guess that’s slightly better than a fiscally unexecutable program, no?
IMHO you are describing a, partially true, alternate reality.
Fred,
I’m glad you qualified your statement with “IMHO,” because it is opinion and not consistent with the facts. When I read posts like yours I have to assume that you’re fairly new to NASA Watch, because the same misconception that you’ve expressed has been debunked here many times over by now. So, either you didn’t read the posts that described what really happened, or you for some reason simply choose to reject the facts since they don’t support your beliefs. George W. Bush killed Constellation by refusing to fund it anywhere near adequately. He effectively saddled NASA and the country with something that was not doable. History will show that Congress has done the same thing with SLS — saddled NASA and the country with something that is not doable. Blame should be attached only to where the root causes lie, not on your favorite target, nor on the the guy who just currently happens to be in the White House.
Steve
Steve,
I suppose you are of the mindset that if something is repeated often enough it must be true. Interesting how you view things, when GW was president It was Bush’s fault, yet when BO is president Its the Congress’ fault. I can read your stripes a mile (i mean KM) away.
Fred
That’s a strikingly simplistic comment. Constellation was started by the G. W. Bush administration. Congress went along with it. When Constellation needed the major funding bumps it was based on, W didn’t propose them, and Congress happily agreed with him. The Bush administration should be congratulated for a truly visionary VSE, but then essentially lost lock on it. Maybe W surmised that Congress would never support the major funding bump that Constellation needed, and that’s why he didn’t put that bump in his budget, but that’s HIS problem with HIS plan. He could have announced a smart revision to the program that would tolerate serious budget constraints. He could have made an impassioned plea to Congress for funds. But he didn’t. Not a peep. He walked away.
Obama, on the other hand, was handed an SLS, and basically told to GO DO IT by Congress. He wasn’t given any exploration goals to go with it. His space agency was going to be tasked to figure those out. He ended up putting it in his budget because Congress told him to.
I’m glad you can see stripes, because you sure can’t see policy. But then again, 20/200 vision will show you stripes. Keep your eye on those stripes when you cross the street.
“Live in the moment, the past is history, the future a mystery, the destination unknown.”
Story Musgrave
But, oh well, so much for living in the moment, methinks Story is saying.
We now spend 0.48% of the TOTAL federal budget on NASA. About 1.4% of the discretionary budget. Then again, who’s counting? Evidently not you.
Actually, if you want to do it right, note that the percentage of discretionary spending was 1.74% in Obama’s FY11 budget, and 1.36% from W in his last year. Oops.
Oh give it a rest, you hypocrite. Crocodile tears.
If there’s a reason NASA is not at this moment planning its technology missions to Mars it is you and your friends in congress.
Sabotage, Blame, Bemoan, Berate.
Ah, since you brought up the metaphor:
So you [DELETED] and now you’re complaining about the taste?
Well, at least we’re clear on what makes you tick. This was instructive. Good night!
1) wasn’t it Bush jr who decided to retire the shuttle. and then because advance ordering was cancelled it bacame impossibly expensive to reopen the line. therefore the US has been forced into this period of relying on others, and was placed there by the decision to retire the shuttle without a replacement available.
2) by my reckoning more than 50% of the posts here described constellation as a [PROFANITY DELETED], so not persuing that project should be recommended by the majority of posters, yes?
3) I’ve agree that obama has derailed the direction of NASA with his “the moon ? we’ve been there” comment. but then as i understand from posts here, there is a sizeable camp inside NASA that agrees (and wants to head to Mars without a Lunar base to learn from).
4) politicans say whatever they need to to get elected, and then they have to deal with the realities; re obama in ’08.
I agree with a lot of what Neil Tyson says. As to the quotes you’ve pulled out, let me elaborate a bit.
To the extent that America is fading now, that fading doesn’t depend on our space posture. You have to admit that. Tyson certainly doesn’t think that we’re fading because of our space program.
That the health of space-faring ambitions reflects the future of America, it works both ways. A healthy America can afford space-faring ambitions, probably more than space-faring ambitions determines the health of America. Tyson carefully doesn’t make that distinction. They do go together, I guess, but that’s not saying much.
As to identified goals in space, you evidently haven’t been following the NASA science program. There is an asteroid program. You bet. OSIRIS-Rex is going to do amazing stuff. It’s on the calendar. We’ll be at Pluto in a few years. As to Mars, we have stunned the world and excited Americans with our recent accomplishment there. With regard to human space flight, we have important things to understand from ISS about the long-term survivability of humans in space.
No, what you’re talking about is timelines for putting boots on rocks. Admit it. That’s more specific. Indeed, Obama has failed to lead … in putting boots on rocks. Boots on rocks are an investment in what? Colonization?
Let’s also remember that Tyson is an astrophysicist, and a brilliant reader of American curiosity. But he’s not an economist.
As to Obama’s campaign promise to return to the Moon by 2020, give me a break. When Obama made that promise, he was just pledging to support Constellation which, as far as he knew at the time from the Bush administration (which, as it turned out, had totally lost lock on it) was fiscally executable. It wasn’t. Obama promised to support a fiscally executable program. Constellation wasn’t, as it turned out.
Regarding the quotes from Neil deGrasse Tyson, he can certainly always be counted on for inspiring and challenging words. But for inspiration and relevance, perhaps nothing tops a speech that was made fifty years ago this week on September 12th, 1962. On that hot summer day, John F. Kennedy outlined a vision for space exploration which still resonates. Although most people remember it only as the “We choose to go to the Moon” speech, Kennedy spoke of needs and aspirations well beyond just winning the immediate space race. Kennedy made points in his speech that could be used in many current discussions about human space flight, including this one.
Perhaps too cynically we might assume that this was just a speech, and that beating the Russians to the Moon was all that Kennedy cared about. Whether that is true or not, why pass on our cynicism to the current generation, why not instead share with them the forward looking vision of a young President, who spoke of landing on the Moon as only the first small step in one of mankind’s most important ventures.
Below are some of my favorite highlights that I pulled from President Kennedy’s Rice speech. I hope that in the next couple of days everyone takes time to read his entire speech, not just the excerpts that you will probably be seeing this week.
William Marsh Rice University, Houston, Texas
Wednesday, September 12, 1962, 10:00 a.m.
“Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it–we mean to lead it.”
“our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading space-faring nation.”
“there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people.”
“To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.”
“The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school.”
“the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel”
“To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961 ……. a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year.”
“Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority”
“I think we’re going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don’t think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job.”
that was a long long time ago, in a land far far away. (Sadly)
I think that maybe you are looking at Kennedy’s speech through “to the Moon in this decade whatever the cost” glasses. I think everyone agrees that we won’t see the likes of that type of financial commitment to human spaceflight anytime soon, if ever. However the current debates seem to center around who cancelled what, and what rocky object should we visit next. What we need is for our country to formulate and agree on a space policy that is long term.
To do that we need to establish, or in some cases re-establish principles. Kennedy’s Rice speech provides plenty of principles to consider and hopefully agree upon. Wayne Hale’s recent blog “Space Exploration – A Presidential Priority” provides several more. I think that this week is an appropriate time to use Kennedy’s speech to prepare for the future instead of using it as an excuse to lament about the past. That’s too easy. Both parties need to come to an agreement on principles. Not that this will be easy, in fact in the current political climate it will be very hard. However it’s not impossible and we shouldn’t accept it as such. We should demand that whoever wins the White House work with Congress to reach nonpartisan agreement on the future of the United States involvement in space exploration.
You can quote whoever you want, but care to guess who Neil deGrasse Tyson will vote for? Or 95% of working scientists?
Republican? No. Once they did, well over half of scientists voted Republican. But not for a long time now. And not for a long time to come.
Arguing with the empty chair?
Seems that Obama is just using NASA as a bargaining chip for his reelection,he did it in the 2008 election and he’s doing it again now but today people mustn’t fall for his shenanigans the second time.Remember,”Fool me once,shame on you.Fool me twice, shame on me”. Obama has proven to be a damned liar and to believe he can do better,is foolish,asinine,naive.I believe Romney would do a better job in securing NASA and its future.
Whether the chair is empty or not, you can still trip over it in the dark when you don’t know where you’re going.
CD,
When the banks fail to have the needed money, a lot of essential things don’t happen. When NASA fails to have the needed money, a lot of desirable things don’t happen. And the line between essential and desirable is usually drawn by the majority.
Steve
Which shows that you can be right in the thick of things and still not understand what’s going on around you, even for a smart guy like Kranz, if he said that .
Just like Bush was the guy who both “created” and effectively “killed” Constellation, LBJ both made Apollo happen (not Kennedy) and killed it off (not Nixon) by diverting both money and industry support to an non-winable war and his pet social programs.
Steve
Mr. Driver
If we both live to the year 2030
I bet you by that time we will see human foot prints on mars and more foot prints on the moon by that time. and all this will happen reguardless of what our fools in Washington do.
I await your negitive reviews of the Spacex mars plan whenever they release it some time in the next year.
We ARE going!
I think it is important to see how the two candidates think (While we cannot read minds at least we can try, and of course this is only my opinion).
During the peak of the sub-prime crisis (Lehman Brothers Collapses, Bear Sterns is bought by JP Morgan, etc.), early to mid 2008, several financial entities were bailout. At the same time GM and Chrysler were bleeding but there was not interest by the government at that time to bail them out (they were later bail out in 2009 the actual government). During that time (2008) the common question was why bailing out the financial companies and not the Auto makers: The answer from the financial experts was that the US is not a manufacturing power, but a financial one (I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this statement).
During the fall last year Romney said in an interview that he did not agree with the bailout of GM and Chrysler, which in my opinion, aligns well with the idea that he believes that the US is a financial power. Financiers will always looks for the optimum way to increase revenue, or in our case to reduce the bleeding. Here is the main question about him? will he see any value in the work done by NASA? It does not need to be an economical value, but it needs to be a tangible one, something that you can measure.
How will value the work done by Curiosity? will he re-think HSF (again)? or it will be just inaction, and maybe followed by cancellations (due to de-funding) because the political cost is too high and the debt is too high?
Obama on the other hand is a lawyer and a community organizer (I think the US had plenty of lawyers as presidents with different results). I think the community organizer aspect differentiates him from previous lawyer presidents. He is more interested in the health plan, than the space program, and I think he is deferring to his advisers (when ever they get access to his ear) and does not exceed certain budget.
He believes in education as the way to improve opportunities to people. The problem with that approach is that people will not got to the correct technical area if there are not jobs in that area. I have to tell you, that going into engineering in the 60’s should be glamorous because we were going to the Moon. Now, we don’t know were we are going and people don’t look at aerospace as a good career. People are more interested in financial work, health, internet development.
This is the scary part about the Obama administration, they chastised the people flying in private airplanes. That was a big mistake, even if they were asking for money (auto bail out). The main reason: every time a rich person buys one airplane, it is usually a couple million or more, that goes to good jobs. Right now our trade imbalance is not as bad because the aerospace industry is exporting like crazy. This is one were the democratic bleeding heart did not help.
However, I have to give kudos to this government for keeping in pushing the commercial cargo and the commercial crew transport development.
In my opinion, because their backgrounds, both candidates don’t care about the space program (we need an engineer like Hoover). I think the adviser matter most for the space program, and it can go both ways depending on the adviser political tendencies.
I am more anxious with Romney, as I believe that he will not see value on the space program (at least the civil one) and he has a budget hawk as a VP. Even worst there is always that tendency to undo the work of its predecessor if he was from the other political party. Obama will be a bland and aimless option, but we know where he is headed (hopefully to a selection of a commercial HSF system soon). The risk with him is that he re-shuffles his cabinet and get people that see the space program as a waist of money that can be used for social programs.
sorry about my rambling.
a2c2
“During the fall last year Romney said in an interview that he did not agree with the bailout of GM and Chrysler, which in my opinion, aligns well with the idea that he believes that the US is a financial power.”
I saw that more as his private equity instincts kicking in. People like Romney look for high-value companies which are struggling, allowing them to be cheaply taken over via a leveraged buy-out, stripped of value, stacked with debt, then dumped. Having the government prop up GM/Chrysler so they can recover naturally, would have hurt like a thief seeing someone kindly lock a car-door of a stranger.
Democracy depends on an electorate that evaluates policies objectively, based on critical thinking. This is impossible when many people are so hostile to the President that they see any action taken by the administration as intrinsically evil and interpret reality in terms of their ideology.
I suggest we start by understanding why we went to the moon; discussed at opinionmatters.flatoday.net… . Kennedy was not interested in expansion into space, or its use for scientific or military purposes. It was a symbolic substitute for a perilous nuclear arms race that could have destroyed the world. Kennedy was very clear that the goal was to send a man to the moon and return him safely to the earth. Period. Apollo was cancelled by Nixon in 1974, and correctly so. It no longer served a geopolitical purpose worth its cost.
Obama’s goal in space is entirely different; to make human spaceflight a practical and sustainable enterprise, available to a significant portion of the human race, not just the tiny handful to whom it has been restricted for half a century. This requires that we massively reduce cost and increase international collaboration.