The director of the Planetary Society says the space agency is robbing science missions and manned exploration.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) fared better than many other government agencies in President Bush's budget request for 2007, which was released on February 6. The administration requested $16.8 billion for NASA, a 3.2 percent increase over its 2006 funding (not counting emergency funding in 2006 for Hurricane Katrina recovery). After accounting for inflation, that amounts to an essentially flat budget for NASA.
But the administration's view of how NASA should spend the money has irked many proponents of the scientific exploration of space. The president's budget includes just under $4 billion for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, mostly for the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), an Apollo-like capsule slated to replace the shuttle for manned spaceflight by 2014.
That spending is needed to keep NASA on track with President Bush's 2004 Vision for Space Exploration, which proposes sending humans back to the moon and eventually Mars. But to keep operating the three remaining space shuttles and finish building the International Space Station, NASA will take away $1 billion previously promised for CEV development and $1.5 billion promised for space science.
Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society in Pasadena, CA, says he's troubled by the budget's emphasis on the space shuttles -- which he believes should be retired immediately in favor of accelerated development of the CEV and the accompanying Heavy Launch Vehicle (HLV).
Friedman, who cofounded the Planetary Society in 1980 with Carl Sagan and space scientist Bruce Murray, argues that continuing to prop up the aging space shuttle fleet will derail both the moon and Mars missions and important science projects. Technology Review's Wade Roush interviewed Friedman on February 6.
Technology Review: When the Bush administration's budget numbers for NASA came out today, and the agency said it would have to cut science programs, what was your first reaction?
Louis Friedman: I don't think we were shocked. But, to be honest, the news is worse than we expected. It is such a complete attack on science, it's just starting to sink in. NASA freely says science has been the crown jewel of agency -- and then they say 'We have to excise it.' It's just bizarre.
During the old days at NASA, the saying was that you reward failure and you punish success. This seems to be that again: take the successful part of the program and cut it back. We support fully the Vision for Space Exploration and the reform in the program to build the new vehicles -- but this is not what the new budget does. It basically returns to the old vision, by making a new investment in the shuttle.
Guest (WhyCan'tWePayForEverything)
President Kennedy was a wonderful visionary. But he didn't envision 9/11, Katrina and Rita, the high cost of social services, etc. Current leadership is holding the bag for that and I think it shows tunnel vision not to recognize that you can't dine on caviar when you have a hot dog budget.
Guest (WhyWeCan'tPayForEverything)
We're not on a hot dog budget, there's plenty of money for tax cuts and the War Not On Terror But On Iraq.
Bush's bulging deficits | Economist.com : POLITICAL speech is always full of slippery locutions, but George Bush's state-of-the-union address last week may have set a new standard for involuted meaning when he urged Congress to “act responsibly, and make the tax cuts permanent”. At that time, the official White House projection of the budget deficit for the 2006 fiscal year was $341 billion, a substantial portion of which could have been erased by rolling back the tax cuts so dear to Mr Bush’s heart.
Guest (Chuck)
The "...and do the other things..." part of Kennedy's speech wasn't referring to space exploration. The "other things" were climbing the highest mountains, flying the Atlantic, and, Rice playing Texas, that he had just listed prior to the quote.
Guest (Dan)
NASA evolved from NACA. The intent of the current agency should be that of its predecessor, MANNED terrestrial and space. All other missions not supporting manned flight should be funded under the NSF, NOAA etc. Only robotic missions that support manned space exploration should be run by NASA. Why should NASA pay for satellites that monitor the rainforests and the hole in the ozone over Antartica. Why doesn't NOAA own these? If someone wants to design only robotic space probes then go to the NSF and get the funds. BTW, NSF got a 7.9% boost in budget according to press.
Guest (In The Trenches)
If Shuttle and Space Station are that important, the President should give permission for NASA to sell the assets and their operations to the highest bidder. I;m sure some nation somewher would love to leapfrog into the space era by purchasing and refurbing the assets. NASA can then use the money to move on - whatever that means in the policy-reversal world they are victims of.
NASA has suffered so badly at the hands of so many uninformed adminnistration officials that it has developed Helsinki syndrome at its top levels.
The robotic and Class-M planet investigations are needed for one very political reason - energy will be the engine for the maintenance of civilization and the destabilization of geo-political assumptions for a long time. NASA needs to help the US find energy sources on other planets.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Andromeda)
NASA and the future
After all the great successes with Cassini/Huygens and the mars rovers it is very disappointing to read things like "job protection" and others. It seems like there are many people there for very long who are only waiting to retire without any vision for the time after. I am afraid the US in general is loosing momentum and visions that made them the #1 super power. I have the feeling the money is not wisely spent within NASA, there are no ideas how to raise money (e.g. from private persons as the very lucrative private flights of civilians in Russian spacecrafts).
Missions to Europa and the TPF are absolute challenges and will need a lot of outstanding engineering but (hopefully or unfortunately) we may have to wait for Japan or China to step in here.
Hoping for better news ...
Somebody out of Austria.
Reply
Guest (Erik )
Space now feeling the pain
Well, look at it this way, those of us on the Aeronautics side... you know the FIRST "A" in NASA, the one that get's forgotten, have been dealing with much worse budget situations for the last DECADE. Space, if you will pardon the pun, sucks up all the budget. Meanwile, our Aeronautics sector withers on the vine losing out to foreign competitors who see Aeronautics as something worthwile. Too bad, the US used to be the premier nation in Aeronautics.
Reply