Well, like I said before, the NASA budget put together by the White House has to be vetted by Congress, and they’d have something to say about it.
Boy, did they.
The Political Action for Space blog reports that the House subcommittee on Science and Technology is not pleased with the amount of money President Bush allocated to NASA for the fiscal year 2009. In fact, Bart Gordon (D – TN) said:
I believe that the Administration has to date failed to provide resources to NASA that are adequate for what it has asked NASA to do and what it agreed to in the Authorization Act.
This is interesting. The more I read about the budget proposal for NASA, the less enthusiastic I am about it. I praised it before, but that was before I read it carefully. The synopsis sounded great… but I should have known better.
My own Representative, Mark Udall (D – CO), is on that House subcommittee. He said:
The Administration has chosen not to request any additional funding for the Constellation program in this latest budget request, despite congressional encouragement from both sides of the aisle to do so. . . I intend to work hard this year to develop legislation to reauthorize NASA.
I recently met with a Udall staff member in DC about a different issue, and now I think it’s time to up the ante a bit. I’ll be contacting Udall’s office, and I’ll see what I can do to help.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
If you talk to your Representative about increasing funding for the Constellation program, it should be fronted first by a real study of Ares and why NASA is already going off-track with the program.
NASA chose to design the Ares 1 because it was Michael Griffin’s idea, even before he became the NASA administrator.
Ares’ first design was flawed from its inception, as the rocket scientists at NASA should have known or should have consulted with their plan to air-start the SSME, which we now know cannot happen. This lead to the J2-X being incorporated into the design, but unfortunately the J2-X will not produce as much thrust as the Rocketdyne SSME. NASA’s answer? To put in another segment to the SRB. Still not enough power. Their new answer? Strip down the Orion, which prevents a landing on land. That means expensive sea operations to retrieve each crew with each flight. So much for safer, sooner and more capable….and I won’t even mention the pogo-ing issue that has already come up.
NASA seems more interested in saving jobs in key Congressional districts than designing the right platform for America’s space program to successfully progress. They almost out of hand ruled out the EELV in favor of Ares using reasons that Ares cannot now attain as their design evolves, and the whole program needs a deep, hard look before more money and more time is wasted.
And I am very pro-NASA, believe it or not…but trips to Huntsville and Cocoa Beach and talking with folks involved in this project have me as concerned as they are that this program is going to be an expensive failure.
February 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
[...] Bad Astronomy Blog wrote an interesting post today on House says NASA budget is too smallHere’s a quick excerpt Well, like I said before, the NASA budget put together by the White House has to be vetted by Congress, and they’d have something to say about it. Boy, did they. The Political Action for Space blog reports that the House subcommittee on Science and Technology is not pleased with the amount of money President Bush allocated to NASA for the fiscal year 2009. In fact, Bart Gordon (D – TN) said: I believe that the Administration has to date failed to provide resources to NASA that are adequate f [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
[...] House says NASA budget is too smallThe more I read about the budget proposal for NASA, the less enthusiastic I am about it. I praised it before, but that was before I read it carefully. The synopsis sounded great… but I should have known better. … [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
If you do talk to him, please ask him what is the most effective way to reach your representative. I sent my Congressman a letter and an email about the NASA budget (asking him to support the Mikulski-Hutchison bill) and all I got back was a form letter telling me how great NASA was. This is coming from the guy who has the Johnson Space Center in is district.
He won’t be getting me vote in 2008.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Honestly, it’s still not enough to make me look to favorable on congress right now when people are being let go all around me and I fear for my own job thanks to cutting funds for basic science in the omnibus congress passed at the end of the year. Argonne as a whole has a very dim view on them right now, so we’ll withhold our accolades.
Sorry… I’ll stop grumbling now
February 14th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
That is part of the problem with relying on government. This is exactly the reason why funding should be sought from the public via charity. Even if you tried to change the attitude towards science in the congress people will still fight over what type of research should be funded because there will always be scarcity. Now private funding is more viable than ever given that the internet has allowed for people to organize around topics they like. With the internet there is a global pool of resources to draw from being that connections between people around the world have become commonplace.
February 14th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Yes, I’m sure when they see the condescending atheist cop/skank ads on your site they will trip over themselves to be associated with you.
February 14th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
How does this correlate to budget requests back in the Apollo Days? Did they have any of this trouble then?
February 14th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
My view… as a foreigner interested in space and space program… is that Project Constellation in it’s current phase is a huge step in a wrong direction.
On the surface… it seems to inhibit advances in human space flight, and I personally think that the USA need some real competition in space before anything changes…
No matter if that competition is created by private companies… or other nations.
February 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
OK, I’ve had lunch… er.. supper now and am a little less grumpy
(Maybe I can even spell ‘too’ correctly now as well.) Good luck to NASA, they’ll need it. (Not to sound too woo-esque — which is like a burlesque, but with fewer naughty bits.) I won’t begrudge them their victories 
I just wish someone in congress would take up our cause too 
(Obama, I’m looking at you, as our senator LOL.)
February 14th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“GapStop on 14 Feb 2008 at 8:21 pm
That is part of the problem with relying on government. This is exactly the reason why funding should be sought from the public via charity. Even if you tried to change the attitude towards science in the congress people will still fight over what type of research should be funded because there will always be scarcity. Now private funding is more viable than ever given that the internet has allowed for people to organize around topics they like. With the internet there is a global pool of resources to draw from being that connections between people around the world have become commonplace.”
GapStop, I give you credit for the slickest, slimiest pro-Republichristian, anti-government attack I have ever seen.
Right, remove all government interaction, nay, destroy the federal government. Then charitable citizens will flock to fund NASA, welfare, social security, health care, foreign aid, etc., etc., etc.
This nonsense is so beyond WRONG that I don’t even know where to begin. This is the same as the Reagan idiocy about “voluntary” self-regulation by businesses. Business will NEVER voluntarily regulate itself and charities will NEVER take the place of federal government.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Where did I say that? You obviously have no clue as to what my political views are being that they can’t be defined by any party (3rd parties included). I’m not someone who could be labeled like a box. Stances are issue dependent with me. As for killing all funds, no. Maybe I should have been clearer.
February 15th, 2008 at 9:21 am
@blizno:
Wow. WOW. Was that ever an over-reaction.
I believe all GapStop was trying to point out is that perhaps the private sector could be looked at for sources of funding rather than just relying on the government (read: congress) to fight over who gets what, especially in terms of how it benefits their particular district.
I think you read a little too much into his comments.