[meteorite-list] OT: The White House Coup Against NASA
From: Randy aka Randy Mils <acculabs_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:31:26 2004 Message-ID: <BAY2-F128c3XdcaziFp0001b194_at_hotmail.com> <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE> <P>George CHIMPY Bush trying to control NASA for his own political agenda? And this should be a suprise to anyone? DUBYA is the worst president EVER. This moron has got to go.</P> <P>Also, a vote for Nader is a vote for the CHIMP. Don't waste your vote in November.</P> <P>Randy<BR><BR></P></DIV> <DIV></DIV>>From: Robert Verish <BOLIDECHASER_at_YAHOO.COM> <DIV></DIV>>To: Meteorite-list Meteoritecentral <METEORITE-LIST_at_METEORITECENTRAL.COM> <DIV></DIV>>CC: Ron Baalke <BAALKE_at_ZAGAMI.JPL.NASA.GOV> <DIV></DIV>>Subject: [meteorite-list] OT: The White House Coup Against NASA <DIV></DIV>>Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:07:18 -0800 (PST) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>---------- Forward Message ---------- <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>The White House Coup Against NASA <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Submitted to Portside <DIV></DIV>>February 20, 2004 <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>THE WHITE HOUSE COUP AGAINST NASA <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>By Morton H. Frank <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>A rapid series of events makes evident that the Bush <DIV></DIV>>administration has moved to take direct control of <DIV></DIV>>NASA <DIV></DIV>>in order to serve the administration's own immediate <DIV></DIV>>political goals and perhaps also to support military <DIV></DIV>>objectives in space. Should the effort succeed, grave <DIV></DIV>>damage will be done to the scientific work now going <DIV></DIV>>on <DIV></DIV>>under NASA's auspices. While NASA overall is closely <DIV></DIV>>linked to the military, much significant science is <DIV></DIV>>currently supported under its budget. It is this <DIV></DIV>>civilian component of NASA that has come under attack. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>On January 14th at NASA headquarters, George Bush <DIV></DIV>>announced a new vision for space exploration. "We will <DIV></DIV>>build new ships to carry man forward into the <DIV></DIV>>universe, <DIV></DIV>>to gain a new foothold on the moon." "[With] the <DIV></DIV>>experience and knowledge gained on the moon, "we will <DIV></DIV>>take the next steps of space exploration: human <DIV></DIV>>missions <DIV></DIV>>to Mars and to worlds beyond." The refocusing of NASA <DIV></DIV>>for these new tasks was delegated by Bush to the <DIV></DIV>>agency's administrator, Sean O'Keefe, a former White <DIV></DIV>>House budget official. These goals, he indicated, were <DIV></DIV>>to be accomplished on the cheap: All of NASA's <DIV></DIV>>activities are to be subordinated to this new space <DIV></DIV>>program, with $11 billion to be drawn from the <DIV></DIV>>agency's <DIV></DIV>>existing five-year budget and Congress expected to <DIV></DIV>>provide an additional billion in new money. (1, 2) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>The next day, O'Keefe announced a reorganization of <DIV></DIV>>NASA <DIV></DIV>>around the new program. (3) Two days later he shocked <DIV></DIV>>the managers of the Hubble space telescope, telling <DIV></DIV>>them <DIV></DIV>>that there would be no further shuttle visits to <DIV></DIV>>maintain it. A shuttle flight planned to install new <DIV></DIV>>scientific instruments and replace gyroscopes and <DIV></DIV>>batteries in 2005 was now canceled. (4) Without it, <DIV></DIV>>the <DIV></DIV>>great telescope, whose findings have revolutionized <DIV></DIV>>our <DIV></DIV>>understanding of the universe and whose sublime <DIV></DIV>>photographs of the heavens have inspired millions, is <DIV></DIV>>expected to deteriorate and have its life cut short. <DIV></DIV>>It <DIV></DIV>>has often been said that the Hubble is the most <DIV></DIV>>significant telescope since Galileo's own instrument <DIV></DIV>>in <DIV></DIV>>1609. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>As O'Keefe told it, the cancellation was due to safety <DIV></DIV>>considerations that had come to light after the <DIV></DIV>>shuttle <DIV></DIV>>disaster the year before, and was unrelated to NASA's <DIV></DIV>>reorganization. As shocking as the cancellation itself <DIV></DIV>>was the absence of scientific participation in the <DIV></DIV>>decision. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>The evidence indicates that the cancellation of <DIV></DIV>>service <DIV></DIV>>to the Hubble was part and parcel of Bush's vision of <DIV></DIV>>human space exploration. The story of Bush's big plan <DIV></DIV>>has been well told by Andrew Lawler in the pages of <DIV></DIV>>Science magazine, the weekly published by the American <DIV></DIV>>Association for the Advancement of Science. Until <DIV></DIV>>December of last year, the visionary plan was "a <DIV></DIV>>tightly <DIV></DIV>>held set of options" prepared by "a small team of <DIV></DIV>>White <DIV></DIV>>House and federal agency officials." "That team, led <DIV></DIV>>by <DIV></DIV>>the National Security Council," included "O'Keefe as <DIV></DIV>>well as Pentagon and Commerce and State department <DIV></DIV>>officials" (5) and presidential science advisor John <DIV></DIV>>Marburger (6, 7). Its product was "vetted by Vice <DIV></DIV>>President Dick Cheney, Presidential Chief of Staff <DIV></DIV>>Andrew Card, and the president's top political <DIV></DIV>>adviser, <DIV></DIV>>Karl Rove." Here too, there was little or no <DIV></DIV>>scientific <DIV></DIV>>input into the decision to send people to explore <DIV></DIV>>space. <DIV></DIV>>Also, in following these preparations Lawler <DIV></DIV>>recognized <DIV></DIV>>that "any new mission will have to fit into an agency <DIV></DIV>>budget [that is] already strained...." (5) At a <DIV></DIV>>hearing <DIV></DIV>>on February 12th, several members of the House Science <DIV></DIV>>Committee also expressed skepticism about NASA's <DIV></DIV>>ability <DIV></DIV>>to support the new project without starving ongoing <DIV></DIV>>programs. (8, 9) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>In his January 14th presentation, Bush named Edward <DIV></DIV>>"Pete" Aldridge to chair a commission to think up, <DIV></DIV>>within four months, what should actually be done to <DIV></DIV>>carry out his vision. Aldridge, a onetime astronaut <DIV></DIV>>and <DIV></DIV>>former Secretary of the Air Force, currently serves on <DIV></DIV>>the Board of Directors of the Lockheed Martin Corp. <DIV></DIV>>(10) <DIV></DIV>>On February 11th, Pete Aldridge held a public hearing <DIV></DIV>>of <DIV></DIV>>his hastily assembled commission to try to get some <DIV></DIV>>ideas. Among those attending was Norman Augustine, <DIV></DIV>>retired chairman of Lockheed Martin and leader of a <DIV></DIV>>panel that had once examined the space program for the <DIV></DIV>>elder President Bush. Augustine cited the enormous <DIV></DIV>>costs <DIV></DIV>>that NASA already faces in carrying out its ongoing <DIV></DIV>>programs and remarked that the nation has <DIV></DIV>>traditionally <DIV></DIV>>underestimated the cost of big programs. He clearly <DIV></DIV>>recognized that the project Bush was calling for would <DIV></DIV>>cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but Aldridge <DIV></DIV>>responded that both the White House and NASA believe <DIV></DIV>>the <DIV></DIV>>new space initiative is affordable with small budget <DIV></DIV>>increases, at least for the foreseeable future. (9) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>The authors of Bush's January 14th speech put into his <DIV></DIV>>mouth that "Our first goal is to complete the <DIV></DIV>>International Space Station by 2020.... We will focus <DIV></DIV>>our future research aboard the station on the long <DIV></DIV>>term <DIV></DIV>>effects of space travel on human biology." (10) Here <DIV></DIV>>the <DIV></DIV>>authors of the speech reveal themselves as unaware <DIV></DIV>>that <DIV></DIV>>definitive physiology has already been done. They fail <DIV></DIV>>to grasp just how hazardous to the human organism are <DIV></DIV>>the prolonged exposure to the zero gravity, radiation <DIV></DIV>>and social isolation of outer space. Space travel <DIV></DIV>>would <DIV></DIV>>be far more risky than a shuttle mission to service <DIV></DIV>>the <DIV></DIV>>Hubble. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) has called on NASA <DIV></DIV>>administrator O'Keefe to appoint an independent panel <DIV></DIV>>of <DIV></DIV>>outside experts to review his decision calling off <DIV></DIV>>further visits to the Hubble. (11, 12) O'Keefe did <DIV></DIV>>agree <DIV></DIV>>to a limited review, to be carried out by the head of <DIV></DIV>>last year's investigation into the Columbia shuttle <DIV></DIV>>disaster, while stressing that he himself retains <DIV></DIV>>authority over the final decision. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Press reports have not favored O'Keefe's decision to <DIV></DIV>>discontinue Hubble maintenance, but actual criticism <DIV></DIV>>has <DIV></DIV>>been sparse. An Internet search led to only six <DIV></DIV>>editorials or articles in U.S. newspapers in <DIV></DIV>>opposition. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>On the other hand, the reaction of Science magazine <DIV></DIV>>has <DIV></DIV>>been strong and immediate, with an editorial calling <DIV></DIV>>for <DIV></DIV>>resistance: (13) "Nearly 50 years of space exploration <DIV></DIV>>have seen the contribution of humans to space science <DIV></DIV>>shrink while the cost of putting humans in space has <DIV></DIV>>risen. Over the same period, robotic missions have <DIV></DIV>>grown <DIV></DIV>>in effectiveness and efficiency.... [Is] human <DIV></DIV>>exploration still required to gain public support for <DIV></DIV>>space science and exploration, as the president <DIV></DIV>>claims? <DIV></DIV>>We think not. The scientific community may have been <DIV></DIV>>missing the opportunity to present and explain the <DIV></DIV>>rationale for robotic exploration in space and the <DIV></DIV>>wonder that can be gained from it.... This is the year <DIV></DIV>>to do it." <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Professional organizations immediately affected have <DIV></DIV>>sounded the alarm. The American Physical Society <DIV></DIV>>(physicists) demanded that any panel to review NASA's <DIV></DIV>>dumping of the Hubble be truly independent and include <DIV></DIV>>research scientists. (14) The American Astronomical <DIV></DIV>>Society supported Mikulski's call for an independent <DIV></DIV>>review. "The Hubble Space Telescope" said the <DIV></DIV>>astronomers "is a national treasure.... Its impact, <DIV></DIV>>not <DIV></DIV>>only on science, but on the dreams and imagination of <DIV></DIV>>our young people, cannot be overstated."(15) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Finally, a petition campaign to "Save the Hubble" <DIV></DIV>>addressed to Congress and NASA has gotten under way <DIV></DIV>>and <DIV></DIV>>already collected about 25,000 signatures. (16) <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>* * * <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>The new White House vision for NASA is too vague and <DIV></DIV>>unrealistic, and its stated costs too low, for it to <DIV></DIV>>be <DIV></DIV>>taken seriously. The primary intention seems to be <DIV></DIV>>votes <DIV></DIV>>in areas where NASA has major facilities, such as <DIV></DIV>>Florida, along with the creation of new business <DIV></DIV>>opportunities for aerospace corporations, and it's <DIV></DIV>>likely that the inadequate budgeting for human space <DIV></DIV>>exploration is intended to set the stage for squeezing <DIV></DIV>>out civilian science. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>Sources <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>1. <DIV></DIV>>http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/0114-3.html <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>2. Andrew Lawler. President Bush Reaches for the Moon. <DIV></DIV>>Science, Jan. 16, 2004. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>3. http://www.space.com/news/okeefe_update_040115.html <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>4. Dennis Overbye. NASA Cancels Trip to Supply Hubble, <DIV></DIV>>Sealing Early Doom. The New York Times, Jan. 17, 2004. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>5. Andrew Lawler. Bush Plan for NASA: Watch This <DIV></DIV>>Space. <DIV></DIV>>Science, Dec. 12, 2003. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>6. Andrew Lawler. How Much <DIV></DIV>>Space for Science? Science, January 30, 2004. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>7. Through most of his career Marburger has been a <DIV></DIV>>science administrator, not a working scientist. The <DIV></DIV>>short period of his life when he did actual research <DIV></DIV>>was <DIV></DIV>>before 1980. See the net site of the Office of Science <DIV></DIV>>and Technology Policy, which he heads, at <DIV></DIV>>http//ostp.gov <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>8. Franklin D. Roylance. NASA will still pursue <DIV></DIV>>science, <DIV></DIV>>Congress told. Baltimore Sun, Feb. 13, 2004. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>9. Guy Gugliotta. Tests Likely to Delay Next Shuttle <DIV></DIV>>Launch. Washington Post, Feb. 13, 2004. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>10. Marcia Dunn. Ex-Astronaut to Lead Moon-Mars <DIV></DIV>>Commission. AP dispatch posted Jan. 19, 2004 by <DIV></DIV>>Space.com. <DIV></DIV>>http://www.space.com/news/Aldridge_040119.html <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>11. Alex Dominguez. Sen. Mikulski asks NASA to review <DIV></DIV>>Hubble decision. USA Today, Jan. 23, 2004. <DIV></DIV>>http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2004-01-23-hubble-halt_x.htm <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>12. Andrew Lawler. Hubble Huggers Get a Reprieve. <DIV></DIV>>Science, Feb. 6, 2004. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>13. Donald Kennedy and Brooks Hanson. A Time of <DIV></DIV>>Opportunity. Science, Jan. 30, 1994. <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>14. <DIV></DIV>>http://www.aas.org/policy/APSEExecBoardStatement.html <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>15. <DIV></DIV>>http://www.aas.org/governance/council/resolutions.html#CANCELLATION <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>16. http://savethehubble.org/petition.jsp <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>__________________________________ <DIV></DIV>>Do you Yahoo!? <DIV></DIV>>Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. <DIV></DIV>>http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools <DIV></DIV>> <DIV></DIV>>______________________________________________ <DIV></DIV>>Meteorite-list mailing list <DIV></DIV>>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com <DIV></DIV>>http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2737??PS=">Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! </a> </html> Received on Mon 23 Feb 2004 08:32:58 AM PST |
 StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit Yahoo MyWeb
|