Part 2. The Clinton side. I just got my Space News paper edition so now I have some stuff to review for the Clinton camp.
First the tone. This is more traditional and very scripted and coordinated language. While the Trump language was thought out, this reminds me of what language can look like after passing through committee. Most of the questions Space News asked were answered with nebulous answers. Trump gave measured answers, meaning they answered the question in their op-ed, but the Clinton comments were broad. One example, they asked about if the 19B budget for NASA was too much or not enough. Clinton didn’t say yes or now, but said that NASA is an investment in our future. (and some other fluff). They did say that it was required to take on better “strategic partnering with American companies” which is a continuation of the public-private mode that the Obama policy evolved too after prodding from Congress. Another example where the Clinton camp didn’t really answer the question, was when they were asked about how national security space professionals don’t get the credit they deserve and thanked them for their service. Nice comment…didn’t answer the question. (BTW…in this piece Trump was less wordy but said essentially we will assess the priorities as we get the info to do so)
The military thoughts are instructive I thought. The Clinton campaign essentially believe in the current approach of the present Administration. They want to maintain “safe, encompassing communications, missile warning, navigation and reconnaissance…resiliency and redundancy for our most critical military space assets will also be a priority….for example investing in small satellites and disaggregating our capabilities….helps disperse the risk of failure or attack..” Sigh. Instead of re-stating my thoughts on this, please see articles on comments by Loverro and General Hyten. Looks like no change and unlike the Trump Campaign, the Clinton folks don’t believe there is an existential threat to the homeland
Clinton also has a unique view of environmental monitoring. She is a believer in the counter climate change mission and thinks NASA should keep doing what its doing as its playing a “crucial role.” I for one think it makes more sense for NASA to be the explorers and innovators and leave Earth based stuff to NOAA. Just my two cents.
Last bit of interesting difference from the Trump side…is their view of civil space. They view its important but believe that its a “global endeavor”. Given she is running for President of the United States and not Secretary General of the UN…its interesting the use of the term global. One would think she would use the term international. Some may think there isn’t much difference but there is. Another interesting play on words is that Clinton is probably not all that excited about a manned Mars program. She called Mars a “consensus horizon goal” which means a lot of people want to do it but its not happening for awhile. That to me, from working in a world of words, means that while a lot of folks want to go…its not that exciting to her and she considers it something beyond the horizon or beyond her tenure as President, should she get elected. That language could change depending on the reaction of supporters and detractors.
Either way, its interesting to see the comparisons and contrasts.