NASA Budget 2017

Here is the official document:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf

Before I start, I’d like to point out that I am completely biased in this matter. I am all for space exploration and advancement of space technologies. I want it. I need it. I would say  fuck you to many other things in order to increase funding for NASA. I think our main effort as an advanced species should be to get humanity further out into the universe. But some people don’t see the bigger picture like me and some people are more concerned with helping the impoverished, or the “oppressed”, and they think that space exploration should be halted until we fix all of our other problems. In some ways they may be right, we should be trying to completely eliminate starvation from the Earth. But these are all complex tasks. there are so many factors, such as the clashing of culture and the divide of political ideology. I personally think space exploration should be held above all those things. But you and I have to remember that there must be a balance, there are too many other problems that need to be fixed. We can’t just focus on space technology and say fuck you to the people dying of cancer.

I am not going to be extensively comparing this to past policies as I am not familiar with them and don’t feel like researching 50 years of funding. I am also not an expert on space technology.

“Supports and expands public-private partnerships as the foundation of future U.S. civilian space efforts”. Thank you. At one time, the USA’s space exploration was at the heart of our country, so it made sense to only be a public matter. But times changes. I don’t have the numbers on what the 300 million citizens want, but I will go as far as to guess not a lot of people give a shit about space exploration, so it is only natural for the private sector to get involved… and having a partnership between public and private is the best thing we could have.

” Provides $3.7 billion for continued development of the Orion crew vehicle, Space Launch System, and associated ground system, to send American astronauts on deep-space missions. “.  Mars, here we come!

“the Budget provides no funding for a multi-billion-dollar mission to land on Europa. “.  Fucking pissed. This should be second on the list under manned mission to Mars.

“NASA will investigate approaches for reducing the costs of exploration missions to enable a more expansive exploration program. “. Saddening. I would rather we just increase spending, but there must be a balance.

“The Budget terminates four Earth science missions (PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR Earth-viewing instruments, and CLARREO Pathfinder) and reduces funding for Earth science research grants. “.  I don’t think I agree here. I am completely against the corrupted, politically infested atmosphere of climate/Earth science, but to defund technological instruments is not the right thing to do. I do not know if these instruments are particularly useful, maybe they are, or maybe they are useless “fat” that the administration wants to trim away in order to save the US some money/ invest in other areas, but it must also be noted that instruments don’t hold a political stance, they don’t go out and protest, so if this cut to the instruments is only political in nature then it is wrong. The other half, “reducing funding for Earth Science Grants” is the right move. I have constantly talked about how these scientists are pressured into claiming “Anthropogenic Climate Change is real” just because they will receive the grants if they do so, but they are more if not entirely unlikely to receive funding if they are part of the opposition. This budget cut is a straight fuck you to that whole corrupted sector and ohhh, man its glorious.

“Strengthens NASA’s cybersecurity capabilities, safeguarding critical systems and data.” Very important and I am glad this was addressed, we don’t want our satellites falling out of the sky. I wrote a paper on satellite security and learned of the various vulnerabilities last year. There are 2,271 satellites that orbit above us and all of them should be protected, because if our satellites go down, society will probably crumble. Our daily lives are dictated by satellites, from weather information to the transfer of data and communication. Our military relies on the capabilities of our satellites, for without them they are blind and disfunctional.  Very important.

Here is a more, digestive look at the budget plan:

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-funding-2018-trump-budget-2017-3

And NASA’s official statement on the budget:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-acting-administrator-statement-on-the-nasa-authorization-act-of-2017

When it comes to NASA, though, I could care less of how they react to things because they know and we know, that they live off these budgets, so they must do everything in order to satisfy those in the white house. I never really thought of this until I started researching into climate change and the process of peer-review. But, after Obama tweeted this

I became very suspicious of how the scientific community and the politics are intertwined (NOTE: this tweet is VERY misleading– it’s 97% of climate scientists and not all scientists).That is what lead me to finding out that NASA posted the same study on their official website:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And this basically enlightened me to the bullshit. The 97% consensus has been debunked. It is a false study, a lie to sway the masses. I am taking this from one of my past posts on the subject:

“In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported the 97% consensus.

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming

Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent- had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

There is also a list of scientists who have come out against this because Cook’s review had labeled their papers as ones that agree with Anthropogenic Climate Change, when in fact those scientists had made no such claim. ——————- THIS IS FAKE NEWS because I can’t find the source but I will leave it here anyway.

So what are we left with? NASA posts a dogshit consensus on their official website in order to appease the masses and in turn appease the white house and in turn continue to receive funding. A very smart move, but one I can not agree with especially in regards to science and the advancement of our technologies. It is important to note the deeper problem here. Political agenda has invaded the scientific community. There is a stranglehold on scientists, forcing them to conform. Instead of an open-field of ideas we now have a collective. Be against that collective and kiss your scientific career goodbye.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *