The Wrong Kind Of Partisan

This week's Fox News column, which has a link to last week's as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109127,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109127,00.html

I'm intrigued by your statement that phasing out the shuttle is a good
thing. What makes you think that CEV will be any better?

In favor:

* Better technical design (that's assuming a capsule, which I take to
be a consequence of it needing to go to the moon). I won't try to
rehash all the arguments here, but one possibly unfair thought I had
while browsing the latest return-to-flight summary at
http://returntoflight.org/assets/pdf...01-20-2004.pdf is how
many of the issues in the CAIB report largely (if not completely) go
away if the payload is on top of the rocket rather than the side.

* Assuming it launches on EELV, and NASA resists the temptation to
make a lot of CEV-mission-specific "enhancements" to the underlying
booster, you have a slightly larger flight rate over which to spread
the fixed costs.

* Assuming that it launches on EELV, and both Atlas and Delta compete
for the launch contracts, you get a bit more competition than
in shuttle.

Against:

* Absent any direction to the contrary, it is pretty safe to assume
that all the existing NASA bureaucracy from both shuttle and OSP
carries over to CEV.

* In doing something new, there are more ways to screw up than in
operating an existing design.

* What will it cost? Will NASA be able to afford whatever that number
ends up being? We may very well see the descope-redesign cycle that
we saw for shuttle and station.

* The above advantages which relate to EELV are pure fantasy. By the
time the astronauts can escape from the launch pad (including the
sliding wires, tanks, bunkers, etc), the entire launcher program
pushes a ton of crew-rating paperwork, and any number of additional
requirements, the thing will barely be recognized as whatever
launcher it originally derived from.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: This week's Fox News column, which has a link to last week's as well.

I'm glad you acknowledged that W mentioned nothing about space in his SOU
address.

The thing you did not mention is that given this partisan divide, what
exactly has W done to try and merge it? I would agree that a non-partisan
space plan is best for all. JFK was able to sell that by inspiring the
liberals with dreams and quelling the conservatives with cold war
rhetoric. W doesn't appeal to the left. It's simple. Even his going back
to the moon doesn't inspire dreams of human expansion. It is more at what
can I do to assist my business cronies while I'm still here as president.

Eric

: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109127,00.html

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: This week's Fox News column, which has a link to last week's as well.

I'm glad you acknowledged that W mentioned nothing about space in his SOU
address.

I thought I had read or been told that JFK did not mention space activities
in *his* SOU address. That's wrong. From his 1962 address:

"With the approval of this Congress, we have undertaken in the past year a
great new effort in outer space. Our aim is not simply to be first on the
moon, any more than Charles Lindbergh's real aim was to be the first to
Paris. His aim was to develop the techniques of our own country and other
countries in the field of air and the atmosphere, and our objective in
making this effort, which we hope will place one of our citizens on the
moon, is to develop in a new frontier of science, commerce and cooperation,
the position of the United States and the Free World."

From his 1961 speech:

"Finally, this Administration intends to explore promptly all possible areas
of cooperation with the Soviet Union and other nations "to invoke the
wonders of science instead of its terrors." Specifically, I now invite all
nations - including the Soviet Union - to join with us in developing a
weather prediction program, in a new communications satellite program and in
preparation for probing the distant planets of Mars and Venus, probes which
may someday unlock the deepest secrets of the universe.

Today this country is ahead in the science and technology of space, while
the Soviet Union is ahead in the capacity to lift large vehicles into orbit.
Both nations would help themselves as well as other nations by removing
these endeavors from the bitter and wasteful competition of the Cold War.
The United States would be willing to join with the Soviet Union and the
scientists of all nations in a greater effort to make the fruits of this new
knowledge available to all - and, beyond that, in an effort to extend farm
technology to hungry nations - to wipe out disease - to increase the
exchanges of scientists and their knowledge - and to make our own
laboratories available to technicians of other lands who lack the facilities
to pursue their own work. Where nature makes natural allies of us all, we
can demonstrate that beneficial relations are possible even with those with
whom we most deeply disagree - and this must someday be the basis of world
peace and world law."

These quotes were found at: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jk35/

Jon

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
This week's Fox News column, which has a link to last week's as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109127,00.html

If a Democrat wins the White House, the Bush Space
Plan is toast. Except, I bet, such a result would
oddly mean more money for NASA, because the Dems say
they want to complete, and continue to support, the
Bill Clinton International Space Station. Dems would
probably also support the sound idea of replacing
shuttle with something else soon. NASA might still
get more funds for robotic exploration of the Moon
and Mars - and if China seems to be planning to use
its big new rocket to send a human on a translunar
flight, funds for a NASA manned lunar program would
soon appear too. Manned Mars would still be out
there, sometime in the distant future, unfunded,
whether Bush were reelected or not.

- Ed Kyle

I would agree that a non-partisan space plan is best for all. JFK was
able to sell that by inspiring the liberals with dreams and quelling
the conservatives with cold war rhetoric.

That worked for 1961-1962 (the conservatives which he most needed to
win over were conservative Democrats in the Senate - people of that
ideology would now be Republicans).

Later in the decade, getting Apollo through Congress was very hard.
JFK gave a number of public speeches about cooperating with the
Soviets in space, which lost him the Cold War angle. But then JFK was
shot, and that is perhaps what saved it.

The main source I could quickly find for this was the radio program
http://www.wamu.org/special/moon.html which might not be the best one
but which does seem to cover the basic material. The web site does
have transcripts.

Anyway, I was looking for answers about what saved Apollo from
cancellation. I didn't really find a particularly complete picture.

If a Democrat wins the White House, the Bush Space Plan is toast.

I suppose. Although to the extent that it doesn't involve budget
increases, it might not really be something the White House cares about.

Except, I bet, such a result would oddly mean more money for NASA

I doubt it. The Democrats have always (in recent times, anyway)
opposed more money for NASA. During the Clinton years, NASA funding
was flat (slightly declining, I think).

the Dems say they want to complete, and continue to support, the Bill
Clinton International Space Station.

Do you mean the Ronald Reagan Space Station?

Jim Kingdon wrote:

If a Democrat wins the White House, the Bush Space Plan is toast.


I suppose. Although to the extent that it doesn't involve budget
increases, it might not really be something the White House cares about.


The big break has occurred either way. ISS and Shuttle
are now pretty decisively not the end point of wherever NASA
is heading. I don't see either program managing to really pull
off a comeback. What *could* happen would be a segment of ISS
development presenting a reasonable case for a next generation
station to leverage off the lessons learned from ISS. But, quite
frankly, there isn't anything really better than this on the table
and nothing really in the wings either that is better than this.
At it's core, this is a fairly solid technical proposal. Anything else
would be roughly the same in terms of the core tech, just a different
destination. I think the core paradigm of leaving LEO is going to be
solidly entrenched even by the Nov 2004 elections.


Except, I bet, such a result would oddly mean more money for NASA


I doubt it. The Democrats have always (in recent times, anyway)
opposed more money for NASA. During the Clinton years, NASA funding
was flat (slightly declining, I think).


Flat is where I am betting. This time, Bush is going to come
against the Dems and the fiscally minded Republicans. This program
is far more threatened by Republicans at this point than democrats.
The republicans represent the swing votes and I am not seeing a
lot of support for any increased budget. I think the overall scheme
will survive either party in control. If they stay in budget, they
should have a relatively free hand.


the Dems say they want to complete, and continue to support, the Bill
Clinton International Space Station.


Do you mean the Ronald Reagan Space Station?

Jim Kingdon ) wrote:
: I would agree that a non-partisan space plan is best for all. JFK was
: able to sell that by inspiring the liberals with dreams and quelling
: the conservatives with cold war rhetoric.

: That worked for 1961-1962 (the conservatives which he most needed to
: win over were conservative Democrats in the Senate - people of that
: ideology would now be Republicans).

Perhaps I should have stated "conservative" from 1961 as those staunchly
opposed to communism and its spread. My point is that to get support from
anti communists one would address the cold war benefit of space.

: Later in the decade, getting Apollo through Congress was very hard.
: JFK gave a number of public speeches about cooperating with the
: Soviets in space, which lost him the Cold War angle. But then JFK was
: shot, and that is perhaps what saved it.

Martyrs get sympathy from the left not the right. That was certainly the
case for JFK.

: The main source I could quickly find for this was the radio program
: http://www.wamu.org/special/moon.html which might not be the best one
: but which does seem to cover the basic material. The web site does
: have transcripts.

: Anyway, I was looking for answers about what saved Apollo from
: cancellation. I didn't really find a particularly complete picture.

I think we are well on our way. The Apollo 1 disaster sort of reconfirmed
us going forward. The folks at NASA surely wanted to continue, and it
provided us with something positive to occupy our minds in the wake of the
ongoing war in VietNam.

I think, whether people wanted to admit it or not, we all wanted Apollo to
work, even the anti war types.

Eric

Jim Kingdon ) wrote:
: If a Democrat wins the White House, the Bush Space Plan is toast.

: I suppose. Although to the extent that it doesn't involve budget
: increases, it might not really be something the White House cares about.

: Except, I bet, such a result would oddly mean more money for NASA

: I doubt it. The Democrats have always (in recent times, anyway)
: opposed more money for NASA. During the Clinton years, NASA funding
: was flat (slightly declining, I think).

Even states, that have a NASA presence and a large voter base that is
Democraic, like Cailfornia, Ohio and Maryland? You might want to qualify
your comment about NASA's budget.

: the Dems say they want to complete, and continue to support, the Bill
: Clinton International Space Station.

: Do you mean the Ronald Reagan Space Station?

I thought it was the International Space Station? Bill Clinton has nothing
named after him and Reagan has a building and and airport in DC named
after him. I'm sure he will get a stamp from the Postal Service as well,
but for that folks WILL have to wait until he dies and then ten years
after that!

Eric