Sigh.
NASA has an impossible task: continue the Shuttle, finish the space station, start designing and building an entirely new class of rocket, and get us to the Moon.
And oh– they can’t spend any extra money doing all this. The budget is flat.
Then Columbia disintegrated, throwing everything out the window. Delays were inevitable, and it took about two years to get the Shuttle back to flight status… which meant more money.
This didn’t go unnoticed. Senator Mikulski (D-MD) and several co-sponsors (including my own Rep, Ken Salazar (D-CO)) from both sides of the aisle proposed adding a billion bucks to NASA’s budget as an emergency fund to help reimburse costs of getting the Shuttle back to flight readiness. Mikulski is a long-time friend of NASA, not least because she has two major space-based centers in her state (Goddard, part of NASA, and the Space Telescope Science Institute). The amendment passed yesterday (Tom Coburn (R-OK) spoke against it… but I have a feeling I would disagree with him on just about everything he stands for — he is incredibly antiscience), which is the good news.
However, NASA may never see the money. This added funding is part of a larger package, and Bush has already said he’ll veto it, because — set your irony gland for hyperdrive — it costs too much. I guess he’s against socialized help even for government projects.
Anyway, we’ll see how this mess resolves soon enough. There is a similar bill in the House right now, and the two halves of Congress have to hammer out an agreement, merging the two bills, before it goes to The Deciderer to veto. It’s possible the veto could be overruled, as this budget appears to have broad bipartisan support. Small-minded politics plays a huge role here: Democrats will likely vote to override the veto, and Republicans who are up for re-election next year might as well because Bush’s rating are in the toilet (and since he vetoed SCHIP they are likely to plummet further; the American public is overwhelmingly in favor of giving children health care) and they need to distance themselves somewhat from him.
I hate hate hate that our future rides on the back of such petty garbage (not to mention the lies and spin), but as they say, Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other kinds.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:21 am
All we need is a provision to allocate some funding for Iraq(n) and it will survive a veto readily.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Y’know, after thinking about this, I realized this may sound a little unfair. I should note specifically that Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) was a major co-sponsor as well.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am
I need to convince all my in-laws in Oklahoma to vote Coburn right out of office when his term is up. I feel a political conversation coming up. This would normally be bad, but because of your website, I feel more confident I can hold my own. Thanks for all the good info little bro.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Vote Coburn out of office?! The anti-earmark crusader? If you wanted to pick on the one guy who stands against everything that is awful in our corrupt budgeting process, then good job.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Has bush said he would veto it? I know he was big on the whole “return to the moon” and the new space initiative.
Although if he did veto it, I’m not sure that I could even disagree with him *that* much. Basically it would be saying “Look, we have no money for NASA because I went and fubared the middle east and we’re pouring all we have into that.” That would actually be a reasonable statement.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
I heart Mikulski. She’s my favorite Senator, and not just because she helped me out that one time with the thing.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Because science is such an important aspect towards our progress in technology and the future, why don’t we require our so called representatives in government to pass a simple high school science exam. It’s hard to imagine that our government is run by people who’s knowledge in science is so limited.
The future of our nation is dependent on forward thinking and rational thought. Unfortunately, even when the currents of political gains favor science, it’s ultimately a game of power politics. At the moment, Congress is trying to distance itself from Bush, and hence, seek re-election, and seem like they stand their ground, when for years, they’ve been sheep following the trend, and waiting for the political changes in their favor. When we’re faced with obstacles that can endanger the future of our nation, we can’t play these stupid political games. I challenge congress to set aside their political games, and start thinking rationally (without input from special interests).
October 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Some background on Coburn:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5318
October 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Helio - I’m down with that. As soon as we pass a military service requirement.
Actually, at this point, I’d settle for a “Not previously a member of the Klu Klux Klan” requirement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Participation_in_the_Ku_Klux_Klan
October 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Not only did Bush talk about returning to the moon, but wasn’t there talk of trying to get a man to Mars (or something along those lines) at some point? Not that I think anyone expected anything to come of that, but I’m generally a fan of not promising something if you’re not prepared at least to try to look like you’re making a vague attempt.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
I have a decent senator, Dick Durbin. I’m not sure what the other one has done other than run for president while getting paid to be a senator. I watch C-Span a lot but have never seen him speak. My representative (Peter Roskam) is a total loser, he campaigned on gay marriage and flag burning which barely squeaked him in, unless there was some Diebolding going on. He would have been happy in that Roman orgy that was the previous Congress. I don’t see him supporting NASA.
Yeah, it’s long past time to start pushing back against the scourge that has been going on in this country since 1992. I remember watching something on NASA-TV where a director of some sort was wondering if it was possible to get the presidunce to get behind a space race with the Chinese and couldn’t help but laugh at how dumb of an idea that was. Bush is no Martin van Buren, let alone a JFK. He isn’t a real conservative, he’s a Fox News conservative. Too many people have bought into that brand (cult?) but he has no excuse. There are smart, qualified, experienced people who are paid to give him advice and he seems to always ignore it in favor of repeating Fox talking points. He needs to turn off the tv and go to some meetings! He also always seems to have to be confrontational about everything. Maybe if it looks like the Chinese may be getting the upper hand at something other than lending us money he may feel like his manhood is threatened enough to not veto this. There needs to be a media blitz about the Chinese space program, nothing official but constant without backing down.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I had Rick Santorum for a Sanator (whom I dislike - he’s since been voted out), but when I sent him a letter asking him to support the Pluto Mission I got a letter saying he supported it (And it happened!).
I still don’t like him though.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Darn, I just realized how many typos I had on my post. Especially those floating apostrophes that pop up every now and then. Still John’s correct. There should be some basic requirements in Congress but ultimately, it’s these special interests groups that really effect policy. The only special interest that should effect policy is the well being of the American people, the progress of science, and the actual constitution.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I understand the idea of a test is tongue-in-cheek, but the fact is most of these people are already college educated. Not to mention that “The Decider-in-Chief” went to Yale. He had to pass at least a few science classes. Besides, if they had it their way, the test would be based on creation “science”.
No, instead how about we get more Americans to pass their science tests? Then maybe we wouldn’t have these idiots in office in the first place.
Do we have the money? I’m sure we do. We seem to have all sorts of money for faith-based initiatives, abstinence education, and flubbing wars. Hell, I’d rather have spent that money on making sure John Edwards gets free haircuts for the rest of his life.
October 5th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Well, if we tell Bush that we can use the extra billion to drop nukes out of the payload bay, maybe it’ll get past.
You know, just a week or so ago Robert Gates, Bush’s Secretary of Defense, asked for another $190 billion. There are a few important bits in that statement: The fact that it is billion, not million, and the fact that it is ANOTHER $190 billion. Now let’s see if Bush vetos THAT for “costing too much.”
October 5th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I take the long view. We have the ESA and China (and India and Japan) to continue the human race’s exploration of space. If the US wishes to go the way of Spain and Portugal in the 16th-century, let them. My ego isn’t tied to the happenstance of where I was born.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Does Bush do this stuff intentially just to make people mad at him?
October 5th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
I think are a bit confused here. Bush stated that he would veto the bill *before* the NASA funding was added. So his decision to veto at that point had nothing to do with NASA. Why are you trying to mislead people?
If the larger bill is mostly pork, why shouldn’t he veto it? (I can’t find info on the larger bill)
October 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Found a more descriptive article. It seems that the NASA and the White House mutually agreed on 17.3 billion, but the senate put 18.3 billion in the budget. (along with whatever else is in there).
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/10/senate-wants-1-.html
October 5th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
I think Ibrahim has it right. The people put these guys in office and the people set the agenda in general. If the people were more educated on these topics, they’d be outraged at the way this administration has treated NASA and scientists in general.
Give us civics classes, better science education in the classroom, less acceptance of nonsense like ID (convince the pastors if you have to - show them that evolution is compatible with religion), and more logic (instead of letting people get out of high school with minor understanding of basic algebra maybe higher level math could help with logic).
Don’t stop in the classrooms either. Get factual information on TV. Much as I hate to see the government mandate anything, the 24 hour news networks repeat stories constantly. There isn’t even enough variety to get you through about 15 minutes without seeing the same story twice. Maybe the government could mandate that every 30 minutes of news of the network’s choice has to contain 5 minutes of technology and science from an independent agency (to try to prevent anyone from saying the white house has to ok what particular science information ends up in that segment).
Fact is, people use science and technology every day but not many people care how or why or what effort went into it. When even the USDA has commercials and ads everywhere about milk why don’t we see more information about what NASA is doing for us? Or the latest research from US biologists or physicists or astronomers? It’s all relegated to specialty magazines and websites or a small article in a major newspaper.
October 5th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Phil: Kay Bailey is my senator and I can tell you she only has Republican before her name because there is a perception that you cannot get elected in Texas without that moniker.
She is not hard line conservative though. She is about as middle of the road as one can get. If I had to give her a label, I would probably call her somewhat of a libertarian honestly.
I still don’t vote for her, though. I prefer less middle of the road candidates and more far left ones:-p
October 5th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Russ, I said that Bush was vetoing the “much larger package” which in fact is a budget for many groups, not just NASA. I can see how what I wrote might be misinterpreted as having Bush vetoing this because of NASA — it looks like a commenter or two did — but that’s not really what I wrote, and I didn’t intend it that way.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I’m surprised NASA hasn’t figured out the “We need a billion dollars to probe the heavens, looking for God” angle. Silly, but it might slide by the Shrub administration.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I have a sinking feeling, the way the US is going right now, that either another country (ie. China, Russia, Japan) will probably make it to the moon and/or Mars before we do. It seems that, sadly, much of the US has lost interest in space exploration. If NASA is going to survive the next decade or two, it’s going to need a lot more funding than it’s currently getting (I think that goes without saying).
October 6th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Here’s how it was explained to me:
“I don’t think, like, we should spend billions on, like what, another thing that only sends, like one guy to the moon, that isn’t real science.”
And that’s a Junior here at A&M, I’m ashamed to be from this school sometimes.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Come to us with 3 solutions. Not 3 problems.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:53 am
I wonder where New Earth is in Galaxy M87.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Whoops, wrong post >_>
October 6th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Two words: bake sale.
October 6th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Helioprogenuson said on 05 Oct 2007 at 12:56 pm :
“Because science is such an important aspect towards our progress in technology and the future, why don’t we require our so called representatives in government to pass a simple high school science exam. It’s hard to imagine that our government is run by people who’s knowledge in science is so limited.”
True - and not just in science either.
As someone else has already pointed out it shouldn’t just be thegoverbnment but all voters too -befroe youcan vote you should be madetopass abasic knowledge test for science, geography and history -not only would Mad Presiking George II NOT be elected to Congress he wouldn’t even be able to vote - not I think would most Republicans -esp. if thefollowing three questions are manadatory to get right :
1) Is there “intellgent Design” a.k.a. ‘Creationism’ Science?
2) Is Evolution well-supported by real scientific evidence and at least as correct as gravity?
3) Is the world flat?
Hmmn.. there be next to no-one voting from the Bible belt or Deep South!
Maybe that whole region could be covered by one congressman and labelled “Christanistan” until they learnt better …? (Or learnt something!) 
Just imagine how much better off we’d all be if Congress & the Presidunce said to the Generals & raving loons of the pro-Isreali, anti-rest-of-the-world Neocon lobby : “Sorry, we can’t afford to waste moneyconmtinuing our occupation of Iraq, Israel’s occupation of Palestine or fund any new illegal invasionsof Iran, we’;ve got to spend the money funding NASA instead!”
If only …
October 6th, 2007 at 4:55 am
[Typos correction (if only I could edit …) from above.]
Just imagine how much better off we’d all be if Congress & the Presidunce said to the Generals & raving loons of the pro-Isreali, anti-rest-of-the-world Neocon lobby :
“Sorry, we can’t afford to waste money continuing our occupation of Iraq, Israel’s occupation of Palestine or fund any new illegal invasions of Iran, we’ve got to spend the money funding NASA instead!â€
If only …
October 6th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Why don’t some genuine working scientists run for
office? Maybe with several in high places, scientific
work could be done.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
John said:
> Vote Coburn out of office?! The anti-earmark crusader? If you wanted to pick on the one guy who stands against everything that is awful in our corrupt budgeting process, then good job.
Hmm, interesting conundrum. He’s the chief (only?) proponent fighting earmarks and pork projects in any visible manner, yet he also supports other projects such as limiting abortions, injecting ID into schools, etc. So do you vote him out for his views on those other topics, or keep him in to fight for government accountability and fiscal responsibility, then trust the balance of Congress to offset him on the other issues?
Russ said:
> If the larger bill is mostly pork, why shouldn’t he veto it? (I can’t find info on the larger bill)
I haven’t seen specifics of the actual larger bill, but the issue does not seem to be over pork. Rather, Bush has decreed that he is the only one being financially responsible, so any variation from the budget he requested is irresponsible. Congress is saying that Bush has underfunded some projects in his budget, and they are fighting to give adequate funding for those projects. Included is NASA, especially money for Shuttle return to flight and CEV.
sil said:
> Phil: Kay Bailey is my senator and I can tell you she only has Republican before her name because there is a perception that you cannot get elected in Texas without that moniker.
> She is not hard line conservative though. She is about as middle of the road as one can get. If I had to give her a label, I would probably call her somewhat of a libertarian honestly.
I wouldn’t call her middle of the road, though she is a moderate conservative, not a reactionary. Still, there have been any number of items that she was in the opposite camp from me. Just about anything but NASA if I write her a letter with my position, she advocates the opposite. However, JSC is in her district, so she knows where her bread is buttered.
October 6th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
I don’t know if you should get too frustrated right now, but it’s worth tracking; there aren’t many battles that can be won against the President right now, it seems, but I think this just might be one of them. The bill seems to have pretty wide support from most of the Senate.
October 6th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Stevor, I absolutely agree with you. When I initially commented about Congress having to pass a test, it was partially in jest, only because we know that they couldn’t. As for the American public, passing a simple science, geography, and cultural exam would allow for more informed decision making. However, that will never happen, and so, we must continue to bash our heads against the wall of irrationality.
The fact that we’re pouring money down the drain into this Iraq fiasco, as well as unilaterally supporting Israel’s right to oppress Palestinians, goad neighboring countries into war, and blocking criticism of failed policies, leads us into an ever greater chasm which will take generations to undo. The decisions made at the highest levels are questionable at best and absolutely irrational most of the time.
Some Solutions:
1) Institute a board of scientists from various fields to lead our national policies.
2) Prevent special intersts from interfering in decision making
3) Implement a new government office called the Accountability office.
4) Allow a transparent government, without backdoor dealings we’re so used to
5) Make it easier to remove members of Congress who commit crimes and serial mistakes (such as voting to allow for war)
6) End the 2 party political system
7) Incrementally increase funding for NASA and science initiatives
No public policies should be based on religion or religious belief
9) Cooperate with world economies and open diplomatic channels with all countries (even so called “axis of evil” states)
10) Pour more money into Research and Development
October 6th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
End the 2 party political system
If people in the US really wanted to end the 2-party political system, realistic 3rd/4th/nth parties would have formed long ago.
Yes, there are barriers to getting such parties off the ground, but mostly it takes the will of the people - something that is lacking in the USA.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
@EvolvingSquid:
It would appear that if Guliani becomes the Republican candidate, the religious right has threatened to form their own party, even if it means a loss to Democrats.
I have my fingers crossed. I honestly hope this happens.
http://tinyurl.com/2lv8fk
October 7th, 2007 at 9:45 am
sil said, “I prefer less middle of the road candidates and more far left ones:-p”
Then you are part of the problem. Another ideological fool operating on a zero level of intellect.
The *moment* you state something like “I favor ideology type Z”, you have abandoned reason and critical thought. Instead of trying to find a solution to a problem, you will start trying to force a solution into a preset ideological architecture.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:15 am
>>>1) Institute a board of scientists from
>>>various fields to lead our national policies.
Which national policies? That’s important, because as an aerospace engineer, I work with a lot of scientists, and while I respect their scientific knowledge, some of their political views make me want to run screaming into the hills.
If any of them got in power, I would *personally* lead the rebel insurrection that took them down.
>>>2) Prevent special intersts from interfering
>>>in decision making
Isn’t everything a special interest? Sorry, but in my experience, when someone says “special interest” what they are really saying is “anyone who disagrees with what I want”.
>>>3) Implement a new government office
>>>called the Accountability office.
We could call it the GAO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAO
Der!
When will you people ever, EVER, ***EVER*** learn that more bureaucracy never solved anything? When? 2010? 2100? 51,812? When the sun bloats up to devour the Earth?
>>>4) Allow a transparent government,
>>>without backdoor dealings we’re so used to
Impossible. Are you going to monitor every lunch meeting? Every hallyway conversation? How do you do that without placing GPS trackers on every politician?
Hmm.. actually…
>>>5) Make it easier to remove members
>>>of Congress who commit crimes and serial
>>>mistakes (such as voting to allow for war)
Which wars? It also sounds like you want to allow for legal votes (voting for war IS a part of our system) to be retroactively criminalized. That’s right up there with the feminist who wanted to allow women to charge rape even after consentual sex.
>>>6) End the 2 party political system
Ha ha ha! Good luck with that one.
I’d favor a Science Party, but, as I implied back in #1, I’d want some non-scientist advisors as well. The economist who wrote “Freakonomics” would get the first job offer.
>>>7) Incrementally increase funding for NASA
>>>and science initiatives
OK, but there are those who would like to see $$$ spent elsewhere. Oh, wait, they’re “special interests”.
>>>No public policies should be based on religion
>>>or religious belief
Without mind control, how do you make sure every politicians motives are religion free?
And how do you do this when, just today, Obama said every aspect of his life is faith based as a way to GAIN votes?
>>>9) Cooperate with world economies and
>>>open diplomatic channels with all countries
>>>(even so called “axis of evil†states)
Fine, as long as we keep the proveerbial Big Stick well polished and oiled.
The biggest mistake you can make in the geopolitical arena is to trust someone.
Remember, most of the countries that pick on the USA are vast hypocrites standing in the shattered ruins of their glass houses.
>>>10) Pour more money into Research and
>>>Development
Of what? I’m sure some older voters out there would put a priority on a working, over-the-counter version of Viagra.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:31 am
>>> I have a sinking feeling, the way the US is going
>>> right now, that either another country (ie. China,
>>> Russia, Japan) will probably make it to the moon
>>> and/or Mars before we do.
As a red blooded, gun owning, patriotic American, let me say… good for them. See if they can give the rovers an overhaul while they are there.
The moon missions were a BOONDOGGLE that burned out the space program. If we had follow Von Braun’s bold but logical and incremental vision, we’d already have a moon base by now.
http://home.flash.net/~aajiv/bd/colliers.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Will_Conquer_Space_Soon%21
These days, I’m much more interested in nurturing the private space efforts. There’s PROFIT(!) to be made in orbit, and that will do more to drive efforts than any misguided and fickle sense of national pride.
I know some of you think profit and free enterprise are evil and anathema to your fluffy bunny world vision, but you know what? You’re a pack of bloody fools whose time has passed. Have fun playing on the scrap heap of history, and I’ll send a postcard from L5.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Applying nationalism (”MY country MUST get there first! Or else why make the effort…”) to scientific or exploratory work in space has only slowed down the effort, and caused us to follow many “cheaper, faster” methods that have returned minimal results. The Space Transportation System (Shuttle) is an excellent example, as are “off the shelf” projects like Sojourner.
In 1969 (I was seven years old) our heads were filled with Apollo and WHAT MAY COME…I personally was confident that manned missions to Mars would take place before the end of the 20th century. Now, working hard on forty years later, we have actually imprisoned ourselves within a relatively small shell of manned space activity–only a few hundred kilometers above the surface of Earth! Our “International Space Station” is an orbital joke–perhaps the biggest white elephant in history, our operational space fleet is dwindling fast, and NASA touts fifty-year old concepts as if they were new, advanced thinking, which only displays to the world at large that we really have lost the initiative in space exploration. Grandiose projects are proposed by the Administration, which them utterly fails to fund them, again demonstrating our lack of resolve.
This month is the anniversay of the beginning of practical space flight–for fifty years we have lingered at the threshold of the Universe, either too frightened or too small-minded to make the vital long-term investment in capital and effort required to begin a real, sustained expansion into space. NOT a “Space Race”, NOT a political grand-stand, but a real Age of Exploration which could change human perceptions–and humanity itself–forever.
I once thought I’d see man/woman on Mars before I was forty years old…NOW I despair of seeing it in my natural span of years. And that is the saddest thing I can say for the Human spirit of adventure.
October 7th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Knowledge is profit, QD…
October 7th, 2007 at 10:58 am
We have a saying here in NZ…”It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need, and the military has to run a grocery raffle to buy a new tank.”
Sounds like it applies to your country, too. Sorry to hear that.
October 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Crux - we have that saying here, too. And it is just as idiotic up here as down there.
October 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
>>> Knowledge is profit, QD…
No, knowledge is patents. Patents are profit. Trust me. I work in R&D and have nine patents and, as a result, an employer who worships the ground upon which I walk.
When I update my resume our local VPs start popping Zoloft.
>>> It will be a great day when schools get all the
>>> money they need,
Our schools DO generally get all the money they need. It just gets eaten up before most of it actually reaches the classroom.
But, oh, do please just throw more money at the problem. That solution does have such a *wonderful* track record. (rolls eyes)
People NEVER learn, do they? Never! No wonder everyone I know is retiring overseas. How many bloated government boondoggles does one need to experience in life before the neurons begin to realize there might be a better way? Ten? Fifty? A billion?
>>> and the military has to run a
>>> grocery raffle to buy a new tank.â€
Yup. It’s just a happy, fluffy bunny world. Your kids will be educated (or not, actually), but they’ll be subjugated by someone or other with an ideology or theology or some other -ology to feed.
Scientology? Gasp!
October 7th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
While I hope this funding initiative passes, and I hate the religious overtones to every decision made in Washington these days, I’d have to say that war spending is actually driving some pretty important technological breakthroughs.
I can’t say specifically anything that I’ve seen, but my job has sustained a large amount of government work over the past 5-6 years, and the innovations are constant. So, for what it’s worth, some of the Iraq money does go to improving communications, aiding urban warfare, and creating new, non-lethal military weapons. It’s not all just spent bullets and depleted uranium shells lying around the desert.
October 7th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I see Quiet Desperation took the time and effort to find a weakness with every one of the salient solutions that I had to offer. Well, the truth is, although there is much to disagree with, what would you do to solve the problems. It’s easy to sit back and play arm chair critic, but another to try to think up things out of this mess. I’m not idealogical enough to think any of the solutions I came up with will ever be implemented, even though more then a few would definitely benefit us.
Further, I do believe that cooperation in the science, and the research and development spheres in a global scale is important. Yet, we need enough competition between various countries to allow for independent thought and fresh new ideas. I’m not an isolationist, but the political strategy that the Neo-cons have been implementing are completely irrational.
My hope, when listing all my solutions was to get the ball rolling, and have more ideas brought forth. Few picked up on that, and open criticism, although beneficial, is useless without some constructive input.
October 7th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
>>> I see Quiet Desperation took the time and
>>> effort to find a weakness with every one of
>>> the salient solutions that I had to offer.
I’m on travel for work, and there is NOTHING to do on the weekends (or after work) where I am. Can’t tell you where. Very hush hush.
Not really, but it makes me seem more mysterious than I am.
Besides, it didn’t take long.
Oh! Pow! (rimshot) I’ll be here all week folks. Literally. *sigh*
I tease.
>>> Well, the truth is, although there is much to
>>> disagree with, what would you do to solve the
>>> problems.
Now that amount of time I don’t have, even here in the middle of nowhere.
Suffice to say, I *can’t* list generic solutions because I am not an ideologue. You might even call me an anti-ideologue. Every situation requires independent and critical thinking to solve. I abhor the “one theory fits all” approach most people take.
Take education: different cultural bases across the country may require different solutions. You may even need to divide students into different groups (based on some sort of testing, perhaps) for a while before reintegrating at a later time once you get things going a little more smoothly and successfully across the board.
Or maybe you don’t have to do that at all. It’s for people more qualified than me to study and analyze. You see, I’m not arrogant or egotistical enough to claim I have a ready sound bite answer, and that seems to drive some folks into a lather for some reason.
What I get from the Republicans is lip service to some ill defined idea of school vouchers, and from the Democrats I get more of the same old same old throw more money at it.
Where’s the creative problem solving? Can we take a scientific approach to the social issues of the day? Can we remove ideology and politics from the morass and reach something that actually works? I dunno.
This is why I hate political parties, or politicians who claim to have all the answers. Whenever a maverick arises in either Party (someone who dares suggest that the platform planks don’t work in every situation) they get banished.
I try those web sites that ask a series of questions and match you to one of the current candidates. I can’t finish them because in most cases I can’t pick just one (or any) of the selections. They require belief in absolutes, and such things don’t exist in HUMAN nature as they might in hard science.
The optimal solution for something may be totally socialistic in one case, something to make the ghost of Ayn Rand smile in another and in the other cases, as Monty Python said, something completely different. There is no one magic bullet solution to anything, and the willful ignorance of that fact by the majority of people is what makes the world such a broken place.
I think I’d be happy if we could just stop trying solutions that are proven not to work (*cough*drugwar*cough*) once in a while.
Typically, when I explain this about myself, the general response is to pick on my typos.
October 7th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
There is something bigger than NASA’s budget going on–
The following are quotes from an AP story on the funding bill:
“The funding was added to a $56 billion measure funding science programs and the departments of Commerce and Justice for the fiscal year that began Monday. . . . The White House had already vowed to veto the underlying spending bill because it exceeded his budget request for the agencies covered under the legislation, one of 12 spending bills funding the agency budgets that Congress passes each year. . . The bill already contained $17.5 billion for NASA, a 7 percent increase over 2007 funding. . . . The underlying measure is popular with lawmakers in both parties for funding anti-crime programs, including restoring almost $1.5 billion that Bush sought to cut from popular grant programs for state and local police. . . . Bush wanted to virtually eliminate funding for Community Oriented Policing Services grants that pay for police salaries, overtime and new equipment.”
NASA is only part of the story. If Bush Vetos the bill, then he upsets the pro-science voters, and the law-and-order voters, and their reps in Congress on both sides of the aisle. This looks like the beginnings of a power struggle. The House and Senate are no longer rubber stamps for Dubya–and they were: Six years in office before he ever Vetoed a bill. Now it seems some of our elected reps don’t want to march lockstep off to Valhalla with their fearless leader.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:42 am
>>>Small-minded politics plays a huge role here
That’s how we got to the Moon in the first place though yep?
But yes, Mena is dead right. In fact I really do believe that the one sure way to line up extra funding is to chant the ‘China will get there first’ mantra until sufficient numbers of ‘America First’ types take it on board. Sure it’s slack-jawed. Sure it’d be downwardly dumbing, pandering to the sensibilities? of nationalist knuckle draggers, but we’re the nerds right? What do we care if we have to manipulate the droolers into action? Once this critical mass is achieved it’ll be “Why aren’t we there (Moon, Mars) already”? Result!
As a spin-off, there’ll be less funding for ‘killing people from somewhere hot’.
Bob
October 8th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Even though I am in the business of sucking up government money for science and engineering projects I abhor there almost total monopoly on research.
If science and engineering was privately funded there would be little politics involved because there would be many sources.
Not to mention the almost total incompetence of the bureaucrats that run the programs.
Put Tom Hanks in charge of NASA because he is VERY passionate about space and he has the personality to push it.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Please, Coburn is not anti-science, he’s anti-government waste.
If you’d consulted the Library of Congress and read his remarks, they state:
…
I wished to spend a few minutes talking about the bill overall. I think even though the chairwoman and ranking member have done a great job with the bill in terms of priorities, I am concerned at the overall spending level, and I think the administration probably will be too. Inflation, last year, was less than 3 percent. In title I, the Commerce portion of the bill, it grows by 13.88 percent, which is 4 1/2 times the rate of inflation. In title II, the Justice portion, it grows 6.1 percent, which is over two times the rate of inflation. In title III of the bill, in the Science portion, it grows by 8.1 percent over last year’s actual appropriation, which is almost three times what the rate of inflation was.
…
So, please don’t complain about your taxes when the Democrat party wins the Presidency and increases your tax burden to pay for NASA.
How I wonder what would have happened in the world had Heinlein been right and space exploration was a commercial venture instead of controlled by the government.
October 11th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Hmmn .. Lets look at the results.
Public enterporise - Communist even not just socialist - launched the first satellite 50 years ago, put the first men & women into orbit, landed the first men on the moon, put the first space station up, launcged and stillruns the first re-usable spacecraft -ie. the space shuttle & Russia’s ‘Buran’ equivalent, still launches satelites and people into space, has sent spaceprobes toNe[tuen and beyond, has landed robot probes & rovers on Mars, Venus, Titan, our Moon & asteroid (catalogue numbers)Eros.
Vs Private enterprise - a couple of sub-orbital flights a few brief years ago …
Good on Burt Rutan & all but I think Public - Government - enterprise has “the right stuff” whereas profiteering “free” enterprise yet at least has still got a very, very looo-ooong way to go …
The bloke I’d like to see run NASA (& his Mars programmre) tho’?
Robert Zubrin.
Helioprogenus thanks for your post of 06 Oct 2007 at 2:41 pm I concur .. If only we (or people who represent our views) got to run things eh.. ?
October 11th, 2007 at 1:22 am
To clear up any confusrion on the track record cause the first para. could be misread (&, oh, those expletives typos!) :
Let’s look at the results :
Public enterporise
1) - Communist even not just socialist - launched the first satellite 50 years ago &
2) put the first men & women into orbit,
3) Plus put the first space station (Salyut then later Mir & with others the ISS) up,
4) US public enterprise landed the first men on our Moon, launched and still runs the first re-usable spacecraft - ie. the space shuttle (& there’s also Russia’s ‘Buran’ equivalent),
5) , has sent robot spaceprobes to Neptune and beyond, incl.
i) fly-past’s all the classical planets - Mercury, Venus (many incl. Russia’s ‘Venera’ Landers), Mars (numerous orbiters and fly-by’s plus landesr & rovers), Jupiter (both Pioneers , Voyagers & Galileo), Saturn (pioneers Voyagers & Cassini), Uranus & Neptune. (Voyager II)
ii) has landed robot probes & rovers on Mars, Venus, Titan, our Moon & asteroid (catalogue numbers) Eros. (NEAR-Shoemaker mission)
&
6) still launches satelites and people into space. (Incl. paying tourists.)
versus Private enterprise :
1) just a couple of sub-orbital flights a few brief years ago …
Good on Burt Rutan & all but I think Public -government funded - space exploration is, thus far, a very clear winner & the track record speaks for itself ..
When private enterprise has achieved points 2 to 4 above then (& only then) can they really talk!
October 11th, 2007 at 1:49 am
If America learnt to just leave other nations in peace there’d be no NEED for such a massive military arsenal and the “overkill’ capacity to wipe out all life on Erath many thousands of times over.
And for all the technological military marvels, all the billions spent on stealth bombers and tens of thousands of H-bombs capable of vapourising all the major cities on the planet if people really x, really x really hate you for being a global bully then they’ll find ways to attack and hurt you with whatever little they do - have even knives and their own living bodies.
The events of September 11th 2001 should have been taken to heart as a key example of this - of why military spending and power does NOT & cannot bring you security.
Ultimately, the best way to end “terrorism” (other peoples as well as your own “shock & awe” & Guantanamo Bay / Abu Ghraib variant) is to admit the error of trying for arrogant, ignorant “full spectrum dominance” - ie. every counry on the planet being intimidated into doing what you want - and start acting co-operatively as a good global citizen to make everyone’s life better.
That’s not “fluffy bunny” but common sense. Its also common sense to know the limitations of brute force and the advantages of “soft power” duiplomacy.
Among the many multifold advantages of the latter course is no needless wars & money to spare for what’s really important - space exploratuion and scientific research!
————————————————
Sir Lancelot : Hail King Arthur, I’m back triumphant from raping and pillaging your enemies in the South!
King Arthur : Lancelot you moron! I told you to rape & pillage my enemies in the North not the South! I don’t _have_ any enemies in the South!
Sir Lancelot : You do now, Sire!