A question came up about space policy in Monday's Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire, according to the Space Politics website. What was resulted was a certain degree of confusion and perhaps some misleading answers.
The question was "President Obama effectively killed government-run spaceflight to the International Space Station and wants to turn it over to private companies. What role should the government play in future space exploration?"
Not one of the candidates seemed prepared to take the debate to attack President Barack Obama's space policy. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, however, was blunt, albeit perhaps a little simplistic about his views on NASA and the best way to pursue human space flight.
"Well, sadly -- and I say this sadly because I'm a big fan of going into space, and I actually worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point -- NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can't innovate. If you take all the money we spent at NASA since we landed on the moon, and you apply that money for incentives for the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles, and instead, what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy, and failure after failure. I think it's a tragedy because younger Americans ought to have the excitement of thinking that they, too, could be part of reaching out to a new frontier."
This set up an exchange with former governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty, who responded: "In the context of our budget challenges it can be refocused and reprioritized, but I don't think we should be eliminating the space program. We can partner with private providers to get more economies of scale, and scale it back, but I don't think we should eliminate the space program."
This drew a sharp rebuke from Gingrich, who responded: "John (referring to moderator CNN's John King), you mischaracterized me. I didn't say end the space program. We built the transcontinental railroads without a national department of railroads. I said you can get into space faster, better, more effectively, more creatively if you decentralized it, got out of Washington, and cut out the bureaucracy. It's not about getting rid of the space program, it's about getting to a real space program that works."
Gingrich was not specific about how he proposed to do this, though in times past he has favored a series of prizes to encourage private sector exploration of the moon and Mars. Gingrich has also publicly praised Obama's plan to provide direct subsidies for commercial space firms, according to an op-ed he co-wrote in the Washington Times.
None of the candidates aside from Gingrich and Pawlenty was willing to get very specific about what their vision for space exploration is which suggests that none of them were prepared with an answer.
It might behoove at least some of the candidates to formulate an answer. The Houston Chronicle gave a misleading verdict to the effect that, "Republican presidential candidates agree: No more federal money for human space flight." One suspects that is not the actual position of most of not all of the candidates, even Gingrich, who prefers some kind of private sector incentive package rather than funding NASA space programs. But if the Republicans don't want to be left open for attacks by other candidates or even President Obama for wanting to defund the space program, they need to develop their own space policies sooner rather than later.
Mark R. Whittington is the author of Children of Apollo and The Last Moonwalker. He has written on space subjects for a variety of periodicals, including The Houston Chronicle, The Washington Post, USA Today, the L.A. Times, and The Weekly Standard.
lil wayne quotes christchurch kitchenaid hijackthis uva greyson chance geocaching
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.