Underfunded NASA Budget Generates Debate
In this morning’s Argus Liar Leader, on page 6a (sorry, no web links available) there is an undated article apparently syndicated fron Knight-Ridder headlined:
NASA GRUMBLING ABOUT MOON-TO-MARS PLAN. Some follow-up on this article seems to the Chief to indicate a bias (SHOCKING! A BIAS in the MSM!!!???) against manned spaceflight.
Reading the article, with strategic quotes of course, seems to make the point that NASA scientists are upset with the proposed budget, in that it has the manned spaceflight program “gobbling up billions of dollars that could be better used for less expensive projects…”. That is quoting the article by the way, NOT quoting the NASA guys. They go on and detail a bit more about some of the cuts affecting NASA scientific programs, and DO quote NASA’s former head of space science programs.
Being something of a space buff, the Chief was curious about this, and noted the ONLY attribution was a reference to Huntress now being director of the Geophysical Lab of the Carnegie Institution. Googling yeilded the Carnegie hopepage, with a header noting a transcript of Huntress’ testimony before the US House Committee on Science that took place yesterday.
Included in Huntress’s remarks is the following:
I am an advocate for the scientific exploration of spaceâ€â€using both robotic and human elementsâ€â€with the emphasis on scientific exploration. I also believe in the President’s new Space Policy and that the CEV is the right way to start. But this FY07 budget proposes to implement the 2-year old Vision for Space Exploration without sufficient funding, and as a consequence does considerable damage to NASA’s robotic, scientific exploration program. NASA’s plans have been called Apollo on steroids, but the budget provided is Apollo on food stamps.
Hmmmm. He’s not upset about the manned program, rather on underfunding the stated objectives of NASA. The rest of the transcript made some very interesting reading.
It details how that yes, indeed, the NASA unmanned science programs are suffering, but it is NOT attributed to the President’s manned Moon-Mars program stealing the funding – rather it notes that having proposed the program expansion, that the funding has not been provided to meet the demands. Huntress notes, “…the NASA budget ignores both the President’s directive and language in S.R. 2198 authorizing 10% increases in NASA basic research through 2013.”
He concludes his remarks:
The Vision is about robots and humans exploring to find our destiny in the solar system together. Instead of drawing on the strengths of both, this budget pits one vs. the other and undermines the Vision rather than promoting it. It pawns a planetary exploration program that is the envy of the world to pay for a program beset with problems and slated for termination (Chief’s note: continued shuttle support of the International Space Station). The Administrator’s budget message said about the Vision, “we will go as we can afford to pay.†But the only way he can pay is by taking resources from the future of science and robotic exploration. If these annual reductions in NASA’s budget continue, and if NASA continues to drain resources from science and technology, then America can retire as the leading nation in the scientific exploration of space, whether by robots or by humans.
Based on Knight-Ridder’s Robert S. Boyd, it’s the evidently evil manned programs that are the villain of the piece, instead of the President’s stated goals being underfunded by lower level administrative ‘crats.
The only encouragement the Chief has is to recall that Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, et al are proceeding apace with their efforts to begin the privatization of spaceflight…and none too soon!