Do Republicians support NASA more than Democrats in the US?

"Skylon" wrote in message
oups.com...

jonathan wrote:


I see Bush as trying to change that, to establish a long term continuity
to space policy. Unfortunately he chose the easy route, by
folding Nasa into just another branch of the armed services.


Erm....HOW?


Here's how, by creating stable funding through government
payloads. Which are mostly related to national security.
Funding will increasingly become dependent on the
Defense Dept.



U.S. SPACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY
January 6, 2005
______________________
FACT SHEET

Goal and Objectives

"The fundamental goal of this policy is to ensure the capability to access and use
space in support of national and homeland security, civil, scientific, and
economic interests. To achieve this goal, the United States Government shall:"

"To assure access to space for United States Government payloads, therefore, the
United States Government must provide sufficient and stable funding for acquisition
of U.S. space transportation capabilities in order to create a climate in which a
robust space transportation industrial and technology base can flourish."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-40.pdf






-A.L.

George Evans wrote:
in article ,
at wrote on 9/13/05 3:54 PM:

On the other hand, the moon has been viewed as a valuable resource by
Democrats, and in my opinion rightly so. To realize its tremendous potential
for harnessing solar energy, one need only look through its absence of an
atmosphere to its obvious luminescence. The moon has proximity; U. S. space
pioneers have been there; and the harnessing appears within reason. Why not
get it done, before it's too late?

I don't know which *leading* Democrats you're talking about, but I guarantee
any such project won't get the party's support unless it is "international".

That's a shame, because at least two or three different populous
countries might pull it off by 2050-2075, with or without help. There's
enough of the Moon to go around, in my opinion.

By the way, where did I talk about "leading" Democrats? I'm not an
advocate for the "space sense" of *any* present-day politicians,
because I haven't seen any sense applied lately. Regardless, JFK and
his administration didn't need "international" support, only the
expertise of Americanized-Germans.

One source mentions Arthur P. Smith (party affiliation not mentioned),
a physicist who has written about solar power from space for the
American Physical Society. According to the article, Smith claims
research funding was highest during the oil crisis in the Carter
administration. Dubya has shown no such interest, however.

Challenger's Ghost

in article , jonathan at
wrote on 9/14/05 8:54 PM:

snip

Going to the Moon and Mars is going to help us here on earth how exactly?
This is the obvious question the tax payers and politicians will ask down the
road as funding requests pour in. Nasa can't answer that question without
using clichés. So those programs are doomed to partisan political tug of wars
and failure.

We need a tangible goal both sides and the people can get behind. Something
that inspires and provides hope for the future.

Maybe you'll think these are also cliches, but here goes. I teach in the
correctional system of Riverside County, in California. When my students
give me tours of their neighborhoods one thing stands out clearly. A young
person who thinks his neighborhood sucks gets discouraged and often joins a
gang and starts down a path of further destruction of property.

Likewise, when he thinks his country sucks, it further discourages him and
causes him to be less interested in solutions to problems. He becomes more
likely to add to the problem, instead.

I think a large dose of national pride would go a long way right now. And
NASA is positioned well to give us just that, especially if they can get
there PR working better and directed more toward youth. If my students could
picture themselves on the moon, the night would have more to offer than
crime.

George Evans

In article ,
wrote:

Space exploration is about survival of the our species, preventing or
delaying the extinction of the human race in the future by spreading out
into the universe and investigating and retrieving resources from planets,
asteroids and comets in our solar system.

Not really. Advancing technology means that our species will cease to
exist in the (evolutionarily "near") future, space exploration or no
space exploration. We will either be extinguished by a technological
accident of some kind (biological warfare experiment gone awry being
perhaps the most likely cause) or be altered by technology to the
point of being unrecognizable as human.

So? Yes, humans a few hundred years from now will look quite different
from humans today, but I'm quite content with that, as they'll still be
our descendants (and some of them may actually be some of us -- my
cryonics arrangements are in place, how about you?).

This is NOT equivalent to humanity being wiped out. Not even a little.
To argue for the equivalence of these two outcomes is absurd.

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

richard schumacher wrote:

In article ,
(Eric Chomko) wrote:


Paul Mense ) wrote:


: If I remember correctly, back in 1984, when Mondall ran against Reagan
: for the presidency (and lost big time), didn’t he vow to get rid of the
: space shuttle and end all manned spaceflight altogether and use the
: money “saved” in solving all the problems here on Earth?

Yes, "scuttle the shuttle" was the claim.


And whattya know: turns out it would have been the right thing to do.

Not without proposing an alternative manned space flight effort. Unless
Mondale proposed something else, "scuttle the shuttle" meant "scuttle
manned space flight." Among other things, that would have been the
early end of the Hubble Space Telescope.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

wrote:

Ray wrote:

When did Democrats view the moon as a valuable resource? What decade,
and if you know what democrats because I never heard of this?


Your own question provides the place to begin for your answer:

"... despite the fact that going to the moon was JFKs idea?"

Apparently this was before your time.

The type of Democrats like JFK and those who supported his manned space
flight endeavor are long gone. Today's Democrats are a very different
stripe, just as today's Republicans are different from those of the 1950's.

By 1972, the Democrat McGovern called the Space Shuttle a "waste of
money," leaving no doubt he was going to cancel it if he became President.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

George Evans wrote:

I think a large dose of national pride would go a long way right now.

Yes, because national pride in our civilian manned space program is so
sorely missing under the leadership of Dubya and his cronies.

NASA is positioned well to give us just that,

Yes, but it will take more than rhetoric. How do you like the
aerospace-engineering expertise and moon-derived-energy vision of Shana
Dale, his new nominee for Deputy NASA Administrator? What I see is
another insider/lawyer, one with experience as a party official.

especially if they can get there PR working better and directed more toward
youth.

Action speaks louder than words.

If my students could picture themselves on the moon, the night would have
more to offer than crime.

Well said!

Challenger's Ghost

Ray wrote:

Is it possible that the Republician party in the US supports and has
always supported human spaceflight and NASA more than the Democratic party
in the US despite the fact that going to the moon was JFKs idea? I am a
registered democrat, a huge supporter of NASA and human spaceflight and
usually vote democrat, but think that the Republicians support it more.

I don't think you can generalize like that. The International Space
Station certainly had Clinton's support. The Republicans are more
interested in the military exploitation of space, from Reagan's
space-based Strategic Defense Initiative to today's "strategic
dominance" theories of many conservatives.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

jonathan wrote:

"Skylon" wrote in message
oups.com...

jonathan wrote:


I see Bush as trying to change that, to establish a long term continuity
to space policy. Unfortunately he chose the easy route, by
folding Nasa into just another branch of the armed services.


Erm....HOW?



Here's how, by creating stable funding through government
payloads. Which are mostly related to national security.
Funding will increasingly become dependent on the
Defense Dept.



U.S. SPACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY
January 6, 2005
______________________
FACT SHEET

Goal and Objectives

"The fundamental goal of this policy is to ensure the capability to access and use
space in support of national and homeland security, civil, scientific, and
economic interests. To achieve this goal, the United States Government shall:"

"To assure access to space for United States Government payloads, therefore, the
United States Government must provide sufficient and stable funding for acquisition
of U.S. space transportation capabilities in order to create a climate in which a
robust space transportation industrial and technology base can flourish."
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-40.pdf

How is this any different from the design decision to double the payload
capacity of the Space Shuttle because the Pentagon insisted on it? The
Space Shuttle was designed so as the Pentagon could be its biggest
customer. If Reagan's space-based Strategic Defense Initiative had been
built, we would have needed a whole fleet of orbiters to build it and
maintain it.

So your claims that NASA was this "peaceful" agency all along, and only
now has Bush somehow "perverted" it into serving the military, are
bogus. Hell, NASA couldn't have even gotten into space in the first
place without the military's help. The Redstone and Atlas were military
rockets hurriedly adapted to shoot Mercury astronauts into space. And
the early astronauts, as you know, were all military test pilots.



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:31:29 GMT, "Steven L."
wrote:

The type of Democrats like JFK and those who supported his manned space
flight endeavor are long gone.

....Most of those who gave a **** about NASA or space exploration for
any real, serious, justifiable reason all wound up leaving politics by
the end of the Great Society, chased and/or lured off by one or more
of three events:

1) The reaction at home to the mishandling of Vietnam War by the
politicians.

2) The unravelling of the Great Society that resulted from 1) thanks
to the "guilt by association" effect; ergo, if it came from LBJ and
his supporters, it *had* to be bad.

3) The resurrection of the political career of Nixon, and the
subsequent loss of trust of the people for their government following
the upheavals caused by 1) and Nixon's own collapse.

....Those who came in to replace both Democrats and Republicans who
were pro-NASA came in at a time when the media was presenting
Americans as "peacenik tree-huggers" as a majority, supposed to be
more concerned with keeping Injuns from crying over dirty rivers,
grooving to the Osmonds, the Carpenters and the Cowsi...er...Partridge
Family, and keeping Peter Max employed as an artist. NASA was a
weapon of the Cold War, and as such it should be shunned because as a
weapon of the Cold War, it was as bad as Vietnam. Or, at least, that
was their justification for their ignorance in action.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society