According to the Washington Post, the House is looking at NASA’s budget today. I reported last week that the budget came out of committee, so it will go to the floor of the House today or soon thereafter for debate and a vote.
The problem is, some Representatives are threatening to cut NASA’s budget, and cut it pretty savagely. I’ve been reporting a lot on Republican efforts to suppress and distort science lately, but this time I’m coming down on the Democrats.
They are looking to take as much as 700 million dollars out of the Vision for Space Exploration, which is the project to put people on the Moon and Mars. The Post quotes Barney Frank:
“It’s a complete and total waste of money,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. “The manned shot to Mars is a pure boondoggle.”
I disagree with him; in fact, I would go so far as to state that’s a truly dumb thing for him to say. Let me be clear: I am not a huge fan of putting humans on Mars soon. It’s a very hard problem, and one we are nowhere near understanding. We need to take this carefully, step-by-step. The first step is being able to get back into space. The second is to explore the Moon robotically. The third is to put people there. The fourth is to keep them there. The fifth is to to study the long-term effects of space on humans (there is a lot of data there, but not enough). The sixth is to figure out how to get people to Mars, then from there how they stay and survive. Those last two steps are very long ones indeed.
Many of these steps can be done concurrently. But NASA is still figuring out how to go to the Moon (oh, let’s be honest– NASA is still trying to figure out how to get into space at all), and it’s too soon to seriously work on Mars. The groundwork, so to speak, needs to be done first.
But a "complete and total waste of money"? That’s crap. Putting money now into the effort means we can figure it out later, and will spur technology and all sorts of other industry, as it always has. Frank is wrong here, wrong and talking through his hat.
Also, by going to the Moon we’ll learn vast amounts on how to go to Mars. Cutting the VSE means hurting, crippling, or destroying going back to the Moon, and let me assure you that is not a boondoggle. It’s the next logical step in space exploration, and not only can we do it, we can do it in the timetable NASA set up if it’s supported correctly.
Now I fear for that support.
The Post mentions that NASA lost a spokesman in Tom Delay, and they’re right. He fought hard for NASA, not the least reason for which was that Johnson Space Center was in his district. But let me be clear here: Delay is as crooked as Lombard Street, and while I want NASA to get what they need, I’d rather they didn’t have to rely on Delay to get it. They’ll have to make other friends in Congress.
But those friends may be hard to find. Unfortunately, to make matters worse, the bill covers a huge amount of funding ground, including wages for police, meaning funding could be shuffled quite a bit.
We’ll see how this pans out. With the Shuttle launch just days away, I wish this bill could be delayed until next week. If wishes were horses… well, Apollo 18, 19, and 20 would be on the Moon, and not collecting dust in museums. The decision Congress makes on this bill may very well have such far-reaching consequences.
Afterthought: the bill may still pass the House, but will need to be reconciled with the Senate’s version coming later this summer as well. Even if this House bill goes poorly, there may still be hope. But that hope will be amplified if this goes well for NASA. In the meantime, contact your Reps!
June 28th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
For those under the impression that NASA has a huge budget that can afford some trimming, I just read that the Army (not the whole armed forces, just the Army) wants more than the entire NASA budget, just to repair and replace equipment broken and/or worn out in Iraq!
June 28th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
OK, This is decidedly low, but I can’t resist: Feel free to think poorly of me for the following.
“Putting money now into the effort means we can figure it out later, and will spur technology and all sorts of other industry, as it always has.”
You mean like Iraq?
And more seriously, money blown in one area means money not available for others. Far more than $700 million has been blown since 2003. Priorities and all that.
“They’ll have to make other friends in Congress.” (RE: NASA)
This is true. The question is with who, and how quickly. I don’t have high hopes for an 11th hour appeal to “save” the NASA budget, sad to say. But as you have noted, this is a strongly anti-science administration. Adjust expectations accordingly.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
I suppose that Bob Park doesn’t know what he is talking about either.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Already mailed my Rep on this. Barney Frank is clearly not a student of history. The Apollo missions were called boondoggles too… and they paid for themsleves in spades simply by inspiring and entire generation to careers in science and engineering – not to mention the technologies that were pioneered there that went on to have global impacts (look em up for yourself – the list is long and amazing).
June 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Bob Park? In this instance, I would say no, he doesn’t. As far as I can tell he is 100% against manned exploration, and I find that to be the wrong attitude. Maybe someday I’ll get to talk to him about that.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
You think Lombard Street is twisty? Take a look here:
http://www.visitcumbria.com/wc/hardknottpass.htm
Pay particular attention to the 3rd, 4th and 6th photos on the page.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
The most important aspect of big science projects is, alas, also impossible to quantify. It is, as Stark points out, that of inspiration and wonder.
While it is true that the Apollo programme spun off many auxiliary technologies (does anyone have a link to a list, by the way?), its biggest impact was surely that of awe at what we (meaning humans in general, not just you Americans) can achieve if we put our minds to it.
I wonder if enough of the old Apollo hardware is still in good enough condition to act as hints or guides for the new hardware designs? For instance, the F1 rocket engine that powered the Saturn V.
Hmm … make that “the mighty Saturn V, the most powerful vehicle ever built”.
Anyway, I remember reading (or seeing on telly) that the design of the engine was very tricky, and the design team got it right through trial and error, but never understood why they had it right. Maybe if we were to try to build a similar engine now, we have the tools to understand the combustion dynamics in such a large motor.
June 28th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Mission to Mars: budget safe for now…
Frank: Mars an unaffordable luxury. Late Wednesday the President’s plan to first send astronauts to the moon, and ultimately Mars, cleared an important funding hurdle. By a 259-to-163 vote, U.S. House lawmakers rejected a move by Rep. Barney Frank to….
June 29th, 2006 at 4:27 am
I’m not entirely sure the U.S. government will want to miss the boat – er, ship – to the moon when it actually comes down to it. But if they do, maybe the Chinese will let N.A.S.A. have a token American on their programme…
–
June 29th, 2006 at 5:11 am
Unbelievable that Congress would want to take out a mere $700 million, when billions are spent on the pork barrel projects of the DoD. Sickening.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:27 am
No need to worry; Congress rejected the Frank bill.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:38 am
At the beginning of my third year in college (1968), I/we had to write an essay to demonstrate our ability, or lack thereof, to communicate effectively in writing. Test booklets were handed out and a few topics were written as questions on the black board for us to choose from, one of which was something like “Should we explore space?” I chose that topic and use the 90 minutes to write a pro-space exploration essay, which I apparently did well enough on that I never heard anything about the whole affair, meaning I was never informed I needed remedial education in writing.
I remember I wrote rather idealistically and somewhat grandiosely about some of the then current as well as possible future spin-off benefits, and I wrote about the jobs that had been and would be created. I also wrote about our general and insatiable quest for knowledge and understanding about our world, our solar system, our galaxy, our universe and about our selves – all to justify the expenses (time, materials, resources, life) that would need to be invested to support space exploration. I wrote with great confidence that these would all be resources well expended because I was sure the returns for our investment would be very good, and I still feel that, for the most part, they have been, but I’m having trouble justifying shooting for the Moon and Mars right now.
Phil, when you created your list of steps we need to carefully take, you left out a very critical one, and it’s one that applies across the board, not only to NASA and space exploration. We need to learn how to spend money and expend resources more wisely. We have a rather abysmal record so far and I don’t see any signs of that improving yet, and perhaps it never will. We don’t know how to wisely determine and set goals of common interest with the common good in mind and heart. We don’t know how to efficiently create what we need in order to realize the goals we set. We don’t know how to avoid or eliminate excessive waste, cheating, short changing, fraud and deceit from the process. Whatever we undertake, there is always an incredible amount of waste of resources, which seems to always be reduced to being measured in monetary terms.
As a result, there is a huge and growing divide between the haves and the have-nots in our country and in the world, and the proportion of have-nots is enormous and growing. We have to learn how to take care of ourselves and each other, right here on Earth, before we go shooting for the Moon, let alone Mars. Whatever money we expend on space needs to be kept close to home, so to speak. We need to focus on what can be helpful in understanding our Earth, on it’s systems and dynamics, and our impact on it. And the knowledge and understanding we gain from this focus needs to be applied intently and generously as possible for the common good of all of humanity. Only after we learn to take better care of ourselves and each other right here on Earth, only after we learn to expend our resources more wisely for the good of all, should we think of sending humans further from home.
After another four decades of living and observing life here on Earth, I’d write a rather different essay. I wouldn’t promote eliminating the space budget, but I would lobby for keeping our goals a lot simpler and closer to home until we are all better off and we can all better appreciate reaching further into space.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Ah, politics, that endevor which seeks to take maximum advantage without consideration of the right.
Politicians, whether democrats or republicans, look for the personal advantage, what can get them elected. They seldom consider that which is the truely best course of action, that which is good for all.Which is why I detest politics and its practitioners.
Tom Jefferson had it right. Every ten or twenty years we should throw out ALL the bums,,,democratic politics SHOULD be the provence of amatuers. Professionals are in it for only one reason,,,personal agrandizment and power.
GAry 7
June 29th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Phil, I agree with you. Also with Gary 7. “Insight”, that mindset is the reason that so little truly gets done in this country. You have the utopian dream that will never come to pass. Although life ala Star Trek: TNG, with no want or need, and little crime would be great, it isn’t realistic. We can’t get by without striving for things–I fear our country/world would stagnate pretty quickly. Handouts and government programs to help the poor, the homeless, the suffering are great, but it is a neverending process. There will always be someone who needs something. Giving up space or even limiting it because there are people in need is pointless.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Ethan said:
I fail to see the connection. There is a certain amount of work that can be done now to prep for future exploration efforts. That doesn’t mean working on space ship designs or colony layouts. $700 Million is not all that much when applied to programs like this. It’s less than the Pork Congress has inserted into NASA’s budget. If they really want to cut boondoggles, hit some of those things Phil listed in a previous blog entry.
Nigel Depledge said:
I’m sure they are turning to the old Apollo designs. The new CRV is an upsized Apollo Command Module. I think the F1 rockets played in to the design of the Shuttle main engines. Maybe we can get JayUtah to weigh in here – he really is a rocket scientist. (He works on propulsion systems and rocket engines.)
June 29th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Irishman, thanks. I agree, let’s hope Jay from moonbase Clavius reads these comments and is able to share his experience with we mere mortals (i.e. non-rocket scientists).