By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 12 at 7:01 am ET Yesterday morning CSIS hosted a discussion on US-China space cooperation with two members of Congress, Reps. Mark Kirk and Rick Larsen, as the featured speakers. One of the more interesting comments made during the event was by Kirk, as he described how the “three tribes that run Washington”, namely the White House, Senate, and House, view China:
I’d characterize the White House view towards China as nuanced and complex. The Senate’s view towards China is at least multifaceted, with some ups and some downs, and the House view towards China is relentlessly negative and highly misinformed.
How misinformed? Kirk later said:
My take on the House of Representatives right now is that if I said that China had a very active manned space program, that would still be news to a lot of my colleagues.
After the event I asked Congressman Larsen who, along with Kirk, co-chairs the U.S.-China Working Group in the House, what they were doing to try and raise the awareness and opinion of China’s space efforts among his colleagues. He said they have several efforts in progress, including some outreach to the Congressional Space Caucus. Had he seen any signs of progress to date? He said there appears to be some talk in support of a common docking adapter that would allow US and Chinese manned spacecraft to dock in orbit, a proposal that emerged from the trip to China that Kirk, Larsen, and Rep. Tom Feeney made in January.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 12 at 6:26 am ET The commerce, justice, and science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee approved Tuesday legislation that would give NASA $16.757 billion for NASA in FY2007, according to a Space News report (subscription required). (The committee press release about the bill rounded that figure up to $16.8 billion.) That’s $35 million less than what the administration requested; the actual breakout of funding isn’t available, although shuttle, station, and key exploration programs are reportedly fully funded.
That vote, though, is only the prelude to an effort in a full committee hearing Thursday where Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the ranking member of the CJS subcommittee, is expected to introduce a resolution calling for an extra $1 billion for NASA in FY07. Mikulski and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison had previously sought $2 billion for FY07, but instead will ask for $1 billion in extra funding in FY07 and see if the administration will add $1 billion to its FY08 budget proposal; if not, the senators plan to make a similar amendment in next year’s budget cycle. The extra money would be designated an “emergency” to get around budget caps.
There is some lobbying going on for this funding: some professional organizations, like the American Society for Gravitational and Space Biology (ASGSB), are asking their members to contact key senators and ask them to support Mikulski’s amendment. The Planetary Society has a similar request of its members, although their request has not been updated to reflect the July 13 hearing date of the full committee.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 12 at 6:05 am ET President Bush spoke Tuesday morning with the crews of the shuttle and station. NASA, which called the event a “private phone call”, only said that “the president told the astronauts that they represent the best of service and exploration, and he thanked them for the job they are doing.” The White House only offered a photo of event, which for all the world looks like the president making any ordinary phone call. White House officials later told the New York Times that Bush said he had watched part of Monday’s spacewalk by STS-121 astronauts Mike Fossum and Piers Sellers, and invited the shuttle crew to the White House after their mission.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 11 at 5:59 am ET Space Florida, the new state agency designed to unify Florida’s various space-related offices, officially got off the ground Monday. The public-private office, created by the state legislature earlier this year by merging several existing agencies, is focused at the moment on hiring a president, hoping to have a leader selected in the next six weeks. One problem: it’s not clear exactly what the president of Space Florida will exactly do, according to the Tallahassee Democrat: “The board on Monday deferred to the search committee to write a full job description and decide on a salary range and benefits.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 10 at 6:34 am ET In an op-ed piece in Monday’s edition of the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, astronomer and author Adam Frank describes the tug of war going on among various NASA programs for funding. After describing the benefits provided by NASA science programs, Hubble in particular, and the current funding problems for science programs, he concludes, “With this great history behind us and the growing dangers ahead of us, it is time for all to ask with fresh eyes, ‘What is the space program for?'”
One can argue that this question has already been asked and answered by the current administration and Congress, which proposed and endorsed, respectively, the Vision for Space Exploration. That answer gets tweaked though the appropriations process every year as well. It’s not clear what “all of us” should do, assuming that most Americans would even bother to give much thought to the goals of the space agency.
Frank does rightly point out that the Hubble in particular has been both a productive scientific tool as well as one of the key symbols of the space program. Hubble images “have inspired countless kids to go into the sciences at a time when the U.S. faces its stiffest competition ever in the international marketplace of ideas and technology,” he writes. I wouldn’t doubt that such imagery can be inspiring, but I wonder if anyone has ever studied just how influential Hubble imagery has been in encouraging students to pursue science and engineering compared to other aspects of the space program, such as the shuttle and station, as well as external influences, space-related or otherwise. (Left unanswered is how images of things like the Eagle Nebula, Saturn, or the galaxy NGC 4414 would encourage students to pursue studies in biotech, nanotech, or electrical engineering, among other fields.)
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 7 at 7:12 am ET Not surprisingly, Tuesday’s launch of the shuttle Discovery triggered some editorials and columns about the shuttle program and space exploration in general. Some highlights (or lowlights, as the case may be):
USA Today founder Al Neuharth, in his weekly column, still thinks we’re racing the Russians in space because they, historically, have launched more satellites and have racked up more person-days in space than we have: “Not only have we played second fiddle to Russia in recent years, we’re in danger of becoming third-raters in space. China has launched humans and announced that it plans a permanent base on the moon.” His solution: “another Sputnik-like scare to wake us up.” He doesn’t explain, though, why a second “Sputnik-like scare” would work any better over the long run than the first.
The Richmond (Ind.) Palladium-Item isn’t too keen on space exploration in general. “Space travel is inherently dangerous so the question must be asked: Why do we need to return to the moon or explore Mars right now? … Paying for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping those affected by the hurricanes, working to reduce hunger and illiteracy, improving the economy and reducing the national debt seem to be among those mounting and more urgent concerns.”
A similar tack is taken by the British newspaper The Independent, which offers a somewhat contrived question-and-answer column on the topic of manned space exploration. “Man may return to the moon and one day reach Mars. But machines will set the pace – if only for economic reasons.”
A columnist for the Daily Utah Chronicle, the student newspaper of the University of Utah, asks why NASA doesn’t get the attention and credit it deserves for the shuttle and other programs. “The point is that the public only ever hears or cares about the launches that go wrong or are delayed because too many birds were on the tarmac or because the weather forecast called for slight rain.” This is a familiar rant for space activists, who want more attention for NASA’s routine successes. The problem with that, of course, is that when they become routine they’re no longer newsworthy.
If you looked hard enough, though, you could find some unconditional support for NASA, such as in the Lakeland (Fla.) Ledger. Noting that the scheduled July 16 landing of Discovery coincides with the anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, “Thirty-seven years later, Discovery keeps mankind’s giant leap alive.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 7 at 6:49 am ET After the Challenger accident in 1986, the Air Force renamed its classified satellite control center, Sunnyvale Air Force Station (whose main building is known informally as the “Blue Cube”), after Challenger astronaut and Air Force officer Ellison Onizuka. However, in the latest BRAC round the Onizuka Air Force Station was slated for closure by 2011. Now, Congressman Ed Case (D-HI) has petitioned Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne to transfer the Onizuka name to another Air Force facility, perhaps in Onizuka’s home state of Hawaii. “I am sure you would agree that Lt. Col. Onizuka’s legacy should continue after the closure of his current namesake installation, and I ask that you commence consideration of an appropriate replacement,” Case writes in the letter, which primarily summarizes the life of Onizuka and the history of the facility currently named after him. “And I am equally sure that the people of Hawaii would warmly welcome your consideration of an Air Force facility in Hawaii for this high honor.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 5 at 6:41 am ET The Hill, the Capitol Hill newspaper, summarizes a portion of last week’s appropriations floor debate when members introduced amendments to either divert funding from NASA or prevent it from being spent on “a manned mission to Mars”. The post’s title, as well as The Hill headline, comes from a comment by Rep. David Obey:
“Some people attack members of Congress for having Potomac fever,” he said. “I think some members of the House have Mars fever.”
Some of the comments last week about the debate asked why members of Congress like Barney Frank focused on Mars, when sending humans there is only a long-term goal of the program. Frank: “Sending human beings to Mars, in my judgment, is at best a luxury that this country cannot now afford.” One possibility: sending people to Mars sounds just outlandish enough, like something out of science fiction, that opponents of the program can play it up and make it sound like we’re throwing tons of money away on that rather than spending it on down-to-earth (figuratively and literally) healthcare and education (to give two examples specifically noted by Obey.)
What’s interesting is the debate focused on Mars, and not sending people back to the Moon. Perhaps that’s because it involves going back to the Moon, something that sounds a little less incredible since we’re done in the past (unless you’re a conspiracy theorist…)
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 5 at 6:21 am ET CSIS is hosting an event Tuesday, July 11 titled “The U.S., China, and International Cooperation on Space Exploration”. The featured speakers are the co-chairs of US-China Working Group in the House, Congressmen Rick Larsen (D-WA) and Mark Kirk (R-IL). They traveled to China in January, including a making a rare visit to the Jiuquan launch center (a third member of Congress on the tour, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), talked about his trip during a Space Transportation Association breakfast in February.)
By Jeff Foust on 2006 July 4 at 2:17 pm ET There wasn’t too much media reaction to the USA Today/Gallup Poll results on support for NASA and the shuttle program (the document is now behind a subscriber firewall; see this earlier summary of the poll results.) One outlet that did cover it was WILX-TV of Lansing, Michigan, although one might wish they hadn’t, since they didn’t appear to properly interpret the results:
This weekend’s planned shuttle launch comes as a poll shows Americans are split when it comes to whether we’re spending enough — or too much on the space program.
[…]
“To continue to learn more, to continue to advance the frontiers of our nation,” Donald Knox of Lansing said Saturday.
Knox sees the issue as roughly 48 percent Americans do: We should continue spending as much as we do on NASA. The result is part of a Gallup Poll released this week.
“Science research is critical to the success of our nation,” Knox said.
Mary Nisbet represents the other 48 percent.
“The home front is in crisis. Our home front is here on this planet at this moment. That’s where we should be spending our time, money and energy,” Nisbet said Saturday in downtown East Lansing.
People like Nisbet see other ways we could be spending the money. And the spending is significant.
The problem is that while 48 percent of the poll respondents indeed thought that NASA should be funded at its current levels, it doesn’t mean “the other 48 percent” want less spending for NASA: according to the poll results 17 percent wanted more money for NASA, and only 28 percent wanted less money.
WILX-TV might have confused the funding question with the space shuttle question, where 48 percent thought that the shuttle program (not the agency as a whole) was worth the money, while 48 percent thought the money would be better spent in some other way (although whether that money would be spent on other NASA programs, or outside the agency, was never specified.) Such subtleties, it seems, don’t translate well to local television.
|
|
