First Meeting of Huntsville Space Professionals

One of the advantages of being on a no-overtime type of schedule is that if you work really late one day, you can get out early on, say, a Friday. That's what I did yesterday after kicking it until 10 p.m. Thursday. Since I had the time and might face employment drama after September 30, I decided to attend the first meeting of Huntsville Space Professionals (HSP), a group formed by some downsized NASA folks here in Rocket City, at Chan Auditorium at University of Alabama-Huntsville. The goal of the group is "Preserving and promoting Huntsville's talented human space capital." In short, they want to keep space jobs--or at least the people who filled them--here in Huntsville.

Also in attendance were Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle and WAFF TV, Channel 48. (Note to the media: never mind your pushy questions--some people don't like your Very Bright Lights shining in their face--and I was in the back of the room.)

One of the speakers was Lori King-Taylor from Trinity Performance Solutions, which appears to be a staffing company of some sort. Another site she referenced was by the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce. Trinity is helping HSP with establishing a career center, which will assist people with a job search web site, resume writing, interview skills, 401(k) options, entrepreneurship, and counseling. King-Taylor encouraged the crowd: "Keep your head high. This is not your fault. You have done nothing wrong."

Tommy Battle indicated that his office is talking to some of the likely "winners" under the Obama administration's space policy, including firms like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, and Virgin Galactic. There are a lot of smart, space-minded people in Huntsville who would prefer to stay here, thank you very much, and there is a lot of specialized equipment and infrastructure needed to build and test rockets here in Alabama, so the road to space will still go through Huntsville. We'll see if these other companies bite or not. And we still don't know what Marshall Space Flight Center will end up doing under the new policy/budget. In any case, Battle is covering all the bases and working with the Alabama Governor's office as well. He had to go to a meeting, so he wasn't able to take Q&A.

The HSP guys also contacted former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, who is now an "eminent scholar" and professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at UAH. Griffin was out of the country, but responded to Q&A via email. His general comments were that (unsurprisingly) he was not happy with the new policy, but that he has "no influence over this matter." With regard to people worried about looking for jobs, he recommended that people "look in Huntsville first," pointing to opportunities on the Army side of Redstone Arsenal. For dedicated souls who still want to work for NASA, he recommended reviewing the Space Policy and "go where the money is." On the whole, Griffin hoped that Congress "just says no to the ridiculous space policy advocated by the Obama administration."

After reviewing Griffin's emailed-in responses, the HSP folks reviewed the status of the NASA budget. H.R. 5614, the "Protecting Human Space Flight Act," which was introduced by Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) "To impose certain requirements on the expenditure of funds by National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the Constellation Program." More to the point, the point of the bill is to slow down or stop what's going on with Constellation. Otherwise, the NASA budget is entering the "markup" part of budget cycle, where Congress takes what it's been given and starts fiddling with the numbers. The House started its markups June 29, the Senate is due to start theirs July 14. The main difference in the Senate bill is the addition of one more Space Shuttle flight in June 2011. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes "number crunching" going on at the moment, so we'll see what happens. While NASA received a $19 billion budget from the House, they deferred a decision on how to appropriate (spend) that money. We're very likely looking at a Continuing Resolution (CR) come the start of the new fiscal year (October 1).

The HSP guys opened the mike to public comment. There were some questions from the audience on job assistance--the primary reason most folks were there, I'd gather. If the HSP guys were disappointed that more people weren't fired up or getting up to speak, they covered it pretty well. That's not how this town works. Engineers aren't that exciteable, in my observations, and excessive activism is sometimes a political risk.

One gentleman from Southern Capital Management said that he would be willing to share proceeds from a property that he is selling as a commercial property--if folks are willing to put in "sweat equity" to help improve it. Sounds like it'd be serious digging and sweating. He was looking for people with their own Bobcats. Still, the offer's there if you're willing to work...

Otherwise, several Human Resources reps from Technicore, MTS, and United Space Alliance went up to the front of the room to talk to people and collect resumes or other contact information. The HSP guys mentioned that Jacobs was hosting a job fair at the Huntsville Museum of Art 9 a.m. to Noon July 13, and that HSP would be having a meeting at the Monte Sano Lodge next week sometime. Then the meeting more or less broke up.

I am not certain how to rate the effectiveness of this meeting. As I walked in, they were passing out copies of the Obama administration's space policy to make people aware, and they "weren't asking people to take a stand either way." About 50 people showed up, and they managed to get the mayor and the media to show up, so that's a step in the right direction. The HSP guys were looking for feedback on what else they could be doing. I honestly couldn't say. The uncertainty around Huntsville will be around for awhile. "We're caught in a big political game that's going on over our heads," as more than one person said. What happens next is anyone's guess. In the meantime, unfortunately, this group will be necessary for awhile.

Potpourri CXLIII

I know, I know, I really should be outside getting some exercise in the fresh air, but it's my day off, so I'm spending it in whatever lazy fashion suits me best: in my case, blogging, hitting golf balls, and having a couple of brewskis. You enjoy the holiday your way, I'll do it mine.

While I am no longer working for Constellation/Ares, my cube is still located where the Ares Projects are based. And yes, I still care about the fate of the project. It now appears that Congress is punting on passing the federal budget on time or putting any money behind their complaints about how the Administration is treating NASA. So the program--what's left of it--will be in zombie mode until someone attaches the electrodes and gives it new life or it's put down like the wounded pet that it is. Oy.

From Doc:

• A little caffeineated humor. Need a t-shirt that expresses your mental state? Try this.
• And why? Because a story on NPR indicated that caffeine might, in fact, be good for you.

Oh yeah, and speaking of the Constellation Program, the Obama administration has released a new space policy. I have thoughts, but will be judicious about posting them.

• Observation #1: Human space exploration is not listed in the top-line summary of priorities.
• Observation #2: While there's an emphasis on "space nuclear power," that could any number of things: nuclear-powered batteries (what we use on Cassini/Galileo now); space-based nuclear reactors for powering ion drives or other flavors of propulsion that result in radioactive by-products in space; or it could mean starting up a NERVA or Orion type of vehicle, which would actually use nuclear explosions to accelerate spacecraft. We'll have to wait and see.
• General comment: In theory, international cooperation is a good thing, and gosh knows the previous administration (President and NASA) did not go out of their way to push for it in space. However, there are always challenges when you deal with international partners. For example, what if we stop getting along with a major partner (e.g. Russia) over some unrelated political/military fracas? If Russia provides critical components for the mission, would the mission be stopped by diplomatic problems? And then there's our nation's oh-so-fabulous export control laws, which in theory prevent people who don't like us from getting hold of our sensitive technology, but in reality can prevent international teams from working with us because we can't allow them to see how our technologies work, or vice versa. Hopefully the administration will at least fix ITAR before putting international partners on the "critical path" for any future missions (i.e., making their participation essential for success).

Need your business cards refurbished/redesigned? Check out this site.

A variety of things I found through random surfing:

• Shushing sonic booms: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/supersonic-concept-plane-shush-sonic-booms-100630.html
• First photo of an extrasolar planet: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/first-alien-planet-photographed-confirmed-100629.html
• An astronaut says there's no time for sex in space: http://www.space.com/news/no-sex-in-space-astronaut-says-100629.html
• Nebula photo: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/blue-nebula/
• New look and origin to Wonder Woman: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/06/a-new-wonder-woman/
• Teaching military history in times of war: http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-Military-History-in-a/66023/
• Review: The Icarus Syndrome http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/06/28/100628crbo_books_packer?currentPage=all
• Why not socialism? http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/06/01/the-thinking-man-s-marxist/
• A different view of appeasement: http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23542
• Legislation and the gender gap: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/science/15tier.html
• Charlie Sheen vs. Emilio Estevez: What’s the difference? http://www.mentalfloss.com/difference/charlie-sheen-vs-emilio-estevez/

Are you really into seeing science stuff? Would you like a trip to Sweden? Check this out.

If you're a big fan of living on the Moon, you might enjoy the Moon Miners' Manifesto, the newsletter of the Moon Society. I don't want to live on the Moon, personally. I like Earth. But I wouldn't mind staying at a hotel on the Moon, say with a nice view of the Earth...

From D2: a graphic designer gets a little snarky with a friend who wanted him to do something they bloody well could have done themselves. I've tried things like this, but it usually damages friendships.

Got this through my space-geek sources:

More on the Times pay wall: http://au.biz.yahoo.com/100702/31/2e1qz.html  Did you know there are only two Space Shuttle missions left? Mark your calendars: November 1 and February 26. We'll miss human spaceflight when it's gone...

Space Studies Institute Space Manufacturing 14: Critical Technologies for Space Settlement at NASA Ames Conference Center October 30-31, 2010!



Thirty five years ago, NASA Ames Research Center was the site of the first large technical study of space settlement. We have made significant progress since then, but with the prospect of low cost space transportation in the near future, now is the time to reinvigorate research and collaboration on the critical path technologies needed for space industrialization and settlement. The 14th Space Studies Institute conference on Space Manufacturing continues in the spirit of the Princeton Conferences initiated by Prof. Gerard K O’Neill in 1974.


The Space Manufacturing and Space Settlement Conferences have always given SSI attendees great value. This conference is the only one solely concerned with the science and engineering of humanity’s expansion into the solar system. Its most important function is to bring together the engineers, entrepreneurs and researchers who do the real work. New space companies and new institutions have formed from collaborations forged at earlier conferences. We hope that this and future annual SSI conferences will be as fruitful.


The specific purpose of Space Manufacturing 14 is to identify and recommend critical hardware research that can be conducted now by SSI, NASA and other organizations.


Registration opens July 7, 2010


*Registration is $250 for a full two day conference (Saturday October 30 & Sunday October 31), which includes a catered lunch for both days and a Friday night Wine Reception.
*Saturday, October 30th, Buffet dinner $35
*Our Official Hotel for this event is the lovely Sheraton Sunnyvale. Exclusive to SSI attendees, a special rate of $89 per night includes an exclusive Shuttle pickup and drop off between San Jose Airport and the Hotel (until 9pm on Friday, October 29, Saturday, Sunday and Monday), transportation to and from the NASA Ames conference center...plus free High Speed Internet in each SSI guest's room.

For history buffs, a time-lapse animation of Middle Eastern empires: http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf

This sounds interesting: someone is developing a crowdsourced documentary: http://www.onedayonearth.org/

An online introduction to Einstein’s thought: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FE3074A4CB751B2B

Using “cognitive surplus” to change the world? http://www.openculture.com/2010/06/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_will_change_the_world.html


 
Like me, my buddy Martin luckily got moved off of Ares and onto other duties, including speech writing for executives at Marshall Space Flight Center. I suggested the following books/links to help him "think like an executive." Or something. Here to help...
 

Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History: http://www.amazon.com/Lend-Me-Your-Ears-Speeches/dp/0393059316/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278081799&sr=8-1

Bartlett’s Quotations: http://www.bartleby.com/

The Complete Works of Shakespeare: http://shakespeare.mit.edu/

Not sure civil servants are allowed to quote the Bible anymore, but what the heck: http://www.blueletterbible.org/

This site is useful for finding random “stuff” out on that-thar interwebs thingy: http://boingboing.net/

Also, if you want to absorb the zeitgeist of the early 21st century (and understand what sorts of books that managers/leaders read), consider the following:


Outliers (Basic theme: there are other things that account for success than money, luck, and hard work. Stupid.) http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017922/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082187&sr=8-1

The Wisdom of Crowds: http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082257&sr=1-1

The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable: http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082272&sr=1-1

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything: http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=pd_sim_b_12

The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century: http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-Updated-Expanded-Twenty-first/dp/B002N2XI02/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082396&sr=1-4

The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less: http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082577&sr=1-1

Fish! A Remarkable Way to Boost Morale and Improve Results:
http://www.amazon.com/Remarkable-Boost-Morale-Improve-Results/dp/0786866020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082506&sr=1-1

Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness
http://www.amazon.com/Servant-Leadership-Legitimate-Greatness-Anniversary/dp/0809105543/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082603&sr=1-1. (Okay, most leaders are NOT reading this one...but more of them should. A great recommendation I got from D2!)

 
Apps, apps, and more apps...I got a little spooked today trying the "Shazam" app on my iPhone for the first time. The gag is, you turn it on, put the iPhone up close to the radio, or even sing a few bars of a song, and it will identify the song's title and artist. That's just creepy. Oh, and speaking of apps, the U.S. Government is now getting in on the act, as reported by my buddy Dar.
More on Constellation: job losses are now estimated at around 5,000 people nationwide. Boo.

John Logdson is apparently a mentor of the folks who created the current space policy. Here are some of this thoughts here.

From my buddy Melissa, a short movie on teamwork.

From Anika, for Star Wars and Joss Whedon fans: a "Joss Whedon is my master now" t-shirt.

From Lin: News coverage of the oil spill is now being regulated.

And lastly, steampunk is making a bit of a comeback, in a variety of formats, including computer keyboards and apparel. For those unfamiliar with steampunk, I recommend reading The Difference Engine by Bruce Sterling and William Gibson. It's an alternate history science fiction story in which Charles Babbage got his mechanical computer ("difference engine") to work in the Victorian Era, thereby extending the Victorian aesthetics into the future.

Potpourri CXXXVII

Here's the latest batch of foolishness...

Boeing flew a formation flight with its newest and oldest aircraft.




Israeli nanotechnology researchers claim to have developed an anti-icing surface.


Some good news for a change: Russia wants to work with the U.S. on space projects past 2020. I don’t think that means they’ll lower the price of Soyuz launches anytime soon, but the sentiment is nice.


The problem with Voyager 2 has been addressed: a bit was “flipped” through random radiation.


The FAA chief doesn’t like his agency being a “piñata” for airlines’ schedule delays. Okay, fine. But if the FAA has been slow to upgrade our out-of-date air traffic control system and ATC delays are the primary cause of planes being stuck on the tarmac, shouldn’t FAA be a legitimate target for the stick?


A citizens group from Texas is visiting Capitol Hill to make a plea for the Constellation Program. Visits matter. So do well-written letters. If you want the U.S. to continue having a human space exploration program (as opposed to just sending humans to low-Earth orbit, which is not exploration), then your voice matters!


Steven Colbert visited Johnson Space Center recently. Nice to have at least one influential media personality digging space.

The inner workings of a 1950s ballistic computer. Cool!


A 1939 Popular Mechanics article describing a transcontinental airplane flight—all 15 hours of it. Yikes!


A Saudi woman beat up a member of the nation’s morality police. I admire her spirit, but don’t like to think about the ultimate outcome.


The Long Now Foundation is sponsoring a talk on fusion.


Food for thought: Science Warriors vs. Philosophers of Science.

From Walt Disney World: How to move a 120-ton Winnie the Pooh tree.

In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s something of a revolution going on in Thailand.

From Hu, for D2: two articles on training marine mammals for homeland security purposes: here and here. Cindy, Sandy, Seymour, and Clyde have been busy.


The White House blocked a Chicago chef’s tweets as he was being brought in to serve the President. Predictable. Organizations want to use social media when it’s to their advantage and suppress it when it doesn’t. Can’t have it both ways, guys. And really: what's the security risk on a chef?

From Jerry Pournelle: why don't more medical discoveries become cures? Would you believe government regulations have something to do with it? Would you be more likely to believe it if the story was from Newsweek?

Sabine has some interesting thoughts regarding the No Child Left Behind Act (a regular volleyball Doc and I bat back and forth during some of our daily bull sessions). I will have to reread the entry when I get some more time. I'm not sure if I'm qualified or knowledgable enough to argue for or against any of her points, but she posits a very important question. Paraphrased, she wants to know how failing school systems are supposed to clean themselves up when they're given no money or other resources to do so?

Late Addition from Kate Down Under: a Civil War hero of Gettysburg receives a posthumous Medal of Honor 147 years late. I've actually stood at the position where Alonzo Cushing's artillery battery was emplaced, and it was not exactly excellent ground, nor could it have been easy fighting with no long-range guns. Cushing's unit held Cemetary Ridge in the face of Pickett's Charge at close range. I don't know what would've been crazier: being one of the 13,000 men Pickett led in a dash across an open field or being one of the artillerymen forced to hold the line against 13,000 charging Confederates. The Civil War (called "The War Between the States" by some historians or "The War of Northern Aggression" by historians in my neighborhood) is the reason why American military doctrine has since emphasized minimizing casualties. Over 600,000 American lives were lost in that conflict.

That'll do for now. Off to attempt 8 hours of sleep. I know: craziness!

Potpourri LI

I'll see how much I can post before crashing tonight. Serves me right for starting late.

Using psychology to save you from yourself--example: paying a teenager $1 a day for each day she's not pregnant.

Rick Steves has received my final payment, so the trip is locked. Now I just need to keep setting aside spending money. No sweat.

Virgin Galactic aims to fly 50,000 passengers in its first decade of travel. Swell. Let's see them fly one first.

NASA scientist and environmental doomsayer James Hansen is discussed in the most recent Weekly Standard.

This little girl has reputedly tested out as having a 160 I.Q. How the heck do you educate kids like this? Not under No Child Left Behind, that's for sure.

The Human Spaceflight Review panel is now on Twitter. Still time to provide your input on NASA's human spaceflight program.

This is a more politely worded response to the "Mars will be as big as the Moon" hoax than I would have provided.

My NSS/writing buddy Marianne Dyson was on Great Day Houston show.

Will the private sector provide the big breakthroughs in space? Maybe. Another article on The Space Review talks about the issues affecting civil space.

Tip o' the fedora to South of the Equator Scott for this one: Mitsubishi has an amusing web ad in New Zealand. Should be visible at the lower-right of the page.

Potpourri XLV

Speculation continues on the if-and-when of nominating Charles Bolden as the next NASA Administrator.

There might be hope for reporters in the mainstream media (that's a conservative term for the "Big Three" networks plus the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and other related liberal-leaning media outlets). If they can't stay employed or hawk their wares in paper-based products, they can always get a job being the official reporters for the Obama White House. They're already in the tank for/with him anyway. Of course, if the newspaper business continues to head down the drain, Obama might bail them out, in which case they'll be nationalized regardless.

Scott had some more sites for buying gold:

• http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/specials.aspx
• www.golddealer.com

Scott is also insisting that I go see a DC-3 and some other older planes at the Moontown Airport east of Huntsville tomorrow. I just might. It's been a draining week, and I could use the break.

Marshall Space Flight Center has centralized all of their social media sites on one page.

Congressman Parker Griffin is saying that Iran's latest missile test is proof that we need to maintain a missile defense capability. Well, duhhhhh.

A fellow writer and NSS Policy Committee person, Marianne Dyson, has a hopeful blog regarding Obama's space policy.

Want to live in an airplane? I must confess, I had some designs around those lines when I was in high school. Anyhow, there's a site for those of us who dare to dream.

Bjorn Lomborg writes about how some companies are using the "green" movement as a way to merely cash in. Again, duhhhhh.

Alka-Seltzer City, dude! A town in Ohio is about to have carbon dioxide introduced into the briny water below their fair city, turning that water essentially into seltzer water in an effort to sequester carbon. Certainly there are more effective, less ridiculous ways to do this...? Jerry Pournelle also offers a link to some individuals who are fighting the practice. My buddy Scott calls environmentalists "watermelons: green [environmentalists] on the outside, red [communist] on the inside." Gotta wonder sometimes, don't you?

Science fiction writers are continuing to help in the War on Terrorism. Someone's got to, right?

Potpourri XXXVI

This one is pretty good, and sadly, mostly true: the shenanigans in the space business are akin to a soap opera. This might become a regular link on this page. I like this writer!

Whups...a metal cargo container was sucked into a 747 engine.

The AP is saying that the pilot of the plane that crashed in Buffalo was less experienced/competent, and that this was the result of the airline cutting costs by getting rid of senior, higher-paid pilots. Scott, who has some experience with the aviation business, tells me that this is, more or less, drastically untrue. I'll post any follow-ups as warranted. From a sheerly capitalistic point of view, airlines want the best pilots they can get because crashes are really, really bad for business. Fatal, if you will. A veteran pilot is higher paid, but less likely to make a rookie mistake. But just wait--the Obama administration will use this as an excuse to increase government control over the airline industry. If I were an airline exec and a government official came to me offering financial assistance, I'd run like hell the other way.

Capitalism Magazine is reprinting one of my favorite extended speeches from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. As a work of fiction, it's almost impossible; as a work of philosophy, it has a lot to say. This is a speech by one of Rand's capitalist heroes who's working to undermine a socialist system building in America. It's a moral defense of money and it's sad that such a thing even needs explaining today. Worth reading.

Tip o' the fedora to Martin for finding this: http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/. It includes some production pics of work by Rick Sternbach, vehicle designer of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

This letter from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to Chris Scolese, the Acting NASA Administrator, explains the rationale for the new "blue ribbon" panel that is going to review NASA's human spaceflight program. What's interesting about this letter, and the reason I forwarded it to Darlene the Science Cheerleader, is that it specifically calls for the panel to accept inputs from the public on America's direction in space. There is supposed to be a web site for this, but I haven't seen anything yet. But still, BOLO (Disney acronym for "be on the lookout") for this great opportunity to let your government know what you think about our human spaceflight program. I hope, if you're a reader of this blog, that you support it, but if you're not, you should still make your opinion heard. I have no idea what will be done with public input, but the more they get, the more they'll have to respond to it or at least take it into account.

Potpourri II

Steve Jobs gave a pretty decent commencement address at Stanford University in 2005...

...during which he referenced something we used to have in the Leahy household: The Whole Earth Catalog, which has now gone online. I didn't have much use for it as a kid, but the Catalog did feature one science fiction novel: Dune by Frank Herbert.

And following from the same hippie ethos that powered the Catalog, Doc referred me to a farming cooperative here in Northern Alabama, which allows people to buy fresh-off-the-farm foods for a relatively minimal cost. Best for families--it's a lot of food!

And the last bit of fun from the hash in my head this evening...I'm now six months away from going to Europe. Huzzah!

Oh, wait. One more thing...some new thoughts on space policy from Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin. Okay, I'm done.

Another Place to Register Your Opinions About Space Policy

The National Academy of Sciences is looking for public input regarding national goals for space. The deadline for providing input is January 30, 2009.

*

I finished part two of my article on science and math education for ScienceCheerleader.com. We'll see what kinds of feedback I get--if any. I was as diligent as possible about keeping the feedback from my friends as anonymous as possible. None of them was particularly shy about their opinions. The topic was sufficiently broad and diverse that the only way I could organize the article was by stakeholder audience:

• The National Education Association (NEA), the union that collectively represents the interests teachers and other educational professionals in the public schools.
• Political opponents of NEA.
• Parents and teachers personally known to me.
• Me.

What the heck, it's a break from writing just about space, right? I'll post the link to part two as soon as Darlene puts it up on the site.

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.

More on McCain and Space

Apparently the McCain campaign has decided to expand its statement on space: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/7366faf9-d504-4abc-a889-9c08d601d8ee.htm

I need time to digest this before responding more fully. I just spent my evening editing/sprucing up a PowerPoint pitch/proposal for the Mars Foundation. My pal Dede had an excellent suggestion, since I'm not allowed to get paid for any of my free-time space stuff. I could post a sign indicating that I "WILL EDIT FOR WINE." My current summertime favorite, by the way, is Conundrum, a decent, light California white table wine with a lot of interesting tart, fruity, and acidic flavors going on.

Commentary on the Science Debate Questions

"I've never met a man with so many opinions." --Jedediah Leland, Citizen Kane

"Could you stop being Bart for a minute?" --a friend, several years ago (needless to say, the answer was "no")

I finally got around to reading all of the questions on the Science Debate site, and I found that I could not resist offering commentary on some of the phrasing. This is not to say that I disagree with everything or the need for the debate; I do not. However, some of the questions are phrased in such a way that people on the conservative fence would know going into it that the fix was in. For example...

2. Climate Change. The Earth's climate is changing...

The smarty-butt in my wants to say, "Yeah, the climate is changing all the time--it's called weather." However, on a more rational note, simply repeating that the climate is changing (global warming/global cooling) does not make it so. This is still an assumption. Some among us would like more hard data. Climate models make a lot of assumptions, and still cannot account for everything. Weather forecasts are only good on a local level--at best--five to seven days out. Why should I/we believe that these climate models are serious. We alternate between disappearing ice and the worst cold winter in 30 years. That's weather, not climate. The real concerns are:

1. Some (not all) scientists are concerned about the future state of the planet's climate.
2. More reliable data is needed at all levels of the climate to determine the future state.
3. Climate models need to be made reliable and accurate enough to explain the past, present, and future.
4. Once the true state of things is known, we can start discussing mitigation.
5. The recommended solutions in the question (cap-and-trade emissions, carbon taxes, increased fuel efficiency standards) all have economic costs that are very difficult to sell to the American public when people are more concerned about paying for transportation than the effects of said transportation.

In short, this question has an obvious slant and ignores an alternative view of the situation.

Energy...What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economcially and environmentally sustainable future?

The giveaway on the slant of this question is the magic word "sustainable." People seem to think they know what they mean by this, but do they really? Usually, the unspoken assumption when using these words (on the left) is that if one wishes to be sustainable in the long run, one must reduce expediture or consumption over the long run. That means slowing down the economy and setting our sights lower as far as progress or comfort levels are concerned. That is, of course, my interpretation. The people writing these questions would do well to explain what they mean by sustainable.

4. Education...What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

The question assumes that the federal government must take a role. A serious conservative might respond, "I think the best thing the federal government could do is to reduce its role in education, get out of the way, and allow more educational experimentation at the state and local level." I've said this before, but it bears repeating: If we have only one educational system in this country--the government schools--and that system is failing, then ALL of our students are hosed. If there are multiple alternatives, funded by local governments or federal/state vouchers, then experimentation would occur at the local level, successful experiments could be repeated, a smaller percentage of students would be hosed by a bad system, and failing systems would have more incentive to compete and improve their curriculum. There is also the fact that if the education system is controlled from Washington instead of in thousands of local constituencies, it becomes much easier for lobbyists to focus on one place for their efforts and exert influence. Federalism was supposed to prevent the concentration of power in one place.

Stem cells.

I must confess that I don't know nearly enough about this topic. However, what I have read gives me some concern. A "stem cell" is an adaptable cell that can easily change from one cell type to another. These cells are commonly found in embryos, where the cells have yet to differentiate into individual body parts. The practical application would be that if we could obtain more living embryonic stem cells from cast-off (aborted) embryos, those cells could be used to replace damaged cells in adults. Liberals argue that the cells (embryos) weren't going to be used anyway because they were aborted. Conservatives don't like the idea of abortion, period, and really don't like the notion of "harvesting" embryos via abortion in order to suit the convenience/health of adults. There are also concerns that this practice could lead to cloning. However, there have, as yet, been no cures using these cells for anything useful. There are also other ways to obtain stem cells, including adult stem cells, which would not require abortions to obtain.

The argument for embryonic stem cell research is similar to spending money on space research: "You never know what we'll find! We could find the cure for cancer!" Well, space medicine has not resulted in a cure for cancer. However, space-based medicine and medical technologies do have a proven track record, unlike the stem cell business. To which proponents of stem cells would probably say, "Then you need to give us a chance." What they seem to forget is that a lot of space medicine came about because we were trying to monitor astronauts in space and keep them alive first. Then we came up with applications here on Earth. Right now, embryonic stem cell research strikes me as unnecessarily ghoulish. That doesn't mean, however, that I don't think the question should be included in the debate. I would just like to hope that the candidates could engage in serious discussions about the role of morality in science. Again, the word is hope, not expect.

9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world's fisheries are in serious decline...

I have no problem with this question or assertion, per se, I'd just like to know a little more about WHO is making the assertion, how many, and under what circumstances/pretenses?

11. Space...Can we afford all of them?

Oh, for gosh sakes...Most of the questions on the site presume or ask directly for government funding. Yet suddenly, when it comes to space (still less than 1 percent of the total), they ask if we can afford it? There is also a hidden assumption in the next question:

How would you prioritize space in your administration?

What's the unspoken assumption here? That the budget for space is not going to increase. We need new energy sources. We need to expand our potential sources of energy. We need to continue economic growth and technological development. All of the above would or should require increased space spending. This question assumes a static NASA budget and a reallocation of the pie. We can do better than that.

12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job.

NASA has already taken steps to investigate and address any potential censorship. On the whole, this charge was found to be false. However, certain scientists (and I'm thinking here particularly of the very public Dr. James Hansen) need to understand the difference between reporting scientific data/potential conclcusions and advocating positions on government time. I did a study of scientific language in grad school, and the predominant tone of technical writing in scientific reports for at least the last century has been one of caution and qualified conclusion: "If X and Y are true, then Z might be possible under the following conditions..." The vehement stridency of Dr. Hansen and some of his allies has not used the language of science, but advocacy. However, they use their positions as scientists to provide ethos to their conclusions.

Now this is not to say that I completely disagree with the notion that global warming (or, God forbid, global freezing) might be occurring. I just want to read/see the data. I want rationality, calm, hard analysis based on observation. Then I can start thinking about mitigation. That's a completely different set of analyses--"What should we do next?"--and those analyses are political, economic, and technical, not scientific in the purest sense. Dr. Hansen, et al., want to leap directly from tentative conclusion to policy action without any intervening of debate in between. "THIS IS A CRISIS! WE CAN'T AFFORD TO WAIT! WE'RE EXPERTS AND YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO AND OBEY US NOW!!!!" This is exactly the sort of debating behavior that drives me up the wall, partly because I don't like to be yelled at, partly because I don't like to be pushed around, and partly because it's not proper argumentation.

Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views? Obviously not. Data is what it is. It is up to scientists to interpret what they see. And the data on climate is still mixed and selective.

The real danger here is the extreme politicization of science. It is not appropriate for scientists to make policy recommendations unless that's their job. It is not good science to say, "We have observed decreased glacier activities in X, Y, and Z areas; therefore, the entire world is experiencing global warming; therefore we should tax the West on their carbon emissions to make the world economy fair." Even people not trained in argumentation should see the holes in that set of conclusions, and yet that's what Hansen is, in essence, trying to do while on the job as a paid civil servant. His behavior is doubly inappropriate. He is doing advocacy, which should be done off the clock. It's not just a matter of his tone; his argumentation methods are flawed. I would remove this question from the debate.

14. Health...How do you see science, research, and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

Many advancements in medicine have come from space, making question 11 even more annoying and perplexing to me.

Again, I'm not doubting the need for this debate. It would be darned interesting to watch, if we had a couple of candidates who were up to the challenge. However, I don't think either of these guys is bright enough to carry on a serious conversation about science. They weren't hired for that, quite frankly. They were hired/elected to debate matters of policy (all the more reason to reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment, right?). If we could get a little of the bias out of some of those questions, I'd be 100% behind the effort.

We should have open debates about scientific matters. The science and data collection are going on right now, and serious, scientifically trained professionals are doing that work. However, we should not have those same scientists necessarily dictating policy (technocracy = rule by the experts or technocrats) unless they have been elected to do so. We do need more elected representatives who are educated in the sciences or engineering and fewer lawyers, in my opinion, but that's an argument for another day. And in the meantime, the non-scientists and non-engineers in the Congress and White House (and yes, even in the Supreme Court) should have access to better information about scientific issues and their implications for public policy.

I'll be interested to see if this debate takes place. It couldn't hurt, but it should be done right. I'll give some more thought to what "done right" means later.

More Space News, Things That Bug Me, Etc.

This story bears paying some attention to; I referenced it previously in my analysis of John McCain's space policy. We need to consider how much we care about access to space. Why? Well, Congress is showing signs that they don't want to drop the waiver to trading with Russia despite their repeated violations of the Iran-North Korea-Syra Nonproliferation Act. The choices are simple, but ugly:

• Grant Russia the waiver. Under this plan, we would continue to have access to the International Space Station (ISS). However, if we don't punish Russia somehow, they will continue to sell arms to Iran, a nation committed to killing us and one of our chief allies, Israel. And Iran will continue to receive Russian-made weapons.
• Drop the waiver. However, Russia doesn't always have our best interests in mind. This might be just the excuse they need to keep their oil off the market, refuse to build more Soyuz rockets, or refuse to fly American astronauts to ISS.

*

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX, has become the Winston Churchill of the commercial space sector, saying to his people, more or less, that he will never give up on building rockets to access ISS. And we'll need that kind of tenacity in our private sector, if we hope to have a viable substitute for Russian access (see above).

*

More stories on Obama's policy shift/flip-flop on gutting Constellation to fund education:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/obama_reverses.html
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0808/02obama/
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-obama0308aug03,0,1723381.story?track=rss
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/aug/03/na-nasa-funding-a-top-priority-obama-tells-space-c/?news-nationworld

I see no reason to change my analysis from Saturday:

Obama might be backing off his idea of slowing the Constellation Program to fund some education program; that is not, however, the same thing as saying that he would give Constellation the green light.

*

And then there's this: the Department of Homeland Security has now stated that they can seize and hold (that's steal in plain Chicago English) iPods, laptops, etc. I'm still p!$$ed off about the sunblock and shampoo that the Transportation Security Agency has stolen from me over the past few years. This is a little too much. Now admittedly the innocent shouldn't have anything to worry about. I'm not smuggling drugs, pot, illicit data, illegal aliens, kiddie porn, endangered species, or weapons.

Still, I resent that my government is willing to treat the innocent on the same level as the guilty--in short, that they are governing according to the lowest common denominator. The assumption should not be, "We have a small number of criminals among the traveling or border-crossing public; therefore, we shall treat everybody as criminals." This is one of those great opportunities for warrants, just cause, etc. Again, I'm not a criminal, but why should I consent to be treated as one? This is the difference between being treated as a citizen and being treated as a subject.

Barack Obama on Space Issues

First, I must say that I tried with great thoroughness to find a direct statement on BarackObama.com about space exploration. Unlike John McCain's site, the Obama campaign does not list space among its issues. However, the following policy paper...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf

...includes one of the most distressing policy statements space fans have seen from a presidential candidate in years:

Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.

This sort of policy is straight from the space advocates' least favorite talking point: "Why are we spending all this money on space when there are so many more important problems to be solved here on Earth?" Aside from the obvious--we need space technologies to make life better on Earth--there is simply a problem with this sort of policy thinking. Space exploration get kids interested in what they're hearing in school, and usually a hell of a lot more than one might find through some other egghead government program. (Pg. 15)

There are some Obama fan blogs on the site. While I assume that only supportive postings would be allowed, I must discount those posts because they are not official campaign statements. However, the education policy item was not the last Obama statement on space seen in the blogosphere:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

Despite being unable to find this on the campaign web site, I must accept the content from Keith Cowing:

Barack Obama's Plan For American Leadership in Space

Over the decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embodied the adventurous spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. Barack Obama believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security. Over the years, NASA technology has been applied to improve everything from computers and medical technology to baby formula and automobiles. Work done at NASA, whether here on earth or in outer space, impacts the daily lives of all Americans.

Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles: The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will leave the United States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designed with technology that is already proven and available.

Complete the International Space Station: The International Space Station is an example of what we can accomplish through international cooperation. Barack Obama is committed to the completion of the International Space Station.

Continue Unmanned Missions: Robotic missions provide a level of endurance and cost-effectiveness that is unsurpassed. The Voyager probes, launched in the 1970s, are still sending back data beyond our solar system. Closer to home, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers have been exploring the surface of Mars for more than 1,300 days, 14 times longer than their intended mission length. Along with Earth-orbiting platforms like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, unmanned missions have yielded some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century. Barack Obama is committed to a bold array of robotic missions that will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for further manned exploration. \

Monitor the Forces and Effects of Climate Change: Barack Obama has proposed bold initiatives to put America on the path to stop global climate change. His administration will set standards based on rigorous scientific inquiry that, in turn, cannot take place without a capable space program. The task of researching and understanding the forces that affect our home planet will require a constellation of climate monitoring space platforms. As president, Obama will ensure that NASA has the funding necessary to play its part in the fight against global climate change.

Support Scientific Research: In the past, government funding for scientific research has yielded innovations that have improved the landscape of American life, technologies like the Internet, digital photography, bar codes, Global Positioning System technology, laser surgery, and chemotherapy. Today, we face a new set of challenges, yet the United States is losing its scientific dominance. Over the last three decades, federal funding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has declined at a time when other countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets. Barack Obama believes federally funded scientific research should play an important role in advancing science and technology in the classroom and in the lab. He will work to diversify the makeup of the scientific community and provide federal research programs a much- needed infusion of funds.

Maintain Surveillance to Strengthen National Security: Orbiting surveillance satellites provide a vital way to ensure compliance with non-proliferation treaties and monitor emerging threats. For example, nuclear facility construction in North Korea and Iran can be closely monitored from above without the challenges faced by weapons
inspectors on the ground. Satellites can be further used in the effort to secure loose nuclear weapons and materials around the world, an effort which Barack Obama has promoted aggressively in the U.S. Senate.

Keep Weapons out of Space: China's successful test of an anti-satellite missile in January 2007 signaled a potential new arms race in space. Barack Obama does not support the stationing of any weapons in space. He believes the international community must address the issue of space weaponization head-on and enter into a serious dialogue with Russia, China and other nations to stop this slow slide into a new
battlefield.

Strengthen Math and Science Education: Fifty years after Sputnik, science and math education in American schools is facing a crisis. As the Gathering Storm report concluded, "danger exists that Americans may not know enough about science, technology or mathematics to contribute significantly to, or fully benefit from, the knowledge-based economy that is already taking shape around us." Barack Obama will make math and science education a national priority, and provide our schools with the tools to educate 21st-Century learners.

Recruit High-Quality Math and Science Teachers: Barack Obama's will establish a Teaching Service Scholarship program to recruit an army of new teachers. These scholarships will prioritize recruiting math, science and technology degree graduates. Obama will create Teacher Residency Programs to train teachers using mentorship, graduate study and hands-on training to develop 30,000 teachers a year, providing additional teachers in math and science. In addition, Obama will devote $100 million a year to Professional Development Schools to help new teachers, or veteran teacher needing to hone their skills, learn from professionals in the field. Professional Development Schools will partner universities with school sites that exhibit state-of-the-art practices and train new teachers in the classrooms of expert teachers while they are completing coursework.

Enhanced Science Instruction: Barack Obama will work with governors to create flexible and workable systems for the states to achieve the goal of ensuring all children have access to strong a science curriculum at all grade levels. Obama will also support state efforts to make science education a priority at the pre-K level.

Improve and Prioritize Science Assessments: Science assessments need to do more than test facts and concepts. They need to use a range of measures to test inquiry and higher-order thinking skills including inference, logic, data analysis and interpretation, forming questions, and communication. Barack Obama will work with governors and educators to ensure that state assessments measure these skills.

This is actually a lot more to work with than the McCain statement, though I note that even when it appears on the Obama campaign site, the original reference is not from the campaign, but NASAWatch's news site, SpaceRef! I am forced to wonder why this position paper has not been posted by the campaign. Okay, enough political snarkiness. I'll now consider the statement itself.

The first paragraph is much like a lot of the McCain statement: motherhood and eyewash, "Space is good," blah blah blah.

Obama's first priority: Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles. The statement includes Orion and Ares I, not Ares V, the heavy-lift cargo launch vehicle that would enable lunar exploration. As I noted in my analysis of McCain's piece, what campaigns choose to include matters. Of course what they don't include matters, too.

Next: Complete the International Space Station. This is a continuation of Bush's Vision for Space Exploration as well. Good.

Next: "Continue Unmanned Missions... Barack Obama is committed to a bold array of robotic missions that will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for further manned exploration." Most of the statement addresses existing robotic missions; the campaign carefully pays homage to science missions of the past and missions currently in action, but no statement is made mentioning future, planned, or new programs.

Next: Monitor the Forces and Effects of Climate Change. This was a major theme of Obama's staffer at ISDC. This, like the statements made by McCain's aide, bodes well for NASA's Earth Science.

Next: Support Scientific Research. This seems to be focused mostly on spinoff research. NASA is doing this now. No problem. The statement also notes that "Over the last three decades, federal funding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has declined at a time when other countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets." However, as I noted by my posting on Wednesday, the NSF is looking to get at 14% increase in its budget for 2009. Obama's statement here might become OBE (government talk for "overcome by events").

Next: Maintain Surveillance to Strengthen National Security. This is in line, more or less, with McCain's belief in using space assets to support national defense. Fine and dandy. However, I must take issue with these points: "Orbiting surveillance satellites provide a vital way to ensure compliance with non-proliferation treaties and monitor emerging threats." Satellites cannot easily detect underground nuclear facilities, such as Iraq and Iran have built.

Next: Keep Weapons out of Space. This is mostly a statement of intent for us, not something Obama can hope to enforce on other countries, as the Chinese ASAT test proves. He can stop further development of U.S. capabilities if he wants, but it's nice to know that we at least have the capability now. A great deal of fuss was made about the U.S. National Space Policy when it came out, with some folks saying that Bush was advocating war in space. Hardly. What the policy does say is:

• The United States considers space systems to have the rights of passage through and operations in space without interference. Consistent with this principle, the United States will view purposeful interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights;
• The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing
  capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;

In plain Chicago English: "We'll leave you alone as long as you leave us alone. Somebody messes with us, we're gonna mess with them."

Next: Strengthen Math and Science Education. The remainder of the space statement is dedicated to this point, so I'll have to dissect it a little more deeply. "Barack Obama will make math and science education a national priority, and provide our schools with the tools to educate 21st-Century learners." This is roughly the statement Obama used as his defense when challenged on his cutting-Constellation-to-fund-education proposal. Obama believes in getting kids the math and science education first. No argument with that--they need it. However, space advocates like me would also say, "If you cut the space program, you eliminate one of the things that gets kids interested in math and science in the first place."

"Recruit High-Quality Math and Science Teachers." The statement then goes on to propose a scholarship program for teachers (cost unknown) and a $100 million fund for professional development for teachers. That would pay for about one third to one quarter of the price of the Mars Rovers, which to date have logged over 1,600 days' worth of mission time (1,510 days or more longer than their intended mission length). These missions have provided thousands of images and untold numbers of "teaching moments" for sufficiently interested educators.

"Obama will also support state efforts to make science education a priority at the pre-K level." Again, this sounds like a proposal to spend more money. The U.S. now spends the third-most per primary and secondary school student in the industrialized world, behind only Luxembourg and Switzerland, but ranks 17th in math and science scores. More money is not necessarily the answer.

"Improve and Prioritize Science Assessments: Science assessments need to do more than test facts and concepts. They need to use a range of measures to test inquiry and higher-order thinking skills including inference, logic, data analysis and interpretation, forming questions, and communication." This is a complaint I've heard from a couple of science teachers. Kids are being drilled on how to pass tests, not necessarily think creatively, practically, or logically. Eliminating reliance on testing would also require dismantling a lot of the education bureaucracy, including the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. Far be it for me to complain about that, but I wish Obama luck in de-emphasizing the Scantron test while taking on the educational bureaucracy and teachers' unions.

Bottom line: Despite the earlier space-for-education comment, there is not a lot here that is new. Indeed, when it comes to space policy, a lot of Obama's statement here is a status quo follow-on to the Bush presidency's policies and doesn't differ much from McCain's. However, a few differences did strike me:

• Obama would continue executing one half to two-thirds of the Vision for Space Exploration: finish ISS, retire the Shuttle, build Ares I/Orion. The question of Ares V development and human exploration is left wide open.
• A strong emphasis on Earth Science, in connection with climate change analysis.
• No mention of what will happen with NASA's overall budget, and a definite sign that an Obama administration would do some sort of intensive review of NASA's programs and priorities before proceeding any further.
• Some lip service is paid to national defense, but not without a little posturing about weapons in space.
• Like McCain, there is little to no reference here to commercial space or space tourism. One might wonder why, though perhaps for different reasons than one might wonder about McCain's exclusion of these topics.

If you are deducing from my comments that I am not a fan of Obama, you are deducing correctly. I have a lot of issues with him, the first one being that I don't think he has the experience necessary to be Commander in Chief of the DC Chamber of Commerce, much less the United States of America. I have tried to be fair with his policy statements and have noted where I agree or have no objection to them. However, that Constellation-for-education trade statement is still out there, and will make advocates like me leery of him until he actually shows his cards.

Bottom Line on the Two Major Parties' Candidates' Space Polices: Coming from a very parochial view of the space business (i.e., a supporter of the Ares Projects and Constellation), I would say that the only difference between McCain and Obama is going to be the size of the cut they'd get--anywhere from $0 to infinity and beyond.