Trump's plan to destroy the science of NASA laid bare in the 2010 fiscal year budget

[ad_1]

<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "

One of the benefits of being President of the United States of America is that you must submit your budget recommendations to the US Congress before any decision is made. If it is up to Congress to pass the budget and the president to adopt it, the recommendations for the next fiscal year are as follows: the administration must define its program and announce to the world the direction in which it wishes s & # 39; engage.

Last year, the Proposed Trump Administration Remove a number of earth science related missions, terminate NASA Astrophysics' flagship mission for the 2020s, WFIRST, and eliminate the NASA Education Office. Robert Lightfoot, then acting administrator make a statement with difficult choices and an inability to do everything with a limited budget, but Congress canceled these cuts and reinstated funding for these programs. This year, the assault is even worse and has a better chance of succeeding. Here's why.

The United States has enjoyed since the end of the Second World War their superpower status on planet Earth. We have invested more than any other country in the basic sciences, including physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, medicine and space exploration. This investment has paid off in many ways.

• He raised the standard of living of virtually all adults and children in America.
• This has increased the average life of the American population.
• We have eradicated or greatly reduced the impact of a large number of diseases.
• We have made countless new discoveries and scientific advances, which have earned us hundreds of Nobel Prizes.
• And we brought humanity further into the universe – in images, data, understanding and our physical presence & nbsp; – than ever before.

Each time, our progress has had a similar history: we have chosen, as a nation and as a nation, to tackle a great unresolved problem or an unfinished task ahead. We have invested in the infrastructure, the manpower and the equipment necessary to meet all the challenges that await us. And most importantly, we invested with our taxes.

We have chosen to invest a significant portion of our government's spending in these efforts. Basic research, education and development – and not a demand for a return on investment – have enabled our greatest success, both scientifically and socially. If you want to indicate the only thing that made America great, that was it. The fact that we were investing to push the boundaries of human knowledge was the first to reap the benefits.

Over time, it becomes somewhat acceptable to question the value of investments in all of these areas: research, education and development. Science has become a favored target for loss-making hawks, with the most important projects and missions receiving the most negative press. This practice goes back several decades and has led the United States to give up scientific leadership on many fronts. For example:

• In the 1980s, we were the largest producer of Pu 238: a high-power, long-life radioisotope, ideal for deep space exploration. & Nbsp; Today & # 39; hui, we do not have enough fuel for new missionsand produce less than 1 kg / year.
• In the early 1990s, Fermilab's Tevatron was the most powerful particle accelerator in the world and we had the intention of pushing the limits of energy: with the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). He was killed by politicsand now the CERN LHC, which is less powerful than the SSC could have been, is the only cradle of advanced accelerator physics.

• In the early 2000s, many projects kill the Hubble Space Telescope rather than continuing to fix it and upgrade it. The fourth (and last) maintenance mission was finally completed. Hubble remains, 28 years after its launch, the largest optical observatory of humanity.
• And throughout 2010, calls were made to desorb the International Space Station and to cancel NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, both of which mention the high cost of the missions.

James Webb's fiscal problems became notorious in 2011, even though the overwhelming majority of delays and cost overruns could have been avoided otherwise for & nbsp; withholding the necessary funds. Today, they are used as a topic of discussion for one purpose: to reduce federal funding for the most scientific missions, NASA's flagship missions.

There is a lesson to be learned from all this. The problem was most clearly outlined by Nicholas Samios, former director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. When we talk about the cancellation of the SSC, here is what he said:

You can blame many people, but it was clearly a lack of willpower. We have always done things. He has transformed a society that is doing well in a conservative society, where it is safe to play, which is safe. We are no longer made of good material.

We have already lost particle physics, our capacity for future deep space missions and our ability to take humans beyond their low earth orbit. Although calls are being made to bring crewed exploration back into various long-term capabilities, the latest proposal has a useless cost: to wipe out the science that has made America great.

Hubble is perhaps the best example of what we can accomplish while dreaming big. As Neil de Grasse Tyson pointed out in 2008 in Parade Magazine:

More research has been published using his data than ever before published for any other scientific instrument in any discipline.

It was more than ten years ago and Hubble continues to be the most sought-after observatory on (or beyond) planet Earth. Nobody doubts that its initial cost of $ 5 billion was worth more than the penalty, or consider the $ 15 to $ 20 billion spent during its lifetime & nbsp; as a mediocre investment. We revolutionized our vision of the universe in a way that we could not have anticipated before it was launched. That's what NASA's flagship missions can do like nothing else.

NASA was created in 1959 and, as its budget boomed in the 1960s, our achievements in both space exploration and science also increased. However, throughout the post-Apollo years, the budget has steadily declined, the bush being only overwhelming. Today, NASA's budget represents less than 0.5% of total federal spending, science accounting for nearly one third of its activities, divided into four sub-divisions: astrophysics, planetary sciences, earth sciences, and earth sciences. Heliophysical.

And that is why the latest budget, released on March 11 by the Trump government, is so terrifying in its audacity when it destroys scientific research, education, and development in the United States. With a record budget of $ 4.7 trillion, NASA funding has been reduced to a record low of 0.45% of federal spending (level never reached since 1960), science, astrophysics of NASA and STEM awareness being targeted at the largest reductions.

In 2018, the budget proposed by the Trump administration for the 2019 fiscal year was a disaster for science, with deep cuts for & nbsp; NASA, the Ministry of Education, the Chemical Safety Board, the National Science Foundation and many others. It was clearly an anti-science budget that would be disastrous not only for the United States, but for virtually every state. Congress was able to restore much of the funding that it was proposed to eliminate and the budget was passed.

The proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 is now announced and it's just as disastrous for science& nbsp; as last year 's proposal, but this time it is more insidious. & nbsp; Focusing on space exploration and increasing funding for the Lunar Gateway project & nbsp; – which is undoubtedly a good project in itself – it obscures the fact that it gets funding by destroying many of our most important and scientifically valuable programs.

This time, NASA has planned a reshuffle that aims to eliminate the very idea of ​​flagship missions while bringing global scientific funding to a record level. Here are the biggest changes from what we are currently doing:

1. The science budget is reduced by 8.7% (603 million dollars): it is the largest decline ever recorded in one year.
2. The budget of the James Webb Space Telescope is being separated from NASA's astrophysics budget, while the WFIRST is completely destroyed: this marks the end of the flagship mission program that makes NASA , well, NASA, according to Thomas Zurbuchen, Chief Executive Officer of the Scientific Mission.
3. Last year, interim administrator Statement by Robert Lightfoot recognized the deep cuts that would harm science; this year's statement by Jim Bridenstine commends the new initiatives, but does not even mention that these reductions are underway.
4. Focuses on funding small missions and continuing existing missions at the expense of long-term and future missions.
5. Reduces funding for earth sciences, earth sciences and heliophysics, as well as for astrophysics.
6. Eliminates the STEM Awareness Desk, as well as its portfolio of grants and cooperation agreements.

The President's most optimistic proposal for fiscal year 2020 is as follows: there is bipartisan support for a US state with a sound science program. & Nbsp; WFIRST is the highest priority space mission, according to the National Academy of Sciences; NASA is doing what the scientific community has recommended as a whole by performing these flagship missions. Hubble, James Webb and WFIRST are transformative observatories and & nbsp; we can prevent the president's short-term recommendations from becoming law.

But the draft budget also states that as long as he 's in office, it' s likely to be an annual fight. A single year of missing funding or underfunding can kill a project whose planning and adoption took decades. We must not lose our will. Our future and our present require that we do not lose sight of the record of the greatest human effort of all: the quest for understanding our existence.

">

One of the benefits of being President of the United States of America is that you must submit your budget recommendations to the US Congress before any decision is made. If it is up to Congress to pass the budget and the president to adopt it, the recommendations for the next fiscal year are as follows: the administration must define its program and announce to the world the direction in which it wishes s & # 39; engage.

Last year, the Trump administration proposed to remove a number of earth science-related missions, to end NASA Astrophysics' flagship mission for the 2020s, WFIRST, and eliminate the Office of NASA's education. The then-current director, Robert Lightfoot, issued a statement citing difficult choices and his inability to do everything on a limited budget, but Congress canceled those cuts and reinstated funding for these programs. This year, the assault is even worse and has a better chance of succeeding. Here's why.

Since the end of the Second World War, America has enjoyed its status as a superpower on planet Earth. We have invested more than any other country in the basic sciences, including physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology, medicine and space exploration. This investment has paid off in many ways.

• He raised the standard of living of virtually all adults and children in America.
• This has increased the average life of the American population.
• We have eradicated or greatly reduced the impact of a large number of diseases.
• We have made countless new discoveries and scientific advances, which have earned us hundreds of Nobel Prizes.
• And we have brought humanity further into the Universe – in images, data, comprehension and our physical presence – like never before.

Each time, our progress has had a similar history: we have chosen, as a nation and as a nation, to tackle a great unresolved problem or an unfinished task ahead. We have invested in the infrastructure, the manpower and the equipment necessary to meet all the challenges that await us. And most importantly, we invested with our taxes.

We have chosen to invest a significant portion of our government's spending in these efforts. Fundamental research, education and development – not a demand for return on investment – have been the foundation of our greatest success, both in science and in our society. If you want to indicate the only thing that made America great, that was it. The fact that we were investing to push the boundaries of human knowledge was the first to reap the benefits.

Over time, it becomes somewhat acceptable to question the value of investments in all of these areas: research, education and development. Science has become a favored target for loss-making hawks, with the most important projects and missions receiving the most negative press. This practice goes back several decades and has led the United States to give up scientific leadership on many fronts. For example:

• In the 1980s, we were the largest producer of Pu-238: a high-power, long-lived radioisotope, ideal for deep space exploration. Today, we do not have enough fuel for new missions and produce less than 1 kg / year.
• In the early 1990s, Fermilab's Tevatron was the most powerful particle accelerator in the world and we had the intention of pushing the limits of energy: with the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). He was killed by politics and now, CERN's LHC, which is less powerful than would have been the SSC, is the only cradle of advanced accelerator physics.

• In the early 2000s, many projects planned to kill the Hubble Space Telescope rather than continue repairing and modernizing it. The fourth (and last) maintenance mission was finally completed. Hubble remains, 28 years after its launch, the largest optical observatory of humanity.
• And throughout 2010, calls were made to desorb the International Space Station and to cancel NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, both of which mention the high cost of the missions.

James Webb's budget problems became notorious in 2011, even though the vast majority of delays and cost overruns could have been avoided without the necessary funds being withheld. Today, they are used as a topic of discussion for one purpose: to reduce federal funding for the most scientific missions, NASA's flagship missions.

There is a lesson to be learned from all this. The problem was most clearly outlined by Nicholas Samios, former director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Speaking of the cancellation of the SSC, here's what he said:

You can blame many people, but it was clearly a lack of willpower. We have always done things. He has transformed a society that is doing well in a conservative society, where it is safe to play, which is safe. We are no longer made of good material.

We have already lost particle physics, our capacity for future deep space missions and our ability to take humans beyond their low earth orbit. Although there are calls to bring crewed exploration back into various long-range capabilities, the latest proposal has a useless cost: to weaken the science that has made America a great first.

Hubble is perhaps the best example of what we can accomplish while dreaming big. As Neil de Grasse Tyson pointed out in 2008 in Parade Magazine:

More research has been published using his data than ever before published for any other scientific instrument in any discipline.

It was more than ten years ago and Hubble continues to be the most sought-after observatory on (or beyond) planet Earth. Nobody doubts that the initial cost of $ 5 billion was worth more than the penalty, or the $ 15 to $ 20 billion spent during its existence as a bad investment. We revolutionized our vision of the universe in a way that we could not have anticipated before it was launched. That's what NASA's flagship missions can do like nothing else.

NASA was created in 1959 and, as its budget boomed in the 1960s, our achievements in both space exploration and science also increased. However, throughout the post-Apollo years, the budget has steadily declined, the bush being only overwhelming. Today, NASA's budget represents less than 0.5% of total federal spending, science accounting for nearly one third of its activities, divided into four sub-divisions: astrophysics, planetary sciences, earth sciences, and more. Heliophysical.

And that is why the latest budget, released on March 11 by the Trump government, is so terrifying in its audacity when it destroys scientific research, education, and development in the United States. With a record budget of $ 4.7 trillion, NASA funding has been reduced to a record low of 0.45% of federal spending (level never reached since 1960), science, astrophysics of NASA and STEM awareness being targeted at the largest reductions.

In 2018, the budget proposed by the Trump administration for the 2019 fiscal year was a disaster for science, with deep cuts for NASA, the Department of Education, the Chemical Safety Board, the National Science Foundation and many others. It was clearly an anti-science budget that would be disastrous not only for the United States, but for virtually every state. Congress was able to restore much of the funding that it was proposed to eliminate and the budget was passed.

The proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 is now announced, and it's just as disastrous for science as last year's proposal, but this time it's more insidious. By focusing on space exploration and increasing funding for the Lunar Gateway project – which is arguably a good project in itself – he conceals the fact that he gets his funding in destroying many of our most important and scientifically valuable programs.

Cette fois, la NASA a prévu un remaniement qui vise à éliminer l’idée même des missions phares tout en ramenant le financement scientifique global à un niveau record. Voici les plus grands changements par rapport à ce que nous faisons actuellement:

1. Le budget de la science est réduit de 8,7% (603 millions de dollars): il s&#39;agit de la plus forte baisse jamais enregistrée en un an.
2. Le budget du télescope spatial James Webb est en train d&#39;être séparé du budget de l&#39;astrophysique de la NASA, tandis que le WFIRST est entièrement détruit: cela marque la fin du programme de mission phare qui fait de la NASA, eh bien, la NASA, selon Thomas Zurbuchen, directeur de la Science Mission Director.
3. L&#39;année dernière, la déclaration de l&#39;administrateur par intérim, Robert Lightfoot, reconnaissait les profondes coupures susceptibles de nuire à la science. La déclaration de cette année de Jim Bridenstine fait l’éloge des nouvelles initiatives mais ne dit même pas que ces réductions ont eu lieu.
4. Met l&#39;accent sur le financement de petites missions et la poursuite des missions existantes aux dépens des missions à long terme et futures.
5. Réduit les financements consacrés aux sciences planétaires, aux sciences de la Terre et à l&#39;héliophysique, ainsi que ceux de l&#39;astrophysique.
6. Élimine le bureau de diffusion des STEM, ainsi que son portefeuille de subventions et d&#39;accords de coopération.

La proposition la plus optimiste du président pour la FY2020 est la suivante: il existe un soutien bipartite en faveur d&#39;un État américain doté d&#39;un programme scientifique solide dans tous les domaines. WFIRST est la première mission spatiale prioritaire, telle que classée par la National Academy of Sciences; La NASA fait ce que la communauté scientifique lui a recommandé dans son ensemble en effectuant ces missions phares. Hubble, James Webb et WFIRST sont des observatoires transformateurs, et nous pouvons empêcher les recommandations à court terme du président de devenir des lois.

Mais le projet de budget déclare également que tant qu&#39;il sera en poste, il s&#39;agira probablement d&#39;un combat annuel. Une seule année de financement manquant ou de sous-financement peut tuer un projet dont la planification et l&#39;adoption ont pris des décennies. Nous ne devons pas perdre notre volonté. Notre avenir et notre présent exigent que nous ne perdions pas de vue le record du plus grand effort humain de tous: la quête de la compréhension de notre existence.