Space Mentioned (For a Moment) in State of the Union Speech
President Obama’s 2016 State of the Union Address
“Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there. We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon. That spirit of discovery is in our DNA. We’re Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver. We’re Grace Hopper and Katherine Johnson and Sally Ride.”
That’s a bit of a stretch to chalk that up as a mention of space. As with too many people, it looks at space exploration and development throughout he rearview mirror of Apollo. A nice acknowledgement of Sally Ride. If she were still with us I believe she would have snickered.
Yes, I am stretching …
It was a lead in to announcing a “moonshot” against cancer. Well, Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971. We have had limited success.
Thing is, cancer is not just one disease with one cause. It is hundreds of diseases with many causes. Billions are being spent to develop treatments right now. Dumping in more money may or may not be useful – you have to have scientists, technicians, and labs that can use the money or it will get wasted.
And he put Biden in charge. Near as I can tell he has no particular science or management background.
Yes, as a biologist I roll my eyes at such things. But given the tool cancer – in its various forms – has taken on my family I am not going to complain.
Tremendous progress has been made fighting cancer over the past 40 years. It has been money very well-spent, which is more than I can say for the billions spent at NASA since 1971.
Not much of a mention. It was just a bridge to something else.
It’s about what I expected. It’s been pretty clear since his 2008 campaign that Obama doesn’t care about space policy – he mostly cares that it not cost him any extra money or attention. Even before the Augustine Commission, he wanted to postpone Constellation by five years (i.e. probably cancel it) so the funding could be redirected to a reading program.
Oh well. We shouldn’t rely on presidential support for a space program – programs like it are strongest when they have strong backers in Congress.
Agree.
We shouldn’t rely on any political support. The one big lesson of Apollo is that its funding was cut years *before* a successful lunar landing. The political support which provided Apollo with “blank check” funding was a direct side effect of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The Cold War has been won and “blank check” funding for NASA simply will never be coming back. To think otherwise is a delusion.
NASA’s plan to do “exploration” via a repeat of Apollo (i.e. huge, expensive, disposable launch vehicle) is a huge economic mistake which completely ignores this lesson. Other recent articles are starting to point out the fact that NASA simply cannot afford to fund payloads for SLS to do actual exploration (i.e. footprints on planets) without an increase in funding. Unfortunately that increase in funding will *not* happen.
It may be fortunate in a way that the increase in funding will not happen, because it would subsequently be cut again anyway… meaning that what had been spent would end up having been wasted.
I’m starting to think that maybe NASA would be better off being devolved back into a basic research and advanced tech development and testing agency rather than we space nuts’ personal fantasy fulfillment machine. More might actually be accomplished dollar for dollar that way.
Not that there isn’t a place or need for occasional Manhattan Project-style crash programs like Apollo, or maybe something for fusion etc… but our system of government just doesn’t seem to be designed to allow for them except by accident.
Obama, if he was going to cite the success of the space program, was pretty much forced to refer back to Kennedy. It was a good and reasonable reference to success.
Of course Obama’s Administration, which includes NASA, has no human space flight program and has had none since Obama cancelled Constellation. Constellation was not viable either, but without Constellation there was simply a vacuum. Congress came in to fund Orion and SLS because there was no other plan to use the appropriated funding.
If NASA had had a reasonable plan and program, and if they’d made the case to the President, then perhaps we would have been on a course to somewhere. But as it is, we are on a course to nowhere. I lay the failure at the feet of this Administration, which not only includes NASA-it is really a result of NASA’s failure; NASA is supposed to be the expert when it comes to spaceflight.
As it has evolved, I look upon unmanned space probes as being space ‘exploration’. Flags and footprints is not exploration. NASA’s human missions should be proving the technology that will permit and foster future and affordable human operations. I see it as directly analogous to aviation. NACA’s research paved the way for economical, high flying, fast flying aircraft. Today, NASA is not even developing any new space technology for human space flight any longer. NASA’s human space flight failure is complete.
If Constellation was allowed to continue, I’m not sure we’d be in an “better” position today than we are now. Perhaps we’d see manned flights on Ares I by now, but we’d still have no destination, other than ISS. And if the destination was ISS, I seriously doubt that commercial crew would have been funded, and I doubt commercial cargo would have been funded either. ISS would likely have become the “make work” destination for Constellation, similar to when the space shuttle was flying Spacelab and launching satellites instead of building or servicing a space station.
“If NASA had had a reasonable plan and program”
What exactly do you expect NASA to do? Anybody that’s thought about it knows the costs of HSF aren’t sustainable, even in the short term; couple that inconvenient fact with the SLS and NASA is in a very difficult position.
Yawn, can’t wait till Obumble is gone.
Yea, Ready for Hillary!
You can’t be serious.
I’m ready for Bernie!
That would be my choice as well but he would be mercilessly pounded as a ‘socialist’ by the Republicans. And lose.
And it’s kinda funny, really, since we are in many respects socialist already: Medicare, Social Security, farm price supports, ethanol supports…the list goes on and on. And we have these programs for a really good reason. They work.
Sad as it would make me, I think the part of NASA that would make the most sense to cut back on would be HSF.
While I would love to see humans walking on Mars, that comes under the heading of “personal fantasy fulfillment machine” that I spoke of.
I’m not saying there isn’t some rational basis for a national human spaceflight program, but I am saying that there doesn’t seem to be any ability to pursue one rationally.
I’d agree, but with a few caveats. I’ve posted over and over about the craziness of a Mars mission and I’d happily dump it- for now- in favor of achieving the base tech needed to utilize available resources in space to manufacture objects useful in space.
It’s a VERY long term play. But it’s not only affordable, it is necessary.
There’s also the thought that we’d better damned well be sure we’ve exhausted the possibility of finding microbes on Mars robotically before we send messy stinky infested humans there.
We only get ONE shot at investigating this pristine “crime scene” properly.
The problem is that the way NASA is funded doesn’t allow for very long term plays (without constant interruptions, changes, meddling, etc.) so while I agree that that is what is needed, I have no idea how it can be accomplished when every national budget, every mid-term election and every change of Presidential administration forces a total rewrite.
I don’t know how we fix this. It’s not a technological problem, and it’s not just about NASA. It’ about all science programs, etc.
Well, there’s a lot of governmentally-sponsored research taking place around the country; NIH funds lots of it, so does DOE, etc. The grant methodology is quite mature.
Because Apollo was simply a tool to beat the Soviet Union in a proxy war. The Cold War was the primary focus of the nation at the time since they were seen as the biggest global threat in many ways (military, economic, political, and social). Manned space competition was a civilized substitute for World War III.
Indeed. The scope of NASA’s portfolio is often not appreciated.
My point is that there are many within NASA and outside NASA who think that significant funding increases are in the cards for NASA. By extension, this is where some people think that NASA will obtain the funding they need for things like Mars landers and deep space HAB modules for a manned Mars mission.
That is simply not going to happen. Apollo funding was very clearly a political aberration, not the norm. By extension, SLS/Orion is a very expensive “road to nowhere” because it is sucking up far too much funding both now (during development) and in the future (due to its very high infrastructure and “standing army” costs).
We will not be establishing colonies on Mars.
This is not a matter of priorities, this is not a matter of practical vs impractical, this is not a matter of expensive vs affordable.
This is a matter of reality vs fantasy.
The Spanish went because they were certain they’d find gold. The English went because they wanted to wear funny hats to church. The Dutch- going east, not west- went because there was already a spice trade. (All oversimplifications, yes, but correct in the main).
All of them loaded food and water on existing tech-boats with a proven record. All of them took advantage of there being an atmosphere and food at the destination.
Here is what that they didn’t do- they didn’t throw very expensive boats into the ocean, instead using the boats as floating hotels.
Sounds like you, like me, lived through those days. Thanks for the reality check. I don’t think the younger people appreciate what a fracking mess the country was. And you forgot Rodney King.
You can’t change physics. It will always take a huge amount of energy to transport people and things to Mars. To send enough people to Mars to have a colony will require that those few fortunates will have used far, far more than their share of resources than those unfortunates left behind to live in what we’ve done to Earth.
If you assume that in a few hundred years we will have developed the tech to easily colonize Mars, then you are also assuming that we will have developed the technology to live in our billions on Earth without having destroyed the biosphere, etc.
It’s possible. But you are assuming a LOT, and assuming that we will have successfully solved far more pressing puzzles before then.
Except it wasn’t the Royal Highness that made those decisions. America (Roanoke, Jamestown, Plymouth) was settled by private corporations seeking a profit. The government’s role was limited to simply granting the firm a corporate charter. But the money, owners, settlers and ships were all private.
John Cabot’s 15th Century expeditions of discovery were also privately financed by a group of adventure merchants led by Richard Amerike. All the King did was grant them a trade monopoly on any lands discovered. A similar model was followed in Spain with Christopher Columbus. The crown simply provided loan guarantees and trade rights.Then when Columbus hit it big they framed him and took those rights away.
The model of government funded exploration for the purpose of science dates to Captain Cook and really didn’t become common until after WW II as a result of geopolitical competition in the Cold War. Before then most explorers were privately funded and most sought economic gain from the knowledge acquired.
And this is of course the problem, with the Cold War over the government has no reason to explore space other than to keep the pork flowing.