Comments on: Earth sciences, exploration, and budgets

By: DCH

DCH — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:28:48 +0000

Perhaps it is time for our universities and research institutions to start collaborating with the new generation of space entrepreneurs to work on some of these science issues. Focusing more purely on science and avoiding the overhead of government oversight a university and private sector effort could help both sectors advance their agenda’s at a fraction of the cost. There has been no lowering of the cost of putting objects in space since the 1960’s. That is starting to change with the private sector entering the race. Its time for the science establishment to look to new paths. Government can help propel and frame issues, but if we want the science to progress in a broader context it must operate in a broader and more adaptive environment.

By: D. Messier

D. Messier — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 01:50:49 +0000

I don’t blame programs so much as people. Bush in particular. Look at the last six years:

Yes, we’ll have mandatory carbon caps. No we won’t. Global warming is important. But not important enough to do much about. Let’s study the problem. But we’ll cut NASA’s budget for it. Yes, we’re dedicated to science. No, that won’t stop me from having political hacks rewrite scientific reports and try to muzzle researchers from speaking out.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:15:23 +0000

That’s probably true, Jeff, but that doesn’t mean it will be seen that way by the scientific community or by Congress. Mr. Bush’s huge waste of money (not to speak of lives) in Iraq, and his refusal to address climate issues earlier, not to speak of the rest of his unprecidented level of credit card financing, have resulted in both financial and (more importantly) political pressures that will make the VSE increasingly hard to fund. It’s unfair, but the VSE will be seen as optional and in competition with perceived higher priorities.

— Donald

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:17:14 +0000

D. Messier: “Without VSE and its growing costs, the Earth sciences budget might have stabilized at a much higher level”.

Perhaps. Or, the administration might have still cut Earth sciences funding to support other NASA programs, or to lower the overall agency budget. I don’t think there’s sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion either way about that hypothetical. What does seem clear is that while the implementation of the Vision may be a contributor to Earth science program cuts, it’s not the only or even primary program to blame.

By: J.J.

J.J. — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 00:59:20 +0000

It looks like Bush is going to stay the course on something else. Better living through technology:

Bush set against carbon emission limits
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070116-101236-4940r.htm

The White House said yesterday that President Bush has ruled out Kyoto-style caps on carbon emissions as the solution to global warming, rejecting the proposal favored by Democrats and most European leaders.

Spokesman Tony Snow said Mr. Bush will lay out his new climate-change policy in his State of the Union address next week, but sources familiar with the drafting of the speech said the president will argue that global warming can be better addressed through technology and greater use of renewable energy sources than through caps imposed on businesses and industries.
_________________

If you read the whole story, you’ll find that they don’t read NAS reports at The Washington Times. The writer doesn’t quote from it. He just accepts John Snow’s claims about funding levels without question.

By: D. Messier

D. Messier — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:43:14 +0000

Anonymous is right. Without VSE and its growing costs, the Earth sciences budget might have stabilized at a much higher level.

The irony is that Bush may be finally coming around to the idea that global warming is a real threat (the State of the Union may include some new initiatives). Whether this is a nod to realities in the tundra or those in Congress is difficult to say. Maybe a little of both.

But, whatever we do, it will be expensive. And we’ll have to do it with an environmental monitoring system that NAS says is both essential and is being run into the ground. This will require some real tough budget choices in a government and agency that are already strained by war, a lunar program, and other priorities.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:09:49 +0000

I beg to differ somewhat with Jeff’s assessment. Griffin cancelled or permanently deferred a number of missions in the Science Directorate, including Earth observation missions, when promised funding for Ares I/CEV did not materialize in 2005-6. This was also the same timeframe that saw cuts to research and analysis funding, including Earth science disciplines, in the Science Directorate.

Although the Bush budget for Earth science at NASA was on the slide before the VSE, the costly and inflexible budget created by the implementation plan arising from ESAS, in combination with failed budget expectations, did force additional mission deferments/cancellations and research reductions. The Vision as originally laid out is not to blame, but ESAS budget planning and NASA implementation since then are to blame for significant and substantial Earth science cutbacks.

The situation is projected to get even worse in 2007 and 2008.

By: D. Messier

D. Messier — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:05:37 +0000

Oh, great. The gutting of the program isn’t due to Bush’s fixation on the moon so much as the fact that he just doesn’t give a crap about this area. This despite his claims that he wanted a vigorous scientific research program to better understand global change before doing anything about it.

That makes me feel a lot better.

By: kert

kert — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 13:05:52 +0000

The editorial concludes: “If the president must go to the moon or Mars, he should find the money for it responsibly, not by chopping away at other, more vital programs.”
The solution is obvious. Chop the ailing ones.