Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

BWhite · 2004-07-27 10:19:19

Kerry's latest non-committal appearance at Kennedy Space Center speaks volumes about his disinterest in space exploration.
Since mankind's expansion into the solar system dwarfs all other political considerations, I guess all we can do, as space enthusiasts, is pray Kerry is defeated at the polls.
Nothing Bush has done or could do would be as heinous a crime as Kerry turning his back on mankind's only viable future - space.
???

Shaun, my concern is that George Bush will prove to be a "space tease" - - provocative and suggestive of an aggressive space policy combined with a failure to follow through.

Frankly, I may well prefer someone who we can all agree is not pro-space, if it allows space advocates to better focus their energies.

A book co-edited by Roger D. Launius (former NASA historian) is helpful here, although the title says it all:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … paceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership

Congress is where the key battles will be fought, not the White House.

= = =

Besides we need a President with strength and wisdom - - pro-space or not.

= = =

Edit to add an Amazon review of this book:

Editorial Reviews
From Library Journal
For over 30 years space advocates have looked to strong presidential leadership in space policy as the sine qua non of forwarding their space exploration agendas. Kennedy's bold decision to race the Soviets to the moon in the 1960s represents the high-water mark of presidential leadership in space matters. But as this collection of essays by 11 presidential scholars demonstrates, the power of the president is more limited than space advocates seem to realize. Each essay reviews every administration's space policies since Eisenhower to reveal the complex relationships among the presidency, Congress, and the bureaucracy that produce policy. They clearly demonstrate that overreliance by space advocates on the power of the "imperial presidency" to set the space agenda single-handedly has hampered implementation of expanding space efforts as the power of the presidency waned in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate. The failure of Bush's Space Exploration Initiative in the early 1990s stands in contrast to Kennedy's Apollo decision, proving that presidential edicts alone are insufficient to implement space policy. Highly recommended for academic libraries.?Thomas J. Frieling, Bainbridge Coll., Ga. Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Rxke · 2004-07-27 11:30:28

Anyone has more specifics about his visit to KSC?

And BTW... Since everyone here is screaming to scrap ISS, wasn't Kerry a visionary?

Seriously, his main issue with ISS seemed to be the non-fullfilling of it's original goals, thus being in effect a useless drain of recources, exactly what virtually everyone is saying on the boards, lately...

(Playing Devil's advocate, here... )

John Creighton · 2004-07-27 11:33:53

It seems most of Kerry’s voting record has been against the space station which most will probably agree was not the best investment in space. Although, he does seem to be attacking the bush plan by trying to say it will cost much more then it does.

clark · 2004-07-27 11:38:08

Attacking, or telling it like it is...

NASA will need more money to do what has been outlined, or it will have to make a lot of hard choices on which science programs to fund.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-27 12:00:52

Not counting which planets to visit, features within probes that will be sent in the future or how many to be sent.

Palomar · 2004-07-27 12:23:39

*Congress and etc. (non-private) aren't going to do a damned thing about going back to the Moon or directly on to Mars (my preference) or anything else until we get some COMPETITION going ala U.S. vs U.S.S.R. in the 1960s.

Yap, yap, yap...let them talk (or not talk). Action speaks louder than words anyway (where's the action? -- nowhere).

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-07-27 12:36:27

Ya a space race would aid in generating the much needed fire to fuel the funding issue. Who wants to be second anyway.
But if the private side is to do anything for investing the big bucks in space. They will need a direct pay back. Which IMO is property rights.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 14:06:54

I see you are a pro-nasa only building into space, BUT the objective to getting the russians involved would provide more engineers, scientists, and other space related professional work and expand their communities and the same time providing co-operation and bridge building between the western countries and western corporations.
The oversight can be NASA or a new global oversight organization, leaving NASA function like the Russian Space Program for internal activities and part of a global space program for large complex developments like the permanent orbiting platforms, moonbases and marsbases.
But, if the Pro-NASA Movement thinks that they can do it alone with little help from the world they are sadly mistaken, unless NASA gets a large ongoing increase in its annual budget.

Ah, and what do we need more engineers, scientists, and managers for? We've got lots of those right here at NASA too... and why do we need Russian infrastructure? We have that here too... But more importantly than the cost of jump-starting the Russian space program with such a "partnership" with the large investment needed to build a Moon/Mars vehicle base at Baikonour and such is the cost in political capital.

Almost every cent that goes into NASA's coffers eventually winds up re-injected into the American economy, but money sent to Russia or France or Italy does not. Although Russia or the ESA can do some things cheaper and easier than NASA, the monetary cost is offset by the high price in political capital... sending $500M dollars to engineers in Florida? Sure thing, but sending $100M to engineers in Khazhakstan? Hold on there...

Same thing with the idea of an "international space program," that since it isn't American, no way it would get American money out of the Congress... it would also have dubious efficency, with internal factions battling it out for which state gets the money.

And why can't NASA do it alone? They have done essentially the whole ISS on their own, funding the vast majority of the project (>$7Bn/yr total), quite frankly the Russians nor the Europeans have much to offer in this respect given the high political cost and cost of compatibilizing hardware for their monetary or material aid. NASA has about enough money, its just all being spent on the ISS/Space Shuttle/JSC.

Finally there is a nationalistic concern too, which makes the political cost even higher than the pragmatic "US money for US rocket engineers," that getting to the Moon or Mars without substantial international help could infact wind up being less expensive when you take into account who controls the money.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 14:26:31

And again with the Shuttle invocations... Shuttle was a nightmare because it was intended to do too many things. Polar orbital launch with large cross-range. Heavy cargo carriage. Return payloads to Earth. On orbit repair platform. Flying laboratory. Technology test bed. It must be reuseable. And the list goes on...

While a clean sheet booster has only one. Launch the maximum payload with comparitivly low reliability, and do it without breaking the bank. Developing the EELVs, which basicly everything about them is new or modified engines imparticular cost only a few billion, tops. Building a new rocket, exsisting launch pad, exsisting VAB, exsisting engines, exsisting tankage manufacturing, exsisting flight control systems... etc etc etc. An EELV-derived clean sheet booster could be done without getting terrificly expensive. Surely not more than two or three years or so of Shuttle flights for a modest one.

Rxke · 2004-07-27 14:48:39

And why can't NASA do it alone? They have done essentially the whole ISS on their own, funding the vast majority of the project (>$7Bn/yr total),

Exactly. They funded it, the Russians built it.
It's true! All the really essential stuff is `Russian: FGB, life support, crew quarters.
Sure: USLab has life support, too, but it's off-line. Solar cells are nice, but not essential (MIR did fine w/o those wings)

And they used the 'grandiose' stuff, built/designed when everybody thought STS would be dirt-cheap.

ISS wouldn't exist w/o the US. But you can't blame the Russians for its faults. Blame it on the Shuttle turning out too expensive.

Palomar · 2004-07-27 15:36:09

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=965]This Explains Everything!!

*Check it out.

The suit is NOT "him."

Maybe -that's- why he takes the position on space exploration that he does? :;):

He's sore about the powder blue cloth suit that makes him look like a mega-dork. :-\ That's what I suspect.

...you're a Herman Munster!...*

--Cindy

*(quote courtesy "My Land" from JibJab)

Armani! Where is Armani?!

BWhite · 2004-07-27 15:54:52

Cindy, I believe those two fellows (Cowing & Seitzen) are very pro -- George Bush and very pro -- Sean O'Keefe.

I have no problem with that.

Just take their assessment of John Kerry with the proverbial grain of salt. Anyway, the last sentence may be the most important.

It took Nixon to go to China and if the Republicans are truly committed to space, they can get John Kerry to do it, with a combination of political horse trading and public pressure about America falling behind or going in circles with ISS.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-27 16:00:07

I'm not sure you can trust Kerry, what he says could be because of the election and it will be more politcial moves rather than Space. I think Kerry is also against the ISS, Kerry but at least the talks about raising NASA's budget and the focus on education and science.
I think it was terrible when they made so many cuts to the NASA budget recently with the jupiter orbiter, I.s.s, the mars plan, TRMM and many others getting slashed and axed on the aniversary of Apollo, this was a terrible insult and I think Bush should have made a remark about the current status of the Bush vision to mars. This election and of corse the fact that NASA got insulted and slashed on the apollo birthday is why people are wanting to know what does Kerry think about it.

~Eternal~ · 2004-07-27 20:42:51

Manned exploration of space is not important as exploration of space itself, for Christ sake don't vote for the man because he's got a bold exploration vision, given the choice between Caeser with exploration of the East and Jesus Christ and the establishment of peace, which would you choose?

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-27 22:39:08

Manned exploration of space is not important as exploration of space itself, for Christ sake don't vote for the man because he's got a bold exploration vision, given the choice between Caeser with exploration of the East and Jesus Christ and the establishment of peace, which would you choose?

OMG, that is the most fundamentally flaw comparison I've ever heard.

I would say a much more applicable metaphor would be the difference between Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill, one man committed to avoiding war at all costs, the other understanding that there are things worth waging war for.

In any event I am slowly moving from seeing Kerry as a minor annoyance if elected to a complete disaster on every level.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 05:16:48

Manned exploration of space is not important as exploration of space itself,

That depends entirely on why we explore space. If settlement is the goal, we need manned spaceflight on as big a scale as possible. If we just want to know, then send robots. Take some pictures and never do a damn thing with the knowledge.

for Christ sake don't vote for the man because he's got a bold exploration vision, given the choice between Caeser with exploration of the East and Jesus Christ and the establishment of peace, which would you choose?

:laugh: Could Jesus convince everyone else to be peaceful? Did not the Romans accomplish any good?

"either or" misses the entire point.

But all things being equal, Caesar.
Qui vivra, verra.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 08:55:51

Manned exploration of space is not important as exploration of space itself,
That depends entirely on why we explore space. If settlement is the goal, we need manned spaceflight on as big a scale as possible. If we just want to know, then send robots. Take some pictures and never do a damn thing with the knowledge.
for Christ sake don't vote for the man because he's got a bold exploration vision, given the choice between Caeser with exploration of the East and Jesus Christ and the establishment of peace, which would you choose?
:laugh: Could Jesus convince everyone else to be peaceful? Did not the Romans accomplish any good?
"either or" misses the entire point.
But all things being equal, Caesar.
Qui vivra, verra.

History happens faster these days. If America seeks to become the next Rome, our bubble will only burst that much faster.

Last night Barack Obama reminded us what America is supposed to be all about - - "All men are created equal" and deserve equal rights not because of which nation they are citizens of but because we are all the same species.

If we lose sight of this, if we seek to leave some of our species behind or stratify who has a voice and who does not we squander our power.

IMHO, many Republicans frankly desire to leave people behind.

From another blog:

Obama's speech went to the difference between the two parties are about.
I am watching Jonah Goldberg on C-SPAN making my point for me. He is ranting about "No Child Left Behind." He wants to leave some children behind. He even used the the term the "nanny government."

= = =

I want America (and Americans) to spread into space so values like Obama's can also spread.

"All men are created equal"

and

"We are our brother's keeper"

BWhite · 2004-07-28 09:14:58

In any event I am slowly moving from seeing Kerry as a minor annoyance if elected to a complete disaster on every level.

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_arti … 725]Andrew Sullivan - - a conservative blogger.

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-28 09:29:03

History happens faster these days. If America seeks to become the next Rome, our bubble will only burst that much faster.

It's all a matter of what sort of dominance one considers to be the end goal. But that's a thread unto itself... :hm:

If we lose sight of this, if we seek to leave some of our species behind or stratify who has a voice and who does not we squander our power.

This requires a better answer than I can give before lunch. More later.

IMHO, many Republicans frankly desire to leave people behind.

Yep. Deliberately leaving people to wallow in misery, just for laughs.

One could with as much if not more credibility claim that some Democrats desire to divide people, keep some people down.

I want America (and Americans) to spread into space so values like Obama's can also spread.
"All men are created equal"
and
"We are our brother's keeper"

Maybe it's just the election season putting me in one of those moods, but I'm just not feeling the truth there... Or maybe it's just a phantom anyway...

"All men are created equal" is misleading. Equally deserving of basic rights, yes. Should have equal opportunities, yes. But equal in some quantifiable sense?

And yes, we should be our brother's keeper, but if my brother's a lazy drunken moron, then I'm only going to expend so much effort to help before moving on.

Rights with duties. Freedom with responsibility.

comstar03 · 2004-07-29 01:37:05

It doesn't matter, what we discuss in relation with Kerry's policy, He and his advisors will do what they want to the NSA Budget and there long term space activities.

Another think, don't use religious discuss, because people might think you are voliating the first commandant. Say on the task at hand, determine that If Kerry has good or bad policies for the space industry.

Also there is alot of other technologies are required for space exploration that are not developed yet. Work on those and dis-regard Kerry's policies, Because have faith in ourselves that we will get there, But a clear defined roadmap is required, and that is the issue, not what policy we go with, but what does humanity want out of this.

A set of humanity goals in Space - ( 7-15 Goals ) Not treaties, policies or agreements between countries, a higher purpose : eg. To boldly go where no-one has gone before !!!!, another eg. To build human society through our solar system

???

comstar03 · 2004-07-29 01:38:45

oops , my dyslexia it bad , there on the last comment

SpaceNut · 2004-07-29 09:08:46

Kerry is putting together a space policy as indicated on the http://www.spacepolitics.com/ web site.

Palomar · 2004-07-30 13:24:59

*Did anyone else watch DNC coverage last night, particularly Kerry's nomination acceptance speech? Space exploration was a mere blur in the speech (yes, I realize he was pressed for time).

I am quite certain I heard him make a real blooper (regarding what we've got "out there" to explore): "...all the stars in the Solar System..." :-\

Let's hope he really meant to say planets, and it was just a matter of a couple of wires getting temporarily crossed.

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-07-30 14:44:59

I heard him, and he sounded a little tongue-tied, like he realized that he was saying something stupid. This is what he was supposed to say:

Two young bicycle mechanics from Dayton asked, what if this airplane could take off at Kitty Hawk? It did that and changed the world forever. A young president asked, what if we could go to the moon in ten years? And now we're exploring the solar system and the stars themselves. A young generation of entrepreneurs asked, what if we could take all the information in a library and put it on a little chip the size of a fingernail? We did, and that too changed the world forever.

wgc · 2004-08-05 10:39:35

Well, I don't think Kerry is going to usher in a new era of space exploration... it just isn't in the cards. For some background on his history related to NASA and ISS:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … tml?id=965
John Kerry on Space 2004
It is a rather telling history.
However, I cannot just vote for Bush based on his space policy. I'll be living on planet Earth for some time, and the decisions made outside of space exploration will effect me far more.

Mine too...

Like Kerry's lack of any real energy policy, outside of bio technology , which I have some issues with too, he doesn't seem to have any interest in anything high tech.

Yes its very important to fund social programs, but the money has to come from somewhere. You have to make money to give money.

What are the industries of the 21th century the US should be investing in.

Automobile, no not likely we are losing any lead we had there.
Electronics - we lost that lead a long time ago.

The us should be investing in high enerygy physics and yes space technology. Thats the only hope for any kind of energy independence.

Kerry however has no plans whatsoever to expand either, he wants to spend the money on "renewable" resouces coal and natual gas. (is that a democratic term, somehow I never considered coal a renewable resource, unless your talking gologic timeframes)

He visits nasa and doesn't even mention a word about the space program.

This whole thing is a joke, we spend all these monies building a space station we can't even reach, and congress wants to delay any work on the cev even further. Between the dummies we put in congress and likely president Kerry we might as well just give up on tech entirely and become a third world country.

I'm not for the war in Iraq , and I don't like some of Bush's policies either... but I'm a realalist and I believe Kerry could make an even bigger mess of things...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-07-27 10:19:19

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#102 2004-07-27 11:30:28

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#103 2004-07-27 11:33:53

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#104 2004-07-27 11:38:08

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#105 2004-07-27 12:00:52

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#106 2004-07-27 12:23:39

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#107 2004-07-27 12:36:27

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#108 2004-07-27 14:06:54

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#109 2004-07-27 14:26:31

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#110 2004-07-27 14:48:39

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#111 2004-07-27 15:36:09

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#112 2004-07-27 15:54:52

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#113 2004-07-27 16:00:07

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#114 2004-07-27 20:42:51

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#115 2004-07-27 22:39:08

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#116 2004-07-28 05:16:48

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#117 2004-07-28 08:55:51

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#118 2004-07-28 09:14:58

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#119 2004-07-28 09:29:03

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#120 2004-07-29 01:37:05

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#121 2004-07-29 01:38:45

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#122 2004-07-29 09:08:46

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#123 2004-07-30 13:24:59

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#124 2004-07-30 14:44:59

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#125 2004-08-05 10:39:35

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

Board footer