Monday, September 14, 2009

Obama's "Hope" For NASA? More Russian Rockets

I am skeptical of expert panels. Ever since I heard of the Warren Commission and the theory of a magical bullet. I do not understand why we go through the pretense of objectivity when the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion. If these people are experts, why are they not actually directly involved in the effort they are called upon to examine? Maybe they were once were and are simply longing for their glory days? A more cynical view might consider they are just fulfilling a pre-determined need and playing an already cast role.

Consider this tidbit of news from a year ago which I found on a UK source. Our own nation's media does not seem to consider the importance of such programs or their status as newsworthy. Our own media does not grasp that such programs are actually job bills. Consider what was said.

Mr Obama's transition team is demanding spending cuts to the Constellation Project, the successor to the Space Shuttle, which is supposed to create to a permanent manned base on the Moon by 2020 before a mission to Mars.

The president-elect's team is developing plans to scrap the new Ares rocket, designed to blast a new generation of astronauts into space, NASA advisers said.

This decision seems to have been made a year ago, yet announced just last week!

The article goes on to say:

On the campaign trail, Mr Obama first called for cuts and delays to the Constellation programme to fund his education policies but then later pledged to increase NASA's $17-billion budget by $2 billion, a move apparently calculated to win votes in the Florida and Texas primary elections, where NASA has its two main bases.

But that was before the economic meltdown.

An aerospace contractor who advises NASA told The Sunday Telegraph: "Constellation ought to be the kind of thing that would appeal to Obama in restoring American pride but he's been blowing hot and cold.

Before the meltdown? It's not like we did not know this already, as we saw that train coming. This is government spending with tangible benefits. Why is this on the target for a cut, when we can spending literally budget and spend for the stimulus program for unspecified programs which cannot be demonstrated to create or preserve one job? This is shovel ready after all. Do these people believe the only people believed are those at NASA? Is it possible, or even likely this more about control rather than money? So they need more money. So what. It is money with at least a probable return.

How about we hold each and every program to the same standard?

  1. Net Jobs created
  2. Net college applicants created
  3. Net GNP contribution

No comments:

Post a Comment