Author Topic: Trump promises to 'plant the American flag on Mars' & build defense shield  (Read 30013 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17490
  • Liked: 7238
  • Likes Given: 3109
It's not partisan. You just have to stick to space policy. Had you said Trump's Mars initiative will never happen because he won't follow through (if elected); that would have been fine. You just have to stick to space policy, that's all there is to it. If you start talking about Trump's presidency as a whole or his character in general, you are then off topic. That is true for any President or politician.

Online JayWee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
  • Liked: 1032
  • Likes Given: 2038
When was the last time something space related was an item in a US political campaign ?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17490
  • Liked: 7238
  • Likes Given: 3109
When was the last time something space related was an item in a US political campaign ?

Newt Gingrich spoke of going back to the Moon as part of his campaign to become the Republican's Presidential nominee in 2012. But Romney ridiculed him to such an extent that other politicians were reluctant to make space an important part of their campaign after that. However, space usually appears in political platforms.
« Last Edit: 11/20/2022 12:55 pm by yg1968 »

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6472
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9912
  • Likes Given: 43
It's not partisan. You just have to stick to space policy. Had you said Trump's Mars initiative will never happen because he won't follow through (if elected); that would have been fine. You just have to stick to space policy, that's all there is to it. If you start talking about Trump's presidency as a whole or his character in general, you are then off topic. That is true for any President or politician.
The problem there is it allows declaration ("X will not deliver on that promise") but rejects providing evidence from past behaviour ("X will not deliver on that promise, as they have previously premised Y and Z and failed to deliver or even provide an actual plan, and have claimed credit for W and U that they only re-named").

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17490
  • Liked: 7238
  • Likes Given: 3109
The problem there is it allows declaration ("X will not deliver on that promise") but rejects providing evidence from past behaviour ("X will not deliver on that promise, as they have previously premised Y and Z and failed to deliver or even provide an actual plan, and have claimed credit for W and U that they only re-named").

You can say that while sticking to space policy. For example, Woods170 stated that the Journey to Mars started under the Obama Administration which is true. In terms of taking credit for a program that he didn't start, you can also give commercial crew as an example. But a few months ago, Bolden said that he believes that you can and should take credit for something that happens under your presidency (for example, JWST and Perseverance for the Biden Administration). I tend to agree with him, being able to take credit for things is important to politicians and if you got a program across the finish late, you deserve some credit for it.

In any event, the Journey to Mars and the Mars portion of the Moon to Mars program are R&D projects for now, so there is not much to take credit for. The President that takes credit for human exploration to Mars should be the one that starts a commercial crew to Mars program, in my opinion.
« Last Edit: 11/20/2022 02:32 pm by yg1968 »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39348
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25381
  • Likes Given: 12161
Gotta say one thing the Biden Administration did well is that they effectively depoliticized Artemis by choosing to continue it.

There was this perception that Democrats were for ISS and Republicans for the Moon, then it evolved to Democrats saved ISS and are for anything (including Mars) but the Moon, then Republicans supported the Moon again (with Mars as the eventual goal), and the Biden Administration, to their credit, decided to embrace it.

The perception has been broken. There’s now no significant perceived difference in destination. Artemis was basically depoliticized, no more canceling a program because it was perceived to belong to the “other team.”

Maybe that will change in 2024, but hard to say. A successful Artemis II flight around the Moon before the election might be a small help to the incumbent party, and as long as Artemis II occurs before transition in 2024 (if there is a transition), then Artemis is probably safe to continue.

The fiscal environment is a bit less predictable and could impact Artemis. If some candidate promotes fiscal austerity (I see no evidence of that happening), Artemis could be in danger.

But even Trump pushing for Mars if he wins in 2024 wouldn’t be discontinuous as NASA has stressed (by Congress’s insistence) that Artemis is about preparing for missions to Mars (and picking Starship HLS definitely helps that case).

The uncertain part could be the clash of egos of Elon and Trump… but the less said about that the better.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2022 07:59 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1908
  • USA
  • Liked: 1564
  • Likes Given: 2717
Mods, please give input.
ANY post that doesn't side with trump and implicitly believe his statements are deleted.
Is this a republican forum? How can there be discussion of political topics here when half the audience is not even allowed to comment?
If the mod rules do not allow for actual discussion, then this entire thread should be nuked.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17490
  • Liked: 7238
  • Likes Given: 3109
Gotta say one thing the Biden Administration did well is that they effectively depoliticized Artemis by choosing to continue it.

There was this perception that Democrats were for ISS and Republicans for the Moon, then it evolved to Democrats saved ISS and are for anything (including Mars) but the Moon, then Republicans supported the Moon again (with Mars as the eventual goal), and the Biden Administration, to their credit, decided to embrace it.

The perception has been broken. There’s now no significant perceived difference in destination. Artemis was basically depoliticized, no more canceling a program because it was perceived to belong to the “other team.”

Maybe that will change in 2024, but hard to say. A successful Artemis II flight around the Moon before the election might be a small help to the incumbent party, and as long as Artemis II occurs before transition in 2024 (if there is a transition), then Artemis is probably safe to continue.

The fiscal environment is a bit less predictable and could impact Artemis. If some candidate promotes fiscal austerity (I see no evidence of that happening), Artemis could be in danger.

But even Trump pushing for Mars if he wins in 2024 wouldn’t be discontinuous as NASA has stressed (by Congress’s insistence) that Artemis is about preparing for missions to Mars (and picking Starship HLS definitely helps that case).

The uncertain part could be the clash of egos of Elon and Trump… but the less said about that the better.

I would also give credit to the Trump Administration for embracing the Moon and Mars as it got both sides to support the program. Historically, Republicans were for the Moon and Democrats were for Mars. I never saw any division on the ISS. It was initially proposed by Reagan. Senator Cruz was in favor of extending it past 2030.

In terms of Trump (if he is elected a second time), I don't expect him to cancel Artemis program given that he is the one that started out. I doubt that other Republicans candidates would cancel it either.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17490
  • Liked: 7238
  • Likes Given: 3109
Mods, please give input.
ANY post that doesn't side with trump and implicitly believe his statements are deleted.
Is this a republican forum? How can there be discussion of political topics here when half the audience is not even allowed to comment?
If the mod rules do not allow for actual discussion, then this entire thread should be nuked.

Re-read your post and realize the things that you said that are contrary to forum policy: arguing with the mods will get your post deleted. Making general political comments will get your posts deleted. Make an effort to stick to space policy and stop arguing with the mods and your posts won't get deleted. It seems that your goal from the outset has been to get this thread locked.

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 659
  • Liked: 487
  • Likes Given: 152
OK, here is one moderators input, be advised I am not very active on this site and my opinions are not shared by other moderators. I was tempted to lock this thread as soon as I saw but have not done so.
 My hope is we can use this amazing information age to share knowledge and wisdom. We can see how that is working out. I think the ability to focus on policy is a requirement from Chris, he likes to use a football reference, play the ball not the man.

 If you can not comment on Trumps record as president or his intentions as candidate without judging the person then maybe you just ignore this thread. Somebody is wrong on the internet is not enough reason for me to weigh in.

 I have not attempted to moderate this thread, I could bring another perspective to this effort. My habit in moderation is pretty heavy handed, I tend to delete pages of posts.

 Poof, blasted into the bitsmog, never to be seen again. I doubt I will be looking into this thread.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10441
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2483
  • Likes Given: 13758
Yeah, and look how much progress Bezos has made. Not much. He couldn't even win an HLS contract, and Blue Origin is part of the reason by the ULA Vulcan rocket is so behind schedule.

It should be clear by now that the 2024 return-to-Moon date was a fake date, and no real thought was put into how to actually make that happen. So in that light Trump taking credit for NASA going to Mars adds nothing to the actual effort - which NASA has been working on for decades already.
I think it's sometimes instructive to compare the things Trump and Musk say.

Musk has a fondness for striking metephor. But if you dig under the idea he's chopped through a fair bit of data to get to that idea.

Trump....

It's certainly a bold vision of the future. People might be tempted to hear echoes of Kennedy's "We chose to go to the Moon in this decade.." speech.  Forgetting this was a response to a memo from Johnson, who'd done the legwork to choose a goal that he reckoned would be actually achievable (although it took NASA getting about 4% of the Federal budget to do so. Now it's on about 0.4% of the federal budget).

As I don't live in the US I will have no vote and none of my taxes will go to whoever wins.

But am I stating the obvious that Trump has to win first to do anything ?
And as has been noted in 2016 no one actually knew what sort of POTUS Trump would make (although obviously people had opinions).  But now they have a much better idea of what they'd be voting for.

So any goals he states now (or even remembers in 2 years) have a looooong way to go before they have any chance of being realized (and I don't think you have much confidence in the goals he's articulated in the past anyway).

I don't follow US politics much but that nice Mr diSantis seems to have quite caught the eye of Republican voters in Florida.

My instinct is that by 2024 a SpaceX rocket will be on it's way to Mars.

Beyond that.....
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 2027?. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Greg Hullender

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Seattle
    • Rocket Stack Rank
  • Liked: 460
  • Likes Given: 349
I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39348
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25381
  • Likes Given: 12161
I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.
Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2848
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1703
  • Likes Given: 6916
I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.
Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?
Trump would have a great opportunity to leave a real legacy with Artemis since his Artemis plans weren't dismantled by the follow-on government, almost like he never left.
Trump as President told NASA to send astros to the Moon, he might, as President actually see those plans bear fruit.  How often does that happen in national space?  JFK didn't live to see the space race end. 
Moon then Mars, that's always been the plan, right?  I swear that's what I read in a 70's vintage Popular Science magazine.
Paul

Offline laszlo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 972
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 589
Perhaps if Trump’s announcement was to say he is going to send several DC politicians to Mars, this could be a highly popular idea to campaign on. Plus it would boost the Florida economy with the public interested to simply watch politicians leave Earth.

Also already been done - Garn & Nelson. Wasn't noticed by the country as a whole. No one outside this forum remembers. Not much of a political strategy therefore. For a real media boost, send Ye, instead.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1908
  • USA
  • Liked: 1564
  • Likes Given: 2717
I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.
Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?
Trump would have a great opportunity to leave a real legacy with Artemis since his Artemis plans weren't dismantled by the follow-on government, almost like he never left.
Trump as President told NASA to send astros to the Moon, he might, as President actually see those plans bear fruit.  How often does that happen in national space?  JFK didn't live to see the space race end. 
Moon then Mars, that's always been the plan, right?  I swear that's what I read in a 70's vintage Popular Science magazine.
This ignores like 90% of history. The artimis program came about as a reason to use SLS/Onion. There had already been 10-15 years of development involved before trump even got elected. If you look at the entire thing holistically, trump was just one in a line of presidents who are making a moon landing happening.

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2848
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1703
  • Likes Given: 6916
I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.
Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?
Trump would have a great opportunity to leave a real legacy with Artemis since his Artemis plans weren't dismantled by the follow-on government, almost like he never left.
Trump as President told NASA to send astros to the Moon, he might, as President actually see those plans bear fruit.  How often does that happen in national space?  JFK didn't live to see the space race end. 
Moon then Mars, that's always been the plan, right?  I swear that's what I read in a 70's vintage Popular Science magazine.
This ignores like 90% of history. The artimis program came about as a reason to use SLS/Onion. There had already been 10-15 years of development involved before trump even got elected. If you look at the entire thing holistically, trump was just one in a line of presidents who are making a moon landing happening.
Artemis is more than Orion and its launch vehicle.
 The other Presidents served at best, 8 years consecutively.  Trumps potential influence on Artemis is unique, the others drove SLS/Orion, Trump gave it a purpose. 
Trump was elected in 2016, no one on Earth had heard of SLS or Orion in 2006(CEV/MPCV perhaps), let alone 2001.
Trump would/will tout the entire Moon effort as his own, facts/costs be damned.
Paul

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6472
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9912
  • Likes Given: 43
I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.
Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?
Trump would have a great opportunity to leave a real legacy with Artemis since his Artemis plans weren't dismantled by the follow-on government, almost like he never left.
Trump as President told NASA to send astros to the Moon, he might, as President actually see those plans bear fruit.  How often does that happen in national space?  JFK didn't live to see the space race end. 
Moon then Mars, that's always been the plan, right?  I swear that's what I read in a 70's vintage Popular Science magazine.
This ignores like 90% of history. The artimis program came about as a reason to use SLS/Onion. There had already been 10-15 years of development involved before trump even got elected. If you look at the entire thing holistically, trump was just one in a line of presidents who are making a moon landing happening.
Artemis is more than Orion and its launch vehicle.
 The other Presidents served at best, 8 years consecutively.  Trumps potential influence on Artemis is unique, the others drove SLS/Orion, Trump gave it a purpose. 
Trump was elected in 2016, no one on Earth had heard of SLS or Orion in 2006(CEV/MPCV perhaps), let alone 2001.
Trump would/will tout the entire Moon effort as his own, facts/costs be damned.
Trump took the existing SLS, Orion, and Gateway programmes, and gave them a shiny new label.
The programmes themselves were running for a decade prior, and will continue to run until Congress can think of another way to funnel the same funds to the same regions. HLS was kicked off under the Trump administration, but the shock decision to actually sole-source it with defined milestones rather than it just being another funding funnel for the usual suspects with an indefinite delivery timescale to keep the programme going as long as possible (as it was assumed by most to end up being, like Gateway) was taken under the Biden administration.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7295
  • Liked: 2788
  • Likes Given: 1466
Incidentally, one of the things that Vice President Mike Pence mentions in his book released yesterday is that it was Trump's idea to revive the National Space Council. He asked Pence during the 2016 Campaign if Pence would like to lead it. Pence was thrilled at the opportunity of doing so since he was a big fan of Apollo when he was young. 

He does not seem to have been much of a fan of returning to the moon when he was a congressman, though.  He was co-chairman of the Republican Study Group in 2005 when that body proposed saving money by cancelling Constellation without replacing it with anything. Does that get a mention in the book?

No but VP Pence talks about space and NASA on 8 pages of his memoirs. He mentions that he specifically requested to be on the House Committee on Science, Space Technology before he was Vice-President. Here are some of the more interesting quotes from his book:

Thank you.  Some of those excerpts are revealing, though, methinks, as is not infrequently the case when politicians speak on peripheral subjects, probably not in the way intended.  Please forgive me for appropriating the excerpts directly without embedding them in quotes from your post, in the interest of streamlining their presentation:

Quote from: page 237 of VP Pence's book
"But [...] even as a budget hawk, I believe firmly in the US space program....

Quote from: pages 344 and 345 of VP Pence's book
I wanted to encourage our astronauts and engineer to make their next giant leap and return Americans to the moon. I was in Huntsville to chair the fifth meeting of the [space] council in March 2019 not only to name the first commander of the Space Force, General Jay Raymond but also to make it official that we planned the "next man and first woman" to the Moon in five years in American rockets launched from American soil. Not just that, but the astronauts would be landing on the moon's south pole, where no American had ever gone.

The United States didn't have a rocket capable of sending astronauts to the moon, but instead of lamenting that and postponing the country's return there, the president and I were encouraging NASA to do what our administration had done elsewhere -with the economy, on foreign policy: shrug off compliancy, cut red tape and unnecessary regulations, and, as I said that day, think better bigger, fail smarter, and work harder. And do it with urgency. [...]

This is both false and misleading.  According to Mike Griffin, Delta IV Heavy was up to the job.  According to the Augustine Commission, a Falcon Heavy-class lifter could do it (and that was with an Apollo mindset, where each mission was built around modules launched from the ground).  If Pence believes that, he is poorly informed.  And then he implies the he and Trump are responsible for creating SLS.

Quote from: page 345 of VP Pence's book
Trump liked to quip that "Rich guys love rockets," a reference to the generation of entrepreneurs investing in commercial space flight, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. If their companies' technology could get Americans back to the moon, NASA shouldn't hesitate to work with them. [...] With entrepreneurs such as him [Bezos] and Musk, the US space revival was well under way. And the country had a president who was a builder, who always wanted to go further, faster, and higher in every endeavor.

I'm glad he recognizes the capabilities of American industry.  How, then, does he justify his enthusiastic support for SLS?  Has he ever, anywhere explained why he, a conservative Republican and self-described budget hawk, fulsomely supports the one and only government-managed launch vehicle?

Quote from: page 345 of VP Pence's book
History may well record Space Force as being one of the most consequential achievements of our administration: providing for the common defense in the boundless reaches of space.

Overstatement.  The Space Force's current functions were already being performed, and the common defense already provided for.  The argument for the Space Force was that for bureaucratic reasons the Air Force did not sufficiently prioritize space.

As I mentioned previously, we know that when he was co-chairman of the Republican Study Group in 2005, that body recommended cancelling Constellation and did not propose replacing it (and that is consistent with Pence's claim to being a fiscal conservative).  He says he wanted to be on the House Science & Technology Committee, but somehow in a dozen years in Congress he never made it there, suggesting it wasn't really much of a priority.  All in all, I am still wondering whether Pence ever expressed any interest in space before being elected vice president.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17490
  • Liked: 7238
  • Likes Given: 3109
This is both false and misleading.  According to Mike Griffin, Delta IV Heavy was up to the job.  According to the Augustine Commission, a Falcon Heavy-class lifter could do it (and that was with an Apollo mindset, where each mission was built around modules launched from the ground).  If Pence believes that, he is poorly informed.  And then he implies the he and Trump are responsible for creating SLS.

Delta IV wasn't human rated. He isn't talking about SLS. He is talking about using the rockets of the rich guys. You broke up the sentences in separate discussion points but the paragraph portrayed one idea which was that the Trump Administration was in favor of using the rockets of the rich guys. I took out one sentence were he talks about Bezos telling Pence that he is using his money from amazon to fund his true passion which is space. But the entire passage is about commercial rockets. Later, Pence talks about the success of commercial crew (he gives too much credit to the Trump administration on that one). 

Quote
I'm glad he recognizes the capabilities of American industry.  How, then, does he justify his enthusiastic support for SLS?  Has he ever, anywhere explained why he, a conservative Republican and self-described budget hawk, fulsomely supports the one and only government-managed launch vehicle?

He actually doesn't talk about SLS at all in his book.

Quote
Overstatement.  The Space Force's current functions were already being performed, and the common defense already provided for.  The argument for the Space Force was that for bureaucratic reasons the Air Force did not sufficiently prioritize space.

He does mention that but said that it was still a positive to make it into a separate branch.

Quote
As I mentioned previously, we know that when he was co-chairman of the Republican Study Group in 2005, that body recommended cancelling Constellation and did not propose replacing it (and that is consistent with Pence's claim to being a fiscal conservative).  He says he wanted to be on the House Science & Technology Committee, but somehow in a dozen years in Congress he never made it there, suggesting it wasn't really much of a priority.  All in all, I am still wondering whether Pence ever expressed any interest in space before being elected vice president.

Pence served on the Science Committee and its subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics from 2001-2002.

https://libraries.indiana.edu/mike-pence-congressional-papers

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1