io9: space politics

Will Barack Obama Destroy the U.S. Space Program?

Annalee Newitz — Mon, 12 May 2008 11:37:03 PDT

As the race for U.S. President starts to heat up, Barack Obama has continued to polish his image as the youthful candidate promising a hopeful future. And yet he's also on record saying "[U.S. Space Agency] NASA is no longer associated with inspiration." He's proposing cutting NASA's budget in order to fund early-education programs for kids under 5. It's hard to fault his desire to educate kids, but why sacrifice space programs to do it? If elected, is it possible that Obama, the "hopeful" candidate, will destroy our hopes for space exploration and colonization?

Obama has said he'll take money away from NASA's Constellation program, which focuses on flights to the Moon and Mars. A space exploration advocate, Greg Zsidisen, questioned Obama about his plans for the program a couple of months ago and got a vague answer. According to the Chicago Tribune:

"I grew up on Star Trek," Obama said. "I believe in the final frontier."
But Obama said he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run and thinks funding should be trimmed until the mission is clearer.

"NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration," he said. "I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn't even pass for news anymore."

Zsidisen, the advocate who asked Obama about the space program, has an interesting article on Obama's views about space travel, as well as Hilary Clinton and John McCain's maddenly vague views, at The Space Review. You can also hear him talk about these issues on The Space Show podcast, where he's joined by Buzz Aldrin a couple of times to discuss government space policy. Really interesting stuff.

We Must Leave Earth

Annalee Newitz — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:30:20 PST

Hilary Clinton is currently the only presidential candidate with a space plan, which can't be pleasing to the scientists and scifi writers who warn that the human race must escape from Earth if it's to have any future. It's probably not surprising that 1970s astronomer icon Carl "billions of stars" Sagan was an offworld booster; nor would it boggle your mind to know that SF visionary Octavia Butler's post-apocalypse duet Parable of the Sower and Parable of the Talents is about why colonizing space is one of the most urgent political tasks of our time. But space travel as a political issue goes back further than that — way further.

In 1959, Philip Shockey wrote an essay called "The Ultimate Necessity of Space Travel," which was about how humans would never survive unless they left the planet. Shockey's daughter has posted the article in its entirety (which we found thanks to Paleo-Future), and it's fascinating to see early Space Age writing on a topic that has become almost a cliche in science fiction — and a nonstarter as a political platform.

Shockey points out that the sun is going to go red giant and destroy the Earth in the next 50 million years, and therefore we must start prepping now to get all our valuable Earth culture off the planet where it will be safe. What's interesting is that his ideas take a decidedly political turn once he's made this point:

The project is so huge in scope that no single country will be able to carry it through; the physical and mental resources of all the world will be required. This unified effort should produce nonviolent political and religious revolutions terminating in world harmony . . . It is difficult to see how any of the existing formal religions or political plans, except democracy, will survive scrutiny by a world population applying the scientific method to all phases of life.

He also praises the scientists who are urging President Eisenhower to buy into a 20-year plan that would bring humans to the moon.

If you want to hear a more contemporary plea for offworld planning, check out Carl Sagan's Cosmos miniseries, which is airing again on the Discovery Channel starting Jan. 8.

"The Ultimate Necessity of Space Travel" [Space Journal]

Clinton is the Only Presidential Candidate With a Space Plan

Annalee Newitz — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:30:23 PST

Apparently Hilary Clinton is the only presidential candidate who has taken a public stand on space-related issues. In a terrifically-helpful rundown of candidates' sci/tech policies from Popular Mechanics, Clinton was the only one to comment on the space program. She promised to renew NASA's R&D funding, prep for more human space flights, and maintain NASA's extensive network of Earth Science-related satellites for measuring the progress of climate change. But she also shared one interesting science policy promise with another Democratic front runner.

Like John Edwards, Clinton promised to give the White House Science Adviser direct access to the President once again. This is huge: for eight years, no top science adviser has had the ear of the Commander in Chief. Not surprisingly, the Republican candidates are following in Bush's footsteps and showing little interest in elevating the science adviser again, or in forging close ties with the scientific community.

Also not surprisingly, candidates' science policies were at their most elaborate and promisey when they talked about climate change issues — a popular topic with broad appeal. Every single candidate promised to invest more in "clean energy" or "alternative energy." For Clinton, this meant working hard to get in line with Kyoto and post-Kyoto protocols. For Giuliani, this meant investing in more nuclear power plants. Hey, nukes are clean energy! Just be sure to keep a lot of boron around in case of meltdown.

Geek the Vote with Popular Mechanics' Guide to the Candidates [via Slashdot]