Home > Alex Massie

Monday 21 May 2012

Who lost Mars? Obama, obviously!

Friday, 29th January 2010

One of the charming things about National Review's blog The Corner, is that one never knows what will irritate someone next. Then again, almost anything and everything Obama does annoys some of the Corner kids. Today's example: not going to Mars! For real:

Yesterday’s announcement that the Obama administration plans to scrap funding for voyages to the moon and to Mars, shows how low President Obama’s horizons truly are.

Oh noes!

Jeffrey Anderson continues:

You know those great pictures of Earth from outer space, showing our planet suspended against the blackness, a beautiful blue ball? No one has seen that view since the Apollo program ended 38 years ago. No astronaut has seen that view since then. We’ve all just seen the pictures.
Now, unless Congress rejects the president’s recommendations, the next people to see that view will likely be the Chinese.

Not the Chinese!

Whether it’s tax cuts or defense spending; or whether it’s the courage, ambition, and sense of wonder that combine to lead great souls to great feats of exploration and discovery; one can surely say this much about Barack Obama: Mr. President, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

Now, space exploration is grand but it's hard to argue that it's a pressing priority in times of fiscal difficulty. And committing billions simply so a handful of astronauts can see a pretty picture of the earth seems a reasonably extravagant use of the public purse. For that matter, if the idea is that visiting Mars represents a triumph of the human spirit and mankind's boundless curiosity then the nationality of the astronauts doing the exploring can't matter very much except in terms of national chest-swelling...

Finally, not being Jack Kennedy might be considered a point in Obama's favour...

Filed under: Hackery (218 more articles) , Obama (365 more articles) , Space (7 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (10)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ndm

January 29th, 2010 10:20pm Report this comment

Now, space exploration is grand but it's hard to argue that it's a pressing priority in times of fiscal difficulty.

And it is pretty well understood that space exploration is a lot more cost effective when there are no astronauts involved.

ben

January 29th, 2010 10:26pm Report this comment

For a group of fundies who don't believe in science in any way, shape, or form, and who hate JFK, the hypocrisy is typical.

Beefeater

January 30th, 2010 3:44am Report this comment

The saved funds will go towards converting NASA into the Department of Climate Change and Feng Shui.
Meanwhile the Chinese and Indians do space science and space weaponry without attempting to control the mystical energy flow of CO2.
I find their lack of respect for their own alternative cultures irritating.

Conservative Cabbie

January 30th, 2010 11:43am Report this comment

So science is only valuable when proposed by the left? There's no possibility that advancing into space won't create greater discoveries for human kind?

There's a reason why this kind of science is unacceptable to the left and it's not cost. The exploration of space does not lead to redistributive social justice. Science is only valid to the left when it coincidentally means taking from the rich to give to the poor (climate change) or when it pivots against conservative values (the foetus).

A quick search for some financial facts reveals:

"The Mars costs can be compared in other ways. As a percentage of contemporary gross national product, Apollo cost 2.8 percent, and the shuttle and a program to send humans to Mars were costed at one-sixth of that. As a per capita expense, both the shuttle and a Mars expedition cost about one-fourth of the expense for Apollo."

How many jobs exist in the space program? How much science have we gained from it? I'd say that there are real advantages for a much smaller cost by going deeper into space. At least it's worh a discussion, not a dismissive "please?".

Rhoda Klapp

January 30th, 2010 12:39pm Report this comment

The money doesn't get scattered throughout the solar system. It is spent in the US. It is not much different from stimulus money, but its direction gives at least a possibility of scientific progress and economic advantage to the nation. Cabbie is right, this is worthy of debate.

Phantom

January 30th, 2010 1:54pm Report this comment

Then the question is the gains of exploration ?

im pro space ^^

Snowman

January 30th, 2010 3:37pm Report this comment

Top marks for Beefeater for brevity and wit, and the same to Conservative Cabbie for additional illumination.

Sad that the man who so eloquently shouted before being called to make decisions on behalf of the great Republic ‘…. but for the enduring power of our ideals is America the greatest nation’ has now cut the package of ideals down to size leaving the skies to the birds and landing on the ground.

Could it be that the cost of the near financial meltdown will do to America what the cost of WW2 did to Britain? It was the Yanks that provided the British with the credit to stay afloat during and after the war, and it’s the Chinese who’re bailing the Americans today. If the same pattern in the change of world leadership that followed then were to repeat itself, Mandarin may be the language that ought to enter schools’ curriculum.

ndm

January 30th, 2010 7:49pm Report this comment

There is hardly a scientist in American who believes the science is improved by sending people to either the Moon or Mars. I realise the science fiction crowd - and, apparently the political right - love the whole gungo-ho star wars image of space eploration. However, sending 70 kilos of scientific equipment is vastly more productive and cost-effective than sending 70 kilos of astronaut. And, frankly, if you are reduced to using Krauthammer as the intellectual driving force behind your argument it must be pretty weak stuff.

Charles

February 1st, 2010 8:49am Report this comment

@ndm

It's not so much the sending of 70 kilos of scientific equipment into space that generates the returns, so much as the inventiveness required to get it there. You can include significant advances in:

- water purification
- scratch resistant lenses
- solar energy technology
- fire resistant material
- laser angioplasty
- voice controlled wheelchairs

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

All pretty useful stuff. There's also a more fundamental point: man is an curious animal, keen to learn about the wider environment. Stifle that curiosity and you kills what makes us great.