Note added November 17, 2005: The Senate passed the budget as well.
There were some interesting news items out of NASA in the past day. I got some email about all this from the American Astronomical Society (AAS), which issues press releases pertaining to astronomy, space science, and of course NASA.
The first bit of news out of NASA is that the control and management of the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program has been given to the Ames Research Center (which is local to me) in Mountain View, California. Interesting. I heard some time ago (I do have some sources) that this might happen, but now it’s a done deal. Of course, whether we actually go back to the Moon or not is up to how NASA gets funded (Bush is the one who created this “vision”, and there is no guarantee the next President will also want to pursue this line of exploration). Speaking of which…
The second news item is that the NASA budget, which is controlled by Congress, was passed by the House (and is expected to be passed by the Senate). I was curious to see what would happen in the House, as arguably NASA’s biggest friend there is Tom Delay. Basically, the total amount for NASA (16.457 billion dollars) is about the same as for last year. Bear in mind that many other budgets will be decreased by about 2%, and this can be considered a minor victory for NASA. However, even after the budget passes, it may get cut by that 2%. Welcome to politics.
Some specifics:
1) The budget for Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration has increased 7.6% from last year. It looks like much of this is due to the increased spending needed to develop the new Constellation Systems program, the part of NASA that will create new rockets to replace the Shuttle. That part of the budget tripled to $1.1 billion.
2) This little bomb was tucked away in the email:
Congress has allocated $271 million for the Hubble Space Telescope in anticipation of a servicing mission to repair the telescope. This amount is $50 million more than the President’s requested level.
Holy cow! Now, this does not mean it’s a done deal. NASA has already said that there must be two successful Shuttle missions in a row before they will consider servicing Hubble. But this is still a good sign. Still, I’ll note that in a budget that has not increased, we’re talking a “zero sum game”: if some program gets increased, another decreases. I’ll need to look over the budget myself and see what’s what, but with the James Webb Space Telescope getting into budget overruns (big ones), this may be big trouble for other, less sexy missions. I’ll note I work on some of those less sexy missions, so this is of personal concern to me.
3) Congressional earmarks (dedicated money chosen by Congress which must be spent on specific projects) are loved and hated by the people affected. It’s great to see some projects funded that might get passed over by NASA if they were only allowed to be in a general fund, but maybe NASA is better at making that decision than a (biased) congresscritter who may be looking to fund something in their home district. This really is just pork-barrel politics, and it rubs me the wrong way, even if good things get funded this way. This year, Congress earmarked a record $321 million. Wow.
This specific earmark caught my eye:
“$1,000,000 for Downey, California related to housing of a Space Shuttle mock-up”
That’s a lot of cash to build a model of a rocket that has only a few years left in the program. Hmmmm.
4) The National Science Foundation, a huge science grant-sponsoring organization, got an increase of 3% to their budget! That’s wonderful news.
5) Mars exploration funding remains constant at $680 million.
An interesting analysis was posted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It’s good reading.
And in a final analysis of one NASA program… renowned physicist Stephen Hawking recently spoke in California. In the Q&A session at the end, he was asked what he thought about Bush’s plan to go to Mars. He replied simply, "Stupid".
November 14th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
“$1,000,000 for Downey, California related to housing of a Space Shuttle mock-upâ€?
If they could just wait a couple years, they could get a real one for free.
November 15th, 2005 at 3:28 am
Did anyone else notice this ominous posting on New Scientist’s website on 10 November, which mysteriously disappeared the next day?
03 November 2005
Greg Klerkx
Magazine issue 2524
LESS than two years after it was announced with great fanfare,
President Bush’s plan to return people to the moon is in trouble. The
signs are everywhere.
Take Operation Offset, a proposal devised by a group of Republican
legislators to cut government programmes and free up funds to pay for
damage done by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Conspicuous on the chopping
block is NASA’s moon and Mars initiative. Another austerity proposal,
suggested by economist Maya MacGuineas, recommended much the same
thing: cancel NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle, the spacecraft that
would carry humans back to the moon.
There is more, but you have to subscribe to the website…
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18825245.900
November 15th, 2005 at 3:51 am
Sounds like good news.
Sorry to be a pain, but I think you misspelt ‘Stephen Hawking’.
November 15th, 2005 at 5:15 am
So how much did the starving children of Africa get?
November 15th, 2005 at 8:15 am
I would really like to see humans going to Mars, but Stephen Hawking is probably right.
Most people seem to think that Mars is a bit further out than the moon, “in-the-neighbourhood-kinda-way”.
BA you really need to get Bush in a headlock rub your knuckles against his head and explain him how the solar system is screwed together.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:37 am
One has to remember that it s really hard for Stephen Hawking to give a nuanced reply at the spur of the moment. He might have meant that human exploration of Mars was stupid, or that this one plan was stupid, or that the timing was stupid. I’d be interested to know if he ever clarified that remark at a later time.
-Andy B
November 15th, 2005 at 9:12 am
Assuming this is the same one, I believe the space shuttle mockup already exists in Downey—note also that the item refers to “housing” it, not building it.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:26 am
Kelson– yes, but still. A million bucks?
November 15th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Bad Albert Says:
“$1,000,000 for Downey, California related to housing of a Space Shuttle mock-up�
If they could just wait a couple years, they could get a real one for free.
Or maybe on eBay, depending what NASA’s budget is like by then…
November 15th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Thomas Siefert Says:
BA you really need to get Bush in a headlock rub your knuckles against his head and explain him how the solar system is screwed together.
Yes! Yes! A stiff application of the Vulcan Death Noogie!!
November 15th, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Sticks:
Did you ever hear/see the Bill Hicks sketch where he talks about the amazingly cool technology we pulled out for Gulf War One? “It was pretty incredible, seeing missiles fly down air vents. . . But couldn’t we feasibly use that same technology to shoot food at hungry people? Flying over Ethiopia, ‘There’s a guy who needs a banana!’ Shoooom!
“The stealth banana. Smart fruit!”
See, aerospace can benefit everybody after all!
What would the shipping costs be for a used shuttle? Do you have to rent a 747 to piggyback it upon while you schlep it across the nation?
November 15th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Andy B,
I think there are plenty of nuances in Stephen Hawking’s response. As much can be expressed with one well-chosen word as several.
November 15th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
I think that whatever Stephen Hawking thought was much more colorful and complex than the single word, but due to his physical limitations, he chose the one which best expressed his feelings. If he wasn’t talking about the Bush plan to go to Mars, I am sure he will issue a brief and appropriate retraction.
November 16th, 2005 at 10:10 am
When you can only manage a few words a minute you tend to be less exuberant in your vocalubary.
You will avoid words like Antidisestablishmentarianism, floccinaucinihilipilification and pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.
You will never visit TaumatawhakatangÂihangakoauauotÂamateaturipukakaÂpikimaungaÂhoronukuÂpokaiwhenuakÂitanatahu in New Zealand.
You will never ever use the full names of royalty.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:04 am
intereting to note that republicans tend to (but by no means as a partisan issue) be more generous in funding NASA. make of that what you will.
btw, that article you linked to was completely ridiculous in saying that the plan is to get to mars “in 10 years”. that IS stupid. the plan right now is CEV flying by 2011, lunar laning by 2018, and IOC at a lunar base by 2022. no set date for mars, but presumably in the late 30s to early 40s, which is perfectly reasonable.
calling this “bush’s plan” is a little ridiculous. dr. griffin is the man planning all this out, bush just greenlights it and then steps aside.
btw, it’s progressing along just fine. assuming it doesn’t face the budget ax (that threat has passed for the time being), the basic configuration for the CEV has already been chosen in the ESAS, and the contractor will be chosen early-mid 2006. if the program survives FY 2006 and stays reasonably within budget, by the time it gets to time to draft the 07 budget, the program can be defended as being “established”
November 17th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Gary, most articles at New Scientist’s website tend to roll off after they’ve been there a short time. I think you have to subscribe to rummage through their archive.
Thomas, I think you missed a couple. Stephen Hawking may visit Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwll-llantysiliogogogoch in northern Wales, since it is significantly closer to Cambridge than any part of New Zealand. But he is unlikely to visit Switzerland and encounter a Vierwaldstätteseedampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftsoberkapitänstellverträter (deputy senior captain of a Lake Lucerne steam-shipping company)…
November 18th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Well, someone could type those words into a list and email them to him, so he can then just select them from the list rather than type them out himself. But maybe he’s not smart enough to do that.
November 24th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Hawking is well known for the ‘bon mot’, I think that the best way to discribe his comment would be ’sussinct’