By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 30 at 8:30 pm ET The House Appropriations Committee today approved a joint funding resolution for the remainder of the 2007 fiscal year that does not contain any additional funding for NASA. The plan, announced in December by the incoming chairman of the House and Senate appropriations committees, was to basically extend the continuing resolutions that had been funding much of the federal government since October 1 for the rest of the fiscal year. However, such CRs generally fund agencies at no more than what they received in the previous fiscal year, which for NASA meant a level about a half-billion dollars less than the $16.8 billion the agency had been planning for 2007. There had been talk that there would be opportunities in the joint funding resolution to increase funding for certain areas, but that does not appear to have panned out for NASA, according to the text of the resolution:
Science: $5.251 billion
Aeronautics: $0.890 billion
Exploration Systems: $3.402 billion
Cross-Agency Support Programs: $0.532 billion
Exploration Capabilities: $6.140 billion
Inspector General: $0.032 billion
TOTAL: $16.247 billion
In other words, no budget increase for NASA in 2007. A Space News article (subscription required) notes also that NASA was not given any additional flexibility by appropriators regarding how the agency can spend the money. (A ScienceNOW article does report that the legislation would free up $300 million from the 2006 budget, “giving Administrator Mike Griffin some flexibility to fund efforts such as the shuttle replacement or the upcoming mission to repair the Hubble Space Telescope”.)
The big loser here is exploration, which absorbs nearly all of the half-billion cut NASA is facing. (Science programs get but by about $100 million, and aeronautics actually gets a modest but critical increase.) A NASA spokesman told Space News that the budget could delay the development schedules for the Ares 1 rocket and Orion spacecraft, and could jeopardize the 2014 deadline for bringing them into service that was laid out three years ago when the Bush Administration unveiled the Vision for Space Exploration. The article also reports that “at least 40 lawmakers” had asked appropriators to fund NASA at the requested FY07 level, without success.
The full House is scheduled to vote on the resolution tomorrow, to be followed by the Senate. That will be the last opportunity for NASA to salvage some sort of increase, although since House and Senate appropriators jointed drafted this resolution it likely will be no easier to win additional funding there.
A closing comment from House Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. David Obey in his press release: “I don’t expect people to love this proposal, I don’t love this proposal, and we probably have made some wrong choices.” A lot of people at NASA and in the aerospace industry would agree with that.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 30 at 6:38 am ET Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), speaking yesterday at the Heritage Foundation, criticized the Bush Administration for its “muted response” to the Chinese ASAT test earlier this month. “Key policy makers seem oblivious to the nature and the urgency of the threat,” the AP quoted Kyl as saying. Kyl blamed the response in large part on the “complicated relationship” the US has with China, citing trade and nuclear nonproliferation issues, which “inhibits our government from being as forthright as I think we should be” in criticizing the test.
A Space News article about the speech (subscription required) ended with word that Kyl brought up the specter of export controls in the speech, saying that Congress should hold hearings to determine if the Chinese ASAT test used any US technology. “If further export controls are needed to slow China’s ASAT development, then they should be considered,” he said.
(The speech itself was broadcast on C-SPAN and is available online from this list, although I have not had the opportunity to watch it myself yet.)
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 30 at 6:22 am ET The Office of Special Counsel has issued what the Houston Chronicle calls a “sharp reprimand” to NASA administrator Mike Griffin for appearing to endorse then-Congressman Tom DeLay last year. In a March 2006 keynote speech at the Rotary National Award for Space Achievement event, Griffin said NASA “has had no better friend” than DeLay and that “we need to keep him there”. While Griffin denied that he endorsed the embattled congressman, the OSC decided otherwise, saying that Griffin “really walked up against that line” in making his comments. The text of the OSC’s reprimand letter will not be released; there’s nothing yet about the issue on the OSC web site.
The OSC also concluded that NASA violated regulations during a visit to KSC by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry in July 2004. They did not object a speech about health care, not space policy.) Kerry had long ago been convicted in the court of public opinion about the whole bunnysuit thing.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 29 at 6:43 am ET It’s a bit of a late notice, but for those of you in the DC area who are free at lunch today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) will speak at a Heritage Foundation event titled “Chinese Anti-Satellite Weapons and American National Security”. According to the event announcement:
Experts quoted in the media have suggested that China really wants an international treaty banning space weapons, and that these recent provocations are meant to bring the U.S. to the negotiating table. Join us as Senator Kyl counters these suggestions and argues that China means to challenge American superiority in space, putting our national security at risk.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 29 at 6:40 am ET “Did you do something with your hair? Lose some weight? Get contacts?” Well, I’m glad you noticed*. I did spend some time this weekend performing the first real overhaul of this blog since I started it three years ago. I needed to move the site to a new server (since the deal I had on the original one was expiring), and in the process decided it was time to migrate the site from the old blogging software, Movable Type, to WordPress. And, since I was moving the site and changing software, it was as good as time as any for a new look.
There are still a few tweaks I’ll make to the design in the coming days, as well as fixing a few technical glitches from the transition (for example, the old permalinks won’t work for the time being, although the posts themselves still exist; use the search field to look for a particular post if you need to access it in the interim.) Also, if you subscribe to the site’s RSS feed, use the updated feed URL. In addition, any comments made after Saturday night were unfortunately lost during the transition.
If you have any feedback about the redesign, feel free to email me or leave a comment.
* Actually, I haven’t done anything with my hair, haven’t lost any weight, and still wear glasses. But thanks for asking.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 26 at 7:08 am ET There’s been plenty of discussion of the potential negative effects of the Chinese ASAT test earlier this month, from the debris created by the test imperiling other satellites to the increased threat now faced by US low Earth orbit satellites. But who will benefit? An Aerospace Daily article earlier this week suggests that both missile defense and operationally responsive space (ORS) efforts could win additional support based on the reaction to the test. Jeff Keuter of the Marshall Institute says that space-based missile defenses, which he argues could also be effective against ASATs, could get a, um, “boost” (his words, not mine) from the test. Defensive counterspace—hardening or otherwise protecting satellites from attack—could also win coverts in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.
ORS, with its promised ability to quickly launch new or gapfiller spacecraft in the event of a crisis (like an ASAT attack on existing satellites), could also win new support. That may be critical since there had been rumors in previous months that funding for ORS in FY08 and beyond was jeopardy. Rand Simberg makes a similar argument in a TCS Daily essay, although I would quibble that the issue is not Operationally Responsive Spacelift, as he identifies it, but Operationally Responsive Space. Low-cost rapid launch is a key part of the puzzle, but it is not the only one, and maybe not even the most important one, given issues ranging from satellite buses and payloads to integrating those systems into existing systems to provide the maximum benefit to the warfighter.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 25 at 6:49 am ET Yesterday’s announcement of subcommittee assignments for the House Science and Technology Committee and Senate Commerce Committee is a reminder to look at the status of the key appropriations subcommittees. For the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, its membership is as follows:
Democrats:
Chair: Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
Patrick J. Kennedy (RI)
Chaka Fattah (PA)
C.A “Dutch” Ruppersberger (MD)
Adam Schiff (CA)
Michael Honda (CA)
Rosa L. DeLauro (CT)
David E. Price (NC)
Republicans:
Ranking Member: Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (NJ)
John Abney Culberson (TX)
Harold Rogers (KY)
Tom Latham (IA)
Robert B. Aderholt (AL)
Mollohan, who was the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee in the last Congress, has supported NASA in the past. Culberson, who is from the Houston area, has also been an outspoken advocate for NASA and the VSE. Schiff’s Southern California district, meanwhile, includes JPL.
The equivalent subcommittee on the Senate side (Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee; the web site has not been updated to reflect the 110th Congress) has these members:
Democrats:
Barbara Mikulski (Chairman) (MD)
Daniel Inouye (HI)
Patrick Leahy (VT)
Herb Kohl (WI)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Byron Dorgan (ND)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Jack Reed (RI)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Republicans:
Richard Shelby (Ranking) (AL)
Judd Gregg (NH)
Ted Stevens (AK)
Pete Domenici (NM)
Mitch McConnell (KY)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
Sam Brownback (KS)
Lamar Alexander (TN)
As with some other committees, the chair and ranking member have simply exchanged positions from the previous Congress because of the change in party control.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 25 at 6:46 am ET On the same day that the House Science and Technology Committee announced its committee membership and subcommittee assignments, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, announced its subcommittee structure and leadership assignments. The “Science and Space” subcommittee is now called the “Space, Aeronautics, and Related Sciences” subcommittee (other sciences are covered by the “Science, Technology, and Innovation” subcommittee). The space subcommittee will be chaired by Bill Nelson of Florida with Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas as the ranking minority member, an exchange of roles the two had on the subcommittee in the last Congress. The other members of the subcommittee have not been announced.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 24 at 1:03 pm ET The House Science and Technology Committee today announced its roster of members and subcommittee assignments. As expected, Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will be the chairman of the space and aeronautics committee, with Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) becoming the ranking minority member, flip-flopping the roles the two had in the previous Congress. The rest of the membership of the subcommittee, including a number of familiar names, is as follows:
Democrats:
David Wu (Oregon)
Nick Lampson (Texas)
Steven R. Rothman (New Jersey)
Mike Ross (Arkansas)
Ben Chandler (Kentucky)
Charlie Melancon (Louisiana)
Republicans:
Dana Rohrabacher (California)
Frank D. Lucas (Oklahoma)
Jo Bonner (Alabama)
Tom Feeney (Florida)
Also, at the full committee level, former House Science Committee chairman James Sensenbrenner returns to the committee. He had made a failed bid to become the ranking minority member of the full committee (losing to Ralph Hall of Texas), but will be the ranking Republican on the new Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee.
By Jeff Foust on 2007 January 24 at 6:36 am ET In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush said that next month he will “submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years.” Nevermind, of course, that the five-year goal has little meaning since in two years a new president, doubtless with new budget plans, will be in office. What it does suggest, though, is a further tightening of discretionary spending in the FY08 budget proposal. That could make it even harder for NASA to get much of a budget increase, at a time when it’s more and more difficult for the agency to do everything it’s been tasked to do with its current funding. And even if NASA does buck the trend and get a significant increase, that could make the agency the target of appropriators who want to spend that money on other programs instead. That will make the coming months interesting, but then, when are they not?
|
|
