When was the last time something space related was an item in a US political campaign ?
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").
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.
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.
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 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.
Quote from: Greg Hullender on 11/28/2022 12:54 amI 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?
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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/28/2022 01:02 amQuote from: Greg Hullender on 11/28/2022 12:54 amI 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.
Quote from: Hog on 11/28/2022 01:56 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/28/2022 01:02 amQuote from: Greg Hullender on 11/28/2022 12:54 amI 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.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 11/28/2022 04:01 pmQuote from: Hog on 11/28/2022 01:56 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 11/28/2022 01:02 amQuote from: Greg Hullender on 11/28/2022 12:54 amI 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.
Quote from: Proponent on 11/16/2022 09:07 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 11/16/2022 07:01 pmIncidentally, 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:
Quote from: yg1968 on 11/16/2022 07:01 pmIncidentally, 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?
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.
"But [...] even as a budget hawk, I believe firmly in the US space program....
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. [...]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
