An editorial in Saturday’s New York Times reviews the situation NASA faces in the new year, primarily the predicted funding shortfall in the shuttle program (which the Times pegs at $3 billion, at the low range of estimates that go as high as $6 billion). The editorial notes that the new authorization legislation endorses (but obviously does not fund) additional money for the agency, and the Times likes the provision of the bill that requires NASA spend at least 15 percent of ISS research funding on non-exploration programs. However, the Times makes it clear where its priorities lie should additional money not be approved: “From our perspective, the costly shuttle and the space-station complex look more expendable than pathfinding robotic probes of the solar system and a transition to new manned space vehicles.”
The unpaid mandate to *spend* at least 15% of the ISS program’s budget on science that is not directly related to the VSE is a very interesting issue in many ways.
First, this unpaid mandate is basically a $300M tax on the $2B/year ISS program budget. Since it is almost certain that NASA’s FY06 appropriation, as recently approved by Congresss, did not include $300M … then where will that $300M come from?
Second, because of this issue, I had expected to hear Griffin scream, or that he would scream about this behind closed doors to Congress, and that this would be deleted in conference. If he did scream, it obviously did not work. If he did not scream, the real question is “why not?”
Either alternative is interesting.
If Griffin did not scream, one possible reason why is that NASA (and/or the WH OMB) will argue that this $300M “unfunded mandate” violates the law (or the Constitution, not sure which it is), and can not be enforced because Congress is not supposed to be able to appropriate funds in an authorization bill. They might argue that the authorizers can “authorize” up to 15% of the ISS budget for non-VSE science, but that that the authorizes can not force the appropriators to appropriate those funds.
FWIW, if this $300M/year unfunded mandate is (eventually) enforced, from FY2006-2010, this totals $1.5M. ADD that amount on to the current multi-billion-dollar budget gap that NASA has in the same time frame, and you can see how this will create even larger headaches for NASA.
– Nemo2
Nemo2,
Somewhere I have NASA’s comments to the House and Senate versions of the Auth bill, but I honestly didn’t study them enough to remember how badly NASA squawked about this.
However, you are incorrect on your legal point. What the authorization bill does is mandate that a fraction of an appropriated amount — i.e. whatever the Appropriators gave NASA in a given fiscal year for ISS — on a specific purpose.
It is not “unfunded”, except that current NASA management is cancelling ISS research programs, partly to save money and partly because they want to strategically disinvest from the ISS program (as a user).
It was the Senate Commerce Committee’s strong opinion that NASA should NOT disinvest in ISS as a useful research facility. By passing this bill by unanimous consent, and then again passing the conference report the same way, the Senate has *twice* blessed this mandate. (The House, passing the conference report, blessed it once.)
You may disagree with the goal, but the Congress is absolutely within their rights to do this. It is not appropriating, since it does not specify an AMOUNT of money, only a fraction of the overall ISS appropriation.
The provision was cleverly written, and it will be very interesting to see how NASA deals with this new legislative requirement.
I think that this Times editorial is quite significant.
First, it correctly depicts NASA’s difficulty in being asked to do more than it can reasonably do in light of its current funding. This situation was described in a sympathetic tone — not as yet another diatribe against manned space “boondoggles.”
Second, the Times favorably observed that: “For the first time, Congress clearly and explicitly endorsed the Vision for Space Exploration, which was announced by President Bush in January 2004, and directed NASA to plan for a permanent base on the Moon as a steppingstone toward a human mission to Mars.”
Third, in concluding that difficult choices would need to be made, they recommended that robotic interplanetary probes and the transition to new manned space vehicles be funded even if it means sacrificing the shuttle and the space station. While this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the overall NASA plan it is supportive of making the necessary investments to develop the new manned vehicles needed to go on to the Moon and Mars. Ultimately, this is the direction the NASA Administrator wants to go.
This editorial could easily and typically would have been used as yet another opportunity to attack NASA and the plan to return to the Moon and Mars. The fact that one of the nation’s leading newspapers seems to have accepted and is even somewhat supportive of th exploration initiative is critically important and a sign that the ice may finally be breaking for NASA in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Amercian public.
“I think that this Times editorial is quite significant.”
That’s doubtful for a number of reasons. First, nobody pays attention to newspaper editorials anymore. There was a time when newspapers had a monopoly on political opinion because they were the primary mass communication medium for expressing them. That was chipped away with the rise of the political talk shows, political magazines, and eventually the Internet. Nowadays when any jerk with a blog can express an opinion, what does it matter what a bunch of editors at a newspaper think?
Second, it appeared on a Saturday. Third, it appeared on the last day of the year. How many people read the newspaper then? (Saturday is traditionally the lowest readership day of the week for newspapers, which is why the White House announces bad news on Friday afternoon.)
Those issues aside, it’s worth noting a few things about this editorial. First, the New York Times divides up responsibilities for editorials among specialists and the person who does space for the Times (I forget his name) is generally pretty well informed. And he actually does research before writing (he’ll talk to people in the field). So NY Times editorials tend to be much better informed than most newspaper editorials. (Over at The Washington Post, many of the space-related editorials are clearly influenced by Anne Applebaum, who is much less informed about the subject, but still has strong opinions. It’s not a good combination.)
Second, most newspaper editorials about space (and Dr. Foust has written about this in the past) tend to follow a standard template. They praise robotic probes and then bash the high cost of ISS and shuttle. Their standard opinion seems to be that we should spend less money on space (diverting it instead to social programs, never military or other technology programs), and what we do spend on space should be spent on robots. You can find this pattern repeated again and again. What they don’t do is follow their opinions to their logical conclusion, which is to call for an immediate end to American human spaceflight.
This NY Times editorial is slightly different because although it includes the standard praise for robots and attack on shuttle and ISS, it seems to endorse (indirectly) the lunar program. It might be worthwhile to look at previous NY Times editorials and see what they have said about the human lunar goal. I doubt that they have been enthusiastic about it at all.
I can tell you this much. Untill this editorial and the previous one, the NY Times have held pretty much the template ‘robots good, humans bad’ template. In fact, they created the template back in the late 60’s when they began to percieve funding for Manned spaceflight as a competetor for funding of their pet social programs, the war on poverty, etc…..
I am still suspicous of their recent support for ESAS. I wonder it this is not simply a stalking horse to help kill the immeadiate manned program and then later change their position back to the boilerplate.
They have a very long track record to overcome before I will vest even the slightest scintillia of trust in their newfound position.
MUNCY: It is not “unfunded”, except that current NASA management is cancelling ISS research programs, partly to save money and partly because they want to strategically disinvest from the ISS program (as a user).
Mr. Muncy,
Your input is always illuminating, but I think this may be a matter of semantics. Your statement may be a more accurate representation for FY07 and later years — when the WH can obviously plan for this mandate, and add an extra 15% on to the ISSP budget to pay for the extra non-VSE science.
However, does the authorization bill apply to NASA’s FY06 budget, which was appropriated before this authorization became law? If the answer is “yes”, I seriously doubt NASA (and OMB) budgeted an extra 15% (e.g., ~ $150M) of NASA’s FY06 ISSP budget for this additional non-VSE-related science.
In other words, for FY06, it certainly looks, walks and talks like an “unfunded mandate”.
– Nemo2
Dwayne Day:
I appreciate your knowledge of the editorial process at the Times and the Post. However, respectfully, I think you have made my point for me.
While newspaper editorials don’t have the decisive impact they once had, editorials of major national newspapers — particularly the Times — still go a very long way toward “settting the tone” of media coverage (print and electronic) which, in turn, influences public perception on important issues.
You are right that any jerk with a blog can publish their opinion on any subject, but I am talking about influence here and, with few exceptions, blogs typically have zero influence.
We both realize that criticism of funding for manned space flight is a reflex action at the Times’ and the Post’s editorial page, along with that of most other major newspapers. But that can change.
This editorial represents a change in that position for the Times. I haven’t done an archival search of the Times editorials, but if someone did I am confident that they would find a consistent line of criticsm of manned space flight and the Exploration initiative in particular. Regardless of what day the editorial came out, it is the position of the Times and it didn’t come out by mistake. My point is there is movement here in a postive direction. Now lets try to capitalize on it and work on the Post. Anne Applebaum, we need to talk.
…with few exceptions, blogs typically have zero influence.
The same could be said of newspaper editorials. The exceptions are key here. Just ask Dan Rather if blogs have any influence.
Bob, I agree with you. The NYT, whatever you think of the newspaper, does retain great influence. It is a safe bet the newspaper is read by the staff of most politicians of either major party, and, more importantly, the newspaper is read by other newspapers, TV reporters, et cetera. The only other publications that approach its level of influence are the Wall Street Journal and (globally) The Economist, both of which are far more conservative publications.
The NYT’s change in tone has been gradual but actually fairly long-standing. I have argued before about the importance of this change to us. For the first time, the mainstream liberal and conservative movements in this country more-or-less agree on the very broad outlines of where we ought to be going in space. Total opposition to human spaceflight, while it does still exist, has been effectively marginalized.
The importance is this: Whoever our next President is, while they may change the means to get there (and note that Dr. Griffin has already done that once), they are not likely to turn completely away from the basic goals of the VSE. For the first time since Apollo, absent outside events that change the entire political picture, politically, human space exploration is here to stay.
— Donald
Bob wrote:
“This editorial represents a change in that position for the Times. I haven’t done an archival search of the Times editorials, but if someone did I am confident that they would find a consistent line of criticsm of manned space flight and the Exploration initiative in particular.”
Okay, I just did the archival search (Lexis-Nexis), and here is what I found:
I searched the database for NY Times editorials that mentioned NASA between 1/13/2004 (just before Bush’s announcement of the Vision for Space Exploration) and today. The Times has run 22 editorials that dealt specifically with NASA. Here are the dates and titles:
September 20, 2005 Tuesday
HEADLINE: NASA’s Back-to-the-Future Plans
August 19, 2005 Friday
HEADLINE: Mismanaging the Shuttle Fixes
August 14, 2005 Sunday
HEADLINE: Is the Space Station Necessary?
July 29, 2005 Friday
HEADLINE: The Safest Shuttle Tank Ever
July 27, 2005 Wednesday
HEADLINE: The Shuttle Returns to Duty
July 6, 2005 Wednesday
HEADLINE: Collision With a Comet
July 2, 2005 Saturday
HEADLINE: Return of the Space Shuttle
April 18, 2005 Monday
HEADLINE: A New Leader’s Thoughts on NASA
March 16, 2005 Wednesday
HEADLINE: A Talented Leader for NASA
February 13, 2005 Sunday
HEADLINE: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
December 26, 2004 Sunday
HEADLINE: NASA’s Chief Bails Out
December 12, 2004 Sunday
HEADLINE: A Blow to NASA’s Hubble Rescue
November 29, 2004 Monday
HEADLINE: NASA’s Budgetary Gift Horse
October 31, 2004 Sunday
HEADLINE: Subverting Science
[About NASA and a climate change scientist]
September 9, 2004 Thursday
HEADLINE: Crash of a Robotic Space Probe
September 8, 2004 Wednesday
HEADLINE: The Search for Livable Worlds
August 25, 2004 Wednesday
HEADLINE: New Hope for the Hubble
June 21, 2004 Monday
HEADLINE: Half-Baked Proposals for Space
March 13, 2004 Saturday
HEADLINE: Astronomical Exaggerations
March 5, 2004 Friday
HEADLINE: An Astronaut Changes His Tune
February 29, 2004 Sunday
HEADLINE: Premature Death for the Hubble
January 15, 2004 Thursday
HEADLINE: Bush’s Space Vision Thing
I can e-mail the full text of these editorials to anybody who wants them.
However, looking at them, it is clear that the Times has been relatively consistent over this period. It is critical of shuttle and ISS, but not openly critical of the Vision. The Times editorial position also appears to have supported the development of a shuttle replacement over that period (I did not do a search for 2003 after Columbia).
Most of the Times editorials are dull and uninteresting, stating the obvious blandly. However, probably the most relevant editorial to this discussion is the one they ran after Bush’s January 14 speech at NASA. Read it closely and compare to the 12/31/04 editorial and you won’t really see much of a shift at all:
January 15, 2004 Thursday
HEADLINE: Bush’s Space Vision Thing
Critics will no doubt accuse President Bush of fiscal folly for proposing a grandiose plan for space exploration at a time when the nation faces onerous deficits and insufficient money to meet costly obligations on planet Earth. The critics would be right that money is short and there are many more important things to do than put astronauts on the Moon or Mars. But Mr. Bush is a canny enough politician to avoid committing much money to his new space vision. He calls for only $1 billion in new financing for NASA over five years and a reallocation of the current five-year budget of $86 billion. The cost will of course explode later on, when NASA tries to actually carry out the program. What Mr. Bush has really done is promise the moon (literally) while leaving future presidents and Congresses to figure out how to pay the potentially large future bills while they cope with the severe revenue losses caused by Mr. Bush’s reckless tax cuts.
The political significance of Mr. Bush’s proposal seemed obvious when Mr. Bush gave special thanks to Representative Tom DeLay of Texas and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida for attending his speech. Each comes from a potential swing state, rich in electoral votes, that is or has been governed by a Bush. It is probably not a coincidence that each would benefit from a rejuvenated space program.
Fiscal issues aside, the Bush space exploration plan has some commendable aspects. It would end the troubled shuttle program in 2010, thus relieving NASA of a costly burden that relies on old and finicky technologies. Retirement makes far more sense than trying to extend the shuttle lifetimes for a decade beyond that. The plan would refocus research conducted on the International Space Station to concentrate on the long-term health effects of space travel, a prerequisite to long-distance missions, thereby ending studies of more limited importance. The plan also calls for development of a new spacecraft that could fly not only into low Earth orbit but also to the Moon and Mars.
Before Congress signs off on this plan, it needs to carefully consider whether the reallocation of funds within NASA will cause serious harm to important science programs, robotic explorations or climate-related studies. If so, the loss may be too great to justify full financing of the new program. Congress should also hold a vigorous debate on whether Mr. Bush is right to head for the Moon first, or whether Mars is a more important destination. In the end, the Moon may serve more as a diversion than a steppingstone. The space program badly needs a bold new goal as an organizing principle, but it is important to get it right.
Most of the Times editorials are dull and uninteresting, stating the obvious blandly.
That’s true with their editorials on most subjects. When it’s not, they’re generally wrong.
There’s a study that’s just come out (the summary of which is here) that offers an explanation of where media bias comes from. The source is not reporters or editors pushing personal agendas, but rather a reluctance of media to report stories that are at odds with their customers’ preconceptions. Interestingly:
Blogs are expanding the volume of this part of the news space.
…a reluctance of media to report stories that are at odds with their customers’ preconceptions.
Or at odds with their preconceptions of their customers’ preconceptions?
If one wants to appreciate the NY Times historic hostility to manned spaceflight, they will have to go back further than the dawn of VSE in early 04. They need to go back to the late 60’s at a minimum.
You could go back to September 13, 1920
“Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.”
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Duane Day:
Thanks for doing the background search on recent NY Times editorials. It seems that the Times has been more receptive to the exploration initiative than I remembered. I stand (sit?) corrected. However, the idea that there is an opening in the generally broad opposition to manned space flight and exploration by major papers and other media outlets remains valid and should be exploited for our benefit. A proactive media plan by groups individuals that support manned space exploration, regardless of the technical details, is the way to go forward on this. I would love to get the text of the other editorials, if you can send them to me.
Bob
Bob wrote:
“Duane Day”
Actually, it’s “Dwayne,” like “John Wayne,” except with no “John” and an extra “D.”
“Thanks for doing the background search on recent NY Times editorials.”
Hey, “substance” and “research” are my middle names. (Actually not. My middle name is “Tiberius.”) These comment sections–like most blogs–tend to be 99% unsupported opinion, so my goal is to provide the 1% of actual content.
“It seems that the Times has been more receptive to the exploration initiative than I remembered. I stand (sit?) corrected. However, the idea that there is an opening in the generally broad opposition to manned space flight and exploration by major papers and other media outlets remains valid and should be exploited for our benefit.”
[Here’s where I inject more opinion than facts.] I’m not sure that this really matters. Newspapers in general have less influence than they historically possessed. They still have influence (witness the Washington Post cracking open the Jack Abramoff scandal, which probably would not have gone as far as it did if the Post wasn’t airing his very dirty laundry in public). And newspaper editorial pages tend to be irrelevant to political debate. There is an old reporters’ joke about editorials that is too scatalogical to post here, but the punchline is that it makes the editors feel good and nobody notices.
A previous post did raise the interesting question about whether NY Times editorials influence the editorials of other newspapers. I don’t know if that is true. And it is possible that if there has been a shift in NY Times editorials on space, it has been too subtle for other editorial boards to notice. It is clear, however, that the NY Times has a substantial influence on what stories other newspapers and television news will cover–if a story first appears in the Times on Monday, you will see it in other newspapers on Tuesday. (Note how often your own local TV news will report stories that they essentially get out of the local newspaper. It is clear that print media has often done much of the legwork for broadcast media.)
In the past two years the Times has also run a number of columns by Thomas Friedman on space issues. A quick scan of these indicates that Friedman is somewhat critical of NASA and has embraced the alt-space philosophy. However, he also seems to be rather poorly-informed. He embraces some of the wackier ideas and people in the pro-space movement. If you wanted to have some influence on the NY Times’ opinion pages approach to space, it might be worthwhile to try and influence Friedman.
I previously noted that many newspaper editorials seem to lack the courage of their convictions–they bash shuttle, ISS and the lunar plans, but then do not call for an end to human spaceflight. It is worth noting that in my media search, I came across a number of letters to the editor at the Times that _did_ close that circle and called for an immediate end to human spaceflight. Usually the writer also called for spending the money saved on social programs.
The Post story, and your comment about stories appearing first in the NYT, is why you are wrong about newspapers (although I have great respect for your spaceflight views). You can find plenty of opinions and press releases on the Web, but the job of the press is also to balance the power of the government. Although there are exceptions (www.salon.com), few Web sites are willing to, or have the resources to, question the government, find corruption, and catch the administration when it lies. The press, in the widest sense, is essential to a democracy. The Web has the potential of being that, but it isn’t yet.
— Donald
“The Post story, and your comment about stories appearing first in the NYT, is why you are wrong about newspapers”
Huh? What exactly am I wrong about? My comment that newspapers “still have influence”? My primary argument was that newspaper _editorials_ have little or no influence at all, and never really had much to begin with. If you believe otherwise, then how about some data? Can you provide examples where newspaper editorials affected public policy decisions?
That is separate from the issue of their importance reporting news. I did not bash newspapers in general. In fact, I have a far higher regard for them than I do for blogs, which for the most part consist of “content” that they get from somewhere else (“Hey everybody, here’s a link to something I found interesting!”) and opinion that they generate internally–jerks with websites describes 99% of blogs. Of course, you can skip the opinion and use them primarily as a kind of tear-sheet for information that you don’t have time to search for on your own. But rarely are they going to provide real content. Maybe some informed _analysis_, but not actual information.
And we should also define “the web” in proper context. I happen to read NY Times articles via the web. The Post website too (although I subscribe, because I enjoy reading a paper newspaper on the subway into work). If you mean blogs vs. newspapers, then we are in agreement here. It is only newspapers that have the resources to actually pay people to go and research a story, whether that means sending them to Burkina Faso to report on the magnesium industry, or to the courthouse to report on the police dockett.
But that’s not really a discussion I’m all that interested in.
A quick scan of these indicates that Friedman is somewhat critical of NASA and has embraced the alt-space philosophy. However, he also seems to be rather poorly-informed. He embraces some of the wackier ideas and people in the pro-space movement. If you wanted to have some influence on the NY Times’ opinion pages approach to space, it might be worthwhile to try and influence Friedman.
Actually, John Tierney is also interested and supportive of alt-space. Unfortunately, he’s locked up behind the Times Select firewall now, so he (and thankfully, Dowd, Krugman, etc.) is now much less influential than he could be, because his and the others’ readership (at least on line, along with links) has dramatically declined.
Mr. Simberg wrote:
“Actually, John Tierney is also interested and supportive of alt-space.”
My goof. I meant Tierney, but wrote Friedman by mistake. Tierney has written three space-related columns in the past year, and mentioned NASA in a fourth.
Yeah, I was trying to remember anything that Tom Friedman had written about space, and was coming up blank, but I was willing to take your word for it…