io9
As the race for U.S. President starts to heat up, Barack Obama has continued to polish his image as the youthful candidate promising a hopeful future. And yet he's also on record saying "[U.S. Space Agency] NASA is no longer associated with inspiration." He's proposing cutting NASA's budget in order to fund early-education programs for kids under 5. It's hard to fault his desire to educate kids, but why sacrifice space programs to do it? If elected, is it possible that Obama, the "hopeful" candidate, will destroy our hopes for space exploration and colonization?
Obama has said he'll take money away from NASA's Constellation program, which focuses on flights to the Moon and Mars. A space exploration advocate, Greg Zsidisen, questioned Obama about his plans for the program a couple of months ago and got a vague answer. According to the Chicago Tribune:
"I grew up on Star Trek," Obama said. "I believe in the final frontier."Zsidisen, the advocate who asked Obama about the space program, has an interesting article on Obama's views about space travel, as well as Hilary Clinton and John McCain's maddenly vague views, at The Space Review. You can also hear him talk about these issues on The Space Show podcast, where he's joined by Buzz Aldrin a couple of times to discuss government space policy. Really interesting stuff.But Obama said he does not agree with the way the space program is now being run and thinks funding should be trimmed until the mission is clearer.
"NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration," he said. "I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn't even pass for news anymore."
Comments
Just lost my vote. Not like it matters, he is not going to win. McKain won this election a looooong time ago.
Space belongs to robots. No people allowed!
I'm not in favor of cutting funding for anything on the basis of how excited everyone gets (or doesn't get) about it, but he's right about the inspiration, etc.
And I'm not opposed to making what happens on Earth a priority over what happens on the moon or elsewhere. I mean, if we don't improve the education in this country, we're not gonna have a real big pool to choose astronauts from anyway.
This makes me sad.
Oh please like the government can really be the driving force of space exploration. It will be pharmaceutical companies once we discover botox-like algae on the moons of Jupiter. "Freeze your face with the cold of space!" The jingle writes itself.
"he'll take money away from NASA's Constellation program, which focuses on flights to the Moon and Mars"
Good. There's never been a good reason to spend the enormous amounts of money required for manned spaceflight. The moon landings were just one big national ego trip.
Don't get me wrong. I would leave to see people on Mars. But paying for it with tax dollars is not the way to go.
Meh. You're almost always at least as wll off simply going with your gut instinct on what a candidate will do once reaching office than by going with what they say they'll do while campaigning.
On that basis, I don't see Obama as any greater risk than either of the other two regarding NASA funding.
Not like it matters, he is not going to win. McKain won this election a looooong time ago.
lol. McCain won a booby prize in the GOP nomination. Even Clinton could beat him but against Obama he has no chance. Just visualize them both on the same stage. Who is going to get the love of the cameras and public? And that's without even touching the politics, which Obama wins hands down.
That said, I would find sabotaging NASA without replacing it with something better disappointing. Not that it loses my vote by a long shot.
@TheDormouse:
I agree: let private enterprise do it.
That said, I am definitely in favor of getting back into space! How about an interstellar x-prize?
I wouldn't really say this is destroying any hopes or dreams. I'd call this prioritizing and I can't really say I'm against it. I love the idea of space exploration, but people can still hope and dream about it and it can get funded privately. Education is most certainly more important than getting to Mars sooner.
@desiredusername: No, he means McKain. This guy's kid:
And he's a really good bowler.
@desiredusername: What do you mean by "hands down"? Say, a 75%-25% margin? 51%-49%?
Every poll -- which aren't worth much, but neither is your nor my lame-assed, baseless guess at this point -- has things pretty damned close no matter the matchup. Close enough to be worried about, whichever side you're on. Kinda exciting.
Ugh. I am not one of the commenters who jumps on the "what does this have to do with sci-fi?" bandwagon because I think some of your questionable posts can be interesting. (I tend to give you a pass for your loaded headlines too. Like this one.)
But wading into politics seems awfully ill-advised. I come here to get away from that shit.
What's said is that he is right. NASA as is is basically defunct, and wasting extra money on an organization that isn't... organized, is just that -- wasting money.
Once there is (again) an edge to be gained over other nations by making forays into space, the tune will change.
It's what got us there in the first place. Now that we know there aren't vast oil reserves in the moon, and we're pretty confident that neither the Chinese or the Russians plan to build missle silos there, nobody that "really matters" cares about space.
Anything past the moon is something that will matter in someone else's term for these guys. They have no incentive to care, so they don't.
A lot of new inventions and products come from NASA, right? Or have those commercials about the fancy mattress pads been lying this whole time.
Also something to remember when considering NASA funding big, angry meteors have struck this planet many, many times in the past and will again. good luck diverting that shit without a space program.
Also: What extracrispy said.
Except the part about loaded headlines.
Seriously. Leave that shit for the UK papers.
For the last eight years we have been LIVING in low earth orbit. It's not exciting. It's now daily life. But every day we learn a little more about construction, maintenance and health in space.
@extracrispy: Yeah, but once it goes all haywire, one click makes this post history and gets us to a new post for instant refreshment.
I'm sorry, but it's a very simple equation and never ceases to floor me when people don't seem to get it.
Limited space + limited resources over time = 0 ..as in zip, nada, no more.
Sure, it may not happen in our lifetime, but at some point we're going to run out of elbow room, fuel, and building materials. Yes, learning to economize will help, but still, it will only prolong the inevitable.
Personally, if a chunk of my paycheck has to go to finding us a new home when the crunch comes, so be it. I can't afford it any better than most in this country, but hell, someone's got to start being responsible for the future.
I'm a scifi nut, but I have to agree with cutting the space program for the time being. We need to fix the problems down here before we dream of terraforming up there. At the rate the USA is heading, we'll be third world with cable TV in a generation. Might make a fun near-apocalyptic dystopia story but I wouldn't want to live there.
There's more terrestrial pork than space pork. It's just that there are no voters there to complain if it were to be cut off. The amount the Gov't spends on NASA is a drop in the bucket compared to what is wasted here at home. I'm not talking about needed social programs here; just take a look at the % of the budget for Defense and subsidies to Big Oil (WTF! Subsidies?!?).
The President can veto bills for NASA funding that have been passed along by the two houses. The President can inspire program funding by talking them up. The President can not kill NASA unless the Senate and the Congress go along with the idea, and we can write our little emails and said them to our reps as soon as we want. This is a representational republic, so tell your reps what you want.
Maybe the Chinese will do a better job.
@Miranda Kali: No. Stop thinking small.
Don't blame me, I voted for Killface.
Just my two cents, but there might be a few billion we could pull from Skunkworks to help fund space science.
Terrorists don't build gen-4 fighters, after all
Space program not getting us enough for our dollars?
Put them into another govt run program that is being mismanaged.
...Close to the definition of insanity.
Uh, Obama, why not better cut the offense budget? Just sayin.
@moff: You would be too, with three claw like fingers pre-arraigned for holding bowling balls...
@Plague: ROFL. Me too. Damn Anayalatrix.
@beercheck: polls don't mean diddly. National polls are worth even less. it's a local election on a national level.
@extracrispy: hm.. yeah, but, in the end, it does effect you. I'm not saying let's discuss polls, but frankly, well..., I did not know that about Obama. Maybe I would have found out before Nov, but maybe not. I'm glad I know, and I'll pay attention to both candidate's position on the issue.
@Miranda Kali: I think that's true, but I also think that at the rate we're going, we're not gonna be able to find it and get there soon enough unless we address some things here. Besides, the hyperbolic headline aside, he's not really talking about getting rid of NASA, just giving it less money.
But to speak to your point, does anyone know if NASA's working on anything that would help us gather useful raw elements and compounds from elsewhere in the solar system? Wouldn't that be something worth trying to make cost-effective?
If Nog could see this folly he would be a sad Ferengi. He might even have to dickslap Odo because of this transgression. Seriously, how are we going to get to DS9 if we cut funding to NASA? Hasn't Obama watched Enterprise? Or Voyager?
What do you mean by "hands down"? Say, a 75%-25% margin? 51%-49%?
Every poll -- which aren't worth much, but neither is your nor my lame-assed, baseless guess at this point -- has things pretty damned close no matter the matchup.
The chance that someone will win is not the same as their percentage in the poll. For instance, if on Election Even there's a 55/45 polling differential in favor of Obama, that doesn't mean he only has a 55% chance of winning.
Besides that issue, the polls at this point are meaningless. Obama hasn't been engaging McCain yet, he's been busy with Clinton. Once the main attraction starts, the polls will shake out.
@Miranda Kali: Re: "at some point we're going to run out of elbow room, fuel, and building materials."
nothing a good war or a serious plague can't solve. ;)
@MarlboroTestMonkey7: Um, of the two candidates, he's the one who's talking about that.
@Mathmos: If they could get a fraction of the gold farmers working on the space program, we'd already have green-skinned tri-boobed girlfriends.
The amount of budget NASA gets right now is so ridiculously small it's laughable. It is a percentage of 1%.
The proposed slashing of that budget not only adds insult to injury to the already crippled space program, I can't really see how it would help anything else. This isn't a solution, it's just a death knell to the already badly wounded American space program.
come one. can you please pay attention to what you are writing here. its completely clear that obama knows far more about what is REALLY happening with the space program and it's spending then any of us will ever know. he is simply saying that there are big problems at NASA and they have no direction and are wasting their money so they don't get their annual budgets lowered, along with allowing no bid contracts to bushies and he is not going to let that crap happen. SOOOOO until they can come up with clear legitimate plans then he will not let them waste the money and instead give it to educational programs, until they DO have a clear plans. HE SUPPORTS THE SPACE PROGRAM but like everything else in the gov its run a foul, and HE IS GOING TO FIX IT, and HE WILL GET ELECTED OR I'M LEAVING THIS COUNTRY.
the other HORRIBLE candidates have no interest in anything that doesn't line their pockets, and are just telling you what you want to hear so they will get elected. so what are all of you complaining about. hilllary will just let nasa die if it doesn't make money or if it crosses some "moral" line and mccain will let it die if it doesn't make him or his friends money.
OBAMA IS THE ONLY CHOICE FOR ANYONE THAT WANTS NASA TO ADVANCE.
you really need to be more responsible with your posts when you know you can influence opinions like this.
i really like this place so let not let this crap happen
@Miranda Kali: The bigger problem with space colonization is our lack of understanding of how to build a functional ecology within a closed environment. If we can't do that, we can't even begin to hope to colonize other planets. Finding a place to colonize is relatively easy compared to that. Just look at the history of the biosphere project and imagine the horror those would have been if they'd been on the moon and could not leave.
@MarlboroTestMonkey7:
Probably because we've managed to piss off enough people that we now need to kinda be worried about it.
I do understand the statement of 'not inspiring' to some extent. I remember everyone going out in to the hall while someone rolled out a small TV so we could watch the shuttle takeoff/landing. There have been several shuttle launches in recent years during school time and my daughter was never told about it.
Also, if the budget cuts open up private US based solutions - this could be exciting. I don't work at NASA, always wanted too, but based on comments made by people like Homer Hickam who did/does work at NASA have stated that NASA being sponsored by the government is allowed to compete for business below cost not allowing private programs to invest in real space programs in the US, allowing the ESA, India, and other countries to compete for launching of private satellites.
If that could be resolved, I'd be interested, because you know the privatization of space travel could be pretty exciting.
But NASA isn't as cool as it used to be. I doubt budget cuts will fix it but also there needs to be some national science based education improvement and that will take a while.
Hm. He's totally right, of course. The columbia wreck was all the more tragic because those astronauts were doing some seriously banal, pointless shit up there.
Then again, I'm also opposed to private enterprise (pun!) entirely handling space exploration. When profit is the only driving force, safety falls by the wayside.
The thought of a bunch of people dying abord the "USS Cheeto brought to you by Verizon" en route to erecting an Old Navy banner on Mars is too depressing.
However, if President Obama said that he'd end the war in Iraq and split the money between early childhood education and a manned flight to Mars, dedicating the voyage to those killed in the war, I'd be very happy.
@lazyeight RE: There's more terrestrial pork than space pork.
second that
@Obama RE: "I don't think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing."
No, they're watching the Mars Rovers, you idiot. Why watch the same-old for the hundredth time? The shuttles and the ISS are important stepping stones and research tools, but no longer new and exciting. But for inspiration you have to do something that's NOT routine. And you don't do that on the same old budget, especially when they have to replace the shuttles soon here because they're getting old.
Yeah, he never had my vote, but now he's lost any respect I had for him as well.
@quetzilla: "wasting extra money on an organization that isn't... organized, is just that -- wasting money" I fail to see how putting that 'wasted' money into our education system will be any better. Don't get me wrong I'm all for good education, I just do not think that sinking a little more money into it will make any difference whatsoever. When the Titanic was sinking, the last thing it needed was more fuel.
You know who supports NASA?
Robot Nixon.
I was reading Fraction's Invicible Iron Man yesterday and the most pointed statement in the entire book was, "They don't even show the shuttles land on the news any more."
Obama isn't talking about killing NASA or even cutting programs but delaying atleast one program for 5 years. Plz read the article ppl.
Seeing as NASA has been getting so much backlash because of it's bloat and red tape X-prize money and private sector innovation has been viewed as much more attractive then NASA has been since the Challenger expolsion.
NASA's an easy target. If Obama wants to impress he should start talking about how he's going to go after the war profiteers that are running our country into the ground.
NASA does waste a lot of money with little to show for it.
The International Space Station was supposed to be done a LONG time ago...
When NASA got the green light for the Space Shuttle, they were talking about 100 launches a year...
Private industry has been shown to be able to accomplish tasks for a small fraction of what NASA spends on them...
Obama wants to cut waste, NASA is just 1 place that needs fixing
We need Obama to win to save our country and get us on the right track again.
BTW polls are meaningless. They are conducted over land line telephones, who do you know that uses a land line at home?
Obama's numbers are MUCH bigger than they appear. Republicans have been voting for Hilary in the primaries to screw things up.
The democrats should be able to win, no matter who the nominee is because the country is tired of the direction we've been going and McCain is more of the same.
OBAMA IS THE MAN!!!!
yeah this is what made me cry a little. i think pres. gore would of been the best for the scientific communtity. the rest are more into sci-fi. unless it has to do with medicine or war there is not a lot of political or public support for it.
again - NERDS TO THE BACK OF THE ROOM!!!!
;(
If we cut NASA funds, maybe we can create IASA and then start looking for those elusive wormholes.
Oh wait, I'm confusing fiction and reality again. Damnit!