Senators Demand NASA Continue Spending On Ares

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."

Comments

Science and Politics

[Herkum01]

And this is why the US is such trouble. When politicians are eagerly representing a companies views rather than the country.

Re:Science and Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

How's that wrong? America isn't made up of people. It's made up of corporations. And those corporations need representation, dammit. Thankfully, the Republican and Democrat parties realize this, and do everything to support these True Americans, and allow them to participate in democracy.

Re:Science and Politics

[mOdQuArK!]

Let's not forget that pork often produces jobs.

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.

Re:Science and Politics

[timeOday]

Well, personally, I'm thrilled they're trying to keep NASA alive.

NASA'S new direction is not a budget cut. 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.

Re:Science and Politics

[hey!]

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:Science and Politics

[OrwellianLurker]

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.

Pork! Pork! Pork!

[Sponge Bath]

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.

Re:Pork! Pork! Pork!

[rubycodez]

hahahaha! you certainly drank the "wah on tarrah" kool-aid

you imagine the troops haven't been hostage for the last eight years, using their blood to grease the skids for the defense contracting industry and for a political rallying point? that's ALL they've been bleeding and dying for! That's all this "war" is about.

Here's some reality for you. The "Taliban" that hosted bin Laden is long gone, today the "Taliban" is any disgruntled afghan with a gun. We dropped the ball on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, put it on the back burner, and instead went for war in Iraq to further defense contractor profit enhancement and gain another neocon agenda rallying point.

We need to drop the budget to zero on these pointless wars now. budget be damned, indeed.

Yes they are listening

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Republicans have gone space crazy

[pedropolis]

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? Has everyone gone space crazy?!

Re:Republicans have gone space crazy

[znu]

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 that the Republicans seem to favor over actual market competition these days.

Re:Republicans have gone space crazy

[RAMMS EIN]

``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. Also, American liberals largely vote for the Democratic party. They also tend to be wealthy and highly educated. 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:NASA is Military Spending

[pnewhook]

NASA is military spending because most of NASA's contractors contract for the military. NASA is also a military organisation, believe it or not

Yes, most of NASAs contractors also contract for the military because it just makes sense, but that does not make NASA a military organization.

Did you know that the Air Force budget for space development and operations actually exceeds that of the entire NASA budget?

Speaking as a NASA contractor, NASA is definitely NOT military.

It's about jobs in this economy

[dammy]

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:It's about jobs in this economy

[jfengel]

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:!Pork

[NeutronCowboy]

It gives us an American manned launch capability in the near future, versus the complete unknown of relying on the private sector.

Wrong. Constellation was facing huge technical issues, none of which had known fixes. And isn't relying on the private sector what the US should be doing? I mean, it's what I hear from every red-blooded republican.

It's a tiny investment; Nasa needs about $6 billion a year to keep Constellation going.

Is that the current R&D, or is that its projected operating cost? And considering that the NASA budget stands currently at $20B, $6B is anything but a tiny investment. In fact, it is the single largest component of the budget, on par with the current entire Space budget.

The country needs a manned space program.

No, it does not. The space shuttle has stopped being exciting long ago. I got a bigger kick out of the Mars Rover than any Space Shuttle launch in the last 10 years (save the Save the Hubble missions).

We could easily cut a trillion or so dollars from our national budget and not even notice the difference.

Really? I mean, REALLY? You could cut 25% of the Federal Budget without there being riots in the entire country? I'm sorry, that's just delusional. As a matter of fact, you can look at the hubbub that came from just cutting 0.1% of the budget through the nixing of Constellation program, and see that there is never any cut that is going to be unopposed.