Octopus Overlords

Ironrod wrote:I realize I'm one of about 14 people in the USA who care about this, but dammit, I do.

I have not read any policy statements by any of the candidates regarding national space policy in their administrations. Do they support Bush's moon/Mars initiative? If not, what's NASA's mission in the incipient post-shuttle era? Do we retreat from manned spaceflight entirely, continue down our current path, accelerate that mission, or change direction?

It seems to me like a bold Mars initiative would be a natural for Obama. He's going to end the war and raise taxes by $1 trillion, after all, so Washington will be rolling in cash. A measly few billion more for NASA is chump change. and what a Kennedy-esque gesture that would be!

I'd like to hear your opinions, but I especially want to know if McCain, Clinton, or Obama have said anything at all about our future in space.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Candidates campaign on two kinds of issues. The ones that will get them financing and the ones that will get them votes. As noted, space exploration is not a voting issue.

In a note on fiscal responsibility, the senator says he would delay NASA’s controversial moon-to-Mars program five years in order to fund education initiatives.

But when it comes to President Bush's ambitious initiative to send humans back to the moon and on to Mars, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is all but alone in staking out a formal position -- and it's one that lends support to key aspects of the president's effort.

She initially outlined the need for a "robust" human spaceflight program last month during a Washington speech on science policy, despite being broadly critical of the Bush administration's record on scientific issues.

Padre wrote:Google "<candidate name> NASA".

"Obama NASA" reveals:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas ... ttle_p.php

In a note on fiscal responsibility, the senator says he would delay NASA’s controversial moon-to-Mars program five years in order to fund education initiatives.

Which itself links to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01359.html

But when it comes to President Bush's ambitious initiative to send humans back to the moon and on to Mars, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is all but alone in staking out a formal position -- and it's one that lends support to key aspects of the president's effort.

She initially outlined the need for a "robust" human spaceflight program last month during a Washington speech on science policy, despite being broadly critical of the Bush administration's record on scientific issues.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s education policy is causing a stir … but not all in a good way. Advocates for space exploration are noting with dismay that he’d take billions of dollars from NASA to pay for the educational programs he'd like to expand.

The shift from exploration to education came last week when Obama talked up his $18 billion education plan during a New Hampshire campaign swing.

Ironrod wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:Candidates campaign on two kinds of issues. The ones that will get them financing and the ones that will get them votes. As noted, space exploration is not a voting issue.

It is a voting issue for some people. NASA has a budget of around $14B, last I heard, and most of it will be freed up when the shuttles retire in 2010 and we withdraw from ISS. So the future space program is already funded if current levels continue, making it essentially no-cost.

This is an especial opportunity for a campaign about hope and change and the future. I don't expect anybody to make it central, but I'd like to see some indication that they have thought about it, anyway. Maybe it will come up in the general election.

Tareeq wrote:If the space program is a pet issue, John McCain is the stupefyingly obvious winner.

Ironrod wrote:

Tareeq wrote:If the space program is a pet issue, John McCain is the stupefyingly obvious winner.

According to the article that Padre linked, McCain's staff is silent on the issue. (Sorry I don't have time to read all of the linked articles today).

Thanks for all the links. This casts a huge shadow over Obama, as far as I'm concerned. Suspending manned spaceflight will make it politically difficult to restart until taikonauts are walking on the moon. If that's the future he envisions, I don't see it as very hopeful.

I haven't voted yet. This might change my mind. I cannot support an anti-space candidate...but Billary makes my stomach hurt. Crap.

LawBeefaroni wrote:
As much as I think it should be a government program, it might be a non-issue if the privatization of space continues at its current pace. Some more forward thinking nations will get there before us, but don't underestimate the effectiveness of a private program if profits can eventually be made.

Ironrod wrote:The space race provoked an unprecedented burst of science and engineering education. Suspending further exploration sends a very bad message, and restarting it is not as easy as restoring a budget item. How do you replace all the expertise that will be lost during five unemployed years -- assuming that the hiatus really ends then?

Quaro wrote:I was already pissed at the recent budgets gutting the useful parts of Nasa. Billions into the shuttle, the space station, and the White House's moon-base project. Nothing for projects which cost 1/100th as much and actually crank out science. If you want a big project, let's go with the Terrestrial Planet Finder. And even that is an order of magnitude less than the manned stuff. Each shuttle mission is a Mars Rover!

Ironrod wrote:I am deeply disappointed in Obama.

msduncan wrote:The budget to accomplish these things is tiny compared to so many of the things we are doing.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Ironrod wrote:I am deeply disappointed in Obama.

Buck up. This will be a clear test to determine whether or not Obama can admit that he is wrong.

Balls. This is enough to make me write to Sen. Obama. Normally I wouldn't do that - but during the Terry Schiavo nonsense, I sent scathing letters to a variety of my representatives, and all responded with thoughtful letters explaining to me why I was wrong.

We'll see how the Obama campaign treats me.

msduncan wrote:Since there is no difference in Obama and any other left leaning party-line candidate, I'm sure his response will be that there are a host of important money sinks such as education that need your dollars before space exploration.

RunningMn9 wrote:I'm sure he might try that angle. At which point I will counter with other money sinks that will provide a lot more money for education than NASA (i.e. the Iraq War that he wants to end).

LordMortis wrote:I hope you can have detailed conversation with him and that you post details here. I've written to a senator once... by email. The response was is if it were by her but so not personal that I doubt it was. It was only slightly more personable and related to my original mail than would have been one by Krusty the Clown.

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.

msduncan wrote:

Quaro wrote:I was already pissed at the recent budgets gutting the useful parts of Nasa. Billions into the shuttle, the space station, and the White House's moon-base project. Nothing for projects which cost 1/100th as much and actually crank out science. If you want a big project, let's go with the Terrestrial Planet Finder. And even that is an order of magnitude less than the manned stuff. Each shuttle mission is a Mars Rover!

I disagree. What truly pushes the envelope of Science and Space development, enthusiasm, imagination, support, etc are high profile manned missions that inspire people.

For decades we've been bogged down in projects that put the public to sleep. Sure...the science garnered from many of these projects is priceless to scientists. The problem is that over time apathy from the public sets in because all they see is that WOW!!!! Mars is mostly made up of XXXX elements! And stuff like that. Apathy = loss interest. Loss of interest = less funding. Less funding = less science.

We desperately NEED some very high profile manned missions to push the public's imagination and steer a generation of kids into Space science. The budget to accomplish these things is tiny compared to so many of the things we are doing.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Ironrod wrote:I am deeply disappointed in Obama.

Buck up. This will be a clear test to determine whether or not Obama can admit that he is wrong.

The President and Congress have essentially said, "keep flying the shuttle to build the International Space Station, put humans back on the Moon, and figure out how to pay for it." Science is all that's left to cut from. If the new exploration vehicle goes over budget, science will have to pay for that too.

Quaro wrote:From what I've seen of the details, the current Moon/Mars plans don't teach us much. For speed and safety, it uses well understood technologies and methods that were developed in the 60s. We spend the money to send a small group into space for a year, and after they come back, we aren't any closer to sending anyone else into space. It's not so much difficult as expensive. And afterwards, the cost to send something up there will not have come down at all.

Programs cut to make way for the Moon, just in 2007:

* Funding for Astrobiology cut to 50% of its 2005 levels.
* Europa mission that would search for life under the moon's icy surface… cancelled.
* The Terrestrial Planet Finder - an observatory capable of seeing Earth-sized planets around other stars, and even signs of life… cancelled.
* The Space Interferometry Mission… delayed.
* Two scout missions to Mars… cancelled.
* Dawn mission to explore two asteroids… cancelled.

Programs cut to make way for the Moon, just in 2007:

* Funding for Astrobiology cut to 50% of its 2005 levels.
* Europa mission that would search for life under the moon's icy surface… cancelled.
* The Terrestrial Planet Finder - an observatory capable of seeing Earth-sized planets around other stars, and even signs of life… cancelled.
* The Space Interferometry Mission… delayed.
* Two scout missions to Mars… cancelled.
* Dawn mission to explore two asteroids… cancelled.

Creepy_Smell wrote:Space p0rn is the answer to funding. Besides, we need research in the area if we are going to live off this rock. Just send a few extra scientists up with each launch and profit!

A BUDGET MESSAGE FROM ALAN STERN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
NASA'S SCIENCE MISSION DIRECTORATE (SMD), NASA HEADQUARTERS

04 February 2008

A month ago today I wrote you an email via NSPIRES [the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System, through which scientists learn about and submit mission and grant proposals] about the work being done in NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) to invigorate the flight and research programs we're administering.

Although there was good news to talk about then, I could not discuss the content of the President's FY09 [Fiscal Year 2009, which runs from October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009] budget request and what that budget portends for SMD.

The President's FY09 budget was released today, so I am writing you again.

The news for NASA is good - we enjoyed a 1.8% funding increase that many other discretionary parts of the budget did not - and all of NASA's major programs are intact. As you can learn from reading budget documentation at http://www.nasa.gov, there are a host of important initiatives within NASA's budget request.

But in this message I want to focus on the highlights of the FY09 budget request as it affects SMD, and to be to the point: that news is also good.

To begin, the FY09 President's request augments two areas of SMD's budget significantly - Earth science and lunar science. More specifically, the budget request includes new initiatives to accelerate the recommended flight missions of the Earth Science Decadal Survey (NRC [National Research Council], 2007), and to fly small lunar science missions that respond to goals of the 2007 NRC report, "Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon".

Owing to budget wedges that are opening up as we launch a total of 13 orbital and planetary missions in 2008 and 2009, to some missions that we replanned to gain efficiencies, and to some cost increases that we avoided, the budget request for SMD is able to go beyond the Earth Science and lunar science initiatives I just mentioned, to also initiate missions in planetary science, in astrophysics, and in heliophysics.

In fact the President's budget request allows SMD to initiate 7 new space missions. And it is worth pointing out that this exceeds the number of new SMD missions initiated in the past three NASA budgets combined.

The 7 new missions to be initiated by the President's FY09 budget request span all four of SMD's Divisions; they are:
The Earth Science Division's SMAP soil moisture mission for launch in 2012 and IceSat II decadal survey mission for launch in 2015. Three additional Earth science decadal survey missions will be enabled by this budget request as well.
The Heliophysics Division's new, lower cost Solar Probe mission for launch in 2015.
The Planetary Science Division's long awaited Outer Planets Flagship for launch in 2016 or 2017, depending on the mission target and trajectory.
The Astrophysics Division's highly anticipated JDEM [NASA-DOE Joint Dark Energy Mission] for launch by 2015.
And two new lunar robotic missions - a small science orbiter to launch by 2011 and a pair of mini-landers for launch by 2014; these lunar missions are to be developed in SMD's Planetary Science Division.
If Congress agrees to these plans, then in FY09 (which begins in October!) you will be seeing a great deal of activity to solicit proposals to select payloads and science teams for these 7 new missions.

The President's budget request also significantly increases R&A funding [Research and Analysis funding, the bread and butter of space science research] so that our program generates more discoveries and therefore provides the taxpayer with value from the missions we fly. The budget request also substantially increases funding for suborbital sounding rockets and balloon experiments in order to foster PI on-ramps [that is, opportunities for researchers to gain the necessary experience to become Principal Investigators on future missions], instrument technology demonstrations, and of course new science.

To learn more, you can find many details at http://www.nasa.gov .

Additionally we in SMD will be talking about this new budget at the next round of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) and NAC subcommittee meetings, at MOWGs [Management Operations Working Groups, informal advisory groups convened within NASA], with the leadership of professional societies such as the AGU [American Geophysical Union], AAS [American Astronomical Society], DPS [the Division of Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society], and AMS [American Meteorological Society], and at upcoming large scientific gatherings such as LPSC [the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference], AAS, and AGU.

The primary message I hope you have received from this note is that the future that the President's FY09 budget request paints is bright for SMD.

As I said in my message of January 4th, we continue to look to the Earth and space science research communities for advice, counsel, feedback, and most importantly, new results as we go forward, so I again invite that advice through your NAC subcommittees and professional societies.

I hope to see many of you in meetings and other venues in the coming weeks. In the meantime, best wishes.

Alan Stern

Obama wrote:But I also hope that this booklet sparks a dialogue and that after you’ve finished reading it, you get in touch with our campaign and give us your thoughts on the policies you find here. It’s time to put government back in your hands, where it belongs. If we want to have policies that are good for the American people, then we need the American people to help shape those policies.