In an op-ed that appeared in Thursday’s edition of The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, Congressman Ralph Hall (R-TX), ranking member of the House Science and Technology Committee, makes the case for increasing NASA’s budget. The arguments he makes in favor of NASA are pretty standard: the US needs to stay ahead of encroaching international rivals like China and India, NASA gets a tiny part of the overall federal budget, the agency and its technological contributions help the economy, and the space program encourages students to pursue science and engineering careers.
Hall in particular is concerned, like many others, about the Shuttle-Constellation gap. “Accelerating development of the Constellation system would keep American tax dollars working for us here at home and have a multiplier effect throughout the economy by stimulating high-tech manufacturing and networks of suppliers around the country,” he writes. “The extra, relatively small investment to fully fund NASA would provide incalculable economic and national security advantages.” He does not specify, though, exactly how much additional money would be needed to “fully fund” NASA.
Meanwhile, at the other end of the seniority spectrum, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who won the seat last November previously held by Dave Weldon, tells TCPalm.com that he has asked the chairman and ranking member of the House Budget Committee for extra money for NASA for both extending the life of the Shuttle and accelerating Constellation. “Neither the U.S. nor the rest of the world can afford to rely on China or Russia to transport materials into space,” he writes. “[T]hese two nations just don’t have the technology or the success record that we have had with space.” (That may come as a bit of a surprise to the Russians, given their proud history of numerous space firsts.)
Posey also notes that he has written to President Obama to ask him to select a nominee for NASA administration “as soon as possible”. “NASA cannot afford to remain without an Administrator at this critical juncture. Major decisions are being made that will greatly affect our nation’s future in space,” he writes in the letter to the president. “If this transition is not done right, not only will thousands of American workers at the nation’s space centers and their families be severely and adversely affected, but our nation’s leadership in space will further erode.” All good arguments, but how likely is the president to be persuaded by a freshman representative of the opposing party?
What about instead fully funding the COTS-D program so SpaceX can provide manned space launch services to NASA in the interim?
Because they haven’t demonstrated anything to warrant such a thing. Let them get through the basic COTS first.
“All good arguments, but how likely is the president to be persuaded by a freshman representative of the opposing party?”
I agree with you, but then again, our president was a freshman senator of the opposition party less than half a year ago. Not that I necessarily think Obama owes particular attention to the new faces in congress due to his personal history, but there may be a warm spot in there somewhere for those with a similar background.
Obviously I’m all for more funding for NASA, but I think an argument can be made for holding the line at fully funding the planned robotic science missions and funding another shuttle flight or two. EvI haven’t heard much more than a 6 month deadline shift on the constellation program estimated based on any of the theoretical increases made in recent days. I think I’d keep the money in the bank for that marginal benefit.
Republicans have always favoured spending on NASA and on defense. But they are against wasteful spending, social engineering or redistribution of wealth spending.
Both articles make commen sense arguments in favour of staying the course in order to reach the moon. Most people agree with their reasoning. It seems that Obama and Congress also agrees which is good news.
It remains difficult to understand Bush’s rtionale of abandoning Shuttle and ISS in order to go to the moon with another crash program. Both shuttle and ISS were planned to continue at least until 2020. Now it would be difficult to extend the Shuttle Program because so many spare parts contracts were cut off four years ago. And although both ISS and the lunar program are now in the schedule, there isn’t the money for both, and Americans are not willing to pay higher taxes. If we go to the moon by dropping ISS and borrowing from China, what will it prove?
I have difficulty understanding why we are in such a rush to go to the moon. Just a few years ago we wanted to do useful work on the ISS. Now we are on the verge of abandoning it. Are we just bored? If we go to the moon by borrowing $100B from China, what will it prove?
It remains difficult to understand Bush’s rtionale of abandoning Shuttle and ISS in order to go to the moon with another crash program. Both shuttle and ISS were planned to continue at least until 2020.
Did you miss that little incident on February 1st, 2003?
Now it would be difficult to extend the Shuttle Program because so many spare parts contracts were cut off four years ago.
No matter how many “spare parts contracts” remained, the notion of flying a three-orbiter fleet through 2020 was recognized by everyone to be a dubious plan, not just “Bush.”
[…] that the president announce a NASA administrator as soon as possible. The letter appears similar to the one Congressman Bill Posey sent last week; Posey is also a member of the NASA House Action […]
I’m still disheartened by how the NASA program is currently being treated, and this makes it even worse. I’m hoping that the cuts that are being pushed on them will be reworked into something that isn’t so restraining and won’t destroy their entire plan for the next decade.