Election Snapshot
Keith’s note: Sen. Bill Nelson D-FL and Rep. John Culberson R-TX have been defeated. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson D-TX is seeking to become the chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Keith’s update: Dana Rohrabacher R-CA has lost as well. Bill Nelson apparently wants a recount.
And MSNBC calling that John 'Europa Clipper' Culberson has lost his seat
— Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) November 7, 2018
Dana from CA is out too ..
Yep, and with Rep. Johnson running it expect that funding for NASA will fall. It’s looks like a bad night for space and NASA returning to the Moon. Looks like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are the only hope for an American Space program.
Actually no. Ms Johnson has been a friend to JSC, as many in the Texas delegation are, regardless of party,
Unfortunately, what’s good for JSC isn’t necessarily good for NASA or spaceflight in general. But I think it is just as well she doesn’t have any NASA employees in her district. (With the possible exception of people who work on NASA grants at UT Dallas and commute, or similar things.)
Yes, I’m really (really) happy to see that…
You and a whole lot of other people…#MeToo
Looks like Rep. Culberson was really moonbeamed for supporting astrobiology. Don’t expect any other members of Congress to support astrobiology or SETI funding as they will see the price paid for it. Indeed expect support for basic physical science to decline.
And with his Subcommittee going Democrat the money will go to the NIH, not NASA.
You know, after the election two years ago I was devastated, thinking I just witnessed the end of Earth Science at NASA (and NOAA). But lo and behold, it didn’t happen (thanks, in part, to people like Culberson, actually).
Now I see others bemoaning the fact that Culbertson (and Rohrbacher) lost, and declaring that it presages big cuts for NASA programs.
Well, my guess is that, just like two years ago, it isn’t gonna happen.
(So, we should now expect “support of basict physical science to decline.” Huh? The loss of seats for a political party that eschews basic science in general because it interferes with their belief systems is going to presage a loss in funding FOR basic science? You have GOT to be kidding me!)
First, the only science that the Republicans disliked was climate science. What I am talking about is the other fields that the Republicans support like Astrobiology, Planetary, Astronomy, Physics, the one that drive progress and breakthroughs. Or have you forgotten how President Obama gutted NASA’s budget for Astronomy?
Second, neither of the two chairs changed Leadership and that is where the real funding powers are in regards to science.
Third, have you read the biographies and position statements of the Democrats this will probably be the new committee chairs?
Fourth, I believe Rep. Culbertson is the first member of Congress to lose his seat by having his support for NASA turned into a negative behavior, something others, without NASA Centers in their Districts are likely to notice.
Didn’t the James Webb cost over runs pull a lot of that funding away?
No, the cuts were before the James Webb started eating up the funding. Bill Nye the Science Guy even wrote an open letter to President Obama to reverse his policy of cutting planetary funding.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Point of fact: presidents don’t set the budget, Congress does.
Which is why the changing of the Chairs is far more significant than a new President.
You can’t blame a President for the slash in science funding (“It’s all Obama’s fault”) in one breath and then, in the next breath, turn around and say Congressional committee chairs are more significant than a President when it comes to the budget.
You need to compare what President Obama asked for and what Congress actually approved. In most areas you will find the cuts were from President Obama, which was why Bill Nye wrote an open letter to him and not to Congress. Again, you need to do more than just read one opinion poll on the subject.
But we will see what the New Democrat Chairs do to the increase in spending that President Trump has given to NASA when to hold budget hearings.
Well, if one study/poll isn’t enough for you, here are three more:
https://tinyurl.com/yckrfujx
https://tinyurl.com/ycrfahax
https://tinyurl.com/yb94yrnk
But we are not talking about public opinion, but budgets. The key question is what was the budget for science that President Obama presented and what was the budget for science the Congress passed after the process had run its course in negotiations?
As for being anti-science, its important to recognize that both parties are anti-science in there own ways. Democrats for example are anti-science on genetics.
https://newrepublic.com/art…
Democratic politicians’ mostly anti-GMO views lead list of liberal anti-science positions
Eric Armstrong | New Republic | January 12, 2017
And their anti-science views on nuclear energy, especially in the 1970’s, created the current climate change crisis they are now in panic over.
>lose his seat by having his support for NASA turned into a negative behavior
or was it that Culbertson gave a lot of attention to water on Europa but didn’t give as much attention to excessive water in his constituents area?
While his opponent may have actually created the problem by representing the developers who built in the flood plain and now want Uncle Sugar to protect their investment. You do know one of her areas of expertise is real estate law?
“First, the only science that the Republicans disliked was climate science.”
Hmm:
https://tinyurl.com/y88moqob
Specifically from the above article:
“Our research finds that people who have negative feelings about scientists are more likely to identify as Republican, raising concerns about the future of science.”
and:
“One recent Pew study finds that the party preference and ideology strongly predicts key questions related to science. Democrats are more likely to say that the earth is warming due to human activity, that government funding for basic science pays off (Republicans are more likely to say it’s not worth it) and accept the science of evolution.” (Note the last two are NOT about climate science.)
and:
“The result is that funding for science has dried up. As a share of GDP and the total budget, federal spending in R&D has decreased dramatically in the last decade. R&D funding was slashed by $24 billion between 2010 and 2014 in the United States, while other countries started spending more as a share of GDP. ” (Note that Republicans controlled Congress during these years.)
That study was mostly limited to asking about climate science. It asked nothing about their interest or support of fields of science like physics or astronomy. Also we are talking about Republican members of Congress and not the voters.
Those budget years were under the Obama Administration, which as I noted above, drastically cut funding for planetary science and astronomy, cuts the Congress was able to only partially restore.
It would be interesting to see a similar study on nuclear physics and support of nuclear energy. Remember it was the Democrats who killed off the breeder reactor programs and the Super Conducting Collider program allowing the Europeans to gain supermancy in basic physics research.
1) You’re wrong, the study outlined in the article is much broader than climate change (in fact, climate change / global warming is only mentioned in one paragraph and discussed in another). You need to read it, you can’t just look at the picture of Jim Inhofe holding a snowball (although I admit it’s a pretty goofy picture and an attention grabber).
2) I repeat, the Republicans controlled Congress, which set the parameters of, and passed, the budget. Obama had to (and did) play a rear guard action. Here’s the full paragraph about the reduction in R & D spending:
“The result is that funding for science has dried up. As a share of GDP and the total budget, federal spending in R&D has decreased dramatically in the last decade. R&D funding was slashed by $24 billion between 2010 and 2014 in the United States, while other countries started spending more as a share of GDP. Already, the United States has slipped behind other countries in areas of research it used to lead. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study details fifteen areas of research where America is rapidly falling behind because of slashed funding, including Alzheimer’s research. In a recent Pew study, 83 percent of scientists said that federal funding is harder to get than it was five years ago, while only 2 percent said it was easier. That’s because of the efforts of one party.”
Note the last sentence; the authors of the research study are NOT referring to the Democrats.
Colin
I don’t think so. Poking at his interest in Europa makes for good rhetoric and newspaper editorials. But we all know (or should know) that most voters don’t care very much about space. I can’t see it as being enough to make them vote for or against a candidate. Mr. Culberson does have fairly strong views on other subjects voters are more likely to care about. On the subject of immigration, for example, his position is far right and fairly inflexible, even by the standards of affluent Houston suburbs. I suspect that was more of an issue for voters in his district than Europa.
True, but the take away lesson for future candidates is that you need to stay away from supporting space exploration because even if voters may not be interested it may be used against you in a sound bite when running for office.
Something that Mr. Gingrich learned as well.
Oh c’mon, Gingrich has to carry around far more baggage than his positions on space / NASA. I doubt they play a significant role in most people’s opinions of him.
things will stay much the same except for the Europa lander, it was not high on past decadle surveys
Probably. Europa Clipper may end up flying on a “cheaper” launch vehicle than SLS, and have a longer trip to Jupiter as a result. I can also imaging the emphasis on “ocean worlds” getting watered down. A poorly defined “program” to study them was mandated by Congress in the last budget.
It isn’t clear Mr. Scott would be an improvement over Mr. Nelson, as far as NASA funding and policy are concerned. Part of a senator’s job is looking after the interests of his constituents, and the space coast is still in Florida. The main difference is that Mr. Scott would not be a raking member of (or possibly even on) the relevant committees. But the race also isn’t over. Mr. Nelson lost by under 0.5%, and in Florida, that means an automatic recount. I really doubt to count is off by the necessary 35,000 votes, but that’s not impossible.
True, but there is the difference in seniority which will limit what he is able to do.