Thursday, November 29, 2007
Squandering our seed corn?
There's an old farming axiom that you NEVER use the seed corn you set aside for next year's crop for ANYTHING but that purpose, lest you be left with nothing to plant, and nothing to eat.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign has issued a position paper on education. It's available for viewing here. It covers a lot of points, but a couple of things jumped out at me.
On page 10 and 11, the paper laments the state of science and math education in this country. It opens the subject with the statement:
"This year marks the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, the first orbiting launch into space. In 1957, the beginning of the space age sparked an explosion of the attention to the development of American scientists who would work to further America's place as a leader in the sciences and the global economy. And yet, fifty years after Sputnik, science and math education is in a crisis in all American schools. As the Gathering Storm report concluded, 'danger exists that Americans may not know enough about science, technology, or mathematics to contribute significantly to, or fully benefit from, the knowledge based economy that is already taking shape around us."
OK, sounds good so far. I agree with all that. After all. I'm a Technonerd!! It then goes on to give some grim statistics about the state of science including the fact that in the leading industrial nations our system ranked 28th out of 40 nations in math, and 18th out of 40 countries in science. A grim statistic when you take into account the fact that 80% of the fastest growing job fields involve those disciplines.
The paper then goes on to list the changes candidate Obama would make to help change this including:
All of this is well and good.
Then, tucked away on the last page to help pay for all this, a proposal to cut the NASA budget.
This doesn't make sense to me. Cut the budget on one of the few government programs that actually serves to INSPIRE young students to study math and science? What kind of backward reasoning is that? NASA's budget constitutes a mere .54% of the total federal budget. This is a nation that spends $15 Billion a year on PET FOOD for crying out loud. Or, how about that little "crusade" in the Middle East? As of this writing, $472 billion, with a "B." Yet we feel the need to raid the $12 Billion space program that's already at minimal funding, and getting ready to retire it's prime heavy lift vehicle with no replacement in sight?
Whether or not you agree with space exploration, you can't argue the effects the space program had had on our technical and scientific economy over the years. Products and services that we take for granted today, such as computers, satellite communications, aerospace advancements, GPS systems, cell phones, materials and coatings and biological sciences have all gotten jump starts from the space program they wouldn't have gotten if we'd never embarked on various space projects, both manned and unmanned. Plus, I also believe manned spaceflight has the power of sparking young kid's imaginations like unmanned robotic exploration simply can't. It's the reason I pursued a technical career. I saw the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs unfold in front of me on TV, and I knew I wanted to be a part of that action, even if only in an indirect way. I've never regretted my decision to become a mechanical designer. It's been a very rewarding career. I wouldn't dream of doing anything else.
Make no mistake about it. Manned space flight, just like manned atmospheric flight, is a complex skill. A skill that's not innate. Like ANY flying, it's a skill that must be learned, and then practiced and honed on a continual basis. It is a skill I truly believe is valuable, and worth doing. If we stop manned space flight, it's not like we can just pick it up again where we left off and go our merry way. If we start shutting down the space programs we've got now, many skilled people who work for the agency will move on and find other work, probably for other nation's space programs. Eventually we'll be playing catch up to other nations, such as China, India, Russia, all of whom are determined to increase their presence in space, All of this while Obama is suggesting we DECREASE our activities. To me, this is the educational equivalent of squandering the seed for next year's crop.
I've not decided who I'm supporting for the Democratic presidential nomination yet. It's why I've been reading various position papers. However, I consider this to be a shortsighted suggestion, and is making me rethink any support I may have been thinking of throwing Obama's way.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ..."
Isaac Asimov
Presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign has issued a position paper on education. It's available for viewing here. It covers a lot of points, but a couple of things jumped out at me.
On page 10 and 11, the paper laments the state of science and math education in this country. It opens the subject with the statement:
"This year marks the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, the first orbiting launch into space. In 1957, the beginning of the space age sparked an explosion of the attention to the development of American scientists who would work to further America's place as a leader in the sciences and the global economy. And yet, fifty years after Sputnik, science and math education is in a crisis in all American schools. As the Gathering Storm report concluded, 'danger exists that Americans may not know enough about science, technology, or mathematics to contribute significantly to, or fully benefit from, the knowledge based economy that is already taking shape around us."
OK, sounds good so far. I agree with all that. After all. I'm a Technonerd!! It then goes on to give some grim statistics about the state of science including the fact that in the leading industrial nations our system ranked 28th out of 40 nations in math, and 18th out of 40 countries in science. A grim statistic when you take into account the fact that 80% of the fastest growing job fields involve those disciplines.
The paper then goes on to list the changes candidate Obama would make to help change this including:
- Recruiting more and better science and math teachers
- Enhanced science and math courses.
- Enhanced assessments of what is important in terms of subjects studied, looking to more successful programs for inspiration.
All of this is well and good.
Then, tucked away on the last page to help pay for all this, a proposal to cut the NASA budget.
This doesn't make sense to me. Cut the budget on one of the few government programs that actually serves to INSPIRE young students to study math and science? What kind of backward reasoning is that? NASA's budget constitutes a mere .54% of the total federal budget. This is a nation that spends $15 Billion a year on PET FOOD for crying out loud. Or, how about that little "crusade" in the Middle East? As of this writing, $472 billion, with a "B." Yet we feel the need to raid the $12 Billion space program that's already at minimal funding, and getting ready to retire it's prime heavy lift vehicle with no replacement in sight?
Whether or not you agree with space exploration, you can't argue the effects the space program had had on our technical and scientific economy over the years. Products and services that we take for granted today, such as computers, satellite communications, aerospace advancements, GPS systems, cell phones, materials and coatings and biological sciences have all gotten jump starts from the space program they wouldn't have gotten if we'd never embarked on various space projects, both manned and unmanned. Plus, I also believe manned spaceflight has the power of sparking young kid's imaginations like unmanned robotic exploration simply can't. It's the reason I pursued a technical career. I saw the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs unfold in front of me on TV, and I knew I wanted to be a part of that action, even if only in an indirect way. I've never regretted my decision to become a mechanical designer. It's been a very rewarding career. I wouldn't dream of doing anything else.
Make no mistake about it. Manned space flight, just like manned atmospheric flight, is a complex skill. A skill that's not innate. Like ANY flying, it's a skill that must be learned, and then practiced and honed on a continual basis. It is a skill I truly believe is valuable, and worth doing. If we stop manned space flight, it's not like we can just pick it up again where we left off and go our merry way. If we start shutting down the space programs we've got now, many skilled people who work for the agency will move on and find other work, probably for other nation's space programs. Eventually we'll be playing catch up to other nations, such as China, India, Russia, all of whom are determined to increase their presence in space, All of this while Obama is suggesting we DECREASE our activities. To me, this is the educational equivalent of squandering the seed for next year's crop.
I've not decided who I'm supporting for the Democratic presidential nomination yet. It's why I've been reading various position papers. However, I consider this to be a shortsighted suggestion, and is making me rethink any support I may have been thinking of throwing Obama's way.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ..."
Isaac Asimov
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Using Scotch Tape To Repair A Gaping Wound
Well by golly, ole shrub's gonna solve our air travel problems by golly! Yes he is!
Associated Press article here.
Open up the Eastern MOA's up, huh? Gee, I guess the only ones who really do any holiday flying live on the east coast, eh?
Just one problem with all of this. It's nothing but a band aid.
The real problems are an understaffed air traffic control system, one that the administration would like to privatize. (I believe it's called washing your hands of the problem.) an antiquated air traffic control system that was in place when airliners still had propellers, and airlines that insist scheduling more flights during "prime" departure hours, even though they know damn good and well they'll NEVER leave on time.
From the article:
"But Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said there was "some very bad news for people who think there is going to be a quick cure to congestion.'' He said that even if everything went smoothly, implementation of the next-generation air traffic control system that should reduce disruptions was at least 15 years off."
Yep, everyone wants to solve the problem, but no one wants to spend the money. We're too busy spending half a trillion dollars blowing holes in the sand in a certain vice-president's private sand box in Iraq.
Associated Press article here.
Open up the Eastern MOA's up, huh? Gee, I guess the only ones who really do any holiday flying live on the east coast, eh?
Just one problem with all of this. It's nothing but a band aid.
The real problems are an understaffed air traffic control system, one that the administration would like to privatize. (I believe it's called washing your hands of the problem.) an antiquated air traffic control system that was in place when airliners still had propellers, and airlines that insist scheduling more flights during "prime" departure hours, even though they know damn good and well they'll NEVER leave on time.
From the article:
"But Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said there was "some very bad news for people who think there is going to be a quick cure to congestion.'' He said that even if everything went smoothly, implementation of the next-generation air traffic control system that should reduce disruptions was at least 15 years off."
Yep, everyone wants to solve the problem, but no one wants to spend the money. We're too busy spending half a trillion dollars blowing holes in the sand in a certain vice-president's private sand box in Iraq.
