Kerry criticizes Bush's space vision

http://www.space.com/news/kerry_report_040616.html

An excerpt:

“The most critical element of our space program should be reducing the
costs and increasing the reliability of space transportation to and from
low Earth orbit,” Kerry wrote. “This is just one of the many critical
areas lost in the Bush initiative.”

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

In article ,
Hop David wrote:

http://www.space.com/news/kerry_report_040616.html

An excerpt:

³The most critical element of our space program should be reducing the
costs and increasing the reliability of space transportation to and from
low Earth orbit,² Kerry wrote. ³This is just one of the many critical
areas lost in the Bush initiative.²

Well, can't argue with that.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Hop David wrote:

http://www.space.com/news/kerry_report_040616.html

An excerpt:

?The most critical element of our space program should be reducing the
costs and increasing the reliability of space transportation to and from
low Earth orbit,? Kerry wrote. ?This is just one of the many critical
areas lost in the Bush initiative.?

Well, can't argue with that.

Sure, but his way to reduce costs seems to be by increasing the funding to
NASA.



John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.

a écrit dans le message de
...
Sure, but his way to reduce costs seems to be by increasing the funding to
NASA.

Increasing NASA funding.

Well, what's wrong with that?

Here is the full text as published in space.com

-----------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says he
supports a reinvigorated space exploration agenda for NASA but finds fault
with the vision U.S. President George W. Bush laid out for the space agency
in January.

In written responses to questions submitted to him by Space News and
SPACE.com, Kerry criticized the Bush space vision as big on goals but short
on resources. Kerry also offered a preview of how NASA’s agenda might change
if he is elected president in November.

“NASA is an invaluable asset to the American people and must receive
adequate resources to continue its important mission of exploration,” Kerry
wrote. “However, there is little to be gained from a ‘Bush space initiative’
that throws out lofty goals, but fails to support those goals with realistic
funding.”

The Bush Administration plans to fund a human return to the moon by 2020 by
more sharply focusing an only slightly enlarged NASA budget on the new
exploration goals. Under the Bush plan, NASA’s $15.4 billion budget would
increase about 5 percent a year before leveling out at $18 billion in 2008
and with only rate of inflation increases thereafter. The bulk of NASA’s
exploration budget, Bush Administration officials say, would come from money
that will be freed up after completion of the international space station in
2010 and from retiring the space shuttle fleet, moves expected to free up
about $5 billion to $6 billion a year.

Kerry’s comments were received a day before a presidential commission issued
its recommendations for implementing Bush’s vision.

Kerry said that the most immediate impact of the Bush plan is that NASA’s
resources are being stretched “even further than they were before the
Columbia tragedy,” forcing NASA to make unpopular choices like canceling a
space shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA is
currently seeking industry proposals for servicing Hubble robotically, but
space agency officials have made clear that the highest priority of such a
mission is attaching a module to Hubble that can be used to guide the space
telescope safely into the ocean at the end of its life.

Kerry also criticized the Bush Administration for abandoning the hunt for
low cost space transportation, a central goal of NASA during the 1990s.

“The most critical element of our space program should be reducing the costs
and increasing the reliability of space transportation to and from low Earth
orbit,” Kerry wrote. “This is just one of the many critical areas lost in
the Bush initiative.”

Asked what he saw as the most compelling arguments for supporting a civil
space program, Kerry cited many of the same economic benefits that Bush
articulated in his January speech at NASA headquarters.

“The civil space program acts as an engine of innovation for the entire
country, making its enormous benefits hard to quantify but even harder to
discount,” Kerry wrote.

Kerry’s emphasis on supporting microgravity research for the sake of
improving life on Earth stands in contrast to the Bush Administration’s
plans to focus space station research almost exclusively on knocking down
the barriers to living and working in space for increasingly long stretches
of time.

“I’m excited by potential advances in pharmaceuticals that microgravity
could lead to,” Kerry wrote. “Unique drug treatments produced in the
microgravity environment may play a vital role in reducing the cost of
health care and in developing defenses against chemical and biological
terrorist attacks.”

Kerry also defended the space legacy of former U.S. President Bill
Clinton -- the last Democrat to occupy the White House. Although the Clinton
Administration cut the space agency’s funding, Kerry said NASA still managed
to launch and land dozens of shuttle flights, including three servicing
trips to Hubble.

Kerry also credited policies pursued under the Clinton Administration with
cutting in half the time and money needed to develop space missions,
including missions to Mars. And he praised the Clinton Administration for
having the foresight to invite Russia into the international space station
program, a move, he wrote, “that has allowed us to operate the facility even
during the shuttle’s grounding.”

Asked if NASA could expect smaller budgets under a Kerry presidency, the
candidate said NASA funding decisions would be weighed against deficit
reduction and giving taxpayers the best value for their dollars.

“While reducing the Bush Administration’s reckless deficits will be one of
our early challenges, continued investment in a reinvigorated NASA that is
innovating, creating jobs, and returning real value to the American taxpayer
is what you can expect under a Kerry presidency,” Kerry wrote.

As a fourth-term U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, Kerry is a member of the
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which has oversight
over NASA’s budget authorization. Kerry has not participated in any NASA
hearings since announcing his candidacy in September. Kerry co-sponsored a
bill, S.1821, in November to establish a National Space Commission at the
White House to coordinate U.S. space activities.

A similar recommendation was made by the Presidential Commission on the
Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy, which releases its report
today.

Kerry said he continues to seek advice on a variety of high-tech issues from
a Science and Technology Committee he established early on in his campaign.
That committee, he said, includes “several individuals with a strong
background in the civil space arena.” Kerry did not identify his space
advisors by name.

wrote:
: Joe Strout wrote:
: In article ,
: Hop David wrote:

: http://www.space.com/news/kerry_report_040616.html
:
: An excerpt:
:
: ?The most critical element of our space program should be reducing the
: costs and increasing the reliability of space transportation to and from
: low Earth orbit,? Kerry wrote. ?This is just one of the many critical
: areas lost in the Bush initiative.?

: Well, can't argue with that.

: Sure, but his way to reduce costs seems to be by increasing the funding to
: NASA.

Well maybe Kerry doesn't plan on starting a war during his administration,
so the DOD won't need another triple-NASA budget increase? Since the DOD
spends in two weeks what NASA does in a year, I certainly know where he
could get that money.

Eric

: John
: --
: Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
: Ask me about joining the NRA.

jacob navia wrote:
a écrit dans le message de
...

Sure, but his way to reduce costs seems to be by increasing the funding to
NASA.


Increasing NASA funding.

Well, what's wrong with that?

Here is the full text as published in space.com

I would have done that in my O.P. But I linked to the original article
at http://www.space.com/news/kerry_report_040616.html for two reasons:

1) Save usenet bandwidth
2) Ad revenue is good for the health of space.com


“The most critical element of our space program should be reducing the costs
and increasing the reliability of space transportation to and from low Earth
orbit,” Kerry wrote. “This is just one of the many critical areas lost in
the Bush initiative.”

As Raven mentioned it seems he wants to do this by increasing NASA's
budget. IMHO A better (and more deficit friendly) road is to encourage
private business and free enterprise.


“I’m excited by potential advances in pharmaceuticals that microgravity
could lead to,” Kerry wrote. “Unique drug treatments produced in the
microgravity environment may play a vital role in reducing the cost of
health care and in developing defenses against chemical and biological
terrorist attacks.”

I was dismayed by this paragraph. Sounds like he wants to dump more
money down I.S.S. Why does he believe microgravity will play a vital
role in revolutionizing pharmaceuticals?



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Reposted from sci.space.policy to alt.politics.kerry.

jacob navia ) wrote:

: a écrit dans le message de
: ...
: Sure, but his way to reduce costs seems to be by increasing the funding to
: NASA.

: Increasing NASA funding.

: Well, what's wrong with that?

: Here is the full text as published in space.com

: -----------------------------------------------------
: WASHINGTON -- U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says he
: supports a reinvigorated space exploration agenda for NASA but finds fault
: with the vision U.S. President George W. Bush laid out for the space agency
: in January.

: In written responses to questions submitted to him by Space News and
: SPACE.com, Kerry criticized the Bush space vision as big on goals but short
: on resources. Kerry also offered a preview of how NASA’s agenda might change
: if he is elected president in November.

: “NASA is an invaluable asset to the American people and must receive
: adequate resources to continue its important mission of exploration,” Kerry
: wrote. “However, there is little to be gained from a ‘Bush space initiative’
: that throws out lofty goals, but fails to support those goals with realistic
: funding.”

: The Bush Administration plans to fund a human return to the moon by 2020 by
: more sharply focusing an only slightly enlarged NASA budget on the new
: exploration goals. Under the Bush plan, NASA’s $15.4 billion budget would
: increase about 5 percent a year before leveling out at $18 billion in 2008
: and with only rate of inflation increases thereafter. The bulk of NASA’s
: exploration budget, Bush Administration officials say, would come from money
: that will be freed up after completion of the international space station in
: 2010 and from retiring the space shuttle fleet, moves expected to free up
: about $5 billion to $6 billion a year.

: Kerry’s comments were received a day before a presidential commission issued
: its recommendations for implementing Bush’s vision.

: Kerry said that the most immediate impact of the Bush plan is that NASA’s
: resources are being stretched “even further than they were before the
: Columbia tragedy,” forcing NASA to make unpopular choices like canceling a
: space shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA is
: currently seeking industry proposals for servicing Hubble robotically, but
: space agency officials have made clear that the highest priority of such a
: mission is attaching a module to Hubble that can be used to guide the space
: telescope safely into the ocean at the end of its life.

: Kerry also criticized the Bush Administration for abandoning the hunt for
: low cost space transportation, a central goal of NASA during the 1990s.

: “The most critical element of our space program should be reducing the costs
: and increasing the reliability of space transportation to and from low Earth
: orbit,” Kerry wrote. “This is just one of the many critical areas lost in
: the Bush initiative.”

: Asked what he saw as the most compelling arguments for supporting a civil
: space program, Kerry cited many of the same economic benefits that Bush
: articulated in his January speech at NASA headquarters.

: “The civil space program acts as an engine of innovation for the entire
: country, making its enormous benefits hard to quantify but even harder to
: discount,” Kerry wrote.

: Kerry’s emphasis on supporting microgravity research for the sake of
: improving life on Earth stands in contrast to the Bush Administration’s
: plans to focus space station research almost exclusively on knocking down
: the barriers to living and working in space for increasingly long stretches
: of time.

: “I’m excited by potential advances in pharmaceuticals that microgravity
: could lead to,” Kerry wrote. “Unique drug treatments produced in the
: microgravity environment may play a vital role in reducing the cost of
: health care and in developing defenses against chemical and biological
: terrorist attacks.”

: Kerry also defended the space legacy of former U.S. President Bill
: Clinton -- the last Democrat to occupy the White House. Although the Clinton
: Administration cut the space agency’s funding, Kerry said NASA still managed
: to launch and land dozens of shuttle flights, including three servicing
: trips to Hubble.

: Kerry also credited policies pursued under the Clinton Administration with
: cutting in half the time and money needed to develop space missions,
: including missions to Mars. And he praised the Clinton Administration for
: having the foresight to invite Russia into the international space station
: program, a move, he wrote, “that has allowed us to operate the facility even
: during the shuttle’s grounding.”

: Asked if NASA could expect smaller budgets under a Kerry presidency, the
: candidate said NASA funding decisions would be weighed against deficit
: reduction and giving taxpayers the best value for their dollars.

: “While reducing the Bush Administration’s reckless deficits will be one of
: our early challenges, continued investment in a reinvigorated NASA that is
: innovating, creating jobs, and returning real value to the American taxpayer
: is what you can expect under a Kerry presidency,” Kerry wrote.

: As a fourth-term U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, Kerry is a member of the
: Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which has oversight
: over NASA’s budget authorization. Kerry has not participated in any NASA
: hearings since announcing his candidacy in September. Kerry co-sponsored a
: bill, S.1821, in November to establish a National Space Commission at the
: White House to coordinate U.S. space activities.

: A similar recommendation was made by the Presidential Commission on the
: Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy, which releases its report
: today.

: Kerry said he continues to seek advice on a variety of high-tech issues from
: a Science and Technology Committee he established early on in his campaign.
: That committee, he said, includes “several individuals with a strong
: background in the civil space arena.” Kerry did not identify his space
: advisors by name.

In article ,
jacob navia wrote:
Sure, but his way to reduce costs seems to be by increasing the funding to
NASA.

Increasing NASA funding.
Well, what's wrong with that?

Well, it has its points, but if what you want is cheaper spaceflight, past
history suggests that merely throwing more money at NASA is most unlikely
to produce it. NASA has repeatedly started programs supposedly aimed at
that goal, which generally have collapsed under their own weight after
spending a lot of money getting nowhere.

The primary objective of any big NASA project is to provide lots of jobs
at NASA centers and traditional NASA contractors. The secondary objective
is to develop lots of exciting new technology. Actually getting any sort
of *results* is third on the list, at best. (Witness MSFC's declaration
that the Fastrac project was a success despite it never actually producing
a working engine.)

Now, any project whose aim is to dramatically reduce costs has to minimize
manpower (that's where all the money goes!) and firmly avoid unnecessary
technological innovation (which is manpower-intensive and unreliable).
Consider that this is *third* priority, and consider what the first and
second priorities are, and you may begin to have some doubts about NASA's
ability to get results on it.

Worse yet, NASA will authoritatively proclaim that this is the only way to
proceed. That is, it becomes official wisdom from the official experts on
spaceflight that achieving cheaper spaceflight requires (a) spending lots
of money, and (b) developing lots of new technology. This makes it very
difficult to raise funds for any private project which claims that it can
be done inexpensively with mostly-existing technology. NASA not only
fails to get results, but in its elephantine blundering around, it
tramples others' attempts to get them.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

As far as I’m concerned, Kerry is looking at low-earth orbital missions and
micro-gravity experiments and nothing more, nothing about long-duration
lunar and martian MANNED explorations. What kind of policy is that? We’ve
been stuck in LEO since 1973. Seems like he prefers robotic exploration of
the solar system and the heck with manned exploration. I find that the
democrats are no longer dreamers when it comes to space exploration, unlike
JFK. At least George Bush is dreaming about the long-term exploration of
space where man and not machines will be doing the exploring. If it means
possibly scrapping HST (I hope it doesn’t come to that) and other projects
to achieve those goals, so be it. And here again, are the democrats
spouting how expensive it will cost, etc. etc. etc. and how unrealistic it
is. The same thing was said back in the early ’60s with Apollo and it was
achieved 8 years after JFK proposed it. George Bush is looking ahead by
15-20 years.

Does Kerry say if he’s going to increase NASA’s budget if he becomes
President (god forbid)? Of course not. He gives some convoluted response
about how the taxpayers will get more bang to the dollar when it comes to
space exploration and what the budget situation is, etc. etc. etc.

As for development of a low-cost space transportation system during the
1990’s. Why didn’t Clinton do something about it? Everytime something was
proposed, it was judged too expensive to continue.

And finally, if Kerry is critical of Bush’s space policy, why is it that
virtually all the major space advocacy groups in the US have endorsed the
plan? If I believe correctly, even Neil Armstrong and some of the other
moon walkers have endorsed the plan as well. John Glenn on the other hand
has criticized the plan, but then, he too is a democrat.

Paul

"Hop David" wrote in
message ...
http://www.space.com/news/kerry_report_040616.html

An excerpt:

“The most critical element of our space program should be
reducing the costs and increasing the reliability of space
transportation to and from low Earth orbit,” Kerry wrote. “This
is just one of the many critical areas lost in the Bush initiative.”


That objective would require keeping NASA out of the launch industry,
but I get the impression he wants NASA to build another shuttle - jobs,
votes, etc. This seems exactly what is not wanted.

Pete.