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

deagleninja · 2004-08-07 12:57:55

I see a lot of critism of Kerry because his plans lack bold plans for 'high technology' including space exploration. Unfortunately, if he does start announing bold spending programs for NASA then Republicans will again toss the myth of 'big spending Democrats' out there again.
Historically, it has been Republicans that have over spent the budget. Due to this most recent president, Kerry will have to be finacially responcible in much the same way Clinton was to make up for the over-spending of Bush Sr.
Weither Kerry increases spending for NASA or not isn't really important in the long run. What is needed is a President who will make education a higher priority than it has been. Only when we start turning out better educated Americans will we see public support of NASA and space exploration in general increase.

comstar03 · 2004-08-07 20:15:01

deagleninja,

Yes, that is one method but that is only one part of the puzzle to increase the awareness of the public of the future ahead.

Use the mars and lunar rovers to continue to draw the schools and the public into the space exploration. Use reality competitions for winning the right to control the rover for the day as a prize from NASA or JPL get the public to feel part of the world out there to explore.

Build a Space TV Channel talking about all aspects of exploration with manned and unmanned missions or Program for Discovery channel that runs every week. This expands the awareness, these could be used within kerry's policy to boost the public education of NASA, with advertisement revenue funding the program.

Its doesn't cost alot to educate the community, the big costs are the development of space, and that requires time and stable policies. Not unstable government policies that could destablize exploration objectives for humanity.

:bars2:

SpaceNut · 2004-08-09 06:25:16

Those were all great Ideas comstar03 but all requiring changes in funding levels for Nasa.
Nasa Tv web cast channel link page also schedule of broadcast is also on the page. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

With the science channel on cable and all the Discovery channels plus the Public tv PBS stations Nasa would only need to send a free feed to any broadcaster that would want it.
I would recommend that it be sent to schools as part of the science programs.

wgc · 2004-08-16 09:21:39

I see a lot of critism of Kerry because his plans lack bold plans for 'high technology' including space exploration. Unfortunately, if he does start announing bold spending programs for NASA then Republicans will again toss the myth of 'big spending Democrats' out there again.
Historically, it has been Republicans that have over spent the budget. Due to this most recent president, Kerry will have to be finacially responcible in much the same way Clinton was to make up for the over-spending of Bush Sr.
Weither Kerry increases spending for NASA or not isn't really important in the long run. What is needed is a President who will make education a higher priority than it has been. Only when we start turning out better educated Americans will we see public support of NASA and space exploration in general increase.

I am sick and tired of people defeinding John Kerry's space policy , its pretty clear. Just look at his congressional voting record, he is largely against any major space spending.

You may have many reasons for wanting to vote for John Kerry, thats ok its a free country.. and there are other priorities ... However realize this, if John Kerry becomes president it is very likely it will mean a set back for any space efforts...

wgc · 2004-08-16 09:54:14

I see a lot of critism of Kerry because his plans lack bold plans for 'high technology' including space exploration. Unfortunately, if he does start announing bold spending programs for NASA then Republicans will again toss the myth of 'big spending Democrats' out there again.
Historically, it has been Republicans that have over spent the budget. Due to this most recent president, Kerry will have to be finacially responcible in much the same way Clinton was to make up for the over-spending of Bush Sr.
Weither Kerry increases spending for NASA or not isn't really important in the long run. What is needed is a President who will make education a higher priority than it has been. Only when we start turning out better educated Americans will we see public support of NASA and space exploration in general increase.

Pretty easy to balance a budget when you don't spend money...
What was Clinton' s R&D budget, did we accomplish anything great in terms of advanced physics, are we energy independent.

Bush Sr, has a lot to be critisized, but I don't see were Mr Cinton did anything great for the space effort.

And THIS IS a forum discussing the space program. Not the war , not the econmony but the space effort. And Clinton failed in that area.

Further, What really bothers me about Kerry is his lack of vision in anything to do with technology, the one exception being biomedical tech..
His energy policy leaves us still dependent on fossil fuels for the forseeable future, he seems to be totally against anything nuclear. Project prometheus may have a tough time surviving his administration.
Look at the hubble pictures, quasars, supernovas etc. massive power outputs, thats the energy levels we need to strive for if we ever hope to be a type 1 , 2 or 3 civilization.
And that requires investment in High energy physics, something that is nowhere in JK's vision.
I like to compare our society to a fishing village on a little pacific alto, the villagers have no care whatsoever whats happening in the vast ocean beyond the reach of there little fishing fleet. Than the Tsunami comes and only then do those events become of paramount importance.

Stu · 2004-08-16 10:55:08

Interesting piece here...

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/artic … 9817.shtml

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-16 11:04:28

Yes, good article as a brief summary of the Kerry space vision. Or rather lack thereof.

Rxke · 2004-08-16 13:14:22

Despite its sub-title, The Washington Dispatch can hardly be called objective... It is clearly a Republican magazine. Just have a quick look through the other articles.

Frankly, I'm sooooooo tired about this polarizing stuff, you hear over and over again the same things....

Instead of pushing agendas, I'd like to see a *real* balanced piece about Kerry's space-policy for a change, Hattammit!

Independant reporting in America is going down the drain in a big way, IMO. There's always two sides to a discussion, but you rarely see that anymore. It's either Dem or Rep talk, nothing in between.

Get real.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-16 13:29:51

Independant reporting in America is going down the drain in a big way, IMO. There's always two sides to a discussion, but you rarely see that anymore. It's either Dem or Rep talk, nothing in between.

In fairness, independent evaluation of reporting is a rarity as well. A large segment of the American population dismisses reporting that doesn't fit with their preconceived opinion. The New York Times is a liberal rag, Fox News is a conservative mouthpiece, on and on. Sure, every source of information has its own bias, but when we start dismissing everything that doesn't come from our propaganda organ of choice, we're in trouble.

In this case, Kerry's voting record has been against the space program, this is a verifiable matter of historical fact. Any spin is just icing. He's offered no real policy, for or against, and certainly hasn't demonstrated through action any support. In the absence of any compelling show of support, it's reasonable to look at past behavior as an indicator of what his position would be.

clark · 2004-08-16 13:35:55

In the absence of any compelling show of support, it's reasonable to look at past behavior as an indicator of what his position would be.

Just to be fair, Bush had no stance or policy prior to coming into office. He never visited the NASA centers down in Texas.

Space is a side sho..er, issue, and a minor one at that, for any politican. Kerry isn't talking about it because he dosen't have to (yet).

Wait till the end of August, we will hear more from Bush on the VSE, and that will force Kerry to start covering his bases.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-16 13:44:47

In which case he'll still have a negative record on the subject to overcome.

But what the hell, I'm planning on civil insurrection when they're still lobbing lawsuits back and forth in January. :laugh:

clark · 2004-08-16 13:50:44

Everything is G.I. Joe with you.

Cobra Commander · 2004-08-16 14:06:20

Everything is G.I. Joe with you.

We'll see who's laughin' after the February Coup. :laugh:

NOTE TO JOHN ASHCROFT:
DISREGARD COUP REFERENCE. FOUR MORE YEARS, GOD BLESS AMERICA.

Euler · 2004-08-16 14:27:57

Further, What really bothers me about Kerry is his lack of vision in anything to do with technology, the one exception being biomedical tech..
His energy policy leaves us still dependent on fossil fuels for the forseeable future, he seems to be totally against anything nuclear. Project prometheus may have a tough time surviving his administration.

I don't really think that that is accurate. He isn't very interested in space, but he seems to think that technology is very important, especially for energy sources that do not use fossil fuels. For Kerry, reducing our dependence on Fossil fuels is an economic issue, an environmental issue, and a national security issue. In fact, at his speech that I went to, I heard him compare the search for alternative energy sources to the Manhattan Project in terms of importance. He also stressed the need to for our universities to produce more scientists and engineers, and he proposed some economic incentives to encourage more students to study those subjects.

As for project Prometheus, it seems as though it might be cancelled right now by the Republican congress. How unfortunate it will be if that happens.

wgc · 2004-08-16 15:48:27

Further, What really bothers me about Kerry is his lack of vision in anything to do with technology, the one exception being biomedical tech..
His energy policy leaves us still dependent on fossil fuels for the forseeable future, he seems to be totally against anything nuclear. Project prometheus may have a tough time surviving his administration.
I don't really think that that is accurate. He isn't very interested in space, but he seems to think that technology is very important, especially for energy sources that do not use fossil fuels. For Kerry, reducing our dependence on Fossil fuels is an economic issue, an environmental issue, and a national security issue. In fact, at his speech that I went to, I heard him compare the search for alternative energy sources to the Manhattan Project in terms of importance. He also stressed the need to for our universities to produce more scientists and engineers, and he proposed some economic incentives to encourage more students to study those subjects.
As for project Prometheus, it seems as though it might be cancelled right now by the Republican congress. How unfortunate it will be if that happens.

I'm not going to hold it against anyone if they vote for Kerry. However I think his record speaks for his position on space.

The only energy source that Kerry warms up to is natual gas and coal. Not what I would call viable solutions for very long. and dispite what Kerry says are not renewable energy sources.

As to Prometheous, it will continue at a slower pace, unless MR. anti nuke Kerry cancels it.

I stand by what I say Kerry is as anti technology as they come.

deagleninja · 2004-08-16 23:06:07

Although Kerry seems lukewarm about space exploration, is this better?......

Bush's position on space exploration-
"Space............cool"

wgc · 2004-08-17 10:13:11

Although Kerry seems lukewarm about space exploration, is this better?......
Bush's position on space exploration-
"Space............cool"

But Bush never pretended to know anything about space, he is following recommendations from a congressional commission.
Kerry on the other hand voted against just about every major space proposal.
In each case he stated that we should work on the problems at home rather than explore space.

The only reason he now supports the international space station is because of all the international entanglements.

Perhaps if there's enough momentum before he takes office we can still salvage something. Especially if the funding gets approved. Good chance with a veto threat looming.

Again bottom line, anyone in this forum is going to have a hard time to justify voting for Kerry and still saying they strongly support a renewed space effort.

Rxke · 2004-08-17 11:59:05

I don't think so...

(Ok, I'm European, so I'd better shut up anyway, but...)

When he voted to scrap ISS, a lot of people were against it because of the cost-spiralling, and even now a majority is screaming to scrap it, regardless politics.
And he is in the opposition, so like it or not, peeps in oppositions *always* vote against virtually anything the peeps in power are doing, so that doesn't mean a lot.

Kerry won't dare to scrap manned spaceflight, too much people working there, it'd be an economic disaster. And he says he's for more science and education, not less, so: won't happen.

Ok, he's not a visionary, far from, but President Bush's new program is a bit vague, too... And as you pointed out, Bush gets advice from a commission, and that commission was Reps and Dems together, they agreed after the hearings (post Colombia) there had to be some change. So Bush listened, bless him.

Kerry will be advised by samey commission when/if president, so his plans will be similar, if he doesn't want a Senate 200% against him.

Neither Bush, Kerry, even JFK (who said so repeatedly, in private discussions) give a d*amn about manned spaceflight, in reality, but it's mighty good PR, and a science driver, so worth keeping.

wgc · 2004-08-17 12:34:51

I don't think so...
(Ok, I'm European, so I'd better shut up anyway, but...)
When he voted to scrap ISS, a lot of people were against it because of the cost-spiralling, and even now a majority is screaming to scrap it, regardless politics.
And he is in the opposition, so like it or not, peeps in oppositions *always* vote against virtually anything the peeps in power are doing, so that doesn't mean a lot.
Kerry won't dare to scrap manned spaceflight, too much people working there, it'd be an economic disaster. And he says he's for more science and education, not less, so: won't happen.
Ok, he's not a visionary, far from, but President Bush's new program is a bit vague, too... And as you pointed out, Bush gets advice from a commission, and that commission was Reps and Dems together, they agreed after the hearings (post Colombia) there had to be some change. So Bush listened, bless him.
Kerry will be advised by samey commission when/if president, so his plans will be similar, if he doesn't want a Senate 200% against him.
Neither Bush, Kerry, even JFK (who said so repeatedly, in private discussions) give a d*amn about manned spaceflight, in reality, but it's mighty good PR, and a science driver, so worth keeping.

I only go by what the record shows, and although I have no love for some of Bush's policies.. from what little I could find on Kerry's I don't like what I read.

1) Kerry tends to be a micromanager , so I wouldn't count on him taking recommendations from committies.

2) Kerry is steadfast against anything nuclear, so don't expect nuclear powered ion engines, don't expect any great advances in high energy physics , anti-matter triggered fusion for instance.

3) John Edwards is strongly for the induce act, which is another area the government waists too much of our money on. Propping up hollywood and the entertainment industry.

The only science that Kerry is concerned about is medical research.

Please prove me wrong!!!!

John Creighton · 2004-08-17 12:52:06

2) Kerry is steadfast against anything nuclear, so don't expect nuclear powered ion engines, don't expect any great advances in high energy physics , anti-matter triggered fusion for instance.

As far as Kerry and space this is what bothers me the most. I would hate to see the jupitor probe cancelled.

Rxke · 2004-08-17 13:49:10

For what it's worth...

http://www.solaraccess.com/news/story?s … olaraccess has an overview about kerry/Edwards energy errr... plan...

'nuclear can be an important source' yadda yadda yadda, but he is against Yucca Mountain and definitely uncomfortable with the whole waste-issue. Then there is his constant hammering for non-proliferation stuff etc...

So he's not very enthousiastic, but not dead against it, too. Considering nuclear power is somewhat of a taboo during election-time (seems the same thing in every friggin' country, heh...) him mentioning it, leaves open some possibilities.

Of course, it's waaay down the list, so it seems, but then again that might be the 'don't mention nuclear plants!' taboo again... No-one wants it in his backyard.

(You get used to it, though, here in lil' Belgium we have plants *very* near major cities, and you don't think about it. Most of our energy comes from nukes, BTW)

deagleninja · 2004-08-17 16:32:33

Well as much as I favor a renewed manned space exploration effort, I can't vote for a president that is ruining his country to make a few extra dollars for his buddies.

My vote cannot be bought, sorry Mr Bush. You should have done more than vacation before 9/11 and settle your daddy's grudges after 9/11.

wgc · 2004-08-17 18:18:21

Well as much as I favor a renewed manned space exploration effort, I can't vote for a president that is ruining his country to make a few extra dollars for his buddies.
My vote cannot be bought, sorry Mr Bush. You should have done more than vacation before 9/11 and settle your daddy's grudges after 9/11.

And maybe you should get your political research from somewhere other than a cutrate movie!

comstar03 · 2004-08-17 20:40:18

The FAct is Does Kerry , provide the space industry with a good platform for the future -----answer NO !!!!!!!

If you are voting down the current president for other reasons remember you are voting down the expansion of space as well, because its a race to build on the moon and a race to get to mars and permanently setup a base there.

America's greatest will be lowered because of a few mistakes of the current president, who is trying to fix after the fact. Everyone knows that a mistake took place 12 years ago when they liberated Kuwait and not finished the job, well the job finished, ( but 1 million iraqs paid for it 1991-2004), America lost 3000 people in 9/11 and many other countries had people there, it gave America a blood nose, Australia got it in Bali ( 200 dead) But life goes on and dreams / goals need to be realized , because if you let dreams die then the spirit dies as well. Then terorists win !!!!!!!!!!!!

So, remember that when you cast you vote, becuase a famous president started this race to expand the frontiers of Humanity in Space ( John F. Kennedy ) and it could be a candidate with the same initials to slow it down and lessen the dreams / goals and spriti of America.

deagleninja · 2004-08-18 07:26:49

wgc-I didn't need Michael Moore's movie to tell me that this is the worst president ever to steal the office. The facts speak for themselves. We will be paying for Bush's policys during Kerry's term much as we paid for 12 years of Reagan and Bush Sr.'s during Clinton's.

Bush hasn't done anything for our space program. Opps, I nearly forgot, he did make a speach at the beginning of this year.

If you think four more years of record deficits and deceptions are going to get us to the Moon or Mars, then I have some beachfront property you might be intrested in at low tide.

The surest way we will ever get back to the Moon or go on to Mars is to quit wasting the governments money by fighting needless wars. Kerry has promised this.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-08-07 12:57:55

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

#127 2004-08-07 20:15:01

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

#128 2004-08-09 06:25:16

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

#129 2004-08-16 09:21:39

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

#130 2004-08-16 09:54:14

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

#131 2004-08-16 10:55:08

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

#132 2004-08-16 11:04:28

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

#133 2004-08-16 13:14:22

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

#134 2004-08-16 13:29:51

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

#135 2004-08-16 13:35:55

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

#136 2004-08-16 13:44:47

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

#137 2004-08-16 13:50:44

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

#138 2004-08-16 14:06:20

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

#139 2004-08-16 14:27:57

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

#140 2004-08-16 15:48:27

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

#141 2004-08-16 23:06:07

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

#142 2004-08-17 10:13:11

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

#143 2004-08-17 11:59:05

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

#144 2004-08-17 12:34:51

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

#145 2004-08-17 12:52:06

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

#146 2004-08-17 13:49:10

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

#147 2004-08-17 16:32:33

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

#148 2004-08-17 18:18:21

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

#149 2004-08-17 20:40:18

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

#150 2004-08-18 07:26:49

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

Board footer