NASA spent over a billion dollars last year on climate change studies…which would you rather have? Pronouncements about death trains, expert testimony for climate vandals, failed predictions, failed models, and a questionable GISTEMP dataset, or a continued manned spaceflight program?
From my perspective, NASA GISS is a duplication of climate services already covered by NOAA/NCDC, and all we seem to get from it is climate activism arrests of the chief scientist, a coffee table book by his assistant, and a snarky condescending blog called RealClimate that one private citizen and some volunteers are currently beating the pants off of in public outreach. Further, the government spent over $8.7 billion across 16 Agencies and Departments throughout the federal government on these efforts in FY 2010 alone. Inside NASA, we have duplication of climate services not only at GISS in NYC, Goddard Spaceflight in Greenbelt, MD, but also at JPL Pasadena. There’s been all sorts of domestic military base closures in the recent years to save money, and NASA Goddard and GISS re-purposed itself after the Apollo program ended and their mission did too. It’s time to close this duplication of services dinosaur, it will be missed far less than a TV comedy series by the American public. If you feel the same way, tell your representatives. – Anthony
WASHINGTON – As House leaders examine ways to cut spending and address the ever growing budget deficits that have plagued Washington for years, U.S. Representatives Bill Posey (R-FL), Sandy Adams (R-FL) and Rob Bishop (R-UT) were joined by several other of their colleagues in calling for a reprioritization of NASA so human space flight remains the primary focus of the nation’s space agency as budget cuts are considered.
In their recent letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY) and Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Posey, Adams and Bishop state that while “moving forward under a constrained budget, it will be critical for the Appropriations Committee to produce legislation that is precise in its budget cuts. For years, Presidents and Congress have charged NASA with completing tasks that fall outside the scope of NASA’s primary mission.
“Our space program attracts and inspires the world’s greatest minds and gives our young people inspiration to excel in math and science. Human spaceflight, however, is not simply a matter of national prestige. Our nation’s ability to access space is a critical national security asset and plays an important role in our future economic competitiveness. Space is the ultimate high ground and nations such as China, Russia, and India are anxious to seize the mantle of space supremacy should we decide to cede it.”
“Limited resources force us to make important decisions with regard to the objectives of all federal departments and agencies, including NASA,” said Representative Bill Posey (R-FL). “NASA’s primary purpose is human space exploration and directing NASA funds to study global warming undermines our ability to maintain our competitive edge in human space flight.”
“As NASA’s human spaceflight program hangs in the balance, it is imperative that we ask ourselves: What is the future of NASA? With the current administration unable or unwilling to outline a plan or stick to their original promises, it is time to refocus NASA’s mission towards space exploration,” said Representative Sandy Adams (R-FL). “That is why I am encouraging Chairmen Rogers and Wolf to reduce funding for climate change research, which undercuts one of NASA’s primary and most important objectives of human spaceflight.”
“It is counterintuitive to direct millions of dollars to NASA for duplicative climate change programs and at the same time cancel its manned space flight program- the purpose for which the agency was originally created. Far too many forget that at one time in our nation’s history we were losing the space race. With the creation of NASA, we emerged as leaders and have remained so ever since. If NASA’s manned space program disappears, our nation will once again experience a ‘Sputnik Moment.’ Our country will again watch from the sidelines as countries like Russia, China and India charge ahead as leaders in space exploration and missile defense,” said Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT).
In Fiscal Year 2010, NASA spent over 7.5% –over a billion dollars– of its budget on studying global warming/climate change. The bulk of the funds NASA received in the stimulus went toward climate change studies. Excessive growth of climate change research has not been limited to NASA. Overall, the government spent over $8.7 billion across 16 Agencies and Departments throughout the federal government on these efforts in FY 2010 alone. Global warming funding presents an opportunity to reduce spending without unduly impacting NASA’s core human spaceflight mission.
A copy of the letter can be viewed HERE.
h/t to WUWT reader Mr. Lynn
While I applaud the general principles stated, there’s a fine point that needs to be considered. NASA is not just about manned spaceflight, but also encompasses unmanned space exploration, including unmanned space exploration of Earth itself. There are numerous scientific satellites examining Earth which I would hate to see gone in a climate change cut – such as those providing the data to the UAH and RSS datasets. The analysis of those sets, though, I’m happy to be a non-NASA responsibility.
There has always been some tension between manned and unmanned space exploration. I think the proposals above would be stronger if they recognize the role that unmanned space exploration has, and hopefully will continue, to play.
Continue the manned space program and end climate research and Muslim outreach (currently NASA’s job number 1).
I don’t really consider nasa to be a leader in space flight anymore. Or much else for that matter.
What a HUGE WASTE!!!
And what was the work-product of that over a billion dollars? I received nothing, no ‘mailings’ from NASA GISS in my mailbox … I’ve seen some rants by Hansen, and the continued blogging by Gaven is all …
.
Junk the climate contraption stuff, and let’s get back to NASA Space.
In a few years, the 1st probe will visit Pluto. New Horizons. Can’t wait.
HST, STEREO, SDO, Cassini, Mars Rovers and the list is lined with missions that bring home the science bacon the old fashioned way: They take measurements and images. What’s not to like?
As for the climate studies and endless Supercomputer models, they still can’t get a winters forecast right. Who needs ’em?
I agree Anthony. The whole US govt needs to be realigned similar to what has been done to the military over the last 15(?) years.
Anthony and others herein,
Notwithstanding all the above Congressmen.
Ralph Hall, Chairman of the science committee.
He has the seniority and the position to do something.
Call him or the lady assistant in his office who works the Science Committee for him.
202-225-6673
NASA was always supposed to be all about space exploration.
Its achievements here were/are spectacular.
However, the grubby and expensive diversion into the manipulated black arts of ‘climate science’ have discredited NASA’s reputation more than any other of its activities.
Should these activities be culled? The answer is “No”, if you are a believer in increased taxation for its own sake. As for the rest of us, who believe in a saner world, the answer has to be “Yes”.
“From my perspective, NASA GISS is a duplication of climate services already covered by NOAA/NCDC, …”
IMO, such duplication is not, of itself, a bad thing.
Frankly, I think we need more duplication of basic data collection and analysis. Not a bad idea to remove that from NASA, given the clear loss of objectivity of the RC crew. Give it to another agency, or better yet privatize it, and widely separate the data collection and analysis tasks institutionally.
It helps having independant data to compare against that which is suspect. There are a couple of areas where that is currently a glaring deficiency.
I would invite you to view what NASA could be, by Bill Whittle:
I see a tiny glimmer of hope for a smaller government, no matter how very tiny the reduction in size. : )
I really think that whatever NASA’s past achievements (and I think some of them were absolutely amazing and wonderful to behold), the torch of advancing space endeavors should be passed to private organizations. I respect the initial NASA role in pioneering, but now more efficient and adaptive modes of behavior (private) should take over.
John
Defund NASA GISS?
That should be the start.
The 1000’s of climate change organizations, departments, laws and jobs were all crash funded and done with current inefficient technology on the dishonest premise of avoiding no less that a global catastrophe. Without catastrophe, they must all go. Now, exposed, they are a disseminated cancer in our society, invaded through our legal, administrative, political and business worlds.
Every law, every job and every office with the words ‘carbon’ or ‘climate’ in their title should be abolished. Every government department related to carbon or climate should be defunded and abolished if they have no other roles.
We should not let this cancer, sucking on the public tax teat and skimming every industry preserve itself by switching the goalposts to claim benefits of security, sustainability, business opportunity, ocean acidification or just some intrinsic beauty of being green.
The Climate industry is an abomination, inefficient, ideological, monstrously corrupt and corrupting, and diverting huge resources into an abyss. It must go. True pollution should be tackled properly, rainforests protected for the right reasons and in time, as resources dwindle and technology leaps and market forces will naturally find alternatives.
I’m against human space flight, robots are cheaper and the only practical way to go.
Mars doesn’t have an appreciable magnetosphere, we will never colonize it or grow plants there for that reason. It is senseless to try.
The Moon also has the same issue. Massive shielding would be needed for humans to exist there, and for what purpose? Supposedly to prepare for a Mars expedition? Well, see above.
So, do we spend a considerable amount of our resources on providing shielding? Why? Physiological barriers would be encountered next.
We should spend the resources on robots. Robots to mine the Moon, Mars, and asteroids. Robots to peak under the ice on Europa and Enceladus. Robots to investigate the heliopause, and to determine the debris pattern between our solar system and Proxima Centauri. All of these robots would be cheaper than one manned mission to Mars.
We are never getting off this rock, evolution hasn’t equipped us to, and we won’t evolve for whims and fantasies.
I like Star Wars/Trek as much as the next guy, but it ain’t gonna happen. The human capacity for imagination exceeds the realistic possibilities of the Universe.
Gedt rid of Giss/NASA climate ??/Real Climate.org and the politics of Hansen and Al Gore. We will save a lot of wasted money.
FTA:
The last Weblog Awards winner was announced in 2009: click
RealClimate never did have much of a following.
If we even got some science in it then there would be benefit but when it has mostly become about dogmatism and politics a billion dollars is a huge waste of money
One billion in a year, I can just imagine what NASA is thinking: “A billion dollars and all I got was this lousy tee-shirt”. Obviously not one by Josh.
Scott,
You say, “We are never getting off this rock, evolution hasn’t equipped us to, and we won’t evolve for whims and fantasies.
I like Star Wars/Trek as much as the next guy, but it ain’t gonna happen. The human capacity for imagination exceeds the realistic possibilities of the Universe.”
The one major thing that humans can do for earthly evolution is to spread Earthly life forms around the universe. Currently we are the best hope to break out that life on planet earth has ever had. In the big picture we can play a huge glorious role for all DNA – the culmination of billions or years of Earthly evolution, enormous variety and complexity. In a sense, as the only creature with a realistic chance of spreading life to other planets we really are “gods”. Space travel may be our destiny and we will take life forms with us.
Congressional leadership is also considering whacking about $1.6 billion off of the EPA’s budget.
There is no action that mobilizes a government agency to shift to battle stations as effectively as a serious challenge to its funding (been there done that). Almost all other business gets pushed to the back burner while they try to defend their funding, and find ways to by-pass, side step, or neuter the budget ax, by renaming programs, program administrator positions etc.
It would be wise for the proposals for both NASA and EPA cost cutting measures to explicitly identify the activities that are not to be funded, rather than just the sub-unit of the agency, as the activity can continue, while being hidden in a shell game of reorganization where they just change the names of the groups and administrative titles to protect the guilty.
Larry
I want to put humans into space on a perminat basis. NASA can not do this, as an Airforce / civilian operation they only do missions and then go home. Roman candle propulsion will never result in real human space travel. Right now we only have a double class “A” expensive dangerous fun ride. This thing needs to be totally rebuilt. And why is the Space administration doing weather / climate science and international PR work.
Mission creep means too many politicans with their fingers in it, too much money and too many professional administrators building empires.
Close it down and start over. pg
Scott Ramsdell says:
February 9, 2011 at 8:00 pm
– – – – – – – –
Scott Ramsdell,
Thank you for your excellent discussion of the need for robotic application to space exploration.
However, I must point out some alternate thoughts on space travel by human beings.
First, shielding is technologically simple; see design of nuclear power plants.
Second, mankind will be physiology altered by living someplace besides on Earth or on Earth like planets; that is a given. I cannot see anything that would limit technology to achieve necessary alteration of our bodies to achieve non-Earth civilization.
Third, transport between Earth like planets has many possibilities. Just one being a robotic ship carrying human genetic material, or the code for making human genetic material between Earth like planets; upon arrival at a destination the robotic ship makes the genetic material from its codes in its data base, human growth is then initiated on the planet. {outlined in the SF book ‘Pathfinder’ by Orson Scott Card}
Fourth, mankind and the stars is a powerful vision. The motivation is irresistible. Therefore I am optimistic that mankind does belong among the stars.
John
All climate non-science should be deleted from NASA and climate non-scientists should be fired. How much is left? All should go into exploration of both manned and unmanned flight. These accomplishments have been amazing.
At the same time, a scarlet letter S for “shame” should be hung around NASA along with the dollar amount of wasted resources by these — what else can one call them but — criminals. Even better the wasted dollars should be posted everywhere delineated by year. Tar and feathers anyone?
Raw temperature data and other excellent research should remain, but NASA should not be permitted to house these. NASA has lost. Find another agency with integrity and a reputation for scientific endeavors.
make them pay it all back all we got for the money was BULL DUST
This will probably contrast with others, but I don’t think NASA should be scrapped…
As for climate studies, yes defund that. NASA should be studying other worlds, not our own unless it has relevance to other planets. They should be in the business of exploration both man and un-manned.
Some people think the focus should be on one or the other, but I think NASA can do both and should be doing both. Private enterprise can and will advance lower orbital and other fun stuff such as heading back to the moon, but there are things that NASA can do and innovate without budget constraints that put private companies off. Pure exploration is something that we should all strive for, and a manned mission will provide so much more information then un-manned…the cost is worth it.
As it is, programming un-manned missions is very hard and is very difficult since it takes one hour or more for signals to go back and forth (Mars) and longer for anything farther out. This puts limits on un-manned missions that we really need to realize and at the end of the day, both of these types of missions have their purposes. We can learn a lot without setting foot on another world, but the true adventure and learning comes from actually living there. The lack of shielding is no doubt a concern for some planets/moons, but there are ways around that. Living underground for instance is probably not a bad idea in those instances, and in fact there is already a design for a moon base which would be permanently powered by solar close to the lunar south pole.
Shielded, powered the only requirement would be water which might just exist there anyway….so we have the ability to make a fully self-sustained system off of our planet. I don’t see why NASA can not do things such as this if they stop spending money on worthless endevors such as low orbital manned missions and climate change.
Private enterprise can do a lot in this too. But the basic exploration is best done by NASA both with un-manned and manned probes.
It is not good to combine two issues as this discussion is progressing.
The weather and climate investigations could easily be turned over to NOAA and the NSF.
The other issue about space flight just confuses the issue of climate activism and the hooliganism of certain NASA employees.