Trump and Clinton Campaigns Talk Space
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump weigh in on U.S. space policy, Space News
“TRUMP: After taking office, we will have a comprehensive review of our plans for space, and will work with Congress to set both priorities and mission.”
“CLINTON Today, thanks to decades of successful American robotic explorers, we know more about the universe than ever before. We have learned that asteroids have shaped life on our home planet and will likely affect our future. Their scientific value and their potential as a resource make them valuable targets for further exploration. Many of the technologies we need to send astronauts to an asteroid can also serve as foundational technologies that will be necessary to make human exploration of Mars possible. While President Kennedy set NASA on a course to win the race against Russia to get to the moon, today, human spaceflight is a global endeavor, with astronauts and cosmonauts living and working together on the International Space Station — a remarkable facility developed with 15 international partners. America should continue to push the boundaries of space and lead a global effort of exploration. I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of human space flight. My administration will continue to invest in this worthwhile endeavor. Mars is a consensus horizon goal, though to send humans safely, we still need to advance the technologies required to mitigate the effects of long-duration, deep-space flight.”
Keith’s note: In other words Trump has no idea. Clinton, on the other hand …
Trump has no idea.
Clinton on the other hand said the same nothing in a lot more words.
Don’t get your hopes up. There are bigger fish for both of them to fry.
Yes, there are bigger fish to fry. And the words can be construed to come to the same conclusion (although that point can be argued; I would say they don’t).
But the words are quite illuminating. Trump shows a complete ignorance of the subject (much as he does with everything; he is fundamentally uninterested in everything but himself). Clinton shows a level of knowledge on what NASA has accomplished and future goals that, to me, is quite surprising (and heartening). This points to someone with a broad interest in many things. So which would you rather have in charge when it comes to both the big AND the little fish?
A level of knowledge? She needs to be told that no…the plan is not to send astronauts to an asteroid…it is to bring a rock to them. Big difference….and it has very little to do with going to Mars
She didn’t say NASA had plans to send astronauts to an asteroid. That was said by the reporter:
“6. NASA currently plans to send astronauts to an asteroid in the mid-2020s and to send astronauts to Mars in the 2030s. Do you support those plans? Why or why not?”
Clinton did not say NASA was sending astronauts to an asteroid, she said developing the technology to do so would facilitate human flight to Mars. Which is true.
Somehow, I’m not encouraged. I see someone saying, “I don’t know anything about it and I don’t care” and another person saying, “I’ve looked into the details and I don’t care.”
I suppose that’s unfair to both candidates: They have said they care about the space program. But they have also made it clear they don’t care enough to do anything significant.
Your conclusion may be true, but Clinton’s statement was a pretty darn good overview. Whoever wrote that has a decent grip on things.
It should be; someone on her campaign wrote it, and it was probably poll tested not to offend any one, and may have been initialed by her somewhere in the air between one campaign stop and the next. Look at her inner circle and tell me they sit around o Friday nights over pizza and a beer and talk about BEO policy.
Mr. Trump is even worse. The man is running for commander in chief and was clueless when asked about the nuclear triad a cornerstone of our defense policy for over 50 years. Trust me, he neither knows or cares about space policy.
This is the biggest failure of the political system of the country since the pre Civil War elections; and possibly worse than the 1795. I suspect that both New Space and Space.gov people will be very unhappy. This stuff should worry us all. It’s like the canary in the coal mine. Certainly no grand new vision is in the offing. So sad.
What I read is Ms Clinton saying the same thing as Trump did, but used a lot more words. Its all about history, with nothing about plans. Why get excited about that?
I see no difference between either of them (on this subject).
Well at least there is recognition of a consensus goal.
“… We choose to go to Mars and do the other things… not because they are easy, but because they are a consensus goal”
Thank you. I think that was my biggest laugh today.
Pop quiz: Without looking it up, name “the other things” in Kennedy’s Rice speech.
Simple. First, communication satellites (Comsat 1962), second, weather satellites, third, more powerful boosters, and finally, nuclear rockets (NERVA). Three of these goals were very successful. Nuclear rockets would have been as well except that NASA/AEC pulled the plug before they became operational for political reasons.
The three that succeed were practical short term goals with clear needs and benefits.
Now go look up the transcript of the Rice speech.
“But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things…”
The “other things” are climbing mountains, flying across the Atlantic, and playing football.
I always find it interesting that people quote that line as if it represents some amazing philosophy of life, without realising that, in reality, Kennedy saw the moon-race as merely planting a flag on a mountain and beating an opponent at an otherwise meaningless endeavour.
“Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, “Because it is there.”
Well, space is there, and we’re going to climb it…”
We’re going to climb it, and plant a flag, and then stop and come home because it will be finished.
I have the transcript from the 40th anniversary ceremony at the Rice Stadium that I attended. You are making the mistake of taking a literal approach which was not the organizational structure Ted Sorenson used when he wrote speeches, you need to take the context into account.
The speech was both a report to the nation of progress on his 1961 space policy goals based on the inspection trip he was on and encouragement to stay the course on the space policy goals. That is why after that statement he talked about the “other things”, the Saturn I booster and engines from the Saturn V he had seen and the progress in launching satellites with applications to Earth in the section following, those were the other things he referred to in those lines…
Kennedy, if you look at tapes of him in informal settings, had a real sense of humor, not a collection of canned jokes to be read off a teleprompter. The “other things” really included Rice and Texas. The race to the Moon was not a meaningless stunt. It was a symbolic substitute for a nuclear war that could have destroyed civilization. No, Kennedy was not intent on exploring space. He had a far more urgent goal, saving Earth.
Both of them are alright. They’re both boilerplate non-committal approvals for reviewing space plans and moving forwards, which is about what you’d expect from two candidates neither of whom care much about space exploration.
Reading the article, I’m reminded of the times I forgot about a test (left column) and when I actually studied (right column).
LOL. One has a plan one has spin. Depending on your stripes will determine who is who to you.
Just noise. Both will do what all presidents have done since the 1980’s. Appoint a blue ribbon presidential commission of Washington insiders and a few space celebrities to create a new vision for NASA. They will spend a year or two using tax payer money for hearings, travel, and fact finding. Then they will produce a report, the President will get their Kennedy like photo opt for history as they present the vision, and then everyone will move on while the pork will continue flow to NASA districts.
Really space policy has just become a Washington ritual…
While the identity of the next WH Science Advisor will be important, NASA’s woes land squarely at NASA and Congress. An agency with a logical plan can do a lot with $18B, much of which is squandered nowadays.
Those on the right have seen the plan to diminish the presidency because the have seen too much authority move from the Hill to the WH have in large measure succeeded. It’s not a bad thing, nor a good thing, it’s just American politics.
Some claim that previous administrations had too much authority, mostly because Mr. Clinton was able to co-opt the right, though the trend proceeded him.
On some issues – not space policy – it was demonstrable. But what we are seeing is a balkanized Congress composed of fiefdoms, each with little regard of America as a whole. SLS stands as one example of pet projects by powerful people supported by seniority.
Mr. Clinton’s ‘Imperial Presidency’, as some say, was in fact created when Mr. Clinton co-opted the issues on the right.
I’m sorry to say this my friend, but neither of these candidates will take us where we want to go. Certainly not to BEO, And definitely not to the moon or Mars. In the long term expiration is going to take more than 8-9 billion a year. It will take a serious commitment moneyover 20 years. SLS/Orion is only the first part. True exploration of the solar system will require expansion of the deep space network, technology investment in fuel depot’s, life sciences, nuclear thermal propulsion, landers, in situ resource utilization. The new space people believe that Mr. Musk Et al is going to be able to fund this with his profits from LEO & NEO development. Look at the list above, and tell me that it will generate that kind of money. I do think man will eventually make significant profits from what’s above, but not in our life times. The problems are too complex. No one is going to fly a red dragon to Mars, pop open the doors and go for a walk. The infrastructure involved will be difficult to design, expensive to produce, and completely worth the investment by the country if you’re thinking in the long term. Do either of candidates look like they’re thinking in the long term?
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Not too surprising, the statements from each play exactly to their images. Seeing as how Joe the Plumber et al see the space program generally as a costly joyride for entitled engineers it would be death by ridicule for either candidate to propose a real vision a month before the election, not that I think either one of them has a real vision in store for us afterwards either.
Comments prove that every thing in this election cycle is a Rorschach test. Each individual sees what they want based on the candidate they support.