By Jeff Foust on 2007 February 6 at 5:02 am ET Some more reaction to the proposed FY08 NASA budget, on and off the Hill:
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) says she is “disappointed” that NASA is getting only a 3 percent increase in FY08 over its FY07 proposal while other R&D agencies, like the NSF, are getting much larger increases. “I fought to have NASA included in the American Competitiveness Initiative, but the White House refused. NASA’s work should be the hallmark of any national program to promote America’s competitiveness,” she said. She adds that she plans to introduce a version of the “Mikulski Miracle”—a billion-dollar increase in NASA’s FY07 budget that won approval in the Senate Appropriations Committee but died when the full Senate failed to take up the overall spending bill—either in the FY08 budget or a potential FY07 supplemental spending bill.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who worked with Mikulski on the budget amendment last year, expressed her concern that the planned budget increase in FY08 “could be consumed” by the cut in NASA money in the FY07 joint funding resolution. Hutchison urged the Senate to restore full funding for NASA when it takes up the funding resolution this month.
Those FY07 cuts actually got something of an endorsement from the Space Frontier Foundation, whose leaders were pleased that the cuts were concentrated on the exploration program, an effort that includes “unaffordable and unsustainable boondoggle rocket plans”. “It is time for the agency to re-think how it puts people and payloads into space,” said Bob Werb, chairman of the board of the Foundation. “It is time for the agency to trust the power of free enterprise.” Of particular concern to the organization are NASA plans to fly the Orion spacecraft to the ISS even as private ventures, including some with NASA support, are developing vehicles to carry out the same task. More from Werb: “The Democratic Party appears to understand that the taxpayers of this nation just aren’t interested in supporting what they see as business as usual at NASA. We are hoping that the Republicans join them soon.”
By Jeff Foust on 2007 February 5 at 7:06 pm ET Some quick takes on the proposed FY2008 NASA budget:
House Science and Technology Committee chairman Bart Gordon is critical of the budget, claiming that the administration isn’t offering the agency enough money to carry out all of its missions. “Exploration and human space flight are important long-term missions for the agency and our country. So are NASA’s core activities in science and aeronautics. Yet this budget request and its five-year funding plan do not provide the funding needed to ensure the future health of any of these initiatives. I fear we may be heading for a train wreck if no corrective actions are taken.”
The ranking member of the committee, Rep. Ralph Hall, however, is more welcoming of the budget proposal. “As promised, the President has prioritized funding for NASA, which speaks volumes for his dedication to funding American competitiveness and keeping our nation at the cutting edge of human space flight and exploration.”
The Space Foundation is also unhappy with the proposed level of funding for NASA, saying that it will continue to press for NASA to receive a full one percent of the federal budget (which would be around $29 billion), rather than its current level of 0.6% (0.7% according to the press release.) The Foundation also calls upon the Senate to reverse half-billion cut in NASA’s FY07 budget when it takes up the joint funding resolution some time this week or next. Good luck on both accounts…
SPACE.com has a good summary of the budget proposal and what it means for the agency, including some reaction from NASA officials at the budget briefing this afternoon. On the other extreme, however, is a UPI article with the headline “Bush budgets $6 billion for NASA”. Huh? “U.S. President George W. Bush’s $2.9 trillion fiscal 2008 space and science budget includes more than $6 billion for NASA.” Yes, indeed, the budget includes “more than $6 billion” in FY08 for NASA. And I am more than 12 years old.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 February 5 at 12:27 pm ET Here are the most basic numbers for NASA in the proposed FY2008 budget released this morning by the White House:
Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration: $10.483B
Exploration Capabilities: $6.792B
Office of Inspector General $0.035B
TOTAL: $17.310B
That would be an increase of over one billion dollars compared to what the agency will most likely get for FY07, once Congress finishes work on the joint funding resolution. More details will be released this afternoon by NASA and published on the agency’s web site.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 February 5 at 7:18 am ET Today the Bush Administration will release its proposed FY2008 budget; the overall budget will be out later this morning and NASA will have a briefing at 1 pm EST this afternoon to go over the agency budget in more detail. This. of course, while the agency still doesn’t have an FY2007 budget, although the Senate may vote on the joint funding resolution later this week. In this week’s issue of The Space Review, I note that these budget issues have put some stress on the Vision for Space Exploration, highlighting the contradicting forces of schedule (gotta have Orion by 2014 and be back on the Moon by 2020) and budget (the regular claims of the “go-as-you-pay” nature of the program.) Should the Vision be driven by schedule or budget? As I point out in the article, a lot of the long-term goals and deadlines in the Vision as originally promulgated by President Bush might be moot come 2009.
Meanwhile, one Republican member of Congress is standing up to oppose any additional funding for NASA. Rep. Jean Schmidt told the Cincinnati Enquirer that she believes there should be a greater focus on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security than on NASA:
“If you want to look at one program that could be classified as more discretionary than mandatory, that would be NASA,” said Schmidt, also a Republican. “We really need to look at the activities performed by NASA and ask, ‘Are these the right priorities for our nation at this point?’ “
The opposite viewpoint, however, is expressed in an op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. With tongue somewhat in cheek, Dan Kenitz argues that the relatively small sum spent on NASA is far more effective than the much larger sum spent on social programs. “Unemployment, welfare and health care are fun and beneficial only until the citizen dies, at which point the return-on-investment ratio drops to zero. In contrast, the long-term value of NASA’s discoveries, explorations and technology is incalculable. In fact, to make it simpler to our funny, little Earth minds, the number might as well be infinity.”
Which argument will win out in Congress as it tackles the FY08 budget? Hopefully it won’t take 12 months to find out.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 February 2 at 6:49 pm ET Space News [subscription required] reported this afternoon that the Bush Administration will request $17.3 billion for NASA in its FY2008 budget proposal, scheduled to be released Monday morning. There are no other details about the budget beyond that topline figure in the article. The budget would be about a 3 percent increase over its original FY07 budget proposal, but a much larger increase over what NASA will likely end up with after Congress finishes work on the joint funding resolution.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 February 2 at 6:40 am ET After last month’s Chinese ASAT test, many people speculated that this would put a damper on potential civil space cooperation between the US and China. Those people appear to be right. The Washington Times reports today that the Bush administration has “suspended” any plans for such cooperation. “We believe China’s development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the constructive relationship that our presidents have outlined, including on civil space cooperation,” a NASA spokesman, Jason Sharp, told the Times. Any talks between the US and China were in their earliest stages, highlighted by a trip to China last fall by NASA administrator Mike Griffin that he likened to “a first date”. It looks like it may be a while before he gets a second date.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 February 1 at 7:15 am ET Yesterday the full House, as expected, approved the joint funding resolution that the appropriations committee passed on Tuesday. The vote was not strictly on party lines, with 57 Republicans voting for the resolution while only two Democrats (including Dennis Kucinich) crossing over to oppose it.
The House did not change the NASA funding levels in the bill, leaving the agency about a half-billion short of what the president had requested for 2007. In a press release yesterday, the Coalition for Space Exploration warned that the current budget would deal “a heavy blow” to the Vision for Space Exploration by likely delaying development of the Ares 1 and Orion. The coalition called on the Senate “to take an aggressive stand opposing the House cuts”, noting that last year the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved the so-called “Mikulski Miracle” that would have added a billion dollars on top of the proposed budget.
One member of Congress, Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), sharply criticized what he deemed a partisan cut of NASA’s budget by Democrats. “The raid on NASA’s budget has begun in earnest,” he claimed. “Clearly, the new Democrat [sic] leadership in the House isn’t interested in space exploration. Their omnibus proposal lists hundreds of new increases, including a $1.3 billion increase—over 40%—for a Global AIDS fund, all at the expense of NASA.” How all those things, including that $1.3-billion increase in AIDS programs alone, were funded by cutting NASA’s proposed budget by about $0.5 billion is one of those mysteries of Congressional mathematics, one supposes. Weldon also states that the House’s FY07 budget for NASA is “nearly $400 million less than NASA’s current budget”, apparently referring to the FY06 NASA budget. True, but much of that difference is one-time Katrina relief included in the FY06 budget.
The Planetary Society fears the worst from the budget cuts, with Lou Friedman claiming that “now the whole enterprise seems to be collapsing.” The statement goes on to suggest that “it does seem that the plans to get humans back to the Moon and on to Mars will at the very least be delayed — if not outright lost.” Last month The Planetary Society made a big deal about delivering petitions with over 5,000 signatures to President Bush asking him to restore funding to space science programs in his FY08 budget. Of course, 5,000 signatures isn’t that much.
The most entertaining reaction to the overall joint funding resolution, while not related directly to NASA, belonged to Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), who complained that the resolution contained earmarks, in contradiction to a Democratic pledge not to do so. “It’s a hooker dressed up as a nun,” he said of the bill.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 February 1 at 6:44 am ET The Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that a “slew” of NASA officials went to the Virginia state capital yesterday to lobby the state to better support the aerospace industry in the state. The visitors, who included the directors of NASA Langley and NASA Wallops, didn’t make requests for specific programs in the state, but said that the state needed to do more in areas like education, economic development, and improving broadband Internet access throughout the state. (Noting the presence of the NASA officials, the article noted that “Virginia is the only state with two NASA sites”: technically true if you count California’s JPL, run by Caltech under contract with NASA, as a NASA site, giving the Golden State three.) While this visit was not linked to any specific legislation, the state legislature is considering several bills related to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) located at Wallops.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 31 at 12:59 pm ET A reader was kind enough to send me a comparison between what the House Appropriations Committee approved yesterday for NASA in its joint funding resolution (the official name for the year-long continuing resolution, or CR) and what the administration asked for almost exactly a year ago in its proposed FY2007 budget:
| Area |
Joint Funding Res. |
FY07 Request |
| Science |
$5,251,200,000 |
$5,330,000,000 |
| Aeronautics |
$890,400,000 |
$724,400,000 |
| Exploration |
$3,401,600,000 |
$3,978,300,000 |
| Cross-Agency |
$531,800,000 |
$491,700,000 |
| Exploration Capabilities |
$6,140,000,000 |
$6,234,400,000 |
| Inspector General |
$32,000,000 |
$33,500,000 |
“Exploration Capabilities” is principally shuttle and station. As I noted last night, exploration systems comes out as the biggest loser in this budget, with few immediate prospects for improvement.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 31 at 6:11 am ET Bloomberg published a somewhat cryptic article yesterday citing comments by a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson suggesting that China wants “a new global treaty to govern the use of outer space.” The spokesperson offered no other details other than to say that Chinese representatives would be attending a UN COPUOS subcommittee meeting in Vienna next month.
The official transcript of the briefing doesn’t offer much additional detail, other than the fact that, nearly two weeks after China’s ASAT test was first report, it remains a hot topic for journalists attending the Foreign Ministry’s briefings. Rather than replacing the OST, it’s more likely that the spokesperson was referring to previous efforts by China to back a treaty that would ban space weapons. “China is willing to make efforts with other countries to formulate a binding outer space treaty so as to effectively prevent the weaponization of the outer space,” she said.
Speaking of the OST, the treaty turns 40 this year and its anniversary will be marked by a number of events, including a one-day symposium in early March at that hotbed of space policy debate, the University of Nebraska.
|
|
