Pres. Kerry's NASA

On 8 Feb 2004 15:55:49 -0800, (ed kyle) wrote:

What will President Kerry do with NASA? My guess is that
he will want to dump the Bush Moon/Mars plans ASAP, but
will he be able to stop CEV and the end of Shuttle?

- Ed Kyle

Ultimately it will be the House and Senate that will decide if Bush's
proposal moves forward or not, after all it is they who have power of
the purse.

Kelly McDonald

The economic recovery in the US has only a small amount to do with the
tax cuts. You can read this from such radical caucuses as the IMF/WB.

Fascinating. A while back the recovery was all about the tax cuts, and was
thus going to be just a blip. Now that it's not just a blip, the tax cuts
have nothing to do with it.


God forbid the US might be brought somehow to renounce its
imperialism.

Imperialism? If this is imperialism, a snowball is an iceberg.


What do you think of PNAC?

An interesting document favored by people with far less power and influence
in Washington than the tin-foil-hat/born-a-few-decades-too-late brigade like
to pretend.


Yeah, ok. Nobody has a clue whether there is going to be terrorism
against the US or not.

You just told us that we'd be seeing more if the War on Terror kept going.


The best you can do is stop committing similar,
though much larger, crimes against other countries. Win the hearts of
the poor of the world, help them instead of hurting them.

Good ****ing god.


You know, Osama bin Laden had a clear rationale for favoring 9/11. You
ought to read it. There are clear reasons he lists. None of them have
really been broadcast in the American media--it's more convenient to
simply deny reality and broadcast fantasies about how they "hate our
freedom" or something.

I'll give you that - it's definitely more convenient for your ilk to deny
reality than face it in its complex glory.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:10:18 -0800, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat.


Correct... and neither was Johnson.

--
Reed

I read, once again, the usual nonsense about just what constitutes
a liberal Democrat.

Kennedy was a supply sider. That's a classical liberal position, but
not a modern one. He would probably also be appalled at the foreign
policy notions of the twenty-first century Democrat party.

In my opinion, the western democracies achieving energy independence
would be the biggest blow against the crazy Wahabbis. We're funding
terrorism every time we fill our gas tanks. Of course you won't see
oilmen Bush or Cheney trying to end our petroleum addiction.

I know, man. It's a shame how they put all that work Clinton did in the 8
years he and Algore had at the helm to an abrupt end.

Oh, wait, Clinton and Algore didn't do a thing.

"Phil A. Buster" wrote in
:

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
What will President Kerry do with NASA? My guess is that
he will want to dump the Bush Moon/Mars plans ASAP, but
will he be able to stop CEV and the end of Shuttle?

Why do so many seem to assume that Kerry would be less supportive of
space activities? Bush never had any interest in this area at all
until he saw an opportunity for some election year drama exploiting
the excitement over the MERs.

Nope, Bush's plan was motivated by the Columbia accident, and the
observation in the CAIB report that the lack of a central focus and mission
for NASA was a contributing factor to the accident. Both of those predate
the MERs.

Historically, with the exception of
Kennedy (driven by the cold war), there hasn't been all that much
partisan difference on space efforts.

Not much, but some differences are there if you look. Take the NASA budget,
for example:

Fiscal NASA %
Year Budget Change Comments
(2004 $M)
====== ========= ====== ========
1958 $467 First NASA Budget
1961 $3,746 735.1% (R)Eisenhower's last NASA budget
1964 $20,267 441.1% (D)Kennedy's last NASA budget
1969 $17,787 -12.2% (D)Johnson's last NASA budget
1975 $9,544 -46.3% (R)Nixon's last NASA budget
1977 $10,139 6.2% (R)Ford's last NASA budget
1981 $10,185 0.5% (D)Carter's last NASA budget
1989 $15,107 48.3% (R)Reagan's last NASA budget
1993 $17,358 14.9% (R)Bush-41's last NASA budget
2001 $14,770 -14.9% (D)Clinton's last NASA budget
2005 $16,044 8.6% (R)Bush-43's current NASA budget request

(Those who remember me posting this earlier and wondering why the numbers
have changed - I'm using the new GDP price indices in the Fed's 2005 budget
package to correct for inflation.)

From this, two trends become clear: No Republican other than Nixon has ever
cut NASA's budget over the full course of his administration, and no
Democrat other than Kennedy has substantially increased it. Honorable
mention to Johnson - NASA's budget peak occurred during his watch, in 1966
- but followed by the most drastic cuts in NASA's history.

We can also look at major manned program starts:

Eisenhower - NASA, Mercury, Apollo
Kennedy - Gemini, Apollo lunar landing
Johnson - AAP/Skylab
Nixon - Space shuttle, ASTP
Ford - None
Carter - None
Reagan - SSF, X-30
Bush-41 - SEI
Clinton - ISS, X-33
Bush-43 - Constellation

The pattern here is less distinct:

Eisenhower created NASA in response to Sputnik but was content to merely
match Soviet accomplishments in low Earth orbit, with only vague plans to
go beyond.

In response to Gagarin and the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy focused NASA on a goal
of beating the Soviets to the moon, but was assassinated before it could
come to fruition (and also before he could have second thoughts about it).

Johnson was able to carry Kennedy's momentum for two years (budget-wise),
but pressure from Vietnam and the Great Society programs forced an eventual
end to Apollo, and the truncation of Apollo Applications into Skylab.

Nixon chartered a Space Task Group to propose a post-Apollo program, but
choked on NASA's outrageous price tag for a space shuttle, space station,
lunar base, and Mars mission, eventually cutting it down to just the
shuttle. Kissinger's "detente" with the USSR led to ASTP.

Nobody proposed anything big in manned spaceflight for the rest of the
70's.

Once the shuttle was operational, the idea of a space station as the next
step from the old STG plan was revived by the Reagan administration. Reagan
reacted to the Challenger accident by proposing a replacement orbiter, and
initiating a shuttle replacement (X-30) as a joint NASA/DoD project that
eventually died due to over-ambitious technology and management blunders.

Bush-41 repeated Nixon's STG mistake with SEI, the difference this time
being that NASA administrator Paine effectively killed STG out of political
naivete, while NASA administrator Truly knew exactly what he was doing when
he killed SEI (and got fired for it).

Clinton reacted to SSF cost overruns by scaling it back into ISS and
inviting the Russians as a partner, and initiated another shuttle
replacement with X-33, which eventually died due to over-ambitious
technology and management blunders. (Anyone see a pattern here?).

Bush-43 reacted to the Columbia accident by forming a team to develop a new
space policy, resulting in Project Constellation. This time, NASA appears
to have learned a lesson from STG/SEI by proposing a program that can
(more-or-less) be accomplished within the existing NASA budget (adjusted
for inflation), and appears to have learned a lesson from X-30 and X-33 by
not trying to push the technological envelope too far. It remains to be
seen whether the management lessons have sunk in yet.

Whew. No completely consistent patterns - except, perhaps, that most
presidential space initiatives are reactive and not proactive, regardless
of party.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Alexander Sheppard" wrote

God forbid the US might be brought somehow to renounce its
imperialism.
...
You know, Osama bin Laden had a clear rationale for favoring 9/11. You
ought to read it. There are clear reasons he lists. None of them have
really been broadcast in the American media--it's more convenient to
simply deny reality and broadcast fantasies about how they "hate our
freedom" or something.

From "The Economist", 20 September 2001

(http://employees.oxy.edu/mcintyre/Ro...f%20Hatred.htm):

"America defends its interests, sometimes skilfully, sometimes clumsily,
just as other countries do. Since power, like nature, abhors a vacuum, it
steps into places where disorder reigns. On the whole, it should do so more,
not less, often. Of all the great powers in history, it is probably the
least territorial, the most idealistic. Muslims in particular should note
that the armed interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, both led by America, were
attacks on Christian regimes in support of Muslim victims. In neither did
the United States stand to make any material gain; in neither were its vital
interests, conventionally defined, at stake. Those who criticise America's
leadership of the world's capitalist system-a far from perfect affair-should
remember that it has brought more wealth and better living standards to more
people than any other in history. And those who regret America's triumph in
the cold war should stop to think how the world would look if the Soviet
Union had won. America's policies may have earned it enemies. But in truth,
it is difficult to find plausible explanations for the virulence of last
week's attacks, except in the envy, hatred and moral confusion of those who
plotted and perpetrated them."

--- end excerpt ---

I'd like to hear the support for your claim of imperialism. Look at history.
Hint: After Japan and Germany were defeated in WWII, who rebuilt their
countries? Hint: Where does America now exert control with an aim towards
*increasing* its control and keeping power from the people?

--
Jon

"Phil A. Buster" wrote

Bush never had any interest in this area at all until he saw
an opportunity for some election year drama exploiting the excitement over
the MERs. Historically, with the exception of Kennedy (driven by the cold
war), there hasn't been all that much partisan difference on space
efforts.
Also, it's far from clear that the Bush proposals are really of
substantive
value. They don't address some of the remaining serious problems with
NASA
(particularly re. contractor cronyism and pork barrel spending). I
haven't
much about Kerry's positions on space, but see no particular reason to be
apprehensive about them.

Your statement "Bush never had any interest ..." is false, and you would
know this had you been keeping up on things. There has been a *lot* going on
behind the scenes for longer than the past year. One can argue about the
content of the new vision, but to call it an election year ploy is ignorant.
Also, during the Clinton years, the NASA budget decreased (as posted by JRF
some time ago).

Jon

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Eisenhower created NASA in response to Sputnik but was content to merely
match Soviet accomplishments in low Earth orbit, with only vague plans to
go beyond.

Although not literally inaccurate, I think this is a bit unkind. It
wasn't so much that Eisenhower's administration was deliberately being
vague about going beyond, as that they thought developing some degree of
competence in LEO was a higher priority, and that it was a bad idea to
start costly crash programs aimed at more ambitious objectives when the
basics had not yet been mastered. Their vision of the US space program
was one of gradual, systematic capability building on moderate budgets,
and never mind whether the Soviets managed to do certain things first
meanwhile.

Remember that in the late 50s and early 60s, the US was a long way from
even being able to operate in LEO reliably. JFK commanded a lunar landing
at a time when US launchers were more known for failing than succeeding,
when the number of fully successful US lunar/deep-space missions was *one*
(Pioneer 5) out of ten or so tries, and total US manned spaceflight
experience was Shepard's little suborbital lob. This was breathtaking
hubris... and it was obviously going to be very, very expensive.

The Eisenhower administration actually had, overall, a rather more
sensible approach. Had that continued, we probably wouldn't have gotten
to the Moon until the 1980s... but we probably wouldn't have abandoned it
four years later either.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:10:18 -0800, in a place far, far away, Michael
Walsh made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat.


Correct... and neither was Johnson.

--
Reed

I read, once again, the usual nonsense about just what constitutes
a liberal Democrat.

Kennedy was a supply sider. That's a classical liberal position, but
not a modern one. He would probably also be appalled at the foreign
policy notions of the twenty-first century Democrat party.


He'd probably be a Republican today (the mind boggles) -- as a Democrat,
he'd be watching from the sidelines with Lieberman if we could magically
transfer him from the 1960 election cycle to the 2004 election cycle.

--
Reed

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:11:13 -0700, Hop David
wrote:

Maintaining biodiversity on Earth is important for our comfort and survival.

What makes you believe that environmentalists are all interested in
human comfort or survival?

They are not.

They ought to be. There are many non-bleeding-heart reasons to be en-
vironmentally conscious. Preserving animal/plant life for the mere
sake of preserving life is not one of them--just like the idea of
finding E.T. life just for the sake of finding life isn't.


The prime question should be, "what's it to us?" And you can find
many reasons for preserving some biodiversity down here for our com-
fort and survival.

Similar concerns should exist in space. The term "space pollution"
isn't a joke word any more. All the debris we've left up there great-
ly increases the chances of being hit by something at lethal veloci-
ties while in orbit.

For the same reason we might not want to pollute the Moon with too
much of an atmosphere from industrial exhausts, because the vacuum
may be its prime asset one day for all sorts of manufacturing indus-
tries. So we might want to look for many ways of producing and trans-
porting goods that minimize outgassing--once the system has acquired
critical mass. But a clear point must be made that there is any sense
in doing this, that we *will* one day have such industries up there.
Because otherwise for us down here it doesn't make a difference at
all. If putting the brakes on polluting industry would mean putting a
stop to that future high-tech industry, too, it would defy the pur-
pose altogether.


The main motivation of such thinking should always be ourselves. Will
what we are doing now for our convenience greatly inconvenience us
later on? If so, just how? Is it a reliable prognosis or just un-
founded panic? In that vein environmental concerns are justified and
will always exist--on Moon, Mars, Pluto, wherever...


--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'