The latest foolishness about the new space policy from an ostensible conservative comes from Cal Thomas. The nonsense begins with almost the opening sentence:
Silly me. I thought America’s unparalleled space program (before the present administration began dismantling it) was a triumph of American ingenuity, technology, vision and boldness.
If you thought that, you weren’t paying attention. There was nothing “ingenious,” “visionary” or “bold” about Constellation and Apollo on Steroids. It was warmed-over technology from decades in the past, and it was obscenely expensive. If it were the only way to do the job, it might have been worth the money, but I don’t think so, even then. The new policy is much more innovative and visionary, and yes, bold, than the old one, regardless of one’s opinion of the president.
I’ve always thought of Thomas as more of populist with conservative leanings. Never heard anything profound from him.
I agree with Paul. Cal Thomas is a narrow-minded partisan cheerleader, and not much else.
Eh, I’m trying to figure out why Rand is so upset. I didn’t read anything from Cal Thomas supporting Constellation, or even the Space Shuttle Program. Rather, I read a rift against the notion that NASA shouldn’t be in the business of improving relations with the Muslim world. Indeed, it was the desire to improve relations with Russia that lead to the International Space Station; as much it was our desire to stay ahead of the USSR that lead to the original Apollo program.
As for dismantling the US space program (to mean all US efforts to reach space); I’m still think that might be Obama’s intent. Like others, I think the President rather intelligent minds in science and technology teach than build rockets.
Still, I’m no fan of Cal Thomas either for the reasons Paul and Jeffrey describe.
I’m really only upset about that first line, because it shows that he doesn’t understand what a disaster NASA’s plans were, and implies that we had this wonderful thing that Obama has dismantled.
I don’t know about wonderful, but can you point to a parallel space program in another country as good as the US one?
@Leland:
ESA has cargo uplift capability to ISS for the foreseeable future, and has taken virtually all commercial business from US launch providers over the last two decades, for about 1/4 the cost of our program.
Russia has the cheapest and most reliable rockets on Earth, the best orbital human launch capability, a large share of the commercial launch market, a big piece of ISS, and is the forerunner in commercializing human spaceflight, for about 1/7th the NASA budget.
China’s manned program is flaccid at best, but their commercial launch business is far healthier than ours.
Even ISRO has successfully developed a full line of launch vehicles from small-lift to GTO, and is starting work on a manned program, for less than 10% the cost of NASA.
One could even argue that at least SpaceX, and probably Bigelow and Orbital, are doing more impressive things than NASA right now; but since that is at least partly financed by NASA and uses NASA technologies, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and include that as part of the US program.
So, it’s tough to argue that we are #2 in the world in this game behind Russia, even if you follow Congressional tradition and completely ignore the budget. And if you figure in per-dollar value, you can make a very convincing argument that our space program barely cracks the top 5.
tough to argue that we are not #2
Roga,
So your saying Russia has better ingenuity, technology, and vision, because they are still flying the Soyuz and Progress systems?
To say that the US has the best space program in the world is like saying you’re the tallest man in the land of the Munchkins.
And Ares V is Gulliver who is going to dazzle us all.
Munchkin Moe: “Hey isn’t this giant going to trample over all our houses and eat all our food? We should just make him leave!”
Munchkin Mike: “No, that’s too dangerous we should tie him down and make him stay!”
Munchkin Moe: “Oh…….Ooookayeee”