Space Politics

House Appropriations hearing today

By Jeff Foust on 2007 July 12 at 7:51 am ET

The full House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to meet today to markup the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill that the CJS subcommittee approved last month. The subcommittee version gave NASA about $300 million more than what the White House requested, more than what Senate appropriators approved at the end of June. The hearing will begin at 10 am and will be webcast.

Bush: “NASA needed to become relevant”

By Jeff Foust on 2007 July 10 at 7:51 pm ET

Many space advocates often complain that President Bush says little about NASA, being rather quiet about the space agency in the three and a half years since the unveiling of the Vision for Space Exploration. Well, today they got their wish: Bush answered a question about NASA during a town hall meeting in Cleveland. Here’s the question and answer from the official White House transcript (scroll down about half way to get to the relevant passage). It’s not exactly the most, umm, articulate response:

Q Mr. President, like this world-class health care institution [Bush visited the Cleveland Clinic before the town hall meeting], NASA Glenn is one of the crown jewels, along with the talented people there, in our new economy crown. As you know, we recently won the crew exploration vehicle contract. We’re very happy about that. Given all the competing demands for resources in Washington, what kind of funding do you see for NASA and its mission going forward?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That’s an awkward question to ask a Texan. (Laughter.) I think that NASA needed to become relevant in order to be — to justify the spending of your money, and therefore, I helped changed the mission from one of orbiting in a space shuttle — in a space station to one of becoming a different kind of group of explorers. And therefore, we set a new mission, which is to go to the moon and set up a launching there from which to further explore space.

Notice the President’s distillation of the Vision: “go to the moon and set up a launching there from which to further explore space.” It plays up one aspect of the original speech about the Vision—establishing a base there to serve as a site (or, in the President’s terminology, “a launching”) from which to stage missions elsewhere in the solar system—that was criticized by some people who otherwise supported the Vision, seeing such a use as ineffective or infeasible.

But wait, there’s more:

And the reason I did that is, I do want to make sure the American people stay involved with — or understand the relevance of this exploration. I’m a big — I support exploration, whether it be the exploration of new medicine — that would be like NIH grants — the exploration of space through NASA. I can’t give you the exact level of funding.

So much for a direct answer to the question. And finally:

I would argue with you that we got a lot of money in Washington — not argue, I’ll just tell you, we got a lot of money in Washington. (Laughter.) And we need to make sure we set priorities with that money. One of the problems we have in Washington is that unlike the books I saw at the hospital — of which, you’re on the board — that said “results”, we’re not very good about measuring results when we spend your money. A lot of time the program sound nice; a lot of time the results don’t match the intentions.

So one of the things I’ve tried to do through the OMB is to be results-oriented, and when programs don’t meet results, we try to eliminate them. And that’s hard to do. Isn’t it, Steve? Yes. But, no — I believe in exploration, space exploration. And we changed the mission to make it relevant. Thanks.

President Bush’s comments do suggest an interesting exercise: 42 months into the Vision for Space Exploration, how would you judge the “results” so far?

Edwards’ space policy platitudes

By Jeff Foust on 2007 July 9 at 1:23 pm ET

The blog “A Blog Around The Clock” (part of the Scienceblogs.com network) has an exclusive interview with Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards about science policy issues. One question is devoted to every’s favorite space agency:

3. If elected President, how would you balance the scientific research at NASA with the manned spaceflight program which, arguably, has dubious scientific value?

I am a strong supporter of our space program. It reflects the best of the American spirit of optimism, discovery and progress.

We need a balanced space and aeronautics program. We need to support solar system exploration as an important goal for our human and robotic programs, but only as one goal among several. And we need to invite other countries to share in a meaningful way in both the adventure and the cost of space exploration.

Not surprisingly, there’s nothing particularly detailed or profound in Edwards’ comments. His comments about the need for a “balanced” program echo those reportedly discussed at a Hillary Clinton event in DC last month. The comments about the “need to invite other countries” to participate is a little odd, since NASA is doing that already as part of the Vision for Space Exploration: is he seeking something more than what NASA is doing, or is he just unaware of those plans?

Other reactions?

Griffin on funding advanced technology work

By Jeff Foust on 2007 July 7 at 9:15 am ET

The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) formally announced in the last week that it will be shutting down at the end of August. That decision has been criticized by some as evidence that NASA is not being sufficiently forward thinking, devoting too much attention to near-term projects. NASA administrator Mike Griffin addressed that issue during a Q&A session after a speech he gave Friday at the Heinlein Centennial in Kansas City. First, he noted this nearsightedness is not limited to NASA alone:

Right now, nowhere in the country is there, to the best of my knowledge, a significant push in any agency or department of the federal government for advanced technology R&D in any field. I think that’s regrettable, but it is so. We consistently have advanced technology money—I won’t say cut from our budget, since our budget is going up. But Congressional preferences and, frankly, even administration preferences over the last several administrations have been to focus on current missions and current capabilities rather than setting aside money for technology development.

He added that it is “simply a fact” that NASA has been authorized to do more than it has been given funding to accomplish. “So I have to pay attention to nearer-term commitments, like it or not—many people don’t, I mean, many do not—but I have to pay attention to nearer-term commitments that have been specifically called out in our authorizing and appropriating legislation, such as finish the space station and so a certain array of science missions and so on and so forth.”

However, it seemed from his comments that he would like to spend more money on advanced technology work, if sufficient funding was there. Back in the 1960s, he said, NASA spent about 6% of its budget on space and communications technology development and another 6% on aeronautics technology work. “We’re spending today about 3.1 or 3.2 percent on technology, most of that in aeronautics,” he said. “I will spend the rest of my life reminding people that NASA doesn’t get to pick its agenda.”

The latest on Columbia memorial efforts

By Jeff Foust on 2007 July 5 at 7:12 am ET

Today’s Houston Chronicle has an article about efforts to develop a national memorial to the shuttle Columbia accident in east Texas. There are local memorials in several communities that were in the debris footprint or otherwise involved in the recovery work, but there is no federally-funded, centralized memorial to the accident yet. Previous efforts for a study regarding such a memorial have failed in Congress. The latest effort is HR 807, a bill that authorizes the Interior Department to perform a study on the best location for such a memorial, specifically mentioning four locations but allowing other sites to be considered as well. That bill passed the House on a voice vote in March, but has yet to be taken up by the Senate.

Strange acquaintances, stranger arguments

By Jeff Foust on 2007 July 3 at 5:36 pm ET

Who would have thought that Mel Martinez, the Republican Senator from Florida, once coached baseball with anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-space-weaponization activist Bruce Gagnon? Well, that’s what Gagnon claims in an essay today on OpEdNews.com: “We coached our sons baseball team together back in the early 1990’s in Orlando. I got hit in a car crash once and he was my lawyer.”

Besides the odd connection, what does this have to do about space? Well, Gagnon says the two will “get to play hardball once again” because of Martinez’s recent pledge to minimize the Shuttle-Orion gap. Gagnon claims that he really understands what’s behind NASA’s plans to return to the Moon. And that’s where things start to get strange.

“The Moon base the U.S. wants to establish is really about two basic things,” he writes. “One is the establishment of mining colonies on the Moon to extract helium-3, a precious resource that could be used for fusion power here on Earth.” Not an uncommon argument, nevermind that helium-3 reactors don’t exist and likely won’t for decades. That other reason? “But in order to make the Moon mining program possible, new launch capabilities must be developed to lift the heavy payloads necessary to build the Moon bases and return the mined resources back to Earth. This is where the nuclear rocket comes in.” Ah, yes, nuclear rockets.

What other insights does Gagnon provide in his essay? Here are some direct quotes:

“Nuclear powered mining colonies are also on the drawing board.” [This is starting to sound like the setup for the movie Outland]
“NASA is working to create mining colonies on Mars as well.” [Good, don’t want the Mars Society to feel left out.]
“The Army has had plans since the early 1950’s to set up military bases on the Moon.” [Well, had plans in the 1950s, but not now.]
“So military bases on the Moon play a key role in the space ‘control and domination’ program outlined in the U.S. Space Command’s 1997 document called Vision for 2020. It’s hardly a coincidence that the NASA goal for establishing manned bases on the Moon is set for 2020.” [But then again, maybe it is.]
“Scientists have long known that there exists an Earth-Moon gravity well.” [Newton would be proud.]
“The space industry has declared war on the poor and the working class. Which will it be folks? Social progress or bases on the Moon?” [Let me get back to you on that one.]

Somehow I don’t think Sen. Martinez has to worry too much about “hardball” from Gagnon: all he’s tossing are slow, erratic knuckleballs.

Groups still pushing for big NASA budget increase

By Jeff Foust on 2007 June 29 at 8:07 am ET

Even though House and Senate appropriators are moving ahead with bills that provide modest funding increases for NASA, some organizations are still pressing Congress for a much larger budget increase. Yesterday a group of organizations led by the AIAA formally asked Congress to increase NASA’s budget by $1.4 billion, about five to ten times the increase that currently exists in the two versions of the appropriations bill. That increase would bring NASA up to its authorized level, and would mitigate the current problem of NASA “being asked to accomplish too much with too little.” The organizations also play the education and competitiveness card, citing “a shrinking workforce in the science and engineering disciplines, and a calamitous decrease in the number of students choosing to carry on this commitment in the future.” (The House letter and Senate letter are posted on the AIAA public policy web site.)

Full committee approves NASA budget bill; still no miracle

By Jeff Foust on 2007 June 28 at 8:25 pm ET

The full Senate Appropriations Committee today approved an appropriations bill that includes $17.45 billion for NASA. The press release doesn’t offer many details about the NASA portion of the bill, although at first glance it appears that the committee made few, if any, major changes to what the subcommittee approved on Tuesday. Space News reports that Sen. Barbara Mikulski proposed, and then withdrew, an amendment for a $1-billion increase for NASA as Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), chairman of the full committee, objected (as expected, since the amendment would have exceeded the spending limits agreed by appropriators earlier this year). Byrd suggested that Mikulski instead offer the amendment when the full Senate takes up the bill.

Mars Society continues its counterattack

By Jeff Foust on 2007 June 28 at 12:41 pm ET

As you may recall, last week The Mars Society went to battle stations in response to a provision in a House appropriations bill that would prevent NASA from spending any money on programs directly associated with the human exploration of Mars. In a less hyperbolic followup this week, the organization reports that its members have sent “almost 400″ faxes and made “numerous” phone calls to members of Congress asking them to remove that provision in the bill. The Mars Society’s goal is 1,000 faxes in the next couple of weeks, around the time the full House Appropriations Committee is expected to take up the spending bill.

Senate boosts NASA funding, but no miracle yet

By Jeff Foust on 2007 June 26 at 8:39 pm ET

The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up an FY208 appropriations bill this afternoon that includes $17.45 billion for NASA, according to Space News (subscription required), about $150 million more than what the administration requested but about $150 million less than what their House counterparts approved earlier this month. Full details about the budget aren’t available yet, but it appears that most of the increase will go to Earth sciences programs, with $130 million increase. Exploration systems, aeronautics, and shuttle and ISS operations are all fully funded, according to both Space News and a press release from subcommittee chair Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).

The full Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the funding bill this Thursday. It’s not clear yet whether Mikulski will use that hearing as the opportunity to introduce an amendment to add $1 billion to the NASA budget, similar to the “Mikulski miracle” maneuver last year. She told Space News that she is looking at “what are our best options” fur such an effort, which could come later in the appropriations process.

One little item in the budget with some significance for exploration plans: Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said in a press release that he has added money for a robotic lunar lander mission to the budget. The funding bill includes $48.7 million for a “Lunar Lander” mission plus $20 million for the lunar robotics program office at NASA Marshall, which Shelby fought to keep open earlier this year. The Shelby press release also points out funding he won for a number of other, smaller programs, like an “Advanced Space Propulsion Material Research and Technology Center”, “Composite Material Research for Space Exploration” (for the “Marshal [sic] Space Flight Center”), and “Radially Segmented Launch Vehicle (RSLV) LOX/Methane Technology Maturation”, among others.