The topic of space actually came up in the Republican debate this evening. Jeff Foust has the story. It just demonstrates how unimportant the subject is, that no one on the panel other than Newt really knew anything about it. And what little they do know is undoubtedly wrong, given the abysmal media coverage of the topic for the last year and a half (if not forever).
8 thoughts on “The Republican Space Policy Debate”
Comments are closed.
It’s a shame he’s still afraid to say “yes, end the space program”.
Does the US have a car program or a car industry?
Does the US have a steel program or a steel industry?
Does the US have a railway program or a railway industry?
Any sensible definition of “space program” is something from a bygone era for which no goal remains. If you insist on continuing a national space program, show some leadership and tell us what it is for and then demand action to achieve that goal.
Unfortunately, I can’t bring myself to believe that the goal of national space program is anything more than preserving a voting block (for which I’ve never even see numbers).
All the politicians in Washington regard space as unimportant.
But space is important.
Our modern world depends on space.
But a question is, are politicians correct that space is unimportant to politicians?
It seems to me that all politicians should be knowledgeable regarding space. In same sense they should knowledgeable about foreign countries- aware foreign leaders, and know where the countries are on the map. Or basically so people are less likely to think they are idiots.
What exactly they should know is interesting topic.
But is possible that a politician could run on space as major issue- could it be important to politicians. Could they be any political advantage to be engaged on this topic?
I don’t have a answer.
I think at some point in the future it should be possible.
I could argue that space could be relate-able to economic growth- but don’t think it would work for a politician.
An example, I think it might possible for some politician to run on issue of darksky.
Not saying it would work, but it could be possible. It something people could relate with and be connected to.
It also has element of being against something- and/or a crusade.
One could campaign against “global warming” and it’s destructive policies, mention Bjørn Lomborg argument and then bridge from that to giving possible future solutions related to space.
Global warming might work because it’s related to the future, and in context of the future you bring in space topics as examples technology and human advancement solving such past problems of too much horse manure in London
I have long felt that space is unimportant to politicians because it gives them nothing back. Hence their rabid concern for district jobs being lost etc when a program ends.
It all comes down to “perceived profit” for the individual politicians. If they cannot make money from it then the only support politicians will give will be from those in whose districts large government/contractor space components lie.
I think Romney wanted to say more about space but got cut off by the moderator, to whom space wasn’t important.
(Not that space is important to Romney either, but I think he would have given a better answer if he had been allowed to.)
I’m of the mindset that space being unimportant for the political class may be the best thing possible for private access and exploitation of space.
Pro Libertate,
Yep. And getting rid of NASA will be even more of a stimulus to space commerce.
Pro Libertate,
I agree with your thought but I would not want the government to disband NASA as Thomas Matula suggests. If that were to happen then the congress-critters would just get into the commercial folks’ knickers instead! NASA provides a useful, if expensive, foil!