Less than two days after NASA announced its new lunar exploration architecture, some in Congress—Republicans, no less—are considering cutting it. The New York Times reports that a group of fiscal conservatives have proposed “Operation Offset”, over $500 billion in budget cuts over 10 years to pay for hurricane relief without tax increases or deficit spending. Included in the plan, according to the Times, is “eliminating the Moon-Mars initiative that NASA announced on Monday, for $44 billion in savings”. That $44 billion, though, is only a fraction of the $104 billion NASA said Monday the new plan would cost, so it’s not immediately clear what Operation Offset would cut, nor over what period. The Times article includes comments from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay; he is opposed to some other aspects of the proposed cuts (delaying Medicare prescription drug coverage, for example) but did not directly address the proposed NASA cut, although you can imagine he would not be terribly happy about it.
In a similar vein, the Orange County Register, in an editorial yesterday, suggests that hurricane relief “is an opportunity to reform federal spending”, and that reform includes NASA. The paper suggests taking the $11 billion that was originally set to be redirected within NASA for the Vision and spending it instead on hurricane relief.
The funny math in this proposal ($44 billion in savings by cancelling Moon/Mars over ten years whereas the program is slated to cost $104 billion over thirteen years) tells me that it was not very well thought out and not very serious to begin with. Also, I doubt that the President’s reaction to having one of his priorities cancelled will be to say, “Well, alright.” Nor do I think the majority of Congress will react in the same way. We’ve been down this road before.
Observing politics often reminds me of that scene in the original version of the movie “The Manchurian Candidate” (which is not that good a film). The dim-witted senator running for office has charged that there are communists in the government, but is inconsistent about how _many_ communists there are–43, 66, 89, etc. So finally someone shows him a Heinz 57 Ketchup bottle and after that he is consistent in saying that there are “57” communists in the government. (It turns out that the number is irrelevant, but his charge is correct–there is a communist conspiracy afoot, and he is part of it.)
My point? Politicians invent numbers out of thin air when it suits them.
So, we can “save” $44 billion by taking it from NASA and giving it to Katrina rebuilding. But what about all those southern jobs that will be lost by canceling those aerospace programs? Lots of people in Alabama and Florida and Texas get fired so that contractors from various other places can be paid to rebuild in New Orleans.
I’m not claiming that government spending is either good, or sacrosanct. But ALL of these budget choices have consequences. And in the case of NASA, people are not proposing to prevent the hiring of new people, but to essentially unemploy the people who are currently working on one project (shuttle) and who will transition to another one (lunar human exploration). This way they can employ other people to work for the government, rebuilding a city below sea level.
The real and longstanding agenda of conservative ideologues is to eliminate federal programs that don’t accord with their perverse way of thinking. This “Operation Offset” gambit is a cynical attempt to leverage the disaster of Katrina, and the disaster of the failure of conservative government to adequately respond, to advance their own partisan objectives.
Federal spending — across the board — is more than fair game. But the last people I trust to do that are people who won’t look across the board and whose real mission is using the force of government to compel me to behave according to their wishes.
The real and longstanding agenda of liberal ideologues is to eliminate federal programs that don’t accord with their perverse way of thinking.
Don’t think that anybody has a monopoly on virtue.
Certainly the liberals don’t. If you hate democracy, there are entire countries who think just like you, billg.
$44 billion in savings by cancelling Moon/Mars over ten years whereas the program is slated to cost $104 billion over thirteen years
Perhaps they’re just deleting the lunar/Mars part (the SDLV, EDS and LSAM developments) while continuing with CEV for LEO applications.
This will be an interesting test of my assertion that human spaceflight has become a default condition of both the American government and culture. My bet is that, in the end, the VSE may get a token cut but will not be cancelled any more than the Space Station was when that program was in dire straights. In fact, I’ll predict that votes on the VSE will be a lot less close than some of the Station votes were.
— Donald
As much as I would probably benefit from the Moon/Mars program, I would love to see the federal government budget cut so that relief costs are not covered by additional taxes or more debt. When emergency spending needs arise, I have to cut luxury spending in my budget. The Government should do the same.
I swear to God that the Congress is populated, on both sides of the isle, with idiots! It’s almost as if a prime requirement to be a congressman or senator is to check your brain at the door. They’re a bunch of self-serving power-mad idiologues, and I do so desperately want to see the lame-brain ones replaced by honest-to-God human beings who can think past the next election.
Ok, having said that, I do appriciate the FEW people who actually seem to think before they open their mouths, but, unfortunately, they are few and far between. Neither political party has a monopoly on stupidity.
As your post indicates, you’ve been listening to too many people on talk radio who tell lies for a living, Dfens, or otherwise you couldn’t construe anything i said as anti-democratic. Or pro-liberal, for that matter.
The current crop of intolerant born-again alleged conservatives want to stop people from doing things they don’t like. if you’re looking for people opposed to democracy, look there. Having said that doesn’t make me a liberal. It makes me someone opposed to people using the power of government to force me to behave according to their peculiar moral code. There was a time when people who held that belief were called conservatives, but not anymore.
My guess, Rand, is that they’re keeping the bits that put NASA money in their districts.
William: You are absolutely right that neither side has a monopoly on virtue. The problem is that one side does have a near monopoly on the federal government. Indeed, they are openly annoyed that it isn’t a complete monopoly.
The two-party control of the 1990s wasn’t pretty, but it was better than what we have now. The United States might well be sliding toward the unhealthy Japanese model.
I have to applaud Rand for finally denouncing the VSE as unsustainable. That is a very important word. A lot more than the VSE that Washington is doing is unsustainable. It would be sad if it takes a fiscal crisis or a military debacle to bring the country back to two-party control. But that’s a real possibility. It would be even sadder if both a fiscal crisis and a military debacle would not be enough to bring the country back to two-party control. But that’s also a real possibility.
As for NASA, I think that it deserves the sharp budget knives that some in Congress are preparing for it. At least the human spaceflight program does. More than 20 years ago, Reagan’s science advisor, George Keyworth, described NASA as an agency of liars. As a description of human spaceflight at NASA, that’s at least as true now as it was then.
Keith Cowing is reporting signs that OMB is considering Shuttle termination.
I don’t think the odds of both Shuttle and ESAS surviving are that good. The question I have is to what extent can NASA choose which limb(s) to lose?
Kevin and Greg: My guess is that human spaceflight will survive in some form — it’s too ideologically important to too many powerful Americans to be allowed to die completely. I expect (and hope for) that minimum to be a scaled down CEV to support the Space Station, as a toe in the door for the rest of the VSE. Hopefully, what survives will be more than that minimum, but the minimum should be enough to continue going forward.
If human spaceflight does goes down, big budget automated spaceflight oriented away from Earth is not likely to survive much longer. Neither human nor automated deep spaceflight have much immediate practical application, but the latter also lacks ideological support beyond a few specialists.
As I stated a few weeks ago, I agree that it is time to terminate the Shuttle. Sustaining the infrastructure for the few remaining flights is far too expensive if we want any part of the VSE to survive. However, there may be method to Dr. Griffin’s madness. By making the VSE dependent on a stripped down Shuttle infrastructure, he keeps the Shuttle workforce employed, and Congressfolks and Senators happy, and thus makes the VSE’s political survival that much more possible.
— Donald
Kevin: How about that news about OMB. Even a hurricane can have a silver lining.
It is important to remember that the shuttle and ESAS are not equivalent. The shuttle is political reality, while ESAS is window dressing. If a hurricane blows out the window, it is much cheaper to only put back the curtains.
Donald: Given the national excitement that came from Hubble, from the Mars probes, and from Deep Impact, I don’t think that you are right that robotic spacecraft lack ideological support. But if these unmanned tunas also go on the chopping block after the manned whales, then oh well. I like even cheaper missions (like WMAP) just as much anyway.
Maybe, just maybe, Congress will find new respect for climate satellites.
As for Griffin, I suspect that his methods will collapse before a flood of madness from Washington.
I have to applaud Rand for finally denouncing the VSE as unsustainable.
The VSE is quite sustainable. What’s probably not sustainable (and is certainly disappointing) is the particular architecture that Dr. Griffin has chosen to attempt to implement it.
Rand, can you summarize your ideal plan?
Just curious.
Rand: I concede that I would have been happier if Griffin had chosen the Roton instead. (But I doubt that you would have shared my reasons.)
Unfortunately, I probably agree with Rand.
Greg: “As for Griffin, I suspect that his methods will collapse before a flood of madness from Washington.”
Interesting, the last I heard you were defending Dr. Griffin to me. As I recall you said something to the effect of, he’s an engineer so he must know what he’s talking about.
Okay, I went too far in my argument and you are correct on popular support for some automated missions. (Though you are, at best, disingenuous about including Hubble in your list: Hubble is a product of the human space program.) But I don’t concede the political importance of human spaceflight, which will allow it to survive in some form.
— Donald
>> The question I have is to what extent can NASA choose which limb(s) to lose?
Kevin, NASA will have no say in whether the Shuttle program ends in ’06 or not. It’s Bush’s call. Griffin can advise and recommend, but it isn’t his decision to make. (Although I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush let Griffin take the hit.)
If Bush does kill Shuttle next year, he will won’t touch VSE. If anything, he’ll try to accelerate it.
Donald: Griffin is a competent engineer, but not necessarily a wise one. In my view, any competent engineer would make a wiser NASA Administrator than any professional bureaucrat. However, merely being wiser may not make you wise enough.
Since everyone likes to cite the “counterexample” of James Webb. The wisdom in that period came from the Deputy Administrator, Hugh Dryden. But O’Keefe had no Dryden to enlighten him. He just had other bureaucrats like Readdy and Steidle.
Also, even if Griffin were wise enough for ordinary times, these are not ordinary times. The deficit, the war, and the hurricane have together changed Washington from a halfway house to a cuckoo’s nest.
Greg: “In my view, any competent engineer would make a wiser NASA Administrator than any professional bureaucrat.”
This is not necessarily true and often it is wrong.
In Mr. O’Keefe’s case, his originally ideas were more technically and politically sustainable over the long term than Dr. Griffin’s. Mr. O’Keefe started with the NASA budget and worked backwards, and also tried for the lowest cost, most flexible, and fastest solution of designing a crew vehicle that could fit on any medium launch vehicle.
In contrast, it appears to me that Dr. Griffin is taking the opposite tact. Let’s figure out what we think we need, lie (in all probability) about what it’s likely to cost, and / or dream about increased NASA bidgets.
In today’s political and financial environment, and especially after Katrina, professional bureaucrat O’Keefe’s approach appears more far sustainable to me than engineer Griffin’s.
— Donald
My “ideal” (but almost certainly politically unacceptable) plan would be for NASA to simply put out bids for massive tonnage to be delivered to orbit, at a hundred dollars a pound. They could also contract for a thousand consecutive flights of a space transport in which no payload is lost (though aborts back to earth would be acceptable). Prize for that one would be five billion, with a second-place prize of three billion. In the meantime, they’d start putting together lunar mission designs that would take advantage of the prospect of low-cost and reliable launch. I’d also toss out a billion dollar prize for the first person to return to the moon. Another billion if they return to earth. Again, I’d offer second prizes to spur the competition.
But that plan wouldn’t create “jobs” in the politically important congressional districts.
Rand: “for NASA to simply put out bids for massive tonnage to be delivered to orbit, at a hundred dollars a pound”
More realistic than hundred-dollars a pound might be the lowest price wins. Since we don’t know what is really possible, this allows competition even if the lowest that can realistically be achieved is, say, $500 per pound.
— Donald
Billg, when you start attacking conservatives, you attack me. Whatever party is in power, they make the rules so far as they stay within their constitutional powers. I agree with Greg though, we were better off when there was a legitimate 2 party system.
Had NASA gone with the shuttle-c, they would have been able to keep all the current shuttle people employed either maintaining existing equipment, or buying the new orbiter. Now they will have that minimum 3 year gap where the existing staff will probably be laid off. They would have needed 3 launches of a shuttle-c instead of just 2 with the current concept. If we had a space station in a useful orbit, that wouldn’t be a problem to assemble in space. Of course, a shuttle-c could lift more to the station too, resulting in less on-orbit assembly and integration. A more sustainable vehicle could be the follow on to shuttle-c. As it is, the currently proposed turkey will be with us for 30 or 40 more years, if it is ever built. What a nightmare.
Well, Dfens, as conservatives go you seem a reasonable sort. But, even relatively conservative liberals like myself or Mr. Clinton have been attacked, often unreasonably so, by conservatives for a generation. It seems to me that I and other liberals have earned the right to defend ourselves through a reasonable offense.
— Donald
Donald–the “lowest price wins” when?
There has to be some kind of goal to shoot for. X-Prize picked two weeks for the second flight because they had to draw a marker. If you don’t think that a hundred bucks is achievable (I see no reason to think it’s not), then pick a higher one, but you have to pick something, and it has to be something worth running the contest for.
Rand wrote:
I’d also toss out a billion dollar prize for the first person to return to the moon. Another billion if they return to earth.
I would support this idea.
The second sentence did cause me to exhale some coffee, however. Well written.
Rand proposes that the US taxpayers offer a billion dollars for the first person back to the moon. I support that idea.
Thinking outside the box, how much might the global TV rights be worth for the coverage rights of someone beating Mike Griffin back to the Moon? If a billion or two in tax dollars is sufficient incentive, what about a billion or two or four in exchange for TV rights?
Dfens: I’m not attacking you. I’m criticizing what I think are the failures of conservative government and what I think is their anti-democratic ideologically driven agenda. The key words there are “failures”, “anti-democratic”, and “ideologically driven: If the government was controlled by people you call liberals and they were guilty of the same sins (that isn’t difficult to imagine) I’d apply the same criticism.
Usually, but not always, I disagree with conservatives. But, that doesn’t make me a liberal. The two aren’t mirror images of each other. So, what I find offensive is being labeled an unAmerican liberal simply because I don’t fall into line on the way to genuflect before politicians like Bush.
Since the losses of Challenger and Columbia are now firmly ascribed to the basic design of the Shuttle, a Shuttle-C proposal would draw Congressional criticism that NASA was going with a proven dangerous design. Remember, decisions about NASA’s budgets and overall objectives are political decisions, not engineering decisions. And, Griffin’s constituency is not the general public or folks like us. It’s Congress.
wow what a great idea these conservatives have. Recently our car and homeowners insurance went up so I was thinking maybe I could apply a similar approach to my family.
We could save money by eliminating cable tv and replacing the hdtv with a smaller more energy conservative set, thought I saw an old black and white at a garage sale.
We could eliminate one car, my teen uses it for college, but that can be cut too, she doesn’t need college she can get a job at mcdonalds instead.
We can cut our one family trip every two years to one in ten years.
I’m sure I can think of more things to cut.
The point is that just as deverting funds from social programs to defense have helped topple the soviet union the opposite situation is also possible.
When you take money and divert it from science and tech investments.
Human space flight , high energy physics and the like you are degrading the knowledge base of the country. Has anyone noticed the shortage of engineers in this country , is the us still the prime center for research into physics. can we afford to give up a lead in space just as other emerging economies are starting to embrace it.
The budget deficit has been compared to paying for one credit card with another. But diverting Science and tech investments to social programs is kind of like paying for your increased monthly costs with a credit card. It can’t last forever . Pretty soon the country is paying for all those social programs with money borrowed from foriegn sources.
How about fixing the problem at the root and looking at reducing the trade gap and the brain drain.
Of course maybe we need to get some new funiture for the capital buildings those old chairs might be too hard on the brains of some of those congressmen suggesting all these cuts.
…what I find offensive is being labeled an unAmerican liberal simply because I don’t fall into line on the way to genuflect before politicians like Bush.
No sensible person expects you do “genuflect before politicians like Bush,” Bill.
What we hope (but not “expect”) is that you won’t call him Chimpy McHalliburton, and find yourself of incapable of forming a coherent thought about him. Lord (if he exists, which I doubt) knows that I’m not a big Bush fan, but in the face of the morons who are Bush enemies with their idiotic complaints about him, I find myself compelled to defend him.
This is a situation not unlike the Space Shuttle, in which the people who attack it are so ignorant about space policy in general, that defense of it, as reprehensible as it is, is unavoidable…
Rand,
I agree but what can we do about it.
Fortunately I think (hope) that with everyone agreeing the shuttle needs to retire there is enough support by the majority for the cev. The heavy lift vehicle doesn’t come into play until after 2012.
The problem with the media is that they emphasise the 104 billion without emphasing the fact that the expenditure is over 13 years.
Rand,
I agree but what can we do about it.
Fortunately I think (hope) that with everyone agreeing the shuttle needs to retire there is enough support by the majority for the cev. The heavy lift vehicle doesn’t come into play until after 2012.
The problem with the media is that they emphasise the 104 billion without emphasing the fact that the expenditure is over 13 years.
Rand,
I agree but what can we do about it.
Fortunately I think (hope) that with everyone agreeing the shuttle needs to retire there is enough support by the majority for the cev. The heavy lift vehicle doesn’t come into play until after 2012.
The problem with the media is that they emphasise the 104 billion without emphasing the fact that the expenditure is over 13 years.
all,
Sorry about the multiple postings safari had a problem
“Has anyone noticed the shortage of engineers in this country”
Speaking of which, there may be one less shortly.
Unless I can raise/borrow enough money to support my microwave thermal rocket research by the middle of next week I’ll be required to leave the country within 60 days.
Rand Simberg: I’m not a big Bush fan, but in the face of the morons who are Bush enemies with their idiotic complaints about him, I find myself compelled to defend him.
And I’m not a big Jesus fan, but in the face of His enemies, I find myself compelled to defend Him.
Kevin
Are you trying to be funny, this is the first real direction nasa has taken in 30 years and the conservatives in congress could ruin it.
WE meaning the space advocacy groups can’t and should not let that happen.
As an avowed conservative (fiscal) and a budding libertarian (where government involvement into the everyday lives of the citizen are concerned) I would much rather see a space program that is incentivized for success much the way Rand proposes but more tilted toward contracting for services than an X-Prize approach. I wouldn’t pay a contractor to develop a system that the Government then operates (Shuttle, ISS). That only encourages excessive spending since the contractor can only realize profit based upon man-hours spent as they have no other vested interest and Government agencies are for the most part extremely ineffective at operation that are cost effective. I would rather see industry develop the architecture necessary to provide the service and then be paid only when they successfully deliver that service. NASA shouldn’t care whether people and supplies are delivered to the moon using 8 EELV launches and in-space assembly or one huge launcher. Whoever does it at the lowest cost, highest reliability, and in a predictable fashion will succeed and prosper.
I don’t know where the rant about conservatives being anti-democratic comes from. In the strictist terms, I would expect all Americans to be anti-democratic since this is the same as anti-mob-rule. I do believe very much in the rule of law, application of the Constitution as the guiding legal precedent (not international law in which I or my representative have had no voice in forming) and the right to own property without the State taking that property by force/imminent domain purely for increasing tax revenues. With respect to the last issue, Bush has failed in that Government spending has grown considerably and it is not all attributable to GWOT. He needs to find that VETO stamp and use it.
No, I’m quite serious. There seemed no point in staying silent when the topic is budget knives. Part of the reason NASA is facing the knife too is because they failed (for whatever reason) to solve the launch problem. Anyway, I realize I’m a guest in this country and I will try to borrow the necessary money to finish the final 6 months of my work, because I think it can help. I know many people don’t believe that technology is the problem, but I do.
I don’t want congress to cut VSE either, which is why I suggested that NASA seize the initiative and end the Shuttle early. I’m told that this is not NASA’s decision, and now it looks like OMB is mulling it so presumably they are part of the decision.
I’m not a big Jesus fan, but in the face of His enemies, I find myself compelled to defend Him.
Maybe I’m missing something here, Greg; perhaps you can enlighten me. Was Jesus attacked in this blog post or its comments?
Or are you just polluting Jeff’s site?
Zeroing out VSE would effectively end American manned space activities. Most of the congressmen who propose cutting the budget for VSE don’t seem to understand that fact. But they will eventually.
Congress gutting manned space exploration is as likely as the ending of agricultural subsidies. That is, not likely at all.
Donald: I agree that O’Keefe’s plans were politically sustainable, for as long as he cared to sustain them. But technically sustainable? At a technical level, O’Keefe could hardly have done less. Look at how the NASA and O’Keefe handled falling foam, for example. They dithered for two years, then before the moment of truth came, O’Keefe himself quit. Of course when the moment of truth did come, NASA still had its pants down with the foam problem.
Or look at the decision to cancel Hubble. O’Keefe claimed that it was because of safety, but it turned out that he hadn’t even had a safety review, it was a seat-of-the-pants decision.
Then O’Keefe proposed using a space station robot, “Dextre”, to replace the astronauts in the Hubble mission. It didn’t make any sense. It is true that completely unmanned telescopes make more sense than astronaut servicing missions. But this does not mean that you should put robots into astronaut workspaces. It would be like flying a Cessna with a Sony QRIO when the mission calls for a Predator.
O’Keefe’s treatment of the VSE was hardly better, starting with Steidle’s idea of a “fly off”. That one made about as much sense as a “bridge off”, say. (Although I admit that the Bay Bridge project may almost have come to that.)
So, I would submit that our first step in recovering from Katrina can’t be to lay off all the people who were working on the human space flight program and who were largely resident in the Gulf Coast states.
by DR. GRIFFIN
That statement (among others) is why I thought Griffin’s responses at the Q&A session were good; I’m just not a fan of PowerPoint.
If the Shuttle’s going to be cancelled anyway and those people have to be employed, NASA might as well switch to the heavy launcher development right away. I would far rather the work went on in New Orleans than at Marshall; at least then the design team would be working at the factory that will make the thing. That would be closer to a Skunkworks mode of operation.
>>
If the Shuttle’s going to be cancelled anyway and those people have to be employed, NASA might as well switch to the heavy launcher development right away.
>>
I’d like nothing better myself, but given the budget constraints and the political realities, I don’t see how that’s possible. The top priority has to be to replace the manned capability which we loose by retiring the shuttle. But if you can figure a way to begin that effort in parallel, I don’t think you’d find much objection from this crowd.
Rand, I don’t believe I’ve slurred Bush with derogatory tags like “Chimpy McHalliburton”. That kind of unthinking nonsense is insulting and destroys democratic dialogue.
The opinions I’ve expressed about modern conservatism and Bush are sincere and longstanding. The first presidential election I voted in was 1964 Johnson-Goldwater and I’ve watched both conservatives and liberals respond and react to the changes in our society since then. I’m equally critical, for different reasons, of the current state of liberalism and the Democratic Party, but they aren’t running the country these days.
The genuflecting remark was meant to suggest that any criticism of Bush or conservatism seems to provoke rather kneejerk ad hominem attacks on the criticizer’s alleged lack of patriotism, his hostility toward democracy, etc. It is as if some people equate faith in democracy and love of country with unquestioning acceptance of the President’s actions. Attacking me as hating America because I disagree with conservatives, don’t support most of Bush’s policies, and consider him a failure in many respects is simply McCarthyism in new garb. Neither the Constitution nor love of country requires me to lie or stay silent if I merely disagree with the ruling party.
Greg – I would have loved to see a CEV fly-off, … with a few caveats. First, each team would be responsible for developing and producing their entry entirely on their own nickel. A strict timeline would be established so you either meet the launch date or you don’t and you are free to spend as much as you like to get there. Launch vehicles would be provided by the Government for the ride to space. Pre-established performance standards are set by NASA and each entry is judged against those standards. The winner gets a minimum number of guarenteed flights with their hardware to recover development costs. After that minimum number of flights, NASA transitions the program to a service oriented contract and the winner gets first rights to the contract but the hardware technology becomes open source and future competition is based upon quality of service provided.
I don’t believe I’ve slurred Bush with derogatory tags like “Chimpy McHalliburton”.
I didn’t say you did–I just said that I hoped you wouldn’t. The reason that I hoped that you wouldn’t, but feared that you might, is because you do say other mindless knee-jerk things, like “…The current crop of intolerant born-again alleged conservatives want to stop people from doing things they don’t like. if you’re looking for people opposed to democracy, look there.”
I have no idea to whom you’re referring when you write that, or what it has to do with space policy. I’d suggest that if you’re really concerned about “unthinking nonsense” and “democratic dialogue” (whatever that means), you’ll be looking to the beam in your own eye.
For the record, I’ve never said anything about you hating America (though you do seem to be at war with logic and common sense, both here and at my blog), or your having to genuflect to anyone, let alone George Bush, so I’ve no idea what you’re ranting about.
Greg, I never defended Mr. O’Keefe on anything but his initial ideas about the VSE, which I still maintain were basically correct, both politically and technically. I do not defend all of his other decisions. I agree (and have agreed) with you that attempting to automate the Hubble repair was absurd, but there were many so called engineers at NASA Goddard who went along with this absurdity.
Wishful thinking — which is what advocating for either the Space Shuttle after the first few flights, or for automated space exploration, boil down to — is hardly limited to non-engineers. Recent NASA history demonstrates that it is a fundamental part of the human condition. In the case of the Space Shuttle, I freely admit to succuming to it myself. However, in advocating for the absurdity of space exploration without explorers, you are as guilty or more so. . . .
— Donald
One reason to fear that other people might badmouth the President is if you do it yourself. Here are some of the ways that Rand Simberg has described another president:
March 2002: Bill Clinton was whining to his toadies and sycophants…
November 2004: The Clinton “Lie-Berry” (title)
May 2005: Good News for Bill Clinton: They may have finally found a cure for herpes…
But I have to give Rand credit for one thing: He never called Clinton “Chimpy McHalliburton”.
It raises the question of who exactly does call Bush “Chimpy McHalliburton” and why. A search in Google News for the word “chimpy” produces an interesting result (as of this moment): Two anti-Bush blog entries, five pro-Bush blog entries, one pro-Bush newspaper editorial, and one irrelevant item about real chimpanzees. So it seems that the fans of George Bush huffily criticize the nickname “Chimpy”, or even employ it with double sarcasm, at least as often as his enemies use it as an insult. (That includes Bush fans who can’t admit that they are Bush fans.)
It reminds me of a scene in the Lord of the Rings (the novel, not the movie) in which Gollum sarcastically criticizes himself before the wise Faramir. Faramir points out that Gollum’s self-deprecation is self-fulfilling.
Anyway, I do not agree with billg that this unthinking nonsense destroys democratic dialogue. On the contrary, it is democratic dialogue. Childish insults against presidents have been a regular part of American democracy at least since Thomas Jefferson. It just goes with the territory.
Donald: I agree with you that the VSE is politically viable, up to a point. I see nothing technically sensible about the Bush VSE, or the O’Keefe VSE, or the Steidle VSE. All three versions seem either ignorant or evasive at the technical level. I really don’t know what technical strengths you have in mind.
I think Griffin ought to shut down GOES weathersats if they try to attack NASA funds. If they won’t fund space they don’t deserve its benefits. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin must use Russian engines in Sea Launch and Atlas V engines–and we have neglected HLLV development under the idiots Goldin and O’Keefe thanks to the EELV hucksters.
We spend more in a few weeks in Iraq than we do on NASA’s yearly budget–and they go after NASA.
I thought the space-libretarian frauds would do damage to NASA by making empty promises like Rutan and his little toy.
Here is to hoping those fiscal conservatives join Proxmire in the grave.
publius: how do you expect Griffin to do that? NASA doesn’t operate the GOES satellites. Maybe you want him to shoot them down?
Rand, it has little to do with space policy, but I’m referring to people who, as I said, want to use the police power of government to compel other people to behave in ways that accord with their own moral and religious notions. To me, that’s the essence of intolerance. Given your own professed libertarian leanings, I’d think you’d agree.
Here are a few examples: criminalizing abortion (no one who believes abortions are acceptable is trying to force women to abort against their will, but many on the other side feel they are doing God’s work by trying to force women not to abort); seeking to use public money to indoctrinate public school students, against their and their parent’s will, in religious dogma such a creationism and intelligent design; and sending their white children to private Christian academies to avoid integrated schools (I don’t doubt the sincere and non-racist motivation of most parents who use these schools, but, at least where I come from, the impetus for their initial creation in the 1970’s was to avoid integrated schools and to pass their racist legacy to their children.
Those aren’t mindless kneejerk reactions. They’re my considered opinion based on a lifetime’s worth of paying attention. People labeled as liberal often play the same game, but they aren’t in power these days.
And, no, you didn’t accuse me of hating America. Others here did, apparently because i said I didn’t like this particular President. If disliking a President makes you an America hater, then what were conservatives during the Clinton years?
>>Childish insults against presidents have been a regular part of American democracy at least since Thomas Jefferson.
It goes all the way to Washington, Greg, who was the target of some pretty nasty venom from both the press and members of his own Federalist party and cabinet.
You’re right, of course, conflict, not consensus, is the essence of democracy.
Billg, I agree with both your examples and your conclusions in the above two messages, but “controlled conflict,” please. No holds barred conflict is antithetical to democracy. That is a lesson that Democrats, and particularly Republicans, would do well to recall.
— Donald
Rand, it has little to do with space policy
The why do you waste people’s bandwidth with your nonsense at Jeff’s site?
It raises the question of who exactly does call Bush “Chimpy McHalliburton” and why. A search in Google News for the word “chimpy” produces an interesting result (as of this moment): Two anti-Bush blog entries, five pro-Bush blog entries, one pro-Bush newspaper editorial, and one irrelevant item about real chimpanzees.
Greg, I’m happy for you that you have nothing better to do than google satirical references to the equivalent nonsense that sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome spout, even though it doesn’t exactly match your Google search. I wonder if the Dean of Mathematics at UC Davis would approve of this expenditure of your time.
Not that I’d bother to notify him of it. I, in fact, have better uses of my time.
I thought the space-libretarian frauds would do damage to NASA by making empty promises like Rutan and his little toy.
?
Can you explain that statement?
I don’t think the odds of both Shuttle and ESAS surviving are that good. The question I have is to what extent can NASA choose which limb(s) to lose?
Shuttle survives, of course.