The School of "If Only"

Dr. Paul Spudis, most recently from the Lunar and Planetary Institute, paid a visit to Marshall Space Flight Center yesterday and gave a lunch-and-learn presentation entitled "Using the Resources of the Moon to Create a Permanent Cislunar Transportation System." This was the sort of talk that one normally hears at an International Space Development Conference or other space advocacy event. It contained everything a space advocate could hope to hear: technical feasibility, visionary ambition, and a sense of political realism. It's been awhile since I've heard such talks--I was working during most of my ISDC--and it was a pleasure to hear Dr. Spudis's speech. Nevertheless, I had a few reservations, which I'll share after I summarize the talk.

Spudis began his talk by providing some background on the space industry, specifically its three "ages," the "Space Race" age (1957-1972), the "What now?" age (1972-Present), the "Beyond LEO" age (hopefully, from now into the future). He made the case early in his talk that if we lack an overarching beat-the-other-guys reason for space exploration, we need to find more pragmatic reasons, including national security, economic, and scientific, all of which space justifies in spades.

He next went on to discuss the operational challenges space efforts have faced, including a long habit of building customized, one-time-use platforms, which are then abandoned after one use. Spudis argues for a new template for human space activities, one involving incremental, extensible building-block components and systems that can be reused. He also argued (as his title suggested) for the use of space resources--but not for use here on Earth, but rather in space.

Another template or paradigm Spudis asked the audience to consider was a shift from an "Space Air Force" model, where there are small vehicles and small-scale, temporary visits to destinations to a "Space Navy" model where you see a large-scale, permanent presence in space and at destinations. It's sort of like the difference between The Right Stuff and Star Trek. However, instead of Star Trek, Spudis pointed to Arthur C. Clarke's Profiles of the Future.

It didn't surprise the audience that Spudis, a lunar scientist, advocated for using the moon as a base of operations and resources. As his PowerPoint bullets put it, the moon is "close, interesting, and useful." He got a little incensed by President Obama dismissing the moon with "been there, done that." Citing recent discoveries by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and Lunar Crater Observation Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), Spudis emphasized the usefulness of lunar resources, including local metals and most importantly water ice. For those unschooled in the matter, scientists have determined that under the rims of craters near the moon's north and south poles there are permanently shadowed areas where volatile materials such as water would not be able to boil off. This water, in the form of ice, comprises as much as 10 percent of lunar soil in these regions.

Water, as Spudis points out, is just about the most useful material available for human space exploration, as it can be used to drink, it can be split into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel, it can be used to provide oxygen for breathing, and it can be used as an insulating material for surface habitats. In short, water matters, and where we once thought the moon was bone-dry, we now know that there's enough water ice there to meet the needs of human settlements there for hundreds of years.

Having set the stage for "why the moon," Spudis next moved on to his architecture, which was developed in cooperation with Marshall Space Flight Center project manager Tony Lavoie. This incremental set of hardware includes (in order) communication and navigation satellites, polar prospecting rovers, in situ resource utilization (ISRU) demonstrator, digger/hauler rovers, water tankers, electrolysis units (for transforming water into hydrogen and oxygen), supporting equipment, and space-based assets, such as fuel depots in lunar and Earth orbit. Total price tag, about $5.5 billion per year for 16 years. That's an easier figure for Congress to swallow than the total pricetag, $88 billion, but it's MUCH easier than the $450 billion estimated for the Space Exploration Initiative, proposed by President George H. W. Bush in 1989.

The Spudis/Lavoie approach has several advantages:

• It is "vehicle neutral," meaning it is not dependent on any new or existing rockets to get its equipment into space (they start with the existing Delta IV as their baseline, but any existing rocket would do.
• Because the early missions--heck, the first 16--are robotically based, they can be developed more quickly, on shorter timelines than human missions. Multiple, short-term milestones and accomplishments are important because Congress runs its budgets one year to the next and is impatient with programs that they feel are not accomplishing anything.
• It allows transportation to be customized by function, much as Robert A. Heinlein envisioned it: Earth to LEO handled by one type of vehicle, LEO to the moon with another type of vehicle, and a reusable vehicle of another type to handle the lunar orbit to Moon run.
• It can identify an economic "break-even" point. In the case of water resources, any surplus above 150 metric tons of water extracted from the moon  would be sufficient for a lunar settlement to start paying for itself.

One question Spudis asked toward the end of his talk was, "Can NASA change the way they do things? That's one thing I just don't know." This sort of begs the question: what does need to change if NASA is to execute this vision?

And I should point out that this is very much a NASA type of vision, with the agency leading the activities. Why? Spudis's thoughts are much like mine on this: there is very little business justification for exploring the moon or building infrastructure. Basically, if this vision/architecture were left to the private sector, "it wouldn't happen." So another advantage of Spudis's architecture is that it concentrates government on activities that are unlikely to generate much initial commercial interest.

*

It sounds like a cool, ingenious plan. But then so do a lot of the plans I've heard from the space advocacy community over the past 15 years. My comment (one seconded by Michael Doornbos when I mentioned the talk on Facebook) was, "All they need is an affordable launch vehicle." Other plans are equally ingenious, but they always have some missing unobtainium that hasn't been developed yet. All our problems would be solved if only we had...

• An affordable launch vehicle
• A reusable launch vehicle
• An ultra-light alloy that would make a reusable launch vehicle possible
• A new, high-energy propellant
• A new, high-strength material capable of building a space elevator
• A space station orbiting at the L5 Lagrange point
• A base on Mars
• Access to a nickel-iron asteroid with a trillion dollars' worth of platinum-group metals
• A Helium-3 reactor
• The political will to do [X]
• A heavy-lift launch vehicle
• A robust, low-cost commercial space industry

The U.S. is in the process of developing those last two, anyway. I wish Spudis well. It's a clever vision he has, and one of the more realistic visions I've heard articulated in recent years. Will it hold up? I guess it all depends on how many people stand up and start advocating for it. Being a lunar-centric guy myself, I suppose you could count me among them. What happens next is anybody's guess. If only.

Potpourri CXI

Cleaning out the inbox and getting laundry done this morning...it's an epic morning at Casa de Bart! Why not join in the fun?

The Iranians claim to be behind a crash/hack of Twitter yesterday. Message: "You allow our people to tell the world what we're doing to them, we'll crash your site." Nice.

From Melissa: an alternative to the Diet Dr. Pepper I've been drinking ("That stuff causes kidney damage!")...Zevia Black Cherry Cola. Well, first I'll have to find it locally. Second, I'll have to find out if I'm allergic to it. The reason I shifted from regular to diet was because I liked the caffeine but was allergic to the high-fructose corn syrup. Zevia is sweetened with stevia, a plant-based sweetener that has recently appeared on TV as an alternative to aspartame or saccharine (both old favorites of mine).

Need something fun (toys/treats) for your dog this holiday season? Here's a shameless plug for Bark Avenue Bakery, my friend Christine's dog bakery in southwest Orlando. Chris also takes internet orders for merchandise.

A reflection of sunlight was found on a frozen lake on Titan, the largest moon of Saturn. Frozen water? Unlikely, given how far out Saturn is from the sun, but interesting nonetheless. Interesting universe out there.

From Pastor: Luther Bible verses in MP3 online. Guess who volunteered to read for the German service this year? That'll teach me to take Spanish in high school...

The Zombie Apocalypse craze continues. Doc ordered one of these shirts--how the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine would look like in the event of the Z.A. Still don't get this zombie thing. Some sort of comment on the quality of acting on television? Our politicians? I'm baffled.

Insurgents in Iraq have occasionally intercepted imagery from overhead drones. Apparently encryption wasn't high on the list? How good would an insurgent feel if the feed they were getting was of themselves just as the missile was being fired? The Department of Defense is working on this issue, presumably.

With the sun's sunspot cycle being very quiet the last few years, NASA has determined that the outermost layer has been cooling dramatically. No word from the global warming crowd if they were going to accuse the sun of being in collusion with oil companies to undermine the proof of global warming.

SpaceX was planning to run its last engine test prior to launching Falcon 9 in 2010. No word on the SpaceX website yet that they've actually run the test, though.

Scientists using data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) presented a paper suggesting that the radiation environment on the Moon might not be any worse than what a nuclear industry or x-ray technician gets exposed to in a year. This is good news for future explorers or settlers, as there are existing protocols and mitigation steps to cope with those levels of radiation. Still, you wouldn't want to be sunbathing out there...

Alerting Bruce Willis...saving the world from an incoming asteroid wouldn't be as simple as NASA sending up a group of roughnecks to take care of business. Former Apollo 9 astronaut Rusty Schweickart suggests that a certain amount of international diplomacy would be called for first. Why? Well, deflecting an asteroid using some sort of tug would be a very gradual process, and until it was safely out of the risk zone, its trajectory could actually be pointed at various countries on the Earth. Who decides what a safe trajectory is? Who builds the hardware? Sigh. There are times when it helps to take unilateral action.

From Tracy: an article explaining why the trends in new media are hard to track.

NASA is making audio files of space stories available online.

From Lin:

• An editorial on the source of the ongoing problems with the economy. If you've read this blog or Lin's contributions long enough, you probably don't need to guess what direction this editorial is pointing.
• An open letter from the National Taxpayers' Union asking Congress to reject H.R. 4173, "The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009" because of the amount of additional regulation taxes it would impose on an already struggling economy. The Obama administration either doesn't get it or gets it and doesn't care, but if you take more money from businesses by increasing taxes and make it harder for them to operate, they will not create jobs and the economy will remain stuck.
• While salaries might be declining in the private sector, the number of civil servants making big money has increased dramatically in the last two years (note: this implicates Bush AND Obama).

And to end on a more positive note, I've been toying with research for a science fiction novel. Dr. OZMG is a sharp observer of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality types, so I'll probably be pinging her at some point on how the various MBTI types might operate in a space environment. One thing that was interesting to note was that the primary jobs needed to get any mission done up there--astronaut, engineer, scientist, researcher, pilot--tend to fall into two major personality categories: INTJ (my type, incidentally), and INTP. Both of these types are introverted, more focused on abstract principles than exterior/social cues, and thinking (as opposed to feeling). This also describes most of my friends in the space business.

That is not to say that there are not extroverted scientists or engineers (or even technical writers). It's just that folks with this set of personality traits is more drawn to the technical disciplines that make space travel possible. The more social folks will probably end up making money elsewhere and becoming passengers on Virgin Galactic or some other space tourism operation.

Potpourri LXII

Another action-packed round of surfing. I find this stuff so you don't have to.

The latest Futures Channel video on the Ares Projects has been released.

Interested in what the Augustine Human Spaceflight Panel is up to? Here ya go.

Okay, here's something useful for you Guinness-drinking space fans: drink a Guinness, and possibly win a flight on Virgin Galactic. Brilliant!

Ya know, I've tried to refrain from personal comments about President Obama because there's so much wrong with his policies already. But it's come to my attention--and apparently the Drudge Report, too--that the man doesn't smile a lot. And that he can even look quite mean when he sets his mind to it. I don't think this is a happy guy. But then I recall some of my liberal friends in college thinking that anyone with a positive attitude was obviously an idiot because the world was too grim for anybody to be in a good mood or have a positive attitude. My only answer to that is that I know the world is in a bad state. Optimism, a positive attitude, and a happy disposition takes a lot of work and more than a little leap of faith.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has started taking pictures of the lunar surface. One goal is to scan the Apollo landing sites.

In addition to jet planes, ballistic missiles, and other "wonder weapons," the Third Reich also appear to have built the first stealth bomber. Now recreating ballistic missiles at the time I sort of understand (Huntsville and the Apollo program owe much to the pardoning of Wernher von Braun). But why would anyone recreate a Nazi stealth bomber 60 years later?

Speaking of jets, some gratuitous pictures of American aircraft busting through Mach 1...and some pictures of shockwaves created by atomic bombs.

I am SO glad Obama has followed George W. Bush's diplomatic approach to North Korea. It's done SO much good. It's kept them from speaking hostilly to its neighbor South Korea and from enriching uranium...

And much to my surprise, Five Guys Burgers have been named the best burgers in Northeast Alabama. Now I love their freedom fries, don't misunderstand me--any food that turns the brown bag they're served in a darker brown just HAS to be filled with nutritional goodness--but their burgers have yet to wow me. My military buddies from my life as a highway helper referred to the oil on Five Guys' fries as "70-weight AvLube." We restricted ourselves, ideally, to one visit to Five Guys' per quarter (more realistically per month). Anyhow, congratulations to the chain. I still love their fries, and hope their burgers improve.

The New Era of Space Continues

The Indian space agency has launched its first probe toward the Moon, Chandrayaan-1: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7679818.stm. Good for them!

Chandrayaan-1 was developed, in part, with assistance from the U.S., as one of its onboard instruments was built by NASA. Data from this orbiter will most likely help Constellation pick future landing spots for our astronauts (though, of course, any discoveries made will be confirmed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter).

Between the cooperation in space and the recent deal on nuclear power, the U.S. and India are fundamentally shifting the shape of politics in South Asia, as the two largest democratically elected governments on Earth are now seen as cooperating, if not actual allies. This is a huge change after the Cold War, when socialist India was much closer to the Soviet Union. Having finally embraced capitalism, India is now moving closer to the U.S. This is to our advantage, especially given the potential threat of China--on Earth or in space. We could do a lot worse, and this country could use all the allies it can get!

*

In the course of my job today, I got to listen to the following speech by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29544. It was an interesting topic--integrity--for a man who many pundits seem to assume will not have a job come the next administration.

Obviously Dr. Griffin has felt wounded and insulted by the criticism the Constellation Program has endured for the last four years. However, the speech also served as a reminder to the NASA internal audience: the proper functioning of a government bureaucracy requires behaving with integrity.

That said, Griffin remained "on message." He stated that the current Constellation architecture will continue. Is it perfect? No, but it is the best architecture given the constraints the agency had to operate under and the requirements the Constellation mission had to use.

*

Griffin's speech was given at the American Astronautical Society's Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium here in Huntsville. The first panel of the morning--the one that most concerned my day job--was the Ares panel. After that was Griffin's luncheon speech and then a panel on the other parts of the Constellation Program, including the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, the Altair lunar lander, and Orion crew exploration vehicle. Wayne Hale, former Space Shuttle Program Manager, had a great and sometimes hilarious presentation on exploration and science.

The best speech I heard all day came from John Horack, Manager of the Science & Mission Systems department at Marshall Space Flight Center. I've heard Horack speak before, but he hit a sensitive spot for me today, as he discussed the "why" of human exploration. I have some notes, but they don't begin to capture the man's delivery or message. I'm hoping to get a copy tomorrow to pull some actual quotations, but I'll try to give some of my impressions now.

He spoke about the fact that space exploration is one of the few things this nation does that exists to create a better future. This is important when so many governmental actions exist to prevent negative consequences. He spoke of the need to build a better future, and how NASA exemplified that need. He spoke of how Abraham Lincoln, in the midst of the Civil War, still decided to fund the Transcontinental Railroad, and how that investment "made the future that much better." He spoke about the need for a better future, and challenged the audience to explain to their children, if we cut the space program completely, why we believed America would no longer exist or that the future would no longer be better for them. It was fundamental stuff, things we probably don't hear often enough, and things I obviously needed to hear. I promise to post some better quotations from Horack's speech as soon as I can obtain them.

And it bears noting how Horack introduced himself: "Hi, I'm John Horack, and I'm a scientist." There's this bizarre competition between science and engineering within NASA, but you hear none of that from Horack, even when I'm sure some of his programs have taken budget hits to pay for Shuttle or Constellation. He believes in exploration and what it can do for science, and that goes a long way toward helping others see the potential for cooperation and synergy. Now the cynic in me should probably qualify this, and say, "He says he believes in exploration," but jeez, why go to all the trouble? Why put one's best thoughts and words toward ideas one doesn't believe? Anyhow, I liked his speech a great deal, and given some of the negativity I've heard and expressed lately, I probably needed it.

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.