The House Science Committee’s space subcommittee hearing on NASA’s near Earth object (NEO) study that was scheduled for last month but postponed because of the funeral for Rep. Jo Ann Davis is still planned to take place next Thursday, the 8th, at 10 am. The list of speakers remains pretty much the same:
- Dr. James Green, Director, Planetary Science Division, NASA
- Dr. Scott Pace, Associate Administrator, Program Analysis and Evaluation, NASA
- Dr. Donald K. Yeomans, Manager, Near Earth Object Program Office, JPL
- Dr. Donald B. Campbell, Professor of Astronomy, Cornell University
- Dr. J. Anthony Tyson, Professor of Physics, University of California Davis
- Mr. Russell L. Schweickart, Chairman, B612 Foundation
Update 11/2: A second panel has been added to the hearing, with a single witness: Luis Fortuño, the Resident Commissioner (non-voting representative) of Puerto Rico. Fortuño, along with Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, has advocated keeping the Arecibo radio telescope open in part to help study NEOs, to the point of introducing legislation mandating that the NSF and NASA keep the telescope open even though the NSF wants to shut down the telescope by the end of the decade to focus on other astronomy projects.
To be fair to NSF, they put together a committee of leading astronomers and asked them how to free up $30M in their operating budget. One of the committee’s recommendations was that they reduce spending on Arecibo and try to find funding partners. And, if no partners could be found in x years, then it would have to be shut down. But NSF would be quite pleased to find a partner and keep Arecibo running.
“Astronomy” is right. Arecibo’s potential shutdown is the outcome of a science community setting realistic priorities and managing their programs within a limited set of resources. Some outcomes may be at odds with other, non-research priorites (e.g., identification and tracking of potentially dangerous NEOs), but it’s the way research programs should be set, especially curiousity-driven research at a basic science agency like NSF. NEO tracking and mitigation is a disaster or defense function and should be funded at a different agency or department, even if NSF or NASA technical capabilities are used to do the tracking.
It’s more complicated than that. (But then again, it always is, isn’t it?) Arecibo is used both for radio astronomy and radar astronomy. The latter is of interest for NEOs and is in near-term threat of cancellation. The former is of interest to the broader astronomy community. The broader astronomy community doesn’t care about planetary astronomy, so they have no problem with getting rid of the radar capability now. Also at issue is NASA’s role in supporting ground based astronomy. The agency used to do that, out of the belief that the platform is not as important as the health of the overall field. Then they decided to get out of funding ground based astronomy and leave it all to the NSF. So there’s also a bit of bureaucratic chicken going on here–two agencies refusing to pay for something that they both want in the hopes that the other will pay for it.
Although the earlier Space Politics article pointed out that Arecibo doesn’t have the advantage of local voting Congressional members, I’d expect a reasonable amount of Arecibo support from New York, since that state has a community with strong ties to the area, and also has Cornell University. In fact, if you check the linked bill, 4 of the 17 cosponsors are from NY.
I just received a mailing from the National Space Society with a “Save Arecibo” petition and a copy of H.R. 3737. It will be interesting to see how this one develops.
Personally I tend to be inclined to keep using what we have as long as we can still make productive use of it, whether it’s an observatory, an old satellite, or my car. With this bias, I’m inclined to favor keeping Arecibo running even at the expense of delaying a future observatory, and even in the face of the NSF recommendation. Of course if you present me with a specific future mission that’s being hurt by diverting the funds, my outlook might change.
I was struck by Chairman Udall’s written testimony, which stated:
In particular, we need to survey potentially hazardous asteroids that are smaller than the ones cataloged to date, but which could do significant damage if they impact or explode above the Earth’s surface near populated areas. That is why Congress directed NASA to “plan, develop, and implement” a NEO survey program for objects as small as 140 meters in size in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.
As a result, I’m disappointed and concerned that NASA’s report to Congress failed to provide a recommended option and budget plan for such a survey, as directed by the Act. In fact, the report says NASA has no plans to do anything beyond the current Spaceguard program at this time.
Equally troubling, one of the NASA witnesses will testify that “NASA would be pleased to implement a more aggressive NEO program if so directed by the President and Congress,”–with the implication that Congress has not yet done so. I think Sec. 321 of the NASA Authorization Act, which I quoted earlier, is unambiguous–Congress has in fact directed NASA to “plan, develop, and implement” such a program. And we would hope that the President would send over a NASA budget request that reflects that congressional direction.
I have a basic question — is the problem that Mike Griffin wants to spend every spare NASA dollar to the Ares 1 and therefore was not even willing to ask OMB to put funding in this area to the OMB in the annual budget process, or is it that Griffin/NASA asked for more money here from OMB in the annual process but the OMB and the White House refused to allocate more money for this into the President’s request?
The answer to this question would clear up a lot. (The answer might be more complicated than this, but you get my point.)
– Al
“is the problem that Mike Griffin wants to spend every spare NASA dollar to the Ares 1 and therefore was not even willing to ask OMB to put funding in this area to the OMB in the annual budget process, or is it that Griffin/NASA asked for more money here from OMB in the annual process but the OMB and the White House refused to allocate more money for this into the President’s request?”
It’s a good question. I would guess that it has more to do with the former, than the latter. Even setting aside ESAS/Ares I/Orion, the VSE did not include a planetary defense component. (Although maybe it should have or maybe another department or agency should.) If Griffin or any NASA Administrator was trying to stay true to the Bush II Administration’s civil space plan, they would value the budget elements (good or bad) associated with that plan over budget elements associated with planetary defense that are external to that plan.
That said, it’s very hard to confirm because the White House budget process and documents are embargoed. Unless someone leaks, there’s no way to confirm what NASA did or did not put in its annual budget request to the White House.
FWIW…
Anon,
My initial guess WAS the same — but there is some information that does not fit with this position.
First, Griffin himself has testified about the critical importance of Planetary Defense on 7 April 2004
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12483
GRIFFIN: “Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment on the greatest natural threat to the long-term survivability of mankind, an asteroid impact with the Earth. Throughout its history, the Earth has continuously been bombarded by objects ranging in size from dust particles to comets or asteroids greater than 10 km in diameter. Although the probability of the Earth being hit by a large object in this century is low, the effects of an impact are so catastrophic that it is essential to prepare a defense against such an occurrence. The first step in that defense is a system to identify and catalog all potential impactors above the threshold of significant damage, approximately 100 meters in diameter.
and
GRIFFIN (2004): “This very large number of small-to-modest sized objects represents the greatest remaining threat to regional safety that is not being addressed. The equipment used by current NEO surveys is sized to find the largest objects. Some sub-kilometer objects are found serendipitously; however, these telescope systems are not optimized to find the smaller objects.
A NASA NEO Science Definition Team recently examined the requirements for extending the NEO search to smaller diameters and showed that a system to accomplish the discovery and cataloging of 90% of all NEO greater than 100 m diameter within 10 years could be accomplished with a single Discovery-class spacecraft in a heliocentric orbit at about 0.7 AU. This modestly priced system (the Discovery class is about $300 million full mission cost) could be constructed and put on-station in four to five years.”
In other words, all Griffin needs to do is make sure that a Discovery class mission goes to asteroid search. That is well within his power these days.
I don’t understand what gives here.
If he really believes what he wrote, he is morally & ethically obligated to do something about it.
Moreover, some of the people who work for Griffin — doing budget stuff — are familiar with this issue. For example, Chris Shank — Griffin’s Director of Strategic Investments — worked in the House Subcommittee on Space & Aeronautics when a hearing was held in October 2002 on “The Threat of Near-Earth Asteroids.”
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy81931.000/hsy81931_0.HTM
One of the people who testified at this October 2002 hearing is none other than Brigadier General Simon ”Pete” Worden, now the Director of NASA Ames. Gen. Worden is a well known advocate of doing something on this issue, for example his speech here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8834
WORDEN: A few weeks ago the world almost saw a nuclear war. Pakistan and India were at full alert and poised for a large-scale war – which both sides appeared ready to escalate into nuclear war. The situation was defused – for now! Most of the world knew about this situation and watched and worried. But few know of an event over the Mediterranean in early June of this year that could have had a serious bearing on that outcome. U.S. early warning satellites detected a flash that indicated an energy release comparable to the Hiroshima burst. We see about 30 such bursts per year, but this one was one of the largest we’ve ever seen. The event was caused by the impact of a small asteroid – probably about 5-10 meters in diameter on the earth’s atmosphere. Had you been situated on a vessel directly underneath the intensely bright flash would have been followed by a shock wave that would have rattled the entire ship and possibly caused minor damage.
Something does not add up. I have to think that these gentlemen could figure out how to spend more than $4 Million per year out of a $17 BILLION budget, on planetary defense.
So, I have changed my mind — I am now guessing that the OMB has to be part of the problem.
To know about a risk (albeit small) that could kill millions, and possibly billions, and to be in a position to do something about it — and not take action ????
I doubt that Griffin, Shank, or Worden would accept “doing nothing” as being ethically responsible.
– Al