| Subject: star-tinged vision decimated by his own budget |
Author:
Betty
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:49:40 02/24/04 Tue
In reply to:
Betty
's message, "Hubbble telescope to die & be destoyed" on 12:26:05 02/15/04 Sun
Bush's star-tinged vision decimated by his own budget
by Zachary Goodman
February 06, 2004
We as Americans are on our way to the apogee of scientific discovery. Our goals are lofty and attainable, our commitment is solid and unflinching and our fortitude is simply unmatched. We have the technology. We have the capabilities. We, the United States of America, are finally going to put a man on the moon. Oh, wait, we already did that 35 years ago. My mistake.
I almost wish that the previous paragraph were the real text of George W. Bush's Jan. 14 speech. Unfortunately, his speech lacked the pivotal revelation of the last sentence, and he proposed to send Americans back to the moon by 2020.
According to Mr. Bush, doing so will involve increasing NASA's budget by $1 billion over the next five years, redirecting another $11 billion toward this program from NASA's existing budget, retiring the space shuttles in 2010, as well as completing America's commitments to the International Space Station by the same year and then no longer participating in that program. While on the moon, we will build a permanent base that will serve as a stepping stone for future, even more ambitious missions, such as to Mars.
As it has been with most of Bush's cavalier budgetary declarations, this one is filled with flaws. First of all, if previous manned space missions are any indicator, Bush's $12 billion will be instrumental in designing the craft's in-dash cup holder, but most likely little else. "The first year after [President John] Kennedy announced the Apollo program, the NASA budget was doubled," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), the only current member of Congress who has flown in space, in a Jan. 14 CNN.com article. "In the second year it was doubled again. That's not realistic today. But 5 percent a year increases are not going to get us to the moon." The Apollo missions of the Ô60s cost $24 billion, double Bush's figure, and that was in Ô60s dollars. Alex Roland, a Duke University history professor and former NASA historian, echoed the fear of Bush's cost underestimation, saying "We can't afford it. It's going to cost much more than this five percent increment in the NASA budget that they're talking about." A very similar space proposal issued by Bush's father was given a price tag between $400 and $500 billion, again ever so slightly higher than Bush's estimate.
Second of all, there is a very good reason why serious talk of elaborate manned space missions had not resurfaced until now: Unmanned missions are better. Continued Roland, "Anything we want to do in space, we can do now more effectively, more efficiently and surely more safely with automated spacecraft," he said. "There's no reason to be sending people to either the moon or Mars."
Finally, this space proposal might not even be scientifically worthwhile, as the redirection of NASA's funds will certainly push the Hubble telescope into an undesirable early retirement. All remaining shuttle missions will go toward the International Space Station, abandoning the scheduled 2006 Hubble repairs. The Hubble might become scientifically useless as early as 2007, three years before its planned retirement. That would leave astronomers blind for at least four years until the more powerful James Webb Space Telescope is launched in 2011. Naturally the science community is not pleased with this development. Some have estimated that the HUBBLE has accounted for 33 PERCENT of ALL NASA's discoveries, including those of astronomer Adam Riess in the field of exploding stars. "What would we mothball it?" said Riess. Scientifically, he said, the telescope "is still in its prime." Continued Steven V.W. Beckwith, director of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore where Hubble research is coordinated for NASA, "People are devastated. This is the most prominent science facility in the world."
It is especially ironic that Bush would propose this plan so close to the presidential elections. Presumably, he intends for his scientific boldness to serve as a reason for the public to re-elect him. His plan, however, serves more as a symbol of the persistent financial irresponsibility that Bush has demonstrated throughout his presidency. Mr. Bush has already amassed the largest budget deficit in history, largely as a result of frivolous tax cuts and a frivolous war. Just days ago, Bush announced that Medicare reform would cost not $400 billion over ten years as estimated, but rather $535 billion, another obstacle impeding Bush's already unlikely goal of halving the deficit in five years. Moreover, the public is already questioning the merits of spending so much money on a program of questionable value when the money could almost certainly be better used domestically. The ever-eloquent Bush attempts to assuage concerns about his space plan's merit, proclaiming, that "Along this journey, we'll make many technological breakthroughs. We don't know yet what those breakthroughs will be, but we can be certain they'll come."
This NASA proposal can be added to the list of Bush plans that divert much-needed funds to overly ambitious projects with underestimated costs and little benefit to the U.S. But as with his other big plans, Bush is unlikely to back down, even in the face of questionable intelligence. I just hope that we don't hear about the possibility of Saddam's weapons stockpile being on the moon.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 