By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 27 at 8:13 pm ET One of the most common complaints by space advocates is that, in the House and Senate appropriations committees, NASA is placed in the same subcommittee as the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, as well as independent agencies like the NSF and EPA. (Not to mention the American Battle Monuments Commission.) NASA, the argument goes, is then forced to battle veterans programs, low income housing, and the environment to win its funding. There are new signs that this may be changing, but not without a fight.
Continue reading House appropriations subcommittee shakeup?
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 26 at 7:40 am ET One of the primary goals for Sean O’Keefe when he took the reins of NASA a little over three years ago was to reform its finances to restore its credibility with Congress and others. While O’Keefe made considerable progress towards that goal, as he leaves there appears to be considerable work left for his successor. The GAO included NASA’s contract management system in its comprehensive list of “high-risk” government programs. (Turn to page 74 for the discussion about NASA; see also this Orlando Sentinel article.) The GAO notes that the agency has made progress in recent years, but still must do more to fully implement its integrated financial management system, get more information from contractors on the performance on their contacts, and improve cost estimation processes. One thing to keep in mind before putting too much blame on O’Keefe for not fixing all the problems: he had only three years to address a problem the GAO first identified as high risk back in 1990.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 25 at 7:16 pm ET Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-MD), whose district includes NASA Goddard, issued a press release Monday about the possibility of no funding for a Hubble repair mission in the FY06 budget. Hoyer said he was “very concerned” about those reports, adding that “I will fight to ensure that a new servicing mission is adequately funded and supported.” One interesting note: Hoyer said that he “worked to include a provision” in the FY05 omnibus spending bill that provided nearly $300 million for Hubble repair mission efforts “that would prevent the use of these funds to de-orbit Hubble.” Of course, that spending bill also gives NASA considerable flexibility regarding how it will spend its money, and as Space News reported a couple weeks ago, NASA was planning to spend only $175 million on Hubble work in 2005.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 24 at 7:46 am ET Since Friday’s Space News report that NASA will offer no funding for a Hubble robotic repair mission, there have been a few additional reports about the subject, including articles by the Washington Post, New York Times, and Baltimore Sun. These reports don’t offer many new details, instead mainly confirming the original report that, by the time the proposed FY06 budget is released two weeks from today, NASA will announce that it will provide no additional funding for a repair mission. As these articles note, this is a decision likely to raise the ire of astronomers and politicians. Indeed, late Friday Hubble’s most ardent backer, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), issued a very brief press release saying the she will “lead the fight again this year” for a servicing mission. The House Science Committee has also been planning a hearing tentatively scheduled for next week with Louis Lanzerotti, who chaired the National Research Council study that argued for a shuttle servicing mission, among those scheduled to appear. That hearing should be especially interesting…
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 22 at 11:57 am ET The Suborbital Institute is planning a two-day lobbying effort on Capitol Hill on February 8 and 9 (immediately before the FAA/AST Forecast Conference in Washington.) The Usenet message describing the event is scant on details; contact Andrew Case for more information.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 21 at 5:43 pm ET Space News reported Friday afternoon that NASA plans to effectively kill a proposed Hubble robotic mission by not including any funding for it in its proposed FY2006 budget. Instead, NASA plans to request funding to develop a module that can attach to the spacecraft robotically to deorbit the spacecraft at the end of its life. As the article notes, you can be sure this decision will not go over well with many members of Congress, particularly those who opposed NASA’s announcement a year ago to cancel the SM4 shuttle servicing mission…
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 21 at 8:04 am ET A quiet week in space policy, but even during the quietest times you can count in people to say some odd things:
- At a pre-inaugural event in Washington on Tuesday, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) introduced Buzz Aldrin as “as the second man to walk on the moon, following ‘Neil Young,'”, the Washington Post’s lukewarm gossip column reported. Feeney later admitted he made a gaffe, but claimed that, “Some of his [Young’s] later work leads me to believe he spent some time on the moon.” Sure…
- In a syndicated column, Chris Adamo reveals the real cause of the Columbia accident: “the blindness of liberal ideology.” Um, ok…
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 18 at 6:20 am ET Shortly after winning reelection, President Bush said, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” Most of the focus on where he plans to spend that capital has been on issues like Social Security and tax reform. However, in an Orlando Sentinel article Monday Bush indicated that NASA may also get an investment:
“The space vision met some resistance by some, but we got it fully funded,” said Bush, adding that he likes the idea of going back to the moon, using it as a testing ground and then going beyond.
“I spent capital before,” he said. “I’ll spend it again on NASA.”
The article also notes, however, that despite effectively full funding for NASA in FY05, the exploration vision, and the agency in general, still face challenges in Congress. Consider this comment from Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chairman of the House Science Committee:
Voting on the [budget] did not constitute the endorsement of Congress of any single program… What it did reflect is the considerable influence of the majority leader, and it did reflect the interest of the leadership in providing adequate funding for NASA. But it did not constitute an out-and-out endorsement of any one program.
Boehlert added that he “plans to take up formal legislation dealing with” the exploration vision this spring; the article doesn’t mention what this legislation would be, although it sounds like a long-awaited NASA authorization bill.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 15 at 4:15 pm ET How much money will NASA get in the President’s 2006 budget proposal? The original budget plan unveiled with the Vision for Space Exploration a year ago (dubbed the “sand chart”) showed NASA getting roughly five percent budget increases in FY05 and ’06. While NASA got essentially all the money it asked for in ’05, the picture for 2006 has been murkier, in part because of signals from Administration officials that there will be a freeze—if not cuts—on non-defense and non-homeland security programs. (News reports have described the proposed budget as both “tight” and “aggressive”.)
However, outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe told reporters Friday that he believes that the Administration will still give the agency a budget increase for FY06, although the Houston Chronicle reports that O’Keefe didn’t say how big of an increase the agency can expect. The FY06 budget will be released on February 7: O’Keefe said he plans to leave NASA days afterward for his new job as chancellor of LSU.
One other interesting comment: Florida Today noted that O’Keefe said that while President Bush remained quiet about the exploration vision in public in 2004—to avoid politicizing it during the campaign—he personally lobbied members of Congress to gain their support for the plan. O’Keefe: “I’ll take actions over further commentary at any time.” If the budget really is as “tight” and “aggressive” as reported, those actions may well be needed again to convince budget-conscious Congressmen to give NASA another budget increase.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 15 at 3:49 pm ET ProSpace, the citizens’ space policy advocacy group, has announced its plans for this year’s March Storm lobbying effort. The event will take place March 6-9 (Sunday through Wednesday), with training on Sunday and Congressional lobbying on Monday through Wednesday. This year’s theme is “Ready For Liftoff: First, Do No Harm”, and will cover “regulation, prizes, investment incentives and private sector involvement in civic exploration efforts”, according to a ProSpace email on Friday.
|
|
