The Space Transportation Association has announced that it will be hosting a breakfast on Thursday, July 8, with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) as the featured speaker. (The details are not yet on the STA’s web site, but registration begins at 8am with DeLay scheduled to speak at 9am; the breakfast will be at the Capitol Hill Club and cost $30.) DeLay is scheduled to discuss the Vision for Space Exploration, presumably focusing on what he and his colleagues will be doing to push it through this year. His speech will also come around the time the House version of the NASA authorization legislation is scheduled to be introduced.
So Senate bill 2541 is or is not in response to the Aldridge Commission report? It seems to have been introduced on 6/17 but if it is then it was poorly written. About the only part it seems to have gotten right is the property rights issue.
There’s an interesting article over at InformationWeek (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22101977 )about Kerry’s proposed $30 billion tech investment plan. Apparently, Kerry intends to increase NASA’s budget. From everything he has said previously, I would have assumed that he’d be cutting the budget. Thoughts?
“Kerry also said he would increase funding for the National Science Foundation, NASA, National Institutes of Health, Energy Department, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and devote more of defense R&D budgets to long-term research.”
I wouldn’t mind a race to see who can spend more money on science and technology. I just wish Kerry would stop attacking the Space Exploration plan. Congress needs to get moving on an authorization for NASA but I know this may not happen before the election. Keep hope alive!
Mr. Malkin wrote:
“Congress needs to get moving on an authorization for NASA but I know this may not happen before the election.”
What is so useful about a NASA authorization? They’ve operated for years without one.
I actually don’t follow this obscure wonkish stuff that closely, but my understanding is that the Senate has not really done NASA authorization bills for several decades now and that it makes little difference. But this is the kind of thing that Hill rats would know more about.
I should add for those who don’t know that “Hill rat” is a term for a congressional staffer. They would naturally know the details of congressional politics and bureaucracy better than the rest of us.
The CAIB (Columbia Accident Investigation Board) said that there needs to be a clear vision (AKA Long Term Goals) for NASA. The CAIB sights a lack of vision as a contributing factor to the Columbia disaster and general inefficiency.
Bush’s Space Exploration Vision was a direct answer to the CAIB report after about 9 to 12 months review (by his people) of our national space needs. So Congress needs to give a clear message to NASA and the nation the long range space utilization goals.
Anything NASA does takes multiple years and in the past allocating on a yearly basis with unknown amounts has contributed to cost overruns, bad project management and cutting corners. Imagine if your income changes every month and you have no idea the new amount. How would buy a car? This has been NASA’s problem since Apollo. However this is not just a problem with NASA, I think most of our government agencies don’t have long term goal looking out 50 to 100 years. Imagine if our 600 billion Health & Human Services Department had a goal to eliminate homelessness in 20 years. How many homeless have to die before HHS is held as accountable as NASA? In general in government responsibility and accountability are words best not mention in public.
I have a dream…
I’m more interested in meeting my fellow space workers, rather than anything a Congressmember has to say, which is mostly watered down bunk.
Instead, perhaps STA should include futurists, economists, artists, philosphers, engineers, historians of technology, etc.
Unfortunately futurists, economists, artists, philosophers, engineers, historians of technology, etc don’t pay the bills. They only elect the people that spend our money.
My economics professor at University said “Innovate or Die!”. That doesn’t just go for companies but countries too. No one has ever found a new water hole traveling down a well worn path. The world is dynamic and only those who endure change will survive.
That is from an engineer’s point of view (not with NASA).
With long range and even near term goals, there must be a review process to redirect the efforts as need be.
Example shuttle cost per launch rising over time should have lead to a review of the cause and effect. A redirect would have been redisign efforts of the issues, New design operations for a new ship ect…
Mr. Malkin wrote:
“Bush’s Space Exploration Vision was a direct answer to the CAIB report after about 9 to 12 months review (by his people) of our national space needs. So Congress needs to give a clear message to NASA and the nation the long range space utilization goals.”
Actually, the CAIB report was issued in mid-August and the Bush Vision in mid-January. It seems doubtful that the administration was doing much to review civilian space policy before the CAIB report was released.
In addition, just because this Vision has been released does not automatically mean that Congress will, or should follow it. First, it is entirely possible for people to (gasp) disagree with the CAIB report. But more importantly, people can argue that this is not the right Vision for NASA to have. There are others.
Bush said shortly after the Columbia Accident that they were looking into the future of space travel. As I understand the task force was working in parallel with CAIB.
I agree a vision must be adopted by the American People and Congress. The shuttle wasn’t a long term vision; the long term vision was it would be our space truck for all space cargo (ooops!). The shuttle is the reason we lost 90% of the commercial satellite launches.
I think a good vision is to build a space transportation infrastructure that can be used by both the government agencies (not just NASA) and the private sector. I think the systems in systems approach will give us the most diverse transportation capabilities for both human and cargo transportation.
We all want to go don’t we?
Mr. Malkin wrote:
“As I understand the task force was working in parallel with CAIB.”
Define “in parallel.”
They were running about the same time but not related to one another. I found an article that mentions the task force. I thought they started earlier.
The White House has been looking for a new revitalizing role for NASA for months, with Vice President Dick Cheney leading the interagency task force since summer[2003].
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/bush_mars_040108.html
“The White House has been looking for a new revitalizing role for NASA for months, with Vice President Dick Cheney leading the interagency task force since summer[2003].”
The CAIB report was released in summer 2003.
John,
You wrote: “Unfortunately futurists, economists, artists, philosophers, engineers, historians of technology, etc don’t pay the bills. They only elect the people that spend our money.”
Obviously. And these people can influence how the spenders spend money. In any event, I was selfishly talking about finding more interesting speakers. Politicians talk without saying anything, and my time is valuable.
Mr. Smith wrote:
“Politicians talk without saying anything, and my time is valuable.”
These are wonkfests–they’re where a bunch of policy wonks get together to discuss wonk-like things. Everyone knows the score and one of the rules is that the speaker has to say one, moderately interesting thing during his speech, but never anything too interesting or fascinating.
Right now there is a lot of question about what is happening with the budget. See the front page of Wednesday’s Washington Post. In eight days something may have happened, or not (they all go on vacation next week, I think). So everyone will want to hear his perspective on what is going to happen with the budget.