Young Men Not Growing Up
I'm shocked, shocked...
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26317942/?GT1=43001
I guess I have another book to read, then: http://www.amazon.com/Guyland-Perilous-World-Where-Become/dp/0060831340/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220116233&sr=8-1
Though it's interesting to note that Amazon readers (so far) have given it only one star.
A Cipher Speaks and McCain’s Running Mate
I just couldn’t bring myself to watch Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech last night. Instead, I did what I will probably do with McCain’s speech: I read it. That takes away the theatricals, the Greek temple, the voice, the man, the cheering, applauding crowds, and leaves you with just the words on the page. Still, you can learn a lot by reading; it’s a shame more people don’t do it.
Yesterday was Obama’s big interview with the country, as I’m sure he knows. Now here’s the thing about interviews: you don’t just want to know what this presidential candidate will do for you, though that’s the most obvious thing. You also want to know what he has done. A little background is nice—he’s got a wife and kids—but what you really want to know is what he’s done with his experience. What has he learned from it? What has he done in the last four years? We know he gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. We know he has been a senator. He states that has voted against the war in Iraq, but the war began two years before he assumed office. Before he was a U.S. Senator, he was a state senator. What did he do there? What did he learn? Silence. He has been a lawyer and a community organizer. Doing what? How? With what sort(s) of people or organization? Unknown. He was a near-top-of-his-class student at arguably America’s most prestigious university. That’s a lot of hard work; certainly he can speak to that, no? I hear crickets chirping.
Who the hell is this guy? If you expected to find out during this speech, you were likely to be disappointed. And, again, as an interviewer, you’d have to be asking yourself, “This guy’s had an interesting past—why doesn’t he talk about any of it?”
So what did we get with this speech—five pages long at about an 8-point font? Three themes dominated:
Going back to the interview, it is interesting to note the few places where he does talk about himself:
I did like a few lines from this speech, and they’re toward the end:
“You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores. Instead, it is that American spirit—that American promise—that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.”
That section is almost Reaganesque. However, lofty words are not enough by themselves to get me to vote for Barack Obama, nor would his policies be, were I to favor them. He’s proven that he can give a good speech, but not that he can govern well or that he can lead. In short, while impressive in bearing and political presence, Barack Obama did not pass this interview with me to become President. I wonder what effect his speech will have on the rest of the public.
*
And speaking of the public, the McCain campaign did a masterful job of sucking up the oxygen Obama hoped to gain from his speech last night. I had to chuckle a bit when a couple of friends told me that selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was an attempt to pander to or take the votes of Hillary Clinton voters. That might be the case, if there are a lot of people who would vote for Hillary solely because she’s a woman. However, from a policy perspective, Palin is not there to wow liberal feminists. She won't. She is there for one reason, and it’s a good one: to wow the conservative Republican base. It's a smart move. Brilliant, in fact. Surprisingly brilliant, considering some of McCain’s calls. Of course the MSNBC types now think McCain is no longer a "maverick" because he didn't pick a liberal (a maverick, after all, is a term of affection when it's a Republic going against his own party). He's being a maverick toward the media. He's smarter than some conservatives--including me--thought he was.
I first heard about Sarah Palin from one of my favorite conservative ladies, who’s actually from Wasilla, Alaska. She told me that Palin would make a good future president. She described Palin as much like herself: a gun-toting, environmentalist, God-fearing, pro-life conservative. So my friend sold me a few years ago. Now we’ll see how she wins over the country. Way to go, John. You just might pull this one out.
More on Europe, Taming My Inner Tyrant
The most recent post generated some good ideas from a couple of family members. From Cousin Susan:
None of these places is exactly cheap, but I'm going to be wearing said stuff for ~3 weeks, and it'd be nice to know that whatever I buy is going to hold up. So anyway, I've got some ideas.
Uncle Terry (one of the many traveling Irishmen in my family) and I talked last night. The first thing he recommended, after I'd plunked down $99+ for my "Rocket German" class were some free language classes via the British Broadcasting Company (BBC):
Well, maybe I can save money on my French and Italian.
Uncle Terry is also a big advocate of American Express. He'd convinced me to get an Amex card, which he said should offer the following benefits:
I suggested that he be a salesman for American Express, as he's quite the advocate. "They don't want someone my age," was his retort. Huhrumph. Weird job market.
Anyhow, on the subject of booking, he strongly suggested booking online directly with the airline rather than going through additional middlemen (airline reservations, travel agents), each of which add their little surcharge onto the process. However, he did recommend calling NWA to figure out what I could get for my FF benefits. A phone call or two couldn't hurt, at any point.
*
One of the reasons I've avoided management positions for so long (much to my father's dismay) is that I know I have a tendency toward tyranny, especially when side discussions and arguments appear to be sidetracking progress. I'd like to think of myself as a benevolent Irish monarch, but there are times when even the chieftans brought out their swords and clubs and said, "By damn, man! Everything would be fine if you'd just do things my way!" This reaction toward personal tyranny is also why I don't run for public office.
But the funny thing is, if I'm in a position where I know I've got to compromise, I'm fine. I'm also fine if I'm in a position where I've been put in charge--until someone holds up The Plan. I can usually keep myself balanced as long as a few things pertain:
However, inevitably, the longer one is in a leadership position, the longer one or more of the three conditions above is likely to be violated. And of course that's the real trick, isn't it? Leaders often work under pressure, with limited information, with a firm idea of what they WANT to happen, but with only a vague notion of the consequences of all possible decisions. And if they're wrong, they'll shoulder the blame and responsbility, and if they're right, they'll get only a share of the glory.
I've been studying leadership for years because the way people behave under all these variables is of great interest to me. I've tried to keep myself in structured situations that don't put me in a lot of danger of testing my leadership limits. People are funny animals, and I'm never entirely certain of my ability to work with them well. I'm also constantly in doubt about when it's time for democratic, group-based decisions and when it's time for individual, unilateral decisiveness by one person. Each situation is unique, and different individuals, groups, and situations require different types of leadership behavior.
Perhaps I've been such a student of leadership because I've seen what good things can be done through words and actions (Kennedy sending a nation to the Moon, King leading a nation toward equal rights for all), and I've seen what evil or stupidity can be unleashed by a petty tyrant (anything from simple micromanagement to Hitleresque evils). Leadership is a two-edged sword: a single person might make decisions more quickly, but that single individual isn't always right, and the suffering he creates increases exponentially by the size of the error and the number of people affected by it.
Hm. Well, I'm not going to solve the basic problems of human nature and group dynamics tonight. All I really need to do is figure out how to negotiate between conflicting demands over something as simple as organizing a meeting. The decisions only get tougher the higher you go in any organization. I can either get used to it, or quit trying to lead anyone. Unfortunately, that Irish chieftan always lurks beneath the surface--convinced that everyone will follow him if he's just sufficiently charming--and who can just as easily draw the club or sword if his plans are crossed.
I'll look at the most direct route (HSV-ATL-AMS-PAR-ATL-HSV).
Now comes the next big question: will a travel agent help with mere airline travel if I had the bad taste to book a tour that was NOT from one of their wall catalogs? Or should I just call the airlines directly? Also, do I need to call a special number at the airline (or Visa) to try to cash in my FF miles? I don't care if I can't get the whole trip paid for--I'd settle for a discount.
Just out of morbid curiosity, I checked the business class prices for the same dates. Would you believe the price was ten times what a coach ticket costs??? $9,934! Jeez, I'm not paying that much for the whole tour, and that includes hotels! I guess I can tough out another crammed-in seat for nine or ten hours. But dang it, when in my life will I get to ride first class or business class again??? I miss leg room, d@mmit! Sigh. Guess I'll just have to suck it up. And if, by some rare chance, I have enough FF miles to pay for that coach ticket, then I just saved a ton of cash in exchange for nine hours' bodily inconvenience. I can take it.
*
In related vacation news, I now have some for-dummies DVDs on the utter basics for French and Italian ("the 100 phrases you must know to survive"). I've been eyeing the "Rocket German" and "Rocket French" classes, though, since a) I have enough time and b) I'd like to know a little more than the basics ("Where are toilets, please?"). I'm having a mental block about Italian, for some reason. Maybe because I'm more interest in German and French history. I was going to buy these classes with money from one of my savings accounts, but I've been having issues getting the ATM card replaced for that account. Whatever. I'll get moving eventually. Maybe when I book some airplane tickets I'll get more serious about educating myself about speaking with the people I'll be meeting.
Also, thanks to my sister I now have my first Euros for the trip. The bills are smaller, more colorful, and more elaborate than even the new U.S. dollars, but easy to manage. They've gone into the money belt for future use. Thanks, sis! Auf wiederzehen, etc.
Movie Review: The Clone Wars
Reviewer's notice: There are some minor spoilers in this review if you've not seen the new film; some major spoilers if you've never seen a Star Wars film in your life.
I went into this movie with pretty low expectations, mostly because I really despise Episodes I through III of George Lucas' Star Wars epic. I'll try to minimize my discussions of the six-movie cycle so I can focus on this particular film, but something must be said about how The Clone Wars fits into the big picture. Episodes IV-VI, the first Star Wars films made, cover the story of the redemption of a villain, Anakin Skywalker (a.k.a. Darth Vader). Episodes I-III, made ~20 years later, depict the making of Skywalker into a villain, with Episode I depicting him as an innocent, Episode II showing him conflicted, and Episode III showing his final fall into evil. The Clone Wars takes place between Episodes II and III.
I'll explain a couple of things up front: First, The Clone Wars is a cartoon, of the Japanese animé variety, which features fantastic environments, characters with over-large eyes, and extended, near-rubbery limbs. Second, as far as I can tell, none of the voices of the original actors were used. This is probably a blessing. Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman are bad enough actors in person. I don't need to hear them act badly, though the kid standing in for Christensen comes close. Next, this movie is not directly related to the cartoon series that appeared on Cartoon Network a few years ago. It Is, however, a big-screen attempt to debut yet another cartoon series covering Anakin Skywalker's and Obi-wan Kenobi's adventures during the Clone Wars.
Here's the good news: this film is not nearly as bad as the episodes that surround it in the "live-action" movies. By minimizing dialogue, maximizing battles, and not using George Lucas as writer or director, the director of The Clone Wars managed to put together a decent adventure story. They even manage to introduce a new character--a padawan (trainee) for Anakin to train--that, had she existed in the series, might have offered some hope of humanizing Hayden Christensen. There are some other cute bits. For instance, instead of the usual screen-crawl story opener, the director jumped right into the middle of the action, showing battles going on as a breathless narrator, sounding like he just left a Flash Gordon or Captain Proton episode, gives a quick explanation of what's going on. Also, the story introduces some more of Jabba the Hutt's relatives, including his son and Uncle Zero (a priceless reincarnation of--no kidding--Truman Capote). So if you'd like to watch a movie with plenty of spacecraft, laser battles, explosions, and lightsaber duels, this is the movie for you. The violence, while slightly cartoony, is probably safe for kids 10+.
But. But but but but but!!!
There are so many little issues that bug me about this film that I simply cannot restrain myself.
Let's consider the Clone Army, introduced in Episode II. In Episode II the Clones, the original templates for the Stormtroopers, are revealed to all be derived from a single man, Jango Fett, father of Boba Fett, a bounty hunter who captured Han Solo in Episode V. They all look alike, as clones should, and are uniformly obedient soldiers.
We were led to believe, at the end of Episode II, that the advent of these white-helmeted troops was troubling and foretold evil, in the form of increasing government power and centralization. After all, these are the predecessors of the Imperial Stormtroopers that would be such a menace in Episodes IV-VI. In those films, the Stormtroopers are faceless, marching in lockstep, wearing masks that have frowns embedded into them. They are the friggin' bad guys, and there's little love lost between audience and villain when said villains are lasered or exploded en masse. The Clone Wars gives us a different picture. Now, the soldiers making up this cloned army have striven to become individuals. Helmets off, they wear different names, hairstyles, and hair colors to give themselves some sense of identity. This makes sense, if you think about it. Wouldn't YOU want to be seen as unique, if you were surrounded by a million buddies who all looked and sounded just like you? But here's the point that bugs me: we aren't supposed to like or care about these troops as individuals. Remember that part again about how they would eventually turn evil and become the Stormtroopers of lore?
Next, we have Anakin's new padawan, a somewhat reckless pre-teen girl named Asoka. As I said before, she could have humanized Anakin Skywalker, and she does in this film. But we don't want Anakin humanized. He's on the verge of becoming Darth Vader! In the midst of his fall toward destruction, why are we treated to this warmer, heroic Anakin Skywalker? Could it be that Lucas really likes anti-heroes like Anakin and just couldn't bear to have people think of him as a villain?
Well, jeez. Darth Vader was and is one of the greatest screen villains ever created. His redemption at the end of Episode VI is a surprise and cinematic triumph. The series could've ended with Return of the Jedi. We could've gone to our graves speculating about what happened in Episodes I-III, and been perfectly happy with that. But no: Lucas felt the need to show us the innocent child who didn't talk like a child, the whining, creepy, out-of-control youth, and the truly over-the-edge young adult that led to the guy wearing the big black helmet, cape, and scuba gear. Asoka is a narrative anomaly; one can only presume that she will meet her demise sometime between this movie and Episode III.
Next, we have Jabba the Hutt's little offspring and over-the-top uncle. They're interesting. They're cute. They give Jabba heart and depth. We don't want him to have either. He's a frickin' BAD GUY! One of the reasons Star Wars was so popular when it came out--and it's a reason Lucas seems to have forgotten--is that it was a simple morality tale of good versus evil. And the point of good was to destroy evil. Not sympathize with it. Not "understand" it. Blow it up. Fire lasers at it. Blow up its spaceships. Shoot its troops. Evil was not to be surrendered to except as a tactical maneuver/temporary retreat, and we weren't supposed to feel bad when its practitioners died. We were supposed to cheer! Star Wars was the great war story of its time, at a time when more movies were morally ambiguous, nihilistic, or actively evil. Star Wars uplifted, as it showed the triumph of good, friendship, freedom, and all the other things good is supposed to stand for.
Consider the following blurbs from the opening crawls of Episode IV (the original Star Wars) and Episode III (Revenge of the Sith, made last):
We can argue the literary value of the prose at some other point. Right now I'd like to ask: what are impressionable young kids supposed to make of "There are heroes on both sides"? I was 8 when Star Wars came out. I got the first message. Would I have understood the notion of both sides being good? Would I have had a clue about adult and murky concepts like moral equivalence? Would I have wanted to? You go to an adventure movie hoping to root for one side or the other because you expect one side, preferably the bad guys, to be defeated.It is a period of civil war. Rebel spacecraft, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.
War! The Republic is crumbling under attacks by the ruthless Sith Lord, Count Dooku. There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere.
The Clone Wars is especially problematic, then, because we find ourselves rooting for the restoration of Jabba's family (the kidnapping of his son is what sets the action into motion). We find ourselves feeling sympathy for the Clones as they fall in battle and cry "Medic!" as their comrades fall in battle. We find ourselves liking Anakin Skywalker, who is one movie away from going completely off his nut and becoming Darth Vader. We find ourselves getting attached to a new character who is improving a character we know to be dangerously flawed; we can guess that she probably gets offed some way between now and Episode III. In short, we're rooting for the wrong people for the wrong reasons. You've got to jump through some real emotional hoops to appreciate this movie on its own merits, especially if you care about and understand the histories of these characters.
Okay, I get a little pedantic about these things, partially because I do care about good and evil, and partially because I really liked Episodes IV-VI, which is why I was so disappointed by the prequels. The Clone Wars is a product of the prequels and Lucas' now-ambiguous moral universe, and so cannot be taken out of context. If it were the only movie of its kind, it would probably win awards all over the place for its technical virtuosity, interesting characters, and dazzling space-opera environments. However, this is a Star Wars movie, and that means it must enjoy and suffer the inevitable comparisons to the other films in the series. It carries baggage from the other films, and that baggage does not match.
We also have the plot. Again, it's pretty much a standard space opera adventure. However, like Episodes II and III, it involves unnecessarily complicated plans and counter-plans employed by the Jedi, Count Dooku, and Chancellor Palpatine, the man who would soon become Emperor. Some characters drop in from nowhere and are not explained. We are given no clue that Palpatine is anything other than a benevolent Chancellor.
Perhaps it's just as well that I've run out of things to say. It's too aggravating to delve into deeper. The force is no longer with Lucas. I hope someone eventually has the sense to stop him from further muddying and milking this franchise.
More from Obama on Space
First, we have the latest statement from the Obama campaign:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28880
Then we have this debate between Lori Garver (who has switched from being the Clinton space advisor to the Obama campaign's advisor) and Apollo 7 astronaut Walt Cunningham, representing McCain at the Mars Society Convention this week.
http://www.marssociety.org/media/video/flash/debate.html
Busy, busy, busy! I'll take on the Obama statement today, the debate tomorrow or Wednesday. Again, like the statement that appeared on Keith Cowing's SpaceRef.com in January, this statement is not on the main BarackObama.com site. And, again, I am forced to ask why? The campaign could add this to the technology issue statement, or add another issue on the Issues list, but they didn't. Is it because Obama doesn't want to be nailed down on space policy? Is it because he might have a change of policy once he gets into office, and doesn't want anyone to know his true intentions? He's got plausible deniability: "Oh, well that was on SpaceRef and on a blog posting by one of my fans; those weren't my campaign's official positions."
Anyhow, making an effort not to be too snarky, here are my reactions to the various pieces to this latest statement:
My vision will build on the great goals set forth in recent years, to maintain a robust program of human space exploration and ensure the fulfillment of NASA's mission.
Note that the “great goals set forth in recent years” came from the Bush Administration, the same administration he’ll spend the next few pages bashing.
Together, we can ensure that NASA again reflects all that is best about our country and continue our nation's preeminence in space.
What’s this business about NASA “again” reflecting all that is best about our country? NASA’s never really lost its credibility with the public, despite the criticism it has taken (part of which I’ve given) on its behavior, which led to two Space Shuttles being lost.
Barack Obama believes the United States should maintain its international leadership in space while at the same time inspiring a new generation of Americans to dream beyond the horizon.
Well, great. However, like my gripes about McCain’s last statement, this is more boilerplate and eyewash.
Barack Obama believes that what President Kennedy said about space more than 45 years ago remains valid today: "The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space. . . . We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained . . . and used for the progress of all people."
I find it amusing that Obama is quoting the man who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” and “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Most of his policies don’t aspire to either position.
[T]he Bush administration set an ambitious agenda for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), but has since failed to provide adequate funding or leadership to move forward with that agenda. As a result, key programs have suffered. Poor planning and inadequate funding are leading to at least a five-year gap after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. During those years, the United States will have to depend on foreign rockets and spacecraft to send Americans to orbit. NASA has had to slash its research budget
He pounds the Bush Administration pretty hard here, but I can’t find much to argue with when it’s the truth.
As president, Barack Obama will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program.
This is a standard Senator’s comment—when they say “balanced,” they mean, “a program that doesn’t take money out of my state unless everybody’s state is hurt in the same way.”
His NASA
HIS NASA??? Who does this guy think he is? Louis XIV? Better check his stance on defense. If he starts saying “His Army,” watch for Praetorians in the Capitol.
His NASA not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration, but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research.
Does this include investments in Space Solar Power?
Obama will reach out to include international partners
Okay, which ones?
There is currently no organizational authority in the Federal government with a sufficiently broad mandate to oversee a comprehensive and integrated strategy and policy dealing with all aspects of the government's space- related programs, including those being managed by NASA, the Department of Defense, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Commerce Department, the Transportation Department, and other federal agencies. This wasn't always the case. Between 1958 and 1973, the National Aeronautics and Space Council oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents;
Okay, fine. For what purpose? This could be akin to reviving the Office of Technology Assessment. I have no objection with reviving NASC or OTA; I just want to know who’s going to be on these boards, what they will do, and what power(s) they will have.
the Council was briefly revived from 1989 to 1992.
Note that this happened during the Bush Sr. presidency…
Barack Obama will re-establish this Council reporting to the president. It will oversee and coordinate civilian, military, commercial and national security space activities. It will solicit public participation, engage the international community, and work toward a 21st century vision of space that constantly pushes the envelope on new technologies as it pursues a balanced national portfolio that expands our reach into the heavens and improves life here on Earth.
Ah, some answers to my previous questions. Note the “balanced portfolio” comment again. Does this mean NASC would be responsible for maintaining the “balance” of the NASA budget? If so, Congress already does that.
Barack Obama is committed to making the necessary investments to ensure we close this gap as much as is technically feasible and to minimize reliance on foreign space capabilities. He also will work with the space industry to ensure retention of workforce and technical capabilities during the transition from the shuttle to its successor.
Retaining Options for Additional Shuttle Flights: Barack Obama supports Congressional efforts to add at least one additional Space Shuttle flight to fly a valuable mission and to keep the workforce engaged. He will work to ensure there is adequate funding to support that additional flight so that it does not interfere with developing the Shuttle's successor.
I asked this same question of McCain’s last statement: how does he intend to keep the workforce employed? Socialism? Make NASA a blatant jobs program? I also have questioned the wisdom of keeping the Shuttle flying longer. One argument I forgot on Friday: many of the companies providing parts for the Shuttle have gone out of business. How much money will it cost to reinvent parts to keep Shuttle flying?
Speeding the Next-Generation Vehicle: Obama will expedite the development of the Shuttle's successor systems for carrying Americans to space so we can minimize the gap. This will be difficult; underfunding by the Bush administration has left NASA with limited flexibility to accelerate the development of the new systems.
He’s right: it will be difficult to minimize the gap, but not only because of underfunding by the Bush Administration. As I noted on Friday, if we have to keep using the VAB, launch pads, etc., to support Shuttle, that slows down the renovation and refurbishment of launch facilities that must occur before we can launch Ares I and Ares V. And by the way: what does “limited flexibility” mean? Let’s say NASA got enough money both to fly Shuttle longer and to accelerate Orion and Ares (some things can’t be accelerated, like J-2X development, but let’s just go with the argument for now). You’d still end up with Ares and Orion having to wait for the launch facilities to be updated before they could fly. If we fly Shuttle longer, the “gap” in human spaceflight will shift, not shrink because we’ll still need to rebuild our infrastructure to support the new launch vehicles.
Using the Private Sector: Obama will stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate spaceflight capabilities. NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is a good model of government/industry collaboration.
Good. However, how about upping the funding for COTS Option D, which would fund commercial launches of crews to ISS?
Working with International Allies: Obama will enlist international partners to provide International Space Station (ISS) cargo re-supply and eventually alternate means for sending crews to the ISS.
Great. As I asked above, which ones?
Completing and Enhancing the International Space Station
The International Space Station is an outstanding example of what can be accomplished through international cooperation. Though we have spent billions to build the station, the microgravity research it was intended to facilitate has fallen victim to funding cuts. Barack Obama would ensure that NASA and other federal agencies are fully utilizing the ISS to conduct research that can help address global challenges such as public health and energy independence and can develop technologies that can provide economic benefits to Earth. Obama also will enable research on the ISS to support long-term human exploration and planetary research needs.
Partnering to Enhance the Potential of the ISS: Barack Obama will enlist other Federal agencies, industry and academia to develop innovative scientific and technological research projects on the ISS.
Great, but we need to ensure that we can get up there and have access to ISS before we start doing things up there. What would Obama propose if Russia refused to launch Americans on Soyuz after we retire Shuttle?
Enabling Human Exploration: Obama will use the ISS for fundamental biological and physical research to understand the effects of long-term space travel on human health and to test emerging technologies to enable such travel.
ISS is doing this now, when its astronauts can spare the time.
Enhancing International Cooperation: The ISS has been a model for international cooperation to achieve peaceful objectives in space, helping develop positive relations with Russia during the 1990s. America must take the next step and use the ISS as a strategic tool in diplomatic relations with non traditional partners.
A “model.” Really? It’s taken over 10 years to finish, we’re going to stop flying Shuttle to it in 2 years, we’re not sending up everything we wanted to, and some of our international partners have been less than pleased with how ISS has played out. I recall hearing somewhere that we would NOT be using ISS as a model for our lunar explorations. Obama’s team should rethink the ISS “model” before using it as a diplomatic tool or rallying cry.
Retaining Options for Extended Operations: Barack Obama will consider options to extend ISS operations beyond 2016. After investing so much in developing the ISS, it would be a shame not to utilize it to the fullest possible extent.
Pardon my Chicago English, but duhhhhhh.
Barack Obama will support renewed human exploration beyond low earth orbit. He endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.
Okay, he’s sticking with the Constellation Program’s timeline for the Moon (good!), but there’s no sign of accelerating that timeline, is there? On the flip side, he does say “the magic word,” Mars, which Congress had all but pulled out of NASA’s hide in the last budget battle.
Continuing Research and Development Investments to Support Future Missions: Barack Obama will support a robust research and technology development program that addresses the long-term needs for future human and robotic missions. He supports a funding goal that maintains at least 10 percent of the total exploration systems budget for research and development.
Interesting. According to AAAS, R&D expenses encompass funding for Constellation, Earth science, planetary science, and aeronautics (essentially, everything except Shuttle), which account for $12.9 billion of the proposed $17.8 billion total. Given that 72% of the NASA budget constitutes R&D, this would be lowballing things, wouldn’t it? Perhaps this statement needs to be clarified.
Drawing in International Partners: Obama will encourage a cooperative framework for the conduct of a long-term and sustainable international exploration initiative. This will enable the United States to leverage its resources and to use space exploration as a tool of global diplomacy. As this framework is developed, Obama will continue NASA's architecture studies and advanced planning to ensure the American space workforce remains engaged and that America can lead the world to long-term exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond, in a collaborative and cost-effective way.
This is the second reference to diplomacy. Is the point here to make the space program a central point of our foreign diplomacy?
Partner to Improve Basic Capabilities: Obama will evaluate whether the private sector can safely and effectively fulfill some of NASA's need for lower earth orbit cargo transport.
How is this different from COTS?
Leveraging Robotic Capabilities to Explore the Solar System: Obama supports increased investment in research, data analysis, and technology development across the full suite of exploration missions including the Mars Sample Return mission and future missions to the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, the outer Solar System, and other destinations.
Good.
Supporting Space-Based Observatories: Platforms like the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X- Ray Observatory, the Gamma Ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope have yielded some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century. Obama is committed to a bold new set of such platforms and programs to expand our knowledge of the cosmos.
Which platforms is he committed to? The James Webb Space Telescope? The Terrestrial Planet Finder? Inquiring minds want to know!
EARTH-ORIENTED RESEARCH
Studying the Earth and Monitoring Climate Change
Understanding how Earth supports life and how human activities affect its ability to do so is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Because of decades of investment in research satellites, scientists now better understand and can better predict natural phenomena such as hurricanes and weather patterns. However, many of our current monitoring and research satellites are expected to end their operational life between now and 2026.
Given previous statements by Obama (and analyses by me), none of this surprise me.
Given the urgency of climate-related monitoring, and considering the time required to design, develop, and deploy Earth observation satellite systems, the Obama administration will lean forward to deploy a global climate change research and monitoring system that will work for decades to come.
“the Obama administration will lean forward to deploy”? Someone was asleep at the keyboard. :-) Actually, the SERVIR project is already doing some of this work.
Stopping Political Interference: Barack Obama will strengthen baseline climate observations and climate data records to ensure that there are long-term and accurate climate records. He will not use climate change research data for political objectives.
As I noted in a previous posting, this has since been proven to be false. This is just an attempt to score political points. If James Hansen, et al., were truly being “suppressed” for their opinions, they would be unemployed by now.
Supporting Global Food and Water Needs: The Global Precipitation Measurement mission is an international effort to improve climate, weather, and hydrological predictions through more accurate and more frequent precipitation measurements. Obama will work to launch this mission without further delay.
I’d never heard of this one. It is, I believe, a follow-up to the Tropical Rainforest Measurement Mission (TRMM), which my cousin Andy (an actual rocket scientist) worked on.
Enhancing Earth Mapping: Obama will continue support for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which allows study of the earth's land surfaces and provides valuable data for agricultural, educational, scientific, and government use.
Fine.
Maintaining Leadership in Aeronautics Research
A strong national program of aeronautics research and technology contributes to the vitality of the United States aeronautics industry, the efficiency of the U.S. air transportation system, and the economic well-being and quality of life of our citizens. Barack Obama believes that Department of Transportation, NASA, and other agencies have important roles in assuring the best possible air transportation system and developing related technologies that enable products and services to compete effectively in the global marketplace.
Supporting Fundamental Research: Barack Obama will pursue more long-term fundamental research to reduce the risk associated with advancing the state of the art.
Advancing Future Transportation Needs: The Obama administration will support aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, and noise reduction.
I’ve addressed this issue previously. Aerospace matters to America because it’s one of the few places where we consistently run a trade surplus. Plus, with aerospace companies and subcontractors in every state, keeping Big Aero happy only makes good political sense. However, I’ve yet for anyone to give me what they consider a good and sufficient amount of money to spend on aeronautics research.
Promoting Fuel Efficiency: Rising oil prices not only impact motorists at the pump, they are also squeezing airlines and even the U.S. Air Force, which spent $5.8 billion on fuel in 2006, up from $2.8 billion in 2004. Advanced aeronautical research at NASA could dramatically improve the fuel efficiency of military and civilian aircraft, reducing costs for passengers and taxpayers alike. Barack Obama will support such research.
We can only hope.
In fiscal year 2008 alone, DOD expects to spend over $22 billion dollars to develop and procure satellites, launch vehicles, and other space systems. This is more than NASA's annual budget.
Sad, isn’t it?
Barack Obama believes that NASA can work more closely with other federal agencies to take advantage of their expertise and technologies.
Does this mean getting NASA to work with the Department of Energy and Department of Defense to finally get serious about researching and developing space solar power?
This includes sharing research and technical information as well as better coordination of acquisition programs. Ensuring an integrated and fully coordinated national space program will be the major responsibility of the re- established National Aeronautics and Space Council. Obama will also work to better integrate NASA in a better coordinated national science policy. Obama will appoint an Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy who will report directly to the president, and be deeply involved in establishing research priorities that reflect the nation's needs based on the best available advice from experts around the country.
This could be interesting, depending on what he wants to do with it; again, it’s sort of like reviving the Office of Technology Assessment. I have no fundamental objection to the NASC, so long as something constructive is done with it.
Space exploration must be a global effort. Barack Obama will use space as a strategic tool of U.S. diplomacy to strengthen relations with allies, reduce future conflicts, and engage members of the developing world.
Collaborating on Exploration: The United States needs to fully involve international partners in future exploration plans to help reduce costs and to continue close ties with our ISS partners. NASA has been working with 13 other space agencies to develop a globally coordinated approach to space exploration; Barack Obama will not only continue but intensify this effort. Human exploration beyond low-earth orbit should be a long-term goal and investment for all space faring countries, with America in the lead.
Does this include Iran? North Korea? China? This is the third reference to diplomacy. I sincerely hope Mr. Obama and his team don’t think that moving into space will suddenly make everybody get along swimmingly in a perfectly trusting environment of sweetness and light. Human beings and governments aren’t wired that way. I’m not against diplomacy. Obviously we need it. However, if an Obama administration would expect space activities to be a cure-all for problems ailing us on Earth, they’re likely to be sadly disappointed.
Collaborating on Climate Change Research: Barack Obama will expand and deepen American collaboration with international partners on climate research, both to increase understanding of climate challenges and to demonstrate American leadership in this arena.
As I noted above, SERVIR is already doing this, and to good effect.
Emphasizing an International, Cooperative Approach to Space Security
Keeping our space assets free of threats of disruption will be an Obama priority. This is not only a military concern, but also an issue relevant to commercial and scientific operators. Developing an international approach to minimizing space debris, enhancing capabilities for space situational awareness, and managing increasingly complex space operations are important steps towards sustaining our space operations.
Negotiating Agreements on "Rules of the Road": Barack Obama will work with other nations to develop "rules of the road" for space to ensure all nations have a common understanding of acceptable behavior.
Opposing Weaponization of Space: Space assets are increasingly important to our national security and our economy, but they are also extremely vulnerable. China's successful test of an anti-satellite missile in January 2007 signaled the beginning of a potential new arms race in space. Barack Obama opposes the stationing of weapons in space and the development of anti-satellite weapons. He believes the United States must show leadership by engaging other nations in discussions of how best to stop the slow slide towards a new battlefield.
Protecting America's Space Assets: Recognizing their vulnerability, Obama will work to protect our assets in space by pursuing new technologies and capabilities that allow us to avoid attacks and recover from them quickly. The Operationally Responsive Space program, which uses smaller, more nimble space assets to make US systems more robust and less vulnerable is a way to invest in this capability.
I’ve ridden this hobby horse before as well. We’ve opposed Iran’s nuclear ambitions using diplomatic methods, and obviously Iran has yet to be cowed by our efforts or the Europeans’. We can make bold, idealistic statements about a future without nuclear or space weapons, but we need to think realistically about what we (through our next president) will do if our enemies do not share our idealism and build them anyway.
DEVELOPING NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Expanding Public/Private Partnerships to Advance Leading Edge Technologies
The commercial space sector plays an essential role in the lives of normal Americans, contributing more than $100 billion to the global economy. Commercial satellites support direct-to-home television and digital audio services to over 30 million U.S. subscribers, high-speed Internet, traffic and weather monitoring, rapid transfer of financial data, and the imagery essential to natural resource and city planning. Technologies developed to meet the challenges of space exploration have found more than 30,000 commercial uses in products ranging from tennis shoes to medical equipment, bar codes, pacemakers and sunglasses, to technology that makes air travel safer and more efficient. Barack Obama knows that advanced space and aeronautics research can help catalyze economic growth. He will encourage public/private space technology partnerships to spur innovation.
Enhancing the Role of NASA as a Premier Institution of Innovation: Engineers and scientists at NASA have developed state-of-the-art innovations across the technological spectrum in areas ranging from solar cells and imaging to communications and aeronautics. Barack Obama will renew NASA's commitment to innovation-driving basic research that the private sector can use to develop new products for American consumers.
Well, good. Someone in the Obama camp understands space spinoffs and direct benefits.
Increasing Commercialization Benefits: Obama will promote cost sharing initiatives between government and industry to increase the state of the art in various technical areas, such as micro- electromechanical systems, nanotechnology, and biotechnology. Obama will establish multi-agency programs that focus on rapid maturation of advanced concepts and transfer to industry for commercialization.
Hooray! More spinoffs from more government agencies. Boo! Who’s going to pay for all the new bureaucracy?
Jumpstarting Consumer Technology: Obama will expand the use of prizes for revolutionary technical achievements that can benefit society, and funds for joint industry/government rapid-to-the- consumer technology advances.
What about prizes for more ambitious space hardware and activities?
Obama will stimulate the commercial use of space and private sector utilization of the International Space Station. He will establish new processes and procurement goals to promote the use of government facilities.
Much of this is public policy now. Do we really need more laws and regulations?
Revising Regulations for Aerospace Export Control: Some sections of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have unduly hampered the competitiveness of domestic aerospace industry. Outdated restrictions have cost billions of dollars to American satellite and space hardware manufacturers as customers have decided to purchase equipment from European suppliers. While protecting our national security interests, Barack Obama will direct a review of the ITAR to reevaluate restrictions imposed on American companies, with a special focus on space hardware that is currently restricted from commercial export. He will also direct revisions to the licensing process to ensure that American suppliers are competitive in the international aerospace markets, without jeopardizing American national security.
Huzzah! Assuming Lori Garver has had a hand in this policy statement, this paragraph just might be the most useful addition to public policy I’ve seen since Constellation or COTS. Why? Because America needs its technological market share. If our laws and regulations prevent American companies from retaining said market share, we lose the ability to make particular technologies because said companies go out of business or stop making the hardware because they can’t sell it. Fixing ITAR (i.e. shrinking it) would make many people’s lives easier.
Expanding the American Skill Base in Science and Engineering: Barack Obama fully supports efforts to advance new frontiers in technical areas, such as advanced structures, power generation, communication and navigation systems, and biomedical systems. These efforts address the requirements for exploration, but also have high potential for technological benefits in the private sector as well as in training the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Great. What about space solar power? Helium-3 fusion? Reusable launch vehicles?
Engaging the Public and Inspiring the Next Generation
I am so tired of this line. If NASA is doing cool things, companies are paying well for scientific/engineering jobs, and government is rewarding creativity and entrepreneurship in aerospace, then engagement and inspiration will follow automatically. It’s not an outcome you can ensure, unless you can guarantee perfect, inspiring, brilliant, great teachers at every grade level and every discipline all across America.
Establishing Educational Access to Government Programs and R&D: Obama's NASA will develop K-12 education activities to translate the successes of our civil space programs, particularly our nation's scientific discoveries, our technology developments, and space exploration activities, into instructional programs for our children.
NASA is already doing this.
Inspiring Learning through Participatory Exploration: Technology is allowing students in an American classroom to remotely control a camera on the International Space Station and may someday enable them to control a rover on the Moon. This type of participatory exploration can inspire students to study mathematics, science and engineering.
Good.
Establishing Teacher/Researcher Fund for High Schools: Barack Obama will support nontraditional approaches, such as student design competitions and internet-based collaborations to engage students and develop the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Good. NASA is already doing this, to some extent, through the Student Launch Initiative and University Student Launch Initiative.
Increasing Opportunities for College Students: Obama will support university programs that partner NASA, DOT, DOD and NOAA with academia to provide hands-on training experiences at the college level.
NASA is doing this already, though I’ve read quite a few gripes from Gen Y that NASA needs to improve this aspect of mentoring young people.
Supporting Open Government Initiatives: Obama will engage our public servants in two-way dialogs with the public to discuss the national agenda for space, to show how their tax dollars are being used, and to solicit feedback how to better address the needs of the nation.
Oh, for gosh sakes…this is my day job! The bulk of my time is spent writing speeches, papers, and presentations that tell taxpayers exactly what’s going on with the Constellation Program. These speakers then take questions from the audience, which then get filtered back to me and my fellow writers to be incorporated into the next round of paper(s). It’s not my fault that Americans don’t have the money, time, or inclination to attend all the various conferences and public events that the Ares Projects try to reach in a year. Would more “town hall”-type meetings between NASA project managers and the hoi-polloi help improve NASA’s policies? Possibly. Certainly it would be eye-opening for some folks—on both sides of the conversation. Otherwise, it should not just be a matter of government condescending to ask, “What, little people, would you like from President Obama’s space program?”
So what’s my “bottom line” on this rather lengthy statement? First of all, it could’ve been shorter. A few sentences here and there would have been sufficient to let people know that the Obama campaign understands what’s going on in the space business. Also, I think this document could have been structured better. There was some overlap in places, as noted in my responses above. I am still left to wonder what Obama will make of his space policy in the event he gets elected. The priorities are scattered throughout the document: diplomacy, climate modeling, focusing on commercial spinoffs, (perhaps) carrying on with the Constellation Program, perhaps carrying on space science.
The most distressing thing about the document is a lack of thematic unity, strategy, or philosophy. It's like the Obama camp is throwing out ideas to see who will bite on what. I doubt, somehow, that any administration would be able to do ALL of the things included here, even if they wanted to. My choices are obvious (as are my gripes), and there are some nuggets here that tell me someone’s been doing their homework, but I doubt that “someone” is Obama.
Funding all of the above would probably cost $2-3 billion per year at best. More likely, we'd be looking at $4-5 billion in new funding on top of the current $17 billion NASA budget, assuming the current budget gets past the threat of a continuing resolution in Congress. This, of course, overlooks the operational consequences of extending the Shuttle, which Mike Griffin has addressed again and again:
The best question someone could ask the two major candidates would be: "America's space program is a waste of time and resources. Why should be bother spending money on space at all? Why don't we just close it down?" Okay, it's not the best question someone could ask, but it would bring the space issue into focus. Do we really want it shut down completely? Does greatness (okay, pride and power--the things McCain talked about in his space statement--but also future technologies and resources) no longer matter to America? Are we going to give up being the single richest, most powerful nation in history just because it's too much work or too expensive? Ye flippin' gods.
Regardless of what happens in Georgia, the media needs to give more thought to the space aspects of a new Cold War with Russia, because it is nearly here, and our space program looked a lot different the last time we had a Cold War. The last time we had one, we went to the Moon.
Analysis of New McCain Statement on Space
Okay, for those of you who didn't read this yesterday, here's another opportunity:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/7366faf9-d504-4abc-a889-9c08d601d8ee.htm
Here's the full text, if you don't feel like clicking:
Here's my primary assessment: it's mostly motherhood and eyewash. It's boilerplate. It's a lot of platitudes strung together to make people think that Senator McCain is taking the issue seriously. It's nearly content free. And I say that with little joy, as a registered Republican (and Eisenhower conservative).America's Space Program
"Let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us." -John McCain
John McCain: For the past 50 years, space activities have contributed greatly to US scientific discovery, national security, economic development, and national innovation, pride and power (the ultimate example of which was the U.S. victory over the Soviets in the race to the moon). Spurred on by the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, the world's first satellite, and the concern that the U.S was falling behind in science and technology, U.S. policymakers enacted several policy actions to firmly establish the U.S. dominance in science and technology. Among them were the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the national Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), increased research funding, and a reformulation of the nation's science and technology education system.
Today, more than 50 years after Sputnik, the US faces a very different world. The end of the Cold War and the space race has greatly reduced the profile of space exploration as a point of national pride and an emblem of U.S. power and thus created some degree of "mission-rut" for NASA. At the same time, the scientific community views the use of space as an important observation platform for advancing science by increasing our understanding of the solar system and the universe. In addition, our recent comprehension of the Earth's changing climate is based on data that we have received from our weather and Earth observation satellites. Much of our communications infrastructure is dependent upon space based assets that are essential to the quality of our everyday lives and the economy.
China, Russia, India, Japan and Europe are all active players in space exploration. Both Japan and China launched robotic lunar orbiters in 2007. India is planning to launch a lunar orbiter later this year. The European Space Agency (ESA) is looking into a moon-lander, but is more focused on Mars. China also is actively pursuing a manned space program and, in 2003, became only the third country after the USSR and the US to demonstrate the capability to send man to space. China is developing plans for a manned lunar mission in the next decade and the establishment of a lunar base after 2020.
Activity within the commercial sector continues to increase beyond the traditional role of launching satellites. In 2007, the X-Prize Foundation announced a prize of $30 million in a global competition to build the first robotic rover capable of landing on the Moon. Several companies are planning to develop and build spacecraft for space tourism.
Senator McCain understands the importance of investments in key industries such as space to the future of our national security, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and national pride as a technological leader. Although the general view in the research community is that human exploration is not an efficient way to increase scientific discoveries given the expense and logistical limitations, the role of manned space flight goes well beyond the issue of scientific discovery and is reflection of national power and pride.
History provides some guide to this. In 1971, when the Nixon Administration was looking at canceling the Apollo program and not approving the development of the Space Shuttle - then Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director Casper Weinberger stated that such a policy: "would be confirming in some respects a belief that I fear is gaining credence at home and abroad: That our best years are behind us, that we are turning inward, reducing our defense commitments, and voluntarily starting to give up our super-power status and our desire to maintain world superiority." Three and a half decades later this seems equally valid, if not more so given the increased number of countries that are making significant investments in space.
John McCain has been involved in a number of efforts to improve America's scientific prowess within the space arena. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator McCain played a major role in legislation to provide funding for space exploration (manned and unmanned), space science, Earth science, and aeronautics research. He also sponsored legislation to support the up and coming commercial space industry, and led the Senate's efforts to implement improvements to NASA after the Columbia accident. Senator McCain has also spearheaded efforts to control costs at NASA and promote a space exploration agenda based on sound management, safe practices, and fiscal responsibility.
Current U.S. space operations policy commits the U.S. to completing the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010 and then terminating the Space Shuttle flights, with the completion of the ISS. The NASA vision for space exploration calls for sending a robotic lunar lander to the Moon in 2008/2009 time period to begin searching for potential base sites and for development and deployment of a new manned space craft for lunar missions. The current policy also calls for new vehicles (referred to as the Orion crew vehicle and the Ares launch vehicle) to be ready for Earth orbit by 2015 and lunar landing by 2020 with an eventual mission to Mars.
As President, John McCain will --
- Ensure that space exploration is top priority and that the U.S. remains a leader;
- Commit to funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs to begin a new era of human space exploration.
- Review and explore all options to ensure U.S. access to space by minimizing the gap between the termination of the Space Shuttle and the availability of its replacement vehicle;
- Ensure the national space workforce is maintained and fully utilized;
- Complete construction of the ISS National Laboratory;
- Seek to maximize the research capability and commercialization possibilities of the ISS National Laboratory;
- Maintain infrastructure investments in Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems;
- Seek to maintain the nation's space infrastructure;
- Prevent wasteful earmarks from diverting precious resources from critical scientific research; and
- Ensure adequate investments in aeronautics research.
Let's start with the first four paragraphs, which amount to an bland analysis of the current state of the space business. Okay, great: someone in the campaign has done some research and now understands what's going on. That is a step forward from the space debate that occurred at ISDC, albeit a small step.
The statement starts edging toward saying something in the fifth paragraph, when it says, "Senator McCain understands the importance of investments in key industries such as space to the future of our national security, environmental sustainability, economic competitiveness, and national pride as a technological leader." Well, great: a warm, fuzzy statement of support.
The next sentence must give one pause: "Although the general view in the research community is that human exploration is not an efficient way to increase scientific discoveries given the expense and logistical limitations, the role of manned space flight goes well beyond the issue of scientific discovery and is reflection of national power and pride." Interesting. If the McCain campaign believes that "the general view in the research community is that human exploration is not an efficient way to increase scientific discoveries," who are they talking to?
Granted, the science and exploration directorates at NASA are often at odds over funding, but that "general view" is far from uniform. Ask a lunar or Mars scientist whether they'd prefer that only robots get to explore or whether they themselves would get to go, and I wonder what their answers would be. Also, there's this: "the role of manned space flight goes well beyond the issue of scientific discovery and is reflection of national power and pride." Is that the best the McCain camp can do--focus on power and pride? What about technological advancement? What about talk of freedom, frontiers, or future resources? The next paragraph provides historical context and backing for the "power and pride" (symbolism) argument.
Moving on..."John McCain has been involved in a number of efforts to improve America's scientific prowess within the space arena. As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator McCain played a major role in legislation to provide funding for space exploration (manned and unmanned), space science, Earth science, and aeronautics research." This is a given; he was the chairman. Real estate is wastted on describing job duties.
"He also sponsored legislation to support the up and coming commercial space industry, and led the Senate's efforts to implement improvements to NASA after the Columbia accident." Okay, I can understand this--he's at least talking about experience and specific examples of support for space--which is more than one can say about Obama in his 143 days in the Senate.
"Senator McCain has also spearheaded efforts to control costs at NASA and promote a space exploration agenda based on sound management, safe practices, and fiscal responsibility." As I mentioned in my analysis in the short version of McCain's space policy, he is a big advocate of government accountability and (where necessary) closer congressional oversight of government agencies. This might or might not be good news for NASA. They're under the media microscope as it is right now, at least by the aerospace press and aerospace-related bloggers. Additional oversight from Washington will not make their job easier.
The last paragraph returns to know facts and "no duh" history: "Current U.S. space operations policy commits the U.S. to completing the International Space Station (ISS) by 2010 and then terminating the Space Shuttle flights, with the completion of the ISS."
Here's an error a couple people have noted: "The NASA vision for space exploration calls for sending a robotic lunar lander to the Moon in 2008/2009 time period to begin searching for potential base sites and for development and deployment of a new manned space craft for lunar missions." The error? NASA is sending an orbiter to the Moon (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter/LRO) to map future landing sites and a lunar impactor (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite/LCROSS), which will crash into the Moon to look for signs of water ice. The nearest lunar lander (i.e., a vehicle meant to land safely and conduct operations on the surface) has been moved off the planning horizon, so far as I know. Someone in the McCain camp needs to do a little more homework.
"The current policy also calls for new vehicles (referred to as the Orion crew vehicle and the Ares launch vehicle) to be ready for Earth orbit by 2015 and lunar landing by 2020 with an eventual mission to Mars." This is a statement of support for the status quo for the Constellation Program. That is the first concrete thing this statement offers.
Now we can turn to what John McCain will do:
So: like Obama, McCain is essentially taking a status-quo approach to space because, again, space is not (yet) a national security priority. We'll see how much attention space gets if the situation with Russia gets worse.
