Bolden Slams NASA House Authorization Bill

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden

The following is a statement from NASA Administrator Charles Bolden on the House of Representatives’ NASA authorization bill:

“The NASA authorization bill making its way through the House of Representatives guts our Earth science program and threatens to set back generations worth of progress in better understanding our changing climate, and our ability to prepare for and respond to earthquakes, droughts, and storm events.

“NASA leads the world in the exploration of and study of planets, and none is more important than the one on which we live.

“In addition, the bill underfunds the critical space technologies that the nation will need to lead in space, including on our journey to Mars.”

The House Science Committee recently passed a measure that slashes spending in NASA’s Earth Science program.

  • Chad Overton

    So publicly funding technology research had no effect on the growth of our country? Psh, silly season!

  • windbourne

    Way to speak out General.
    You have it 100% correct.

  • Snofru Chufu

    This guy has no idea, what the objectives of a real space faring NASA should be. No general, step-wise realisation plan to achieve not only space exploration, but more important utilization of space ressources and later settlement.

  • windbourne

    Part of NASA was always about earth science. If bozos in CONgress can come along and kill off sciences just because they do not like the answer, then we have real problems.
    And Bolden obviously has more of an idea about how to get us into space exploration then most around here.

  • Snofru Chufu

    “And Bolden obviously has more of an idea about how to get us into space exploration then most around here.”

    Please prove it!

  • windbourne

    he is the one that is pushing us to go BEO.
    ARM is all about going BEO.

    Many here are pushing to go to the moon.
    That is just another space station, only with 1/6G and some rocks.

    Worse, that is going to happen in the next 5-7 years because private space is going to do that.

    But, it is Bolden that is pushing NASA back into its realm of science and doing what private space can not do.

  • Sebastian Mai

    And this, my american friends, is what you get with a Repuplican-driven House&Senate and nut-jobs like cruz taking over important positions – you brought it on to yourselves sadly

  • Tom Billings

    Unfortunately, Sebastian, this is what you got for 30+ years with a Democrat-driven House and Senate as well, because *all* of the Chairs of the relevant committees in Congress have NASA Centers in their States. They are *all* LBJ-wanna-bees, who get many *primary* campaign donations (much more influential than general campaign contributions) from both high-level Center managers and contractor employee bundlers.

    Since 1972 NASA has been treated as a jobs program by Congress, with the same results. Build big rockets, needing a huge ground support army, that still cannot launch often enough to be at all economical, and scrimp on efficient space settlement technology. In the late 1980s, after 40 years of Democrat control, Congress even passed a NASA budget that forbade NASA to spend even a dime on Crewed Mars mission development. This killed the inflatable development program at JSC, until Robert Bigelow revived it for the coming commercial space stations, 20 years later.

    What has provoked the NASA Earth Science cuts is the growing realization that academics guiding that program, like Michael Mann, have long-since whored themselves to “progressive” politicians with money in their hands. Those, in turn, have been funding anyone who will give them excuses for grabbing power over the rest of society. This began seeping into climate science early on, as the “Atari Democrats” began to introduce climate science funding to the possibilities they could offer, in the early 1980s.

    Remember that while Science, between 1650 and 1950 developed a good reputation for integrity, academia did not, except among academics. Ever since Henry VIII bought the opinions of universities throughout Europe on his annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, academia has a pattern of whoring itself to politicians will money in their hands. Don’t blame non-“progressive” pols for finally paying attention to those spotting this type of pattern for 20 years.

  • Sebastian Mai

    i really appreciate your (sad) summary of nasa’s history since 1972 but my point was not that cruz was hindering nasa’s progress – there is much more that need’s to be done for nasa’s integrity.

    My point was merely that Cruz (as 99% of the rep. party) is on the “climate change is not real because humans could never influence the climate with co2-pollution – only god can affect humanity on a large scale”-bullshit train
    this opinion might stem from his special interest donors (coal & gas industry and the likes) so he might as well not be stupid enough to believe himself – i’m really not sure tho
    but obviously the cut’s in earth-science are cut’s to climatechange related research, that was my point to begin with and this is the motive behind this charade

  • Tom Billings

    “only god can affect humanity on a large scale”-bullshit train”

    Not a big idea in Republican circles, Sebastian. Remember that fundies are only 20% of the Republican Party, and far from the wealthiest 20%.

    The real reason the cuts to Earth Science are being made is the continuing series of scandals uncovered in the last 6 years, from “hide-the-decline” type manipulations to “Their uses of statistics are good examples of how *not* to do statistics for my statistics 101 classes”, to simple falsification of datasets. You have used the continuing accusation in the progressive community, that anyone who provides studies that do not support “climate change” is a shill for big oil, without examining the 90% of climate science funding coming through government hierarchies that benefit from the “activist scientist” calls for government controls on energy production. Sorry, taking the bad arguments of alarmists, and adding the class bigotry of contemporary progressive politics does *nothing* to improve those arguments.

    In 1980 I was already being warned that the secrecy about data sets would keep replication out of climate science far too long. The excuse then was that the USSR and the PRC had stipulated, before providing it, that their data should not be released. Obviously, their past lies to their populations about bad weather being the cause of famines would be undercut if the real data got out. I told my friends, “Wait, …Give the field time to mature.”

    Instead, that initial secrecy started a rot at the core, with the now visible pandering to domestic progressives. We were seeing refusals to release datasets run into the mid-2000s. Replication was replaced by “peer review”, which can properly never be more than a means to reduce the size of an editor’s slush pile. Without replication it became far too easy to get future grants by “adjustments” of the datasets that “adjusted” data consistently higher.

    No sale, Sebastian.