Draft 2020 Democratic Party Platform Statement On Space
2020 Democratic Party Platform (Draft)
“Democrats continue to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and are committed to continuing space exploration and discovery. We believe in continuing the spirit of discovery that has animated NASA’s human space exploration, in addition to its scientific and medical research, technological innovation, and educational mission that allows us to better understand our own planet and place in the universe. We will strengthen support for the United States’ role in space through our continued presence on the International Space Station, working in partnership with the international community to continue scientific and medical innovation. We support NASA’s work to return Americans to the moon and go beyond to Mars, taking the next step in exploring our solar system. Democrats additionally support strengthening NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth observation missions to better understand how climate change is impacting our home planet.”
Sounds like they are behind Artemis which is good. Then it should be no issue with Congress giving HLS the bump it needs in FY21 to award the down select for the 2024 Landers regardless of the outcome in November. Or do they mean go back to the moon via cost plus NASA owned spacecraft in the 2028-20never timeframe?
Artemis to perhaps continue? GOOD!! Hopefully, they can cut some of the waste going on in it. I think Bridenstine is doing a decent job. I hope they keep him awhile.
Nope. The platform paper only says a return to the Moon.
Think the Artemis program will be recast with a new name and timeline. Likely with a flat budget level. There is just too much funding needs elsewhere in the US government to transit through the COVID-19 crisis.
Depending on how amendable the various Congressional sub-committees to diverting from the likely costly and even more likely behind schedule Boeing integral Lunar lander concept. Which is mostly to give the SLS Block 2 with the EUS a forlorn hope of not being in the dustbin of history. Even a fraction of the funding for the Artemis HLS Lunar lander program should let the next POTUS to shared in the glory of Astronauts returning to the surface of the Moon if Boeing is not involved.
It really depends on the eccentric car builder to deliver a low cost cislunar logistics solution to enable an affordable manned Lunar surface program. Other likely logistics solutions seems too costly to be sustainable.
As for Bridenstine’s fate as Administrator after the election. That really depends on if he can work for the next POTUS, along with no one else connected with the next POTUS wanting the job. Like a certain former Deputy Administrator.
I’m certainly rooting for a certain former Deputy Administrator.
Boeing lobbyists probably “paid” for parts of this space policy, as did the lobbyists for Lockheed and NG. So don’t count them out so easily. They will expect a return on their investment.
Excuse me but how do they pay for the policy? They are not donating to Biden, so who do they pay?
Their regular donations to the Democratic Party earn them a seat at the table in the smoke filled room where documents like this are generated. Why do you think lobbyists get such big dollars from government contractors on a regular basis? And those same lobbyists are probably providing input into the Republican Party platform at this very moment.They don’t care who wins as long as the money keeps flowing.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03…
Boeing a major lobbying player on Capitol Hill
By Fredreka Schouten, Ted Barrett and Lauren Fox, CNN
Updated 10:50 AM ET, Wed March 13, 2019
“Last year, Boeing’s spending on lobbying topped $15.1 million, federal records show. The company ranks No. 10 in lobbying activity in Washington since 1998, according to a tally by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. That falls way behind the big trade groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the American Hospital Association, but ahead of some of its competitors for the government’s lucrative defense business, such as Lockheed Martin.
Boeing has also deployed dozens of lobbyists, many working for outside firms, to help shape government policy.”
I disagree. If anything the US Government creating $2 trillion out of thing air (with another $1 trillion or more on the way) to address COVID-19, and creating a $3 trillion deficit (and counting) exposes the truth behind every single budget question the US has faced in our life times: the sticking points in spending is entirely (not largely) a political decision on what to spend money on, not the existence of that money.
And let’s not forget the Federal Reserve, early in this, pretty much said, in so many words “we’ll pay for the US economy, don’t worry about it. We’ll create money and give it out widely to create liquidity”. This is the second time in the past 15 years the Fed has done this.
Countries like Greece and Russia – economies of a certain scale, with a economic model, in a certain place in the global economic landscape – are dependent on basically selling their debt and generating revenues to pay for things. The US practices that normally, but in extraordinary times, it just uses its unique position in the world (politically, economically, financially) to just create money out of thin air and call it debt. To offer an example, during the Greek financial crisis, to finance its debt, Greece had to sell bonds that had to be bought on the market. It had to get bailout funds from the ECB. The money had to arrive from an external source to sustain operations. By contrast, back in March and April, the appearance of funds for the Government to spend was instantaneous. The US didn’t (and isn’t) selling $3 trillion in new debt over night. No country, no bank, no set of individuals have that much money to spend on that in the whole world.
Let’s recall that the only reason any budget cuts happened last decade was for the arbitrary disaster known as the Budget Control Act (the bill that included sequestration), that amounted to basically a performance art in reducing government spending and “fixing our finances”. Of course, it did no such thing once Obama, Democrats and Republicans started striking two year budget deals starting in 2015. We’re on Two year deal #3 by the way. Expect #4 before long.
If the BCA had never happened between 2011 and 2014, you would have seen budget levels at pretty much a linear upward curve as they were the prior decade and after 2015.
And that is exactly what is going to happen here.
We’re already seeing people say “we’ll have to cut this or that to pay for the COVID-19 response. Bullhonkey. What they really mean is that they sense an opportunity to defund somethings they don’t want funded. That is exactly what happened last time. The US didn’t have a spending problem before the financial crisis or after it. If anything, the stimulus wasn’t big enough.
The reason it won’t happen here is that the Budget Control Act was a ruinous piece of legislation that handcuffed Senators and Congressmen for a decade to make decisions based upon a bad bill and bad deal and bad levels set out by other people. And a lot of those people were gone by 2014. Retired, or replaced in the 2012 or 2014 election. The consensus of Congress, for years, was that it was terrible to constrain spending – in a bipartisan fashion – to those arbitrary levels.
With the BCA finally – thankfully – expired, there will be no appetite to do it again. There will be no BCA II. And without BCA II, while politicians and special interest groups will always make targeted arguments on “cutting wasteful spending” (in reality: finding an excuse to defunding programs they don’t like).
So count on a larger defense budget. Count on a larger NASA budget. Count on ever larger US government budgets. Count on these things because Congressmen and Senators aren’t going to let the $3 trillion they pulled out of thin air in the past few months get in the way of redistributing federal tax dollars to their states and districts.
Meanwhile that $3 trillion gets thrown down the black hole that is the “total US government debt”, a number of questionable relevancy anymore and will never be paid back. Because it doesn’t matter.
Like all good political statements, nicely vague and aspirational. “We support…” is nice but no guarantee of budget numbers or projects that will be funded.
Of course not. Rarely do platform documents get into numbers or specific projects.
At least they are not going back to the view of the Obama Administration on the Moon – “Been there, done that”. Basically this is just saying they will keep the programs of record. The issue for lunar commerce will be if they will also keep the Artemis Accords that are seeking to apply the principles of the Space Resources Act that President Obama signed to guide the activities of a lunar return.
Ya.
“Ok, I guess if you insist on dragging us, kicking and screaming, to the Moon…we’ll let you.”
I’m talking about both parties on that BTW.
One thing that I find interesting (telling) about this is that there is only a single paragraph mentioning NASA. Further it is in the section on “Investing in the Engines of Job Creation” (section starts on page 15, this paragraph is on page 18). That indicates (at least to me) that they view the primary role of NASA as a way to create jobs.
Is that the way we really want NASA to be utilized – as a jobs creation program? I was under the impression from many of the comments read on here previously that a majority of commentors believed that was the problem with SLS – it primarily was a jobs creation program.
This is a platform document. Not a detailed management report. If they went into detail on every agency and program in the government it would be thousands of pages long. It is a campaign platform. The fact that space is mentioned at all should be reassuring.
Agree that it is good that it is even mentioned, and agree that it is not a detailed management report. Didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Instead I was commenting on it’s placement in the overall document and on the mindset to place the NASA statement in the area of the document focused on “Job Creation.” This sections discusses infrastructure projects (Amtrak, ports, small businesses, clean energy, framers and ranchers, etc). In the paragraph preceding the NASA statement it does mention investing in a wide range of federal research, but with the stated goal of job creation in those areas. Given the context, it appears NASA is being seen primarily as a force for job creation. Otherwise, why place it in this section.
Looking elsewhere in the document, I would much rather see this paragraph located in the “Renewing American Leadership” section under “Technology” (Page 70). I based this on discussions seen here (articles on how NASA has influence around the globe and its international ties – especially with the ISS and other programs) and my own personal belief of the role of NASA.
This section mentions technological leadership, discusses primarily the Internet and Biotechnology. It talks about using international diplomatic leadership in both areas. This would seem to be a better fit for the NASA paragraph if the intent is to have NASA be that international technology force for good that you yourself often talk about.
I personally have never thought of NASA as a job creation agency. The effects of what NASA does indeed creates jobs, but in my view that was not its primary function.
Again, a platform is just that, and we have seen time and time again how actual policies differ significantly from platforms. Only time will tell.
“Job creation” was probably an item pushed by lobbyists from the legacy space firms to ensure the preservation of the old cost plus system. It’s very hard to do a “job created” chart for something like CCP that will look as good as the ones released for Orion and SLS.
Have you read republican political literature lately?
Yes I have and it’s part of every platform since the first one was written. But make work jobs like those produced by the legacy space firms don’t expand either technology or the economy.
Unfortunately a lot of people in Congress do tend to see NASA as just a jobs program (i.e. lots of high paying jobs in their district). It is also easier and more rewarding for NASA managers to featherbed large projects than to advocate for and manage smaller efforts. Toward the end of my career, I was sitting in a meeting where NASA personnel outnumbered the contractors 3 to 1 (Chief engineer’s office, safety office, quality office, project office,etc.). This is one of the reasons programs like SLS cost so much. However, NASA centers can be “engines of job creation” by becoming the seeds for tech hubs (MSFC, Ames).
It is interesting that SLS is not mentioned explicitly in the statement.I saw an article where Lori Garver was advocating a radical redirection of NASA’s mission toward climate change science and tech development. The platform (surprise!) seems much less radical.
Remember, what politicians promise and what they do once elected are two different things. Platforms simply function to get the politicians elected, nothing else.
Question, why do people want NASA doing NOAA’S job???
Earth observation and research has been part of NASA’s Charter since it was founded.
Seems rather redundant.
Yes, but there is a difference in the nature of the science. NASA is, to a large extent, focused on spacecraft which make discoveries. Or use new instruments to measure new things. They have funded long-term monitoring programs, like the Jason instruments or the multi-decade measurements of solar flux. But NASA does place a greater emphasis on new things rather than monitoring or obtaining long-term, consistent measurements. For things like Earth science and climate change, you really need those long-term measurements and constant monitoring. A one-time new discovery isn’t as significant as the trends over decades. For the Earth’s environment, NOAA is better at that. I think the current practice of NASA designing and building instrument and then turning them over to NOAA for long-term operations is a good one.
It is in NASA’s charter and has been for over half a century. NOAA, DOT, DoD, NASA, EPA etc are all interested in oceans. Should we have a Department of oceans?
I appreciate the Lunar portion. The rest of it just looks like blah, blah, blah copy/paste from platforms past.
The new momentum should require more talk…even if talk is cheap anyway. For all of our complaints about Trump claiming space, he has thrown down the gauntlet and this platform leaves it there.
Also this…
“Democrats will support historic federal investments in research, development, demonstration, and deployment, which will break new frontiers of science and create jobs across the country in aerospace, artificial intelligence, advanced materials, biotechnology, and clean energy and clean vehicles.”
Note the word “historic”.
What should I note about the word ‘historic’?
To me it seems one of those politically useful words that lets the platform be interpreted in so many ways as to be meaningless. It could be ‘historic’ as in history-making, so presumably implying substantial federal investments much larger than recent years. Or it could mean funding at historic(al) levels: a flat line.
Yeah. It could intend to look like the first but really mean the second.
But where are they going to get the money from?
You sound like a Republican when a Democrat is in office. But when a Republican is in office, it’s tax cuts and soaring deficits without any regard for the growing national debt.
An observation made at least as far back as Will Rogers.
ISS-specific language aside, that statement could have been (and probably was) copied from any Democratic platform of the last 50 years…
…meanwhile, Trump stood up the Space Force and lit a fire under NASA with respect to returning to the moon. If a U.S. government presence in space (I think we all understand our real future in space lies with Musk and (maybe) Bezos) is your top concern, the choice in 2020 should be crystal clear.
Is Beefycat your real first name?
I will be most impressed if so.
There is a sort of posting etiquette on the internet, one that’s obvious on sites that are carefully tended by interested owner-operators, and that includes quality comments posted by folks with a degree of restraint and mutual respect.
If ever codified, downvoting deserved personal criticism would not be addressed, largely because commenters see direct discussion as the high road.
To me the best judge of the future is the past; we know what Democrats delivered during their last Administration. I would expect more of the same in their next.
I am curious how the last Admin’s implementation of policy compares to what the DNC party statements had listed in 2008 & 2012. [Obviously Congress’s imposition of SLS altered things, but that’s another matter.] I kinda remember but I’m too tired right now to go digging.
I too was happy to see the mention of the lunar return but as others have noted, statements & actions can be two different things. “Return to the Moon” covers a LOT of possibilities.
Good question. I looked it up, and the only reference to NASA in the 2012 Democratic party platform was:
“Out-Innovating the Rest of the World. Democrats support a world-class commitment to science and research so that the next generation of innovators and high-technology manufacturing companies thrive in America. President Obama signed into law changes to help entrepreneurs raise capital and create jobs.
Democrats are committed to preparing math and science teachers and training workers with skills for the future, and doubling funding for key basic research agencies. We support expanding and making permanent the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit. President Obama has charted a new mission for NASA to lead us to a future that builds on America’s legacy of innovation and exploration. Democrats reformed the patent system to speed approval of investors’ patents and provide alternatives to wasteful litigation.”
Now THAT was bland!
IE the repeated proposed increases in commercial crew and cargo? What’s not to like?
Pleasantly surprised; I was a little afraid Moon would have been politicized and we’d have seen more ambiguous language with an MTPE approach highlighted for NASA.
As bland and predictable as over cooked plain oatmeal…
Yes, but… It would be a rare and unpredictable occasion when I cooked or even looked at plain oatmeal. That platform may be as bland and predictable as oatmeal, but if anyone took it seriously, _that_ would be quite rare and unpredictable.
I mean it’s a night statement. But it means diddly. What Biden, what Trump, what President X wants for NASA is essentially irrelevant. Obama and Trump have had little to no influence on NASA’s funding priorities beyond what is allowed by what amounts to the bipartisan consensus of senators and congressman in space industry states/districts.
Frankly, I see this as an excellent state of affairs. The problem with NASA for years was Presidents coming in and tearing up the last Administration’s plan for some reason, or Congress nuking it because a President of an opposing party was for it. Keeping the main political driver of NASA’s agenda in Congress and out of the Executive Branch will (and over the 2010s, has) enable(d) the sustained focus, budget and commitment to get things done on timelines longer than 4 to 8 years.
No. NASA is likely not returning to the moon by 2024. But by 2030? Extremely likely.
That being said, the US will need a sustained “Climate Science” agency. Right now it’s a mix of the NOAA, the EPA and NASA and a few other agencies.That is probably not the most workable long term model. But of course, just lobbing Earth Science out of NASA would be extremely damaging. It’s another one of those thorny “what is the most optimal organizational scope” questions that have been popping up a lot lately. See: US Cyber Command and the Space Force.
Actually it should be noted that the only mention of the Moon in the 2008 Democratic Patry Platform was a historical reference.
https://www.presidency.ucsb…
“But we also know that at every turning point in our nation’s history, we have demonstrated our love of country by uniting to overcome our challenges—whether ending slavery, fighting two world wars for the cause of freedom or sending a man to the moon.”
And only one brief sentance on space exploration.
“We will make science, technology, engineering, and math education a national priority. We will double federal funding for basic research, invest in a strong and inspirational vision for space exploration, and make the Research and Development Tax Credit permanent.”