Posted on 02/09/2005 3:58:16 PM PST by Magnum44
Analysis: A promising NASA budget? By Robert Zimmerman Published 2/8/2005 5:08 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 (UPI) -- Despite fears by many in the scientific community that President George W. Bush's initiative to re-invigorate the American manned space program would cause deep cuts in NASA's science budget, the administration's proposed 2006 budget -- announced with great fanfare on Monday -- left almost all of the agency's present science programs in place, while providing increased clarity and focus to its future plans.
Overall, the proposed budget asks Congress for a 2.5 percent increase. This is less than the 5 percent originally called for by Bush last year when he first put forth his new space initiative, but the increase compares quite favorably to the cuts proposed for a significant number of other government programs.
On the science side, the NASA budget appears mostly stable, though a handful of projects were cut and a few others experienced scattered delays.
Of the cuts, one -- the Hubble Space Telescope -- is politically significant and will take center stage in the debate over the space agency's future.
The other project cut was the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. JIMO -- which recent was renamed Prometheus 1 -- had been intended as the first mission under Project Prometheus, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's pet project to encourage the use of nuclear-power propulsion to explore the outer solar system. With O'Keefe leaving NASA before the end of February, it is not surprising this project was given a lower priority by NASA officials.
As noted in the budget, "concerns over cost and technical complexity prompted NASA to defer" the mission. Instead of a highly risky and expensive mission to Jupiter, NASA is now reviewing the nuclear-propulsion program with its partner, the Department of Energy, and probably will conduct the first demonstration on the ground.
Other changes include downgrading Glory, a mission to study Earth's climate. Instead of being launched as a separate mission on its own rocket, it will be incorporated as an instrument on another research satellite.
Of the scattered delays throughout the science program, many were forced on the agency in the form of $426 million worth of earmarks by Congress when it approved the fiscal year 2005 budget last November. For example, the launch date for the Kepler mission, designed to look for extrasolar planets and originally scheduled for launch in 2007, was postponed for at least a year due to budget trims. Its money in the 2006 budget, however, appears solid.
Likewise, the Space Interferometry Mission's launch has been delayed two years, partly because of technical issues and partly because of cuts required in 2005 to pay for the congressional earmarks.
Aside from these cuts and short term delays, NASA's science budget was left practically untouched, allowing all of the already proposed projects -- both in astronomy and earth sciences -- to move forward effectively, though all will face the expected speed bumps associated with any new space research project.
In the larger context of the federal budget deficit, Bush's political desire to trim the discretionary portions of the federal budget, and the president's new manned space initiative, space scientists have remarkably little to complain about. Though they will have to tighten their belts somewhat, to claim that the consequences to science of the NASA budget are "devastating" -- as stated by the Democratic members of the House Science Committee on Tuesday -- is misstating reality.
Meanwhile, Bush's space vision, which he unveiled personally on Jan. 14, 2004, is advancing steadily. The FY 2006 budget calls for almost $1 billion (more than double what was budgeted in 2005) for the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the manned spacecraft intended to replace the space shuttle fleet.
The plan is to choose two contractors this summer to begin construction of two competing prototypes of the CEV. In 2008, these companies will hold a fly-off, from which NASA will choose a prime contractor.
The budget also calls for significant research money -- more than $1.5 billion -- for the development by industry and academia of a number of new space technologies, from devising high-performance materials and improving closed environmental systems to refining computers so they can work better in the harsh environment of space.
In the past, much of this research money would have disappeared into the black hole of corporate welfare, producing little that could be used by NASA to further space exploration.
With this budget, however, the president's space initiative has brought a remarkable focus to NASA. Unlike the past, every project has been required to justify its relevance to the goal of exploring the solar system. Whether this demand finally forces NASA to produce new and innovative space technologies -- something the agency generally has failed to do in recent decades -- remains as yet an unanswered question.
One sign that things really are changing is NASA's decision to budget $160 million to pay for alternative methods for bringing cargo supplies to the International Space Station. Until now, the agency has depended entirely on the shuttle or the Russian Soyuz spacecraft for bringing all supplies to the station, a system that is expensive and carries little redundancy should something go wrong.
Because more mundane supplies, such as water, food and clothing, are easily replaceable, the agency is now considering hiring less traditional companies to provide these cargo hauling services, what Bill Readdy, associate administrator for space operations, called "some of the emerging providers" -- companies such as Burt Rutan's company Scaled Composites, of Mojave, Calif., that NASA previously has not considered -- qualified to provide such services.
"What we are talking about is buying services," Readdy noted. "We are looking for innovative solutions." According to Readdy, NASA will issue its request for proposals to provide low-cost freighter service by this summer.
Though some will look at this budget with concern, a long-term view reveals a large government bureaucracy slowly struggling to shift gears and make a transition to a new and perhaps better way of doing business. The immediate and overall effects might be either confusion or delay to some projects, but the longer consequences of this effort should be good for both NASA's manned and unmanned programs.
In other words, Bush's space initiative, combined with the organizational changes instituted by O'Keefe, have served to give the agency more focus than it has seen since the 1960s.
--
Robert Zimmerman is an independent space historian. His most recent book, "Leaving Earth: Space Stations, Rival Superpowers, and the Quest for Interplanetary Travel," was awarded the Eugene M. Emme Award by the American Astronautical Society for the best popular space history in 2003. E-mail sciencemail@upi.com
Instead of Burt Rutan, they should contract that freighter that does the Kessel Run so fast...
Finally.
But I can hear the liberals decrying this now. "How many babies can those billions save?"
What we are talking about is buying services," Readdy noted. "We are looking for innovative solutions." According to Readdy, NASA will issue its request for proposals to provide low-cost freighter service by this summer.
THIS is big ! Finally opening a new sector for American
business ingenuity.
But I can hear the liberals decrying this now. "How many babies can those billions save?"
Actually the liberals would be saying,"Think how many proto-fetus's we could abort with that kind of money."
Think about it, it was the government air mail contracts
that opened up aviation to the pioneers of flight.
This is what has been sorely needed.
Absolutely, and it is a perfect venue to seed new companies to commercialize the manned space program.
I had the pleasure of working on a shuttle experiment for Bill Ready in the early 90's. He came to the Astronaut Corp from the Navy, and it is great to see he continues the Naval Tradition of leadership at NASA.
That's what they're thinking. I wish we could get them on tape.
Their thoughts made public would kill the liberal movement as surely than as an abortion.
In ten parsecs......
Bush is no friend of NASA. This is a terrible budget for NASA, as it has been since Bush entered office.
In REAL terms, inflation adjusted, NASA funding has been on a downhill slide for years, as social welfare soars to the heavens.
Where is the funding for Mars?????
It is wise of them to defer JIMO. I hope they do it eventually, however, because it would be a impresive acomplishment. I actually heard rumuor that they were thinking o some sort of Venus mission for an early demonstrator. Anyone heard anything about this?
Mr negative chiming in? I think you need to check your figures. In the last 10 years the NASA budget has gone from $12B to almost $17B.
We need a good synopsis. The budget doc is 400 pdf pages, which is beyond the power of my dialup.
So you prefer corporate and civil service welfare instead? As NASA has been showing such great strides of late, why should it get any more funding than other federal programs with their own constituents lobbying for more pork?
NASA has gotten much more than it's fair share of the budget during the Bush Administration and likely will continue to get budget increases when other worthy agencies get their belts tightened, whether they and their constituents like it or not.
If NASA can't do it's job with the billions allocated to it, maybe it should rethink how it spends those billions and do some innovative thinking for a change.
I think you need to check your education background.
I said in REAL terms, inflation adjusted . . .
The NASA budget has been CUT steadily over the last decade. Raw dollars means nothing. It is inflation adjusted dollars that tells you whether the budget has gone up or down.
The undisputable FACT is the NASA budget has been cut steadily and has been LAST on the totem pole of funding if ranked by Agency % increase of budget over the last 10 years.
Your statement is false. Your statement has no basis in FACT.
See post #18.
Yet another insult. It doesn't take you long.
The undisputable FACT is the NASA budget has been cut steadily and has been LAST on the totem pole of funding if ranked by Agency % increase of budget over the last 10 years.
Look over the last 4 years. Clinton cut to fund midnight basketball. This admin has been generous to NASA. And given the more urgent needs of the last few years, I'd say that's pretty good. No ones gets everything they want. Stop being a cry baby.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.