The thing is, the much bemoaned shut-down of the space shuttle program and the resulting reliance on the Russians, attributed in this story as “[t]he Obama administration’s decision,” was in fact decided in 2004 by then-President George W. Bush. Bush initiated a review of space policy in 2003 following the catastrophic failure of the heat shield on the space shuttle Columbia, which disintegrated upon re-entry to the Earth’s atmosphere, killing all seven astronauts aboard. Both the Bush and Obama plans would result in a gap between the retiring space shuttle and its replacement, during which the U.S. would invest money saved on the shuttle in research and development, relying on foreign partners, namely Russia, to get to space in the meantime. No one is particularly happy with this arrangement, not NASA, much less certain politicians who still confuse Russia for the Soviet Union, but it’s the result of a lack of foresight that long predates the current president.
In resolving this problem, Obama’s plan differs from Bush’s in counting on the private sector rather than NASA to come up with a shuttle replacement. That’s a real and debatable difference in strategy, but with most everyone agreed that the shuttle’s life can’t be extended without a huge infusion of cash, and even then at considerable risk to the astronauts who would ride it, the discussion should focus not on old fears of the Russian Bear but on how NASA can best push further into the final frontier.
Later this week, we will take a look at the more responsible coverage that grapples with the promise and the risks of Obama’s new NASA policy.
The "exciting" new NASA plan: http://bit.ly/cgIjDv
#1 Posted by gaetano marano, CJR on Wed 21 Apr 2010 at 01:45 PM
Great reporting - thank you for exposing the hype and targeted antagonism by the Right of anything Obama. I can tolerate criticism in a reasoned debate - it's healthy, and every strategy has room for improvement. But building hysteria as a means of turning the public against a policy, while perhaps effective, cannot be how a democracy sways decisions.
#2 Posted by Paul, CJR on Wed 21 Apr 2010 at 11:54 PM
as a foreign person, i looked for some sentences in president's speech about army and national security and defence.i think obama forgot this.and also obama only replied criticism.president tried to make calm the media.in addition,obama gives too much responsibility to privates.Public private partnership is important in space activities but ın some limits.
#3 Posted by cihangun ozkurt, CJR on Thu 22 Apr 2010 at 02:15 AM
I work on the canceled Ares 1, and, thanks to this article, I now know the source of that weird "Russians stranding astronauts in space" fear that I've been hearing about in the breakroom. I try to explain that it makes no political sense to do that even if the Russians were that callous. But even engineers, when faced with losing their jobs, can get irrational.
#4 Posted by Jeff Alabama, CJR on Thu 22 Apr 2010 at 09:22 AM
This story is a complete and utter fraud. The author makes mirth of the fact that one of the sources quoted by Fox was a chemist who has a higher degree also in business. Credentialism posing as objectivity. Einstein did not have a college degree and is considered our greatest scientist. But according to this author, Mr. Brett "Shoddy Journalism" Norman, Mr. Einstein would be unqualified to comment on a space and science topic, apparently. What is more, the author engages in false demagoguery by claiming that the company that employed the chemist also makes phonics products. So the crime is...corporate diversification? Mr. Norman is an utter failure as a journalist and an ethical failure. He also lambastes Jane Orient, who is a source in the Fox story. She has published more than 100 articles on technological risk and scientific risk. She is certainly more of a science policy expert than Mr. Norman and the CJR staff, who are shills for certain radical interests, a.k.a., Victor Navasky of the Nation. Who are the sources in Mr. Norman's article? I see none -- save his own opinion.
#5 Posted by Joe Wiggins, CJR on Thu 22 Apr 2010 at 08:30 PM
Thanks for this article and analysis. The accuracy of that Fox article is about 50%! What a disgrace. That writer Gene J. Koprowski is making FoxNews look terrible and raising FUD about recent NASA news. That's exactly not what NASA needs at this time, but anyway he should be fired for the extremely poor reporting itself. Editorializing is fine, false experts, fake risks, alarmist scare tactics, not acceptable.
#6 Posted by HikingMike, CJR on Fri 23 Apr 2010 at 05:49 PM
Jane Orient: "The U.S. has surrendered its advantage in space, conceding the high ground to others who are probably our enemies."
Our enemies? I guess we shouldn't have cooperated with them in space back in the 70s for Apollo-Soyuz. I guess we shouldn't have cooperated with them when the Shuttle docked to Mir. I guess we shouldn't have cooperated when we built the International Space Station together or when they launch many of our astronauts up to the International Space Station for us and bring them back or when we regularly buy and use their rocket engines like the ones on the Atlas V. If they were probably our enemies, maybe we shouldn't be doing these things? You're going to have to prove that they are enemies.
Jane Orient: "We are apparently leaving seven astronauts in space as hostages."
The ISS crew is limited to 6. Only some of those are Americans. There are always enough Russian Soyuz vehicles docked for everyone to come back to Earth. There is no way they would create an uncomfortable situation where we should suspect them of what you suggest. That is pretty bizarre. The Russians have depended on us plenty of times in human spaceflight and we've depended on them too.
#7 Posted by HikingMike, CJR on Fri 23 Apr 2010 at 06:02 PM
Mr. Wigins, in an above comment, poses that Albert Einstein did not have a college degree. In fact, Einstein received his doctorate from the University of Zürich in 1905, the same year he won international fame with the publication of four articles: one on Brownian motion, which he explained in terms of molecular kinetic energy; one on the photoelectric effect, in which he demonstrated the particle nature of light; and two on his special theory of relativity, the second of which included his formulation of the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2). It therefore seems that Einstein was a highly qualified expert in the realm of physics. Mr. Wiggins, however, appears to be a strong candidate for "expert" on Fox News.
#8 Posted by David Hicks, CJR on Sat 24 Apr 2010 at 01:34 PM