Congress, NASA, Pentagon

Briefs: Air Force shuttle funding request, upcoming hearing

People in both Ohio and Florida are abuzz over an item tucked away deep in the Air Force’s budget request for FY12. On page 599 (PDF page 604) of operations and maintenance budget document the Air Force requests $14 million to transport a space shuttle to the National Museum of the Air Force in Dayton, Ohio:

The United States Air Force (USAF) has played a central role in the development of space capabilities that are vital to national security, economic growth, public safety and welfare. As a historic reminder of the USAF contributions in space the USAF has requested an interagency transfer of the Space Shuttle Atlantis to the National Museum of the United States Air Force to be displayed for viewing. One-time funding is provided to pay (NASA) for preparation and delivery of Space Shuttle Atlantis to the National Museum of the Air Force.

That line item in the Air Force budget “suggests that the White House and the Air Force favor the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force as a final destination for Atlantis,” the Dayton Daily News reports. The article adds that NASA administrator Charles Bolden was not aware of the request, though, and that no decision on the disposition of the shuttle orbiters would be made until at least April.

Yesterday, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), ranking member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, issued a statement on the administration’s 2012 budget request. Only one sentence of the statement is partially devoted to NASA and NOAA: “The President’s budget request also provides needed funding for NOAA, NASA, and FAA.” The leadership of the committee has not issued a statement on the budget request, but the committee is holding a hearing on the overall federal R&D budget request Thursday at 10 am, with OSTP director John Holdren the sole scheduled witness.

21 comments to Briefs: Air Force shuttle funding request, upcoming hearing

  • MrEarl

    While Atlantis was originaly desigated as the primary orbitor for the Air Force, Dayton has no connection to shuttles at all and is not a destination that will allow for a great deal of public access.

    The best places should be, The Smithsonian, KSC and the west coast for the opreational orbitors and JSC for Enterprise.

  • byeman

    “While Atlantis was originaly desigated as the primary orbitor for the Air Force, ”

    There was no such designation

  • byeman

    Dayton has just as much connection to the orbiters as the Smithsonian. It is a site of a major US aerospace museum. I might not agree that the USAF gets one but get your facts straight.

  • MrEarl

    byman, your the one who does not have their facts straight. Look it up.

    As for the Smithsonium over Dayton,please. The Smithsonium is the “Nations Atic”. Dayton is a relativly forgoten Air Force Museum.

  • To me, the shuttles should go to places where there is maximum access to the public. Unfortunately politics gets involved in selecting the choices.

    Too bad.

  • Rhyolite

    What are the four (including Enterprise) most visited aerospace museums in the world? That’s where the shuttles should go. Without a doubt, the Smithsonian is number one. Does anyone know what the next three on the list are?

  • byeman

    McEarl,

    Know what you are talking about before posting and read more carefully.
    1. I never said anything about Dayton over the Smithsonian.
    2. Only one who is clueless about aircraft and spaceflight would think the USAF Museum is forgotten.
    3. Dayton is mid America and more accessible than coastal locations.
    4. Know the charter of each museum, the Smithsonian does not have the right to every aircraft or spacecraft this nation produces.
    5. Nation’s Attic is a marketing term and not a right

  • DCSCA

    @byeman wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
    Hmmm. Can’t imagine WHY a United States Air Force museum- a museum of a branch of the DoD no less- would have any interest in obtaining/displaying a spacecraft plastered with NASA meatball logos- logos from the civilian space agency no less- especially as you’ve repeatedly stated the DoD has nothing to do w/NASA. Oops– you’re error, again.

    @MrEarl wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
    Consider the source. Byeman repeatedly states the DoD has had nothing to do w/NASA. Little wonder the agency is ‘foundering in the backwash’ of the Age of Austerity.

  • spacermase

    DCSCA-

    You keep maintaining that NASA should be folded in with the DoD, but were that to happen, what exactly would NASA do? NASA hasn’t flown a DoD mission since 1992, and there isn’t really a military need for human spaceflight currently. I certainly can’t imagine the Pentagon would be particularly willing to shoulder the cost of the ISS, especially if we are in the “Age of Austerity” as you are so fond of reminding us, much less engage in any BEO flight.

    Seriously, what would be NASA’s function as DoD sub-department?

  • James T

    spacermase wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    “Seriously, what would be NASA’s function as DoD sub-department?”

    it wouldn’t have a function, which is exactly what DCSCA wants.

  • Byeman

    DCSCA, you are so clueless and wrong

    Museums are about the past and not the present or future. Yes, in the past both for NASA and the shuttle program, the DOD had a part in it.
    But it is not not the same now. The DOD has very little to do with NASA no days. Know something before posting.

  • DCSCA

    @Byeman wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
    Stop embarassing yourself.

    @spacermase wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
    “and there isn’t really a military need for human spaceflight currently.”

    Who says, you? What makes you think it isn’t already in work, unbeknownst to you? Certainly the MOL project indicated a desire by DoD to press for HSF capabilities even as Apollo was surging forward– and, of course, Vandenberg AFB had a shuttle launch facility near completion by the mid-80s. So its never been an area void of interest in the DoD. Under DoD guidence (and disciplines) NASA would ‘do’ as it’s told and most likely flourish– particularly after overlapping or parellel research is transfered to university consortiums, appropriate agencies such as FAA, NOAA, etc. And how is ‘mission’ is labeled is pretty much a matter of semantics. Of course, if you know the history of missile and space project development in the U.S., it was pretty much couched within the DoD services (Army, Navy, NRL and AF for high altitude research flight test) until the politics of the moment forced Eisenhower into the creation of NASA to begin with- as a civilian alternative to military space projects at that point in the Cold War. But its mission ended when the Cold War came to a close 20 years ago and really, since Apollo, it’s been floundering around for a new ‘mission’ ever since. ‘Mision to Planet Earth’ being the most pathetic. Since shuttle was designed as a DoD carrier to begin with, all the ‘missions’ could be labeled DoD missions– certainly they were crewed by military personnel. The Soviets saw shuttle as a military asset from the get go through SDI research flights as well. ‘National security’ casts a wide umbrella– often with accompanying shadow as well. Nation-building wasn’t a function of the DoD either- that was a function of State at one time- even when DoD once was just the ‘War Department’ at one time either. Nor is ‘peace-keeping.’ LOL The objective is to maintain some kind of steady funding for NASA through the Age of Austerity for mid and long term projects. Chances are if it was under the DoD umbrella now, Weiner couldn’t rob it to fund polics programs more properly funded throguh city and state revenue sources in NY. As it sets now, NASA is doomed by every vote to get robbed of funding for other discretionary programs. It’s propped up as a Cold War relic, ripe for the picking.

    @ James T wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
    Seriously, wake up and smell the java. Weiner is just the first of many to understand and realize this agency as it stands today is ripe for raiding to save domestic programs under attack.

  • byeman

    “Stop embarassing yourself. ”
    Look in a mirror.

    You are talking history. None of that is applicable today.

  • spacermase

    @DCSCA,

    Dude, MOL was cancelled because unmanned NRO spysats made it obsolete, and furthermore, the lackluster record of Almaz proved that was a good idea. Unmanned ELVS have launched every single major DoD sat since 1992. There has not been a military shuttle crew since then.

    Face it, there is no need for military HSF. It’s cheaper and more effective to use unmanned platforms. The U.S. Air Force is not going to suddenly decide they need manned capability, no matter how hard you wish.

  • DCSCA

    spacermase wrote @ February 17th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
    “Dude” .. we know this and why MOL was cancelled but it not because the USAF didn’t want the MOL. Good Lord, old news, try and keep up.

  • spacermase

    @DCSCA

    And what exactly would prevent a similarly fiscally-minded DefSec from cancelling HSF again if it were moved to DoD?

    You seem to have this illusion that military programs never get cut. They do. Admittedly, rarely, but they do. Particularly ones where there is very little justification for direct military application (like HSF).

  • Frank Glover

    @spacermase wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
    “and there isn’t really a military need for human spaceflight currently.”

    “Who says, you? What makes you think it isn’t already in work, unbeknownst to you?”

    That’s like proving a negative. An infinity of things MIGHT be going on somewhere that any of us aren’t privy to. (Area 51, anyone?) We can speculate, or we can apply the ‘Missouri Standard.’

    ” Certainly the MOL project indicated a desire by DoD to press for HSF capabilities even as Apollo was surging forward– and, of course, Vandenberg AFB had a shuttle launch facility near completion by the mid-80s. So its never been an area void of interest in the DoD.”

    Okay, so…where is it? None of what you just mentioned ever went on to operational status. Looks to me as if the DoD didn’t want it *enough.*

    Given lower-cost human access to LEO, maybe a better argument for military manned space can be made. If it’s possible for NASA to develop that low-cost access, well…where is it? Where’s it been, up till now?

    They’ve had plenty of time to do it as a separate agency, why would it now somehow happen if the agency was within DoD?

  • DCSCA

    spacermase wrote @ February 17th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
    Uh, you seem to have the belief that it does- and it is seldom done, and if something is killed, it tends to live again, particularly if ‘national security’ is tagged to it. For goodness sake, the interstate highway system was funded under the auspices of the DoD as an element of national security. Point is, HSF has a better chance of surviving under DoD than it does now.

  • Florida Today reports:

    The Boeing Co. is donating $5 million to an Air Force museum in Ohio that a senator hopes will help it acquire one of NASA’s retired shuttle orbiters.

    Boeing’s contribution, with three installments, had been planned before the release of President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget.

    I have to wonder if this is the Obama administration’s pandering to Rep. Boehner (Porker-OH) in exchange for certain things the President wants. Boeing certainly knows where to invest their bribes.

  • byeman

    “HSF has a better chance of surviving under DoD than it does now.”

    There is no proof or logic to this assertion.

    The DOD is moving away from manned systems (UAV, UCAV, etc)
    The DOD found that manned space missions were unnecessary.
    The DOD would rather fund other projects.

    DCSCA, you are just blowing smoke and stating the same ole inane BS.

    You are showing the signs of insanity, posting the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

  • DCSCA

    byeman wrote @ February 18th, 2011 at 7:46 am
    Stop embarassing yourself. If you’re with NASA now it’s little wonder the space agency is fast becoming irrelevent to the matters of the day facing the nation and an easy place to raid for funding. Get that resume ready and call CalTech.

Leave a Reply to MrEarl Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>