Pages

Showing posts with label LCROSS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LCROSS. Show all posts

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Potpourri CXII

First, I need to get this out of my inbox because it hit there about 12 times. For those of you not in the know--or not Time Magazine subscribers--the Ares rockets were named Time's Invention of the Year. Apparently there's a voting process, though, so go to the site here and work with their system and cast your vote. Nice to have a little moral support, even if the aerospace press is trying to write off Ares as dead on arrival.

*

From Lin, several articles on the "progress" of nationalized healthcare and other activities by the Obama administration. I must confess I've stayed tuned out from the news and even talk radio for awhile now. It improves the mood, and I've got more fun things to do with my free time like exchange text messages with Dr. OZMG. Anyhow, if you are interested in such things, here you go:

  • An editorial by Thomas Sowell (part 4--no doubt parts 1-3 are available online as well).
  • An Investor's Business Daily article on the state of the financial industry.
  • A Michelle Malkin editorial on the tactics used by ACORN.
  • A Forbes.com editorial on the state of capitalism.

*

This might actually be a bigger story than Ares I-X, but what the heck, my work priorities come first: the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) impactor has produced data indicating the presence of water ice on the Moon. This is HUGE. As I indicated in a previous posting on the day of the impact, if we find water ice on the Moon, we can build long-term bases and permanent settlements there. Human civilization can expand this one world with its limited resources and at-risk biosphere. Bravo to the LCROSS team for this historic find!

*

On a completely personal note, I spent some time with a "planned giving" counselor from my Lutheran church synod setting up an outline for a will. No, I'm not planning to die anytime soon, but then neither did a young couple I worked with at Disney 15 years ago, and their affairs were left entirely in the hands of their respective families as the two died without a will. The end result was that the couple were buried in separate states. Do the deceased care? Probably not, but human beings tend to be sentimental about such things; and the only end result was probably a lot of bad blood between the survivors. Now being a single guy I don't have inlaws to argue with, nor do I have a particularly complicated or dire financial state. But there are things I would like to do for my family and friends in the event I shed this earthly coil. It's really a simple process, so if you haven't done it and you're no longer living in your parents' home, you should probably have a will. Here was a general overview of the items we discussed:

  • Assets - what kind I have and what they're worth.
  • Debts - what kind I have and how much I owe.
  • Beneficiaries - whom I want to get what out of my estate; in my case, members of my family would get the bulk of my estate, with specific items going to other individuals, as I see fit.
  • Distribution - which assets it makes most sense to give to whom; for example, it's better to distribute the items with the largest monetary value and lowest tax rates to those highest on your priority list and to work your way down from there.
  • Planned Giving - how much of my estate I wish to donate to charitable causes (in my case my local church and the Wisconsin Synod in general).
  • Terminal Care Instructions - What sorts of statements I want in my will regarding "terminal care" in the event I'm incapacitated.

No, this isn't particularly fun to think about, but it is useful for assessing the state of your life and your priorities. Next up: talking to a financial planner about increasing my assets so there's more for me on this side of death and more for my inheritors afterward. Jeez, this turning-40 thing is so...adult.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Potpourri CV

This has been in my inbox for awhile. Veronique Koken and her partner Howard Chipman, a doctor with his own Czech L-39 jet fighter, have opened an astronaut training center called Aurora Aerospace in the Tampa Bay (Oldsmar) area. The training, a la carte or all together, is not cheap ($8,000 for the whole thing), but sounds like quite an adventure. The full package includes, per the brochure:

This is a two-day experience that operates out of a local airport in Oldsmar, and it includes a medical screening to ensure that your body can handle all this stuff. I was just flipping through the brochure and noted that the L-39 has ejection seats if needed. Well, jump in as you see fit. I've already made my choice: Earth is my home. For those of you so inclined, I'll add the link to my permanent rotation.

*

Yesterday's Lunar Crater Reconnaissance and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) was a little disappointing from a visual point of view. To be blunt, I saw nothing--no flash, no plume of stuff thrown into the air--nada. I admit to having a little fun with this. I posted Marvin the Martian as my user image on Facebook and asked, "Where's the kaboom? There's supposed to be a moon-shattering kaboom!" Part of that was to express my shared disappointment that the NASA simulation graphics were more dramatic than the actual event; part of it was to poke fun at the people I griped about on Thursday who thought the mission was going to somehow damage the Moon. Now, of course, the mission is being pummeled in the press. If there weren't any fireworks, the press assumed, the mission was a failure. The truth is, until they sort through the data, we won't know what they've got. But the only real reason that LCROSS matters is, if we find water ice on the Moon, we can build long-term bases and permanent settlements there. NASA can't say that because the administration isn't talking about it. However, in my off-duty hours as a National Space Society person, I think that's exactly what they should be talking about. If you agree, join NSS today, and start the campaign to get that started. I want my hotel (not home) with a view of the Earth!

Oh yeah: our president--the guy who was elected nine months ago--has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Let's consider what some previous winners have done:

  • Mediated between countries at war (Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Bunche)
  • Ministered to the needs of the poor and suffering (Mother Teresa, UNICEF, the International Committee of the Red Cross)
  • Negotiated a peace treaty (Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat, Henry Kissinger)
  • Fought for the rights of prisoners (Amnesty International)
  • Fought for freedom of conscience (Andrei Sakharov)
  • Fought for equality under the law (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
  • Designed a plan to help rebuild countries destroyed by war (George C. Marshall)

President Obama has done none of these things. Now I commend Obama and his speech writers for acknowledging that he's done nothing (yet?) to earn the award, but jeez, if you know you've done nothing, why accept it? So what has Obama done? The Nobel organization notes on its web site that the nomination process ends in February. I leave it to the reader to review WhiteHouse.gov to look for themselves:

I still think someone in the international community is setting this guy up. He's very sensitive to public and press opinion, here and abroad. If he's turned down for the Olympics, it affects his attitude toward the press, as does his surprise award for the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe he's also very susceptible to flattery. Why would the Nobel Foundation give such a prize to someone who, 12 days into his presidency, had yet to make any substantial contribution to world peace? As Obama saw it,

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

Again, I appreciate his humility and candor. But you've got to wonder, don't you, why you're being given an (arguably) important award before you've done anything? Could it be a message that "We're awarding you up front so you do things in a way that will make us happy in the future"? Is this some sort of message that "We want you to remain a man of peace, and by a man of peace, we mean undoing everything George W. Bush has done"? (Sure, give Iraq back to the Baathists and Afghanistan back to the Taliban--that'll make everyone happy and safe!)

I'm very much a merit-minded person. If I've earned something specific, I take that as a matter of course. If I'm rewarded for extra effort, I'm appreciative. If I'm awarded for doing little to nothing (as I see it), I feel uneasy and try to deflect attention elsewhere. But no, our president is going to accept the award as an incentive to go forth and do things. Interesting take on things, but a little disingenuous. And if someone gave me a big prize without me having done anything, I'd wonder what game was afoot. I'm probably overly suspicious that way, but really...

*

I got this item from Lin: the Democrats are looking at a "second stimulus," as the economy shows little sign of improving (unemployment now at 9.8 percent--is it still Bush's fault?).

There are two approaches to governing in the U.S. One side tries to do what it can for the individual citizens to make it on their own with as little government charity as possible. The other side says that government needs to make sure that the goods of society are distributed as equally as possible, usually through taxation and wealth transfers. Conservatives overlook the fact that everyone isn't equipped to do things on their own; liberals overlook the fact that if you make people dependent on someone else, they'll never learn to do things for themselves. The conservative approach to governance empowers more individuals, but results in inequality of outcomes among those individuals due to differences in ability, willingness to work, and starting position. The liberal approach empowers government by giving the political class the power and (assumed) right to decide who gets what--ostensibly to raise up the poor, but more often to punish the rich.

It's been 30 years since the nation went through one of these exercises. Perhaps it will take another "Carter presidency" to hammer the lesson home. Alas, we must await the next swing of the pendulum.

*

Got this from my company yesterday: an FBI press release on a Jordanian who was looking to bomb a building in Dallas, Texas. This wasn't an old release from just after 9/11, but a fresh one, from September of this year. Our peace-loving president would do well to remember that he's supposed to maintain peace and security in his own back yard, not just in the court of world opinion. Safe bet: if he takes actions that protect Americans--you know, the folks who voted for him--he'll be regarded as an outlaw and a cowboy, just like Bush. That might do him some good and earn him a second term. As it stands right now, I don't see that happening.

That's about it for now.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

The Latest Stuff in the Inbox

All sorts of excitement out there in Cyberland, so let's get to it.

The Saudis want economic assistance if their economy is wrecked by the world turning away from fossil fuels. Ronald Reagan was right about government's approach to business: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”

The Singularity will not go away. They make this stuff sound so cool, so worthwhile, so seductive, so (dare one say it?) "progressive," that you can lose track of the fact that they’re endeavoring to dislodge contemporary civilization from any sort of historical roots. And you can’t do that, because if you don’t know where you’ve been and why, you can’t honestly assess where you should go in the future. More thoughts will come to me, I’m sure. My goal is not to stop progress. My goal is to get people to think about the side effects or tradeoffs before they embrace change too quickly.

Assorted Headlines

Some folks are raising heck about the Lunar Crater Reconnaissance and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) impactor mission, which will crash into the Moon tomorrow morning at 0630 Central Time. I suggested a real-world example of why this is utterly ridiculous.

Let’s say a 195-pound kicker punts a football downfield and a 225-pound receiver catches it and runs it back. He gets downfield, and the only one between him and the end zone is the kicker. The odds are pretty good that that receiver is going to run past the kicker without slowing down a bit, and he’s only got 30 pounds on him.

Now let’s look at LCROSS. The portion of the booster impacting the Moon is 4,410 pounds. The Moon would weigh (if you found a scale big enough) 1,310,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lbs. (1.316 X 10ˆ23 lbs. or 5.97 X 10ˆ22 kg.)*

Guess which player isn’t moving the other.

(* Per http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/5Page19.pdf)

Yes, I know, mass and weight are not precisely the same thing, but for this particular application, I think it gets the point across. Just sayin’.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Potpourri LXXXIX

Mixed bag this evening, so let's just reach into the inbox and see what colored marbles I dig out.

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE):

  • Global warming is amok! Weather is out of control! Uh...unless you're a tornado hunter.

  • Um...or a hurricane tracker. Remember when Al Gore, the Smartest Man With a PowerPoint, predicted that all of our weather was going to get worse every year?
  • Remember the moral outrage over the Big Three automakers' CEOs taking corporate jets to Washington for their powwow with the president? Well, apparently, it's still okay for members of Congress to use private jets. I'm shocked, shocked...

Rod Coppinger at Flightglobal takes a few shots at the orbital fuel depot idea.

Responses to Darlene the Science Cheerleader have not been particularly polite or pleasant in the land of academia. I find a lot of the comments akin to something you'd read in high school: "brains" getting snippy because "a cheerleader is trying to do what we're supposed to do." These critics have little sense of humor or appreciation for what Dar is trying to do. The fact that she's a Republican probably just makes things worse, at least in the academics' eyes. Too bad. Dar has an audience, and probably a larger one than many of the folks currently sniping at her. It's not just a matter of cute. Positive attitude matters, too, and Dar has it in spades.

From Doc, a cool site on ways to get involved with the space biz.

One sign that I'm a Gen Xer is that I got cubicle toys for my birthday (I am currently 39.99999). Dr. OZMG sent me a sensitivity consultant from The Cubes. The awesomeness is so great it hurts.

After I finish with Europe, my next big vacation might be New Zealand, partially because I can hang out with the DUDE and Mrs. DUDE, partially because that's where they filmed Lord of the Rings, and partially because it's just a beautiful country.

Some idjit who didn't do well with women went nuts and killed three people and then himself in Pittsburgh. Dude, what the heck were you thinking? What were you doing/saying with these women that caused them to reject you? Could it have been that "tense, creepy, might-go-off-and-shoot-people" vibe you were giving off? Losers of the world, get thyselves to church!

The U.S. Navy's Littoral Combat Ship is ready to deploy.

New from Hu: Someone has taken the time to unleash a critical preemptive strike on G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra before it comes out. Why waste the energy? It'll be on DVD within three months anyway.

The Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) detected free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere, indicating signs of life. Might've made a more intriguing story if it hadn't found life...or intelligent life, anyway.

Lego is cosponsoring a Lunar X Prize contest. Cool!

Oh yeah, and rather than take the word of the media, talk radio, or the blogosphere, check out this link and read for yourself the current healthcare bill before Congress...all 1,000+ pages of it. I read the Clinton healthcare plan, so I guess I'll subject myself to this one as well. Expect a very long blog entry, come the day...

And on that note, I guess I'll sign off. Tomorrow I'll be 40. How the heck did that happen? Never mind...

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Potpourri LVII

From the nine corners of the globe, Rhetoric & Rockets continues its proud new tradition of feeding potpourri to all 20 of its regular readers. Thanks!

And now for something completely different from the DUDE*, a story about a man who got into it with a clothes dryer and lives to tell the tale.

(*DUDE = Down Under Defense Expert)

New from Hu (and discussed on this blog a week or so ago): Orion Propulsion announces that it has completed qualification tests on its attitude control system for Bigelow Aerospace's Sundancer space station.

Also from Hu: SeaLaunch has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Not good.

A very long but entertaining article by GQ Magazine on what NASA's been up to, space-wise.

Must be seen to be believed: Buzz Aldrin, Snoop Dogg, and space hip-hop. As Dave Barry would say, "And I'm not making this up."

Everything you wanted to know about the F-35's weapons systems except how to defeat them.

From my AIAA news feed:

Thursday, August 14, 2008

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:

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.

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).

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:

  • Ensure that space exploration is top priority and that the U.S. remains a leader;
    Query: How many other "top priorities" does McCain have?
  • Commit to funding the NASA Constellation program to ensure it has the resources it needs to begin a new era of human space exploration.
    Comment: This does not state what level of resources or what pace of development.
  • 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;
    Comment: This might bode well for my friends in the commercial sector, especially if McCain's hard-line attitude toward Russia continues.
  • Ensure the national space workforce is maintained and fully utilized;
    Query: What the heck does this mean? How do you "ensure" a fully utilized workforce except via socialism?
    Complete construction of the ISS National Laboratory;
    Comment: The Shuttle could do this--only to turn over access to the Russians? Hm.
  • Seek to maximize the research capability and commercialization possibilities of the ISS National Laboratory;
    Comment: Good. However, aside from Tom Pickens at Spacehab, no one else is really gung-ho about the commercial potential of ISS. And if we can't get anyone up there, how the heck are we going to exploit that potential?
  • Maintain infrastructure investments in Earth-monitoring satellites and support systems;
    Comment: This is not surprising, given the comments of McCain's representative at ISDC.
  • Seek to maintain the nation's space infrastructure;
    Comment: This is practically a "no duh" activity for the government, like keep the roads and bridges repaired (if only!). This is a status quo statement.
  • Prevent wasteful earmarks from diverting precious resources from critical scientific research; Query: What the heck does this mean, and how does it relate to space? Is he insinuating that earmarks spent on other things are keeping money from being spent on space? Well, maybe. But earmarks could be keeping money from a lot of things. For instance, if we didn't have any earmarks, private citizens might not be spending as much on taxes.
    and
  • Ensure adequate investments in aeronautics research.
    Comments: This is senatorial thinking, but necessary (see my previous commentary on McCain for an explanation). The only things he didn't mention specifically were robotic space and planetary science--is that a message in itself?

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.