The bottom line on space in the Obama era seems to be a continuation of security-related programs with less funding for expensive civil programs. This is not a rosy projection, but it is realistic.
Posted on 12/23/2008 5:01:37 PM PST by tricky_k_1972
Space And The Obama AdministrationThe bottom line on space in the Obama era seems to be a continuation of security-related programs with less funding for expensive civil programs. This is not a rosy projection, but it is realistic. |
Bethesda MD (SPX) Dec 23, 2008
In a few short weeks we will have a new administration and a new set of mandates to be addressed by President-Elect Obama. Unfortunately, the mandates of major national concern do not seem to include government-funded space exploration.
Mandates that are on the minds of most Americans include the state of our financial institutions, health of the economy, jobs, foreign trade, social security, health care and the environment.
So, where is space in all this? In order to answer this question we must divide space into its applications. There are robotic and human exploration, Earth observation, low-orbit human space flight and national security.
Given the expected budget squeeze and huge deficits, there is little expectation that NASA will receive sufficient funds to carry out all aspects of its moon-Mars exploration program on the current schedule. President-Elect Obama has no stake in, and no obligation to continue, the Vision for Space that President Bush started in 2004.
In fact, it seems likely that any planned human activities based on journeys to the moon and Mars will be at least delayed by several years. Such a delay would probably lead to a postponement of the two Ares launch vehicles and Orion, and a several-year extension of Shuttle operations in order to sustain space station operations at least until a commercial option becomes available.
Cuts in the Constellation Program may relieve the pressure to cut other civil space programs and allow NASA to continue its science programs. Earth observation programs will almost certainly be focused on current environmental issues.
What about national security space? The global war on terror will certainly continue for the foreseeable future.
The two wars in Asia will continue for some time. And, our dominance of space and ability to maximize security applications of space are eroding as competition from China, India, Russia and Europe grows. For these and other reasons, it is almost a certainty that a high level of funding will continue for defense programs and intelligence operations that require space to enable national security.
Nevertheless, there will certainly be a call to increase efficiency and eliminate duplication and redundancy where possible. One area being considered for streamlining is the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).
There seems to be a growing consensus that a good deal of duplication might be eliminated by merging MDA with other government space organizations. A number of other consolidations are certainly being considered in order to maintain needed security levels with fewer dollars.
The bottom line on space in the Obama era seems to be a continuation of security-related programs with less funding for expensive civil programs. This is not a rosy projection, but it is realistic.
I bet the Chicoms will just love this, especially when there sitting on the moon, with realy big rocks.
Refers to the content of character in the O groupe.
But, but Obama promised the workers at the Kennedy Space Center that he supported the new space program.
yea, and what happened to Obama as the darling in the press when it comes to science advisers
Obama’s science appointees called a team of all-stars
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2152613/posts
Yes, he did. Directly. Quotes here.
I support NASA funding.
Eliminate the Education department/welfare/HUD/PBS/Metra and all pork and waste and you can easily fund NASA.
but..but..Obama was supposed to be the ‘youth’ candidate supported by silicon valley.
He talks about iphones and blackberries but his vision for America is really about digging ditches and filling them with concrete.
Perhaps they’re looking at it realistically. But I would hasten to mention what about the maintenance of the satellites such as the Hubble, Keyholes, and others.
Obviously for security reasons, we really don’t want to have anybody from other nations to “maintain” them in orbit for us, or just let them burn up in the atmosphere.
Nothing makes a big dead rock even more useless than it already is like an 11km/sec gravity well to get there and a 2.4km/sec gravity well to get back.
Typical of anti-American Democrats. Stop the military and the space program (to continue the Shuttle program will take more money than is needed to build the new rockets as the vendors that build and refurbish the systems on the shuttle have gone) and stop all missile defense so the American People will not be protected from our enemies. If they want to have money they should cease the Energy Department which gets 48 billion dollars per year and does nothing. They should also consider the education department which gets billions and does nothing except for the teachers union. Also the EPA.
How many joules of energy would it take to launch a fifty-kilogram chunk of inert material on a mag-rail (from the moon), and how much energy would it yield on impact? (on the Earth)
If the point is to deliver indiscriminate joules here on earth we already have more of those at Malmstrom than all of our conceivable opponents combined have targets.
Cost effective weapon systems don’t start with billion dollar per ton construction trips to the moon.
I would agree with that.
But if you have elected to place a base on the moon, and part of your stated purpose in having it there is to use it as a launch facility for sending lunar dirt up to orbiting stations to be used as radiation shielding, or as raw materials for solar cell production, then ...
... it would be a simple matter to convert the launch facility into a weapons platform.
Face it, an electro-magnetic launch capability is the most efficient means of getting something off the surface of the moon. It would be foolish to believe it would not be envisioned or modified to be a dual-purpose facility.
The moon is high ground, in the military sense.
A base on the moon to what end? It's a dead rock. Putting people - and radiation shields and solar panels to support people - isn't the base of some eventually productive endeavour. It's an expensive press stunt.
The moon is high ground, in the military sense.
Much too high a ground. Ballistic weapons would have a transit time of days. Surveillance from 1000 times the distance of conventional satellites isn't going to show you much.
The moon is the stepping stone to the rest of the solar system. An investment in a lunar base would allow raw materials or finished goods to be delivered virtually anywhere in the solar system.
It’s also the stepping stone to man’s robust presence in space, which is the only manner that an asteroid defense can be mounted. Currently, we have no way to mitigate a large impact threat, and we won’t until we are active in space in a big way.
If mankind is to never leave this planet, then this is where we will come to extinction.
Obama Planning to Scrap Shuttle Replacement, Says NASA [use decades-old military rockets instead..]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.