By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 8 at 6:28 am ET A couple of officials will be speaking tomorrow on the NASA budget and space policy in Washington. NASA administrator Mike Griffin will be the speaker at a National Space Club luncheon, his first public speech since the budget was released Monday. “[I]t is anticipated that Dr. Griffin’s comments will address this important topic,” the announcement notes. Yeah, probably a safe bet. That lunch will come after a Space Transportation Association breakfast Thursday morning featuring Richard Russell, associate director of OSTP. Russell will be speaking about “Government’s Role in Commercial Space Transportation”, a timely topic since the breakfast will immediately precede the opening of the FAA’s Commercial Space Transportation Conference. If you go to both, keep in mind that it will set you back a combined $135.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 7 at 1:11 pm ET Not surprisingly, the reaction in local media at NASA’s field centers to the proposed FY07 budget fell into two camps. If your center is involved with shuttle, ISS, or the exploration program, you were, if not happy, then at least satisfied. Aeronautics and space science? Not so much.
First, the happy campers:
- NASA’s decision to shift science and exploration funds to support the shuttle is good news for the Kennedy Space Center, Florida Today reports. There is a downside: science cuts will halt work for “dozens of people” at KSC doing research on plant growth for long-duration missions. Still, Orlando’s WESH-TV calls KSC “a big winner” in the budget battle.
- MSFC director Dave King said this was “a good budget for Marshall,” the Huntsville Times notes. While science programs at the center will be cut 10 percent, “this is a very stable budget. We are happy about that,” he said.
- The slate of remaining shuttle flights will be enough to keep the workforce at the Michoud Assembly Facility busy “for several more years,” the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports. The center is also keeping an eye on NASA’s ability to accelerate the development of the CEV, something NASA seemed to put somewhat less an emphasis on in yesterday’s budget briefing. “A faster timeline for developing the vehicles would lessen the chance of layoffs at the plant once shuttle fuel tank production ends,” the article states.
- The budget also serves the Johnson Space Center well, according to KHOU-TV in Houston. But like Michoud, JSC is looking at the timeline for the CEV with some concern “We’d like to accelerate that four-year gap if possible,” said JSC director Michael Coats. “But an awful lot depends on the budget we got or don’t get.”
And now those feeling some pain:
- The San Jose Mercury News notes that NASA Ames is taking it on the chin in several ways: cuts in aeronautics, the review of the SOFIA project (managed at Ames), and a planned 40-percent cut in NASA’s Astrobiology Institute, a virtual entity run at the center. However, the San Francisco Chronicle notes that as many as 300 jobs are being transferred to Ames from other field centers, including KSC, JSC, and MSFC.
- Delays in the SIM and TPF missions will hurt JPL, the AP reports. However, there are no plans to lay off additional employees at the center, which let go of 300 employees last year.
- Langley is facing a $50-million cut in its aeronautics work, the Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot and Hampton Roads Daily Press. But center director Lesa Roe is looking on the bright side: “It’s much higher than what we expected this time last year for ’07.”
- The same attitude is in place at the Dryden Flight Research Center, the Los Angeles Daily News reports, despite aeronautics cuts. No job cuts are foreseen.
- NASA Glenn is looking at the loss of up to 300 jobs by the end of 2007, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Glenn is trying to snag some work associated with the CEV.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 7 at 6:33 am ET A little break from the budget coverage: New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, speaking at the Emerging Issues Forum at North Carolina State University, brought up his state’s plans to build a commercial spaceport for space tourism. “We believe this is an industry of the future and we’re gambling on it,” he said, according to the AP. “We are ready to gamble on the future.” However, it looks like space tourism and affiliated industries still have a bit of a giggle factor:
The space port also would be home to a “rocket racing league” similar to NASCAR, Richardson said, drawing laughs from the crowd.
“Sure, you laugh, but it’s the truth,” Richardson responded.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 7 at 6:25 am ET Like members of Congress, reaction to the FY07 budget submission for NASA is widely varied. A sampling of comments:
- The Coalition for Space Exploration says that because of the FY07 budget proposal, the Vision for Space Exploration “will be able to continue on course with its bold plan of expanding the space frontier.” The group now wants Congress “to strongly consider in its deliberations whether or not spending seven-tenths of 1 percent of the Federal Budget is adequate to properly fund the nation’s most critical goals in spaceflight, science and aeronautics.”
- The Space Foundation (which runs the Coalition for Space Exploration on behalf of the coalition’s member companies) casts a similar vote of confidence in the budget. “The Vision for Space Exploration and the President’s budget proposal have NASA headed in the right direction. This is the right vector, but it is time for more thrust.”
- The Aerospace Industries Association has a mixed reaction, noting that the support for the VSE is offset by cuts in aeronautics. “We are very concerned that the budget would continue a debilitating decline in aeronautics research investment,” AIA president John Douglass said in a statement.
- The Planetary Society is not pleased with the budget’s shift in emphasis away from robotic space exploration in favor of funding for shuttle, station, and manned exploration. Of particular concern is NASA’s decision not to develop a Europa orbiter mission, indefinitely defer (or cancel) Terrestrial Planet Finder, and a three-year delay in the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM). “Using money intended for science programs to fund continued operation of the shuttle is a serious setback to the U.S. space program,” said society president Wes Huntress (a former NASA associate administrator for space science). “NASA is essentially transferring funds from a popular and highly productive program into one scheduled for termination.”
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 6 at 7:32 pm ET If you’re read all the budget information and then said to yourself, “gee, what can I do to convince Congress to support this budget?” (and you happen to be in the Washington DC area and have some free time later this week), you may want to check out the “Space Budget Blitz” being organized by the Space Exploration Alliance (SEA). This appears to be the standard Congressional lobbying effort, with people going to offices to talk to staffers about the importance of supporting the Vision for Space Exploration. In the words of the introductory document:
With tight budgets being the rule after the hurricanes and with the continuing war in Iraq, it is extremely important that we not only tell Congress and the administration that we support human exploration of the Moon and Mars, but that it is vital for our nation to remain the world’s technological and scientific leader. It is also extremely important for national morale and prestige. Although some may argue that those are not good enough reasons to spend the money, they are wrong. Morale and prestige have a dramatic impact the economy and how others view our nation.
The blitz schedule calls for training Wednesday night and meetings on the Hill Thursday and Friday. (Of course, on Thursday there are no fewer than three space-related conferences taking place in downtown DC, as well as a luncheon speech by Mike Griffin, which may dampen turnout.) It’s probably not too late to sign up, though; contact the NSS.
[Speaking of blitzes, I think I have posted more here today than any single day since this blog started over two years ago. Time to call it a night—especially since my day started at 3:30 am and there’s still work to do…]
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 6 at 7:19 pm ET Members of Congress are starting to sound off on the FY07 NASA budget proposal, with a wide range of reactions. At one end of the spectrum is Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who is elated that the budget includes $150 million for a shuttle servicing mission to Hubble. “After years of fighting this battle, I am thrilled to see that President Bush has finally agreed with me that a Hubble servicing mission should be a top priority for America. Hubble is a national asset and a national priority,” she said in a statement.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is also happy, saying “pleased” on two occasions in a press release. “I am pleased the president has recommended a 3.2 percent increase in NASA’s budget over last year, including increased funding for development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle,” she said. “Though the total amount requested is less than the levels authorized by Congress for Fiscal Year 2007, as a whole, the budget request demonstrates significant support for NASA and the Vision for Space Exploration.”
In the House, though, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chairman of the House Science Committee, is far from being thrilled or pleased. “I am greatly concerned about the proposed budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),” he said in a statement. “We have to be sure that we are not demonstrating that science is a ‘crown jewel’ of NASA by seeing how much we can get for it at the pawnshop. I believe the most important planet in the Universe is the one we live on.” Boehlert also said that he was concerned about NASA’s aeronautics budget, which took a big cut in the proposed budget, and added that he “personally do[es] not see any urgency for the CEV to enter service before 2014.”
Boehlert added that the full committee has scheduled a hearing on the NASA budget proposal on February 16, with Mike Griffin testifying.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 6 at 7:09 pm ET NASA held a press conference Monday afternoon to provide more details about the FY07 budget submission, in conjunction with the release of detailed budget documents. (Be warned that the “Full Document” weighs in at 451 pages; it’s going to take some time to digest.)
Arguably the biggest news to come out the press briefing was the announcement by Administrator Griffin that NASA had “solved” the gap in shuttle funding through the final years of the program: the $3-5 billion difference between what had been projected to be the run-out costs of the program and what those costs are turning out to be. In the Q&A session, Griffin said that the shortfall came from cutting “a couple a billion out of science and a billion and a half out of the exploration line”. An NPR reporter (who either had been tipped off about this or who had really done her homework) immediately followed up by noting that at the rollout of the ESAS report last September, Griffin claimed that the exploration plan would not “take one thin dime out of the science program.” Griffin’s straightforward response: “Yup; that’s right. I wish we hadn’t had to do it. I didn’t want to, but that’s what we needed to do.”
Those science cuts will come by delaying some missions (such as the Terrestrial Planet Finder, Space Interferometry Mission, and Solar Dynamics Observatory). NASA has also put SOFIA, an airborne astronomy observatory, “into review”, like what the agency did last year with the Dawn asteroid mission. That’s actually better than what some had expected—SOFIA was rumored to be on the verge of cancellation—but this review may only delay the inevitable.
Another interesting development: NASA is now planning 16 shuttle missions to ISS (plus one to Hubble) before the program ends in 2010, down from the 18+1 previously announced, apparently hoping that commercial and/or international partners can pick up some of the slack transporting cargo to the station, allowing NASA to trim two logistics flights from the schedule.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 6 at 11:59 am ET The President’s FY2007 budget proposal has been officially released, including a six-page discussion of the NASA budget. This document offers only a few details; more information will have to wait until NASA’s budget press conference later today. One detail included in the budget narrative is that the budget “further trims the space nuclear program, which will continue as a research and development effort until its technologies are needed in later years.”
As reported Friday, the top-line figure for NASA is $16.792 billion, compared to $16.274 billion for FY06 (a figure that excludes hurricane supplementals and rescissions). Exploration systems gets the biggest increase, from $3.114 to $3.978 billion, or over 27%. Science gets a modest increase, from $5.254 to $5.330 billion (+1.4%). Space operations (shuttle and ISS) slips about 5%, from $6.578 to $6.234 billion. Aeronautics gets the worst of it, going from $929 to $724 million (-22.1%).
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 6 at 7:11 am ET A Huntsville Times article about today’s release of the President’s FY07 budget proposal includes the following: “This year, the White House budget request is likely to be $439 billion for the Pentagon, about $13 billion for military construction, and about $17.9 billion for the NASA budget, the Associated Press has reported.” As noted as recently as Friday, though, that $17.9 billion is more than a billion dollars too high. It seems that some reporters have confused what Congress authorized for NASA in FY07 with what President has proposed should be appropriated for the agency. It wouldn’t be the first time someone has confused the two.
By Jeff Foust on 2006 February 6 at 6:07 am ET Efforts to win state approval for a New Mexico commercial spaceport took a step forward on Saturday when the state senate approved a measure that allows cities and counties to raise taxes to help pay for the facility. The measure, approved on a 36-2 vote, is intended to cover some of the costs of the spaceport, and is separate from plans by the state to contribute over $100 million towards the spaceport’s construction; state officials expect the local taxes to cover at least $30 million of the eventual $225-million cost. One of the two state senators who voted against the bill, John Grubesic (D-Santa Fe), is opposed to the spaceport in general, calling it “Fantasyland” and “heavy on flash and light on substance.”
|
|
