John Byron Community columnist

Spaceflight is the heart of Brevard’s economy. It has three components:

•Military space, balanced between exploiting space as a military asset and funding the rest of our defense needs.

•Commercial space, its value to Brevard a function of the needs of the marketplace and the ability of agencies like Space Florida and our Economic Development Commission to convince the rocket “shooters” (and perhaps soon, manufacturers) to operate here.

•NASA space and especially the KSC component for science and space exploration, its value determined by funding decisions made in the Federal Budget.

It’s that last item, NASA funding, that presidents most influence. The record is not positive. NASA funding has steadily declined since the height of the space race. As a percentage of federal spending, it’s gone from over 4 percent in the late sixties to less than 0.5 percent today. At the presidential level, KSC’s funding has gone down too, about 20 percent (constant dollars) during each of the last three presidents’ terms in office.

Neither party clearly offers more for NASA and KSC in the upcoming election. Since the late 1960s, both the Rs and the Ds have treated NASA poorly.

But if you look at today’s leading presidential candidates, a stronger pattern emerges:

• Sanders has consistently voted to cut space exploration since the 1990s.

•Cruz and Kasich, from space states, are space advocates.

•Earlier this year in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton said “I really, really do support the space program.” Campaign rhetoric? Perhaps. But in her 2008 campaign, she spoke out for reversing funding cuts in NASA. And she’s often said she wanted to be an astronaut.

•Donald Trump said this about space programs: “Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We’ve got to fix our potholes.”

So that’s the picture: The president’s party has little to do with space spending … but our next president will.

Can these candidates be pushed to show more support for space programs? Answer: yes. Potentially. If space interests get their act together.

How? By showing the candidates and their campaigns the election virtue of making space a strong part of their message in those places where that position can sway votes that really count.

And Space votes really matter in these four swing states: Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Florida.

If space interests and space advocates in these four states can convince a candidate that his or her stand on space exploration and future NASA funding could be a big factor in delivering that purple state, we could see that positive view of space carrying into the Oval Office after a win in November.

And because the I-4 Corridor (Brevard the anchor at one end) is the battleground for Florida’s presidential vote, the space vote could be key to winning Florida. A similar case can be made in the other three space states in play.

An enlightened presidential campaign should see its position on space matters as central to its overall strategy to winning in these four swing states. Our job is to make these campaigns see the light. We can do this three ways:

•Through the press forcing candidates to be clear on their plans for NASA. This newspaper has a key role, as do the other media outlets here and in the other swing states that care about space.

•Secondly, space advocacy organizations in these four states aggressively pushing space into the central campaign strategies of those candidates smart enough to listen.

•And third, the insiders in each of the swing-state presidential campaigns and at the national level seeing and acting upon the high potential that the candidate’s position on space could win or lose the election.

Could space interest determine who will be the next president?

It’s a nice thought. And yes.

John Byron lives in Cocoa Beach.