That’s the suggestion of an Orlando Sentinel article, which argues that neither NASA nor the Bush Administration have done much since the initial announcement of the new space initiative in January to curry favor with members of Congress. The lack of specifics on the long-term cost of the initiative (recall the back-and-forth debate at a House Science Committee hearing last month between Sean O’Keefe and Congressman Bart Gordon (D-TN) on what that cost was and whether that number was given to Bush), as well as questions about the effects of the plan on other NASA programs, have led very few members to stand up in favor of the plan. The article notes in particular the neutral stance of Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), the House Science Committee chairman, who says he needs more information from NASA before deciding whether to support the plan. More worrisome is the comment made by Sam Brownback (R-KS), chair of the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, who said that because of the larger debate about the budget, “NASA’s typically not been a partisan issue, but it may be seen that way this year.”
A related note on this subject comes from NASA Watch, which claims that Democrats in both the House and Senate want to put off the President’s plan for a year (hoping, perhaps, that by next year there will be a different occupant of the White House.) While Republicans appear to be more supportive of the plan, there are some who are not fond of any major spending increases given the current large budget deficits.
The exchange between Marburger and Gordon is hilarious. SpaceRef posted it a few weeks ago.
The fictional image of President Bush asking “How much will it cost?” and being told:
“Here is a chart, Mr. President. Just integrate the blue region under the curve and you can figure it out for yourself easily enough. You do know some calculus, Mr. President, right?”
is priceless and deserves treatment by Saturday Night Live or Second City.
I was at the hearing where Gordon repeatedly questioned Marburger. Unfortunately, a transcript alone does not adequately portray the exchange. And it is one of those cases where understanding the context is important.
For example, one must keep in mind that hearings are to some extent (but not completely) theater. Everyone there–from the members of Congress to the witnesses–are performing in some way. It is a complex performance too. I never thought that the exchange was nasty, and I thought that you could sympathize with both sides. For instance, it is impossible for NASA to determine how much the project will cost until it actually starts defining the architecture. But at the same time, one would assume that the President asked about how much it would cost and received some kind of answer.
What a lot of people fail to understand is that the big blue part of the “sand chart” is not really an indication of how much this stuff will cost, but an indication of how much money they expect to be available to pay for it.
Nasty? I don’t think the transcript reads as nasty at all. Just an inability to communicate combined with some unintended humor as an unintended consequence.
The existence of this “failure to communicate” does reveal a gap or divide in explaining what the Bush vision is all about. And if the blue shaded region of the budget chart might well prove insufficient to accomplish the objectives of the Bush vision, Congress has very good reason to hesitate giving support.
There actually is a crucial political question here – – are we going to purchase enough gasoline, for example, to drive from New York to Seattle, or are we just going to buy 25 gallons of fuel (since thats all we can afford) and see how far it gets us? Before starting the trip, shouldn’t we know either (a) how far we can get or (b) what commitment is there to increase funding as needed to arrive at the destination?
Perhaps the Bush vision is an option (c), a new paradigm, premised on regularly buying 25 gallons per year, indefinitely, yet so far it has not been well explained, at least IMHO.
And just because President Bush proposes to purchase 25 gallons for 2004 through 2008, there are no assurances the next President will stay the course unless a bi-partisan “buy-in” of the vision occurs.
And why 25 gallons rather than 24 or 18 or 50 gallons?
NASAWatch implied that the exchange was nasty.
You lost me with a discussion of gasoline. I pay $1.64 a gallon.
How far will the proposed blue part of the budget carry us?
>> What a lot of people fail to understand is that the big blue part of the “sand chart” is not really an indication of how much this stuff will cost, but an indication of how much money they expect to be available to pay for it. <<
Is the plan to spend the budget and then see how far we have gotten or go to the moon by 2020 adding or subtracting as needed to accomplish the mission?
Gallons of gasoline (in my metaphor) equals annual budget dollars.
Is the NASA budget to be a function of what is needed for an agreed objective or will our objectives be chosen based on a fixed budget?
Stalled? I was under the impression that we are waiting for the results of the Aldridge Commission, so perhaps ‘waiting’ would be a more accurate characterization.
It is understandable that lawmakers are reluctant to allocate money to a venture whose implementation plan is not ready at this time, and to an agency whose ability to deliver the proposed work is questionable (the management were not replaced, were they?). From a lawmaker’s perspective, it probably feels like funding another faith-based initiative vs. awarding funds for a more definite plan next year.
Personally, I think the economy cannot afford another year of aerospace infrastructure decline, so perhaps these budget committees could do worse than to reacquaint themselves with Gen. Moorman (retired), and the recommendations of the Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry (2002) http://www.aerospacecommission.gov/, and then allocate the extra funds where they are most needed for the time being.
Nudevol
versicherungsvergleich und private krankenversicherung
the deliverance, even) as about a lot of other caribbean cruise music – we practiced several flows over the track cruise before we actually recorded the raps – the finished ski vacation product was surprisingly credible