A new FL primary = space policy discussion

The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports on the possibility of re-scheduled Democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan:

Last night, as he was celebrating victory in his generally ebullient manner, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAullife cryptically referred to the possibility of a re-vote in Michigan and Florida as part of the Clinton plan for victory in the primaries... something that echoed a trial balloon floated by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell earlier in the day.

I personally heard Ed Rendell tout the idea on one or another of the cable shows last night. If the Florida primary were to be re-scheduled, it seems to me that an exchange of space policy views between Clinton and Obama would play a large role in that state's primary campaign.

Obama's approach to politics

In the opening post I discuss linking space activism with Barack Obama's approach to politics. This column by David Brooks of the NY Times (David Brooks of all people!) captures well my observations concerning the differences in leadership style between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- link:

Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: “And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!”

For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.

Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning.

But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.

In my opinion, ESAS was chosen using the Clinton approach as described by Brooks. Dr. Griffin had gathered his data, forged his policy, fought off any opposition and now bears the burdens of defending that policy. But today, lacking a broad base of support (a collaborative consensus as it were) ESAS may very well be faced with a funding crisis as insufficient money is allocated by Congress for NASA to fulfill all of the mandates that have been put on its plate.

John McCain will "stay the course" and embrace the legacy of George W. Bush. Hillary Clinton will also stay a very different course, based on effusive rhetoric about the importance of the American space program combined with a policy that actually accomplished little, other than building Ares 1 to fly missions to LEO and ISS . Barack Obama, the most skeptical of the three concerning the value of human spaceflight might very well - paradoxically perhaps - be the leader who facilitates enough disparate voices to actually craft a coherent and sustainable policy.

Counterintuitive? Obama and America's future in space

Conventional wisdom asserts that Barack Obama would be the worst Presidential choice for space activists. Many people point to Obama lacking a record of supporting space exploration and to a number of recent skeptical comments about NASA and space funding. For those satisfied with the status quo - such as the current progress and projected pace of the ESAS architecture adopted by NASA - perhaps this is true.

On the other hand, many space activists desire to shatter paradigms such as "NASA equals American spaceflight and American spaceflight equals NASA" and many of us believe that a measure of creative destruction may be needed before we can build a robust and sustainable American presence in space. To achieve these objectives, a skeptical President who insists on asking tough questions about "Why" we have a space program and how can we make it coherent may be exactly what is needed, even if that President demonstrated little prior interest in space policy.

Recently, Barack Obama offered this comment on NASA p0licy during a Cleveland TV interview:

The only thing I want to say is that I want to do a thorough review because some of these programs may not be moving in the right direction and I want to make sure that NASA spending is a little more coherent than it has been over the last several years.

He also said this to the Houston Chronicle (published on February 15, 2008):

Obama agreed that NASA, which employs thousands of Houston-area voters who work at or with the Johnson Space Center, should be a tool for inspiring the nation.

But, he said, the next president needs to have "a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs — and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment."

Humans have continuously inhabited the International Space Station since November 2, 2000 but have we gotten sufficient value from that effort? Should we continue to spend billions of dollars in taxpayer money if we are not to venture beyond low Earth orbit?

Is ESAS the right architecture (in terms of politics and budgets as well as engineering) to support efforts to return to the Moon and thereafter go to Mars? Does ESAS sufficiently implement ideas to generate economic return from human activities on the Moon? Should a "science only" and "Mars forward" focus be the leading driver of American human spaceflight?

John McCain and Hillary Clinton appear unwilling to even ask such questions and they appear committed to staying the course chosen by George W. Bush and his chosen NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin. Therefore, even if Barack Obama has not offered compelling answers (yet) to these questions, a willingness to ask challenging questions and demand compelling answers from others will offer space enthusiasts an opportunity for genuine change.

= = =

A side note on ESAS. I believe the ESAS architecture will indeed succeed and allow America to return to the Moon, but ONLY IF the program is adequately funded. Fail to adequately fund ESAS and we will spend billions of dollars and receive very little or nothing in return. I also believe that the current STS workforce and infrastructure is a political reality we must acknowledge and accommodate.

That said, to build and deploy Ares 1 but then NOT return to the Moon very soon thereafter would be a horrific waste of tax dollars. Using Ares 1 primarily for access to LEO and ISS would be akin to buying a Cadillac Escalade SUV to commute 4 miles between Brooklyn and Manhattan, or using a $30,000 truck to deliver $50 worth of hay, as is depicted in this Hillary Clinton campaign spot.

If we "stick with the Stick" but thereafter fail to adequately fund NASA to achieve a prompt lunar return, then America will be very much like that fake Texan who uses a $30,000 truck to haul $50 worth of hay.

Business as usual? Yup. Coherent policy? Nope.

Greetings from a Space Activist Obama-naut

My name in Bill White and I consider myself to be both a space activist and an Obama-naut. This group blog has been created to give people like myself a forum to express our opinions and (hopefully) to dispel whatever cognitive dissonance may be associated with embracing space activism while also supporting Barack Obama and his approach to politics. We also foresee promoting discussion and advocacy that will exert positive influence and accomplish necessary changes within the space policy and space activist communities.

Each blogger will speak only for themselves and we clearly state that none of our bloggers are associated with Senator Barack Obama or with his campaign.

My first stab at these topics will be posted immediately after this sticky post.

Andrew Hoppin has already posted a few thoughts on Space Policy under an Obama Administration at his own blog Globe Hoppin. Andrew has also launched a discussion site called Space Democrats with includes this mission statement:

Space Democrats is a social activist network dedicated to electing Democrats who support progressive space policies that maximize the positive impact of the US Space Program on the nation and the world.

Be sure to visit and participate at Space Democrats.

Jason Aranha is another of our group bloggers and shall provide technical support both for this blog and the associated website.

Ferris Valyn is a regular poster at Daily Kos and while he is not yet a fully committed Obama supporter, Ferris believes Senator Obama would make an excellent president. Ferris will bring a strong NewSpace perspective to our discussions.

Ad Astra per Obama . . .