Comments on: Boehlert to retire; will the House Science Committee go with him?

By: Nemo2

Nemo2 — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:02:34 +0000

Interesting rumor.

Putting NASA in the “Commerce Committee” might (with emphasis on the word “might”) have a beneficial impact on what our nation actually does in space. But there are significant downsides too.

This would make the House structure similar to the Senate. Since there is no observable increase in the interest in “space commerce” in the Senate, as a result of NASA being in the Senate Commerce Committee, nobody should get their hopes up.

The downside is that national space policy gets much less focus in the Senate than it does in the House, partly because of the Committee structure. There have been years in which neither the Senate Commerce Committee, nor any of is subcommittees, hold even one hearing on space policy.

– Nemo2

PS — The most logical alternative would be the “Transportation Committee”, which would not be a good thing. Transportation is even more culturally aligned with doling out large amounts of pork by geographic region. At least commerce is composed of members who triy to think about good commercial policy.

By: Nemo2

Nemo2 — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:01:50 +0000

Interesting rumor.

Putting NASA in the “Commerce Committee” might (with emphasis on the word “might”) have a beneficial impact on what our nation actually does in space. But there are significant downsides too.

– Nemo2

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:57:52 +0000

In England the BNSC resides under the Department of Trade and Industry. Ever heard of BNSC? Precisely.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sun, 19 Mar 2006 00:31:18 +0000

I have to confess to not being familiar with the current committee structure, for either authorization or appropriations, so I couldn’t say.

By: Dennis Ray Wingo

Dennis Ray Wingo — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 03:59:00 +0000

Rand

I have been talking to a German friend of mine and DLR has been moved from the technology ministry to the ministry of economics. It is interesting to me that in Europe they are much more focusing on the economic aspects of space.

If NASA was to be focused on supporting the development of commercial infrastructure where would it best be located in the committee structure?

Dennis

By: TORO

TORO — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:38:39 +0000

The new committee should be called the “Political Science” committee. It would be a committee devoted first and foremost to politics, and to use and twist science as deemed necesary to meet the political goals. Thus NASA would fit right in.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:56:27 +0000

Rand, I think I agree with you on this one. If scientists really want to have a separate space science agency — I think that unwise of them, but it’s okay with me — that agency can be under whatever replaces the science committee. The rest of NASA should probably be part of a transportation agency or an infrastructure agency or something.

That said, I am very suspicious of anything that deemphasizes science in Congress. I would not support not having some sort of science committee or important subcommittee in Congress.

— Donald

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:00:57 +0000

What will they be replacing it, a bible studies committee?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:09:15 +0000

I for one would like to see NASA out from under the Science Committee, because putting it there automatically makes people associate it with science, when that’s only a part of its mission.