An article in the Houston Chronicle yesterday said that members of Congress who represent the Houston area had declared Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison their “last best hope” for increasing NASA’s budget. The focus here is on the FY2008 supplemental appropriations bill working its way through Congress, which has an extra $200 million for NASA in the Senate version (to be marked up by the Senate Appropriations Committee today), but none in the House version. “Our best shot is for Kay Bailey Hutchison to insert the spending on the Senate side,” claimed Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), although exactly what Hutchison would introduce that is different from what Mikulski has already put into the Senate bill is unclear. The article said that “House members” believed that getting extra funding for NASA into the Senate version “wold strengthen their negotiating hand” when a conference committee meets as early as next week to reconcile differences between the two versions of the bill.
The problem with that strategy, though, is that it has failed in the past, such as last fall when the Senate added an extra billion dollars to its FY08 appropriations bill and the House did not; the money did not make it into the final omnibus appropriations bill. There’s also some opposition to including such additional funding in legislation designed primarily to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Washington Post editorial earlier this week decried the Senate’s addition of “pet projects” to the supplemental, citing specifically “such goodies as $200 million for the space shuttle” in the Senate version, while praising the House for keeping such provisions out of its version. “If this counts as emergency spending,” the editorial concluded, “it’s hard to imagine what budget-busting expenditures would not qualify.”
One thing is for sure, if Hutchinson doesn’t try to get the extra funding, NASA sure won’t get it. A clean new bill would be best, but hey this is politics, all is fair.
Phoenix goes!
as non american (then not an expert of the US politics) I found really incredible to know how many government chains NASA must face in its work, so many, it’s difficult for me to understand HOW your space agency has accomplished its past missions with a bureaucracy that wants to know everything, from the number of lauches, down, to the number and the price of the screws and bolts used in its spacecrafts!
if the US politics want to let NASA to COMPETE in the future global challenges, I suggest them to give a fixed (but known and sure) annual budget of (e.g.) $20Bn and reduce very much the chains that slows the NASA decisions and operations
post edit: change “a bureaucracy that wants to know everything” with “a bureaucracy that wants to DECIDE on everything”
This kicking and screaming in the corner is an embarrassing product of our political system. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if for once we bought what we could afford. I’ll try to avoid the temptation to point out that all of this “kicking and screaming” after all is being done over at best a flawed design and architecture. If this is what we are having to go through just for Ares-1, just wait until Ares-V. ..Amazing?
.
what do you think about the following (simple) three articles’ law for your next President?
.
1. the NASA budget is/will be $20 billion per year for the next 10 years (not a cent more, not a cent less)
.
2. the NASA goal is to land a crew of four on the Moon within 10 years (not a day later)
.
3. if NASA will not accomplish the given goal, within the given time and with the given funds, it will be CLOSED
.
please note that, “ten years”, was then time given by Kennedy to NASA to accomplish the SAME mission, despite the old/primitive ’60s technology!
“One thing is for sure, if Hutchinson doesn’t try to get the extra funding, NASA sure won’t get it.”
That’s not the point. Hutchison is a Senator, and the Senate is not the problem currently. The problem is the lack of a champion in the House.
“A clean new bill would be best,”
Not really. A stand-alone bill would face the same problems as attaching NASA funding to an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. It would also be opposed by the House, and (more importantly) get vetoed by the President as it wasn’t part of the White House FY09 budget request.
The best strategy is to get the subcommittee budget allocation increased so that there’s maneuvering room to add funds to NASA’s normal appropriations bill. I’d also lobby the White House before the budget request is sent to Congress, not after.
FWIW…
“1. the NASA budget is/will be $20 billion per year for the next 10 years (not a cent more, not a cent less)”
If the inflation rate runs at 3 percent a year by the tenth year they would only be getting about 14 billion. You better include an inflation clause.
“3. if NASA will not accomplish the given goal, within the given time and with the given funds, it will be CLOSED”
That would be rather silly because it presupposes that NASA is ONLY involved in manned flight to the moon. NASA wears a hundred different hats for differing responsiblities. It also does not account for astronauts going to the ISS.
“You better include an inflation clause.”
no, since, in the early years (when NASA has great part of the R&D costs) the budget is higher
“NASA is ONLY involved in manned flight to the moon.”
an option to “close it”, could be “close the moon missions division” or “sell NASA to private companies”
“sell NASA to private companiesâ€
Another clueless idea. NASA can not be ‘sold”. It is a US government agency