Andrew Sullivan's probably getting some serious reader e-mail. And he passes off to Gregg Easterbrook. Easterbrook's clever, but personally I'm a little hesitant to instantly drop supporting arguments for Bush's proposal to a guy who bought into the plastic turkey myth. And he seems to imply that a program like Apollo took more time to land men on the moon that it actually did.
But let's take Easterbrook's writing at face value: the crafts vital to the missions can't be built within a light year of the budget. Do you know what's likely to happen? The mission is aborted, like many other well-intentioned NASA projects. With America's political climate one of marked ambivalence, Congress wouldn't pass up the chance to rap the space agency on the knuckles and shut (maybe redirect) the greenback spigot. Landing mission over for an administration or two; no exorbitant amount of additional funding allocated. Where's the boondoggle? Where's the dear-God-we've-saddled-our-children shibboleth materializing? Why is a speck in the budget driving Sullivan crazy, when some of us grandchildren can attest to exactly which existing programs' debts have been saddled on us? [Ones that Bush, or anyone else right now, would be tarred and feathered for decentralizing or simplifying!]
And for that matter: what do Easterbrook and Sullivan want? Keep the shuttles cycling? Money's still being spent - and for what, a lot of people have been wondering for years. With Mercury, Gemini and Apollo still vivid in people's minds today, privatization is probably DOA in Congress. Bush deserves at least a mote of credit for seeking some higher aspirations for NASA.
THIS CAN BE DEBATED CALMLY: Stanley Kurtz and Rand Simberg are in disagreement, but it is most definitely, as Kurtz puts it, "thoughtful."
IN ANOTHER WAY: Sullivan gives it one more look, this one without so much fire and brimstone. Fair enough.