Today's Space Policy Reactions

Vision Impaired, Paul Spudis, Air & Space
“I have previously discussed what I perceive as the most significant problem with FP, namely, that it is activity without direction. The administration’s budgetary version of this path confirms this perception. Much verbiage is thrown around about multiple missions to all sorts of destinations, blazing new trails with new technology, trips to Mars that last weeks instead of months, and “people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of firsts.” But nowhere in the budget documents or agency statements is there anything about the mission that we are undertaking. So we’re going to an asteroid. What will we do there? Why are we going there? What benefit accrues from it?”
Plan for NASA lacks vision, editorial, St. Petersbrug Times
“But the 2,000 jobs the administration expects private companies to create in Florida under the plan is far less than the 12,000 NASA and private jobs that Florida’s east coast expects to lose when the shuttle is retired.”
Give NASA Back, The Crimson White
“Most importantly, this achievement of the International Space Station proves, definitively, the existence of the worlds’ potential for cooperation. Nations can peacefully work together towards a common goal–not unlike, say, Obama’s goal of eradicating nuclear weapons. If NASA were to go commercial, as Obama hopes, the country would lose its ownership, and cooperation between multinationals–only concerned with their bottom lines and profits–wouldn’t be nearly as idealistic as the cooperation between nations we have now.”
Abandoning human space flight is shortsighted, Rep. Pete Olson, The Hill
“The administration would like to foster commercial providers with our human space flight capabilities. Commercial participation is a good thing, and something that everyone agrees with, but it’s simply not ready to take humans into space safely, and should not be the sole means for our country’s access to space.”
Space to thrive, The Economist
“Much has been made of the fact that NASA will, as a consequence of Constellation’s cancellation, have to rely on private firms to send its astronauts to the international space station once the space shuttle is withdrawn. In many ways, though, this is the least interesting aspect of what is happening, for what Mr Obama proposed is actually a radical overhaul of the agency.”
One step back for mankind, Financial Times
“That is what makes the debate over Constellation symbolic. The decision to abandon moon exploration has “decline” written all over it. Americans often profess astonishment that the Chinese of 600 years ago failed to take full advantage of their technological superiority. They invented gunpowder and, on the eve of Columbus’s discovery of America, their ocean-going vessels were bigger and more seaworthy than Europe’s.”