I don’t pretend to be all up on American politics, I look to much more intelligent people than I for understanding of those matters, but if there’s one thing that I know inside and out its space and the industry that surrounds it in the USA. As it’s campaign time now in the USA presidential hopefuls turn to high rhetoric and sweeping promises in order to win votes for their elections and the space program is not immune to this. Indeed it seems that NASA is most often used as a rhetorical tool that ends up under-delivering on its promises, mostly because those promises aren’t backed up with the appropriate funding.
Jumping back a presidency you can see why this was so, with George Bush’s vision for space exploration that had us returning to the moon by 2020. Instead of adding additional funding to complete those goals and all of those already set out for NASA much of the vision was funded out of cancelling other projects, like the Shuttle and their involvement with the International Space Station. What this resulted in was a program that was under-funded and ultimately impinged heavily on NASA’s ability to conduct many of their other core directives. The VSE was then replaced by the Obama administration which had a larger focus on building core space exploration infrastructure whilst out-sourcing rudimentary activities to the private sector, a much better direction for NASA to head in.
Newt Gingrich, current candidate for the Republican nomination, made some sweeping statements about how he’d reform NASA and see Bush’s original vision achieved. He would see a permanent moon base by 2020, a good chunk of NASA’s budget allocated for private incentives and a culling of some of the bureaucracy. They’re ambitious goals, especially considering that Bush made similar ones almost a decade prior that are no where close to being achieved. Still there are some good ideas contained within his vision, but a whole lot more that just show a total lack of understanding.
As always Neil deGrasse Tyson does a much better job of tearing it down than I ever could:
Neil hits on a point that I’ve long held true: NASA should be charged with advancing space frontiers and the private sector should be tasked with the things that are now routine. We’re already seeing that kind of industry develop what with companies like SpaceX gearing up to resupply the ISS with several others developing along the same lines. This is where the private industry does well but it does not do well in pushing the frontier forward. That’s an inherently risky venture, one that’s very unlikely to be undertaken by any private agency. Advancing the frontier is the realm of the government and NASA is the agency to do it.
Where I do agree with Newt though is the slimming down of the NASA bureaucracy. Much of the costs incurred by the Shuttle program was the standing army of people it had, not the actual launches themselves. The original plan of launching often, up to 50 missions per year, would have drastically reduced the impact this standing army had on the cost per launch of the Shuttle. With the cancellation of the shuttle program much of that will have already been cut but NASA is still quite a large agency. How that would be achieved is left as an exercise to the reader.
Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary amounts of support and whilst I’d love to believe that Gingrich would follow through with this idea I’ve seen how ideas like this have panned out in the past. Thankfully, with or without Gingrich’s interference, the private space industry is setting itself up as being a viable replacement for the rudimentary activities that NASA needs not bother themselves with any more. What I’d like to see now is Obama’s vision for NASA has changed since he cancelled constellation and whether or not he falls victim to the same high rhetoric trap of over-promising and then not support the vision.
Space travel is on the rough end of the stick when it comes to physics. To get ourselves out of the massive gravity well that keeps us from travelling to the stars we have to expend vast amounts of energy, usually in the form of a chemical rocket. It’s a tried and true system however with chemical rockets powering every single mission that has left the confines of earth. There has been talk of many other forms of propulsion that could potentially perform a lot better than our trusty chemical companions but thanks to their fuel being of the nuclear variety they’ve never made it past the theoretical stage. Still for all their successes chemical rockets still have their draw backs, not least of which is the ungodly amount of fuel they use.
Take a look at any rocket and you’ll notice that the vast majority of it is taken up by a single component, the fuel tank. Whilst the actual cost of the fuel is a rounding error when compared to the cost of developing the rocket itself the fuel still makes up the vast majority of the wet mass of the craft, usually 85% or more. To put in in perspective the biggest rocket ever built, the Saturn V, weighed in at a massive 3 million kg when it was on the launch pad but only delivered 120,000 kg to low earth orbit (with 45,000kg eventually reaching the moon). A mere 4% of the total launch weight made it out of earth’s gravity, a truly staggering figure. This is more commonly referred to as the mass ratio.
It should come as no surprise then that the limiting factor for many space missions is weight related. As payloads get bigger so does the rockets and the amount of fuel required to lift them into orbit. This puts an upper limit on how big rockets can get before the amount of fuel required becomes unmanageable and instead many missions will favor multiple, smaller launches in order to get the required payload launched. The International Space Station is a good example of this as its current mass, some 420,000 kg, would have required a rocket of unimaginable size to launch all once. Instead it has been assembled in numerous smaller flights each adding around 20,000 kg each time. Most missions do not have this kind of luxury however and their designs represent a trade off between capabilities and the maximum launch weight they can have.
Most notably this affects missions that want to reach further than earth orbits, such as missions to other planets. Since they have to carry all the fuel required to get into orbit and to get them started towards their destination the payloads they can deliver are far smaller than they could be. Whilst we’ve still been able to do an amazing amount of science and exploration with such vehicles it’s still one of the most limiting factors that keeps more ambitious missions (read: ones with us humans in them) from being realized. There is however one ingenious solution to this problem, and that’s refueling in orbit.
Whilst the notion of flying just fuel up into orbit might seem like a strange idea it’s one that will enable subsequent missions to be far more capable. Indeed the cost of carrying several tons of fuel for pushing out past earth’s orbit adds many times that in launch mass. Thus craft that can refuel once in orbit can be significantly heavier at launch (since they’re not carrying the fuel) and can then fuel up for their trip beyond earth. The idea originally started to get traction back when Obama announced his plan for space exploration back in early 2010 and it seems that it’s finally going to become a reality:
Space explorers who need to top off the fuel tanks on the way to the moon or Mars may soon get their orbital refueling stations. NASA has put out the call for a $200 million mission to show how to store and transfer rocket propellants in space.
NASA wants to look specifically at liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, which have powered the main engines of the space shuttle and several commercial rockets. Its proposal calls for “zero boil-off storage” of liquid oxygen, and at least “minimal boil-off storage” of liquid hydrogen.
The proposal comes with the promise of $200 million for the company who wins the opportunity to build the station with an additional $100 million should they be able to demonstrate significant benefits for the additional investment. Whilst there are already companies working on these sorts of ideas NASA’s proposal goes far beyond what they’re currently capable of and is being built with the vision for larger missions beyond earth rather than refueling satellite’s station keeping fuel reserves. The proposal could also have flow on benefits to companies like the United Launch Alliance and SpaceX who could design future crafts around the idea of being able to refuel on orbit.
If we want to get serious about extending our presence beyond our home world (and we’re too afraid to use nuclear rockets) then orbital refueling stations are the key to realizing that vision. We’ve started to make the first steps to commoditizing space travel and the next logical step is to start unlocking access to other parts of our solar system, both for science and the simple prospect of exploring the unknown. Whilst this idea might not be realized tomorrow its a helluva lot more real today than it was yesterday and humanity is one step closer to taking our rightful place amongst the stars.
It seems that whenever I mention NASA and the US congress together I’ve never really got anything positive to say. Indeed my last 3 posts tagged congress are all critical of the government’s involvementin NASA’s affairs and how their constant medlinghas caused nothing but harm. Still I recognise that without congress’ involvement there wouldn’t be a NASA at all and that whilst I may lament the organisation being used as a part of pork barrell politics it at least keeps their budget from being drastically slashed. Today I was hoping to write about some of the more positive news that had come out of the US congress but unfortunately the relationship hasn’t changed one bit.
About 4 days ago saw the passing of a bill in congress that saw some funding approved for NASA. Now usually this would be something to celebrate but in true congressional style they’ve managed to bollocks it up once again:
The House Science and Technology Committee approved H.R. 5781 with strong bipartisan support July 22, sending forward a bill that authorizes only a small fraction of the $3.3 billion NASA sought to invest in a commercial crew transportation system over the next three years. The bill authorized $150 million through 2013 for commercial crew and another $300 million in the form of government-backed loans or loan guarantees. The measure also would continue much of the work being done under NASA’s Constellation program, a 5-year-old effort to build new rockets and spacecraft optimized for lunar missions that President Barack Obama targeted for termination in his 2011 spending proposal delivered to Congress in February.
Now whilst I’m excited at the fact that they’re adding another space shuttle flight to the manifest (as that means I’ll definitely be able to go and see it next year) the rest of the bill shows a complete disregard for Obama’s vision for spacethat was laid down at the start of this year. The idea of replacing all of NASA’s routine activities with cheaper commercial solutions was a sound idea, especially when companies like SpaceX are proving just how capable they are. $3.3 billion would have bought at a rough guess about 30 fully stacked Falcon 9 rockets with Dragon capsules on top, more than enough to tide NASA over for several years. $150 million would probably cover the cost of a single rocket and little more, meaning that all you’d really get would be one demonstration flight.
Keeping the Constellation program alive is something I can’t really support unless it gets a whole bucket load of new funding. Right now many of NASA’s other activities like robotic space exploration and science have suffered because the Constellation program is using resources that were once planned for them. The program’s vision was too ambitious for the amount of funding it was given and unless new money is brought in to complete it NASA will continue to suffer under its burden. You know that this is all done in the name of pork barrelling when the bill will “prohibit NASA from laying off civil servants for at least six months following the bill’s enactment”.
Most often the criticisms I see laid at the commercial alternatives to NASA’s own launch systems is that they don’t have the experience nor do they meet the safety ratings required for NASA’s human program. The first is somewhat valid as whilst companies like United Launch Alliance have a vast wealth of launch experience they have never actually launched people into space on one of their rockets. On the other hand however the requirements for man ratingare well known and SpaceX’s Falcon 9 conforms to all required specifications. ULA has also has specifications for man rated versions of their ATLAS-V and DELTA-V rockets so the notion that commercial space alternatives aren’t up to the task is plainly false.
The bill makes even less sense when you consider some of the most recent developments coming out of the commercial space industry. SpaceX just recently announced their plans for some new launch systems and boy are they impressive:
For the transition from Earth to Mars, however, SpaceX believes nuclear thermal is the preferred propulsion means for the piloted aspect of the mission, while solar-electric power could be used to transport supplies.
The U.S. government “should take the lead on nuclear and commercial industry should take the lead on building heavy-lift launch vehicles,” Markusic says. “Low-level propulsion technology research and development should be government-led, with a transition to flight development in 2025.”
A growth development, dubbed Falcon X Heavy, would employ nine engines clustered in three cores. Collectively these would generate 10.8 million lb. of thrust at liftoff and boost 125,000 kg. to orbit. The ultimate launch vehicle, the Falcon XX, stands as tall as the Saturn V, is configured with six engines in a single core and is designed to lift 140,000 kg. to LEO.
SpaceX’s new rockets are simply staggering in their specifications. The Falcon X Heavy already outpaces the Saturn V (the biggest rocket in history) and the Falcon XX is nipping at the heels of the planned Ares V. They’ve nailed the point that the private industry should be responsible for the more routine activities of getting into space as NASA has no real need to do this when cheaper, viable alternatives are available. Interestingly enough this is the first I’ve heard anyone talk about nuclear thermal propulsionin quite a long time and realistically I’ve always seen it as the next logical step in rocket technology once chemical propulsion reached its limits. Whether or not SpaceX’s push to get NASA to develop such technology gets off the ground is another matter however and it might be another decade before it sees any traction.
I’ve always been disillusioned with the US congress when it comes to meddling in NASA’s affairs and these recent developments haven’t done anything to help that. The private space sector is really starting to pick up steam and it just makes sense for NASA to drop their current launch systems in favor of cheaper alternatives. This will allow them to get back to their roots of pioneering in space rather than getting caught up in the routine activities that can be easily offloaded to someone else. With Elon Musk’s plan to retire to Mars I’m sure we’ll be seeing a lot more progress from the private sector in the decades to come and right now it looks likely that they’ll become the ones to inspire the next generation. Maybe then congress will wake up and let NASA do what they do best.
It really never fails to suprise me how much meddling the American congress does in NASA’s affairs, given the fact that their budget takes up a whopping 0.58% of total US government spending. The past 3 decades have seen many of NASA’s great ideas turned on their heads either due to horrible design by committee or from being given directives from people who have absolutlely zero aerospace knowledge. More recently though I grew to apperciate the new direction that Obama had laid out for NASA because, unlike Bush’s vision for space exploration, it was achievable and would lay the groundwork for future missions that would reach further into space than ever before. It seems however that NASA is still struggling to shrug off some of the pork barrel politics that had plagued it in the past and which are now threatening to ruin NASA’s future completely.
Specifically there’s a recent piece of news that tells us that the senate sub-committee in charge of NASA oversight is preparing a bill to derail Obama’s new vision for space:
Though the bill effectively cancels the delayed and over-budget Constellation moon-rocket program — as Obama requested in his NASA budget — it would repurpose that money to build a new heavy-lift rocket while largely ignoring the president’s call to fund new space-faring technology and commercial rockets that would send humans into space.
But his dramatic overhaul of the human-spaceflight program has faced fierce resistance on Capitol Hill, especially from lawmakers in states with other NASA centers or with big NASA contracts like Utah, where the solid-rocket motor that would have powered Constellation’s Ares rockets is manufactured.
The Senate bill, which if passed would lay out the direction of the space program for the next three years, would revive the fortunes of Utah’s solid-rocket maker, ATK, by requiring NASA to keep using its solid-rocket motors for a new heavy-lift rocket.
Alright I can understand that it would be hard for any congress critter to not fight for the jobs of his constituents but realistically the writing has been on the wall for sometime for these folk. The retirement of the shuttles and the infrastructure they rely on was announced over 5 years ago but of course due to the fact that the end date was well outside the current election term there was little resistance to it then. Now that we’re halfway through the current term (with the scheduled end looking to be occuring just a year before the next election) dropping all those jobs that the shuttle program supports doesn’t look too good and they’re fighting it by any means necessary.
Realistically though it’s just an exercise in pork barrel politics. If you take a look at the shuttle’s components you’ll notice that they’re not all made in the same area. That’s fair enough, sometimes you just don’t have the infrastructure. However the reason behind it was pure politics as all of the districts surrounding the Kennedy Space Center wanted a piece of the shuttle pie. As a result the external tanks are made in New Orleans, SRBs in Utah and the Space Shuttle Main Engines in California¹ with each component having to be shipped over to be assembled at the KSC. It spreads the pork around a fair bit but the efficency of the NASA program suffers as a result.
There are of course those who are taking this as a signal that congress supports an alternative vision that a group of NASA engineers have proposed, called DIRECT. Now I’ve always cast a skeptical eye over the DIRECT proposal as whilst it does take advantage of a lot of current infrastructure and reduces the launch gap considerably (on paper) it’s never really got any official traction. Additionally it keeps NASA in the business of designing rockets to use for the rather rudimentary activities that are now being taken over by private space organisations. Thus whilst there might be significant cost savings in comparison to the Ares series of rockets they still pale in comparison to commerical offerings. I still support the idea of NASA developing a new heavy lift launch system solely because it has no current commerical application, but while DIRECT does give this as an option it fails to get away from the inefficencies that plague the shuttle program (namely the giant standing army of people).
Hopefully this proposal doesn’t get any traction as it would just ruin the solid plan that Obama had laid down for the future of humanity in space. It’s time for NASA to break the chains that have been holding it back for so long handing over some of its capabilities to those who can do it cheaper, safer and faster. Only then can NASA hope to return to the days of being a pioneer in space rather than languishing as the glorified taxi service to the ISS, as many would have it be.
¹I can’t 100% guarantee the build location of the SSMEs as Rocketdyne has several locations and I can’t seem to find an official source for their build location. As far as I can tell however, they’re built somewhere different again from New Orleans or Utah.
I’ve mentioned before that I’m a big supporter of nuclear (and renewable) sources of energy and how frustrated I am that the social stigma attached to it has seen what would otherwise be a clean and safe source of power slip by the wayside. Many people seem to think that there’s more danger inherit in this technology than there is in other power generation when this is simply not the case, but it seems that incidents of reactors past are still fresh in everyone’s mind. Still with countries like France pioneering the way for nuclear energy I’ve always held out that hope that one day we can transition away from our current energy dependency on oil and coal.
It would seem that Obama isn’t as short sighted as many of his constituents are:
In his speech, Mr. Obama portrayed the decision as part of a broad strategy to increase employment and the generation of clean power. But he also made clear that the move was a bid to gain Republican support for a broader energy bill.
“Those who have long advocated for nuclear power — including many Republicans — have to recognize that we will not achieve a big boost in nuclear capacity unless we also create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable,” Mr. Obama said.
He also strikes on one of the biggest problems (other than the social stigma) that nuclear power faces: the cost. Current estimates for new reactors peg the total construction cost between $6~10 billion dollars with costs of construction going up faster than other means of power generation. Obama hits the nail on the head when he says that incentives are needed as the majority of western countries are quite hostile to new nuclear plants. The amount of regulation and beaucracy involved in setting up these plants typically makes them unprofitable for those who would want to set them up. Guaranteeing funding for the majority of the work means that a lot of the risk is absolved by the government, making the endeavour much more attractive.
Obama also gets kudos for using the proper spelling of nuclear (although that could be the reporter, I haven’t heard the speech myself. If you’ve got a link to it let me know!).
There is however hope for future reactors like the Westinghouse AP1000 (Yes, that Westinghouse) which has been commissioned by China for the princely sum of just $2 billion, a drastic reduction in cost. Additionally with China’s economy still growing strong they’ve planned a grand total of 100 of these reactors to be built over the course of the next decade which will have the added side effect of driving massive economies of scale when it comes to building AP1000 plants. With time I can see this reactor tech becoming a lot cheaper than their coal and oil counterparts, a critical step in driving mass adoption of nuclear technology.
However, whilst I believe that nuclear is the solution to many of our current problems I do not believe that it is the final solution to our insatiable craving for energy. Research shows that as GDP increases so does energy consumption, so you can imagine that a country like China who is just beginning to create a giant middle class will create a demand for energy on a scale that we haven’t seen before. Whilst nuclear will be capable of sustaining them (and others) in the short term the fact remains that nuclear is really just a far more efficient fossil fuel, and alternatives must be sought.
Currently my hopes remain in fusion technology. Whilst they still fall under the umbrella of fossil fuels they produce far and away more energy from orders of magnitude less fuel. However the technology is still in its infancy and requires significant amounts of research before commercial reactors become available. The good news is that many see the potential in this future technology with projects like ITER attracting funding and involvement on an international scale. People might say that fusion is always 20 years away, but I have my hopes for this technology.
I mentioned in passing recently that NASA’s future had been in question over the past few months. With the Shuttle program shutting down and their replacement scheduled to be rolled out in 2015 (and 2018 was looking like a far more realistic date) they were going to lose all capability for putting people into space. Additionally they’d sacrificed a whole lot of their core scientific activities just to try and meet the 2015 deadline with the Ares line of rockets. All of this was the result of an overly ambitious target set by Bush that lacked the additional funding to achieve such goals. Obama’s plans for NASA are not what you would expect initially, but diving deeper reveals why these changes need to occur.
- Research and development to support future heavy-lift rocket systems that will increase the capability of future exploration architectures with significantly lower operations costs than current systems – potentially taking us farther and faster into space.
- A vigorous new technology development and test program that aims to increase the capabilities and reduce the cost of future exploration activities. NASA, working with industry, will build, fly, and test in orbit key technologies such as automated, autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in-orbit propellant transfer, and advanced in-space propulsion so that our future human and robotic exploration missions are both highly capable and affordable.
- A steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions to scout locations and demonstrate technologies to increase the safety and capability of future human missions and provide scientific dividends.
At a high level the objectives seek to achieve a few things. The first was doing away with the lofty goals set by the former president Bush. To be honest I initially found this heart breaking as I felt this was one of the core reasons NASA existed. However without the appropriate funding for such actions (I’m talking Apollo era spending of around 5% of GDP, not the paltry 0.5% they get now) realistically it would have been far more detrimental to continue down this path than to cut our losses and refocus on the more important things. Whilst this might keep human boots off other terristerial bodies for another decade or two the missions that eventually go there won’t be flag planting missions, they’ll be permanent settlements. If we are ever going to establish ourselves throughout our solar system such sustainable missions are the way to go. It’s tough medicine to swallow, but it’s for our own good.
The new vision for NASA explicitly kills the constellation plan and with it the Ares series of rockets. I’ve lambasted the Ares I-X in the past for being an absolute waste of time but I still supported the Ares-V, mostly due to its paper capabilities. This is the in for alternative ideas like DIRECT which have had some traction in the past but were pushed aside due to the investment in Ares. I’m glad that Obama decided to include a heavy lift capability in the new plans for NASA as its one of those things that still isn’t commercially viable. Once NASA has the capability though I’m sure demand for it will start to materialize, but for now everything else is handled quite aptly by the current choices such as the DELTA IV Heavy.
Probably the best news to come out of this is an extra $6 billion for NASA over the next 5 years to support the refocus on these new objectives. Probably the most exciting part about the extra funding is that a whopping $500 million to buy services from private launch companies to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station. Up until now there wasn’t an official word on whether or not NASA could do that as they’d committed to buying seats on Russian craft at $50 million dollars each. Considering that a Falcon 9 from SpaceX plus one of their Dragon capsules costs about $100 million and can deliver 7 astronauts (over 3 times the payload) to the ISS you can see why I’m excited about this sort of thing. It also helps drive down the cost of such launch vehicles meaning that, whilst its still out of the range of the everyman, the cost may one day enter the realms of say a trip on SpaceShipTwo. It’s a while off I admit, but having NASA buying kit from these guys is a guaranteed way to make space more accessible to everyone.
Additionally there’s also a substaintial amount of funds dedicated to some heavy duty science. This include things like new satellites, observatories, robotic missions to other planets and channeling funds into research that will help further our efforts in space. One of the big ideas nestled in amongst this is the development of orbital propellant stations (think petrol pumps in space), which are going to become a necessity if we seriously want to go anywhere with people on board. This is one of the problems that faces many space missions as you have to carry all your fuel up with you, driving down usable payload and needlessly wasting fuel. With orbital refueling stations we can design simpler, more efficient and capable craft that will take us to the farthest reaches of the solar system.
Still reactions are mixed over the new proposed NASA vision and budget. The bill still has to pass congress and this could prove to be a major sticking point for it. As with any bill that has passed through there concessions will be made, hot air will flow and it could quite easily end up looking nothing like it is now. With jobs on the chopping block because of this (cancelling Constellation will see a fair few people move on) you can expect certain congress members to fight it in order to win the support of their constituents. It will be a hard point to fight to, with America’s unemployment in the double digits. I’m hoping that the American congress’ short term view doesn’t skew this proposal too much, as it’s exactly what NASA needs.
So after rejecting it initially (and putting off this blog post for 2 days because of it) I’ve come to appreciate the changes that Obama has made. Sure we lose the vision of pioneering our way through space but it’s a cost we have to pay if we want to have any kind of sustainable presence outside our atmosphere. We’ll soon know what opposition this bill faces and I can only hope, for NASA and America’s sake, that it passes through unscathed.
This morning brings some good news for America and the world at large. After 4 consecutive quarters of the GDP shrinking, the unemployment rate rocketing to 9.5% and the financial markets flailing around in a complete mess the United States of America have managed to drag themselves up out of the dank depths of recession and post some exceptionally strong growth (given the circumstances). Of course it’s not all sunshine and rainbows over there yet, and Obama has recognised this with his recent speech on the matter:
Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama said U.S. economic growth in the third quarter affirms that the recession is abating, adding that the nation has “a long way to go” to fully recover and reduce unemployment.
He said a Commerce Department report that the economy grew at a 3.5 percent pace in the third quarter, after shrinking for four quarters, is “welcome news and an affirmation that this recession is abating.” It isn’t enough, he added.
“The benchmark I use to measure the strength of our economy is not just whether our GDP is growing, but whether we’re creating jobs, whether families are having an easier time paying their bills, whether our businesses are hiring and doing well,” Obama told business leaders in a speech on the White House grounds.
He’s being cautious in trumpeting this as a victory for himself and his party and this is with good reason. Right now the last thing that any economy needs is uncontrolled growth as that will just get us back in the same situation in a very short period of time. Right now this serves as an indicator that the work the Obama administration has done in order to combat the financial troubles experienced in America worked and the lessons of the past have not gone unheeded. It would seem that all the naysayers about the various stimulus packages will have to take another look at what they’ve said as it appears that Obama’s ideas have worked despite their vitriol.
Hopefully this is the kind of indicator that will prompt companies to start rethinking their strategic direction. For the last few years most of them have been in at least one form of damage control or cost reduction scheme in order to stay in business. This is of course what has lead to the high unemployment figures that are currently plauging the USA. A few quarters of consecutive, small growth will see most businesses rework their directions from “staying alive” back to business as usual and this will easily be tracked in the unemployment rate. In fact the last 3 months have seen a drop in the unemployment rate of 0.2%. It’s not much, but it’s definitely a start.
For as long as the GFC has been in effect I’ve always been very skeptical about how long its effects would last. Sure when you tallied up the dollar amounts that were lost or “potential loses” the situation looked extremely grim, much worse than the great depression. The knowledge of past recessions however let us ride through this with a few bruises but wiser for the experience. One good thing that’s come of this is tighter regulation of the banks in the USA, something which could have prevented this disaster from happening in the first place.
Overall this is great news for the world at large. When the giant of America was toppled by its own system the world rightly went into panic. After battling naysayers, unwilling congress critters and the scathing eye of the media Obama has won himself a hard fought victory for all of America and this will resonate with the public.
Like my fellow blogger said, he’s going to have no trouble coasting into re-election come 2012.