Comments on: Hearings, budgets, and priorities http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/03/12/hearings-budgets-and-priorities/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=hearings-budgets-and-priorities Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: anonymous http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/03/12/hearings-budgets-and-priorities/#comment-10689 Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:03:20 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/03/12/hearings-budgets-and-priorities/#comment-10689 Another, less rambling, assessment of the current budget situation for NASA exploration, for those who don’t get Space News in hardcopy form:

http://www.space.com/spacenews/070312_businessmonday.html

Thanks to some Logsdon quotes, it does a good job separating the Ares 1/CEV budgetary situation from the budget situation of the rest of actual lunar return hardware.

Griffin warns:

“Griffin recently warned that giving NASA anything less than its full request for 2008 would inflict ‘grave and lasting damage to the program.'”

Given that meeting the full request requires a huge, very unlikely, six-percent increase over 2007, given the lack of support in the House mentioned in the article, and other factors, I think NASA will not get its full 2008 request (or even close to it) and that more damage will be done to exploration.

Too bad Griffin and ESAS did not create a plan based around such a predictable eventuality. It’s the epitome of poor foresight and leadership.

]]> By: anonymous http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/03/12/hearings-budgets-and-priorities/#comment-10683 Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:56:55 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/03/12/hearings-budgets-and-priorities/#comment-10683 It’s a little inaccurate and rambling in places, but a decent assessment of the budget situation for NASA exploration, especially details regarding the lunar robotic program, can be found here:

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Budget_Tucked_Away_For_Now_But_Hard_Decisions_Only_Deferred_999.html

]]> By: anonymous http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/03/12/hearings-budgets-and-priorities/#comment-10682 Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:48:20 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/03/12/hearings-budgets-and-priorities/#comment-10682 If Sen. Culberson really thinks he can extract $1.7 billion from a $6.6 billion Commerce budget (i.e., cut Commerce by one-quarter), good luck. Even making up the half-billion 2007 exploration shortfall out of Commerce would be a major feat, given that Commerce’s budget is a third of NASA’s and that Commerce has its own budget needs and problems (especially remote sensing satellite underestimates/overruns). I suspect Culberson is not this out of touch and is just posturing for NASA voters back home and only expects to make an empty, unsuccessful attack on traditional targets at Commerce to play to the Republican base. Although I despise Mollohan’s egregious earmarking, the chair’s comments are more telling of the real budget situation than Culberson’s:

“Subcommittee chairman Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., cautioned Culberson that there may not be money available to do so.”

It is very sad to read in the other article than all NASA science missions are projected to drop to two per year by 2010. That’s a pathetic rate on par with the nadir of the 1980s, and much too high a price to pay for an oversized, duplicative, and unnecessary human-rated Ares 1 launcher. NASA and Griffin can and should do better.

]]>