Obama's Ersatz Space Program - Questionable Agenda

........Of all the waste by the Federal government and with all the other Federal agencies that could be moved to privatization, Obama selects our space program.

This detracts from the progress of our missile technology that is shared with our military, it inhibits our national defense, and it damages our national identity.

Space X is Obama's choice for supplanting NASA. It appears Obama has picked another loser. Move over Solyndra.

Let's begin with the performance to date of the ersatz space program called Space X.....

"Thus far, NASA has awarded at least $2.1 billion in SAA money to private space companies,including a total of $824 million to SpaceX.

....Space X is one of three well-publicized Musk firms,the others being electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors and SolarCity Corp.,a rooftop solar power panel manufacturer. Collectively, the three Musk firms have received more than $1.5 billion in government funding since President Obama took office in 2009......

......From the shortcomings of this handpicked partial replacement to the Solyndra-like money trail. Privatizing portions of our space program seems prudent on the surface. But outsourcing any of our capabilities to defend the nation,or to develop cutting-edge missile technologies, or to allow sharing the same with our military,is ill advised. We cannot afford a generational gap in our missile program. We must have a generational continuity of expertise in our space program, uninterrupted by presidential whims and political favoritism. If we lose or diminish the community of these experts that have sustained NASA, any attempts to resurrect such a specifically proficient team will likely be an insurmountable task.

Hamstringing our space program, cutting our defense budget, and entering into lopsided strategic arms treaties that seem to inhibit missile defenses is more than bothersome.

It can't get much worse than Holdren at the helm. He lectured an audience of graduate science students, that America can't always expect to be number one, and in fact, the world will be better off when it isn't.

_________________________________________________

Washington Post: "Holdren is a powerhouse in the world of science and public policy. As director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), he is the top adviser to President Barack Obama on science and technology, issues that are increasingly relevant to homeland security, energy and the environment. Holdren casts all of the above as priorities.

But some have criticized the scientist, claiming that he lets his political ideology sway his scientific convictions. Holdren is an outspoken advocate of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and believes the United States should sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. In a 2008 New York Times op-ed, Holdren called climate change skeptics "dangerous" members of a "denier fringe." John Holdren

John P. Holdren --- Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

".......Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973, Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many." In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and discussed "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.

Other early publications include Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defenses and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), and Conversion of Military R&D (1998)......"

__________________

The Intellectual Roots of Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb (and the pre-prehistory of climate alarmism) [John P. Holdren collaborated with the Ehrlichs on "The Population Bomb" [1968]

"This detracts from the progress of our missile technology that is shared with our military, it inhibits our national defense"

Obama's space policy is geared solely to allow the Russians and ChiComs to catch up and eventually surpass us.

From the campaign trail, February 2008...

Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs

February 29, 2008 :: News
MissileThreat.com

A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.

The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[not win it -etl]

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert [they are NOT on "hair-trigger alert" now -etl], and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.

Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp

"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
_____________________________________________________

"I will not weaponize space"

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems"
_____________________________________________________

2008 Pentagon Report (March 2008):
China's Growing Military Space Power
By Leonard David
Special Correspondent, SPACE.com
March 6, 2008

GOLDEN, Colorado — A just-released Pentagon report spotlights a growing U.S. military concern that China is developing a multi- dimensional program to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by its potential adversaries during times of crisis or conflict.

Furthermore, last year's successful test by China of a direct-ascent, anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon to destroy its own defunct weather satellite, the report adds, underscores that country's expansion from the land, air, and sea dimensions of the traditional battlefield into the space and cyber-space domains.

Although China's commercial space program has utility for non- military research, that capability demonstrates space launch and control know-how that have direct military application. Even the Chang'e 1 — the Chinese lunar probe now circling the Moon — is flagged in the report as showcasing China's ability "to conduct complicated space maneuvers — a capability which has broad implications for military counterspace operations."

To read the entire publication [29.67MB/pdf], see U.S. Dept of Defense:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf

Obama To Betray Missile Defense Secrets To Moscow
Investor's Business Daily ^ | January 9, 2012 | IBD staff

Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.

It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.

He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 — linchpin of our missile defense — might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.

Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.

The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Open Mic Catches Obama Asking Medvedev for Space on Missile Defense
March 26, 2012

"In a private conversation about the planned U.S.-led NATO missile defense system in Europe, President Barack Obama asked outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for space on the issue.

“This is my last election,” Obama told Medvedev. “After my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev said, referring to incoming President Vladimir Putin."

http://fox8.com/2012/03/26/open-mic-catches-obama-asking-medvedev-for-space-on-missile-defense/
__________________________________________________

Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”

Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/

“We are creating a new world, a balanced world. A new world order, a multipolar world,” Chavez told reporters during a visit to Communist China, one of many. His “new world order” includes [RUSSIA], China, Iran,... and a significantly weakened United States, he explained.

Resurgent Communism in Latin America
by Alex Newman, March 16, 2010:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/south-america-mainmenu-37/3122-resurgent-communism-in-latin-america?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
______________________________________________________________

From the Russian News and Information Agency:
July 27, 2006
"'I am determined to expand relations with Russia,' Chavez, known as an outspoken critic of what he calls the United States' unilateralism, told the Russian leader, adding that his determination stemmed from their shared vision of the global order.":
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060727/51913498.html

Russia’s military spending soars
February, 2011

Russia has revealed details of its ambitious plan to upgrade its army over the next ten years, planning to spend US$650 billion on the project.

The unveiled large-scale plans of the Russian defense ministry propose the spending of vast sums of money up to 2020.

First and foremost, Russian defense will focus on the development of strategic nuclear weapons, construction of over 100 military vessels for Russian Navy, including construction of four originally French-made Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, and the introduction into the Air Force of over 1,000 helicopters and 600 military planes, including fifth generation PAK-FA fighter.

Most of the military hardware will be equipped with next-generation weaponry.

http://rt.com/news/military-budget-russia-2020/
______________________________________________________________

China and Russia Launch Military Exercises
April 22nd, 2012

China and Russia launched joint naval exercises Sunday in the Yellow Sea between the east coast of mainland China and the Korean peninsula.

Sixteen Chinese surface vessels and two submarines as well as four Russian warships will take part in the six days of drills. ...

China and Russia have conducted four bilateral and multilateral military exercises since 2005.

http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/04/22/china-and-russia-launch-military-exercises/

The Left sees technological progress as a social threat. Negative attacks on capitalism preoccupies them. [paraphrasing David Horowitz excerpted below]

".................The Cold War is now over and this kind of intellectual rant, although still prevalent in “progressive” circles, is no longer consequential for America’s survival. But left-wing paranoia continues to unleash dangerous toxins into the political air., pouring .

In describing the Cold War’s denouement, [Stalinist historian Eric] Hobsbawm also fails to notice how the forces underlying the Soviet collapse and the western triumph reflected an economic reality of momentous consequence. This was the capacity of a society based on private markets to unleash the power of new technologies and transform the world. (And the inability of its state-managed rival to accommodate, let alone innovate in the new technological age). In a 400-page volume that devotes whole chapters to developments in science and industry in the pre-electronic era, Hobsbawm mentions the digital computer in only a single isolated sentence. There is not one reference to Ed Cray, Bill Gates, Jim Clark, Michael Milken or the other Rockefellers of the new industrial revolution or — except negatively — to its economic and social implications. Hobsbawm ignores, even denies, the liberating potential of the information age, as he does the Reagan boom — the greatest peacetime expansion in history — which helped to launch it. Instead, his portrait of America’s economy in the prosperous Eighties is one of unrelieved foreboding and gloom. Like a modern day Luddite, who has learned nothing from two hundred years of industrial innovation, Hobsbawm receives the news of technological progress as a social threat. In Hobsbawm’s doom-ridden scenario, technological progress means only the prospect that jobs will be eliminated — forever:

The Crisis Decades [1973 to the present] began to shed labor at a spectacular rate, even in plainly expanding industries….The number of workers diminished, relatively, absolutely and, in any case, rapidly. The rising unemployment of these decades was not merely cyclical but structural. The jobs lost in bad times would not come back when times improved: they would never come back.

As Hobsbawm, the Marxist reactionary, returns to the myths of his radical youth, he imagines the capitalist past conjured in those myths to be recurring eternally in its present: “In the 1980s and early 1990s the capitalist world found itself once again staggering under the burdens of the inter-war years, which the Golden Age appeared to have removed: mass unemployment, severe cyclical slumps, the ever-more spectacular confrontation of homeless beggars and luxurious plenty,…” To this structural dislocation Hobsbawm attributes a “growing culture of hate” and a general social breakdown (including an alleged epidemic of “mass murders”) which cloud the American future. In other words, Marx’s predictions were right.

But only in the fantasy life of an unreconstructed member of the faith. During the decades of the Cold War, the engines of capitalist progress, in fact, revolutionized the lives of ordinary working people on a scale previously inconceivable. Hobsbawm’s “landslide” in the West coincided with economic developments that ushered in the greatest social transformation in human history — the first time in five thousand years that more than a tiny percentage of the population of any society attained some degree of material well-being. It was this dazzling prospect of American progress in the era that stretched from Eisenhower to Reagan that lay at the heart of the demoralization and collapse of socialism’s empire, whose own populations had been condemned to permanent poverty by Marx’s crackpot ideas. Over the course of these allegedly somber decades, the consumption of goods and services by the average American family actually doubled. Less than 10 percent of Americans went to college in 1950, but by 1996 the figure was almost 60 percent. By that time, the poorest fifth of the population consumed more than the middle fifth had in 1955. None of this uplifting reality — a liberation of the dispossessed that no socialist ever accomplished — is allowed to enter Hobsbawm’s negative landscape.

The Age of Extremes, which has been so greedily embraced by the intellectual culture, is really an elaborate defense of the two destructive arguments in whose name the political left has caused so much suffering in the 20th Century — the alleged evil of capitalist society and the illusory promise of the socialist future. Of course, in the wake of the Soviet disaster, the hope of this socialist future is now only tenuously put forward by sophisticated radicals like Hobsbawm. It is the negative assault on capitalism that preoccupies them..................." The Left After Communism - Marxism failed because it had been inserted into a hostile environment - David Horowitz.

Obama is of course a danger to the nation.

However, the attacks on SpaceX in the article are unwarranted. SpaceX has completed two successful cargo runs to the International Space Station.

They are doing it right. In their last run, the primary mission was completed DESPITE one of the nine engines "exploding" (really, losing pressure and breaking an engine shroud). This caused the Dragon9 spacecraft to burn longer (use more fuel) than it would have with 9 engines.

The Orbcomm satellite that was the secondary mission was lost because NASA wanted to save the remaining fuel to reach the Space Station, and not boost the satellite into its proper orbit. Even Orbcomm acknowledges that their satellite would have made it to orbit if it had been the primary mission.

The government, not even NASA, should be doing cargo runs to the space station. That duty is tailor-made for a commercial space company, and SpaceX is proving their worth.

Obama is destroying our national space program.

Elon Musk is a tool.

We’re going to be high and dry w/o national space access.

Elon Musk has delivered ONE payload to Station - ONE. In the process he lost a commercial satellite when an engine on his rocket had an “oops” moment.

We had access to station (could even haul people), now we are told to cheer because a “green” crony-capitalist has been handed the wheel?

Just like his other 2 subsidized government businesses, he plans to take SpaceX private — Musk and his extended family know how to thrive in the Obama government directed economy:

__________________________

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2932694/posts#1

September 17, 2012 (Breitbart) Report: Top Obama Bundlers Bag Millions in Taxpayer Money “An investigation by the Government Accountability Institute found that more than half of the most politically active 50 campaign bundlers for President Obama were either appointed to a presidential council, committee, board, or other White House post. Many bundlers’ businesses or relatives’ businesses also received millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded federal contracts, grants, loans, or other crony perks.”

May 29, 2012 (Ricochet) Elon Musk Shows Us How to Thrive in the Government-Directed Economy ....”Those who know how to navigate an economy driven by the state will succeed. They do so regardless whether the market has determined their product as the best or not—sometimes it has, sometimes it hasn’t. Sometimes the consumer has no real ability, thanks to the aforementioned mix of laws and regulations, to go in another direction. Sometimes the only consumer is the government, meaning the appropriators, bureaucrats, and administrators who dream fondly of working some day for the contractor titans they fuel with other people’s money.”.....

April 15, 2012 (National Legal and Policy Center) Taxpayers Subsidize Forbes ‘Green’ Billionaires’ Schemes........Musk, best known as co-founder of the company that became PayPal, is Chairman of SolarCity and CEO of Tesla. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, SolarCity spent $535,000 in 2009 and 2010 to lobby Congress and the Department of Energy on climate legislation, the Recovery Act, “green workforce training and development,” and provisions in various legislation “relevant to solar development.” SolarCity has sought to extend a program, due to expire at the end of 2012, that delivers to manufacturers an upfront cash grant in lieu of a 30 percent Investment Tax Credit (called the Section 1603 grant program). So far, according to DOE reports, SolarCity has received more than $66 million from that program.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.