Barack Obama Publishes His Space Policy

A Scaling Back of Vision and Ambition

By Mark Whittington, published Jan 11, 2008
Published Content: 616  Total Views: 517,494  Favorited By: 27 CPs
Rating: 1.9 of 5
Senator Barack Obama has published a comprehensive space policy that is conspicuous in what it does not mention as in what it does. Unfortunately it constitutes a return to the 1990s during which astronauts flew in circles in low Earth orbit and commercial space was ignored.

The policy begins promisingly enough:

"Over the decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embodied the adventurous spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. Barack Obama believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security."

Unfortunately this paragraph is simply PR blather to mask what is to follow.

There is a list of things Obama wants to do in space. He is in favor of building the Orion/Ares space craft "to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period." There is no mention of building the heavy lift Ares V or using the Orion to send explorers back to the Moon and on to Mars. Obama is also in favor of completing the International Space Station.

Obama is in favor of "a bold array of robotic missions that will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for further manned exploration." The reader will note the verbiage concerning "further manned exploration." "Lay the foundation for." Not "do" or "accomplish" or even "pursue." For a man who aspires to be the African American John F. Kennedy, support for manned space exploration seems tepid at best, nonexistent at worse.

There are some proposals to task NASA to study climate change and increase support for science research. Obama seems to be in favor of surveillance satellites but against weapons in space. In the latter area Obama appears to favor the sort of arms control agreements that proved somewhat fruitless in the 1970s. There is no evidence to suggest that China might give up the ability to take out American satellites upon which the American military depends so heavily.

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
 
 
i am disappointed to hear the barak obamas space exploration policy is limited to sending probes like spirit, opportunity, cassini and others. however what people do not seem to realize is that a human explorer can do in a day what a rover like spirit or opportunity can do in 4 or 5 years; basically its entire life. if u look at it that way then a manned misson to mars is relativly cheaper than a rover in regard to the scientific value it returns.

Posted on 02/16/2008 at 2:02:37 AM

 
Simply put, what most space-boosters don't want to admit is that exploring even the inner solar system is prohibitvely expensive until we develop a launch technology that has a better pound/dollar ratio than rocketry. We've hit the wall with rocketry, and putting a vessel out there for a 3 year roundtrip costs more than it is worth using it. Even the moon is pretty pointless otherwise. What we ought to be doing is spending the money you folks want to spend on building a moonbase on researching new launch technologies.

Posted on 01/17/2008 at 10:01:52 AM

 
Obama understands that the way to aggressively explore and set up bases on the outer planets is to continue what we are doing, not indulge in a nostalgic return to capsules, lunar landers, and Saturn rocket wannabes. If anything harkens to the past, it is not Obama's program, but Bush's silly vision of exploring the moon sometime in 2020 and Mars by who knows when. It turns out that we have sent explorers the moons of Saturn, our explorers are on Mars now, grinding rocks, rolling around interesting geologic formations, our explorers have captured and returned solar space dust to earth, have blown chunks out of comets to discover their composition and so on and so forth. All of this was performed not by manned missions, but by telepresense robots. Manned missions cost 10x what unmanned missions do, and so 10x less science and exploration is going to get done if we focus on antiquarian modes of exploration. And safety requires that the development schedule be stretched- so we will

Posted on 01/12/2008 at 7:01:58 PM

 
Worse, safety requires ultra conservative engineering approaches that are timid about pushing the technolgical envelope. This means dramatically less technology spinoffs for business. Still worse, Bush's plan was to require Nasa to do this all on existing budget, so cost effective robotic projects delivering real science are being scaled back or eliminated. This means dramatically less science will be coming out of Nasa. Sorry, but if you work in aerospace, if you want to America not someone else building the moon and outer planet bases first, then you better take a closer look at Obama's more aggressive plan of space exploration. (please ignore/delete my prior two attempts at posting)

Posted on 01/11/2008 at 8:01:11 PM

 
Kevin - Point taken. Someone suggested it'll be worse because the shuttle, for all of its faualts, had capabilities that an orbital only Orion couldn't hope to have.

Posted on 01/11/2008 at 9:01:54 AM

 
This is closer to a return to the 70's: Skylab, Voyager and building the shuttle. Voyager worked out, the others not so much. Massive scaleback. We need to go to the moon to stay.

Posted on 01/11/2008 at 9:01:23 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
 
Most Commented On