Few hearings on science and technology budget requests have revealed
a greater gap between what an agency head and Members of Congress would
like to do and the money available to do it than this week's Senate
appropriations subcommittee hearing on the NASA FY 2007 request.
While last Wednesday's hearing lasted only a little more than an hour,
it was more than enough time to highlight the current and looming money
shortage confronting NASA. Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) opened the
hearing by explaining that the agency's FY 2007 budget would increase
around 3% under the request, but then quickly added, "While this
is a significant increase, there are a number of programs slated for
decreases that are troubling. Specifically, funding for aeronautics
and education have been cut, and science is being shortchanged with
little hope of funding in future years." He added, "we are
traveling down a tenuous path."
The subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member, Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
agreed. She called it "a difficult year for NASA," and later
said the science request was not what she had hoped for, saying "we
need a robust science mission." Mikulski summarized the situation
well, saying that NASA was being asked to do "too much with too
little money."
The senators got no argument from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin.
The budget sent to Congress earlier this year added almost $3.9 billion
to previous projections through 2010 to complete the Space Station (counting
shuttle flights.) Explained Griffin: "There is no ‘new
money' for NASA's top line budget within the budget projections available
given our Nation's other pressing issues, so, working with the White
House, NASA provided sufficient funds for the Space Shuttle and ISS
programs to carry out their missions by redirecting funds from the Science
and Exploration budgets." After outlining the need for priority
setting, Griffin told the senators: "The plain fact is that NASA
simply cannot afford to do everything that our many constituencies would
like the Agency to do."
Echoing what he said at the March House appropriations hearing on the
NASA request (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/047.html),
Griffin asked Shelby and Mikulski to resist the temptation to shift
money into the science program from the shuttle/space station budget.
The result would delay the Crew Exploration Vehicle intended to replace
the space shuttle, lengthening the projected four-year gap between the
retirement of the shuttle and the flying of the CEV. Despite budget
reductions, he said that the science program was still "very robust,"
stressing that major science missions would not be canceled but might
be delayed.
Mikulski pressed Griffin about this four-year transportation gap and
the space station, asking "are we going to use the station?"
"Is this going to be a techno-whoops?" she asked, Griffin
replying, "I hope not." Griffin is committed to assembling
the station for a six-person crew. But he acknowledged the four-year
gap before the Crew Exploration Vehicle will be available to take that
crew to the station, holding out the possibility of private or international
space vehicles. Mikulski responded that there were "a lot of ifs"
in that scenario, to which Griffin agreed. "I wonder where we are
going here?" said Mikulski. Could NASA reduce the four-year gap,
she asked. Griffin replied a CEV could be available by 2011 by taking
money from other NASA accounts. "I don't know if we could even
contemplate that," said Mikulski, asking Griffin for a written
explanation.
At this point Chairman Shelby interjected: "It's obvious we need
more money for NASA" he said. Where that money would come from
in this and future years is unknown.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl