Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

Terraformer · 2015-04-04 06:28:28

Huh? The house I'm in at the moment is ~130 years old, and I'm fairly certain it hasn't cost much to maintain over that time. But that's the Victorians for you.

Tom, are you willing to compensate the people who's homes are destroyed? Someone has to, and since you're the one advocating for it...

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-04 08:04:30

Are you aware of how much maintenance went into that home over that 130 year period? I'm sure electricity and plumbing were installed at one point, and the house had to be rewired, insulation put it, and insulation taken out, then the house had to be painted, the exterminator had to be called a few times I bet. A lot of things change in 130 years, the house would have to be updated and so forth, that would cost a lot of money! People who build near the shore should have it insured, it just goes without saying, I'm sure they were aware of global warming at the time they bought their house, but if they did so anyway, they are responsible for their own insurance. The way the Insurance company keeps in the black is by insuring a number of homes that aren't near the coast. As they say nothing lasts forever. You don't really expect your home to last 1000 years do you? Most people don't.

RobertDyck · 2015-04-04 08:34:06

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

and we got Canada!

Ah hem! I hope you mean Americans could migrate to Canada.

But yes. Alaska will gain a warmer climate. During the last interglacial period, when dinosaurs roamed, Antarctica had a taiga forest. That means forest growing on permafrost, similar to Alaska today. And much of Holland is below sea level. Many houses in Europe are older than America. One notable house in Amsterdam is the Rembrandt House Museum, where Rembrandt worked and lived. Built in 1606 and 1607. "Rembrandt purchased this house in 1639 and lived and worked there until he went bankrupt in 1656."

Climate in Canada's north is already changing. People in the northern territory of Nunavut can't live their traditional ways. They call themselves Inuit, not Eskimo. Much of the permafrost is melting. Some coastlines are moving: land that was dirt on ice or permafrost is melting, washing into the ocean. And the polar ice cap melts in summer, but that means whales can migrate farther north. Perhaps the tree line will move, allowing forest to expand into tundra or muskeg. Maybe climate will improve to permit summer crops. Northern communities that currently depend on imported food could grow their own. Most cities don't eat a traditional Inuit diet:fish, seal, walrus, whale, polar bear, caribou, muskox. Traditional diet doesn't have much vegetables, some berries, but they can't grow crops and very few native plants are available. So cities import food. That's expensive in areas where sea ice prevents ships much of the year, and no roads or rail. Flying in food is expensive. But where the climate will allow summer crops, they will be able to grow their own.

GW Johnson · 2015-04-04 09:46:38

The difference between "individual" agriculture and "mass industrial" agriculture is much of the source of the 80-90% human die-off I mentioned in an earlier post in this very thread.

When rain patterns and arable land patterns shift, our fixed-to-the-land-ownership-patterns industrial methods will be disrupted. What we will be able to do afterwards will be crudely an order of magnitude short of being able to feed all of us.

There's a lot more to this than just coping with water levels. And that's the real problem. It dismays me that so few see this for what it really is. Especially those we elected to governing positions.

GW

RobertDyck · 2015-04-04 10:21:14

We are getting more rain in southern Manitoba. Long term climate change means drought in Africa. We're in an interglacial period now. In past interglacial periods, the Sahara grew much larger than it is now. That can be halted by good land management, but politics in Africa are unstable, so we're not seeing it. Marginal areas where land management is most critical, has poor economies because of the marginal land, so they have difficulty doing what's necessary. Over the last 3 centuries, El Niño has occurred with fewer years between each occurance, and lasts longer each time. Eventually it'll get stuck. During El Niño, mild winters in North America, more rain in southern California, more rain generally in North America, and less rain in Africa. Towns in southern California that haven't bothered to build storm sewers will have to do so. And climate change means increasing weather variability. California is in the 4th year of drought; that sort of flip/flop between drought and flood will become more severe and more often. Here in Manitoba, the government encouraged draining swamps, ponds, and slews. But they acted as a sponge to soak up rain, stabilizing ground water. Without them, we're experiencing severe floods. Those wetlands, or perhaps constructed storm water retention ponds and slews, will have to be re-built. We also have a problem with eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg. That can be reduced by ensuring farms stop washing fertilizer into ditches. Instead direct rainwater into a slew, then during dry weather use that slew to water fields. That way fertilizer will wash into the slew, so when that water is pumped back onto fields the fertilizer is returned. That should reduce cost of fertilizer for the farm, as well as avoiding fertilizer getting into the lake.

Long term: Manitoba currently has limited agriculture due to soil, rain, and weather. Changing climate brings more rain to the Interlake area, expanding arable land. "Parkland" area (west of the lakes) will require better water management. And southern Manitoba can already grow crops that couldn't grow here before. We didn't grow corn because it's too cold; lots of wheat, barley, canola, sunflower, and used to grow sugar beets. But now the climate is warm enough for corn.

Manitoba already made some changes. When government subsidy ended for rail, grain became less competitive. Europe and the US still subsidize grain, so the end of Canadian subsidies left farmers at a disadvantage. So the provincial government encouraged construction of hog farms. This resulted in a massive shift to hogs. The idea was to feed grain to hogs, then export meat. That's a higher value product, higher value per kg (or tonne) so less transportation cost, and the United States is an insatiable market for it. But that produced a problem with manure disposal. It's being used for fertilizer, but there's an issue finding enough land to handle it without washing into ditches. Again, contributing to eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg. There's now a moratorium on hog barn construction.

So it is being addressed, although a challenge.

RobertDyck · 2015-04-04 10:24:32

One point of trivia you may find interesting. When I dated a lady in the small town of Portage la Prairie, a short drive from Winnipeg, I learned more about that town. A major export is straw. They grow feed for cattle, export to Texas. That state has major cattle industry, and used to pasture their animals, but after years of oil production the ground has become contaminated, so they can't grow enough to feed their livestock. So they import feed from Portage la Prairie.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-04 12:27:16

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
and we got Canada!
Ah hem! I hope you mean Americans could migrate to Canada.

Most likely, but their are two meanings of the word "American", in one definition it means an inhabitant of North America, much as we use the word European or Asian.

RobertDyck wrote:

But yes. Alaska will gain a warmer climate. During the last interglacial period, when dinosaurs roamed, Antarctica had a taiga forest. That means forest growing on permafrost, similar to Alaska today. And much of Holland is below sea level. Many houses in Europe are older than America. One notable house in Amsterdam is the Rembrandt House Museum, where Rembrandt worked and lived. Built in 1606 and 1607. "Rembrandt purchased this house in 1639 and lived and worked there until he went bankrupt in 1656."
Climate in Canada's north is already changing. People in the northern territory of Nunavut can't live their traditional ways. They call themselves Inuit, not Eskimo. Much of the permafrost is melting. Some coastlines are moving: land that was dirt on ice or permafrost is melting, washing into the ocean. And the polar ice cap melts in summer, but that means whales can migrate farther north. Perhaps the tree line will move, allowing forest to expand into tundra or muskeg. Maybe climate will improve to permit summer crops. Northern communities that currently depend on imported food could grow their own. Most cities don't eat a traditional Inuit diet:fish, seal, walrus, whale, polar bear, caribou, muskox. Traditional diet doesn't have much vegetables, some berries, but they can't grow crops and very few native plants are available. So cities import food. That's expensive in areas where sea ice prevents ships much of the year, and no roads or rail. Flying in food is expensive. But where the climate will allow summer crops, they will be able to grow their own.

The Inuit would be good candidates for the colonization of Antarctica. Antarctic will stay colder for longer than the Arctic, because of all those cubic miles of glaciers down their if for no other reason. Also we can decide what sort of ecology to have inland of Antarctica, if we want trees for taiga, we can decide what sort of trees they would be by planting some from North America or Siberia.

th?&id=HN.608038619403780725&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0
This map of Antarctica is interesting. There could be some potential polar bear habitats here, as we can see the South pole is near the shore on this map. Polar Bears could live here!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2015-04-04 14:28:07)

RobertDyck · 2015-04-04 23:45:25

Polar bears would eat penguins. Introducing polar bears would make penguins extinct. Not a good idea.

What about muskox or Peary Caribou? They currently live on arctic islands. Traditional parkas are made of caribou fur, although I understand most people of the north today just buy a parka, ski pants, winter boots, and mitts from a store. People in cities don't catch a wild animal, tan the hide, and sew the fur. Muskox live the farthest north, so once Antarctica has melted enough that grass and woody plants start growing, muskox should survive. There are different subspecies of caribou, each in a different climate. Peary Caribou live farthest north, on the islands. They also eat grass and woody plants.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2015-04-05 06:08:46)

SpaceNut · 2015-04-05 09:09:11

As much as I enjoy the wit we see any nation that borders the US as being one that will be influenced not only by trade but by its politics as well and now back to CRUZ please...

RobertDyck · 2015-04-05 09:34:55

Dealing with Ted Cruz is domestic politics. As a Canadian, I can't comment on that.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-05 11:05:34

RobertDyck wrote:

Polar bears would eat penguins. Introducing polar bears would make penguins extinct. Not a good idea.
What about muskox or Peary Caribou? They currently live on arctic islands. Traditional parkas are made of caribou fur, although I understand most people of the north today just buy a parka, ski pants, winter boots, and mitts from a store. People in cities don't catch a wild animal, tan the hide, and sew the fur. Muskox live the farthest north, so once Antarctica has melted enough that grass and woody plants start growing, muskox should survive. There are different subspecies of caribou, each in a different climate. Peary Caribou live farthest north, on the islands. They also eat grass and woody plants.

Yes they would be part of the food chain, Polar bears also eat seals and people as well, plenty of seals in the Antarctic.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-05 11:06:56

RobertDyck wrote:

Dealing with Ted Cruz is domestic politics. As a Canadian, I can't comment on that.

I understand Ted Cruz was also from Canada.

Excelsior · 2015-04-05 13:31:22

SpaceNut wrote:

As much as I enjoy the wit we see any nation that borders the US as being one that will be influenced not only by trade but by its politics as well and now back to CRUZ please...

On the topic of NASA's mission and funding priorities, I think Cruz is on to something very important here. Whatever ones opinion on the climate, NASA's diverse priorities spread it too thin to effectively perform it's primary mission. When people think of NASA, they think space, and they support it. They would be confused and probably also a little perturbed that we depend on the borderline hostile Russians for access to a space station we spent a $100+ billion to put together. They would be further confused to find out NASA is also responsible for atmospheric, hydrospheric, and lithospheric research, as well as earthbound aircraft research, and clean energy research. They would be particularly perplexed to discover that US government also operates the US Geological Survey to study the lithosphere, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to observe the hydrosphere and atmosphere, DARPA and the Air Force with a vested interest in improving the performance of earthbound aircraft, including civilian air frames, and a Department of Energy to focus on energy issues. It is not partisan bickering to wonder why funding for such research has to come out NASA's budget, with all these other agencies with a clear mission to study these things. Is it because some of those studies involve satellites in orbit? These might be completely worthy project for these other agencies to engage in, but other than time on the launch pad, there is no reason the design, construction, and operation of the satellites for these missions need to have any more impact on NASA's primary mission, space, than any commercial launch.

Charlie Bolden might want to hide behind legislated mission statements, but that doesn't put him or the complete lack of logic behind such statements above the question of the very legislators now charged with oversight of the use of the public's labors. We all agree that NASA needs more funding, and an important step to that a clear narrowly defined mission. A full $18.5 billion dedicated to space might not solve all of NASA's problems, but its a good start.

It might too much to ask Washington to exhibit much coherence in its budgetary practices, but we aught to at least be able to acknowledge it here. And we should celebrate when a legislator actually points it out, regardless of whatever else we might thing of them.

Last edited by Excelsior (2015-04-05 13:40:56)

RobertDyck · 2015-04-05 15:30:33

NASA started as NACA. Aircraft development was slow, industry had difficulty coming up with technologies to make commercial aircraft profitable. The problem was commercial corporations only wanted to invest in something with low risk, and assured return on investment over short time. That meant no work on high-risk/high-payoff technologies. So the US government created an agency specifically to conduct research in high-risk/high-payoff aircraft technology. Founded March 3, 1915, this was when aircraft used fabric wing and fuselage skin, wooden structural members, exposed engines. Before World War 1. The US Army already used aircraft for reconnaissance, so had a vested interest. The US Air Force wasn't founded until after World War 2; during the world wars it was the Aviation Section Signal Corps (when NACA was founded), US Army Air Corps (beginning of World War 2), or various other army units. NASA was founded in 1958 by converting NACA. NASA still to this day continues to be responsible for the mandate of NACA.

Your other points are well taken. But the other agencies you mention cannot do what NASA does for aeronautics.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-05 20:32:51

Excelsior wrote:

SpaceNut wrote:
As much as I enjoy the wit we see any nation that borders the US as being one that will be influenced not only by trade but by its politics as well and now back to CRUZ please...
On the topic of NASA's mission and funding priorities, I think Cruz is on to something very important here. Whatever ones opinion on the climate, NASA's diverse priorities spread it too thin to effectively perform it's primary mission. When people think of NASA, they think space, and they support it. They would be confused and probably also a little perturbed that we depend on the borderline hostile Russians for access to a space station we spent a $100+ billion to put together. They would be further confused to find out NASA is also responsible for atmospheric, hydrospheric, and lithospheric research, as well as earthbound aircraft research, and clean energy research. They would be particularly perplexed to discover that US government also operates the US Geological Survey to study the lithosphere, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to observe the hydrosphere and atmosphere, DARPA and the Air Force with a vested interest in improving the performance of earthbound aircraft, including civilian air frames, and a Department of Energy to focus on energy issues. It is not partisan bickering to wonder why funding for such research has to come out NASA's budget, with all these other agencies with a clear mission to study these things. Is it because some of those studies involve satellites in orbit? These might be completely worthy project for these other agencies to engage in, but other than time on the launch pad, there is no reason the design, construction, and operation of the satellites for these missions need to have any more impact on NASA's primary mission, space, than any commercial launch.
Charlie Bolden might want to hide behind legislated mission statements, but that doesn't put him or the complete lack of logic behind such statements above the question of the very legislators now charged with oversight of the use of the public's labors. We all agree that NASA needs more funding, and an important step to that a clear narrowly defined mission. A full $18.5 billion dedicated to space might not solve all of NASA's problems, but its a good start.
It might too much to ask Washington to exhibit much coherence in its budgetary practices, but we aught to at least be able to acknowledge it here. And we should celebrate when a legislator actually points it out, regardless of whatever else we might thing of them.

That is a good point!

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-05 20:38:29

RobertDyck wrote:

NASA started as NACA. Aircraft development was slow, industry had difficulty coming up with technologies to make commercial aircraft profitable. The problem was commercial corporations only wanted to invest in something with low risk, and assured return on investment over short time. That meant no work on high-risk/high-payoff technologies. So the US government created an agency specifically to conduct research in high-risk/high-payoff aircraft technology. Founded March 3, 1915, this was when aircraft used fabric wing and fuselage skin, wooden structural members, exposed engines. Before World War 1. The US Army already used aircraft for reconnaissance, so had a vested interest. The US Air Force wasn't founded until after World War 2; during the world wars it was the Aviation Section Signal Corps (when NACA was founded), US Army Air Corps (beginning of World War 2), or various other army units. NASA was founded in 1958 by converting NACA. NASA still to this day continues to be responsible for the mandate of NACA.
Your other points are well taken. But the other agencies you mention cannot do what NASA does for aeronautics.

It is not NASA's job to fight Global Warming. AS for developing aircraft, let private industry do it, government can just tell it what it wants. Aircraft is no longer the cutting edge anyway, we've been pretty much using the same kind of jet engine technology since the 1960s, we have not gone much beyond the speed of sound with our civil aircraft, and we have retreated from it in fact. I don't really think we can make hypersonic air travel affordable, the Air Force has plenty of reason to pursue the cutting edge in aircraft, we don't need what NACA did, the C got changed to an S for a reason.

Excelsior · 2015-04-05 22:35:14

RobertDyck wrote:

NASA started as NACA. Aircraft development was slow, industry had difficulty coming up with technologies to make commercial aircraft profitable. The problem was commercial corporations only wanted to invest in something with low risk, and assured return on investment over short time. That meant no work on high-risk/high-payoff technologies. So the US government created an agency specifically to conduct research in high-risk/high-payoff aircraft technology. Founded March 3, 1915, this was when aircraft used fabric wing and fuselage skin, wooden structural members, exposed engines. Before World War 1. The US Army already used aircraft for reconnaissance, so had a vested interest. The US Air Force wasn't founded until after World War 2; during the world wars it was the Aviation Section Signal Corps (when NACA was founded), US Army Air Corps (beginning of World War 2), or various other army units. NASA was founded in 1958 by converting NACA. NASA still to this day continues to be responsible for the mandate of NACA.
Your other points are well taken. But the other agencies you mention cannot do what NASA does for aeronautics.

I think the Air Force operates enough support aircraft derived from civilian designs to have a vested interest in their development, and in turn those developments will filter back into the civil sector. Just a couple of examples include blended wing bodies and hybrid air vehicles. The former is a NASA project that the military and civilian markets should be all over. The latter is a heavy lift airship with great potential for military and industry applications.

RobertDyck · 2015-04-05 23:51:47

NASA has academic researchers, who are capable of more advanced research than the Air Force. Academic research can be expensive, which is why a government agency does it. The military is obsessed with secrecy, which is contrary to advanced research. Rapid, advanced research requires freely sharing information with a vast number of individuals, each of whom gets inspiration from the others. So NASA can do things that others cannot.

High speed flight is one particularly important area. The Air Force has halting research in that, not consistent. But I've posted many times how it could be used for a new shuttle. That makes it NASA's business.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-04-06 06:49:14

Why should NASA do advanced aeronautical research out in the open so our enemies can use it against us? Seems that for the entire history of NASA we've been in the Jet Age, we haven't developed any scramjet engines and airplanes don't go appreciably faster than they did in 1958, so what's the use? Seems the bulk of the research in jet engine technology was done before 1958 and NASA hasn't made any improvements since. Most of us still fly across the Atlantic in subsonic jet airliners, and NASA hasn't done a thing to improve that.

I think NASA should determine "Where" and let private Industry decide "How".

SpaceNut · 2015-04-06 19:09:50

You said a mouth full Excelsior in that Nasa had become to large and multi faceted with what its true mission was and became a catchall for all cutting edge technology developement. But that said where is the steady state use of it when the cost to create cutting edge does not take into account that the main stream vendor of items will not be able to duplicate the processes or the actual item as its to costly to do.

So how does one narrow up the scope of the mission that Nasa is expected to carryout and how do we fund the steady state need for the remaining parts that as we know help us survive and so much more... Is it even possible to make those changes to Nasa when it is so spread out amoungst so many facilities?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-02-02 12:48:39

Well it looks like Ted Cruz won the Iowa Primary, it seems he has a clearer path to the Presidency now, he is the only one thus far to beat Trump. Who do you think might have a better NASA program? Trump or Cruz?

Terraformer · 2016-02-02 15:03:14

He didn't win Iowa. He got a single delegate more than Trump and Rubio each got. The only thing that can be gathered from this is that it's likely to be a three-horse race.

SpaceNut · 2016-02-02 17:15:29

Yes a horse race for the republican nomination and the same is true on the democratic ticket...in the end it will comeback to picking the lesser of those evils from those that are still running in the end....
I am not sure that Cruz has done all that much for Nasa since becoming part of the subcommitte that handles space.....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-02-03 12:20:54

Terraformer wrote:

He didn't win Iowa. He got a single delegate more than Trump and Rubio each got. The only thing that can be gathered from this is that it's likely to be a three-horse race.

Well, actually, getting the most delegates is the definition of winning, it puts Cruz on the map, he is the first person to enter the race for President, the first person to beat Trump in a race, and thus far the only one to do so, that means people who previously wouldn't have considered voting for Cruz, because they thought he didn't stand a chance against the Billionaire, now will do so! I kind of think Cruz would be better for space than Trump, he was on the Space Subcommittee, I don't think he would be on that subcommittee if he didn't want to be. It also doesn't hurt that he is a senator from Texas, a big space state. New York City, where Trump is from, has very little to do with the space industry. And then there is Rubio, a Senator from Florida, he might not be too bad either, since Florida is where all the manned launches occur, if there were a manned space program to Mars, Florida would be one of the big beneficiaries!

As for Hillary Clinton, who knows? She is also from New York, like Trump, though that maybe only so she could run for that New York Senate seat, that was held in "reserve" for her. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand has a consistent record of voting against NASA funding. Does that help you any?

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-02-03 12:23:40)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-02-03 12:26:36

SpaceNut wrote:

Yes a horse race for the republican nomination and the same is true on the democratic ticket...in the end it will comeback to picking the lesser of those evils from those that are still running in the end....
I am not sure that Cruz has done all that much for Nasa since becoming part of the subcommitte that handles space.....

Well, what has Trump done? He was asked the question once if he would support a manned expedition to Mars, and has unequivocally stated that he has some infrastructure projects on Earth to take care of first. I think the best two candidates for manned space would probably be Rubio and Cruz, Though Carson has also indicated support.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-02-03 12:27:01)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2015-04-04 06:28:28

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#52 2015-04-04 08:04:30

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#53 2015-04-04 08:34:06

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#54 2015-04-04 09:46:38

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#55 2015-04-04 10:21:14

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#56 2015-04-04 10:24:32

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#57 2015-04-04 12:27:16

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#58 2015-04-04 23:45:25

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#59 2015-04-05 09:09:11

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#60 2015-04-05 09:34:55

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#61 2015-04-05 11:05:34

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#62 2015-04-05 11:06:56

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#63 2015-04-05 13:31:22

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#64 2015-04-05 15:30:33

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#65 2015-04-05 20:32:51

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#66 2015-04-05 20:38:29

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#67 2015-04-05 22:35:14

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#68 2015-04-05 23:51:47

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#69 2015-04-06 06:49:14

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#70 2015-04-06 19:09:50

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#71 2016-02-02 12:48:39

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#72 2016-02-02 15:03:14

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#73 2016-02-02 17:15:29

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#74 2016-02-03 12:20:54

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

#75 2016-02-03 12:26:36

Re: Senator Ted Cruz appointed to oversee NASA in Congress

Board footer