Candidates on Space

Henry Spencer wrote:

As did Bush, please note -- unless I've missed something, he hasn't said a
word about it since. It's been suggested that he was hoping for a
stronger and more positive public response, and when he didn't get it, the
issue went very much on the back burner... which bodes ill for political
support of exploration if he *is* re-elected.

The other reason he would have made his announcement would have been
to preempt criticism of how he's handled the space program. The Columbia
loss occured on his watch, so he may have felt he needed to explain
how he was going to address the underlying problems. It's convenient
for him that large changes aren't until far in the future.

Paul

Charles Buckley wrote:

4 months after the release of the CAIB is not preemption. It's
damage control.

Well before the 2004 election is preemption.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Henry Spencer wrote:

As did Bush, please note -- unless I've missed something, he hasn't
said a
word about it since. It's been suggested that he was hoping for a
stronger and more positive public response, and when he didn't get it,
the
issue went very much on the back burner... which bodes ill for political
support of exploration if he *is* re-elected.


The other reason he would have made his announcement would have been
to preempt criticism of how he's handled the space program. The Columbia
loss occured on his watch, so he may have felt he needed to explain
how he was going to address the underlying problems. It's convenient
for him that large changes aren't until far in the future.

Paul


4 months after the release of the CAIB is not preemption. It's
damage control.

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Charles Buckley wrote:

4 months after the release of the CAIB is not preemption. It's
damage control.


Well before the 2004 election is preemption.



Nothing to indicate space is an issue in this election
in any way shape or form.

It's damage control from the CAIB. That's it. He had to
have a game plan in place before the budget was submitted and
the 2010 recertification date meant that they had to adjust the
2005-6 budget request to either meet the requirements for recert
or plan to ground shuttle. The request had to be made within
the scpoe of NASA's strategic plan. ISS would be hitting core complete
within that budget cycle, so he also had to start the shift in
funding to meet the next goal after ISS.

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message In article

Bear in mind that *any* statement about space from "these guys" -- and I
include one G. Bush in that collective noun -- right now means little.

I think that Bush's space plane will not change in the near future. NASA
has done a hard turn into that program and it would be extremely hard to
turn it again without aggravating NASA civil service.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:12:46 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Michael Gallagher wrote:
...But right now I don't have any reason to believe he would
any more than the last Democrat in the White House did, especially
that in public statements after Bush's announcement, Kerry joined the
Legion of the Unsupportive.

As did Bush, please note -- unless I've missed something, he hasn't said a
word about it since. It's been suggested that he was hoping for a
stronger and more positive public response, and when he didn't get it, the
issue went very much on the back burner... which bodes ill for political
support of exploration if he *is* re-elected.

Henry, I think you miss the point. For the past twenty years, the US
national space policy has been that we will build a space station,
with no goals expressed beyond that. Now the policy is that we are
going back to the moon, and on to Mars.

You ask, what's the difference between now and 1989?

Two things.

First, the NASA administrator is the president's (and
vice-president's) man. Second, the president's party controls
Congress.

Those two factors mean that a new inertia for the new policy will set
in over the next few years (assuming, as I consider likely, a Bush
reelection).

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

Bear in mind that *any* statement about space from "these guys" -- and I
include one G. Bush in that collective noun -- right now means little.
Space is too minor an issue for most voters to get upset about a reversal
in space policy after the election... which means that any statement made
now will be optimized for attracting votes, and doesn't necessarily bear
any relation to what the candidate would do after being elected.

Henry; that's true about damm near any topic the candidates are asked
about.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
First, the NASA administrator is the president's (and vice-president's)
man. Second, the president's party controls Congress.

Those two factors mean that a new inertia for the new policy will set
in over the next few years (assuming, as I consider likely, a Bush
reelection).

Meet the new inertia. Same as the old inertia.

Who will get fooled again?

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

In article , Charles Buckley wrote:

Nothing to indicate space is an issue in this election
in any way shape or form.

Was space ever? 1960, you can make a case; Sputnik as emblem of the
"missile gap", but after that...

--
-Andrew Gray

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:12:46 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

As did Bush, please note -- unless I've missed something, he hasn't said a
word about it since ....

He has, however, rearranged NASA, and, according to Space News,
empanled a commission on the matter, which hopefully will have more of
a long term impact than Augustine commission ten years ago.

.... It's been suggested that he was hoping for a
stronger and more positive public response, and when he didn't get it, the
issue went very much on the back burner...

Better on the back burner than off the stove altogether.

.... which bodes ill for political
support of exploration if he *is* re-elected.

I don't seem Bush cancelling it if reelected just because it was
ridiculed, though. I *do* see Kerry or Edwards canceling it. I have
no reason not to at this point.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---