Note: As of right now (9:00 p.m. Wednesday night) I am less than 100 votes behind Pharyngula! Let’s get ‘im! And now, on to the regularly scheduled blog:
Senator Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) was the chairman of the House Science Committee before retiring from Congress this year. Before leaving, he wrote a letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) saying NASA funding needs to be increased.
It’s very cool. You should read the whole thing (it’s only one page) but here’s the NASA part:
Last, but not least, NASA needs additional funding if it is to move ahead with both the Vision for Space Exploration and the space science, earth science and aeronautics research required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. There is no reason to launch the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle before 2014, and there is every reason to retire the Space Shuttle in 2010, as planned.
He is definitely right about the funding. I do think there’s a good reason to launch Orion before 2014, though: we’ll have a 4 year gap with no manned access to space. I think that what he may actually mean is that it would be very bad to rush the process. I certainly agree with that!
He continues:
Most important, NASA’s science programs, which are its most successful and beneficial programs, must continue to thrive. The earth science program in particular is in danger of atrophying. At the very, very least, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate must receive at least as much as was projected in the runout in the fiscal 2007 budget. Moreover, the "bread and butter" funding for NASA science, known as Research and Analysis, must be the top priority for funding.
Hurray! He is precisely right in that. However, NASA Administration has been threatening R&A for some time, which is precisely the wrong thing to do (comments made by scientists who took a survey done by the Planetary Science Institute make that clear).
NASA has put a lot of incredibly important work on the chopping block. This is an extraordinarily short-sighted idea. Representative Boehlert nailed it: this is a top priority, and always should be. Always.
NASA Administration needs to understand the balance needed to do exploration and science — and tell me, if you can, the difference between the two. To me, they are two sides of the same coin, and you cannot have one without the other. Yet NASA wants to devastate the latter for the former, which is like the gift of the Magi but with less noble motives. The reason given, of course, is money, but NASA’s funding is very small compared to the budget of any other agency in the government. As Mike Griffin, NASA’s Administrator, himself has pointed out, NASA costs pennies per person per day. And look what it delivers! Search my blog for the word Cassini, or Hubble, or Spitzer and see for yourself.
Pennies per day per person. What we need for NASA is not to decide which vital organ to cut, but how to find those few extra pennies so that we can scientifically explore the Universe, and do it right.
Tip o’ the space helmet to Space Politics for the story on Representative Boehlert.
December 13th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
My thoughts is space exploration for example should be run internationally and to have minumum amount of influence from polticians. Alot of projects have been delayed or completely cut not just space exploration but the collider that was being built in texas. Well if we lived in a perfect world.
December 14th, 2006 at 5:23 am
BA, your question is easy: Exploration is the process of getting there and finding out what to investigate; Science is the investigation when you get there.
Davidlpf, one of the reasons that funding was withdrawn for the SSC (the Superconducting SuperCollider, that was to be built in Orange County, TX) was that the funding for the initial stages of the project was being hideously mismanaged. I read Steven Weinberg’s book Dreams of a Final Theory which puts forth a very good scientific case for building the SSC. Alas, science does not occur in a vacuum, and must compete for funding with activites that have a more tangible return.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:07 am
Sometimes it seems that part of the “problem” is that NASA is trying to do to much.
Could a case be made for actually separating off the non-core NASA science work to other agencies like NOAA etc. This would mean that NASA could concentrate on Space and Aeronautics science.
This way there should be a lot less dislocation and uncertainty about projects as there would be less political(internal) and Political(external) pressure on funding.
December 14th, 2006 at 6:39 am
I always though scientists were really smart, and explorers were really cool but a little less smart. I mean Columbus thought manatees were mermaids. Look, sea cows are cute and all, but I don’t care how long you have been out to sea, they don’t look like hot topless women with fish tails!
If you can’t see the difference BA, you have been looking at the sun for too long…
I would rather see my tax dollars go to NASA than Halliburton any day…
December 14th, 2006 at 7:19 am
In the lead by 20 at 6am
December 14th, 2006 at 7:53 am
It is so refreshing to hear a politician stand up for funding NASA. We need to fund both exploration AND science to get meaningful results. And yes, I can wait for 2014 for Orion to launch IF that means that they don’t hurry the process too much, and instead do it at a reasonable speed.
I think that sometimes what is needed to have NASA properly supported (by both public opinion and politicians) is for those of us who know about NASA’s programs, and science itself, to tell others about all the great benefits to be had. The sad thing is that some people just don’t understand until they get exposed to NASA’s benefits. This can come in many forms such as teaching children about it, having a politician or celebrity talk publicly about NASA’s benefits, or simply having a conversation with a friend or family member about why NASA is important. I myself have talked to my friends and family (especially those who are not really “into” science) about NASA. They now appreciate and cheer on any support for NASA. Also, in talking to the public (especially the children) who come up to our observatory to hear the tour, they really GET it when we take the time to talk about space exploration and doing science up there. Just some thoughts.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:18 am
I too and pleased to see political support for NASA.
I am reminded of reading a high school science book. I believe it said that the two Voyager missions only cost taxpayers 5 cents.
With that in mind, imagine what a few more cents could do in today’s world.
December 14th, 2006 at 8:34 am
I’ve thought for a long time that NASA should use a part of its budget to lobby/pressure/cajole other countries into improving their space programs. Not that I mind the US paying for all the advances, but in all fairness, EVERYONE benefits from NASA research, and other countries should step up a bit more, either by helping NASA financially, or by stepping up their own space programs.
Canada is among the best (worst?) candidates. Canada has a space program but it is chronically underfunded… it’s the red-headed stepchild of government funding. Yet, Canada benefits greatly from satellite technology and the advancing knowledge that comes from space exploration. Sure, from time to time Canada puts together a robotic arm, pays someone to launch a satellite, or begs shuttle time from the USA, but it COULD put things into orbit on its own or explore space on its own or contribute a lot more to NASA.
And yes, I’m Canadian, dissing my own country’s half-hearted space program.
December 14th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Well there’s been talk of adding a rocket launch site in Nova Scotia (recently). Unfortunately our climate isn’t as stable for that sort of thing which I think is why we focus on satellite technology, which I do believe we’re fairly good at. Of course there’s the Canadarm (and the space station version which is a pretty cool bit of technology). We have Canadians working in the US, for NASA (so we’re importing our knowledge and skills to NASA directly). Oh sure, we could do more, but given our human resources compared with the US, and the fact that we already do work on many projects for satellites, what would you suggest?
December 14th, 2006 at 9:58 am
[as of just now 2006.12.14 16:49 UTC, you are 2 votes ahead]
December 14th, 2006 at 9:59 am
As much as I vicariously enjoy manned spaceflight, I think we need to shift resources almost exclusively to unmanned exploration. We waste too much of our limited space budget on life support systems for our fragile little bodies. I attended a presentation by Dr. Paul Spudis (moon expert, member of President’s…Commission…Space Exploration) a few weeks ago where he said that only human intelligence is flexible enough to conduct space exploration, but if even 10% of Ray Kurzweil’s artificial intelligence predictions are to be trusted (and I, for one, think they are) then AI will be more than up for the task in the near future.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:14 am
BA= 6000
Squidboy= 5997
December 14th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Oh sure, we could do more, but given our human resources compared with the US, and the fact that we already do work on many projects for satellites, what would you suggest?
Our human resources should be something on the order of 10-ish% of the US. Probably even a bit more given the somewhat greater necesssity for satellite communication systems in Canada.
Canadian science and research budgets have been on a steady decline for a decade. That has to stop - in fact, it has to be reversed - and one of the places that money should be spent is on space.
All the money that was blown sorting through the recent gay marriage bill could have gone to space research, for example… it wasn’t much, but it would help. We’re about to pay millions to people wrongly imprisoned on terrorism allegations… seems like the RCMP has some fat in their budget that could be used for expanding knowledge instead of harassing people for no good reason.
Not all of Canada has the weather of Nova Scotia. Although Canada is not a great spot as a launch site due to its latitude, we often cuddle up to Turks and Caicos, and I bet we could set up our own launch site there. In fact, it’s near equatorial location might make it more ideal than even Florida, and maybe the US would pay Canada to launch satellites!
There are plenty of possibilities, people just have to have the desire to explore them.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:20 am
With the addition of my vote just now:
Pharyngula: 6010
Bad Astronomy: 6011
December 14th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Actually the Canadian government has to be stable enough to make it happen. Let’s face it, the last 12 years under the Libs didn’t seem to get us much further ahead (it didn’t put us behind, mind you). I always get kinda pissy when people say our current government hasn’t done anything.. geez they haven’t even been in power for a year yet. There are only so many things that can be handled at once. And no matter who is who in opposition, they always do whatever it takes to spite the current government just to say “that’s not how we’d do it.” If the MP says “we should focus on this” then the opposition says “NO! We should focus on THAT!” But, literally, if you were to go back in time and have the PM say “we should focus on that” then the opposition would say “NO! We should focus on THIS!” It’s sooooo counter-productive… I’m amazed we get anything done at all. ASTONISHED that we actually got the GST reduced by 1% (which does help small businesses, from what my business friends have told me). There really are some big changes needed to make Canada a better space power.
I totally agree that Canada needs to start funding more towards the future and let the present go (gay marriage debate, unwarranted pensions for politicians who have been in office for a mere three years, overspending on programs that don’t work, the opposition insisting on holding costly early elections, etc).
It comes down to setting a movement in motion here, and getting it in the face of the guys in Parliament. C’mon, Canada has been at the top of the heap before. We did, afterall, build the Avro Aero around 55 years ago. That’s probably one of the turning points in Canadian government not using its head in the name of space travel. Cancelling the Aero.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Ugh… I said MP. I meant PM. My bad.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:50 am
News Flash
Pharyngula: 6043
Bad Astronomy: 6054
December 14th, 2006 at 11:04 am
A comment on manned space exploration from Bob Park, the man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
1. NASA’S MOONDOGGLE: PLAN FOR LUNAR GOLF IS PAR FOR THE COURSE.
Perhaps hoping to recapture that moment of uh, “glory,” 35 years ago when Apollo 14 astronaut Alan Shepard hit two golf balls with a six iron, NASA announced plans on Monday for a permanent base on the moon. WN believes the fairway will stretch along the rim of Shackelton crater at the south pole, which is in sunlight 70% of the time. The announcement did not actually mention golf, but what else could astronauts find to do on the moon? A source at JPL assured WN that by 2024, which is the date set for the base, robots will be available that can play golf. The announcement did mentioned other objectives like harvesting helium-3 as fuel. Are they serious? Maybe that should wait until someone actually extracts energy from He-3. A robotic radio observatory on the dark side would make perfect sense, but that wasn’t mentioned. Right now NASA is having trouble getting people to the ISS.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:05 am
You write that you’re worried about a four year gap with no acces to space.
Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports on pgae 44 of their December 11 issue that private spending on space-related activities now exceeds that of governments. In fact, only about $70 billion of the $180 billion in worldwide space revenues comes from governments.
Among others investing in private space exploration, British airline executive Richard Branson hopes Virgina Galactica will begin taking paying customers above 100 km. in 2009. To reach the edge of space on sub-orbital flights they’ll be using SpaceShipTwo designed and built by legend-in-his-own-time Burt Rutan.
However, Branson’s SpaceShipTwo and his Virgin Galactic spaceline aren’t the only players. For example, Las Vegas real-estate entrepreneur and hotel developer Robert Bigelow is moving ahead with plans to orbit space hotels for tourists and facilities for other private space explorersrs, including microgravity researchers and perhaps manufacturers (p. 50).
December 14th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Key word that really makes the guy look silly… “dark side.” The moon’s dark side is the side not facing the Sun, which, depending on the time of the month, can be any given face of the Moon.
Sounds like the guy is pretty short-sighted.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:20 am
I worked in a chronically underfunded occupation: public schools. You could always do what we did when presented with perennial budget shortfalls: have a bake sale! Or, pass the hat among the staffers (a direct and tax-free way to put some of your salary back into the program). And chaperone the events for free which the school put on to raise money for the always-needy student body organizations. Facetious? Facetious and whiney? Yeah, I suppose so; but those are some of the strategies the public expected us to contribute to the continued welfare of their kids’ educational opportunities. If NASA (or any other organization or country) is going to try to play it alone for the greater glory or whatever, it simply won’t fly anymore. The astronomical costs of mounting these expeditions to space simply must be borne by many countries working in concert. A collective effort, brains, technology, hardware, manufacturing - this is the only way we’re ever going to get into the great beyond with any reasonable chance of success. If the pols could be made aware of that, perhaps there might be a better chance at cooperation. As long as the national pride and the need for secrecy prevails in Washington, there’s little hope for much chance of a truly multi-national effort at exploring space.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Science is the result of exploration.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:31 am
BA Takes Lead (as of 12:25 pm CST Thur)!!!!! It’s BA or bust, or both if you go for nudity.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Reason #11 to vote for Pharyngula…
Someone is voting like mad, and it ain’t one of my partisans. The naked dude is passing me by and increasing his lead. Vote for Pharyngula (and remember, you can vote every day!). Unless you really want to read……
December 14th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Reading is important.
December 14th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
The squidboy is back in the lead the last time I checked hehe. BA was about a hundred ahead a few hours before that. Ah well.
Anyway, back on topic. I agree with Evolving Squid. I am constantly annoyed that Canadian polititions can’t see that bumping up the budget of the CSA would be a good thing. It is currently so pitifully small that I am embarrassed every time the agency is mentioned. I want a real space agency!
December 14th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I want my browser to auto-spellcheck everything I write:P. Is this possible?
December 14th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Tom: I am all for private space ventures, but so far none has put a rocket into orbit, let alone a manned one. And when they do, it’ll be the first time they’ve done it. NASA has done this many times, and has the wherewithall to continue it. That four year gap is a yawning chasm in space agency time.
December 14th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I really hate our current government. Fortunately there should be an election within 6 months:P. Again.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/14/mars-rover.html