By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 17 at 6:37 am ET Going through my notes from last week’s address at the National Space Symposium by Rep. Ken Calvert, I picked up a theme that relates to some recent discussions in the comments of previous posts, where some were trying to hang blame on one party or another for NASA’s FY07 funding woes. Calvert noted that one of the House members who voted against the 2005 NASA authorization bill is the current appropriations chairman, David Obey (although Calvert didn’t mention him by name, only by title). “This is a problem as NASA finds itself in a precarious time, trying to ramp up spending to move America beyond low Earth orbit while also meeting the demands of the agency’s diverse portfolio of missions.”
Was Calvert making an attack against the Democratic leadership in the House? No. “There is a dangerous trend of bipartisan nonsupport in funding NASA in Congress,” he said. He mentioned two amendments to the original FY07 appropriations bill on the House floor last summer that would have either prevented NASA from spending any money on Mars exploration efforts, and another that would have transferred NASA funds to other programs. While both amendments were defeated (a moot point, as it turned out, since that appropriations bill was never enacted and replaced with a continuing resolution), “The reality is that members of both parties supported these amendments, and by a large margin.”
That doesn’t bode well for NASA during the FY2008 budget process. “You can bet that NASA will be the target again this year unless we prepare to defend NASA funding against grabs from other areas.”
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 17 at 6:33 am ET Some interesting, if not necessarily surprising, results regarding how the public ranks funding for civil space versus other programs: A Harris Interactive poll released last week asked people which programs they would cut first to reduce federal spending and close the budget deficit. On top, by a wide margin, was “space program”, with 51% of respondents selecting it as a program funding should be cut from. (Respondents were asked to pick two programs.) Space came out well ahead of welfare and defense, which tied for second at 28%. Space was first among Democrats and Independents by large margins, but in a statistical dead heat (44-43%) with welfare among Republicans.
This is not the first time that space has fared poorly in comparison with other federal programs in opinion polls: back in January “space exploration” ranked next to last in a survey of funding priorities by the University of Chicago, beating out only foreign aid. Unfortunately, the poll doesn’t ask respondents what fraction of the federal budget is consumed by each program. I suspect a lot of people would be surprised to find that zeroing out NASA would have only a small effect on the overall budget deficit—although that also says something about the size of the deficit…
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 16 at 6:13 am ET The Huntsville Times reported this weekend that key members of Congress have asked NASA to retain funding for its robotic lunar exploration office, located at MSFC but slated for closure under the agency’s FY07 operating plan. The letter, written by keep appropriations subcommittee chairs Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Rep. Alan Mollohan, and endorsed by Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, directs NASA to retain the $20 million for the Lunar Precursor and Robotics Program office, although it doesn’t specifically indicate that the office should remain at Marshall. NASA wants to close the office as a cost-saving measure, particularly since the agency has decided it doesn’t need (or can’t afford) any follow-ons to the LRO/LCROSS mission in 2008. The same letter also directs NASA to continue work on the Space Interferometry Mission and restore funding for science education and a solar probe mission. (An article in this week’s Space News has more details.)
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 13 at 12:07 pm ET Earlier this week NASA announced that it had extended an existing deal with Roskosmos to provide crew and cargo services to the ISS. The deal runs through 2011, and includes 15 Soyuz seats, 5.1 metric tons of cargo on Progress flights, and 1.4 metric tons of cargo that will be flown in the Russian Docking Cargo Module in 2010.
NASA notes in the press release that, despite the fact that deal runs into 2011, it still plans to use COTS companies “to provide the bulk of cargo transportation needs from 2010 and beyond to the space station.” A few people I talked with this week at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs felt that NASA, at the very least, was sending mixed messages, if not expressing a more overt lack of confidence that such services will be available once the shuttle retires. It’s not clear to me that was NASA’s intent, but by extending the deal into 2011 (rather than terminating it in 2010, perhaps with options for 2011 or beyond) the agency opened the door to such interpretations.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 11 at 9:27 am ET In a speech yesterday at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA), ranking member of the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee said he planned to introduce soon a very interesting piece of legislation. “When I return to Congress after the recess, I will introduce legislation to authorize space advertising for NASA with the goal to bring extra funding for the agency’s prize authority under the current Centennial Challenges program and to raise awareness among private entrepreneurs about the business opportunities in space,” he said. He said he wanted to follow the advertising/sponsorship models used by organizations like the PGA, NPR, and the Smithsonian, all of which were “long-term, dedicated, and tasteful.” The bill would create a commission that would create guidelines for such advertising, with the proceeds going into a trust fund to be used for Centennial Challenges competitions. “As a former businessman, I can easily see how this fund can generate $100 million after it’s up and operating.”
The legislation itself will be introduced some time in the next month or so, Calvert said after his speech. He doesn’t have an co-sponsors for the bill yet, but is looking for some, and plans to talk with Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO), the current chairman of the subcommittee, about the bill soon. It’s a very intriguing idea: it provides some needed funding for an innovative, but not well-funded program, and could also raise the profile of NASA in general among the general public. However, how squeamish will people feel about having private companies “sponsoring”, and their logos clearly visible on, taxpayer-funded missions? How interested will companies be in such sponsorships, knowing that their logo could end up on a rocket that explodes or a satellite that fails? And how will private ventures that may be looking for sponsorships as one source of revenue feel about having to compete with NASA?
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 9 at 8:37 am ET Just a quick note to let you know that I will be on travel all week, so I will be posting here infrequently. I’ll be in Colorado for the National Space Symposium and will try to pass along any items of interest from there as time permits.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 8 at 11:25 am ET Griffin’s interview on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program Sunday covered a lot of familiar ground. There were a few particularly interesting points he raised, though:
Griffin made some of his strongest comments to date about claims by scientists that their funding is being taken away to support exploration and other programs. “I’ve almost gotten to the point where the claim by scientists that their portfolio is being sacrificed to pay for manned spaceflight is— you know, I used to think that it was a legitimate concern, and now I’ve gotten to the point where I think it’s a political tactic.” He says that the budget data doesn’t support that: while 32% of NASA’s current budget is spent on science, in the early 90s, when NASA’s budget was about $20 billion (adjusted for inflation), science programs got 24%; science programs got only 17% of the budget back in the Apollo era. “It’s really hard for me to see anything other than the fact that science has gained enormously at NASA, and, frankly, I think scientists should be grateful rather than complaining.” He added that science would not fall back to the 25-percent levels “in the foreseeable future”.
While Congress has hinted that it would be willing to provide more money should the president request it to accelerate development of the Ares 1 and Orion, Griffin suggested that no such request would be coming in the near term. “We, certainly, in the course of our fiscal year ’09 budget preparation, Deputy Administrator Shana Dale and I will certainly make it clear to our colleagues in the White House what the consequences are of the funding path that we’re on and what would be required to narrow the gap. As to what the decisions will be, I have no idea.”
Regarding the “space summit” that Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) recently proposed, Griffin said that he was unaware of any progress towards holding such a meeting. “US senators, I don’t think, feel the need to include me in their discussions as to whether or not they’re going to have a space summit with the White House.”
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 7 at 9:12 am ET If you have a copy of this week’s print edition of Space News, be sure to read the interview with Congressman Bart Gordon, chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee. Gordon has some interesting comments on the NASA budget and the Vision for Space Exploration.
Regarding the Vision, Gordon states that he supports “the Moon and Mars mission. I think it’ll be good for the country.” However, he’s dismayed that the president hasn’t talked more about it since its introduction over three years ago, saying that the effort will remain in trouble until the president both talks more about it and requests adequate funding to carry it out. Gordon added that his support isn’t widely shared among Democrats, again because of the president’s silence and underfunding. (One wonders, though, whether Democrats would be more willing to support it if the president spent more time talking about it, and thus more clearly was identified with it—especially given current opinions about the president on Capitol Hill these days.)
Gordon warned that, once on the House floor, the NASA budget could be the subject of efforts to transfer or remove funding by some members. “Most of these appropriations bills are done under open rules and there can be a lot of mischief done if the Congress does not have the confidence in NASA’s mission and its priorities.” And what about David Obey, the chairman of the appropriations committee? “He’s a fairly substantial problem for any funding he’s not happy with.”
His own budget priorities center first on trying to increase NASA’s topline number. If that doesn’t work, he said he would support firewalls to protect other programs from the exploration effort. However, he doesn’t believe that NASA should slow down the Ares 1 and Orion programs, and wants to retire the shuttle on schedule, although he said he wouldn’t have a problem if the final shuttle mission slipped into early 2011.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 7 at 8:52 am ET Something to add to your list of activities on Easter Sunday: NASA administrator Mike Griffin will appear on The C-SPAN program “Newsmakers” on Sunday. Also on the show will be two reporters who cover NASA, Brian Berger of Space News and Marc Kaufman of the Washington Post. The show airs at 10 am EDT Sunday; if you’re busy at church or hunting Easter eggs in the morning (or just don’t get up that early), it airs again at 6 pm, and the show is also archived online. In an article filed Thursday after the show’s taping, Berger reports that Griffin defended embattled NASA IG Robert Cobb during the show, saying that “the authority of his office has not been abused and his impartiality as an inspector general, at least to me, is not in question.”
By Jeff Foust on 2007 April 5 at 6:48 am ET The Tallahassee Democrat reports on a meeting that Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani held yesterday with Republican legislators and governor Charlie Crist in Florida. The article states that, after his speech, Giuliani said he “supported continuing to aggressively pursue space exploration”, but the article offers no other details. Instead, the article notes that the former New York City mayor drew parallels between the original space race with the Soviet Union and the need for the US to become energy independent:
Giuliani said the United States should prioritize energy independence much like it did the space race, when Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson fired up the gears of industry and imagination after the Soviet Union beat the U.S. into space.
The result was a bipartisan thrust to the moon that transcended several presidencies and spawned a generation of national pride and scientific spin-offs.
”Politics aside and national interests first. Not only did it help us ultimately win the Cold War, it helped us in countless other ways, in scientific development and products,” Giuliani said.
”We can do the same thing with energy independence. But we’ve got to have a president who knows how to get things done.”
This, of course, means that Giuliani is in lockstep with Al Franken, the comedian running for US Senate in Minnesota as a Democrat: Franken states on his web site, “We need to get serious about renewable energy by funding a real Apollo Program to explore new sources.”
|
|
