A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Pres. Kerry's NASA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 9th 04, 04:26 PM
Gregg Germain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA

Dave Fowler wrote:
:From: Reed Snellenberger

:Kerry probably won't do very much in a direct manner about NASA -- for
:one thing, support for manned spaceflight among liberal Democrats has
:historically been pretty low

: John F. Kennedy, anyone?

John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat.



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

  #12  
Old February 9th 04, 04:35 PM
Tom Merkle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
om...
"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message

hlink.net...
"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?

- Ed Kyle

That's the assumption, though many people thought that Clinton would

cancel
the space station in 1993 and he did not.

My guess is that we would probably see the end of Americans in space

under a
Kerry administration, sooner or later.

I dont think he would have means to stop X-Prize or Space Adventures.
Americans could still go to space.

-kert


Don't be too sure about that. I do not think Kerry would exert himself too
much to pass regulatory or tax incentives for private space travel. Also, he
is quite capable of forbidding travel to the Moon or Mars out of
environmental reasons.


Yes, but he couldn't cancel CEV. By this time next year it will have
tremendous politcal momentum as Project Constellation and will no more
be able to be stopped than Kerry and Kennedy's Big Dig.

Tom Merkle
  #13  
Old February 9th 04, 04:38 PM
Reed Snellenberger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA

Gregg Germain wrote in
:

Dave Fowler wrote:
:From: Reed Snellenberger

:Kerry probably won't do very much in a direct manner about NASA -- for
:one thing, support for manned spaceflight among liberal Democrats has
:historically been pretty low

: John F. Kennedy, anyone?

John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat.


Correct... and neither was Johnson.

--
Reed
  #14  
Old February 9th 04, 04:40 PM
Phil A. Buster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA

"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?

- Ed Kyle


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. 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.


  #15  
Old February 9th 04, 04:41 PM
Joe Knapp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA


"Gregg Germain" wrote in message
...
Dave Fowler wrote:
:From: Reed Snellenberger

:Kerry probably won't do very much in a direct manner about NASA -- for
:one thing, support for manned spaceflight among liberal Democrats has
:historically been pretty low

: John F. Kennedy, anyone?

John F. Kennedy was not a liberal Democrat.


WHAT IS A LIBERAL?

Sen. John F. Kennedy, acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination,
September 14, 1960:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by
"Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in
his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned
with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members
demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal"
they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new
ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the
people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their
civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break
through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if
that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a
"Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean
and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what
it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago
in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to
take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship
between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human
liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source
of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention
and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as
individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For
liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as
it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the
experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his
fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human
life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it
contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so
abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only
fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon
for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax
dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste
and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration
as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary
individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a
government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full
responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when
it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only
great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our
responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with
political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that
liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal
society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a
strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed
to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in
short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and
liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960
campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die
there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of
breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and
Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of
influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are
descended from that segment of the American population which was once called
an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we
do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any
group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented
the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find
new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from
the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger,
who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and
women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section
of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a
new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that
spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for
all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of
the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who
struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education
for their children and for the children's development. They went to night
schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their
country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by
neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a
reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a
fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot
content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic
liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs
over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the
minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are
economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't
make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to
Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be
needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling
from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the
effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like
the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to
change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I
think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to
continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and
abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not
only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this
century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here
in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States,
should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow
Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had
influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because
they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here
in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own
people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our
national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course
of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the
history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over
again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to
move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the
new frontiers of the 1960s.


  #16  
Old February 9th 04, 04:42 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA

My guess is that we would probably see the end of Americans in space under a
Kerry administration, sooner or later. It's pretty clear that regardless of
what some people might want, we can't keep the shuttles flying for more than
about ten years in any case. So without something like the Bush plan to
replace the shuttles, we'll see the triumph of Robert Park's "robots uber
alles" additude.


Kerry is often compared to Kennedy, but that's Edward (Ted), not John. And who
is Edward Kennedy to us? A big nobody who for some strange reason the people of
Massachusetts keep on reelecting to the Senate. Has Edward Kennedy proposed any
bold new space visions like his brother? Of course not, he's much too modest to
do anything like that. If there's anything John F. Kennedy will be remembered
for, its the Apollo program that achieved Mankinds first landing on the Moon.
that's what I learned the first time I heard of John F. Kennedy. The Cuban
Missile Crisis I learned of later, but that's a non-event because nothing
happened, nothing was achieved either except a resumption of the status quo
that existed prior to that crisis. There is the Peace Corps, and the fact that
he got assassinated. That's about it. Its too bad that Ted Kennedy doesn't want
to emphasize the Moon program because that's JFK's main claim to fame, that's
like talking about Abe Lincoln but refusing to mention the Civil War or the
Abolition of Slavery.

Tom
  #17  
Old February 9th 04, 04:48 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA

Kerry's vision of the Future is definitely not "2001 a Space Odyssey" or
anything like it. Most liberals imagine a continuation of 20th century
technologies with a reorganization of social programs with more spending. The
Democratic "Futureland" looks much like today with perhaps more bicycles in the
streets, mass transit, but no new technologies. Mass transit will more likely
be buses than maglevs. Government will be bigger and more people will be
working for it, businesses will be more regulated and heavily unionized while
industries will be protected by tarriffs. To the casual stroller the Future
would look much like today except the prices would be higher.

Tom
  #18  
Old February 9th 04, 07:10 PM
Michael Walsh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA



Reed Snellenberger wrote:

Gregg Germain wrote in
:

Dave Fowler wrote:
:From: Reed Snellenberger

:Kerry probably won't do very much in a direct manner about NASA -- for
:one thing, support for manned spaceflight among liberal Democrats has
:historically been pretty low

: John F. Kennedy, anyone?

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.

Mike Walsh


  #19  
Old February 9th 04, 07:47 PM
Robert Kitzmüller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA

Mark R. Whittington wrote:

My guess is that we would probably see the end of Americans in space
under a Kerry administration, sooner or later. It's pretty clear that
regardless of what some people might want, we can't keep the shuttles
flying for more than about ten years in any case.


Dumping the shuttle as soon as ISS is complete makes sense. The real
question is: Will a successor be ready until then? Differntly put:
Will NASA get its act together?

I do not follow US politics enough to have any opinion on Kerry, but
I believe that what NASA needs is a president who kicks some behind
for the string of high-profile failures stretching back many decades.
And I do not think any canidate, of neither party, cares enough about
space to do this.

Robert Kitzmueller
  #20  
Old February 9th 04, 09:04 PM
Hop David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pres. Kerry's NASA



Mark R. Whittington wrote:
"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
om...

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message


hlink.net...

"ed kyle" wrote in message
e.com...

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

That's the assumption, though many people thought that Clinton would


cancel

the space station in 1993 and he did not.

My guess is that we would probably see the end of Americans in space


under a

Kerry administration, sooner or later.


I dont think he would have means to stop X-Prize or Space Adventures.
Americans could still go to space.

-kert



Don't be too sure about that. I do not think Kerry would exert himself too
much to pass regulatory or tax incentives for private space travel. Also, he
is quite capable of forbidding travel to the Moon or Mars out of
environmental reasons.




Environmental reasons? The Moon and Mars? Could you explain this in more
detail?

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes Michael Ravnitzky Space Shuttle 5 January 16th 04 05:28 PM
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes Michael Ravnitzky Space Station 5 January 16th 04 05:28 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.