Earlier this week in The Space Review, I reviewed a book on the study of space weather, Sentinels of the Sun. There wouldn’t seem to be much of an intersection with politics here, but as I note in the review one of the most interesting chapters deals with the budgetary difficulties of the small Space Environment Center (SEC), the office within NOAA that monitors space weather, has faced:
On several occasions funding for the office was in jeopardy because of Congressional budget cuts or simple oversights. The SEC also had a long battle with local officials in Boulder, Colorado to get a new headquarters building constructed in the 1990s, after it had outgrown an aging building next door; the city forced a number of design concessions on the building to ensure that it fit into the landscape and did not block the view of the mountains from a nearby street. Ironically, the authors note, “The beauty of the new building perhaps caused a congressional staffer who visited it in 2002 to resent NOAA… Presumably too much money had been spent on this excessively nice facility.” This has led to an odd battle over the last several years to win full funding for the SEC, an office that, fully funded, requires approximately $7 million a year: the final fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill included only about $4 million for the SEC, even though the House and Senate had previously approved larger amounts, for reasons that even many in Congress don’t understand. How much money the SEC will get in the upcoming fiscal year remains to be determined.
It’s a small line item in the budget—little more than a rounding error for some large programs—but something worth keeping an eye on as the FY07 budget process gets into high gear.
The SEC also had a long battle with local officials in Boulder, Colorado to get a new headquarters building constructed in the 1990s, after it had outgrown an aging building next door …
Etc.
I don’t feel the least bit sorry for this SEC. Why couldn’t they make do with a larger building in an cheaper, uncontroversial location in the Boulder area?
One suspects that the controversial location the SEC insisted upon had a particularly nice view of the mountains and was therefore very expensive real estate. Your tax dollars at work.
Cut the SEC’s budget, says I.
Perfect example of shooting oneself in the foot — both the excessive building and the government retaliation (if that is what it was). The information provided by this agency will be critical to the succeess of the VSE, whatever form it ultimately takes.
— Donald
Donald
It is also important in showing the the contribution of solar radiation in climate change. Oh maybe that is why there are people that want to kill it.
Dennis
I dunno. Battles between builders and local government (and citizenry, in many cases) are not at all uncommon. Welcome to the wonderful world of zoning and planning boards.
Speaking of publicly-funded construction projects, I see that work on that paragon of government efficiency, ISS, is continuing this week. In a few years, it will be ready to conduct world class research we’ve been promised for a quarter century. If only we had the money to conduct it. Meanwhile, the facility will be a destination for joy riding millionaires who will spend nearly 3 times SEC’s annual budget to visit a facility that taxpayers funded to the tune of tens billions of dollars.
How do you like them apples?