Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

SpaceNut · 2015-03-24 18:37:25

While many have written about their hopes for the best—or fears of the worst—of a Cruz chairmanship, much of that rhetoric overstates just how much influence he is likely to have over the next two years.
Critics pointed to past efforts to cut funding (or, more accurately, authorization for funding) for NASA, and his opposition to the agency’s work in Earth sciences, particularly climate change research.
Much of the criticism that Cruz has received for seeking to cut NASA funding stems from an amendment he proposed during a markup of a proposed NASA authorization bill the Senate Commerce Committee debated in July 2013. That amendment sought to reduce authorized spending levels to comply with the Budget Control Act, and to mirror the House’s version of that bill.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2684/1
Cruz’s subcommittee can develop and pass legislation to authorize NASA funding, and set other agency policy. However, real control of the NASA budget, in terms of actually allocating funding, is in the hands of the Senate Appropriations Committee (and, of course, its House counterpart.) Cruz does not serve on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
However, authorization bills are “nice-to-haves,” not “need-to-haves.” That is, while an authorization bill can be useful in setting policy and proposing spending levels, it’s not required for NASA to operate.

List of Nice vs need
SLS nice but we need Commercial affordable human space flights
SLS nice to do asteriod capture flight but capture is not needed to get to mars or the moon
SLS to support ISS nice but we can do it with much lower commercial costs
SLS to go to the moon maybe a need to get a substantial base going but need global commercial partners tokeep costs lower
SLS to go to Mars at this point appears to be a must until commercial companies build stations for profit and not contracted funding opening up space to everyone.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-25 13:18:27

What power does he have if he cuts it? Power is in spending money, not in not spending it! A politician is often judged by the number of jobs he brings to his constituency, now tell me, how does cutting NASA bring jobs to his home state of Texas? It doesn't!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-03-25 21:08:32)

Terraformer · 2015-03-26 10:42:11

How does spending money wisely (which involves cutting some things) bring jobs to Texas, either?

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-27 07:47:42

Look at it from the Senators own selfish perspective if you are going to assume that. It just so happens that much of what NASA does occurs in Texas, so if the Senator wants to cut funding for NASA, he is going to be hurting his own state and hurting his own chances for reelection, now why would he do that? You know for instance a Senator from Iowa is all for corn subsidies, usually a Senator from Texas is all for a big expansive space program for all the jobs it would bring to his state. Now if you wanted a critic of the space program, you put a Senator from say Massachusetts in charge of its oversight, not from Texas! I'm just using some common sense here. Senator Cruz may be a born again Christian, but he is also well aware of all the jobs NASA provides in his home state. There is no particular reason why a born again Christian can automatically be assumed to be against space exploration, now why would that be?

Terraformer · 2015-03-28 10:24:35

WTF you on about, Tom?

A senator from a non-NASA state would actually be better put in charge of overseeing NASA, *because they don't have to worry about losing votes if the contractors in their state lose work*. So NASA can actually do what is best, rather than what will employ the most people.

So, he could well support more funding for NASA. But it does not follow that that would actually be an improvement.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-29 09:02:12

Why would he be interested in something that does not interest his constituents? Typically a Senator is judged on whether he can bring home the big government contracts for his state. I'll bet you a lot of Texans would have problems if Ted Cruz was anti-NASA, and wanted to get rid of it! All those NASA engineers and contractors on the unemployment line in Houston, would not look good for his reelection, so I think Ted can be counted on not to "shoot himself in the foot!"

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-03-29 09:03:06)

Terraformer · 2015-03-29 10:56:09

What is good for NASA employees and contractors is not necessarily what is good for NASA.. Do you understand?

SpaceNut · 2015-03-29 16:01:57

Ted Cruz Pledges Support for NASA Commercial Space Plan Texas lawmaker strikes bipartisan tone in sync with the panel’s ranking Democrat

Sen. Ted Cruz, the new Republican chairman of the Senate Science subcommittee overseeing NASA, pledged Tuesday to support development of commercial space taxis to end U.S. reliance on Russian spacecraft to get U.S. astronauts into orbit. “The commercial crew program is critical” to reach the orbiting international space station, Sen. Cruz said, vowing to be “an enthusiastic advocate of competition.”
The chairman also expressed support for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s ongoing effort to design and test the most powerful rocket ever built, and pair it with the agency’s proposed Orion manned capsule, to push toward eventual astronaut missions to Mars in roughly two decades. Outside estimates peg the cost of a manned Mars mission, possibly after 2030, above $100 billion. NASA officials have said they foresee cooperation with other countries.
NASA’s current manned-exploration priorities—projected to cost at least $18 billion through late 2018—call for funding commercial crew efforts while simultaneously supporting work on deep-space hardware. Keeping the international space station operating over the same period is expected to cost another $10 billion.

WE have a climate denier who is in charge of a committee, a skeptic about climate changeTed Cruz’s control of Senate science panel triggers anxiety among some. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

announced that 2014 was the warmest year on record. The earth’s temperature has been recorded since 1880.
According to NASA, which monitors the Earth from its many satellites and instruments, the planet’s average surface temperature has increased by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit because of “the increase in carbon dioxide and other human emissions into the planet’s atmosphere.”

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Examining NASA’s Development of the Space Launch System and Orion Crew Capsule Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-29 17:17:06

Ted Cruz is on the Committee for Space Exploration not NOAA?

SpaceNut · 2015-03-29 17:19:27

True but he can still open his mouth against what is not in his sphere of influence causing others to change there position to that of party line...

So what can Ted Cruz do or not do as the appointment to Nasa subcommittee?

http://science.house.gov/

http://science.house.gov/press-release/ … -nasa-bill

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-30 06:46:17

SpaceNut wrote:

True but he can still open his mouth against what is not in his sphere of influence causing others to change there position to that of party line...
So what can Ted Cruz do or not do as the appointment to Nasa subcommittee?
http://science.house.gov/
http://science.house.gov/press-release/ … -nasa-bill

He can do that from any position he is in, he is a Senator. If the ocean level rises it will rise slowly, I don't think whatever Ted Cruz does will change that. I think if global warming is a problem, we will need better technology to deal with it, such as the fusion reactors Lockheed is working on.

GW Johnson · 2015-03-30 15:52:49

a quote: "If the ocean level rises it will rise slowly"

You have zero reason to say (or think) that statement. Geology says otherwise. It's in the record of the rocks. If and when it happens, geological history says it will be "sudden" and "drastic". That's the record.

"Sudden" could be anywhere from one human lifetime to a few millenia. Those are essentially indistinguishable on the geological time scale. However 60+ meters in 1000 years is not "gradual" even in human terms, at 60+ mm/year. Further, there's a lot of reason (in the rock records!!!!!) to believe it's more like 60+ meters in under 100 years, for over 600 mm/yr.

Climate change deniers really piss me off, precisely because of those same geological records that they so conveniently ignore.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-30 18:51:47

GW Johnson wrote:

a quote: "If the ocean level rises it will rise slowly"
You have zero reason to say (or think) that statement. Geology says otherwise. It's in the record of the rocks. If and when it happens, geological history says it will be "sudden" and "drastic". That's the record.
"Sudden" could be anywhere from one human lifetime to a few millenia. Those are essentially indistinguishable on the geological time scale. However 60+ meters in 1000 years is not "gradual" even in human terms, at 60+ mm/year. Further, there's a lot of reason (in the rock records!!!!!) to believe it's more like 60+ meters in under 100 years, for over 600 mm/yr.
Climate change deniers really piss me off, precisely because of those same geological records that they so conveniently ignore.
GW

Are you going to drown because of rising ocean levels?

GW Johnson · 2015-03-31 13:16:45

There are approximately 1 billion people living within about 1 meter of current sea levels. Much more than half of all humanity lives within about 60 meters of current sea levels.

If sea level changes on the order of 1 meter take place within a human lifetime, here is one of the multiple problems this civilization faces: those folks will be on the move across international borders looking for new places to live, a migration unlike anything ever seen before.

This civilization's most advanced member state demonstrably cannot address even the temporary evacuation of one storm-flooded city, all within its national borders.

So given that miserable performance, do you think there might be mass chaos, even major nuclear wars, if seas rise like that? I don't have to be flooded myself to understand the lethal fallout from a disaster like that.

Personally, I think we are well past the so-called "tipping point" beyond which our prior-centuries' emissions have made this disaster inevitable.

All I see going on is calls for emission reductions (that I believe are already too late), with considerable political opposition based solely on who pays and how much (without regard to the intrinsic values of human life or our civilization, I might add).

I see utterly zero planning for coping with the disaster itself. So, I am pessimistic about our civilization's surviving what is coming. If our civilization dies, our species won't go extinct, but around 80-90% of human individuals will die.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-03-31 18:42:48

What's so hard about making buildings 1 meter taller? You can have canals where streets used to be, it would be just like Venice.. You know the oceans wouldn't rise at all if someone didn't park that stupid continent on the South Pole!
th?id=HN.608005556740098283&w=206&h=206&c=7&rs=1&qlt=90&pid=3.1&rm=2
Kidding aside, why not build a dike completely around Antarctica, when the ice melts, it will make a great big lake!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-03-31 18:45:03)

SpaceNut · 2015-03-31 21:22:31

But the Artic has no island to build a wall around and that is where most of the melting is occuring, only Greenland would that wall building work around for this issue.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-01 06:19:11

But you see arctic ice is already in the water, the ice displaces water and the part which does not is above the surface. You can melt all the sea ice you want, but the ocean level isn't going to raise an inch. Try this experiment, take a graduated cylinder full of ice water, then put it in the microwave and melt the ice, and see if the later level rises. I'll bet it doesn't. The only melting ice that matters is that ice which is on land and not in the ocean. If its already in the ocean, it doesn't matter if it melts. As for Polar bears, there were no polar bears before the last ice age, brown bears became polar bears, I'm sure Polar bears can learn alternate means for getting their food, or if we want, we can transfer them to the Antarctic, where they'll find plenty of food and ice. The thing is the Antarctic will have plenty of ice by the time the Arctic Ocean is ice free.

GW Johnson · 2015-04-01 15:00:14

Here are the above-sea level ice volume estimates. Tom is right: floating sea ice has zero effect.

No one is saying that all of this, or all of any one of these, will melt. But some fraction of more than one of them is very likely to melt. Trouble is, it ain't just "1 meter" we're talking about.

Mountain glaciers -- 1 meter's worth. Greenland -- 6 meters' worth. West Antarctica -- 6 or 7 meters' worth. East Antarctica -- 20+ meters's worth (some estimates as high as 60 meters). Thermal expansion - another 50 to 100 meters. All are showing symptoms ranging from rapid loss to "instability". One of the complicating issues is that the loss of floating ice shelves is freeing up the land glaciers to flow faster into the sea (Greenland, and both parts of Antarctica).

According to the geological records, these massive deglaciation events were quite sudden: one or two human lifetimes, to at most a millennium.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-01 19:29:18

One or two human lifetimes isn't sudden, Sudden is a tidal wave!

GW Johnson · 2015-04-03 09:30:13

So also is a storm surge a sudden event. They happen with increasing frequency and severity as the sea levels creep up.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-03 15:20:07

Tell me is 160 years enough time for you to find higher ground if the ocean rises? Just wondering? Is it enough time to build a dyke around New York City if necessary? I don't see what the problem is, people can move. There is enough time to build new houses and for people to move into them.

SpaceNut · 2015-04-03 18:22:43

The problem is the money to do it, giving up on the funds you have invested just to start all over again possibly renting and having a total loss of that past investment plus anything you might still owe on the property.

GW Johnson · 2015-04-03 19:00:26

How practical is a 20 meter dike around NYC (or any other coastal city)?

What do you do with 3 billion people migrating across borders to higher ground?

Why would it make any difference whether you had 60 years or 600 years to do something, given the way governments and politicians in all the advanced countries have behaved the last 30 years?

Tom, your faith in the governance abilities of this civilization are entirely unjustified. I've been around long enough to see and learn that unpleasant little fact of life. Apparently, you have not.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-03 21:49:05

GW Johnson wrote:

How practical is a 20 meter dike around NYC (or any other coastal city)?
What do you do with 3 billion people migrating across borders to higher ground?
Why would it make any difference whether you had 60 years or 600 years to do something, given the way governments and politicians in all the advanced countries have behaved the last 30 years?
Tom, your faith in the governance abilities of this civilization are entirely unjustified. I've been around long enough to see and learn that unpleasant little fact of life. Apparently, you have not.
GW

Manhattan is high value real estate, well worth protecting in my opinion. A 20 meter dike around the city, well not necessarily all around as parts of Manhattan rise above 20 meters, is easily accomplished in 160 years. In 160 years we would easily have space colonies in orbit, compared to that, building a 20 meter high dyke around the city is child's play. Most likely I think the entire island would be built up, much of it is artificial anyway, when you look at all the tall buildings, it would be easy to build the ground level 20 meters higher, all you would have to do is stay ahead of the sea level, this is a much easier problem that reversing global warming, that is a problem on a global scale, not a local one. Compared to cooling the Earth, Diking New York city is easy. For less valuable real estate:

As you can see, there is still plenty of real estate left even after the oceans rise 100 meters. Florida is underwater, but Appalachia will prove an adequate replacement for it. Bet there would be palm trees and orange groves on the shores of Appalachia. Also North America gets wider as you go north, more real estate becomes available even as old real estate gets submerged, much of Canada and Alaska will become more habitable, more that compensating for the lost land down south.
th?&id=HN.608038619403780725&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0
Plus we would gain a whole new continent! I think Antarctica more than compensates for the lost land of North America, when its ice free, it will be more habitable than it is now, though it is above the sea level now, it is buried under ice, People could live there after global flooding.
Oh look the Crimea will get flooded! that Russian naval base on the Black Sea will be flooded, seems Global Warming isn't all that bad, all that land Russia stole from Ukraine will be under water! Much of North America remains intact though. Siberia would be a more pleasant place to live, so don't feel too sorry for the Russians, and we got Canada! Probably we'll find ways to live on the ocean surface as well, much easier than building a space colony I think.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-04-03 22:07:25)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-03 21:56:57

SpaceNut wrote:

The problem is the money to do it, giving up on the funds you have invested just to start all over again possibly renting and having a total loss of that past investment plus anything you might still owe on the property.

Over a 160 year period! How many 160 year old structures do people live in anyway, and what does it cost to keep a building for 160 years, all the maintenance over that period of time, that could easily add up to the cost of building a new house!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2015-03-24 18:37:25

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#27 2015-03-25 13:18:27

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#28 2015-03-26 10:42:11

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#29 2015-03-27 07:47:42

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#30 2015-03-28 10:24:35

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#31 2015-03-29 09:02:12

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#32 2015-03-29 10:56:09

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#33 2015-03-29 16:01:57

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#34 2015-03-29 17:17:06

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#35 2015-03-29 17:19:27

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#36 2015-03-30 06:46:17

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#37 2015-03-30 15:52:49

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#38 2015-03-30 18:51:47

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#39 2015-03-31 13:16:45

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#40 2015-03-31 18:42:48

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#41 2015-03-31 21:22:31

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#42 2015-04-01 06:19:11

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#43 2015-04-01 15:00:14

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#44 2015-04-01 19:29:18

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#45 2015-04-03 09:30:13

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#46 2015-04-03 15:20:07

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#47 2015-04-03 18:22:43

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#48 2015-04-03 19:00:26

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#49 2015-04-03 21:49:05

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#50 2015-04-03 21:56:57

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

Board footer