Trump Promises to "Free NASA"
Trump, perhaps unsurprisingly in Sanford, FL, talking about something he rarely does – talks about NASA: pic.twitter.com/c60R4dDoVP
— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) October 25, 2016
Trump, perhaps unsurprisingly in Sanford, FL, talking about something he rarely does – talks about NASA: pic.twitter.com/c60R4dDoVP
— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) October 25, 2016
Make Mars Great Again
I guess I shouldn’t expect much from a tweet, but the one by Sopan Deb makes no sense at all. What is he trying to say?
It’s poorly phrased. How about this:
“Trump is discussing a subject he rarely brings up – NASA. Perhaps this should not be a surprise, because he is in Sanford, Florida.”
That’s in 131 characters, too. Tweetable.
Sanford has nothing to do with NASA though. Like talking about the Statue of Liberty while visiting Buffalo.
Yes, well his thought process (along with his campaign staff) is Florida = NASA. No matter where he is at in the state, it is as simple as that to them. This is essentially the same across the board with the Trump campaign. Once you get into the “weeds” with him and his staff you tend to find it quite barren, or lacking in an real substance. Each one of his policies are limited to 140 characters.
Tell that to the tweeter.
This is Republican speak for deflecting resources away from earth science and climate research.
I’m confused first it sounds like he wants to cut SLS because its a duplication of effort now it sounds like he will cut ISS instead cause its not flashy enough. this is what I hate about this guy he runs his mouth back and forth with no discernible plan
I’ve always viewed pre-election statements as more ‘aspiration’ than ‘promise’. It won’t be until he’s sitting with the files in front of him that he’ll actually know what is and what is not possible.
Let me see if I can help you out as you are obviously confused:
You’re thinking that candidates actually state policies and then discuss them during the election, right?
What planet are you from, anyway?
There is a tradition of at least having a vaguely consistent policy, even if a candidate never describes it clearly and plans to change it once elected. I don’t like the fact that elections are mostly theatre and rhetoric. But does it have to be bad actors presenting second-rate rhetoric?
In fairness candidates get backed into a corner wherever they open their mouths because every reporter is hungry to label him/her a ‘flip flopper’. It’s easy to understand why they are reticent.
All of us develop our feelings and positions over time as we think and as we experience life. God forbid a candidate should, say, upon reflection feel that abortion is wrong when an earlier position was pro choice. Or vice versa.
(That’s a particularly inflammatory example, I admit).
But in truth once we develop our “Positions” about the “Big Issues” they are forever enshrined, I suppose.
Largely to blame are “journalists” – truly more-accurately termed self-important bottom feeders – for much of the state of our elections, largely informed by a failure to report on anything other than the latest polls. These are the same people who tell us that social media is the source of our societal ills.
Yikes. I’m scaring myself.
I think it is more about congress now. Opposition to any public funding as soon as a candidate makes their spending public.
Ah, for the good old days of pork barrel spending.
I have an honest question. How is he going to accomplish this while freezing NASA employment, effectively preventing flow of fresh blood into NASA? Contractors?
I suppose one answer, albeit far too logical, would be to delete some very expensive and unsustainable programs. I’ve said many times and promise not to keep banging this drum- $18B is a lot of money in the hands of a thoughtful agency sans congressional interference.
I don’t think big and inefficient programs are the main problem. There is an enormous amount of low-level inefficiency across the board. But that’s deeply rooted in the istitutional or corporate culture. Changing that is very difficult and a top-down approach of yelling at less senior managers probably isn’t going to work.
The logistics that NASA does, comes out of congressional districts. I am sure those congressional members will be more than happy to vote that funding away from their districts.
How can such vacuous people ever do anything positive for space exploration?
Ballast?
FWIW, Mr Trump isn’t really suggesting a major change in direction. He’s just proposing formalising the privatisation of LEO (something that effectively happened when the Shuttle was retired).
Depending on your viewpoint, it might also mean cancelling SLS as it is mostly a system to launch payloads into LEO for assembly before travelling on to other destinations. However, in practical terms, that depends on just how much private sector launch capacity is available and the maximum flight cadence it can achieve.
On the runway speech he talked about more money for commercial space. Perhaps he’s taken a liking to Elons way of thinking, spend less per mission for more missions?