Do Republicians support NASA more than Democrats in the US?

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?

-A.L.

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.

One thing to remember:

When a part is in opposition, it is likely to blindly oppose whatever
the party in power wants to do.

So a republican in power wanting to increase funding will see democrats
oppose such increase.
A democrat in power wanting to increase funding will see republicans
oppose such increase.

So statistics over the years who which party has opposed/supported
funding increases can be misleading.

One would need to look only at parties in power and how they behaved
with regards to NASA funding. And even there, it can be misleading.
Suppose the democrats are in power in 2010 when shuttle "must" be
grounded with no replacement vehicle in sight. Would the loss of manned
space programme at NASA be blamed on the democrats or the republicans ?

Some decisions are long term and span different administrations.

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


"John Doe" wrote in message ...
One thing to remember:

When a part is in opposition, it is likely to blindly oppose whatever
the party in power wants to do.

So a republican in power wanting to increase funding will see democrats
oppose such increase.
A democrat in power wanting to increase funding will see republicans
oppose such increase.

So statistics over the years who which party has opposed/supported
funding increases can be misleading.

One would need to look only at parties in power and how they behaved
with regards to NASA funding. And even there, it can be misleading.
Suppose the democrats are in power in 2010 when shuttle "must" be
grounded with no replacement vehicle in sight. Would the loss of manned
space programme at NASA be blamed on the democrats or the republicans ?

Some decisions are long term and span different administrations.

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

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.

-A.L.

In article l7KVe.22271$Qv6.2468@trndny04,
"Ray" wrote:

For sake of argument, I will say the Rockerfeller Republician.

"richard schumacher" wrote in message
...
Do you mean, intellectual socially-progressive fiscally-responsible
Rockefeller Republican, or religious-fanatic reactionary
borrow-and-spend Rove Republican?

It turns out to make very little difference. Neither party has been a
strong consistent advocate of space exploration/exploitation except as
it supports other goals: gaining military advantage, as a foreign
relations tool, a jobs program, et cetera.

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. Perhaps your education in
American history did not include the controversy over such things as
who would be first to lay claim to parts of the moon, as explorers have
done in the past with new territories here on earth.

Challenger's Ghost

money "saved" in solving all the problems here on Earth?

Ecuador has ( AFAIK) no manned space programme. Does this means it also has
no earthly problems?

Of course, the money would not be "saved" at all - it would either be
consumed by Government bureaucracy in regulating/hectoring us all even more
than at present - or , if by some miracle it were returned to tax payers,
the consumption of alcohol, narcotics, pornography and nicotine would all
be marginally increased.
Worth it? I wonder...


"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
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?
:
: Ray
:
:
: 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.

Eric

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.

No, we had many good successful shuttle missions in the past 20 years.
Replace the shuttle ASAP? I would agree with that, but not dump it after 3
years.

Eric

"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