Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for September, 2004
September 26, 2004 at 5:45 pm · Filed under Other
USA Today reported last week about a little-publicized report by the National Research Council titled “Solar and Space Physics and Its Role in Space Exploration”. The report discusses the need for studies of the Sun, its interaction with the Earth’s magnetic field, and related topics, as part of the overall exploration program. The NRC put together a “decadal survey” last year outlining a sequence of missions to achieve a set of scientific goals; the new study says that this strategy is still valid despite the new exploration emphasis. It does, though, caution about budget cuts to space science programs that have stretched out that schedule:
In the new, “stretched” schedule that accommodates the expanded scope of exploration, the scientific goals for solar and space physics are compromised, particularly in the loss of synergy among missions that will no longer overlap unless missions are extended beyond their normal lifetime.
(This page of the report illustrates the changes in the funding profile for NASA space science programs.) Of course, it is common practice at NASA to extend the life of missions that are functioning normally, so this will mitigate some of problem. The problem is that while space science is important, it’s not as sexy as, say, planetary science or astronomy, which can wow the public—and legislators—with pretty pictures that most space science programs can’t compete with.
September 22, 2004 at 7:16 pm · Filed under Congress
During an executive session Wednesday morning, the Senate Commerce Committee marked up and approved S.2541, the NASA Authorization Act of 2004. The bill was approved on a voice vote after a short discussion and adoption of a few amendments. There was some heated discussion about one amendment, proposed by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), but listening to the webcast of the hearing, and not seeing the text of the amendment, it wasn’t clear exactly what the concerns expressed by other members (including Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)) were about Nelson’s amendment.
In any event, this is all largely academic. There is no House version of the bill and, back in July, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) made it clear it was highly unlikely the House would find time to consider one before adjourning for the year. Given that, I would be surprised if the full Senate takes up the bill, particularly with some much other work to do in limited time.
September 22, 2004 at 10:05 am · Filed under Congress
As you may have already read, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted Tuesday to increase NASA’s budget by about $200 million over the President’s request, for a total of $16.4 billion. However, the catch is that $800 million of that is in the form of emergency funding (and thus not subject to budget caps) devoted exclusively to shuttle return to flight work ($500 million) and a Hubble repair mission ($300 million). This leaves $15.6 billion for everything else, which is less than the Bush Administration requested. As a result, there are some cuts, particularly in the exploration vision: $160 million cut from the CEV, $50 million from the robotic lunar exploration program, $10 million from Centennial Challenges, and an unspecified amount from Project Prometheus. (Update: according to the committee’s report, Prometheus is fully funded, contrary to news reports that indicated it had been cut.) These cuts, though, are less severe than what House appropriators approved in July.
The emergency funding measure for shuttle and Hubble could prove to be a problem later in the appropriations process. From what I understand, the Office of Management and Budget doesn’t look favorably on such measures, raising the possibility of pressure from the administration to drop those measures. (The bill also includes $1.2 billion in “emergency” funds for veterans health care.) This concern was raised in the committee meetings, according to the Orlando Sentinel and Houston Chronicle, but the measure was approved. Assuming there aren’t significant changes in either the House or Senate versions when they take up the bills on the floor, it should make for an interesting conference…
September 21, 2004 at 7:47 am · Filed under Congress
The Senate Appropriations Committee has scheduled a markup session for this afternoon (2:30 pm, Hart 216) to go over the VA-HUD-independent agencies appropriations bill. They’re also considering an appropriations bill for DC; they didn’t announce which they’ll consider first. You should be able to listen to an audio webcast of the hearing at CapitolHearings.org.
As previously noted here, that session will take place shortly after a WSBR luncheon downtown featuring David Radzanowski, the Branch Chief of the Science and Space Programs Branch at OMB. The topic: “Space Funding: Will Congress Support the New Exploration Vision.
September 20, 2004 at 7:50 am · Filed under Congress
A few items of note about the efforts to get NASA’s budget approved in Congress:
- Writing for UPI, Frank Sietzen describes the current budget situation with a baseball analogy, with the game tied in the bottom of the 8th inning and Congress at bat. He expects the Senate to take up the VA-HUD-independent agencies bill this week. Tight funding limits approved by Senate appropriators earlier this month could lead to cuts similar to what the House approved in July. If the appropriations bill makes it to the Senate floor, he says it could trigger “the first serious political debate about space spending since the 1989 and 1990 fights over the International Space Station.”
- A Florida Today editorial last week calls the current situation a “bogus game of political chicken” because of the reported veto threat. The editors rightly note that such a veto is unlikely because NASA’s budget is included in a larger appropriation that includes veterans and housing programs. (Also, the bill may end up in a larger omnibus budget bill that would be even more difficult for the President to veto.) The editorial calls on President Bush to “use a bit of his political energy on the campaign trail” to promote the benefits of NASA and the exploration vision.
- With the 2005 fiscal year to begin in less than two weeks, NASA and other federal agencies will need most likely a series of continuing resolutions (CRs) to keep operating until the final 2005 budget is passed. CongressDaily reported last week that some members of Congress are supporting the idea of a long-term CR that would keep those agencies funded for several months, perhaps as late as March 2005, at FY04 levels. This would avoid the need for a lame-duck session this year after the election. This could turn out to be a short-term boon for NASA, assuming the House’s version of the FY05 budget—$229 million less than the FY04 budget—wins out in the end. However, it might handcuff efforts to spend funds on exploration and other programs not included in the FY04 budget.
September 20, 2004 at 7:25 am · Filed under Campaign '04
Anyone who still doubts that space is a relatively unimportant topic in Presidential politics should read this Philadelphia Inquirer article that follows a Gallup pollster, Jeffrey Jones, as he works on the latest poll questionnaire:
Jones and his colleagues wrote many good questions, but research has shown that people won’t stay on the phone more than 18 minutes to answer them.
Something had to go. Out went question 36, about whether NASA, the U.S. space agency, was doing an excellent, good, only fair or poor job. Replacing it was an open-ended question on campaign issues.
In any case, if Gallup was really interested in space policy and the Presidential election, there are any number of better questions they could have asked.
September 17, 2004 at 12:52 pm · Filed under Congress
MSNBC’s Alan Boyle has an update on his weblog about the status of HR 3752/S 2772. Right now the bill is bogged down in talks between House and Senate staffers about coordinating changes in the legislation, with an emphasis on liability concerns. This aligns with what I have heard from second- and third-hand sources about the progress of the bill; one source said that the office of Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) is where many of the liability concerns have come from. There’s considerable skepticism that the bill can be completed this year: there are no more than 2-3 weeks left in the legislative calendar before Congress recesses for the election. There is the possibility of a lame duck session after the election, but there’s no guarantee that such a session will be called (it may depend on the outcome of the election), and if the legislation would even be considered during the session.
September 16, 2004 at 7:50 am · Filed under Campaign '04
This week’s issue of the journal Nature features a special report on the science policies of President Bush and Senator Kerry. One of the 15 questions asked of the two Presidential candidates was the following:
Do you think the United States should send astronauts to the Moon or Mars in the next 10 to 15 years? If so, why send humans instead of robots? If not, what is the purpose of the space shuttle and space station?
The answers (which may be easier to read in this PDF file or in an HTML version provided by Discovery.com) don’t break any new ground. Bush’s response looks like it was primarily taken directly from his January 14th speech. (The BBC interprets his response to mean that Bush has “back-pedalled from his ‘man on Mars’ ambition”, but that would seem to be an erroneous conclusion: Bush publicly voiced little “man on Mars” ambition in his original address or other statements.) Kerry reiterated his support for the ISS but his opposition to the Bush plan because it doesn’t contain what he believes is sufficient funding for carrying it out. He added that “John Edwards and I are committed to increasing funding for NASA and space exploration”, but doesn’t specify how it would be spent.
September 13, 2004 at 12:35 pm · Filed under Congress
While NASA’s supporters in the House seek to restore full funding for the agency’s FY2005 budget, there are some indications that a smaller cut might be considered acceptable. Aviation Week reported last week that the Senate Appropriations Committee is looking to cut $600 million from the President’s request, a significant amount but still smaller than what the House Appropriations Committee approved in July. (That report indicated the VA-HUD-independent agencies subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee would take action last week, but there’s no sign that they did, and the full Appropriations Committee is busy this week with other appropriations measures.)
Aerospace Daily reported Friday that Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), co-chair of the House Aerospace Caucus, said that the House’s cuts in NASA’s budget were required to fund veterans programs, but that some moderation of the cuts are possible. However, he cautioned, “Space exploration is sure to suffer until we get our budgetary house in order.” In the same article, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) is quoted as saying that he would try to get key members of the House and Senate together to compromise on a NASA budget figure for FY05 that “not everybody’s completely satisfied with, but that’s workable on this year.”
September 10, 2004 at 12:32 pm · Filed under Congress
In late July Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced S. 2772, the Space CHASE Act, in essence the Senate version of HR3752 with some changes in the wording to assuage the concerns of one suborbital vehicle company. However, Clark Lindsey reports on HobbySpace that the Senate doesn’t plan to consider S. 2772; instead, it will consider HR3752 and incorporate the changes in S. 2772 into it. Confused? Me too, but so long as the legislation gets passed and signed into law I won’t complain…
Next entries »
