Options
Closing the New Frontier
· Friday, February 12, 2010
WASHINGTON -- "We have an agreement until 2012 that Russia will be responsible for this," says Anatoly Perminov, head of the Russian space agency, about ferrying astronauts from other countries into low-Earth orbit. "But after that? Excuse me, but the prices should be absolutely different then!"
The Russians may be new at capitalism but they know how it works. When you have a monopoly, you charge monopoly prices. Within months, Russia will have a monopoly on rides into space.
By the end of this year, there will be no shuttle, no U.S. manned space program, no way for us to get into space. We're not talking about Mars or the moon here. We're talking about low-Earth orbit, which the U.S. has dominated for nearly half a century and from which it is now retiring with nary a whimper.
Our absence from low-Earth orbit was meant to last a few years, the interval between the retirement of the fatally fragile space shuttle and its replacement with the Constellation program (Ares booster, Orion capsule, Altair lunar lander) to take astronauts more cheaply and safely back to space.
But the Obama 2011 budget kills Constellation. Instead, we shall have nothing. For the first time since John Glenn flew in 1962, the U.S. will have no access of its own for humans into space -- and no prospect of getting there in the foreseeable future.
Of course, the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will now be turned over to the private sector, while NASA's efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars.
This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It's too expensive. It's too experimental. And the safety standards for actually getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high.
Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative "clean energy." Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration.
As for Mars, more nonsense. Mars is just too far away. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can't afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles?
To say nothing of the effects of long-term weightlessness, of long-term cosmic ray exposure, and of the intolerable risk to astronaut safety involved in any Mars trip -- six months of contingencies versus three days for a moon trip.
Of course, the whole Mars project as substitute for the moon is simply a ruse. It's like the classic bait-and-switch for high-tech military spending: Kill the doable in the name of some distant sophisticated alternative, which either never gets developed or is simply killed later in the name of yet another, even more sophisticated alternative of the further future. A classic example is the B-1 bomber, which was canceled in the 1970s in favor of the over-the-horizon B-2 stealth bomber, which was then killed in the 1990s after a production run of only 21 (instead of 132) in the name of post-Cold War obsolescence.
Moreover, there is the question of seriousness. When John F. Kennedy pledged to go to the moon, he meant it. He had an intense personal commitment to the enterprise. He delivered speeches remembered to this day. He dedicated astronomical sums to make it happen.
At the peak of the Apollo program, NASA was consuming almost 4 percent of the federal budget, which in terms of the 2011 budget is about $150 billion. Today the manned space program will die for want of $3 billion a year -- 1/300th of last year's stimulus package with its endless make-work projects that will leave not a trace on the national consciousness.
As for President Obama's commitment to beyond-lunar space: Has he given a single speech, devoted an iota of political capital to it?
Obama's NASA budget perfectly captures the difference in spirit between Kennedy's liberalism and Obama's. Kennedy's was an expansive, bold, outward-looking summons. Obama's is a constricted inward-looking call to retreat.
Fifty years ago, Kennedy opened the New Frontier. Obama has just shut it.
(c) 2010, The Washington Post Writers Group
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Accuracy in Media Editor Cliff Kincaid: "Mark Alexander is the recipient of the 2007 AIM Award for Grassroots Journalism. It is an honor to be associated with Mark and PatriotPost.US." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























g.wegmann
It follows a "plan" Obama has followed since he entered the Oval Office. He is funding social programs, unions, and enlarging the Federal employee rolls while cutting all systems that have made this Country strong. Defense Secretary Robert Gates previously announced sweeping cuts and a significant shift in priorities for next year’s defense budget, with more money for servicemembers and federal employees but less for some major defense contractors.The defense contractors make the weapons that the military needs to defend us!
Calling his plan a “reform budget,” Gates said he would eliminate the $11 billion VH-71 Presidential Helicopter program, end production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 aircraft, negotiate less expansive ways to build three DDG-1000 destroyers and drop the $87 billion vehicle portion of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program.This while Russia is making large numbers of a plane that looks a lot like the F-22!
The scraping of the space program is just one more of Obama's actions that weaken the USA as is advocated by the Leftists who helped put the Democrats in control of Congress and the White House. Hopefully, this will change next Novemeber before the Dems. make this a third rate power!
Posted February 12, 2010 at 9:12:13 AM
Jimmy D
Folks, we have a flat out Traitor in the White House. Space will be militarized by the Chinese and we'll be standing around looking up.
Posted February 12, 2010 at 12:05:32 PM
MichaelSSEC
The previous commenters have got it nailed. Obama is systematically dismantling anything that has any chance of strengthening America or giving Americans something to be proud of. Meanwhile, he's cranking up anything that leads to greater dependency, bigger government, more expensive programs, more massive entitlements, expanded Socialism.
In short, Obama supports failure and wrong while opposing right and successful. He wants a weaker America because to him that's simple justice for the rest of the world. For the first time other countries will be able to compete "fairly" with the United States. The fact that imaginary fairness comes at the price of greatly curtailed prosperity for 300 million Americans means nothing to Obama.
When are Americans going to draw their line in the sand, stand up and declare this anti-American radical OUT OF BUSINESS and install a fiscally responsibly government in his place?
Posted February 14, 2010 at 6:30:40 PM
Have you considered
It is a fact that you can not find an Enumerated Power in the US Constitution that allows federal funds for NASA. The closest I can come is under the guise of Defense, but NASA is not a defense agency, and has experienced "mission creep" into such things as weather data collection.
Posted February 15, 2010 at 12:58:29 PM
John T. Pattillo
Directed to Charles Krauthammer re his 12 Feb 10 column entitled: Space exporations: an open and shut case: I am a 78 year old retired attorney,a Christian, born, educated and employed throughout my career in the State of Florida, served my country during the Korean War period and feel I am still in reasonably good health and of reasonably good intelligence, but I have a question: Why is it that you or none of the other pundits or anyone else has not connected the dots between Obema and Saul D. Olinsky. I have read some of his phamplets as well as his book "Rules for Radicals, a realistic primer for realistic radicals" etc .and find almost on every page an explantion on WHAT amd WHY OBAMA is doing what he is doing to our country, for example..... 1. Where OLINSKY said in the dedication portion of his book: ....the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer". 2. In the first chapter entitled "The Purpose, he wrote: WHAT FOLLOWS IS for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Michiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. 'Rules for Racicals' is written for the Have=Nots on how to take it away" and so on......If you've been half alive the past year and have at least kept up with what Obama has done, you will see OBAMA on almost every page of Olinsky's book. Charles, what Obama has done (is doing) to America's Space Program (40 miles east of my home) is to destroy a program and in the progress a nation (America) by destroying one of the programx that has made America great! Obama is not a liberal; he is a nihilist or, if you prefer, a progresive Nihilist. They work from the "Inside"to destroy a program, a venture, a nation,a democratic capitalist nation, etc. and then as Olisky said above, replace it with a form of govement that it should be, a socialistic or communistic form of government. BUT FIRST YOU MUST DESTROY WHAT YOU WANT TO REPLACE. Can you think of a better method of destruction of that than Bankruptcy!!?? WHY IS IT THAT NO ONE HAS CONNECTED THE DOTS?~ Charles, I would appreciate your response to me personally or in one of your columns.
Posted February 15, 2010 at 5:09:48 PM
JOHN MCCAULEY
WELL SAID! A HEART OF THE ISSUE.
Posted January 28, 2012 at 10:11:51 PM