Do Republicians support NASA more than Democrats in the US?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 12:50:44 GMT, "Ray" wrote:


Ok, political parties play politics with each other. Its interesting
how the congress, and I think the senate also, had more democrats than
republicians over the past 40 years, and the democrats were not successfull
in canceling manned space exploration over the past forty years especially
in the 70s after the Apollo program. Why? I think its because atleast 60%
or more of the American people support manned space exploration. I dont
think the US will ever be able to cancel manned space exploration now and
into the future, especially since private industry, Russia, China and Europe
are in it, and this will grow in the future. I think it would be foolish
and a dumb mistake if the US got out of manned space exploration while the
others were doing it. What does everybody think?

Ray

I think a lot of the more informed people support space exploration
and utilization, mostly unmanned, with some manned support. However,
we recognize the widespread support of manned spaceflight.
Essentially, no Buck Rogers, no (or fewer) bucks. While many complain
that manned space expenditures sap money from unmanned projects, on
the whole, despite some waste or poorer return on investment, manned
space activity increases public interest and funding for all space
efforts. Thus, it is not productive to be outspoken against manned
spaceflight.

"Ray" wrote in message news:VqzVe.12224$ck6.9724@trndny05...
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
think this is probably because most space infrastructure and industry in
located in mostly Republician states. I heard once that Walter Mondall
tried to stop the Apollo moon landings after the Apollo 1 fire and I think
that John Kerry tried to cut funding to the space station back in 1991.
What do you all think?


The way I see it is that the dems tend to say that until our daily needs
are met such luxuries are excessive. While the repubs like to think
that our problems can be addressed through long term investments
such as space exploration.

Well, somewhere in the middle is the answer I would think.
Our long term investments need to be pointed towards
our daily problems. That isn't the case now.

Nasa's long term goals don't have a connection to our
tangible problems that can be seen or measured. Only
hoped for. Until the tangible benefits of space exploration
can be easily understood and justified I doubt much will
change with Nasa. Every administration will wipe out what
came before and put their own 'vision' in place.



"The President authorized a new national policy on December 21, 2004,
that establishes national policy....... This policy supercedes Presidential
Decision Directive/National Science and Technology Council-4, National
Space Transportation Policy, dated August 5, 1994
in whole"

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-40.pdf

The next President will do the same thing with space policy....in whole.
We're not going back to the Moon. It's the oldest political trick
in the book. The two sides, Nasa and the military, hash out
a compromise where both sides get what they want. But
the trick is that one side, the military, gets what they want ...first.
The other side, Nasa, gets promises that future administration
would have to honor. HA!

Nasa got suckered big time, they have no clue about how politics
work. It's no compromise when one side gets everything and
the other side gets promises not worth the paper they're
written on.


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.

The hard way, and the one that will work best, is to first
define which of our worldly problems is the most acute.
And then define our space policy around solving that
problem. Our dependence on fossil fuels seems to be
an ideal choice as it's our greatest long term problem
and has it's ultimate solution in space.

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.


Space Solar Power home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/



Jonathan






Ray

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It wasn't
until after Clinton took the project over and renamed it ISS that he
could even get a majority of his own party to support it...

Excellent point. Those who complain -- with some justice -- that the
"internationalization" slowed development and increased cost should
remember two things:

1) by 1993 there was already an 8-year, all-American baseline of slow
development and ballooning cost

2)without Clinton's maneuvers there would quite likely have been no SS
at all

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. This last point is probably more
important to us in the near future. I wish that this were the reason given
to the American people as the reason for human space exploration. It's got
to be about something more important that just some dam robot probe doing
science on another planet! Space exploration is not something that can put
put off until we "really need to put people in space" or until we have no
choice but to reach out into space because it might be too late at that time
in the future. Real space exploration into the solar system, out of the
solar system into the galaxy and beyond might take centuries or eons to
master for the human race. Thats why we have to start with small steps now
to the moon, mars and beyond or I believe the human race risks extincting
when it does not have to become extinct. Now its true that their might not
be immediate danger of extinction now and more pressing needs on earth and
thats why we need to start out with small steps into space now. What do you
all think?


"jonathan" wrote in message
.. .

"Ray" wrote in message
news:VqzVe.12224$ck6.9724@trndny05...
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
think this is probably because most space infrastructure and industry in
located in mostly Republician states. I heard once that Walter Mondall
tried to stop the Apollo moon landings after the Apollo 1 fire and I
think
that John Kerry tried to cut funding to the space station back in 1991.
What do you all think?


The way I see it is that the dems tend to say that until our daily needs
are met such luxuries are excessive. While the repubs like to think
that our problems can be addressed through long term investments
such as space exploration.

Well, somewhere in the middle is the answer I would think.
Our long term investments need to be pointed towards
our daily problems. That isn't the case now.

Nasa's long term goals don't have a connection to our
tangible problems that can be seen or measured. Only
hoped for. Until the tangible benefits of space exploration
can be easily understood and justified I doubt much will
change with Nasa. Every administration will wipe out what
came before and put their own 'vision' in place.



"The President authorized a new national policy on December 21, 2004,
that establishes national policy....... This policy supercedes
Presidential
Decision Directive/National Science and Technology Council-4, National
Space Transportation Policy, dated August 5, 1994
in whole"

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-40.pdf

The next President will do the same thing with space policy....in whole.
We're not going back to the Moon. It's the oldest political trick
in the book. The two sides, Nasa and the military, hash out
a compromise where both sides get what they want. But
the trick is that one side, the military, gets what they want ...first.
The other side, Nasa, gets promises that future administration
would have to honor. HA!

Nasa got suckered big time, they have no clue about how politics
work. It's no compromise when one side gets everything and
the other side gets promises not worth the paper they're
written on.


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.

The hard way, and the one that will work best, is to first
define which of our worldly problems is the most acute.
And then define our space policy around solving that
problem. Our dependence on fossil fuels seems to be
an ideal choice as it's our greatest long term problem
and has it's ultimate solution in space.

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.


Space Solar Power home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/



Jonathan






Ray

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?

-A.L.

in article , Eric Chomko at
wrote on 9/13/05 12:09 PM:

Paul Mense ) wrote:

: Ray wrote:
:
: I heard once that Walter Mondall tried to stop the Apollo moon landings
: after the Apollo 1 fire and I think that John Kerry tried to cut funding
: to the space station back in 1991. What do you all think?
:
: 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.

Perhaps, Republicans support manned spaceflight more than Democrats, and
Democrats support unmanned spaceflight (climate models, astronomy, science in
general). Whereas, manned spaceflight is viewed as an extension of the
military to some degree, unmanned is more for pure science.

I think you're on to something with the military reference. Support for
manned space flight is, I think to a large extent, a hold over from the Cold
War. And it is foolish to try and down play the effects of that ideological
conflict. I think in the long run, that clash may defines the 20th century.

And the war is still being waged in a kind of guerilla type, wordwide
struggle. Before the Soviet Union collapsed it was able to spread it's
anti-capitalist message to a large part of the world. Supporters of this
message, or leftists, in the United States almost always feel more
comfortable in the Democratic Party.

If you don't take this into account you will never understand this thread
topic. For example, it helps explain why left wing Democrats were more
comfortable voting for the "International" Space Station rather than Space
Station "Freedom", a completely US venture.

George Evans

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

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 don't believe that's possible, unless you limit "human spaceflight" to
military missions. For example, Eisenhower authorized U-2 missions over
Russia; but he thought going to the moon was "crazy."

I think all US manned flights are viewed by the majority of Democrats as
"military" missions but not in the traditional sense. The US manned space
program defends our ideology. Every time a crisp clean image of the shuttle
is seen orbiting above our beautiful blue planet with the words "United
States" clearly visible, it is a reminder that the US kicked the Soviet
Union's ass. Sorry if that offends some people, but IMHO that is why the
Democratic Party opposes these things.

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".

George Evans

in article , Andrew
Lotosky at wrote on 9/13/05 6:49 PM:

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?

That sounds really bloody stupid if one were to put themselves into a
1984 mindset. As at the time wasn't everyone still convinced the
shuttle was going to be America's primary launch vehicle for a long
time to come?

And 48 out of 50 states agreed with you. Mondale was on the left wing,
meaning he sympathized with communism. He understood that the shuttle was
America's doorway to space, he just didn't want the US to get there first.

George Evans

in article , Skylon at
wrote on 9/14/05 6:25 AM:

Ray wrote:

Ok, political parties play politics with each other. Its interesting
how the congress, and I think the senate also, had more democrats than
republicians over the past 40 years, and the democrats were not successfull
in canceling manned space exploration over the past forty years especially
in the 70s after the Apollo program. Why? I think its because atleast 60%
or more of the American people support manned space exploration. I dont
think the US will ever be able to cancel manned space exploration now and
into the future, especially since private industry, Russia, China and Europe
are in it, and this will grow in the future. I think it would be foolish
and a dumb mistake if the US got out of manned space exploration while the
others were doing it. What does everybody think?

The only reason I think space exploration survives in the US is because
it would be unthinkable to the American public for someone else to be
there, and us not to. If Russia can go into space, the US should be
able to do it. It's what the hell to do up there that everyone differs
on.

Not so much difference anymore. We are all gazing up at the same destination
at night, and our hearts all beat a little faster when we think of it.

George Evans

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:55:02 GMT, "Ray" 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. This last point is probably more
important to us in the near future. I wish that this were the reason given
to the American people as the reason for human space exploration. It's got
to be about something more important that just some dam robot probe doing
science on another planet! Space exploration is not something that can put
put off until we "really need to put people in space" or until we have no
choice but to reach out into space because it might be too late at that time
in the future. Real space exploration into the solar system, out of the
solar system into the galaxy and beyond might take centuries or eons to
master for the human race. Thats why we have to start with small steps now
to the moon, mars and beyond or I believe the human race risks extincting
when it does not have to become extinct. Now its true that their might not
be immediate danger of extinction now and more pressing needs on earth and
thats why we need to start out with small steps into space now. What do you
all think?

Space exploration is about increasing resource utilisation. Any other
motivation will not result in a sustained effort.
--
Stephen Horgan

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"