|
Author
|
Topic: State of the Union, NASA and Sputnik moment
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2011 10:43 PM
   
During his 2011 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama invoked the start of the space race: Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology - an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people. The last time that NASA was referred to by name in a State of the Union address was more than two decades ago in 1989. President Obama's reference to NASA wasn't specifically about his goals for the space agency, but he used it as a positive example as to why the nation needs to invest in research and development (which in and of itself was a cornerstone of the President's plan for NASA). The current state of NASA may not be a point of pride for everyone, but it does say something that the space agency had a place in tonight's State of the Union -- even if that place was to serve as an example for other "big ideas" (to quote another part of the speech). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-25-2011 11:21 PM
MSNBC's Alan Boyle offers (quoting his tweet) "a science-geek perspective on the State of the Sputnik... er... Union Speech": So what about the space effort, which was the prime beneficiary of 1957's Sputnik moment? With the imminent end of the space shuttle program, NASA is facing a challenging transition over the next year. The space agency is turning to commercial launch providers to fill the gap -- and strangely enough, the rise of private-sector spaceflight has itself been compared to a "Sputnik moment."Right now, NASA's budget for this fiscal year is still in flux, and it's not yet certain whether the space agency will get the money needed to fly three more shuttle missions as scheduled. But [Patrick Clemins, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science] suspects that, at least in the GOP-led House, the space agency will find a more sympathetic ear... just as it did in the 1960s. He noted that the House Science and Technology Committee was renamed the Science, Space and Technology Committee. Committee Chairman Ralph Hall happens to be from Texas, a state that serves as the home for Johnson Space Center. A Texan is also the committee's ranking Democratic member. "Indications are that space will probably see a heightened profile in the science and technology realm," Clemins said. So maybe Obama's reference to a "Sputnik moment" isn't that far off after all. |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-25-2011 11:43 PM
As they say, talk is cheap. Obama and the Congress need to improve funding for NASA. The space program in the 60s led to amazing technological advances that have vastly improved our lives. Going back to the moon, an asteroid, and/or to Mars can continue to keep these advances coming.I know we need to cut deficits, however space is not the place to do it. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-26-2011 02:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
I know we need to cut deficits, however space is not the place to do it.
You may well be right. However, I fear the general public would not agree with you and, regretably, politicians take heed of the general public especially at election times. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-26-2011 02:45 AM
Obama mentions NASA by name. Perhaps he didn't mention the Shuttle since there's no guarantee the remaining 3 flights will be completed this year - if at all?It was too much to expect the announcement of any kind of new direction in the State of the Union address. The last 12 months saw such a toxic debate yet one thing was made abundantly clear, that Congress is the stumbling block. Being non-American, I won't hold my breath for a British prime minister ever to make a Kennedy-style speech at the European Space Agency headquarters. |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 01-26-2011 04:51 AM
President Obama's point that we face a "Sputnik moment" is very well-taken, and I hope it will serve as a clarion call for common sense bipartisan agreement that there are a number of strategic investments that must be made for the long-term health of the United States. Everyone agrees that cuts in long-term entitlement spending are important (yet no one wants to do it because it's politically toxic), but proposed freezes or cuts in short-term discretionary spending are short-sighted and ill-advised. Some of the needed investments include funding for manned spaceflight and earth/space science. NASA can and should be part of that equation, along with increased funding for CCDev as part of the much-needed move away from shuttle-based launch systems. My two cents. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2011 06:23 AM
The bitter irony is that this is from an administration that scrapped Project Constellation. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-26-2011 07:59 AM
It seems to a distant observer that many of the arguements/opinions that have been aired on similar threads are going to be restated on this.Reports on Obama's speech in the UK make no mention of his 'Sputnik' moment. More emphasis is given to the fact that federal spending is to be frozen for five years. It follows from this, does it not, that funding for a manned programme by NASA has to come from one of two sources. First, by cutting other federal budgets. Would it be health, welfare, defense, climate change? Some very powerful arguments would be needed for this to be achieved bearing in mind that each has its own lobby that is, probably, much more in tune with current political and public thinking. The second source would be for NASA to restructure its own budget. Again, where would the axe fall to fund a manned spaceflight programme. As has been said before, unfortunately the 'Sputnik' days are gone. The economic and political climate that spawned Apollo does not exist today and no wistful thinking is going to bring it back.  |
xlsteve
Member Posts: 391
From: Holbrook MA, USA
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 01-26-2011 08:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moorouge:
... regretably, politicians take heed of the general public especially at election times.
Well that’s what elected officials are elected to do; the problem is that their constituency (i.e. us) isn’t identifying NASA and space exploration as an area they care about. I expect more people are excited about having better access to high-speed Internet than going to a Lagrange point, an asteroid or back to the moon in the next two decades. I think that the Sputnik/Apollo references were in part intended to align the President’s call to action with the Camelot years of the Kennedy administration (and yes, I know that Sputnik, the creation of NASA and the beginning of Mercury was during the Eisenhower administration). The 50th anniversary of JFK’s inaugural address was just celebrated last week as well. I agree with Moorouge that the problem is that that country no longer exists. The country where when the president made a challenge to the country, the country responded “Okay, let’s get work” has been replaced with one that says “good luck with that.” I believe that human spaceflight still has the ability to inspire people, but not without funding. And the funding is harder come by without having a vision to inspire people. Its a catch-22: 'no bucks, no Buck Rodgers' but also no Buck Rodgers, no bucks.
|
alcyone
Member Posts: 130
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 01-26-2011 08:36 AM
Congress might cut NASA's budget, but it may be a small one. You could completely dismantle NASA, and it would only help balance the budget in an extremely small way. A hardly noticeable dent in the deficit. Military spending, medicare and entitlements are the big targets. If you can't fix them, it does not matter what you do NASA's budget. In addition, the cuts could lead to job loss in a high-tech area. Does Congress and President Obama really want to gut NASA heading into the 2012 election? Politicians might not see enough of a "win" in that strategy. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3207
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 01-26-2011 09:44 AM
The day Obama cancelled NASA's Constellation Program certainly wasn't a "Sputnik moment". |
music_space
Member Posts: 1179
From: Canada
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 01-26-2011 10:02 AM
As Robert mentioned in the original post, it seems that while President Obama uses an analogy originating from early astronautical history, he doesn't mean to address astronautical issues at all. The analogy is meant to support his vision of renaissance for the United States. It also serves to further associate Obama's presidency to Kennedy's.In his vision, today's renaissance will come instead from biomedical research, information technology and clean energy technology - not bad vectors of progress these days, mind you. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-26-2011 10:22 AM
Mr. Obama mentions NASA by name to get the applause and press release.It's lip service and means little. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-26-2011 10:27 AM
Having watched the speech and read the text this morning, aeronautics is not the point. The point is that other nations are surpassing us, whether it is in education quality, technology, or manufacturing, just as the Soviet Union surpassed us with the launch of Sputnik. The point is, we need to do better. We should want to do better. There are reasons why jobs have moved overseas and we need to innovate in order make things better. No one wants to move backwards, and we'll never get the past back, but we can make the future better. That is what I got out of the speech.Also, I personally don't think the speech was meant to have anything to do with President Kennedy and Camelot. I think that for a lot of people, the so-called halcyon days of the Kennedy administration weren't as magical as some might like to think. If anything, I felt that part of the speech harkened back to the FDR administration, particularly the section which dealt with improving our infrastructure (which badly needs it, by the way). |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-26-2011 10:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Mr. Obama mentions NASA by name to get the applause and press release. It's lip service and means little.
I'm not trying to pick an argument here, but I'm a bit puzzled by your statement. I think when it comes to the State of the Union, the President (in general) gets plenty of media attention, so mentioning NASA (a gov't body that a large number of Americans unfortunately don't give a damn about) to get attention is not really a great ploy. Furthermore, the mention of NASA in the speech was, as has been stated by others, not about NASA. It was about how we need to give ourselves a good kick in the pants to compete with other nations. Unfortunately, you seem kind of bitter about it and I am sorry for that. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-26-2011 10:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
It was too much to expect the announcement of any kind of new direction in the State of the Union address.
Because you were expecting something out of this speech? Remember the Reagan speech about the space station (1984?)? I don't even know why Presidents continue to make those speeches anyway. |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 01-26-2011 11:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
I don't even know why Presidents continue to make those speeches anyway.
The Constitution requires that the President inform Congress of the state of the Union. This speech has become the standard approach for meeting a Constitutional requirement. |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 01-26-2011 11:30 AM
As with many here I suspect, I took significant exception to the President's use of the Apollo program in light of the actions of his administration.That said, I also had a problem with the rhetoric itself. Doesn't a "Sputnik moment" actually require a moment or event? What was that "moment" here? There was nothing in the argument that was not true over a decade ago from Sen. Glenn co-chaired a commission that reviewed US performance in math and science. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-26-2011 11:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by WAWalsh:
Doesn't a "Sputnik moment" actually require a moment or event?
Not necessarily, at least as it applies to creating the political will to improve science education. The original (1957) Sputnik moment served as the catalyst for the National Defense Education Act, but the U.S. scientific community had been pushing for a renewed curriculum long before the Soviets launched their first satellite. Scientists, educators and politicians seized the moment to affect change, but the actual launch wasn't required for that to happen. The same is true now. By evoking the earlier Sputnik moment, the President is attempting to again awake the national will to strengthen science education. There needn't be a new event to spearhead that effort so as long as the original still resonates with the public. On edit: In other words, the President was saying this is our Sputnik moment, our opportunity to embrace and strengthen science education for a new generation of Americans. |
xlsteve
Member Posts: 391
From: Holbrook MA, USA
Registered: Jul 2008
|
posted 01-26-2011 12:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by AJ:
Also, I personally don't think the speech was meant to have anything to do with President Kennedy and Camelot...
I hear what you're saying, but I can't imagine that the proximity of anniversary of the inaugural speech, and the Sputnik/Apollo references weren't intended or at least allowed to exist by the speech writers at some level. That kind of thing isn't usually accidental considering how long the speech is worked on. Also, I guess the issue of noting that India and China are ahead of us is motivating only if people care enough about it to do something. The USSR scared people for quite a number of years, and the impetus for the space race was in part the real or imagined prospect of a 'red moon' and/or the ability for them to nuke us from orbit. I'm not sure people feel the same way about China or India today. I can hear my wife's students saying "what difference does it make if Chinese students are better at math and science?" |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 01-26-2011 12:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Scientists, educators and politicians seized the moment to affect change, but the actual launch wasn't required for that to happen.
Have to disagree with you Robert. The Soviet launch of Sputnik was absolutely necessary and the the renewed emphasis on math and science would not have occured without it. While the Soviet Union managed to match our A-bomb and H-bomb development, the generally accepted view was that they achieved these results through copying US efforts. The public, largely viewed the Soviet Union as a dangerous, well-armed Third World country. The launching of Sputnik announced that another country could not only compete with the US in the area of science, but could exceed it. Few people could even fathom the idea.Had the US launched Explorer a year before Sputnik and/or if Shepard beat Gagarin into space, the nation would not have had its Sputnik moment nor been able to sustain the effort to build within the field of education in these disciplines. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-26-2011 01:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Because you were expecting something out of this speech?
Not really. I thought the Continuing Resolution recently passed by the US Congress has created such a stalemate situation, even the American president can't alter it with fancy rhetoric.Amazing to think that a few US senators will have forced NASA to squander half-a-billion tax dollars on the non-existent Ares I in just one fiscal year (the same sum of money which could fund STS-135)! quote:
Remember the Reagan speech about the space station (1984?)?
I do indeed. But Obama had already signed into law the NASA Authorisation Act which is at an impasse. Had Congress deliberated and followed it up with appropriations, NASA may well have got more than a passing mention in last night's address. But we'll never know. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 01-26-2011 01:14 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
In other words, the President was saying this is our Sputnik moment, our opportunity to embrace and strengthen science education for a new generation of Americans.
In my state we are spending an average of $14k per student per year in public school (2005 figure from the school board).If that does not get the job done, it can't be done. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-26-2011 01:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by xlsteve:
Also, I guess the issue of noting that India and China are ahead of us is motivating only if people care enough about it to do something.
I hope people do care, but I can see your point. A lot of people won't, and to me that is part of the problem. It seems, to me anyway, that some people don't care until it's too late; say, when their own job is outsourced. we should care about jobs, industry, and innovation because one day it could be our job on the line. sadly, I don't think many people see it that way. We should be a people united, but in many ways we are not. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-26-2011 02:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
In my state we are spending an average of $14k per student per year in public school (2005 figure from the school board). If that does not get the job done, it can't be done.
I hope this doesn't come across in a negative way, because I certainly don't mean for it to, but perhaps your state should look at HOW the money is spent. You could give me $14k right now and the manner in which I spend it could make all the difference.  |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-26-2011 02:48 PM
Not impressed at all. Talk is cheap to be blunt. Drag NASA out for some cheap publicity statement, then try to gut the agency. Nothing new -- Presidents have been doing it since Nixon. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 01-26-2011 03:03 PM
One of the CNN pundits reviewed this part of the speech by saying, "He brings up Sputnik and the space race what we need to do and then gives me solar panels."I shake my head... Yet another President pointing to what we did 40 years ago to push his agenda on what he thinks we should do today. NASA and Apollo long ago became a convenient marketing strategy for the agenda du jour. |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 01-26-2011 04:39 PM
It may be helpful to note exactly what the President said in the SOTU. Here are the excerpts that mention NASA, Sputnik, or Apollo. I'm providing this for reference, not to start a debate or argument: Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it's not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout our history, our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That's what planted the seeds for the Internet. That's what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS. Just think of all the good jobs -- from manufacturing to retail -- that have come from these breakthroughs.Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we would beat them to the moon. The science wasn't even there yet. NASA didn't exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology -- (applause) -- an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people. Already, we're seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard. Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert's words, "We reinvented ourselves." That's what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we've begun to reinvent our energy policy. We're not just handing out money. We're issuing a challenge. We're telling America's scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we'll fund the Apollo projects of our time. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-26-2011 05:52 PM
Thank you for posting that. I think it's important to understand the context in which NASA, Sputnik and the space race were mentioned. Just because a person says "NASA" doesn't mean they're going to say what you want them to, nor what you expect. |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 01-27-2011 12:51 PM
Well, at least the President's context made some sense. The former GOP candidate for Vice President simply embarrassed herself when commenting on the Sputnik moment reference: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he so often repeated 'Sputnik moment' that he would aspire Americans to celebrate.He needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory in that race to space. Yup, they won, but they also incurred so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union. So I listened to that Sputnik moment talk over and over again, and I think, "No, we don't need one of those." You know what we need is a "spudnut" moment. And here's where I'm going with this, Greta. And you're a good one because you're one of those reporters who actually gets out there in the communities, find these hard-working people and find solutions to the problems that Americans face. Well, the spudnut shop in Richland, Washington -- it's a bakery, it's a little coffee shop that's so successful, 60-some years, generation to generation, a family-owned business not looking for government to bail them out and to make their decisions for them. It's just hard-working, patriotic Americans in this shop. We need more spudnut moments in America. [It is just impossible to make this stuff up]. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-27-2011 04:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by WAWalsh:
The former GOP candidate for Vice President simply embarrassed herself when commenting on the Sputnik moment reference
Hard to argue with the premise of government getting out of the way so people can succeed! |
bruce
Member Posts: 916
From: Fort Mill, SC, USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 01-27-2011 05:08 PM
"Sputnik Moment" = "Our wake-up call to accept certain challenges now that will directly affect our country's future". That was my interpretation.
|
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 01-27-2011 05:26 PM
I would not have expected Sarah to catch the meaning of "Sputnik moment". |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-27-2011 05:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ejectr:
I would not have expected Sarah to catch the meaning of "Sputnik moment".
Oh she caught it alright! Perfectly! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-27-2011 05:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bobzz:
Oh she caught it alright! Perfectly!
The Soviets did not go into "so much debt" launching Sputnik, as Mrs. Palin claims. Up until Sputnik launched and received international attention, the Soviet leadership considered it little more than a one-off science experiment; a spin-off of their ICBM development efforts. To suggest that putting Sputnik into space inevitably led to the collapse of the Soviet Union is at best an oversimplification and at worst an purposeful distortion of history. As for the "spudnut movement" she favors, is Mrs. Palin seriously suggesting that the hundreds of thousands of Americans who built the spacecraft and ran the facilities that launched U.S. space missions and landed men on the moon were not patriotic because their success was financed and directed by the U.S. government? |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-27-2011 06:53 PM
The Soviets could never afford "guns and butter." Soviet citizens went without all during the cold war, the space race, and its eventual collapse chasing down SDI. Read "Mig Pilot" by Viktor Belenko. There is no better insight into Soviet life. What an indictment of a system that could produce great technological achievement, but couldn't feed its own people. The Soviets could never keep pace with Western democracies. She was right in that the Soviet program was a facade hiding the real hardship of its people. The Kennedy "Missile Gap" campaign of 1960 used that facade of ICBM superiority to help his election campaign. Sarah's statement was intended to point out our own path down a road of an over reaching and over spending government. Europe is already there. I never interpreted her statements as accusing space workers as unpatriotic. Where do you see that? |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 01-27-2011 09:59 PM
Robert, I will respect your usual prohibition against discussing politics here. Otherwise, I would have to correct bob on almost every detail he is posting. |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1933
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 01-27-2011 10:48 PM
Good column here about the analogy President Obama was using, and Mrs. Palin's response to it. (At the end of the third paragraph is a sentence ending with "has more on this here", with a link to another good columnn on same.) |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-27-2011 11:39 PM
The space programs of both the US and the Soviet Union (Russia) were born of political and ideological competition. It was the mother's milk of the programs on both sides. This remains so to this very day. Any political discussion of space is not only proper, but essential, as it is the framework about which it was and is built. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 01-28-2011 02:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bobzz:
The space programs of both the US and the Soviet Union (Russia) were born of political and ideological competition.
Didn't the International Geophysical Year (IGY) come into it somewhere? |
advertisement