TrumpSpace Update: There Is No Update
What would NASA in the age of Trump look like?, Houston Chronicle
“I don’t expect anything grand and dramatic about space for the next two or three years,” said Keith Cowing, a longtime NASA observer – and sometimes critic – who oversees a pair of websites related to NASA and other space matters. “They have to figure out how to run the government first. I don’t think there is a grand picture for NASA yet. It is the last thing they are thinking about.” One thing very much on Trump’s mind, apparently, is the promised gargantuan tax cut. Though it is hard to imagine even a Republican Congress agreeing to a $7 trillion-plus loss in revenue over the following decade, even a more modest plan could gut discretionary spending and the government agencies that rely on it – like NASA.”
NASA science chief seeks to allay concerns about transition, Space News
“The discussion was very thoughtful, very focused on good objectives and focused on science value,” he said in an interview after the town hall meeting. “We were ready for that. Every division director was ready to talk about their programs that way.” The landing team, he added, has received all the information they requested. [NASA’s Science Mission Directorate AA Thomas] Zurbuchen said he had not been able to glean any information from the landing team about the incoming administration’s plans. That included, he said, who it might nominate to be the next administrator of NASA, or when that might take place.”
.jpg)
Kansas, we have a problem.
Tax cut is nothing more than code for cut social programs. If that’s what they want, fine, let’s talk it out. But to couch it in terms of nonsensical trickle-down, or to make the silly argument that a billionaire’s tax cuts are somehow ‘invested’ is simply an embarrassment.
Government has legitimate needs for money. It’s not ‘stealing’, as some on the right like to say. And NASA is one of those needs.
To play the Devil’s Advocate.
Does NASA still have a geopolitical function important enough to justify its budget? Remember, the Cold War is long over.
Does NASA have a valid economic function that justifies its budget beyond making Congress Critters happy with pork flowing to their Districts?
Does the science spending at NASA provide sufficient economic benefits to justify its expense? Pictures of Mars are nice eye candy, but are they worth the expense?
Imagine a “mad taxpayer” version of Q is putting NASA on trial, how would you answer his questions?
I know an Israeli scientist who came up with a good answer to that question. He was asked by an American reporter how, given Israel’s defense and national security concerns, the government could afford to pay him to study esoteric physics problems concerning Jupiter and Saturn. He said, if his country “did not fund the arts and sciences, we would not be a country worth defending.”
Do you think that will work on a senate committee wanting to know why they shouldn’t cut NASA funding? Do you think they will appreciate the art of it?
no.
It depends on what sort of money you’re looking for and how dependent on political whims you want the funding to be. Yes, at a low level, I think you can get funding for science, just for the sake of it. Not much, but some. If you claim the results will save the world from some horrible disaster, may be able to get quite a bit more money. But it can also turn into a political football. You might have senators wanting their state involved in this important work, and telling you how and where to spend the money.
I would say this, Dr. Matula: that conflating ROI with social value is the road to hell, a road we are busy paving.
There is ALWAYS a ROI factored in. by your own wording, social “value” you are putting a value judgement to it. So is the picture of mars more important than cancer research? Children with disablity research? ALL spending HAS to be measured against other spending.
I believe Mr Matula asked some very pointed questions that do have answers. Everyone may not come up with the same answers or value metrics but this isn’t paving a road to hell.
Q. 1 – Not currently, but may in the future with China
Q. 2 – Yes, public private partnerships have been proven to be cost effective.
Q. 3 – I would like to see more of a cots style approach to HOW the science is aquired. From what I have heard others write when a new project is funded the new PI wants to always reinvent the wheel and make every all new and cutting edge as a legacy project because they usually will only get one project in their career.
Let me be clearer then: my point uses ‘ROI’ as a stand-in for the monetization of social goals neither immediately nor indeed properly amenable to financial analysis.
Moving towards these social goals may or may not carry a certain financial component, but that’s not the point, which is this: that some social goals are implicitly valuable.
As an example: we have so monitized education in this country that little value is placed on study not transferable to ‘real world jobs’. That if a college education doesn’t make you more money it’s not ‘worth’ it.
This is a point of view entirely indefensible.
I think Vladislaw’s point was that the “return” and “investment” in ROI aren’t limited to dollars. It can be an investment of time (as in volunteer work) and a return of something of “socially value.” Would you volunteer your time to a project which wasn’t going to accomplish much of anything? Isn’t that wanting a good return on your investment?
As far as education and its value to “real world jobs”, I have mixed feelings about that. Before roughly 1950 (well, before the GI bill and a large number of recently demobilized soldiers) college degrees were much less common. I’d say a college degree with an emphasis on “real world jobs” is better than no college education at all. So I can’t quit call that a step backwards. But considering the second half of the twentieth century, I might call the current state of things two steps forward and one step backwards.
In any case, I’m not sure how well you can predict what classes would be useful in a “real world job” or for making money. My job depends very heavily on being able to write good grant proposals. I learned more about that from a semester of Roman history than all the physics courses I took as an undergraduate. (Cicero could really write and speak well.)
Keith, may I respectfully submit for the record that General Boldin and Lori Garver (who as a tea party conservative I have great respect and admiration for both) were both formally nominated to their NASA positions on May 23, 2009. Things are happening but not at the speed at which some would like.
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
This happens with all administrations. While I think 98 percent of the people who view this blog (my SWAG) love space two percent probably could care less… which is exactly 1.6 percent MORE than what NASA gets in the federal budget.
Sadly, people outside of the NASA sphere of influence really could care less. CNN, FOX, NPR, MSNBC really could care less about NASA until they can use NASA as a political weapon – which is shameful regardless of side. NASA is truly NON-partisan (not bi-partisan). NASA will only become important for brief moments in time, when there is a launch disaster, or when the SMoD is incoming and people realize we cannot do much about it.
We have time.
VR
RE327
So much for becoming a space faring nation when all the talk is about reduction in budgets. Whoever will be the next administrator is not going to make any new friends, and will probably lose some, as he or she will have to lead these cuts.
I believe that some latter Apollo missions were cut for budgetary reasons.