Kerry'd Away 

OK, I'm once again breaking my self-imposed avoidance of political issues to link to, and comment on, Space.com's exclusive article on Kerry's thoughts on space exploration, which are pretty disappointing.
A few highlights:

“However, there is little to be gained from a ‘Bush space initiative’ that throws out lofty goals, but fails to support those goals with realistic funding.”
“While reducing the Bush Administration’s reckless deficits will be one of our early challenges, continued investment in a reinvigorated NASA that is innovating, creating jobs, and returning real value to the American taxpayer is what you can expect under a Kerry presidency,” Kerry wrote.
Kerry is opposed to the Bush plan because he doesn't think it's adequately funded, but himself plans on "continued investment" (note lack of word "increased") in NASA, assuming the economy allows it. At no point in his comments does Kerry commit himself to pursuing exploration beyond LEO.

Kerry said that the most immediate impact of the Bush plan is that NASA’s resources are being stretched “even further than they were before the Columbia tragedy,” forcing NASA to make unpopular choices like canceling a space shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA is currently seeking industry proposals for servicing Hubble robotically...
I would be more confident in Kerry's ability to set sound space policy if he were at all informed about what's going on. The decision to cancel HSM-4 was based on safety issues, to wit CAIB recommendations that additional safety protocols be developed for future missions, which are easier met on flights to ISS, as all other remaining Shuttle flights would be. I've yet to see cost estimates for the proposed robot servicing, but it wouldn't surprise me if its comparable to a Shuttle mission, belying the idea that cost is the driving factor in the decision.

Kerry also criticized the Bush Administration for abandoning the hunt for low cost space transportation, a central goal of NASA during the 1990s.
The hunt for low-cost space transportation has been going on since 1969, when work began on the Space Shuttle, which, for all of its strenghts, was a massive disappointment in actual versus projected launch cost decreases. Along the way, there have been plenty of other failed attempts, including, but not limited to the Orient Express NASP, the Delta Clipper DC-X, and the VentureStar X-33. The one thing all of these have in common is that they just didn't work. There has been plenty of money invested in low-cost space transportation over the decades, and very little payoff. The Vision for Space Exploration focuses on getting the most return on the taxpayers' investment, making the best use of proven technology rather than betting on technological longshots. That doesn't mean NASA is abandoning research into future space technologies, just focusing more on what they know they can do. More importantly, it's almost certain that today's Presidential Commission announcement will reveal the most important step the government can take in decreasing launch costs--increasing investment in the private launch vehicle industry by buying more COTS launches. The private industry has been more successful than government in lowering launch costs, and this proposed change will only drive that further.

Kerry also defended the space legacy of former U.S. President Bill Clinton -- the last Democrat to occupy the White House. Although the Clinton Administration cut the space agency’s funding, Kerry said NASA still managed to launch and land dozens of shuttle flights, including three servicing trips to Hubble.
OK, that's as frightening as anything else he said. A testimony to the least space-oriented president we've had in over two decades, praising him for the fact that, though he cut funding and trapped humanity in LEO, at least he mostly managed to preserve the status quo. Thanks, Bill. This is the president, who, confronted with what was believed to be evidence of life on Mars, still spoke against human missions there.
Kerry also credited policies pursued under the Clinton Administration with cutting in half the time and money needed to develop space missions, including missions to Mars.
Oh, yeah, that's what we need more of--more Mars Climate Orbiter missions. It may have been faster and cheaper not to coordinate who was using what units--but probably not better. Goldin's FBC policy is pretty much universally recognized as a failure and a false economy (you can have any two, but not all three). A return to the space ideals of the Clinton era would be disastrous.

:: :: 09:09 :: David :: [permalink] ::