US risks ‘loss of leadership’ is space exploration, NASA warns

[Judi Lynn]

US risks ‘loss of leadership’ is space exploration, NASA warns
(AFP)

17 February 2006

WASHINGTON - The United States risks “loss of leadership” is space exploration, if it fails to replace quickly its ailing shuttle fleet with a new reliable space vehicle, the head of NASA has warned.

And that will not be possible without sacrificing some valuable science programs, Michael Griffin, head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, told Congress Thursday.

The warning came as the House of Representatives Committee on Science pondered options in the face of the continued grounding of the space shuttle after a chunk of insulating foam fell off Discoverys large external fuel tank during lift-off last July.
(snip/...)

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2006/February/theworld_February484.xml§ion=theworld

[Judi Lynn]

1. Bush's NASA priorities under fire

Feb. 17, 2006, 3:23AM
Bush's NASA priorities under fire
Moon plan saps money from other efforts, critics say


By MARK CARREAU
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Disgruntled members of a congressional oversight committee objected Wednesday to a White House budget plan that threatens to cripple NASA's unmanned space programs and Earth and aeronautics research, President Bush's plan instead emphasizes sending American explorers back to the moon by 2018.

The lawmakers' bipartisan complaint emerged as the House Science Committee quizzed NASA administrator Michael Griffin and his top deputy, Shana Dale, about the agency's proposed $16.8 billion budget for 2007.

The $104 billion Bush human exploration plan would force long delays of satellite missions intended to unlock the mysteries of the early universe, assess the Earth's environment and spur advancements in conventional air travel.

Much of the criticism Thursday focused on the administration's annual funding estimates for individual NASA programs through 2010, which fall well below Bush administration projections of a year ago for space and Earth science, as well as aeronautics.
(snip/...)

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3665957.html
(Free registration required)

[HereSince1628]

2. Why should the US, a nation at war with science, lead space exploration?

We're more likely to sell off the assets than fund the education of engineers and scientists needed to sustain the program over the next generation.

[Orsino]

3. We've sacrificed our leadership in everything...

...other than military might. When someone discovers petroleum on another planet, then space exploration will become a priority.

[Chrisduhfur]

4. Blah.

Just because there are a few idiots who seem to be "anti-science" or whatever it doesn't mean the entire nation is. Although I suppose your post was more of an exaggeration than anything, at least I hope so.

[HereSince1628]

6. Outside Reading for the War on Science...check it out...

Chris Mooney's book : The Republican War on Science
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php

Or

Or Howard Dean's statement: Bush's War on Science
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0705-04.htm

[Posteritatis]

8. The problem is there are a *lot* of idiots who are anti-science

It's not hard at all to come up with zero-summers who want space science funding cut to zero until we've created a utopia on Earth, or shortsighted folks who don't want the government to have a hand in anything they personally can't immediately understand, or Luddites who consider science and technology to be inherently bad, or strongly religious types who're convinced that anything scientific is part of the secular humanist plot. I wouldn't say the US as a whole is anti-science, but I would say that a very large proportion of it is - probably a plurality if you seperate out people who are "just" apathetic.

If it was only a few idiots, the state of science in the US wouldn't be nearly so hamstrung as it currently is. Instead, even a lot of self-styled progressives are offended at the mere existence of something like NASA. It's a real problem that needs some thought, and I don't think you should dismiss it as a few bad apples as easily as you do.

[sofedup]

5. Exactly- when does NASA become faith-based? n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

7. January 20, 2001

[Uncle Joe]

9. With more compelling evidence,

that global warming is accelerating and becoming the preeminent threat to our planet, what does the Bush administration do? Cancel a relatively inexpensive satellite program to study the earth's environment.

[Javaman]

10. Loss of leadership*???? Boy, where do I start with that one.

It's already gone. we lost it back on nov 2, 2000.

I challenge any freeps out there to give me one example of how we have lead the world since moron* took power. And using 9/11, will not work, since as all the freeps have forgotten, it happened on morons* watch.

there is only one thing that comes to mind concerning what moron* leads the world in, it's deaths under his* mis-leadership.

[Vogon_Glory]

11. No Kidding. And The Right's Been Covering It Up, Too!

I'm not a bit surprised that the US has been losing its leadership in space exploration. It's been losing ground for years, even back into the days of the Daddy Bush and Clinton administrations.

The space shuttle has been a flying turkey for years and doesn't do what it was originally supposed to do. The shuttle was meant to be relatively cheap, reusable, have a relatively quick turn-around, and be reliable. It has failed on all but the re-usable count, except that the shuttle tank, and parts of the solid booster rocket, not to mention the tiles, aren't reusable, either.

I think that the shuttle should have been replaced at least a decade ago. Of course, the Republicans (With the possible exception of Reagan) were never that serious about space exploration and the Clinton administration was too preoccupied with its other problems to give NASA the good, hard shaking-up it richly deserves.

We saw what the Republicans did to the shuttle replacement programs during the Clinton years. Both the X-33 and X-38 programs had their funding cut out by Republican-controlled Congresses during the 1990's, after showering hundreds of millions of dollars on aerospace companies without flying anything.

I have argued on other boards that the Republicans can't be trusted with scientific exploration and haven't been trustworthy for years. Most R's can't see beyond 3 miles up (If even that far) and Team Shrub sees the space program only as a backdrop for a photo op.

It doesn't have to be this way. It WASN'T always this way--even back in the 19th century. The US USED to have a great scientific exploratory tradition. Even excluding the Lewis and Clark expedition and the Pike expedition, the US not only ran the great surveys, but sent an exploratory fleet around the world in the 1840's (Nathaniel Philbrick, Upon the Seas of Glory). This tradition continued into the Theodore Roosevelt years.

I see the current Republican/"conservative" attitude as being part of the extreme right's all-too-successful effort to create a "littler, dumber Amurrica." Sadly, they've succeeded. Too many of our fellow citizens don't know some of the great moments of our history, and don't see how our greatness was lost.

The Right has often accused us progressives of treason. This is a betrayal of America and its traditions by the Right staring us all point-blank in the face.

[arwalden]

12. We Certainly Don't DESERVE To Be A "Leader"...

...especially when one considers how BACKWARD we are as a nation when it comes to science. Perhaps science would be better served if the US were to just get out of the business all together and let it be handled by other more progressive nations who don't use the BIBLE as a scientific reference book.