« | »

Obama’s Destruction Of NASA Is Criticized

From a suddenly aroused Washington Post:

This NASA satellite image from September 21, 2005 and released on September 21, 2007 shows Arctic summer sea ice coverage in 2005.

Obama’s plans for NASA changes met with harsh criticism

By Joel Achenbach
Wednesday, March 10, 2010; A21

Harrison Schmitt’s credentials as a space policy analyst include several days of walking on the moon. The Apollo 17 astronaut, who is also a former U.S. senator, is aghast at what President Obama is doing to the space program.

"It’s bad for the country," Schmitt said. "This administration really does not believe in American exceptionalism."

Schmitt’s harsh words are part of a furious blowback to the administration’s new strategy for NASA. The administration has decided to kill NASA’s Constellation program, crafted during the Bush administration with an ambitious goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020. Obama’s 2011 budget request would nix Constellation’s rocket and crew capsule, funnel billions of dollars to new spaceflight technologies, and outsource to commercial firms the task of ferrying astronauts to low-Earth orbit.

The new strategy, however, has been met with outrage from many in the aerospace community. The entire congressional delegation from Florida, Democrats and Republicans alike, has sent a letter of protest to the president. Doubters fill op-ed pages and space blogs.

Once again, notice how Mr. Obama is bringing together bipartisan agreement.

The administration apparently senses that it is losing the public-relations battle…

Everything is just “public relations” to this administration.

Congress must approve NASA’s strategic change. Lawmakers in Florida, Alabama and Texas, states rich in space jobs, have sharply criticized the Obama plan as a job-killer. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) says that under Obama’s strategy "America’s decades-long dominance of space will finally come to an end."

In fact, Obama’s budget boosts NASA’s funding by $6 billion over the next five years. The extra money is less than the $3 billion-a-year hike that a presidential advisory panel said would be necessary for a robust human space flight, but it’s still an increase when many agencies are being squeezed.

Never mind that NASA’s mission has been turned from exploring space to monitoring ‘climate change.’

Change doesn’t come easily in the aerospace industry, with its long timelines and abundance of customized technology. Thousands of aerospace contract workers were already going to lose their jobs with the retirement of the aging fleet of space shuttles. Constellation, conceived after the space shuttle Columbia accident in 2003, was designed with architecture that would let some shuttle jobs migrate to the new program. NASA has already poured $9 billion into the development of a new rocket, Ares 1, and a new spacecraft, Orion. Terminating the program and closing out contracts will cost $2.5 billion more, the administration estimates.

Which puts the lie to this being about cutting costs. It’s about changing NASA’s mission.

After the last shuttle flies — the final mission is scheduled for September — the United States will rely entirely on Russian spacecraft to carry astronauts to the international space station

What could possibly be wrong with that? Haven’t Mr. Putin and the Russians shown us time and again that we are the closest of friends with identical interests in the world?

"Should science people be nervous if they continue Constellation? Absolutely," a senior NASA official said Tuesday.

The strategic change has been dictated by budgetary realities, the administration has said. An advisory committee appointed by Obama, and headed by former Lockheed chief executive Norman Augustine, determined that under a realistic budget NASA probably wouldn’t have a moon rocket until 2028, and still wouldn’t have the hardware to land…

What a shock.

Mr. Obama commissioned an ‘advisory committee’ to tell him what he wanted to be said.

After all, NASA can’t afford to explore space and monitor ‘global warming.’ And we certainly know which is more important to our nation’s vital interests.

By the way, when is all of the promised ‘green technology’ going to start paying off? We suspect not before 2028 — if ever.

Oh, and never mind that Mr. Obama specifically promised to continue NASA’s Constellation mission – way back when he needed to win the Florida primary.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, March 10th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “Obama’s Destruction Of NASA Is Criticized”

  1. proreason says:

    Space exploration and science in general are artifacts of the white man’s culture.

    They have to go.

  2. sheehanjihad says:

    Obama promised to be President of the United States too…and we all know how that’s working out. Simply put….he’s lying, and Florida jobs are dying. We will begin to recover once he’s out of office. We did after Carter, and we will after what’s his name.

  3. Astravogel says:

    I always thought that NOAA was responsible for monitoring
    climate change, and NASA was tasked for getting us off this
    mudball. I guess TCO can do without those key states in 2010
    and 2012.

  4. Rusty Shackleford says:

    The strategic change has been dictated by budgetary realities

    I need to use that line next time I’m out of money and can’t pay the rent. I’ll just tell my landlord, “I’m sorry but my ability to pay has been dictated by budgetary realities”. Sure…yeah that’ll keep me from being thrown out on my ass.

  5. MinnesotaRush says:

    “Obama’s Destruction Of NASA Criticized”

    So .. if we dropped “of NASA” and added “is” .. it would be an accurate representation of this bird’s escapades.

    It would read, “Obama’s Destruction is Criticized”.

    Yeah! Much more accurate!!!

  6. Gil says:

    Hmm… so, by changing the mission of NASA from exploring space to “monitoring” for Global Warming, these jobs now all become GREEN JOBS. Then Obama can claim he has created (or saved) more GREEN JOBS, right? A whole ton of people are moved from doing useful services to merely monitoring for Global Warming.. the true “government job” where the government worker does nothing for anyone and contributes nothing to the economy. So, NASA is forced into being people who just use up tax dollars, “monitoring” a non-existent phenomenon, and the gov gets to pass it off as a great thing because – it’s a GREEN JOB! No agenda there, hey?

  7. Liberals Demise says:


    Really ……. maybe there’s an I-Pod for every American preloaded with his speeches. Just like the one he gave to the Queen of England.


    Don’t reach for the stars.
    NOoooo…….ride shotgun on your wallet with this non visionary.

  8. misanthropicus says:

    Obama’s right! (And James Cameron, too!)
    America is a genocidal civilization anyway – why should we perpetuate our destructive ways in the space the way we did everywhere around here? The natural impulse of the American civilization is destruction – our presence in space would be automatically followed by taking the Aldebaran natives the eons-long right of homosexual marriage, then forcing the Tau-Ceti natives to go from vegan to carnivore, then ruining the rainforests on Mars, then… then…

    Indignantly yours –

    Oliver Stone –

  9. jrmcdonald says:

    Tell this story to anyone who says there is no difference between between the left and right.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »