Senators Demand NASA Continue Spending On Ares 152
FleaPlus writes "Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee handling NASA funding) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) have added an amendment onto an emergency spending bill for military operations in Afghanistan, reiterating that NASA must continue spending its funds on the Constellation program, particularly the medium-lift Ares I rocket. Alabama and Utah have strong ties to Ares/Constellation contractors, and both senators are opposed to the new direction for NASA, with Shelby describing it as a 'death march' for US spaceflight and criticizing the emphasis on commercial rockets."
Science and Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why the US is such trouble. When politicians are eagerly representing a companies views rather than the country.
Pork! Pork! Pork! (Score:5, Insightful)
Budget be damned! Hold funding for the troops hostage to a steaming helping of pork. I thought Republicans where supposed to support the troops and be against deficit spending.
These actions speak louder than words, and I hope the voters are listening this November.
Yes they are listening (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they are listening, just through republican ears. These are highly tuned and will hear roughly the following: Democrats who vote against this are against funding our troops, republicans who vote for this are voting for our space program!
Really, politics is a lot simpler then people think.
Re:Pork! Pork! Pork! (Score:1, Insightful)
You know, maybe the whole 2-party system is responsible. See, with only 2 parties one can always be the opposite of the other, and with enough issues you can muddy the waters enough that both look good. With 3 or more parties, you have to actually grow some balls and take a stand as a party. You have to define yourself by what you believe, not "the opposite of <the other party>". Wouldn't that be nice?
The system America has right now sucks, and the regression we continue to see will result in even more Americans detached from the political process. I'm disgusted by it, nothing gets done except finger-pointing like little babies.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not forget that pork often produces jobs. Usually, the support comes from the representatives etc who come from the states where the jobs will be produced. They get campaign contributions from their constituents and the corporations (ok, their real constituents) as a result.
Re:Pork! Pork! Pork! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pork! Pork! Pork! (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case the harm is clear. We have people in Afghanistan and we have a much harder job to do with less money to do it because we wated 8 years in Iraq. The attack in times square shows the frivolity of spending a trillion dollars in Iraq while Laden was working with the Taliban to destroy America. But because Obama wants to fight a war for victory, instead of the Bush war for Haliburton profits, the republican guard all of the sudden can't support it.
What is even more silly is that the amendment is an attack on fiscal responsibility and the free market. We don't need a city of bureaucrats running the government mandated spae program. Yes it is going to hurt. Yes, some people, who have no skills and have been living the high life at the tax payers expense, are going to suffer. Yes, some government funded luxury neighborhoods will be in deep trouble. But I hardly think it is my responsibility to keep otherwise unskilled persons living in the style to which they have become accustomed.
Which is not to say I don't think we need a manned space program. A scaled down shuttle program, two launches a year, transitional to private launches to LEO and multinationally funded human spec launches to the solar system would be quite adequate.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean that Alabama and Arizona senators vote for things that benefit Alabama and Arizona? Shocking. Next you'll probably tell me that most people are interested in themselves first and others second.
Republicans have gone space crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science and Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd get more employment (and "stimulate" the economy more) if that same amount of pork was used simply to pay people at the bottom of the economic ladder to work on various things (perhaps even to go to school). But then you wouldn't be able to direct the money to your favorite political donors.
Astronaut Job Interview Question . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I take pride in NASA but it will be a sad day when the last shuttle lands and we have to rely solely on others for LEO travel.
1960's: "Do you have the right stuff?"
2010's: "How's your Russian?"
Retarded (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the most apparent short sighted bill i've seen in a long fucking while. Someone should add a clause that draws the additional funding required from the pocket of the senators and the companies they are puppets for, perhaps they would be motivated to produce something that's a bit less shitty and budgethogging if they had to pay for it themself.
Re:Republicans have gone space crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
The real motivation here is probably to maintain the flow of money to NASA contractors, who happen to also be politically connected defense contractors. In other words, it's the usual crony capitalism [wikipedia.org] that the Republicans seem to favor over actual market competition these days.
It's about jobs in this economy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's those engineers and support personnel who are about to be out of a job in those states are the ones that need Ares funded. Although I do support the commercialization of space and getting NASA out of the manned LEO rides, I can sympathize with those who are about to be unemployed because of the budget reversal. My memories goes back to the mid 1970s when my father and his friends lost their jobs when Apollo 17 completed it's mission.
Can I blame those GOP Senators for pushing for funding to keep jobs in their state? Nope, sure can't. Do I think it should be funded, nope, sure don't.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Science and Politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans represent the rich and corporations.
Democrats represent illegal aliens and unions.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
You could also frame it in terms of the populace being so easily manipulated that the other 98 Senators (or maybe 96...) can't just laugh the damned amendment off the floor.
Re:Republicans have gone space crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
``What planet did I wake up on today? Republicans criticizing the commercialization of low-orbit space flights? Demanding the return of a gigantic, overbudget, behind schedule rocket to nowhere? Obama for the privatization of space and Conservatives for the continuation of a government monopoly on space?''
I actually think that if you look more deeply into what the Republican party and the Democratic party are really advocating, and where Liberals (in the American sense) and Conservatives (again, in the American sense) fall on various issues, you may be in for a few more surprises. Republican politicians voting for larger government, more government spending, and less room for enterprising individuals and companies is really nothing new.
Many people _believe_ that the Republican party is for big business, less government control, hard-working people keeping their money, and sane economic policies, and many people _believe_ that the Democratic party is for more government control, higher taxes, taxing hard working people (or even handing out money to those too lazy to work), and running up budget deficits for future governments to clean up after. Many people _believe_ that Republican == Conservative and Democrat == Liberal.
As far as I can tell, these beliefs are widely held by people all over the political spectrum. In actuality, things aren't quite as clear-cut. In fact, there are many cases where things are the exact opposite of what these beliefs would have you expect. For example, there are many cases where US national debt has decreased under Democratic presidents, and many cases where it has increased under Republican presidents [wikipedia.org]. Also, American liberals largely vote for the Democratic party. They also tend to be wealthy and highly educated [wikipedia.org]. This contradicts some of the things that many people say and believe. The moral of the story? Always check your assumptions, and check the actual program and voting record of the participants in the elections, lest you vote someone into office who is going to do the opposite of what you want ...
Re:It's about jobs in this economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I blame those GOP Senators for pushing for funding to keep jobs in their state?
You can when they're also pushing for an end to earmarks, reduced government spending, and a generalized "the government can't do anything right" attitude.
"Small government" is a valid position, but "reduce spending on everybody but me" is an attitude that merits blame.
Re:So much for "fiscal responsibility"... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but it can't be summed up in six words.
It's easy to say that the republicans are in the pockets of some big company.
The Republicans and the Democrats are in the same people's pockets. If some big aerospace factories close, thousands of people lose jobs, and the local representative doesn't get re-elected. The difference between the Republican and the Democrat is that the Republican thinks it's the big company's responsibility to give those people a job, and the Democrat thinks it's the government's responsibility to make sure those workers don't need to worry about whether they have a job or not.
Bottom line, it's always about the voters. Except that most of our citizens of voting age are so cynical about the process, and think it's all about the "money/power/big companies/cronyism" that they stay home and dilute the real power base.
Get off your ass and go vote.
Better yet. Understand what the people you're voting for actually stand for before you go vote. Otherwise you'll be surprised when the guy you voted for to change things starts supporting revoking Miranda rights, and sends more troops to the wars you don't support, and keeps an infamous prison open, and supports off-shore drilling, and signs a massive health care welfare bill into law just like the last guy did, and generally acts like a re-incarnation of George W. Bush, even though the writing was on the wall before the election, and everybody who pointed it out was routinely censored by the internet community.
!Pork (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not pork; it's R&D that's every bit as valid as anything else the Federal government spends money on, if not more so.
It keeps thousands of aerospace engineers, scientists, and technicians productively employed.
It restores funding to a project that is well underway and is built on known, working technology (Apollo).
It gives us an American manned launch capability in the near future, versus the complete unknown of relying on the private sector.
It's a tiny investment; Nasa needs about $6 billion a year to keep Constellation going. It's literally a drop in the bucket compared to many other appropriations.
The country needs a manned space program. Say what you will about the Shuttle and other manned spacecraft, they have been an inspiration to generations of young Americans to pursue science and engineering careers. While our private sector engineering jobs have dwindled along with our domestic industrial production, aerospace remains a promising field. Jet aircraft are just about the only big ticket industrial item America still exports, and aerospace technology from Nasa bleeds over to the jet transportation field all the time.
Now consider what else the Feds spend our money on:
$700+ billion economic stimulus - truly, this is almost all pork and includes various "jobs training programs", money for local construction projects, items like that which are traditionally considered bacon. Individually, these projects may have merit, but why should the federal government be funding them with a huge a deficit?
$600+ billion for defense. Surely, 1% of this budget could be redirected to Nasa with no damage to our national security.
$125+ billion per year for new healthcare obligations. That's roughly twenty times the sum Nasa needs, and it won't even cover all the uninsured. It basically is a payoff to medical providers to take care of the indigent or working poor who can't or won't provide for their own healthcare funding.
We could easily cut a trillion or so dollars from our national budget and not even notice the difference. Maybe 25% of Pentagon funding, and a bunch of entitlements, and the economy would actually benefit from the expanded availability of lending capital.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA'S new direction is not a budget cut [northwestern.edu]. What they are doing is directing money towards unmanned space flight. IMHO it is a simple question of whether to keep pouring money into the failed Ares program, or redirect it to something more promising.
Corporations are Evil--And so are you (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that corporations have way too much influence over government policy. But that's not the problem here.
You're oversimplifying things when you cast it as "the people" versus "corporations". In this particular case, the two are actually aligned. If Ares is canceled, it isn't just corporations in Utah and Alabama who will lose out there, it's all the people who work for these corporations, and everybody in the state who would be affected by the damage to the local economies. Which is just about everybody. Which is why "the people" are actually for Ares. But not all the people — just the ones that live in Utah and Alabama.
To most of us, Ares is pure pork. But not to its supporters. The problem is not "us" versus "them", it's the fact that everybody wants their own bit of pork, and everybody thinks that somebody else is being too greedy. That attitude is screwing us up on every level: health care, physical infrastructure, education, you name it.
wut? (Score:4, Insightful)
So a budget increase, a scope increase and general revitalization of a flagging agency are a death march? Only when some of the suffering is in your district. Obama is promising more NASA for more uses and the Republicans are screaming no.
Ares I is slated to cost $35 BILLION to develop. This is for a basically existing design. Delta and Atlas EELV cost about $5-7G together and produced two families of light-medium-medium-heavy launchers. Ares is a joke and the sooner it dies the better.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, both parties have a Terry Pratchett-esque gentleman's agreement on the "illegal immigration" issue. The Republicans agree to keep keep cheap foreign labor illegal so long as the Democrats don't try to enforce the law. The Democrats agree to let cheap foreign labor into the country so long as we pretend they aren't supposed to be here.
The Republicans then rail against the illegality of the cheap labor they crave. The Democrats rail against the inhumanity of the Republicans toward "undocumented workers", while at the same time being complicit in the legal fiction that strips those workers of basic legal protections.
The poor bastards living in a hole in the friggin' ground with no running water just want a roof of their family's head and drinking water that won't kill their children. They want to work create wealth, and better their lives. And they know blatant hypocrisy when they see it.
If you want to secure the border, there's two things that you have to do. First, you have to increase the number of legal immigrants so they can provide the cheap labor which our economy is dependent upon. The second is you have to support economic development in the places they come from. You can't keep them out with walls or border patrols, much less laws written down in books they'll never read. You've got to reduce the force that drives them over the border, then reduce the economic incentive for subverting the border.
Re:It's about jobs in this economy (Score:3, Insightful)
You can when they're also pushing for an end to earmarks, reduced government spending, and a generalized "the government can't do anything right" attitude.
You know not of whom you speak. Senator Bennett recently lost out to two more conservative candidates for the opportunity to run in the Republican primary. Among other reasons, because he never saw an earmark he didn't like.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
When politicians are eagerly representing a companies views rather than the country.
The party of "no" suddenly doesn't want to cut spending...when it's in their state. Apparently spending cuts are things that happen in someone else's district.
That's why we have more aircraft carriers than some countries have ships in their entire navy, because no senator wants to give up the funding.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to secure the border, there's two things that you have to do. First, you have to increase the number of legal immigrants so they can provide the cheap labor which our economy is dependent upon. The second is you have to support economic development in the places they come from. You can't keep them out with walls or border patrols, much less laws written down in books they'll never read. You've got to reduce the force that drives them over the border, then reduce the economic incentive for subverting the border.
Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.
Re:Science and Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
If there were the political will to do that.
But there isn't. That demonstrates that the real policy aim isn't protecting American jobs or securing American borders. It's the kind of problem that both sides perpetuate because they both profit from it.
Constellation may not be the worst use of funds... (Score:4, Insightful)
but is it the best use of NASA funds???
1) It's not a good design,
2) there are already other off the shelf American launchers
available that can do LEO for cargo for less money and are less expensive to make man rated including
the Atlas V, Falcon 9, and Delta IV heavy. The Delta and the Atlas are already proven launch vehicles
and the Falcon 9 will likely have proven itself in a month or so. Ares I would not be ready until 2018.
3) Ares sucks money away from other more viable space exploration activities
4) If you want to keep NASA employees productively employed let them work on missions that get us out of
Low earth orbit instead of trying to reinvent apollo(on steroids, on crack, on lsd?)
Re:!Pork (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's R&D towards producing a product that already exists or can't possibly exist. ARES-I is a 20MT launcher, just like the Delta-IV and the Atlas-V. ARES-V requires so many engines that the heat will cause the nozzles to melt. It is spending money for the sake of spending money.
It keeps thousands of aerospace engineers, scientists, and technicians productively employed.
There are better ways of keeping these folk productively employed. For example, by spending it on a launch system that is affordable.
It restores funding to a project that is well underway and is built on known, working technology (Apollo).
ARES-I did not meet its performance guidelines. At best it would put the Orion module into a suborbital trajectory. ARES-V was also not meeting its performance guidelines. It needed more engines, longer SRBs (thus breaking compatibility with ARES-I). We already have far better, safer, working technology: The Space Transport System (aka, the space shuttle system). It is the safest way into space bar none. We should be leveraging STS systems rather than taking a step back to the 60s.
It gives us an American manned launch capability in the near future, versus the complete unknown of relying on the private sector.
NASA was mismanaged something fierce. America should never have lost manned launch capability. Between budget cuts and administrators with pet projects, a shining beacon of ingenuity has become a flickering, sputtering candle of incompetence.
Re:NASA is Military Spending (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a complete misinterpretation of what 'commercial space' means in this case. The government is still buying the vehicles, launching missions, and deciding where to go -- NASA is in no way being dismantled. What we're doing is just changing how we pay for developing vehicles, and trying to set up a system thats less vulnerable to political disturbances.
Clearly the current way of doing HSF is failing. The only viable option to keep flying on an American vehicle right now is to keep flying the shuttle, and probably kill another 7 astronauts in a few more years. NASA/MSFC has completely failed to develop a new manned vehicle since the shuttle. This is not the fault of the workers and engineers there, but rather constant requirement changes from on high and a focus on doing fancier things rather than keeping it simple.
Doing the same things again and expecting new results is defined as insanity, and hoping that congress will become something other than a short-sighted political body is not a valid exploration plan. If you have a better plan than doing fixed price contracts with multiple vendors I'd like to hear them.