NASA Budget Testimony Word Clouds: Bolden Vs Tyson
Keith’s note: NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson both testified before the Senate on NASA’s FY 2013 budget the other day. Simple word clouds reveal starkly different messages. Click on word cloud image to enlarge.
Testimony by NASA Administrator Bolden Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
“Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, today it is my privilege to discuss the President’s FY 2013 budget request for NASA. Our requested budget of $17.7 billion will enable NASA to execute the balanced program of science, space exploration, technology, and aeronautics agreed to by the President and a bipartisan majority of Congress.”
Testimony by Neil deGrasse Tyson Before the Committee on Commerce Science & Transportation
“Currently, NASA’s Mars science exploration budget is being decimated, we are not going back to the Moon, and plans for astronauts to visit Mars are delayed until the 2030s –on funding not yet allocated, overseen by a congress and president to be named later.”
Trying to reduce the relatively tiny NASA budget as an attempt to reduce deficit spending actually increases unemployment and reduces wealth creation in this country. If the President and Congress really cared about the economic and technological future of this country, they’d embrace Tyson’s doubling of the NASA budget with enthusiasm. Unfortunately, most of the lawyers than run this country don’t have the scientific knowledge and foresight to make such a logical investment in this country’s future!
However, these politicians should at least have enough mathematical common sense not to imperil the jobs and vital NASA programs like the SLS and Commercial Crew development by naively thinking that they can significantly reduce a $15 trillion Federal debt with the tiny $678 million reduction in NASA funding that occurred this year and the additional whopping $59 million dollar cut to NASA proposed by the Obama administration next year. It would take over 200 years for these tiny NASA cuts to reduce even one percent of our titanic Federal dept.
So the cuts in the NASA budget are simply symbolic gestures which will have no significant fiscal effect on our deficit spending.
If there is any common sense left in Washington then the President and the Congress should, at minimum, restore the NASA budget back to the 2011 levels ($18.4 billion a year). And if they are truly interested in powerful symbolic cuts in Federal spending then they should cut there own Congressional and Presidential wages by 10%, the way the Congress did back during the Great Depression. Now that would truly show the American people that the politicians are serious about reducing– unnecessary– Federal spending!
Marcel F. Williams
“If there is any common sense left in Washington…”
Well, there’s your answer.
Oops… Apparently Dr. Tyson did not get briefed by the NASA administrator on the President’s policy for the future of NASA. Not to worry… On January 20th of next year there will be a new President of the United States and we’ll have to start the process all over again. Isn’t this fun?
And that new president will be …
All the GOP candidates laugh at human spaceflight except Gingrich who will not win and wants to replace NASA with a $1B prize. The Republican elite has given up on beating Obama in 2012 and is instead focusing on holding enough of Congress to keep the government shut down.
So, what you are really saying is neither side cares.
Lori Garver cares. She has a clear vision of human spaceflight, not as a billion dollar stunt for a few government employees as a practical endeavor for large number of people.
Say… How about “WE THE
PEOPLE”? Novel idea? Have to get the citizens involved like in the 50s and
60s. NASA is on the back burner with all the other major problems facing the
country and the average Joe on the street. Just grandpa’s opinion which doesn’t
count any more than the rest of the opinions expressed out here.
Has there ever been a president with a science or engineering degree (not political science)? If not, I wonder when that will be. It’s kind of like waiting for the first black president or the first woman president.
Ooh Herbert Hoover – mine engineering.
Jimmy Carter – “did graduate study in nuclear technology and physics”
http://www.successdegrees.c…
” Lori Garver cares.” Nice try, Lori…
Lori Garver may have a vision of the future, but her disdain for some folks past and present at NASA affects her judgement. Also, when most of us on the ground became interested in space, we went and got technical degrees, which we felt could help us in our quest to advance ‘this thing of ours’. She went and got an advanced political science degree. Hence another reason why many of the rank and file, for good or for bad, look at her with some disdain.
All of us who are true believers know that the goal should be space for everybody. But gutting the public human infrastructure isnt going to get us anywhere anytime soon.
Lori Garver wants to give everything to the private sector and dissolve NASA altogether.
Keith…
This is a very interesting approach — using a word cloud tool to analyze a space leader’s remarks. I have occasionally done this myself (by hand), particularly when a new NASA leader has taken the helm. Perhaps you — or someone else with access to the text? — would be willing to do this for some key past speeches and/or testimony? I bet the results would be quite fascinating….!
Best
Interesting idea. I was startled at how this simple tool (there are dozens of websites that do this) can reveal hidden attributes of what people say – and what they focus on. I may do exactly as you suggest. Thanks!
Be careful, Keith. Sometimes ‘hidden attributes” revealed by analytical tools are virtual artifacts that carry no meaning and can (sadly) serve as a vehicle for the biases of the analysts. I would point you to SJ Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man for a worthwhile exploration of such a thing, if you haven’t read it already. I would be especially suspect of any such conclusions derived from such purely software-supported analysis engines.
The differences between the two word clouds are telling.
Crying Charlie(crying about Boy Scouts?Vulcans don’t cry.Troi or Guinon should visit to see if there is a problem.He was forced to become Admin. by appeals to his patriotism) said something about he was conservative.Did he mean Conservative or conservative?He is not conservative.That person would not hire contractors to do everything.I guess it was a vote getter hire.I think Gerst. said that NASA has 1100 contractors.This is Reaganomics gone wild.There might be a law or should be one,that NASA give a price on a mission or project of what it would cost if NASA built the spacecraft,launcher and did the controlling.If they could not do it,they must say why.Why has GAO never give us a cost if NASA does it themselves?Nothing like cutting the deficit.NASA could build a Saturn-V and be at 10% of the cost(material) and time of SLS.Building launchers is low tech.Labor needs to be done by workers,not engineers.Engineers are to set things up and be on call if there is a problem.
There are some activities NASA could do better in-house, as NACA did. Unfortunately there are laws restricting NASA from doing anything that might compete with private industry. in my opinion, the agency should have the freedom to determine what to do in-house and what to contract.
That said, the SLS design was chosen by Mike Griffin for unknown reasons. Maybe he really thought “reusing” Shuttle components made sense. Maybe it was easier for him to find outlines to push around in Powerpoint. Maybe he had buddies at ATK. Who knows? But the Ares V/SLS is his design. Rebuilding the Saturn V would have been more rational than SLS but still quite expensive as many components would have to be redesigned; both Boeing and SpaceX proposed multicore HLVs derived from their existing designs that might have been more practical and more modular in terms of accommodating various sizes of payloads.
This is very brief reply to hikingmike and his comments about Presidents with engineering degrees. Neither Carter nor Hoover were models for good Presidents. In fact, both were pretty bad examples. Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post wrote an interesting review of Carter’s White House memoirs back on September 26, 2010. He titled the review “Engineer of his own defeat” Here’s the link: http://www.washingtonpost.c…
Engineers (and scientists for that matter) are typically very narrow and rigid. Some are not. I’ve wickedly said that such people need adult supervision. James Webb, NASA Administrator back in the 1960s, was a lawyer who was active in politics. Goldin and Griffin are engineers. I’m not alone in thinking them poor NASA Administrators.
dogstar 3.Have you ever seen any of the shows on how things are made?They can make prototypes in short order with computers.Once they get the numbers,they set a chunk of aluminum in a machine and come back later for the part.NASA has all the equipment,knowledge and people needed.It is no harder to make a 10′ tank-body than to make a 27′ one.The material just costs more.Bolden said the argument is over,but I only recently realized that NASA could do it themselves at a huge saving in money and time.It only took 50 years for my noticing.The people that say it is political,are probably correct.Logic does not rule.I recently looked at Titan 2.70 years ago they had IMU.Inertial measuring unit.The F-4 had a INS that would read the same location when it landed as when it took off.If NASA can not compete with private industry,how did Ares-1X get by?If Iran and N. Korea can make launchers,so can NASA. And S. Korea could get a low priced deal if they hired N. Korea to launch their satellites.