NASA Defunder Now Sets NASA's Agenda in The Senate
8 Dumb Quotes About Science From New NASA Overseer Ted Cruz, Gizmodo
“The new Republican-led Congress is currently busy picking people to chair its many committees and subcommittees. Guess what! Tea Party hero Senator Ted Cruz is the new chair of the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness. That means he will oversee NASA. Yep – the climate-denying Tea Party hero who tried to defund NASA is now in charge of NASA.”
Remove Ted Cruz from position for NASA oversight of the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness (White House Petition)
“We the people demand a person worthy of the position and who will work towards optimizing NASA for scientific discoveries be placed in this position in Ted Cruz’s stead.”
Keith’s note: Cruz is not a lightweight. You may not agree with him, but he is sharp. Last year there was a hearing on the threat of asteroids to Earth. Unlike all of the other senators who asked questions, Cruz looked straight at the witnesses without referring to notes (i.e. questions written by staffers) and asked a series of questions – some prompted by witness responses – without the usual fumbling you often see from Senators who have no idea what anyone is talking about (ala Bill Nelson). Yes, he got his partisan jabs in – but everyone does that. As such NASA is going to be up against someone who can run non-stop semantic circles around Charlie Bolden – if he is inclined to do so. Dava Newman’s confirmation hearing will be interesting should he decide to use the hearing as an opportunity to go after the Administration.
Political Climate Change Ahead for NASA and NOAA, earlier post
The shortcoming with petitions like this (aside from it being impossible for the White House to grant) is that one individual here or there isn’t problem, the problem is systemic. These people are being voted into office by constituents who either agree with their ignorant viewpoints, or don’t think it’s important enough to influence who they vote for.
Anti-science Congressmen don’t exactly lose votes in their Bible-thumping homeland states every time they utter asinine phrases like “The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to
change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” (Jim Inhofe, new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee committee, who )
I shudder to think what may happen if like-minded Congressmen start overseeing the NIH, the CDC, or the FDA.
Keep votin’ Republican, folks, and your fears will come true.
Yet somehow when the Republicans were in control of Congress and the Presidency NIH funding went up. Somehow despite “anti-science” Congressmen science funding survived.
“when the Republicans were in control of Congress and the Presidency NIH funding went up.”
No it didn’t. Charted in constant dollars it declined. It was Obama, along with the Dem congress, using the stimulus program, that restored actual spending during the brief period they were in control.
NIH funding in constant 2003 dollars (note the dropping starting when both branches went Republican):
Very well. I stand corrected on the 2000-2004 timeframe. That said even your own graph states that NIH funding went up under a Republican Congress (1994-2000).
It also shows that except for the temporary stimulus funding went down when the Democrats controlled both Houses. So really you cannot make the argument that somehow the Republicans are Armageddon for science funding when it went down under Democrats as well.
No, that is not quite correct, It went down when the Republicans took control of the House in 2010 and created the 2011 budget. The Dems had control of both houses and the presidency for only 2 years, and for 2 years the budget was restored to previous levels.
Previously, the most important factor is whether the president was a Republican (if so, it fell without regard to Congress)
Do you have a copy of the budgets that Clinton submitted during that timeframe? The funding went up because who’s budget called for the increases? Was there horsetrading? What did the republicans propose in their budgets?
Bill Clinton proposed the substantial increase in NIH funding and the supporting legislation was passed (by Republican-led Congress) during his term.
No, it was Chairman John Porter of Illinois who, with support from Speaker Gingrich, set the goal of doubling NIH spending. Clinton agreed. But it came from the Republican House. I was there.
Former Illinois congressman Porter was a classic example of the almost extinct moderate Republican. Although I voted for his opponents (many times), he was a quality politician. Sen Mark Kirk, who inherited Porter’s district (and who I also voted against for both houses) is also a distinguished moderate Republican. The modern Republican Party leaves little room for candidates who aren’t mouth-foaming ranters.
I miss Porter, and I hope to soon miss Sen. Kirk in 2016.
well, I guess your opposition to two moderate Rs makes you a pretty partisan D. Nice to know.
My opposition is typically on 2 levels. One, altho these people are reasonable and moderate, they still take positions and vote on many important issues that I don’t agree with. Extreme positions are not the only positions to disagree with.
Secondly, I think strategically when I vote. House majorities matter far more than any individual candidate. What power does Republican Kirk truly have in the raving loony bin of the majority Republican Senate? It is which side controls that matters. Unless they truly, truly sickened me, I would vote for a Blue Dog Democrat rather than a moderate Olympia Snow-type Republican. You must hold your nose and think of the bigger picture.
Fortunately, that typically is not the case in Illinois. They’re a bunch of flaming moderates (with some exceptions)
I wish Kirk was a Dem. His qualifications are solid gold. Unfortunately, a vote for Kirk is a Chairmanship for Cruz.
Agency-wide funding level isn’t a useful indicator of what policies are being made. Ted Cruz could throw $50B at NASA, but it would still be bad policy if it came with conditions like “You can’t acknowledge climate change.” This is not an unheardof situation. http://www.wvgazette.com/ar…
For NASA, it’ll be interesting to see what shape their Earth sciences programs take in the next few years.
He is against commercial crew.
Do you mean against commercial crewed space flight in general, or do you mean specifically against the current NASA program that calls itself commercial crew? It’s a fair argument that the current NASA program is counterproductive to establishing commercial space flight. Not a universally agreed position, but not an uncommon or irrational position either.
IMO the perceived support of the Obama administration for Commercial Crew is more important in solidifying Republican opposition than the actual cost and productivity or the underlying economic principles.
Can’t he be taught that cots=taxpayer savings? He is a tea party guy after all
What’s Rush’s thoughts on commercial crew VS SLS Orion these days? Could help? Seems the tea party crowd needs a little educating?
The Tea Party in Space group has advocated for Commercial Crew and a lot of free market ideas. Hasn’t dented the space states congressional members who fight for the statue quo.
I would imagine that Shelby will now get his poison pill inserted that asked for companies to submit “certified cost and pricing data” like what’s required in traditional contracts?
Toward commercial spaceflight he is not as horrible as he could be: https://www.facebook.com/Se…
But science is going to take a hit from this mindless loon.
Fun times.
I would have preferred Senator Rubio since he seems to be the more pro-NASA guy and seems to be more concerned with getting things done than Cruz. That said I think all these declarations that the apocalypse (or Cruz-alypse) is here are a bit premature.
The gizmodo article has a number of errors and distorts some of what Senator Cruz has done. From the article that gizmodo cites to claim that Sen. Cruz wants to defund NASA.
““This authorization disregards the Budget Control Act,” Cruz said in introducing his amendment. “Proceeding with an authorization while pretending that the existing law is something other than what it is, is not the most effective way to protect the priority that space exploration and manned exploration should have.” If the higher amount of money is authorized for NASA, Cruz was concerned that the automatic sequestration would not allow for a rebalancing of NASA programs under the reduced spending level. In offering the amendment, Cruz resolved the conundrum of the need for smaller government over the desire for a more robust NASA in favor of the former, but only because of the demands of sequestration.”
At least 2 of the 8 quotes the gizmodo article cites have nothing to do with science and the quotes about net neutrality and congressional budget rules have very little to do with it.
Of the remaining 4 quotes at least 2 are completely factual. (Hollywood does make the general public more aware of space threats and there was a global cooling scare in the 70s). The other 2 quotes can be debated.
I don’t know what Cruz is going to do. He could turn out to be a NASA hater. That said we don’t really know at this point what he is going to do.
Go google “rubio science” and see what a brain-dead horror he is.
I think it is an exaggeration to say there was a global cooling “scare”. The 70’s were the end of a 30-year hiatus in the warming trend; there had been little net change in average temperature since 1940 and there were a number of papers that suggested increases in atmospheric aerosols might be causing net cooling. However the majority of papers still (correctly) predicted net warming would predominate. There were about a dozen unreferenced articles in the popular press reporting and to some degree exaggerating the potential for global cooling, but they aroused little interest. There was no “scare” instigated by scientists or environmental activists that I can remember.
Today there are far more references to the “70’s cooling scare” in the conservative press, in an attempt to discredit current climate science, than I can remember actually appearing in the 70’s. Many of these references suggest that the same “scientists” who now want to scare us into doing something to slow global warming were just 45 years ago trying to scare us about the prospect of global cooling. This is just politicization and has nothing to do with actual science. It is understandable that Cruz may be influenced by people who hold this view. http://ossfoundation.us/pro…
The global cooling scare of the 70’s was caused by increased particle count in the atmosphere, since we learned how to burn coal “clean” and put catalytic converters on cars, the count has gone down and the warming trend resumed.
In addition that was the era when geologic and astronomical evidence finally came together to confirm the existence of the orbital Milankovitch cycles that drove the last five ice ages, and would be (very slowly) returning us to an era of increasing glaciation if not for the much stronger effect of human CO2 generation, which is much greater now than it was in 1970.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
So when nonscientists proclaim that “scientists” said one thing 45 years ago and say something else today, we should say, “Yes. The situation today is different.”
Who scrapped a manned lunar effort? And we’re worried about a legislative appointment?
Obama scrapped a plan that was missing any sort of funding for much of its key hardware while in the midst of the Bush economic collapse.
The Moon is a place to go, but the Bush plan, similar to any NASA Mars plan, is so monstrously bloated in costs, that it can’t happen.
Fortunately, nimble commercial operations are going to make it happen.
The President presents a NON BINDING budget to congress. Congress has routinely ignored this President’s budgets. The President didn’t want Constellation or SLS. Congress defunded one and funded the other. The President signed the bills Congress voted on.
The President didn’t want Constellation largely because it was his predecessor’s space program. He used the Augustine Commission to justify cancelling it. It is my opinion that Obama cancelled Constellation in the hopes that human spaceflight would die a quiet death and no one would notice. Fortunately a bi-partisan group of legislators held his feet to the fire. Yes they are from aerospace states but so is Senator Cruz. Aerospace has been good to Texas and not just because of NASA. May I present the ying to Cruz’s yang: Rep. John Culberson.
http://www.houstonchronicle…
At the time Obama made his not back to the moon speech. He toured Spacex’s launch Pad with Elon Musk. Aside from the funding issues he was is wise enough to know that expensive Apollo II is yet another dead end, and the only path foreword is Commercial Space
Hummm funny way back then Obama knew who the true leader at NASA was.
I am not sure what evidence you have to support these contentions. Mr. Bush cancelled both Shuttle and ISS (the latter decision was reversed by Mr. Obama) effectively terminating US human launch capability. He appointed Mr. Griffin, who chose the very expensive Constellation design, then made no attempt to adequately fund Constellation, resulting in its collapse.
Mr. Obama proposed increases in the NASA budget and was responsible for implementing the Commercial Crew Program, which is the only strategy that will return human space launch to the US and has the potential to substantially increase the human population in space.
ISS was not cancelled but rather proposed to be closed out in 2016 to free up funding for BEO operations. Yes Bush cancelled the shuttle but the administration had a successor in the works.
Do you remember Obama’s April 15, 2010 speech at all? With the exception of the ISS, he wanted NASA to go not only out of the launch business, also out of the manned spacecraft operations business all for some vague and not well defined “commercial” program. It was a bipartisan effort, let me say that again, a bipartisan effort coupled with some criticism by a few astronaut legends including apolitical Neil Armstrong and staunch Democrat John Glenn that forced the President’s hand back to sign the Space Act.
Look, I get the political leanings of the denizens of the comment group here: Bush bad/Obama good. I will say that it has been 6 years since Bush left the office. You might to recalibrate a bit.
However, I don’t understand the huge opposition to Orion and SLS. Anyway you slice it, BEO will require heavy lift. Even if we decide to build ISS 2.0 don’t you think it will be less expensive/easier/safer to loft most of it in 4-5 SLS launches in 4 years as opposed to 10-15 medium sized launches over 10 years like we did with the current ISS?
How many of us have visited KSC, Huntsville or Houston and saw the Saturns lying on their sides? How many of us bemoan the fact that production of the beast was shut down prematurely? How many of us thought to ourselves:” If only these were flying again…Imagine what we could do.”?
I hope you don’t jump to conclusions based on “political leanings”. I am open to any ideas you have, and would like to hear them. The fundamental problem with SLS it its excessive cost. Because it is based on Shuttle technology there is no realistic way to reduce this cost to a sustainable level. This was also why Nixon cancelled the Apollo program. The congressmen who support SLS/Orion are not offering to significantly increase the NASA budget.
Actually Saturn V production ended on LBJ’s watch. Nixon cancelled Apollos 18,19 and 20. The reasons for cancellation of both programs were much more involved than just sustainability.
It is my opinion that the biggest reason for the cancellation of Apollo/Saturn was that of visibility. By 1968, the American public was convinced ( for better or worse) that moon missions were a folly when placed against a backdrop of rioting cities, ghettos and a losing war in Vietnam. This was in spite of a low cost to the taxpayer since NASA spending peaked in 1966. Go and read newspaper editorials from the late 60s/early 70s and see for yourself.
Regarding heavy lift boosters, even Musk is working on them. If Musk can offer an SLS class booster at less cost to NASA, then NASA should use it. However, like I have said before, we should not replace NASA with SpaceX.
Ok, so I’ve made my opinion known. What do you, vulture4, propose we have for a national manned spaceflight program? Where should we go? I don’t mean that sarcastically, I’m genuinely interested.
“ISS was not cancelled but rather proposed to be closed out in 2016 to free up funding for BEO operations.”
Yes, cancelled virtually as soon as it was completed, without any consultation with the IPOs or any opportunity for opportunity for opposing views to be discussed.
“Yes Bush cancelled the shuttle but the administration had a successor in the works.”
Bush cancelled the OSP, which was the planned Shuttle successor. Congress provided insufficient funds for the Ares 1/Orion, which was unneeded anyway since the Orion can obviously be launched on the Delta IV.
“Anyway you slice it, BEO will require heavy lift.”
What’s important isn’t the size of your rocket, it’s what you can do with it. The design of the SLS makes it impossible to reduce costs, because of the high manhours and hazops for SRB assembly and maintenance of VAB, crawlers, and MLP, the high cost and complexity of the RS-25 engine which was not designed to be expendable, and the offshore recovery of the Orion capsule. BEO missions could be staged in LEO with the FH; it has more than half the capacity of the SLS and a small fraction of the cost.
The fuel depot flight demonstration project proposed by the Obama administration has been downgraded (to ground tests only) because of congressional opposition. LEO staging, assembly and fuel storage would eliminate the need for extremely large boosters. But if they are ever needed the SpaceX strategy with Lox/Methane only would be far more practical than the SLS,
When you see the abandoned Saturns and Shuttles, keep in mind that in both cases the cost of the program proved unsustainable.
No he didn’t want it because it was a waste of valuable resourses. For each year the CONstealltion program existed it pushed the schedule to the right by a year. There was no funding for the EDS, Lander, or Ares V. It was not going to do a manned launch until 2019 or later with a lunar lander completed no sooner then the 2030’s. That was an insane program that even Republican members like McCain didn’t support from day one.
A President can not cancel a program unless they veto the funding for that program and it survives a Senate override. In 1974 Congress got a law passed that the President HAS to spend the funds Congress allocates, this was in response to Nixon not wanted to spend funding on programs he didn’t like. So if Congress would have voted to fund Constellation, which they failed to do, the President would have had to veto that funding bill. It NEVER HAPPENED. Know why? Because congressional members NOT from space states REFUSED to fund that program any longer.
A waste of valuable resources at less than one percent of the federal budget? That goes right along with the mantra that if we weren’t “wasting money in space” Little Suzie would have her schoolbooks, Granny would get her medication, and Johnny would have free breakfast.
Like many of you here, I’m all for commercial human spaceflight. I don’t think it’s quite the panacea that many people think it will be but I support it. I do NOT however, feel that it should be our defacto manned space program.
If you only get an allowance of 1 dollar and you spend 90 cents telling everyone what you are going to do with the dollar you just got .. REGARDLESS if it was ONLY a dollar you wasted a VALUABLE resource.. because you ONLY got 1 dollar.
NASA should be going for the biggest bang for the buck and not WASTE valuable resources.. WHICH they do not have a lot of to waste. Cancel SLS and Orion they are wasting valuable resources.
Culberson has an almost incomparably atrocious record on the environment, health issues, sustainable energy, women’s rights, health and safety, worker’s rights, etc.
I would trade his promotion of a Europa probe for someone with basic sympathy for this planet and its cargo of life. His concern for humans ends at birth.
The Station was Reagan’s. The Shuttle started under Nixon. Bush cancelled them without even bothering with a review of their capabilities.
Congress funded SLS at a level that keeps ATK busy but doesn’t provide for any actual missions.
and Michoud-Boeing for the tankage.
A Bi-Partisan CONGRESS refused to fund the CONstellation program and a non existant Lunar return program. What is your point?
And which buffoon set us upon this mission to nowhere, i.e., ARM?
Before you castigate Rubio or Cruz just look at some of the more profound statements of Reid and Pelosi, both examples of coprolitic buffoons.
The republicans, because they want SLS and they need a reason for it to keep it’s nose in the trough.
No, Obama because he wanted something that wasn’t Bush’s plan. That and for no other reason.
Obama did not want SLS or Orion. He made every effort to discontinue them. ARM is based on SLS and Orion, so it’s safe to say that given his druthers Obama would not have proposed it. However Congress demanded an actual mission for SLS/Orion, and it had to be something that did not require a landing, since Congress did not fund landers. What would you suggest?
The Vision for Space Exploration, the Bush Administration’s space policy called for commercial crew and no new rockets for NASA.
If you actually took the time and looked at the PROPOSED budget of the Obama Administration it funded the Vision.
What did it say in the VSE?
From the forward by NASA Administrator O’Keefe:
“Our aim is to explore in a sustainable, affordable, and flexible manner.”
Three times in the VSE it calls for a “flexible path” EXACTLY the words President Obama used.
In the forward by President Bush:
“Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.”
This is exactly what President Obama did. He pushed for funding for two additonal shuttle flights and then started commercial crew. Republicans in the house chopped EVERY request made by President Obama to close the gap (how long we had to pay the russians) because they could then use it against him that he didn’t want spaceflight.
Let’s continue:
Under guiding principles for exploration
“align ongoing programs to develop sustainable, affordable, and flexible solar system exploration strategies”
AGAIN with SUSTAINABLE … AFFORDABLE .. FLEXIBLE.. President Obama was crucified by House and Senate Republicans for using these EXACT same words.
Now let’s move on in President Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration under Exploration building blocks:
“NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities”
Gosh why did President Bush want NASA out of the launch business? Because the Nation already has several rockets we could use and it would be EXTREMELY more sustainable and affordable to utilize what we already have so we don’t have to start another huge cost plus, fixed fee, sole sourced, non competitely bid FAR contract to develop a monster rocket.
Well what DID President Bush outline as a way forward?
“In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”
Wow AGAIN with President Bush recommends a flexible path applied to more than one destination. EXACTLY what President Obama called for and was hounded for by the Republicans in the House and Senate.
I know this will be a strange concept to you but you should try to actually READ President Obama’s 2010 NASA budget PROPOSAL made to congress. NOT what the Republcans passed, but what the President outlined in the 2010 budget.
You will find the President wanted to fund Fuel depot, DENIED by House Republicans. Advanced Power and Propulsion, DENIED. You can go right down the list and see the Republcans in Congress wanted one thing, The EXACT opposite of what President Bush outlined and what President Obama tried to get funded.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/555…
The only thing you have managed to achieve is to illustrate how little you actually know about what President Bush and President Obama originally proposed and what the Republcans voted on.
Apollo was cancelled (by Nixon) because of its excessive cost. Constellation/SLS/Orion was/is Apollo on Steroids. There is no plan since O’Keefe’s original presentation that even states its full price.
Republican congressional members say Commercial Crew is taking resources away from their top priority, the Space Launch System and we all know that the pork wagon to the stars is the priority.
“Pork Wagon to the Stars” – I think that was the inspiration that led Gene Roddenberry to envision Star Trek if I am not mistaken. ; )
This situation in Congress i disappointing but not surprising. NASA continues to be a pawn in the partisan political game that is measured by each election rather that considering the long-term. As long as the American people remain complacent about the exploration of space, our politicians have no incentive to formulate a rational plan backed with adequate funding for NASA. We have met the enemy and it is us.
The Democrats didn’t control it all under President Obama. Just pushing urban myths I guess.
http://www.outsidethebeltwa…
Nice article on what may happen with anti-science politicians in charge of overseeing science:
http://thinkprogress.org/cl…
Need to make the guy an ally not an enemy or you go no where!
http://spaceksc.blogspot.co…
EVEN when they controlled it all, with the supposed most science savvy POTUS in all of history
I think you need to cut Carter some slack.
Jimmy Carter was facing severe economic headwinds. Even then, he approved the construction of 4 space shuttles, and the parts for a 5th (used later to create a new shuttle) He was far more interested in planetary space exploration than human flight.
“Our space policy will become more evolutionary rather than centering around a single, massive engineering feat. Pluralistic objectives and needs of our society will set the course for future space efforts.”
Of course, while Carter was the savviest during the space flight era, some Presidents in the 17th and 18th century made major scientific and technical contributions.
AGAIN you do not seem to know what you are talking about. It was political gamesmanship NOT a 60 vote majority.
“The Facts
As always with bills in the Senate, there are critical procedure votes. Because of GOP objection, Democrats needed to win a supermajority of 60 votes in order to end debate and advance the Senate’s version of the legislation. (This is known as a cloture vote.) On Christmas Eve in 2009, the bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 60 to 39.
Every Democrat in the Senate, including Landrieu, voted for that bill. But it was never officially reconciled with a House version because the Democrats lost the Massachusetts Senate seat in a special election. So an amendment of the Senate bill, crafted in the House, was finally passed on March 25 under a procedure that avoided the 60-vote requirement. That bill only needed 50 votes, and it passed 56 to 43, with Landrieu again voting with the majority.”
Reed used a procedure that avoided needing a 60 vote decision because they didn’t have the 60 vote majority.
So, if you please, stop trying to peddle your BS that has been clearly illustrated for what it was, http://www.washingtonpost.c…
all you proved was that harry reid did something essentially unconstitutional because it should have been reconciled or voted on as new business requiring 60+1. but this isn’t about health care. there is zero question that for the first 2 years of this childish administration they had a massive majority in both the house and senate. they could have done whatever they wanted. and after that they had complete control of the senate. and the white house (because they stupidly spent all their capital on a grossly unpopular health care law). so you can stop trying to peddle defensive BS about how it’s all sunshine and roses with Obama and harry reid after all they’re buddies with Elon Musk…. oh and climate change ooooohhhoooohhhooh
There was a filibuster-proof majority for only a month.
grossly unpopular health care law
I don’t think so.
Here is the latest from the non-partisan Kaiser tracking poll:
Of the total amount of days the dems held the majority.. less than 50 legislative calander days .. how many of those days did Boehnor and the House republicans take vacations for the EXACT purpose of not allowing legislation to be passed?
NASA funding amounts do not even get represented by a slice in the pie graph of where federal dollars are spent. It is lucky if their is an asterick at the bottom mentioning them. No one talks about space because the taxpayers are not involved at all. So policitians only mention it every four years at election time in a few space states. This is the case for all low priority spending catagories.