As I write this, I want to establish that I am only talking about other people's opinions and not my own. As a Clear Lake resident, I am around people in the space industry on a daily basis. Some people stand in awe at astronauts while those of us in Clear Lake kind of yawn. However, we are acutely aware of important the space industry is to our immediately community. I would harbor the guess that at least a third of the community works directly for NASA or one of its many contractors and subcontractors.
Earlier this week, the Obama administration decided to cut back on the Constellation program and some other programs within NASA. As I understand it, the idea is to remove focus from going back to the moon and refocus our energies in studying our own planet and in maintaining the space station. He increased the NASA budget by six billion annually, but the overall affect is that there will be some reshuffling.
NASA folks don't like to comment about political matters, but many of them are not happy about this and feel betrayed by our president. My wife has vowed never to vote for a Democrat again and feels her vote on Obama was wasted. Now, I don't know how much of that is fear of losing her job and how much of that will go away as things normally do. I'm sure a lot of people have made the same vow and reniged.
I cannot and will not render an opinion on his decision. I am no expert on NASA and am only affected as it affects my family and community. I know that when the community is upset then I am upset. There are some (higher ups) that believe this was in the best interest of the industry. My only question is why this took more than a year to do. There's deliberating and then there's sitting on your hands. So, I have a feeling that Obama lost some votes with that decision and how it was made.
I have said this before and I will say it again. I think we are in an interesting place in our nation's history. Fewer and fewer people want to be Republican. As they dive further and further to the right, they leave millions of run of the mill conservative voters in their wake. The problem is that they (and wishy washy Democrats) have combined to render our government as ineffective to solve problems. Yes, we passed a stimulus bill. Yippee!. It's time to do something else to help people. Anything. We're waiting.
As Congress stands inactive then there are an increasing number of people that consider themselves as neither Democrat nor Republican. I can't help but feel that my president has let me down. Why does he compromise those things he spoke so strongly for? There is compromise on things that are negotiable and then giving up those very things that make us who we are. Where is the backbone? Where is the leadership? Where is the gumption to tell those to the right of Hitler to shut the **** up and get out the way so this country can go where it needs to? Instead we get the whole, "preparing to study the affects of possibly thinking about deciding to consider the possibility of maybe doing something." Just ****ing do it already.
I hate cursing or implying cursing. I don't want to go back to the shoot from the hip, bury the bodies, and ask questions later regime. There's something in between "the decider" and this isn't there?
[R] Rep Pete Olsen, the notorious teabagger & stimulus foe now wants an estimated $108 Billion of pork from stimulus huh?
I'll certainly give you that one, life's no fun if they keep moving the cheese.
Exactly. The only thing that stands in the way of corporations doing space exploration is profit. Or lack of thereof.
If they go into space exploration, it will be on the taxpayers dime, just like NASA.
And as someone who worked decades in corporate America, they make the same kind of go, no-go abrupt changes as any government agency.
I just can't put them on a pedestal as shining examples of how organization should behave.
Where do I begin on this? Let's start with the idea of a corporation exploring space on its own. Why would they do this? Where is the profit for them? Even if the government gave awards would it be enough to cover the cost? Plus, we would be taking a HUGE step backward. The information that went into the shuttle and the new vehicle (Orion which was also cut) is proprietary information. Even if they pillered the best and brightest, that information stays with the company.
We have to remember where the bureaucracy is coming from. Most of the waste comes when those higher up than NASA continue to move the bar. Orion is a perfect example. You have a vehicle that has made it all the way through the design process and then you kill it. That's money that is flushed down the toilet. Those that have worked for NASA will tell you how many designs they have gone through for new vehicles. Change that to a corporation and you get the same result. What do you think Boeing and Lockheed Martin are, socialist cooperatives? They are corporations that have bid on government contracts. When the government changes its mind then the corporation must adjust.
What needs to happen is for there to be an independent panel that chooses NASA's mission. Then, they leave NASA alone and let them do it. When Kennedy said man would go to the moon by the end of the decade he didn't do anything magical. It was the NASA people that did the magic. If you establish one clear mandate then get out of the way you will be amazed at what NASA can accomplish.
You got laid off, huh. Well, don't take it personally there are many of us to follow.
Eliminate NASA completely and let the private sector do space exploration motivated by prizes. Military space activities can be carried out by the Air Force. NASA is a giant bureaucracy that produces very little benefit for way too much money, and is more interested in perpetuating the staffing levels than anything else.
The situation and reactions aren't much different than that of cuts to military programs or farming & dairy interests who would be screaming bloody murder if agricultural subsidies were to be cut: dire predictions of job loss, America's fall from greatness, and the heartbreak of psoriasis.
The Constellation Program was instituted by a lame duck President (George W. Bush) knowing full well he would not have to see it to fruition and would leave that mess to his successor (be it Republican or Democrat), kind of like what his dad HW did with initiating the open ended Somalia mission at the end of his term that concluded with Clinton's horrific "Blackhawk Down" fiasco and mishandling.
In these difficult economic times, it is not surprising that an underfunded, poorly planned out (for the long term) "pie in the sky" (sorry for the bad pun) program would hit the chopping block in terms of prioritization.
And as Miemaw noted, overall funding for NASA was increased by about $5 Billion. So NASA isn't being mothballed or "neglected".
JK has a terrific blog on the chron on this topic with his usual great NASA insider knowledge and perspective.
http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=jkugler&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ajkuglerPost%3a1fa94540-958a-4d79-96f3-5dad0802002f
And as for Obama passing his "agenda", it's been barely over a year in office. He bungled badly on healthcare reform basically by not taking the time to herd the unruly cats that is Congress, but he seems to have done pretty well so far with turning around the economy. And for all you impatient naysayers, massive dreadnoughts such as aircraft carriers, battleships, and the US economy do not turn on a dime.
As for comparisons to Carter, it's a bit early and a bit apples to oranges. Carter was a political neophyte on the national level, Obama is not. Obama may have been a little too hands off and overconfident initially, but he is definitely not a passive political babe in the woods. In addition, Carter had to deal with the unprecedented economic phenomenon of stagflation. Obama only has to deal with a traditional recession with its tried and true FDR New Deal stimulus approach to economic recovery.
And bart, you are welcome to debate stagflation here all you want, without the benefit of deleting opposing comments.
I think Clinton bungled healthcare reform even worse with greater hubris to the point it was not resurrected again for 16 years until now. As for what he did pass, I don't know all the specifics, but welfare reform and balanced budgets were all Republican friendly (then) proposals.
Anyone have any information on what significant legislation Clinton was able to push through after the "Republican Revolution" in Congress in 1994? I don't know specifically either way. I believe he had to shift politically to the center to save his skin and get re-elected. And even with a flamethrower Gingrich led House back then, it is way more partisan now than then to get anything accomplished. What other bill in history had no Republican support whatsoever in the Senate and only one Repub vote in the House?
In retrospect I'm thinking the Republican party's WASP-like solidarity would have been a much more appropriate analogy.
Scott,
It has been persuasively argued that there is no historical counterpart to the current Republican party. Their bumblebee-like solidarity has not been experienced heretofore. They are breaking ground in the arena of power politics, but, Obama is starting to appear a quick study. He is gonna kick some serious gluteus max.
Maybe this is just my faulty memory, but I remember bill Clinton being more successful in getting his agenda passed (save health care) than Obama will only a slight advantage in congress. Maybe it is a less cooperative republican party, maybe it is a less cooperative democratic party, or maybe Clinton was a more effective politician. Funny but I see Obama as another Carter like McCain said. Carter was highly intelligent, and a very good man but very green on how to get things done. Obama has more charisma but about the same level of effectiveness so far.
I agree with you Offshore. I do believe that the president had the best intentions when he promised to do this and that. People have to realize that our government is set up in such a way that it is not run by just one person and they do what they can but there are others that are involved in the decision making that will ultimately shape the outcome of a proposed legislation.
We may not have a flawless system but it is the best in the world, everyone gets to voice their two-cents. Not everyone will be happy but not all will be totally unhappy either.
Bart,
your opinion is a very legitimate one but a little askew. What you don't realize is that Obama is an extremely shrewd tactician. He is one step ahead of us, of that, I'm quite confident. I suspect that most space engineers and oil folks didn't vote for Obama. Those of us that did, fully expected this eventuality. However, I'm looking through to the other side of the current condition. I still don't believe congress will let NASA's human spaceflight agenda die. In truth, the only pro Space Program politicians in the country for many years now have come from Texas, Florida, Alamaba, etc. Big surprise there, huh. America just doesn't care. But, just the same, Human spaceflight is a big fish when weighing its legitimacy, its survival against its demise.
I, for one, believe that NASA management hierarchy has to really get its poopoo together if it expects to meet this challenge.
Unfortunately, the current programs have wavered in the face of seeming intractable problems. In fact, my simpleton opinion is that decision makers have functioned as complete stuck in a vacuum morons. If they would have performed better they wouldn't be confronted with a do-or-die edict. They have to adjust and for my sake, I hope that happens quickly.
Scott,
The overall budget of NASA was increased. The money will fund many other NASA projects. Space exploration will continue.
The "Constellation Program" budget was cut for a couple of reasons..... one was a "been there, done that' mindset.... but most importantly.... this particular NASA program was way behind schedule, and way over budget.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/02/01/nasa.budget.moon/?hpt=T1
I get upset with Obama also. Patience is NOT my strong suit. However, what I have found is that when I DO exercise a little patience.... Obama is usually right...
Blaming others for the pain we feel each time someone fails to live up to our expectations is no different than burning our tongue on coffee that's too hot to swallow, and then calling our cup an idiot! - Guy Finley
I can’t recall one presidential candidate that didn’t promise change in one way or another. I have never seen a successful campaign, for any politician, run on a platform of “let’s keep on truckin’”.
It’s not that our president doesn’t wish to keep his promises; it’s that he promised more than what is possible. I can agree, however, that it was easy to gobble it all up and believe that things were going to be different forevermore given the state of things during President Obama’s campaign. The fact is though, that we all believed a politician. I know children that know better than to do so. Why did he make promises he couldn’t keep? He did so for the same reason the scorpion stung the frog. It is his nature, as it is the nature of most politicians.
The reason people are beginning to distance themselves from the two main parties is simple: Most Americans aren’t attracted to extremism. It’s almost like a contest between the far reaches of each party to see who can be the most ridiculous.
Fifteen years at JSC for me. And every new administration pauses to evaluate good ol' NASA when they start.
While I wish the country had a strategic, long-term mission for NASA, one with benefits that are understood and deemed important enough to transcend elections and political parties, the truth is, everyone knows what NASA should do. And I mean everyone. And does everyone agree? They do not.
Me, I think one of the best things NASA does is look back at our beautiful Earth, a most lovely planet. So I'm not upset by the proposed budget.
It is interesting, though, to hear some one like Pete Olsen tie himself in knots explaining why corporations will likely not be able to transport people to the space station the way NASA does.
Suddenly, government agency good, private corporation bad. Will he lose his credentials as a government hating Republican?
I hope he's not shocked to find out that NASA has been planning with several possible space transport companies for years.
Several years ago, I participated in a program designed to help kids think about going to Mars, what it might be like, what kinds of obstacles had to be overcome, etc.
I heard so many ideas that struck me as so very clever: send little fuel factories to Mars before the astronauts get there so that they wouldn't have to launch from Earth with enough fuel for a two-way trip. Instead, they could fill 'er up on Mars to come back home.
How about edible plants that grow under LEDs instead of full-spectrum sunlight? And maybe a fuel tank that wraps around the vehicle to help provide the crew from the sun's radiation?
Long-term space travel would not be easy on the human body. Anthropologically, our bodies grew up with gravity. Without it for extended periods, there are negative effects on the skeleton and the endocrine system, for starters.
As you can see, though, NASA has captured my imagination in the way it has many others.
I'm glad I worked there.
We are in DESPERATE TIMES. And things call for DESPERATE MEASURES.
We don't have time for "politics as usual." That is NOT what most of us elected Obama to do. He was supposed to "shakle things up". "Change we can count on" I think. But all we have gotten is more of the same.
I'm about fed up. As far as NASA is concerned, in the tightening of OUR belt, I think that is one of the first places we should start. I think Obama's budget is EXTREMELY FAIR TO NASA.
Obama talked a good game in his SOTU. If he doesn't get started pretty darn soon on following up, he's gonna be a one term president.
Scott,
I was having a conversation with a co-worker this morning on my very 'positive' spin on this particular move.
In a clear political climate given the realities of our economic state Obama would gladly throw money at the problem. The noers have been screaming about cutting spending so as what I believe is an 'object lesson' Obama has thrown the American Space Program at them. I still believe that in the back of the Prez's mind he doesn't believe that Congress will allow the hamstringing of one of the flagships of American science and technology.
On the other hand, I don't believe his feelings would be hurt to see the emphasis of short term goals such as the 'moon' missions put on hold in favor of an emphasis on science that has more immediate practical results. Immediate is as they use to say on the "Match Game" is the operative word. New energy, climate studies, biological science, etc. may, in fact, be more worthy goals.
I still believe that mankind's destiny, even survival, requires travel to the cosmos.