Obama kills NASA

This is so unbelievable it’s surreal.  It’s so crazy that even people like Phil Platt were in denial.  As of two days ago, when people started saying NASA was being raped, he had this to offer:

OK, yes, it does look like (assuming the rumors are true) the Obama budget for NASA is cutting out the Constellation rocket program in general and Ares in particular. But that doesn’t mean manned spaceflight is dead.

As I said in that above link, private space companies are still a ways off from putting people in orbit. However, I strongly suspect they’ll be doing it before Ares would’ve been ready to do it anyway. Private companies like Space X may be two years from that, while Ares wouldn’t have been ready for five, assuming NASA could even get Ares ready by the scheduled time and in the assigned budget (which I would give a chance of, oh, say, precisely 0). So it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that after the Shuttle retires later this year (or early next) companies like Space X will be able to reach the International Space Station with rockets before NASA could.

Clue here Phil, private companies are two years away from REACHING ORBIT.  We’re not talking heavy lifters here, we’re talking cruises taking up to six people into space for fifteen freaking minutes.  You remember when NASA was at that point?  Yeah, 1962.  Well, ignore the damned rumors, here it is in black and white:

Proposed NASA cuts

Proposed NASA cuts

Yeah, I know that’s kinda small.  In particular, I think all a person really needs to read is:

In place of Constellation, the President’s Budget funds a redesigned and reinvigorated program that focuses on leveraging advanced technology, international partnerships, and commercial capabilities to set the stage for a revitalized human space flight program for the 21st Century. The President’s Budget will also increase NASA’s funding, accelerating work — constrained for years due to the budget demands of Constellation — on climate science, green aviation, science education, and other priorities.

That’s right folks.  Our National Aeronautics and Space Administration is now dedicated to studying climate science, green aviation, science education, and whatever Obama feels like.

Now, people like Phil Platt think it’s kinda good that NASA’s budget’s being increased.  And he thinks it’s kinda good that we focus on the private sector.  The question I have, is, given he’s an astronomer, what’s he going to think when Hubble or Chandra blows a fifty cent fuse and shuts down?  We’re not going to have a bus to take spare parts up there any more.

hubble 

Exactly how is Space-X, which has never even reached orbit, going to grab onto that thing, stop it, fix it, and place it back in orbit?

Clue here, it ain’t gonna happen in the next decade or two.  With Obama spending all of NASA’s resources trying to prove IOCC’s lies aren’t really lies, Hubble will die.  Chandra will die.  Spitzer will die.  Tell me how they won’t?  If we’re just going to let our space stuff die, what’s the point in wasting all our money funding astronomers all over the country?  It’s rather useless now.  Astronomers don’t seem to see a connection to killing off telescopes and astronomy research, I do.

Obama wants to continue the ISS.  What for?  If we’re not going to travel in space, then why bother learning how to live in space?  How are we going to get major modules to the ISS?  Sure, rockets will do the trick, but it seems rather wasteful to expand ISS at this point since there’s really no research they can do and extended stays in space now serve no purpose whatsoever.  And, it would seem to me that if we had a reliable heavy lifter, men could go into space rather easily.

In the meantime, NASA will get an additional $6 BILLION.  Let me clarify that.  On top of cutting manned space flight because it was under-funded, as it states in that report, NASA is getting an ADDITIONAL $6 BILLION to do climate research that is already being done by NOAA.  That stands for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  Those are the people that study, get this, our atmosphere and oceans.  In a more generic sense, they study climate change.  Call it climate science if you wish.  If you want, you can subscribe to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Education.  They fund, get this, science education.  Particularly, climate science education.  Guess they weren’t doing a very good job.  Not sure what the point of having two huge federal agencies doing exactly the same thing is.  I mean, NOAA can contract a private rocket company exactly the same as NASA.  That’s Obama economics for ya.  When faced with two agencies doing different things, pay one a lot more than you were paying to have them do exactly the same as the first.

Now, when I was enduring being constantly referred to as a flat-earther a couple of years ago by global warming advocates such as our esteemed astronomer, my concern at the time was that people were taking this hocus pocus way too seriously based on NO supporting evidence.  Obama’s actions here are exactly the worst case scenario.  Real science is being destroyed by Obama’s pursuit of something the IOCC couldn’t prove because to this day there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change has ever existed.  And if it does exist, we’re screwed now for sure.  If this planet dies, we’ll have no escape plan now. 

Now, in a perfect world, Obama would have taken that $6 billion and put it in the private sector for stuff like electric cars, bullet trains, and immediate things that will affect the Earth’s climate.  But, he’s not.  By their own admission, a bunch of that money will go to Russia or China to send our stuff into space to a space station we mostly paid for.  And, watch a Russian or Chinese launch vs a United States launch.  You think they worry about the environment more than we do?

You think I’m pissed?

This is the worst freaking president we’ve ever had.

In one year he screwed Teddy Kennedy by making sure a Republican got his seat.  Now he’s screwing John Kennedy by killing his legacy.

Related Posts

  • August 3, 2010 -- International Space Station loses its ammonia (1)
    NASA said it plans to send astronauts aboard the International Space Station on an emergency spacewalk this week to repair a cooling system that failed Saturday. The space agency added that IS...
  • December 29, 2008 -- The Obama war on science (3)
    I had a pretty good flap with some fairly influential astronomers and the like who fully believed the Republicans were against science and the Democrats were apparently the only ones who supported ...
  • August 10, 2004 -- Hubble Telescope (2)
    NASA Gives OK to Fix Hubble Telescope NASA engineers got the thumbs up on Monday to start planning a robotic mission to rescue the Hubble Space Telescope. Late last week, Hubble's Space Tele...
  • February 12, 2009 -- When orbs collide (5)
    A few years ago I wrote a piece about a piece I read that was concerned about space debris.  They noted that as more stuff went up, without being removed, more stuff would bump into each other and ...
  • March 16, 2009 -- More space junk issues (0)
    Last Thursday was an unexpectedly exciting day aboard the International Space Station.  A piece of space debris so concerned NASA that they ordered the ISS crew into the Soyuz evacuation model.  As...
  • blah

    Its about time. Killing NASA will be the best thing for the future of manned space flight, because it will force a change in the status quo. Why do you think its so hard for private companies to get to space? Its because NASA doesn’t want to lose its purpose for existence and the USAF doesn’t want to lose its high ground. At least this will help with half of that problem. NASA has done some great things, but it sucks as an investment for the American public.

  • http://space.moonagewebdream.com/ Moonage

    Total bs. The reason there is no private manned space flight is because it’s a huge startup cost with very little immediate return on investment. You wouldn’t be posting this garbage if it aren’t for NASA so don’t give me the wasted money argument, right now it’s about the only industry left that hasn’t been stolen overseas. Obama just has no vision at all outside of unionizing social workers.

  • Reality Check

    Now we all know how King Barry intends on funding his trainwreck of a healthcare bill. Cannibalize everything you can……doesn’t make a damn if it jeopardizes national security……….and raise taxes on everything from candy bars to the air we breath. A showcase of pure socialist arrogance and disregard for the consequences. Obama is such a nutjob! He wants us to fall behind to the Russians and the ChiComs. Cutting one red cent from NASA could prove fatal to the World as we know it. What are we going to do when our spy satellites start breaking down and going off line? Ask the Russians for help? "Excuse me Mr. Putin, would you mind if we borrow a Soyuz to take up a new spy satellite……we’re not sure if you’re trying to blow us off the map or not, but we thought you probably wouldn’t mind giving us a lift so we can find out." That’s the mentality of liberals in power. And to hell with these people who think private space ventures is the way of the future. Amateurs with money, egos, and power and nothing else. Leave serious space exploration to the professionals at NASA. I hope the new Congress spends extravagantly on NASA and the new Aries rocket. I have no problem watching my hard earned money spent on space exploration and defense. And the best way to get healthcare killed is to starve it of funding. Unlike liberal polititians, NASA will succeed in it’s endeavors like it always has
    , and continue keeping America on the leading edge of space travel where she belongs.

  • Steve

    Rely on the private sector for space exploration? Are you kidding? The private sector does things for one reason only – profit. If it makes a profit, it will get done, even without NASA. The private sector doesn’t need one penny from NASA, if there is a profit to be made.

    Do you know how you are reading this? The Internet, that’s right. You know who invented it? DARPA, via what was called ARPA-net. That’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. An agency of the US Federal Government, just like NASA is. There was no profit forseen, so it was left to a governmental agency to invent it. For fundamental research, for basic infrastructure that does not give an immediate profit, like moon shots and space stations and space telescopes, you need to rely on a large-scale agency. It needs to have congressional overview, which NASA does, but it’s got to be a governmental agency.

    Telecom? Well, it was obvious that there was a lot of money to be made in telegraphs, telephones, and the like.

    But the mail? Was there profit to be made for first-class mail? Not so sure. So, the government did it. But what about parcel post, or overnight? Ah, there *was* profit to be made, so we had UPS, Fedex, DHL, and the like.

  • http://space.moonagewebdream.com/ Moonage

    Well put Steve. That’s been my running argument the whole time, if not in this post, that the problem with the private sector is exactly as you put it. It will go after the profitable ventures, but the guaranteed unprofitable ventures will never be pursued. Why would they? Although Virgin Galactic may make money shuttling people to the Moon, they’d go bankrupt without any possible chance of profit seeing what’s at the edge of our solar system.

  • Pingback: Orion Telescope Reviews

  • Pingback: Greenland’s Ice melt aka NASA drinks the kool-aid | Moonage Spacedream