The NSS issued a press release late last night/early this morning calling for increased spending for NASA. (Since the release isn’t on their web site as of this writing, I have included it below, after the jump). It’s one thing to call for Congress to increase the budget to the fully-authorized level (an increase of $1 billion); to ask that NASA’s budget rise to one percent of the overall federal budget is something else altogether: that would amount to an increase of nearly $11 billion, since the proposed FY07 budget adds up to about $2.77 trillion. That would be enough to solve the near-term funding crunch (and then some, one would hope), but would be far, far more difficult for Congress to swallow.
One Percent for Space:
NSS Challenges Congress to Fully Fund NASA
WASHINGTON, DC, February 8, 2006 NASA must be better funded to achieve the worthy and ambitious goals set out in the Vision for Space Exploration and the 2005 Authorization Act
NSS members to meet with Congress this week in kickoff Capitol Hill campaign
The National Space Society commends the White House for recognizing the vital importance of human space exploration in the 2007 budget for NASA. The society salutes NASA for focusing on the implementation of the Vision, and for embracing the settlement of space as its long-term goal, one of the highest callings of humanity.
NSS now challenges Congress to recognize that NASA must receive additional funds if it is to achieve the full breadth of the worthy goals set out in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. The Act endorsed the Vision for Space Exploration, and charged NASA with an ambitious range of space activities. Congress now has the opportunity and responsibility to enable NASA to achieve those goals.
Some will say that the nation’s budgets are too constrained to spend more on space. NSS believes that, in times of challenge, great nations recommit to the sources of their strength. For the United States, these sources are surely liberty, industry, innovation and exploration. Space is critical to all of these, exploration above all.
The 2007 budget request sets out a funding path that is substantially less than the original 2005 budget plan for the Vision for Space Exploration. The reductions of the 2006 and 2007 budgets have forced NASA to make cuts in many worthy programs. NSS challenges Congress to set a higher standard for space funding – fulfilling the full Vision for Space Exploration and the true calling of our country as a nation built on exploration.
NSS submits that the nation can and should spend one percent of its federal budget on space, from the 0.7% that it currently expends. Raising the budget will enable NASA to carry out its mandate for human exploration while pursuing valuable programs in space science and robotic exploration. These programs include ambitious Centennial Challenges, the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission, a probe of Europa, and a greater role for Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems. It will also permit a deeper connection between the crucial work of today and future explorations of Mars.
This week, NSS members will join with the Space Exploration Alliance in their first Congressional education event of the year. This effort is the first of four such actions scheduled for 2006. The society invites all citizens who support space to join this effort.
About the National Space Society
The National Space Society (NSS) is an independent, grassroots organization dedicated to the creation of a spacefaring civilization. Founded in 1974, NSS is widely acknowledged as the preeminent citizen’s voice on space. NSS counts thousands of members and over 50 chapters in the United States and around the world. The society also produces the annual International Space Development Conference, held May 4-7 in Los Angeles. For more information on the conference, the Congressional education event, or the society, please visit:
For more information on the Congressional event, such as schedule, registration and goals, please visit:
I like this campaign because it emphasizes that NASA gets less than 1% of the budget. People tend to believe that NASA gets a big chunk, when in reality its amount isn’t large enough to get on the pie chart of the budget.
Another related fact is the one that Michael Griffin uses a lot:
“With the NASA budget at $15 B/year, the civil space program costs each person in the nation about $50/year, or less than 14 cents per day. A really robust space effort could be had for a mere twenty cents per day from each person! I spend more than that on chewing gum. We as a nation quite literally spend more on pizza than we do on space exploration. So I don’t think we are overspending on space.”
The NSS could do something like:
20 cents for space
Way to go George and NSS! It’s about time some organization spoke up for what I belive to be proper funding of our efforts in space.
I’ve watched space advocates using “we spend more on pizza [pet food, hair care, whatever]” for decades. It has accomplished little beyond getting other space advocates to nod and say “right on!” Ditto in other fields of advocacy: “We spend more on DVDs than on research on my favorite Dread Disease…”
The only time citizens *feel* a comparison of public with private spending is when they look at tax withholding, or write a tax check, and think “Boy, what I could do with that”… which rarely leads them to analysis by category or line item.
If you must, compare NASA spending to that of DoD or HHS or Interior or some other federal agency. That has some connection with the way Congress actually trades off allocations — and with the way voters choose among candidates. “Vote for X, because he’ll work for more space and less welfare [or parks or fighters or corporate tax breaks].”
Most polling suggests that one percent is about the top limit that people will support for NASA spending. The good news is that a lot can be done with such a sum.
The good news is that a lot can be done with such a sum.
Not the way that NASA proposes to spend it. But NSS has always had the problem that, if they don’t cheerlead NASA budgets with no criticism of how they spend it, they lose much of their institutional support, which is predicated on the same support as the general space budgets–funds flowing to congressional districts with powerful congresscritters.
Gee Rand, I wonder where the money comes from for all the NASA consulting you claim to do.
I’m guessing that most space enthusiasts, if given a choice between NASA existing and NASA not existing, would want NASA to exist, even with all its flaws and past mistakes.
So the NSS is doing a good thing in supporting NASA at this critical time.
Keith, if NASA’s going to spend the money anyway, and I can pay the bills by helping them (and maybe making some small contribution toward making the spending more productive), why shouldn’t I? I’m pretty sure that even if the government followed my advice, I wouldn’t starve, but if I did, doesn’t that just prove that my advice is based on my view of the best policy for the nation, and not for my own personal interests (in contrast to many who do in fact advocate large government programs largely to keep their own ricebowls filled)?
I’m not sure what your point is here.
If somebody’s going to sell the dope anyway, and I can pay the bills by helping them (and maybe making some small contribution toward making the spending more productive), why shouldn’t I? I’m pretty sure that even if the government followed my advice, I wouldn’t starve, but if I did, doesn’t that just prove that my advice is based on my view of the best policy for the nation, and not for my own personal interests (in contrast to many who do in fact advocate large government drug law enforcement programs largely to keep their own ricebowls filled)?
You’re a hypocrite, Rand. You complain when people lobby for money for NASA – and then you go feed at the very same slop bucket that the politicians have just filled for you to eat from.
A one-percent of the federal budget increase for NASA? What an idiotic thing to advocate. Congress would never authorize a $1 billion increase for the agency, let alone $11 billion. I would rather see NSS pursue more logical approaches to space exploration and exploitation, such as increasing support for commercial space activities and calling for a major reorganization of NASA.
Another would be to raise a stink about the delay in the Europa mission and cancellation of the Terrestrial Planet Finder found in the FY2007 budget proposal. If these missions were given priority (not likely with the President’s “space vision”), one might conclude that successful detection of life in Europa and/or detection of an Earth-like planet around another star would hugely increase support for NASA and other space activities. A leap of faith? Yes, it is. But it’s worth it, for even if the missions find no such life or hint of it, they will provide much to our understanding of the Universe.
I don’t usually agree with Rand Simberg (to say the least), but in this case he has a valid point. What he is criticizing is not government spending per se, but rather the bottom-line mentality. Some factions are so focussed on the total dollar amount of NASA’s budget that it drowns out their concern for what NASA actually accomplishes. Which in the human spaceflight department is not much, lately.
This could be an honest mistake at NSS. But it is abetted by patronage-minded politicians who don’t really care what NASA does, as long as it has an argument for the cash.
I think Phil’s got it right in his first paragraph. I don’t agree with the second one — I think both of these missions should have lower priorities than establishing a human beachead on the moon. However, not least because of five years of Mr. Bush’s credit card budgeting, whatever we do has to live within the money NASA has avaialable. As it is, NASA has done far better than I expected.
I also agree regarding Rand. He should practice what he preaches. Surely there are alt.space outfits that could use his skills.
— Donald
Donald,
Just for clarification, I wouldn’t suggest that the Europa mission and the TPF receive top billing, only that they should be considered top science priorities. I should have explained that better.
A human beachhead on the Moon is fine, but NASA (or more generally the government) cannot sustain this activity efficiently. I would prefer to see NASA pursue this as part of a comprehensive economic development plan, whereby the private sector provides the bulk of the activity. So far, we have NASA wanting to go to the Moon, but no one has adequately provided a reason why, nor is there a long-term strategy involving LEO, GEO, Lagranian Libration Points, the Moon, etc. Clearly, this is a resurrection of Apollo, a rehash for the unimaginative and risk averse.
Sorry, Keith, I guess I just don’t see the “hypocrisy” (a word that gets flung around all too freely). If I complained because people took my advice and cut the budget to the programs that I’m working on, then that would be hypocritical, but I don’t advocate that people not work on government contracts (except to the degree that I encourage them to work instead on things that might be more productive in terms of getting us into space–something that years of space entreprenurial adventures have left me in financial condition such that I can’t currently afford to do), so I don’t see why it’s hypocritical of me to do so.
Rand:
Then there is nothing wrong with those who would urge more money be allocated so that you can earn it – right?. You wouldn’t be taking money that was not put in place for the wrong reasons, would you? Why then do you complain about people who try and get more money for the things you make money from? If not hypocritical, then your statement is illogical.
Surely there are alt.space outfits that could use his skills.
Surely there are, Donald, and occasionally they do, but few, if any, of them can afford to consistently pay me what I have to earn to keep my creditors in the lifestyle to which they’ve grown accustomed. I simply have too high a debt load from failed ventures to be able to afford to work on the things that I’d prefer to work on, and I have skills that the mainstream contractors find useful, and are willing to adequately compensate me for. If I were younger, with no responsibilities, I’d certainly be working with the startups exclusively.
And I still don’t understand why the fact that I currently get a (well-earned) paycheck from NASA-based funds should preclude me from advocating public policies in which I strongly believe. As I said, if people actually followed my advice, and I then whined about losing income as a result, that would indeed be hypocritical, but under the circumstances, I’m pretty sure that I still retain freedom of speech.
Then there is nothing wrong with those who would urge more money be allocated so that you can earn it – right?
Ummmm…wrong.
You seem to be missing the point. Unlike that of many (particularly industry lobbyists), my position on whether NASA should get more money is entirely unrelated to whether or not I would personally benefit from it in terms of income. My stated position is one of a taxpayer who would like to see more progress in space for the money, not as a rent seeker. If people are advocating that NASA get a fixed percentage of the federal budget, regardless of the wisdom with which it spends the money, I can believe that to be a wrong position, and say so, regardless of the source of my income.
My job requires me to provide services stipulated in my employment contract, for fair compensation. I attempt to do so (and, based on feedback from my colleagues, and my continuing employment, generally succeed). It doesn’t require me to publicly advocate policy positions with which I don’t agree, just to keep the dollars flowing.
Now, this is actually a useful discussion, because I have in fact been having guilt pangs over the past couple years about “selling out,” so you’ve at least allowed me to think it through, force myself to defend it, and at least rationalize it for myself.
Thanks.
I am not sure you have “sold out.” Indeed, I don’t think you have at all.
But if you condem the way NASA money is generated and distributed and you then pursue that very same money then you are acting in a rather contradictory, inconsistent – and hypocritical fashion, to say the least.
Glad I could help point that out.
In all fairness, Rand, I sold out a long time ago and my comment was out of line. I used to support my science writing career doing tech writing for a company that flogged credit cards to the poor — surely a dishonerable profession if there ever was one. These days, I work for an outfit that makes sure people get the medical care they’re entitled to under the law. In both cases, I use the money I earn to flog space colonization to the masses.
Phil, while I agree with your basic thrust, I still think the government needs to get the ball rolling. We need that lunar base to supply a market for the commercial providers — just like the Space Station is keeping the Soyuz launcher (and soon truly commercial providers?) in business today.
— Donald
…if you condemn the way NASA money is generated and distributed and you then pursue that very same money…
Well, I’m in the fortunate position that, these days, it tends to pursue me (which is one of the reasons that I’m well compensated, when I am compensated). People don’t really understand how much capability and knowledge has been lost to the industry with retirements, layoffs and attrition over the past couple decades. NASA needs people like me to execute their programs, regardless of our personal views on their worth (and that applies to many of my colleagues as well–they just don’t have blogs, and have a higher risk of being punished for their opinions, since they’re employees rather than consultants like me, whose opinions can’t be misinterpreted as being a company position).
In both cases, I use the money I earn to flog space colonization to the masses.
That’s kind of my attitude (and part of my rationalization) as well. I take money from NASA to do things that they need done if they’re to have any hope of accomplishing their goals, and that I can do well, so that I can ultimately afford to do things that are more productive in terms of getting more done in space. So it’s NASA money well spent, in my humble opinion.
You’re a hypocrite Rand – you just can’t/won’t admit it. Oh well. Again, I’m glad I could help you through this crisis of conscience
You’re a hypocrite Rand – you just can’t/won’t admit it.
No, Keith. You just continue to fail to make the case for it. As I said, the charge of hypocrisy is extremely overused, because so many fail to understand its meaning.
When I advocate that no one work on government space contracts, or if I complain when my funding is cut off due to my advocated positions, then I’ll be a hypocrite.
Yawn. Even if you lose the argument you’ll convince yourself that you won it.
Even if you lose the argument you’ll convince yourself that you won it.
No way to judge that, unless others chime in, Keith–you certainly haven’t put forth any arguments that I found compelling–you (as seems to be your wont) simply repeat the same flawed one. Other than Donald’s comment, since retracted, I haven’t seen a chorus of support for your position. Or, of course, mine either (though Greg agreed, wonder of wonders, though maybe it was with my general comment about NASA budget levels, not on whether or not I’m a hypocrite). They probably all wish we’d just get a room.
But if imagining that you “won the argument” gets you to go away and start posting more interesting things on NASA Watch, go for it. I may post on this at my blog later, because it’s an interesting subject, and we won’t have to bore folks here with it, as it’s slightly (but less so than many such discussions) off topic.
Donald,
Perhaps a government-operated or owned facility on the Moon could serve as the “grappling hook” for future commercial activity. But where is the plan? That’s what I’m talking about. If the president mentioned this as a strategic plan (ie, that a government establishment on the Moon would absolutely need private services in order to work), then we’ve got something to hang our hats on.
Believe me, I see a role for the public, private, and communal sectors in space. None can do it alone. I advocate a stronger partnership, and I advocate for a national strategic plan that fleshes this out at the top level.
I have to rise to Rand’s defense in this case. I disagree with a lot of his policy positions. He very often offers complaints without offering solutions. But how he chooses to feed his family seems to me to be out of bounds for discussion.
I don’t think Rand is being hypocritical here.
Hypocrisy would be publically praising a program (or, to some extent, remaining silent on it) that you privately think is nonsense. Rand is doing the opposite.
Why not be involved with a monopoly to change its direction and get paid for it?
Rand is right about NSS funding too. Lets get a sense of perspective here:
NSS had to sell its soul and today is a strong Shuttle supporter. OTOH Jerry Pournelle has been for alt.space and dead against the Shuttle+standing army.
Pournelle has 10 times as many subscribers to his blog as NSS has members, and Pournelle’s subscription rate is higher than the NSS membership fee. True, Pournelle covers non-space topics and is not based in DC, but still.
Hypocrisy would be Rand believing what he believes, talking about what he believes in private, committing his life to those beliefs, but not being willing to stand up in public and say it.
Some might suggest that Rand is a straight shooter who is asking to be shot (by working for aerospace companies). Since Rand understands the risk of being shot (by his employer), and accepts that risk, what is the deal here other than Keith disagrees with Rand’s position on NASA funding?
Actually, Keith might have more of a point if he said Rand had a “lack of political savvy”.
Another Blog (NASA Watch) recently posted: “When an employee understands and adheres to (employer’s) Unwritten Rules we call them politically savvy. Nothing can derail a career more quickly than a lack of political savvy.”
– Nemo
I’ve been known to bring NASA funding up in two contexts. First, there are quite a few people out there who actually think that, if we weren’t spending money on NASA, we could address such things as health care for poor children. The Washington Post actually made that claim last October on their editorial page. Simply pointing out the actual situation really surprises people and helps open their minds to other ideas. For example, the notion that poor people aren’t getting health care because of shortcomings of the health care system, not because we’re wasting money on space fantasies.
It can also be a useful tactic with space enthusiasts. Why, for example, do Americans spend more money on pizza than on space? What is the pizza industry doing that space industry is not? What can we learn from that other industry? I find it interesting that a man who got his start selling records in the UK — Richard Branson — might, some centuries down the road, be viewed as contributing more to the human expansion into space than Wernher von Braun.
Why, for example, do Americans spend more money on pizza than on space?
Unfortunately, that’s easy. When I buy a pizza, I get my stomach filled for an amount of money that can be in my pocket — instant gratification for finite resources. Space cannot yet offer that, although a few things like satellite TV and satellite radio are coming close. It is worth noting that Americans spend a lot of money on the latter two items. They may also do so on space tourism in the foreseeable future.
The key lesson is: for people to spend money on space the way they do on pizza, they must get a quick and personal return on a finite investment. Until then, comparing private pizza purchases with enforced financing of spaceflight (through general taxes) is inappropriate, to say the least.
— Donald
Donald wrote:
The key lesson is: for people to spend money on space the way they do on pizza, they must get a quick and personal return on a finite investment. Until then, comparing private pizza purchases with enforced financing of spaceflight (through general taxes) is inappropriate, to say the least.
Donald, you get it partly — perhaps mostly.
The pizza business has developed over time in the United States. They went from something like nothing to a multibillion dollar industry today by learning how to win customers for a dish most Americans didn’t even know about decades ago. They experimented with different recipes. They listened to customers and potential customers. There are major differences between NASA and the pizza business.
We’re starting to see some change in the present day aerospace business. Satellite broadcasting is one example. Space tourism is another. NASA Administrator Griffin has spoken more than once about the need of people in the aerospace field to listen, if only to prevent more disasters like Columbia.
It is fair to compare NASA to the pizza business. NASA — and space advocates — can learn quite a bit from such comparisons.