This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Election 2016

Presidential Candidate Cruz Has NASA On His Short List

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 23, 2015
Filed under ,

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

45 responses to “Presidential Candidate Cruz Has NASA On His Short List”

  1. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    Damn Canadians!

  2. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    May actually be good. Altho a legend in his own narcissistic mind, and a hero to his (*) groupies in the Tea party, the reaction to his misguided words may prompt a positive reaction.
    As the Wall Street Journal wrote:
    Sen. Ted Cruz officially announced his presidential campaign to a crowd of students at a Christian university here Monday, casting himself as a “courageous conservative” ready to lead the country sharply to the right by getting rid of the health care law, national education standards and the Internal Revenue Service.

    Maybe he’ll tie dropping climate science and cancelling Obamacare to again not raising the debt limit and shutting down the government again. That would be a real winning strategy!
    (* I removed a possibly insulting adjective)

  3. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    I assume you’re accusing me. I don’t think it applies. Strong discussion of Sen. Cruz’s climate actions in general and related to his NASA oversight in particular, and his related history as a Senate bombthrower has been a feature of a number of blog posts and reply threads at NW.

    My comment directly relates to the “”NASA’s main focus on space exploration” which is Cruz’s shorthand for gutting data collection on the earth’s environment.

    Cruz, fortunately, is considered a pariah by much of his own party (check here), who shudder after the intense blowback his actions have caused, even while his “base” cheers him on, and thus, his opposition may actually enhance climate science.

    Remember, the Senate voted 98-1, in favor of an amendment stating that “climate change is real and not a hoax.”
    While there is major disagrement as to the extent of anthrogenic causes, there is little reason for Cruz or Rubio to avoid studying the issue, that the whole Senate concurs exists.

  4. ReSpaceAge says:
    0
    0

    Isn’t Space Exploration code for more SLS Orion and overly Expensive missions?

    • Joe Denison says:
      0
      0

      He supports both commercial space and SLS/Orion. Can’t we just be glad about that and not make commercial space the be all end all of everything?

      • PsiSquared says:
        0
        0

        No, we can’t just be glad about that because a candidate is not just a position on one issue. We all are concerned about NASA and space exploration, but those aren’t the only issues that a president will have to manage. That aside, I can’t see voting for someone who wants to gut Earth studies for political reasons. I can’t see voting for an anti-science president, and Cruz has demonstrated he most definitely is anti-science.

        • Joe Denison says:
          0
          0

          I wasn’t talking about being happy with him as a total candidate. (although personally I find a lot of what he says appealing) I was only talking about his position on human space flight.

          What I was saying was that on this single issue why can’t people be happy that the candidate is both pro-commercial space and pro-SLS/Orion. Why does it have to be “all commercial space all the time and we demand nothing less” for some people?

          • PsiSquared says:
            0
            0

            It just a year or two ago that Cruz wanted to cut NASA funding.

            http://www.spacepolitics.co

            The last thing this country needs is the extremism that Cruz would usher in. Fortunately, there’s no way he’ll be in the Oval office in January, 2017.

          • Joe Denison says:
            0
            0

            Cruz was trying to get the NASA budget in line with the sequester so NASA wouldn’t suffer a whiplash when the sequester kicked in. He was actually trying to make sure NASA wasn’t cut indiscriminately.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            It was Cruz making sure the cuts were in the parts that the Koch brothers want – studying the Earth and its climate ->

            [The sequester is] not the most effective way to protect the priority that space exploration and manned exploration should have.” He was concerned automatic cuts from sequestration would prevent a proper rebalancing of priorities for NASA.”

            In other words, rather than shrink NASA across all programs, slash the budget by gutting Earth sciences. No difference then and now. Yes, slash NASA’s budget, but do it where his sponsors paid for his services,

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Excellent point. The ‘all or nothing’ attitude is killing Washington.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            And Cruz is a master at the destructive “all or nothing” bombthrowing tactics of pandering to a radical base.

  5. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    http://www.politifact.com/p

    Cruz’s Politifact check page is good for a laugh at his statements…or getting depressed about how you can fool some of the people, some of the time. Or most of the people of Texas, most of the time.

  6. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    No matter what your politics I think it is a good thing for someone to be in the race who has more of an interest in NASA than most politicos. Especially if it is someone like Cruz who is pro-SLS/Orion and pro-commercial space.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Newt was also a space nerd, but the downside of the whole package far outweighed any single position.
      And in this case, its not so much that Cruz is going gung ho for space travel, it looks like he is just using a stealth method to gut climate studies. The phrase “NASA’s main focus on space exploration” coming out of his mouth is just a bludgeon to kill his sponsors’ hated target. Yes he has “more of an interest in NASA than most politicos“, but I think in the sense a shark has an interest in a surfer.

      • gbaikie says:
        0
        0

        If Cruz want to clear out of NASA all of climate change religion, that seems too similar to charging dragons which are actually windmills. But other than that there isn’t much focus on climate studies at NASA. Or the federal EPA would actually be target rich environmnet. The Federal government could cancel it’s EPA, and allow the States to deal with environmental matters. And removing the federal EPA could help the states do what is actually needed for it’s citizens.
        So stop spending the billions on EPA, give half of saving
        to NASA and rest to tax payers. And with that much of increase to NASA budget, we could explore the Moon to determine if commercially minable water is at the poles, and then explore mars to determine if and how there could be future Mars settlements.

        • K smith says:
          0
          0

          Couldn’t have said it better. Here we have a man who wants to invigorate NASA and put them back in business of spaceflight and idiots criticize him. Finally someone who will stand up to Bolden and speak the truth.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            We are idiots?

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            Earth science is only 10 percent of NASA’s budget. And much of that is directly applicable to human and robotic exploration.
            NASA spends much effort studying ice in nature. As directly useful as that is in understanding the Earth over time and its climate, it is directly useful in exploring Europa. Trashing the Earth budget is foolish even if one had no concern for Spaceship Earth and its precious cargo.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            I agree, as long as NASA is also still kept in its other businesses that are also very important.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Getting rid of EPA? That’s actually a really good idea. That way, if a state like, say, West Virginia chose jobs over, say, chemicals in a river, they could, because that’s what they wanted.
          I see lots of possibilities for this notion of removing EPA so states can do, you know, actually work to help its citizens. I like it.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          Can you explain your use of the term “climate change religion”? Do you also consider Mr. Cruz’ belief to be a “religion”? Do you believe that all the climate data collected over the past century is being faked by an elaborate but secret conspiracy?

          • gbaikie says:
            0
            0

            Climate change religion is the belief that Earth could be become like Venus, or changes in climate by human factor will bring end of the world type conditions.
            Or belief that New York or Florida are facing a serious threat from rising sea level.

          • Yale S says:
            0
            0

            “Climate change religion is the belief that Earth could be become like Venus, or changes in climate by human factor will bring end of the world type conditions.”

            The Straw Man Logical Fallacy:
            The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position… This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

            BTW – as to flooding maps of Florida under various projected sea level rises, and damage already occuring just Google it.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          Most states do have an equivalent to an EPA, with various levels of toothlessness.
          Removing the federal EPA would be bad. If Indiana decides its OK to emit uncontrolled mercury from its smokestacks, which is something that Ohio may strictly control, then its unending lawsuits between the states. States aren’t sealed in hermetc bubbles (nations aren’t either) and all affect everyone. Central rules are absolutely required or there is chaos.
          Think about business. Imagine trying to comply with 50 different sets of regulations. Crazy.
          Actually, business often requests common regulations because it levels the playing field. It lets them act responsibly like they may wish, without paying a competitive disadvantageness price.

          • gbaikie says:
            0
            0

            –Think about business. Imagine trying to comply with 50 different sets of regulations. Crazy.–

            Well for large corporations which exists in 50 states it could be a bother.

            –Actually, business often requests common regulations because it levels
            the playing field. It lets them act responsibly like they may wish,
            without paying a competitive disadvantageness price.–
            There you go, and so business would helpful
            in the problem you worried about.

            And Federal EPA other being in convenient central location, are not helping, unless government corruption is regarded as helping.

        • Mike says:
          0
          0

          This is a really terrible idea. Air and water don’t submit to state borders. If coal states like Kentucky want to burn tons of coal with no regulations, Its the east coast states who have to deal with the pollution from them, not Kentucky. Environment is not a local issue. What someone dumps into the air or water in one place can effect people a long way away.

          • gbaikie says:
            0
            0

            “This is a really terrible idea. Air and water don’t submit to state
            borders. If coal states like Kentucky want to burn tons of coal with no
            regulations, Its the east coast states who have to deal with the
            pollution from them, not Kentucky. Environment is not a local issue.”

            No, environment is usually a local issue. And unless one has unusual situation Kentucky pollution affects Kentucky. But suppose it is close to the border or regarding rivers which only flow into another State. Governor from different States can work together as have been doing recently and have done for centuries. Other than that one has the courts. Generally speaking what regulations usually do is protect any company if they comply with regulation. So a regulation acts as safeguard against liability, and if their is damages, one has redress with the courts.
            So the issue can be addressed between the states involved, whereas with federal government you involving States like California which is not being affected by what happens in Kentucky- the majority of states involved are not affected by the pollution.
            So assuming the federal govt is responsive and the Federal Government is less corrupted
            and there no basis for such an assumptions.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            “The Federal government could cancel it’s EPA, and allow the States to deal with environmental matters.”

            Holy… I occasionally visit other states and would like for them to not go to hell.

            “No, environment is usually a local issue.

            There are state EPAs as well (for the local issues). That way the solutions are tailored to the problems. If it is only a local issue, it can be worked on locally.

            “And unless one has unusual situation Kentucky pollution affects Kentucky.”

            Did you know that China’s pollution affects the United States? And rivers flow through many states? Groundwater aquifers cover large territories not associated with state borders? Animal migrations occur not just within one state. Some of those things can be worked by state governments working with each other but the central EPA is a much better way for issues with broad impact to be covered.

  7. eddrw2014 says:
    0
    0

    You must not get around this internet much if you think that was trolling.

  8. Yale S says:
    0
    0

    In inflation adjust dollars, the NASA Earth studies budget in 2000 was $2.29 billion dollars or 12.4% of that year’s NASA budget.

    The proposed 2016 NASA Earth studies budget is $1.95 billion, or 10.5% of the proposed NASA budget.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      Finally some numbers. Thank you.

      • Yale S says:
        0
        0

        When Cruz bewailed the 41% boost that Planet Earth studies by NASA has received during the Obama admin, it was not an “increase”, it was getting it back towards the rate that it was before the Bush admin gutted the program. It is still much less then its previous amount.

        Somehow I think that the other 90% of NASA’s budget can cover his pet programs. 10% to study the only planet were we know life exists and is capable of detailed, intensive, and continous study doesn’t seem overgenerous.

        NASA Earth mission:
        Earth is a complex, dynamic system we do not yet fully understand. The Earth system, like the human body, comprises diverse components that interact in complex ways. We need to understand the Earth’s atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere as a single connected system. Our planet is changing on all spatial and temporal scales. The purpose of NASA’s Earth science program is to develop a scientific understanding of Earth’s system and its response to natural or human-induced changes, and to improve prediction of climate, weather, and natural hazards.

  9. intdydx says:
    0
    0

    So, be prepared for aero to be marginalized even further?

  10. John Adley says:
    0
    0

    If you take a look at the NASA website of earth science here at

    http://science.nasa.gov/ear

    you will find the two big questions NASA believe worth $2 billion/year to solve. For your convenience I copy them below:

    Big Questions (!!!)

    How is the global earth system changing?

    Earth is currently in a period of warming. Over the last century, Earth’s average temperature rose about 1.1°F (0.6°C). In the last two decades, the rate of our world’s warming accelerated and scientists predict that the globe will continue to warm over the course of the 21st century. Is this warming trend a reason for concern? After all, our world has witnessed extreme warm periods before, such as during the time of the dinosaurs. Earth has also seen numerous ice ages on roughly 11,000-year cycles for at least the last million years. So, change is perhaps the only constant in Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history.

    What are the sources of change in the Earth system and their magnitudes and trends? (CO2, you said that elsewhere, remember?)

    How will the Earth system change in the future?

    As the world consumes ever more fossil fuel energy, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise and Earth’s average temperature will rise with them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) estimates that Earth’s average surface temperature could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century.

    How can Earth system science improve mitigation of and adaptation to global change? (Almost nothing )

    Looks like both questions are already satisfactorily answered: the earth is warming ( the how is question), and it will continued to get warmer (the how will question). Anyone read this will conclude earth people at NASA are on their way to retire.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      You seem to be hugely annoyed that one of the world’s pre-eminent STEM organizations, with capabilities beyond any other organization, should spend 0.01% of GDP to study our planet, both our home, and the only place we know has life.

      These are the focus areas for NASA Earth Science (and its an enormous and enormously important job that they do for 10% of NASA’s budget):

      Earth Surface & Interior
      The goal of the Earth Surface and Interior focus area is to assess, mitigate and forecast the natural hazards that affect society, including earthquakes, landslides, coastal and interior erosion, floods and volcanic eruptions.

      Water & Energy Cycle
      Through water and energy cycle research we can improve hurricane prediction, quantify tropical rainfall and eventually begin to balance the water budget at global and regional scales.

      Weather
      Our weather system includes the dynamics of the atmosphere and its interaction with the oceans and land. The improvement of our understanding of weather processes and phenomena is crucial in gaining an understanding of the Earth system.

      Climate Variability & Change
      NASA’s role in climate variability study is centered around providing the global scale observational data sets on oceans and ice, their forcings, and the interactions with the entire Earth system.

      Atmospheric Composition
      The Atmospheric Composition focus area consists of research on the composition of Earth’s atmosphere, particularly of the troposphere and stratosphere, in relation to climate forcing, atmospheric ozone and aerosols, solar effects, air quality, and surface emissions of radiatively and chemically active source gases and particulates.

      Carbon Cycle & Ecosystems
      This Focus Area deals with the cycling of carbon in reservoirs and ecosystems as it changes naturally, is changed by humans, and is affected by climate change.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      Also, from their mission statement:

      NASA Earth Science Mission:
      Earth is a complex, dynamic system we do not yet fully understand. The Earth system, like the human body, comprises diverse components that interact in complex ways. We need to understand the Earth’s atmosphere, lithosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere as a single connected system. Our planet is changing on all spatial and temporal scales. The purpose of NASA’s Earth science program is to develop a scientific understanding of Earth’s system and its response to natural or human-induced changes, and to improve prediction of climate, weather, and natural hazards.

    • EtOH says:
      0
      0

      The earth is not a singular undifferentiated entity, and global warming is not a binary condition (happening or not happening). Having established that global warming is happening, and why it is happening, there are still countless important questions to be answered (how much, how fast, in which locations, with what effects on weather patterns, living systems, ocean levels, etc. etc. etc. ) NASA may sometimes be negligent in communicating its scientific motives, but if you read NASA watch, you already knew that.

      • John Adley says:
        0
        0

        I fully understand the scientific argument, but that’s not the point of my post, if you haven’t noticed.

        The so called “big questions” are beyond stupidity, and I suspect they are invented to please the current administration, and subject the whole NASA earth science program to the danger of becoming a victim of stupid political brawls in Washington. The merit of most of NASA’s earth science research do not depend on whether the earth is warming up or not, and NASA should have the courage to tell the politicians the truth. I take this web page as an evidence of the serious lack of integrity in the NASA earth science leadership.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          I am unaware of any evidence that NASA is not telling the truth on this issue. However I have an open mind; if you have such evidence please provide it. Given the intense political controversy, I think data that can improve the accuracy of existing climate models would be of considerable value.

    • gbaikie says:
      0
      0

      –If you take a look at the NASA website of earth science here at

      http://science.nasa.gov/earth-

      you will find the two big questions NASA believe worth $2 billion/year to solve. For your convenience I copy them below:–

      It seems from here:
      http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/622

      That large amount of 2013 budget [ 1,784.9 million } is related

      to satellites. And it’s my guess that without NASA satellites, there would be the kind of agreement regarding the current 18 year “pause” in “global warming.

      And global temperatures measured from satellites are the most accurate way to measure global temperature. So here one system of satellite measurement:
      http://www.drroyspencer.com
      And as recall it’s using about 5 satellites and one satellite
      is degrading it ability to give accurate measurement, so I generally want more, not less satellites which one part of them
      is to accurately measure tropospheric temperature and important to maintain a continuum of record which accurately calibrated. Or there is a comparatively huge error margin if just dependent on weather stations on earth.
      Also I want satellites that monitor CO2 levels [and of course they do more than just monitoring CO2 globally.

      Anyways there might be around 100 million or so which may or may be needed, but it seems to me the money spend measuring global temperature [among other things] has been money well spent. And there is no sense having satellites without paying for processing the data and further refinement in regards to increasing their accuracy.