Schmitt's harsh words are part of a furious blowback to the administration's new strategy for NASA. The administration has decided to kill NASA's Constellation program, crafted during the Bush administration with an ambitious goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020.
Of course, let's face it, there's not one single thing Barack Obama could do that wouldn't generate this kind of uproar. Not one.
And although Bush announced that glorious plan to return to the moon, he never once budgeted sufficient funds for it. (Kind of like his "Mission Accomplished" speech proclaiming the end to the Iraq War, don't you think?) And then he collapsed the economy.
So now, in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, the government is suddenly supposed to come up with vast new sums for the space program? Yeah, like that's going to happen, especially in this political climate. (And, of course, as far as people criticizing Obama, it wouldn't make the slightest difference, anyway.)
In fact, Obama's budget boosts NASA's funding by $6 billion over the next five years. The extra money is less than the $3 billion-a-year hike that a presidential advisory panel said would be necessary for a robust human space flight, but it's still an increase when many agencies are being squeezed.
Yup. Funny, huh? Barack Obama is actually increasing NASA's budget. Just not enough to keep the Constellation program (which has been very controversial from the beginning). Well, we simply don't have the money these days. President Obama's blue-ribbon advisory committee "determined that under a realistic budget NASA probably wouldn't have a moon rocket until 2028, and still wouldn't have the hardware to land." Funny what happens during an economic collapse, isn't it?
Obama's move for a greater private sector role in space launches -- as he seeks to keep ballooning federal deficits in check -- has generated fears of job losses among thousands of NASA employees who provide an important economic base in Florida, a state usually crucial in presidential elections.
Well, duh! This is what really gets me. I don't care who's screaming the loudest about taxes ("read my lips") or the budget deficit, as soon as their own state is affected by any proposed cuts, they'll be screaming even louder about that. And in this, at least, the Democrats are no better than the Republicans.
Obama's 2011 budget request would nix Constellation's rocket and crew capsule, funnel billions of dollars to new spaceflight technologies, and outsource to commercial firms the task of ferrying astronauts to low-Earth orbit.
You'd think that conservatives would be praising Obama's move towards a greater role for the private sector in space launches, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, you had the slightest knowledge of U.S. politics. Heh, heh. Personally, I really like the idea of getting "routine" space launches into the private sector, with NASA focusing on science and more demanding tasks. After all, why should NASA be running a trucking service?
This means Americans would have to pay to ride on Russian rockets to get into orbit, a stark turn of events after the pivotal battle the United States and the Soviet Union fought to outdo each other in the space race.
True. But, of course, Barack Obama had nothing to do with that. This was decided by the Bush Administration years ago, and at this point, there's probably nothing we can do about it. We were never going to have a replacement for the shuttle ready in time, and extending the shuttle program would take money away from other NASA efforts and be unsafe, from what I hear. I never did like this idea, but it's far too late to complain about it now, don't you think?
The fact is, the money isn't there for everything we'd like to do. The money wasn't there even before the economic collapse - at least, it wasn't budgeted (instead, we decided that tax cuts for the rich were more important). And lest people forget, we're still in the middle of two wars (also unnecessary, but what can we do about that now?). Guess what? Spending money on wars and tax cuts means that there's less available for everything else. And that would be the case even if tax receipts hadn't plunged, and welfare costs risen, in the worst economic collapse since the 1930s.
Back when Obama's plans were first announced, I read some thoughtful commentary from real space enthusiasts (including these at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog), which concluded that this was not just the best we could expect, but also... not at all bad, anyway. As I say, encouraging the private sector to compete for relatively routine missions to near-earth orbit frees up NASA to focus on more important - or at least more challenging - things. The government should be concerned with basic scientific research and cutting edge technology, instead of just operating a trucking service.
Personally, I never thought much of the idea of returning to the Moon, since we were there 40 years ago and didn't see any reason to stay. Yeah, if we needed it as a stepping stone to Mars, fine. Or if we could find some other good reason to go back (and to stay, this time). But otherwise, it just seemed like a publicity stunt (the announcement being great politics, with no need to actually put sufficient money where Bush's mouth was). OK, sure, if we had all the money in the world, fine, go to the Moon again, along with everything else. But we don't.
Let's cut through all the crap here. America will never lead in space exploration without a strong economy. For decades now, we've been on the wrong path in this country. We've let our lead in education, and especially in science and technology, slip. We've favored tax cuts over educating our children, superstition over science, 'trickle-down' or 'voodoo' economics over strengthening the middle class. And as a nation, we've been too ignorant, too cowardly, too greedy, too short-sighted, too superstitious, too gullible, and too timid to even wean ourselves off of OPEC oil, let alone compete with China.
I'm pretty disgusted with my own countrymen these days. I'd hoped that would change after the Bush years, but it hasn't, or not very much. (I'm hearing talk about this being a great political year for Republicans. Really? After one year spent trying to dig ourselves out of all the messes the Republicans left us, we really want to invite them back to do even more damage? We've actually forgotten all that this soon?) Maybe my expectations were too high. Heck, maybe my expectations for my whole species were too high.
The fact is, the money isn't there for everything we'd like to do. The money wasn't there even before the economic collapse - at least, it wasn't budgeted (instead, we decided that tax cuts for the rich were more important). And lest people forget, we're still in the middle of two wars (also unnecessary, but what can we do about that now?). Guess what? Spending money on wars and tax cuts means that there's less available for everything else. And that would be the case even if tax receipts hadn't plunged, and welfare costs risen, in the worst economic collapse since the 1930s.
Back when Obama's plans were first announced, I read some thoughtful commentary from real space enthusiasts (including these at Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog), which concluded that this was not just the best we could expect, but also... not at all bad, anyway. As I say, encouraging the private sector to compete for relatively routine missions to near-earth orbit frees up NASA to focus on more important - or at least more challenging - things. The government should be concerned with basic scientific research and cutting edge technology, instead of just operating a trucking service.
Personally, I never thought much of the idea of returning to the Moon, since we were there 40 years ago and didn't see any reason to stay. Yeah, if we needed it as a stepping stone to Mars, fine. Or if we could find some other good reason to go back (and to stay, this time). But otherwise, it just seemed like a publicity stunt (the announcement being great politics, with no need to actually put sufficient money where Bush's mouth was). OK, sure, if we had all the money in the world, fine, go to the Moon again, along with everything else. But we don't.
Let's cut through all the crap here. America will never lead in space exploration without a strong economy. For decades now, we've been on the wrong path in this country. We've let our lead in education, and especially in science and technology, slip. We've favored tax cuts over educating our children, superstition over science, 'trickle-down' or 'voodoo' economics over strengthening the middle class. And as a nation, we've been too ignorant, too cowardly, too greedy, too short-sighted, too superstitious, too gullible, and too timid to even wean ourselves off of OPEC oil, let alone compete with China.
I'm pretty disgusted with my own countrymen these days. I'd hoped that would change after the Bush years, but it hasn't, or not very much. (I'm hearing talk about this being a great political year for Republicans. Really? After one year spent trying to dig ourselves out of all the messes the Republicans left us, we really want to invite them back to do even more damage? We've actually forgotten all that this soon?) Maybe my expectations were too high. Heck, maybe my expectations for my whole species were too high.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment