We noted here last week that Congressman Parker Griffith (D-AL) had some strong comments about the lack of a space policy decision for the White House to date, and the underlying concern that such a decision could jeopardize the future of the Ares 1 (which is being developed by NASA Marshall, in his district). At a hearing Thursday on workforce and industrial base issues by the House Science and Technology Committee, Parker sounded off again on the topic when it was his turn to question the witnesses:
The space program, however, will be either successful or unsuccessful in the next 16 months. The verbal expression of commitment to the space program is basically inadequate. Without national commitment of money and tangible enthusiasm from the executive branch, we will send a message of confusion and indecision to our scientific community. Mr. Augustine said it best when he said, “Get in or get out.” It’s unfair to the astronauts, it’s unfair to the scientific community, and it is unfair to those children who have an interest in science that we’re trying to attract into this absolutely vital, vital part of not only our economy, but the development of science for science’s sake.
I appreciate the concept that maybe we could use this as a diplomatic effort, and I would love to see that as a sideline, but basically this is research and development. America represents 5 percent of the world’s population; 95 percent live somewhere else. We have seen the benefits of NASA human spaceflight, it has been proven to us over and over again that this has to be a national commitment and leadership has got to come out of the executive branch.
We are in fact in a space race to the Moon with the Chinese and we have not decided to put a team on the court yet. What better opportunity than the successful launch of Ares 1-X to segue into a national announcement that we are now committed to the Moon in 2020, 2019, 2018. What better opportunity have we had to say to America’s children, “Science and math is cool.” What better opportunity? Imagine had we spent the time that we have spent on cap-and-trade, stimulus, health care, had we spent that on science education and the development of our human spaceflight program. We would be sitting here today feeling very, very good. Today, we are very, very anxious…
We can no longer discuss this. This needs to be a commitment from the executive branch and the leadership of Congress. If we delay it we are playing into the hands of our competitors, and we as America want to win. We are winners.
We are in fact in a space race to the Moon with the Chinese….
the only thing that Congressman Parker Griffith (D-AL) illustrates is that some Democrats, particularly when they are defending pork can be as goofy as some Republicans. They state things (we know where the WMD is, or Gores goofy statement on global warming being like Gravity) as certainty when it suits them to justify their actions which in most cases are taken for other reasons.
Griffith is winding down the path of reasons to defend Ares and has landed on the rock bottom of the staircase. The other explanation “safety” is starting to crack under the reality of the actual numbers (or lack of them) so now the folks who are defending their phoney baloney jobs are down to the “enemy is at the gates”.
In this case I do not think that it will work. Indeed it is pretty pathetic when it is tried.
But it does illustrate a trend in American politics which is accelerating.
When the people stop being able to get straight answers from their politicians, the tendency throughout American (and other nation history) has been to accept simplified ones. As almost everything did under the last administration this bad trend took off. We went to war (WAR) on what can best be described as irrational exaggerations playing on fear. Today the supporters of their version of WMD, the global warming folks state things with a certainty that cannot be…and like Rumsfeld when caught in exaggerations…cannot be bothered to actually explain them.
The last time we saw this in American politics was Ross Perot…and we are seeing another run at it with folks like Palin…simple answers for complicated times which only take root when there are no real answers given by the “regular pols”.
The “Chinese are going” argument is the space communities attempt to try and tie something indefensible with a notation which is hope can give traction.
It wont work…The Republic is more or less broke and most Americans view their own personal situation as deteriorating to fast and badly to care about any more rhetorical threats. But this is where, right now we are going.
Long Live The Republic
Robert G. Oler
If we’re in a race to the Moon, then the last space architecture you would want to choose would be the Ares I /V concept since it would take substantially longer to achieve and at a much higher price than NASA’s Sidemount concept or the DIRECT concept.
It wont work…The Republic is more or less broke and most Americans view their own personal situation as deteriorating to fast and badly to care about any more rhetorical threats.
This particular fact is true, but it probably hurts us more than it helps us. NASA is either a true jobs program, or a jobs program with a mission. If it is the former, then flying a lot cheaply with low overhead is the worst possible thing for every congressrat with lots of NASA jobs in district. Only bad things can happen to politicians when you fly. If it is the latter, then there is some political value to actually doing something up there, so congressrats without NASA jobs in their district might be willing to support an alternative.
“Being broke” does not stop politicians from spending on bad programs like Constellation. If anything, it makes it more likely they will not take a risk on alternatives.
There is no message of confusion and indecision being sent to the scientific community by any delay in a human space flight policy from the White House. Absolutely none. That’s a crass misstatement by Rep. Griffith. The science community (even the lunar science community) is at best wary and somewhat suspicious about the human space flight program, and about prospects that the $3 billion dollar “problem” might get solved (as Mike Griffin solved his Constellation problem a few years ago) by raiding the science pot. Constellation has never had science in the front seat, and probably never should. The human space flight program is good for many things but, aside from science about humans in space, is not seen as a major answer to any key science questions we now face.
If Griffith is confused about this matter, then the science community certainly hasn’t done it’s job.
With regard to competition from the Chinese, even Rep. Griffith seems to forget that the race is about what we did forty years ago. Quite clearly, his race is to put dollars in the pocket of MSFC and its contractors.
“Imagine had we spent the time that we have spent on cap-and-trade, stimulus, health care, had we spent that on science education and the development of our human spaceflight program. We would be sitting here today feeling very, very good.”
That’s a riot. Standup comedian, this guy. This business of joining science education and human space flight at the hip is one of the lamer arguments of human space flight afficionados. Human space flight is seen as an inspiration to technological achievement, and that’s indeed a good thing, but it is hardly a key to good science education. As to not spending on health care and stimulus, I guess we could be feeling very very good as we pay through the nose for an economic disaster. Does Griffith really want to trot out health care versus human space flight as a choice for his constituents? He’d get laughed off his dais.
the global warming folks state things with a certainty that cannot be…
Can you state empirically how carbon dioxide and methane are not demonstrated greenhouse gases, that the cumulative forcing and feedbacks on global climate are not demonstrably positive, and where the global temperature is not demonstrably climbing for me, Robert, because other than outright denialist and extreme right wing authoritarian libertarian blogs, I totally missed it in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
If Griffith is confused about this matter, then the science community certainly hasn’t done it’s job.
Actually, no, it was a national failure of the American educational system that produced senators and congressmen and woman as dumb and corrupt as Parker Griffith et al., the so called Blue Dogs and social conservatives. It has nothing to do with the scientific community, they just produce the results. In other words, its YOUR problem, a problem that you both refuse to either acknowledge or participate in the solutions thereof.
Since these are hard economic times, its a good thing that funding an agency like NASA, with its relatively tiny budget, creates a lot more wealth than it consumes while also advancing US scientific knowledge and technological progress.
The American public is more interested in the personal affairs of Tiger Woods than whether the Chinese will beat us to the moon. Come on! We won that race 40 years ago.
Griffith typifies the stereotype of a politician who will do and say anything for the folks back home.
If we want to inspire students into a world of science, technology, etc. we actually have a lot to learn from the Chinese. Not only do they crank out ‘happy meal’ toys, which inspire our children to obesity, they also crank out more engineers and scientist than we do; and they were doing it long before they had a manned space program. So the notion forwarded by Griffith that somehow a US HSF program will address Obama’s STEM goals has been debunked by the Chinese experience in this regard.
Obama will put forth an agenda for HSF that reflect “I’m not like all the other presidents and politicians”. NASA will be impacted big time. Bolden is already on record to his stakeholders that ‘you won’t like me’ and ‘well be fighting for the next year on this;’ (something to that affect) hinting of what Obama has in store for NASA/HSF.
And most Americans’ will still be more interested in Tiger Woods mistresses than Obama’s plan for NASA.
**Raising hand timidly**
There is all this talk about Obama not wanting to be like any other president, but every single president has invoked Space in terms of educations for years, and the whole international thing has been around really since the 80s, and got a huge boost in the 90s.
If Obama is going to do something different, he, you know, has to actually DO something different.
roga wrote @ December 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
This particular fact is true, but it probably hurts us more than it helps us. NASA is either a true jobs program, or a jobs program with a mission. If it is the former, then flying a lot cheaply with low overhead is the worst possible thing for every congressrat with lots of NASA jobs in district. ..
in normal bad times I would say yes, and if all this turns out to be is say the recession that Clinton left Bush (ie the dot com bust) then the status quo is possible. I think it is far worse (and would like to be wrong).
One of The reason I believe that things are far worse is the kind of politician that is starting to get traction on the national level.
The vast majority of politicians who affect real change in The Republic are really “main line” politicians who are separated from the “so so” ones simply by the clarity of the vision that they have (on a national level). Reagan and Kennedy are two such examples…there actually is little that separated the two of them. What separated say Reagan (or Kennedy) from Clinton is that Clinton’s vision of The Republic was never that clear. Carter and Bush the last were just incompetent.
But there is a lot that separates say Reagan from Buchannan or JFK from McCarthy (or Robert Kennedy from McCarthy)…Buchannan and McCarthy are more or less single issue bomb throwers who past that issue have no real vision. and in even “bad” but normal times that single vision cannot really carry them onto the national stage.
Despite people like Mark Whittington and the folks at The Weekly Standard trying to turn Palin into Ronaldus the Great…all she is is a bomb thrower. But she is getting traction because people other then the fringe are starting to sense that “mainline” politicians care more about the status quo then the folks who voted them into office.
The great experiment is going to be over the next year if Obama can cash in on the “change” he has promised. If he cannot what will get him badly is not the folks who have lost their jobs (and “hope”) but the fear in the folks who are worried that they may be next. The lesson of the 1936 election is that FDR may not have made things better, but he stopped things from getting worse. That jury is not in on BHO yet.
How this affects space policy is that unless space policy can be shown to be part of “not making things worse” and indeed a touch of making things better…then appeals such as the Congressman made mean nothing to American people who are more worried about losing their job, then the Reds beating us back to the Moon.
I ‘live’ in the heart of Clear Lake Texas and on a farm near Santa Fe Tx. Outside of the NASA and Nasaette folks…ie the ones who have the government jobs or the government supported jobs….most people do not understand why if their jobs are at jeopardy…government and government supported jobs should not be as well.
That is why I do not think that there is going to be more money for Ares.
Robert G. Oler
Master Blaster
there are changes in climate occurring. This has happened since climate first started on the Earth.
The issue that supporters of “climate change” accept with no solid proof is 1) that human kind is causing all these changes or even a majority of them and 2) that this change is going to destroy the planet eco system.
Gore and others accept those with a ferver that is completely reminiscent of Rummy “knowing” where the WMD was and being for certain that Saddam would attack us with it (“smoking gun smoking mushroom smoking city run in panic lets invade Iraq no right now and anyone who questions this is not patriotic.”).
I grew up in Texas. I recall what Houston looked like in the 1970’s before serious pollution controls…and I know that the air and water are much better now that they are in place.
Those changes are trivial in comparisons with the ones that folks like Gore are advocating…and they have no solid proof.
Gore is advocating the same steps he courageously stood against in his San Francisco speech on Iraq. Shame.
Robert G. Oler
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ December 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Since these are hard economic times, its a good thing that funding an agency like NASA, with its relatively tiny budget, creates a lot more wealth than it consumes while also advancing US scientific knowledge and technological progress…
the 9 billion spent on Ares did that how?
Robert G. Oler
“Actually, no, it was a national failure of the American educational system that produced senators and congressmen and woman as dumb and corrupt as Parker Griffith et al., the so called Blue Dogs and social conservatives. It has nothing to do with the scientific community, they just produce the results. In other words, its YOUR problem, a problem that you both refuse to either acknowledge or participate in the solutions thereof.”
Complete agreement on your first statement. But yes, the science community is somewhat guilty for letting people believe that a human space flight endeavor that would plant people on the Moon renders us capable of answering key science questions. With all due respect to Griffith, while he may be just dumb and corrupt, he’s also most likely very smart about what nonsense he can spout and get away with in the interest of getting funds for constituents. Is the science community going to flood Griffith’s office with frustration about that kind of nonsense? Not likely.
Um, are you saying I’m part of the American educational system that produced dumb politicians, or a dumb politician myself? That’s an odd accusation. Actually, I am neither.
“there are changes in climate occurring. This has happened since climate first started on the Earth.”
Yes, Robert, the atoms that comprise the Earth were once a quark gluon plasma as well, and it was one molten rock and vapor was well too.
That doesn’t make your statements any less idiotic and naive.
The issue that supporters of “climate change†accept with no solid proof
Proof is the realm of mathematics, Robert, science deals with empirical evidence and verifiable theories, as such, proof and absolutism is a paradigm that went out of vogue among people who actually take more than a passing interest in science and engineering over 100 years ago.
I grew up in Texas.
That explains almost everything I need to know about you and your approach to sophisticated scientific reasoning and peer reviewed science. With respect to planetary science and radiative physics, you are clearly blowing smoke and haven’t got a clue about the actual science.
Master Blaster
I have this theory about debate…the first one to start in personal attacks and insults completly NOT related to the topic at hand, is the loser.
Your reasoning and logic seem to be quite broad brush and weak.
I grew up in Texas (as did millions of others over time) and that alone tells you everything you need to know.
Sorry…that being the best you can do then you can do no better then Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Wolfie and the last President. And instead of reasoned debate or even pitty, all you deserve is contempt. And having thrashed you…thats it for me.
F minus for you
Robert G. Oler
“MW: Since these are hard economic times, its a good thing that funding an agency like NASA, with its relatively tiny budget, creates a lot more wealth than it consumes while also advancing US scientific knowledge and technological progress…”
the 9 billion spent on Ares did that how?
Robert G. Oler”
Since I’m a strongly opposed to developing the Ares 1, I’m not going to defend it. But I will say that scientific R&D is almost always beneficial to our knowledge and to the economy as a whole in the long run. But NASA could have spent that money much more efficiently if it had used it to develop the Sidemount right from the start.
But $9 billion could pay for an additional month occupying Iraq, if you want to put that money to good use:-)
Fascinating discussion. But cutting through the blather, here are some inconvenient facts:
(1) If Obama chooses a plan that is too much at variance with the current one he will get into a fight with Congress that he will lose. One can argue all one wants about whether the motivation is pork or something else, but Norm Augustine has already given Congress political cover by saying that the current program is technically sound. Also Obama’s capability to shape events is rapidly fading as health care reform and climate-gate roils on.
(2) Whatever plan is chosen, a lot more money is going to be required to execute it. That money may not be forthcoming absent Presidential leadership (see (1).) This is especially true if the political class gets a sudden attack of fiscal prudence after having spent money like sailors on crack on junk and political booty.
(3) “Look but Don’t Touch” lost the little appeal that it had when water was discovered on the Moon. It is footsteps and flags without the footsteps and without the flags.
(4) The nation that is first in space will be first on Earth in the 21st Century. Absent some leadership, that may well be the Chinese. And the Chinese not only oppose every value we hold dear, but do not wish us well.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 13th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Fascinating discussion. But cutting through the blather, here are some inconvenient facts:..
what a hoot.
None of these things are facts, they are simply your opinion and not very good analysis. They arebased mostly on 1) being a Ares hugger and 2) being a right wing flack. Your points 1, 2 and 3 are just babble with no real data to support the analysis. They more or less fall by their own lack of mass.
4 does as well but…you write this “(4) The nation that is first in space will be first on Earth in the 21st Century.”
that is not a “fact” that is as I noted your viewpoints masquerading as fact. Like Rumsfeld and all the other losers of the last administration you take your viewpoints and try to pass them off as reality.
It is not even good speculation. It assumes something that did not happen in the last century…ie that a nation which is ahead in some technological field triumphs in the discourse of nations despite everything else.
On the eve of WW2 The Third Reich was without a doubt the most technologically superior nation on the planet with the Empire of Japan a very close second. The leader of the Reich saw to it that a technologically sophisticated American Charles LIndbergh saw a great deal of the land, sea and air arsenal of The Reich.
The leader of The Reich (mention his name and the argument is over) hoped that “Slim” would go back to the US and let everyone know how impossible it was to challenge The Reich. “Slim” did…and a lot of people drew toward your conclusion that it is the technology that makes the nation.
It isnt. What makes nations different is their sense of country, their honor and their compact with their citizens.
Your assumption is that two government run programs, one run by the US government and one run by the Chinese government to redo a race that will be by then over 50 years old…is what determines the course of history?
That assumption is as nutty as the fact that you presented after 9/11. People like you made OBL and Saddam into the giants you would now make the Reds into.
We are far more as a nation then that.
Robert G. Oler
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ December 13th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“
But $9 billion could pay for an additional month occupying Iraq, if you want to put that money to good use:-)..
going to Iraq was a fools errand that we were sent on by a fool and supported by fools.
having said that…just leaving and letting chaos develop is equally foolish.
show me a person who supported the invasion of Iraq. I’ll show you someone who is faith based, not fact based.
Robert G. Oler
“right wing authoritarian libertarian”
Uh, what? I don’t think Master Blaster understands Libertarianism.
And why is he so angry?
“If Obama chooses a plan that is too much at variance with the current one he will get into a fight with Congress that he will lose.”
History says otherwise. From Apollo to STS to Freedom to ISS to the VSE, the White House leads and the Congress follows on major changes in the direction of NASA’s human space flight program. There’s always some noise from those few whose rice bowls get tipped over, but most in Congress follow the President’s lead when it comes to big changes at NASA for a number of recurring reasons. There’s no evidence this is going to change.
“Norm Augustine has already given Congress political cover by saying that the current program is technically sound.”
The final report of the Augustine Committee makes no such statement. In fact, it places a number of technical qualifiers on Constellation. On Ares I, the report states “The ability of Ares I to meet these [NASA’s safety] requirements will not be known until it has an established flight record…” On Orion, the report states “… the Orion development schedule is ‘back-end loaded,’ such that designing test articles, conducting tests and producing flight hardware run in parallel, thus creating an extremely high schedule risk.” On Ares I and Orion, the report states that “[budget and] technical problems that have been encountered on the Ares I and Orion programs, have produced the most significant overall impacts to
the execution of the Constellation Program.”
It’s simply a false claim that the Augustine Committee stated that Constellation is “technically sound”. The final report does not state such and raises a number of technical issues on Constellation.
Moreover, Congress’s own reports, from the GAO and CBO, raise in great detail a much larger number of technical issues on Constellation. It’s unlikely that Congress will ignore the report of a Presidential blue-ribbon panel, but it’s even less likely that Congress will ignore its own reports.
“Whatever plan is chosen, a lot more money is going to be required to execute it.”
Whatever plan? All the possible options for the future of the U.S. civil human space flight program require “a lot more money”? Really?
This is hyperbole and a patently false statement.
“That money may not be forthcoming absent Presidential leadership”
According to this article, the White House is going to pursue an increase to NASA’s budget for a human space exploration.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18273-nasa-to-get-budget-boost-for-exploration-says-analyst.html
“‘Look but Don’t Touch'” lost the little appeal that it had when water was discovered on the Moon.
The ratio of water to regolith in the LCROSS data is miniscule. Based on the LCROSS data, to get a given amount of water, we’d have to mine and/or heat an amount of regolith that is about 13,000 times larger. Given how much equipment would have to be developed, shipped, operated, and maintained on the Moon to obtain any sizable amount of water from a site like the LCROSS impact site, lunar water is not competitive with terrestrial water shipped to space.
The LCROSS data justifies additional lunar probes, especially surface, to determine if there are any localized sources of water with a much higher ratio of water to regolith. But it would be incredibly stupid at this point in time to wrap the future direction of the civil human space flight program around such an apparently poor resource.
“It is footsteps and flags without the footsteps and without the flags.”
You do realize that the Flexible Path options include at least five human lunar surface missions, including extended duration missons, before proceeding with human Mars missions, right? And that even without the Moon, that both footsteps and flags can be planted on asteroids and the moons of Mars, right?
“The nation that is first in space will be first on Earth in the 21st Century.”
Really? Space will be more important nationally and globally over the next century than, say, genomic technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, energy technology, or IT. Really?
More false hyperbole.
“Absent some leadership, that may well be the Chinese.”
The Chinese are lucky to get one human LEO mission off per year. They have yet to rendezvous and dock two human spacecraft. They are years from completing their new medium lift launch site. They are not pursuing any key capabilities (heavy lift, landers, reentry at lunar return trajectories, etc.) necessary to pull off a human lunar mission. Their written plans only have one robotic lunar lander and a temporarily manned space station by 2020. Their leadership has repeatedly stated that a human lunar mission is not in their planning horizon.
And even if China did undertake a human lunar landing anytime soon, they’d be repeating an event that the U.S. achieved decades ago.
“And the Chinese not only oppose every value we hold dear, but do not wish us well.”
Your point? What could a couple Chinese astronauts do to the United States from the lunar surface?
Wacky…
FWIW…
Major Tom-
I think you are correct. If anyone knows where the Augustine Committee ever said that
-Constellation is well-managed
-Constellation is technically sound
-There has been no mismanagement in Constellation
I would like to see the details of where these statements were made.
I’ve heard different individuals, notably Congress people, make such statements, but the only statements I recall being made by Augustine, were:
-the program as laid out and being pursued is unsustainable
-Orion is too large and too heavy but to redesign it again will be at least another year and considerably more money
-given enough time and money, Constellation could be made to work; -Orion will not fly until 2017 at the earliest and more likely 2019 or later
-moon landings might be made once the Ares 5 is available; neither Ares 5 nor moon landings will be acheiveable until 2028 at the earliest
-looking at whether Constellation was being managed adequately wa snot what the Augustine committee was charged woth; it was not the subject of their study.
“(4) The nation that is first in space will be first on Earth in the 21st Century. Absent some leadership, that may well be the Chinese. And the Chinese not only oppose every value we hold dear, but do not wish us well.”
In case you missed the memo, the cold war is over. Space these days has been all about international cooperation, and will continue to be. China and India have both set about making manned programs that directly interface with the programs that are currently out there. China has gone it alone mostly because we won’t let them play on our playground (justified or not). And frankly I don’t blame them for saying “if you won’t help us we’ll do it ourselves.” But they still aren’t building their program as an afront to ours. Certainly not nearly in the same way the USSR did or the way we returned the favor way back when.
And aside from that, China has generally stayed away from the sort of militaristic imperialism and unabated expansionism the USSR and it’s allied nations engaged in, which has produced much better relations with the west over the years and prevented the sort of sabre rattling we saw elsewhere. Inf act, the Sino-Soviet split was almost entirely founded on that difference of opinion over foreign relations. They took sides in Vietnam and North Korea, but they didn’t try to build puppet governments in the same way that USSR did in eastern Europe, and they supported, but didn’t manufacture those campaigns.
In short, China may not like us, and they may not behave the way we like them to behave, but if we’re looking for sabre rattling with them, we’re barking up the wrong tree.
As for the first on the moon being the first in the 21st century, again, you’re living in the past. China and its citizens are proud of their program, as well they should be, but no one else really gives a damn they way they used to. Part of that is in the fact that no one’s trying the space race card. Part of it is that the space race proved very specific combat tech (ICBM’s, surveillance satellites, etc) at the time that is now old hat for nearly every developed nation on the planet. And part of it is that it has already been done before. We’ve been to the moon. We’ve had space stations. We’ve sent probes to almost every rock bigger than phobos, and we’re sending one there too. For scientists the firsts that will come from the next generation in space are a big deal, fundamental even. For the general public, it’s more of the same old stuff. For all intents and purposes, NASA, in the eye of the public here and abroad, is just and orbital Department of Transportation.
Aremis
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
China VERY much wants to partner with the US and Russia on space efforts, because they quietly understand that’s the quickest route to be a real “player”. ITAR issues aside, such partnership presents opportunities for them to gain technological expertise and credibility instead of embarking on a long and expensive process of reinventing wheels. It seems obvious that China can have no illusions about beating us (what, beating us back to the Moon and seeing our 40 year old footprints there?) but is happy to flex their technological muscle enough to make us interested in having them as a partner. If China wants to partner with us in space exploration, their first credible step has to be a threat to do it themselves, and not a plea to cooperate.
See, we’re not interested in having, say, Bolivia as a partner in space exploration because, well, they don’t bring anything to the table. China does. A plea to cooperate won’t get Bolivian astronauts anywhere near our hardware. China not only has stuff to bring to the table (especially funding!), but have pointed themselves in the same direction as we have. The starting criteria for a partnership is that your prospective partner must have the same goals as you do. It appears that, generally speaking, China does.
China is just following the template that the Russians (and, to some extent, even the Europeans as well) honed with ISS. Be a threat, look capable, and then smile and shake hands.
I agree completely that seeing the situation through cold war glasses is irrational. That irrationality is obvious from a concern that “the Chinese not only oppose every value we hold dear, but do not wish us well”, while our nation has made HUGE investments in them over the years, in the form of at least a chasm-like trade deficit. You can’t have it both ways.
“The Republic is more or less broke and most Americans view their own personal situation as deteriorating to fast and badly to care about any more rhetorical threats”. Right ON!!!
NASA, climate change, health care, the wars, China threat…the clock is ticking two years or twenty none of it is sustainable unless we get a grip on our nations financial integrity and stop our head long plunge into endless debt. The real crash is coming 2009 was just a warning a bump in the road. And when it does come all of this will be mere history of a future, dream, freedom and a nation lost.
Join “The Sons of Allegiance” (coming soon) put a stop to irresponsible government, socialism and get ready in case time runs out.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ December 14th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.
China VERY much wants to partner with the US and Russia on space efforts, because they quietly understand that’s the quickest route to be a real “playerâ€. ITAR issues aside, such partnership presents opportunities for them to gain technological expertise and credibility instead of embarking on a long and expensive process of reinventing wheels………………………………
that is a good thought, but I honestly dont think that is why the Reds want to be part of ISS, if they do want to be part of ISS…and I am really not for sure that they want to do that.
I dont believe that the Russians have gained ANY technical expertise that they would not have gained otherwise with the end of the USSR/USA cold war regime.
ITAR aside, it doesnt strike me all that much that the Russians have evolved much differently in their space technology because of ISS.
Whose technology and technological skills have evolved A LOT and I mean a LOT is the Japanese and the Europeans. Both groups have managed to do things NASA now seems incapable of doing, building resupply ships that could evolve into crewed vehicles if the will were there, have built (actually built) substantial space station modules (some for us) …and ITAR aside I think that their industry has become the winner for it. Put it another way the concept of a “European” space station or human space flight effort was “no where” until ISS …same for the Japanese.
Where the big evolution has been in the ISS partners (and I do not want to take this analogy to far…) is that they have all learned to “work together” in a fashion that I think has affected all partners and probably positively but the largest change has been culturally. Kind of a mini NATO sort of thing. (at least in how it has affected each country)
My read on the Reds is that they are not at all interested in any of this. I do not think, to your point that the Chinese have anywhere near the same goals as the US has.
Whittington views it in cold war terms because that is all the right wing is good for…I dont, Whittington’s goofy line is this ““And the Chinese not only oppose every value we hold dear, but do not wish us well.â€
there are nuances here and to get into Mark’s world, my line would be “And the Chinese disagree with most of the values we hold dear and while they do not wish us harm, they do not wish us well.”
It has been about 10 years (sigh) but I’ve spent about 6 months there and have trained a reasonable number of PLA personell and have checked some of their airline folks. I am NOT claiming to be a China expert, but I do keep a pretty close eye and talk pretty heavily to folks who are interacting with the PRC on a daily basis.
In my view it is a mistake to look at anything of the PRC as anything that the US has ever dealt with before.
China is an old country but the PRC is a very young country. There is little in the actual political culture of the PRC that is pre the cultural revolution. Most Americans alive today do not comprehend the cultural affect that the title “Manifest Destiny” had on US development from say 1776 to the 1905 era…we have for all intents and purpose as a nation left Manifest Destiny which is more or less the charter slogan of what started our democracy.
The Reds have never left the cultural revolution and in my view it will be a long time before they ever evolve out of it…another hundred years.
Just as the America of the Manifest Destiny era did not believe that other cultures had anything to offer its evolution, the closest one can come to explaining the PRC is that they do not believe that any other culture has anything to offer them. There are similarities to American MD…but there are massive differences.
Unlike the America of the Manifest Destiny era however, the PRC mostly believes that the other cultures that it must deal with today will in fact self destruct out of the weakness of that specific culture.
They really see this century belonging to “them” not because they are going to “take” it, but because the rest of the world is going to essentially implode.
The great “clash” of at least the first part of this century, in my view is going to be not of arms, but of which economic/cultural system can survive and prosper.
Robert G. Oler
Doug – am I to assume then that the teabaggers have invaded Spacepolitics as well?
Doug wrote @ December 14th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
NASA, climate change, health care, the wars, China threat…the clock is ticking two years or twenty none of it is sustainable unless we get a grip on our nations financial integrity and stop our head long plunge into endless debt. ..
as you can imagine I concur completely in that sentiment.
To continue the thought in the post to Doug Lassiter…if China is an old country, but the PRC is a young nation….the US is a young country that is in the process of becoming an old nation.
People (and nations) become old when they cannot see a future past the current state of affairs. This happens in people because of age…they see time running out chronologically so they want to “get it all done” and they do not see a future for themselves in their offspring (ie they dont care about anything after they are gone).
It happens in nations for the same reason…generations stop seeing anything important in whatever future comes next
this is why politicians of all parties find it so easy to deficit spend…they dont care at all what choices that is imposing on the future, because it isnt “their” future.
Bush (have to bash him some!) had no problem deficit spending for his “wars on terror” because if the people had to pay for the wars they would have thought a lot more about them and 2) in that event he reallly couldnt justify them. I watched the Sunday shows and the one clear message that came from Obama’s people…they have given up on getting spending under control. They want to, but it is easier Now to face deficit spending then it is the hard choices that not DS would bring on.
Phil Gramm in an argument that now has been picked up by the left use to argue that it could go on (deficit spending) for sometime because The Republics economy was always growing. That is not true anymore and most of the consumer spending is no longer spent in the US, it is spent in China (ultimatly).
Worse, I think that our basic economy is broken just like in 29.
The Debt we have today is a sign that we as a nation have given up on the future. It is a sad statement.
Robert G. Oler
[…] He’s still turning up the heat – Space Politics […]
The US is a sleeping giant plagued with unnecessary inefficiencies and expenses:
an unnecessary war in Iraq, the most expensive and inefficient public and private health care systems in the world, a horrible K-12 educational system, a continuously rising crime rate, an expensive and unnecessary dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels, a polarized and frequently paralyzed political system, and a highly beneficial US space program that has been seriously under funded since 1969.
Solve these simple problems and the US will continue to reign supreme!
…am I to assume then that the teabagger have invaded Spacepolitics as well?
Are we to assume that you are willing to insult and denigrate people who are concerned about the future of the Republic with such a repulsive term, with sexual innuendos?
Apology, please.
Rand,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree, on this one.
Much like many other non-space issues
We have to disagree that calling someone a “teabagger” is denigrating? So your intention wasn’t to denigrate with a sexual innuendo? Or that such a term is such? Or that it’s all right to call people you disagree with such, without basis? Or what?
I wouldn’t say that people with whom you agree are (for example) kangaroo felchers. If I did, would that be all right with you? If not, why not?
What is it that we should agree to disagree on?
Rand – What we disagree on is that things are that clear cut, and that this is just a policy difference, and nothing more.
IMNSHO, its not
What we disagree on is that things are that clear cut, and that this is just a policy difference, and nothing more.
I see you want to avoid the issue, and continue to baselessly slander people with sexual innuendo.
Rand – The issue is that I don’t agree that they are merely
“people who are concerned about the future of the Republic”
I would argue (and I’ll limit it to a very short point here) that their actions, and the way they’ve presented themselves, invalidates the claim that this is merely a disagreement of policy.
The problem, with actually trying to debate this, is that we don’t even really agree on any of the base points or facts.
It is, in a lot of respects, like the arguments over what happened with the 2001 Florida recount ballots – the Bush people & Gore people didn’t agree at all over the issue of what even happened, and so it was rather hard to find any reconciliation, or agreement. They, in essence, disagree about what they even disagree on.
And what would be the point in having some sort of long discussion here, in space politics? I think its almost impossible for either of us to come to an agreement of the minds over this. And it would consume a lot of energy, and its hardly likely to bring in any converts to either of our viewpoints. And its not like either of us is in a major position to affect those policy issues.
In a situation like this, I’d argue that its best to just agree to disagree, and move on.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 15th, 2009 at 2:18 am ..
Ferris.
I doubt the tea baggers have much in mind about space policy, other then say “re do Apollo”…
All generalizations are subject to individual error…for instance Rand S and Mark W are both tea baggers but they disagree on space policy…Rand has worked more in the industry then Mark W and has for sometime seen teh folly of large NASA programs… Mark W is more rolled up in the “George Bush was really a good guy” group because he is far more of a right winger then he is a space advocate.
So any generalization is unfair to various individuals…but…
for the most part the Tea baggers while (for the most part) well meaning are 1) not very sophisticated and 2) are in many respects what A GOOD PART
The issue is that I don’t agree that they are merely
“people who are concerned about the future of the Republicâ€
Whether you agree or not, that does not justify your using such an ugly, baseless, inappropriate and offensive term. Anderson Cooper managed to muster up the class to stop doing so, and apologize for it. You should as well.
Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 15th, 2009 at 2:18 am
SORRY that got sent way to early..
to pick it up…for the most part the Tea gaggers while (for the most part) well meaning are 1) not very sophisticated politically or historically or really in anyway and 2) are in many respects are a GOOD PART of the sickness that is in The Republics’ body politics.
Countries like people go through difficult times, and they go through times in their lives that are massive change periods. For instance we all have tough moments because of events (as do countries) but we all also grow up…the transition from childhood to teenage years is hard so is teenage to young adult hood etc etc.
During those periods there is at an individual level a longing for the past for a life that was well understood that had the certainty that comes with the past not the future…and that is where the “teabaggers” are.
That is seen in their “title”. The folks who reved up the Boston tea party (aside from being what we would call today “terrorist”) were in fact trying to constitute a legal rebellion based on the fact that they had no representation or means even to achieve it. That is not the case for the folks today.
All the “Teabaggers” today have representation and Most of them can vote at every election. The problem of course is that they cannot win. Their ideas just wont sell because they are for the most part ideas of fantasy and are logically inconsistent.
“We love the founders and how they did The Constitution” I always ask “which part slavery, where Senators were elected by the states, or women not having the right to vote”. The answer is something like “well not those parts but states rights” so yeah you were against Bush V Gore? “No that was just the Supreme Court fixing where the state had gone wrong” …..ignoring of course that if the 10th were the 10th of old then the state courts would be the final say so on states issues like voting.
What the teabaggers are all for is “situation based outcomes”…(“We knew OJ was guilty but those liberals let him go”.) something that a nation under law of course stands against. While we all may “know” something the standard is we need to prove it.
The teabaggers are losing on the issues and that has brought forth their worst trait which is “lets shut down debate”. This ranges from people who just try and shout down opposing views to the real idiots who show up at political rallys with sidearms.
They are of themselves not a real danger to The Republic.
But they do represent something…and that is a deep settling fear in The Republic among “the normal folks” that things are going badly off track. And if no one can come to a theory of how to get us back on track…well the worse things get, the better simpler solutions sound.
That is how we got into Iraq.
Robert G. Oler
Rand…I know the right wing particularly the “teabaggers” need to be offended at almost everyturn…but what sexual attack are you referring to?
Robert G. Oler
“but what sexual attack are you referring to?”
I know this wasn’t directed at me but…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabagging
Loki wrote @ December 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm ..
thank you…
I read the Palin facebook page almost every day. It is an assorted collection of folks who more or less are “teabaggers” and they refer to themselves as “teabaggers”.
so I missed the insult that Rand picked up. I’ve never heard the term used that way…
another characteristic about the right wing, is that they are absorbed with sex…
Robert G. Oler
another characteristic about the right wing, is that they are absorbed with sex…
Yet another idiotic comment about the “right wing” from Robert, who also insists on repeatedly using the same offensive term.
There’s an old saying, “Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, great minds discuss ideas.” The biggest problem with debating politics anymore is that there are too many small minds on both sides. This is why “conservatives” and “liberals/ progressives” can’t debate anything without someone throwing out personal insults like “teabagger”, “hippie”, “lib-tard”, etc that lower the discourse to the level of 3 year olds.
The so-called “teabaggers” – and btw I don’t like that term either for the reason mentioned above – are simply scared. They see things going on in this country, >10% unemployment, deficits spiraling out of control with seemingly no end in site, the federal government increasing its powers seemingly exponentially (starting with the Patriot Act under Bush, just in case anyone thinks this is a “right wing” rant, I’m throwing him and the rest of the Republican pary under the bus too). Suffice it to say, they don’t like the direction the country is going, and like I said they’re scared. And to quote Yoda from Star Wars “fear leads to anger…” and so on.
Unfortunately, many of them are also merely partisan hacks who are just pissed that the neo-cons are no longer in power, and they seem to be the loudest of the bunch. And of course, instead of discussing “ideas” they just go right back to attacking the other side and round and round we go.
“‘We love the founders and how they did The Constitution†I always ask “which part slavery, where Senators were elected by the states, or women not having the right to vote’.”
Here’s my answer, FWIW. The consitution was written by men, who were not perfect, and therefore the consititution; like all things created by human beings, was not and is not perfect. Some of the problems you point out were corrected later (slavery through a bloody civil war and the ammendment process, women’s voting rights by ammendment). As for the States electing Senators, that wasn’t really a bad thing. The original purpose of the Senate was to represent the state governments, not the people, and to serve as a check against the federal government usurping powers that should be left to the state (the 10th ammendment). When they changed that, they removed that obstacle so that now the fed can pretty much do whatever they want and to hell with the states.
The founders realized that whay they created wasn’t perfect, otherwise they wouldn’t have included a way to ammend it. What they got right though was that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. So they designed a system with checks and balances between the 3 branches and clearly defined powers and responsibilities for each. Thomas Jefferson put it much more eloquently I ever could:
“Giving Congress a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole Constitution to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. The Constitution was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.â€
And James Madison also:
“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.â€
Loki.
I do not disagree with anything you say about The Constitution.
to my mind it is a “living document” otherwise The Founders would not have put a method in it for changes…we are after all trying for a “more perfect” Union. They could not have been to unhappy with the evolution, a great deal of it started while they had the shot at leadership…
I think that you have come “close” to the teabag movement.
It is a movement in large measure spurred and shaped by 1) neos who are unhappy that they are not in power anymore and 2) by “personalities” on the TV and RAdio who are blazing away for their own ratings (and hence renumeration).
but, and again this is a generalization, the teabaggers as a group are mostly the “lower end” of society who are seeing their world (mostly white, narrow religion leanings, mostly rural) sort of fade as the nation becomes more “ethnic” and less rural.
this is the latest move of the “buchanan wing” of the party and it alone has never amounted for much.
These people have always been to some extent dissatisfied.
What is unique today is that dissatisfaction is spreading into the mainstream of American life and politics. In the 2008 election it manifested itself in the election of President Obama. It manifested itself in how the “middle” of the political spectrum broke for him away from McCain and certainly away from Palin. As Obama continues to “drift resolutely” the fear and uncertainty grows a lot
I was having breakfast the other day with a community service organization (I was their speaker). The topic was “the new space age” and what was amazing to me, even right across the street from JSC…is that the sentiment was summed up by the President of the organization “nothing the government does works anymore”.
that is a problem
Robert G. Oler
Rand…the “teabagger” term is used on ‘god fearing Sarah Palin’s” facebook page all the time by the true believers posting there.
Robert G. Oler
This discussion has gone way off topic, and therefore it’s time to come to an end.