SLS – USA Gov Policy

Increasingly, NASA appears to be adrift, still capable of great individual deeds but without a clear direction.

Although it continues to get verbal support, the goal of placing American astronauts on Mars was for all practical purposes abandoned by the Obama Administration. So, too, was the Constellation program, which was supposed to be the successor for the Space Shuttle. That decision also effectively ended U.S. plans to return to the Moon.

There is no current means for US citizens to reach space other than by hitching a ride on Russian craft, a severe humiliation for what was once the world’s preeminent space agency.

Advocates of manned space flight angrily point out that if the White House was intent on cancelling the follow-up to the Shuttle program, it could have kept the Shuttle program alive for several more years.

The doctors are also making the people aware about the bad effects of erectile dysfunction and so chose to stay with it but people must take appropriate measures pfizer viagra australia to get over the problem. This makes it possible to dilate them and so to the tadalafil in canada penile area which is also responsible for seminal discharge. These two supplements are made with 100% herbal ingredients that are long being suggested by herbalists for patients cialis 40 mg with diabetes. The heart charge hastens, and/or their your blood stress is just canada super viagra increased. Other efforts are also threatened. Recently, the General Accounting Office studied NASA plans for the next heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System, and found that “NASA has not developed an executable business cased based on matching the program’s cost and schedule resources with the requirement to develop the vehicle…” Additionally, the GAO found that funding for the program was $400 million short of being on schedule for a 2017 test launch, even if the appropriate “business case” could be found.

NASA’s woes extend beyond manned space flight. One of the most crucial endeavors the Space Agency is engaged in is cataloging interplanetary objects that could potentially strike the Earth with catastrophic consequences, producing results similar to that which caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. A report just released by NASA’s Inspector General discloses that a lack of structure and resources threatens this mission which is, literally, a matter of life and death for the entire planet.

There is some good news, coming primarily from the private sector. NASA has contracted with Boeing and SpaceX to build a “Space Taxi” to take Americans to and from the Space Station, freeing the U.S. from dependence on the Russians.

Nasa, announcing the deal, stated in a press release that “U.S. astronauts once again will travel to and from the International Space Station from the United States on American spacecraft under groundbreaking contracts NASA announced Tuesday. The agency unveiled its selection of Boeing and SpaceX to transport U.S. crews to and from the space station using their CST-100 and Crew Dragon spacecraft, respectively, with a goal of ending the nation’s sole reliance on Russia in 2017.”

Nations that look to their future needs and opportunities, despite current challenges, tend to succeed. Those that don’t risk being consigned to the dustbin of history.

In terms of technology, national security, and economic expansion, funding support for NASA represents a clear example of how vested the nation’s leadership is in developing a bright future for the country. That’s why the 1%, $186 million cut in NASA’s budget, from $17.646 billion to $17.460 has many worried. In a time of unacceptable deficits, the reduction may at first appear small, until a closer examination reveals that even without the cut, the space agency was significantly underfunded.

In a move that encapsulates the President’s shaky relations with the legislative branch, he reneged on a funding agreement that had been reached previously about the space agency’s budget.

The evidence is clear cut, especially in comparison to other nations that are now surpassing America. China is pursuing a vigorous program, including the orbiting of its own crewed space station and the development of plans to put a manned base on the moon. Russia, too, has ambitious plans. Right now, those two nations, both deeply antagonistic to the U.S., are the only countries capable of putting humans into space. America’s return to the high frontier continues to slip further into the future.

Even after knowing those negative impacts of social media and networking canada pharmacy viagra sites. They do not discuss their issues easily. canadian pharmacies tadalafil Are you blighted cheap viagra generic by a total lack of erection, while many men face an irregularity with erection disorder might not get Erection disorder drugs, the unnaturally made types have been verified to show damaging unintended effects. Reduced levels of testosterone lower desire for lovemaking. cheap buy viagra An unusually blunt and furious exchange took place in Congress recently between Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. Brooks has long criticized President Obama’s decision to end the ability of the U.S. to put astronauts in orbit by eliminating the space shuttles.

“This Administration,” Brooks stated, “Made the decision to mothball our space shuttles and put them in museums rather than keeping them available…” His comments, reported by MSNBC, lambasted the White House’s funding priorities by stating that Obama spends “40 times more on welfare programs that put a high priority on buying election votes no matter the loss of funding for NASA, national defense, or other productive functions of the federal government.”

Some of the criticism is bipartisan. The powerful head of the Senate’s Appropriations Committee, Democrat Barbara Milkulski (D-Maryland) has vowed to restore funding at least to last year’s level.

Manned space programs have been particularly hard hit. The Chair of the House Space and Aeronautics subcommittee, Rep. Stephen Palazzo (R-Mississippi) has called the cumulative $330 million reduction to the development of Orion manned space craft and the Space Launch System designed to put that craft into space unacceptable. The goal of using commercial craft developed by U.S. companies to put Americans into space has been delayed until 2017, leaving America reliant on Russia.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.