A consistent theme running through this year's congressional hearings
on the FY 2007 NASA request is the lack of sufficient funding for the
agency's science programs. At a recent Senate appropriations subcommittee
hearing, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin acknowledged that budget
constraints had forced the redirection of funds from the Science and
Exploration programs (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/052.html.)
A recent NRC report concluded the proposed Earth and space science program
is not robust, sustainable, or balanced (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/060.html
.)
This week, House Science Committee Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN)
and Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Ranking Member Mark Udall
(D-CO) sent a four-page letter to the leadership of the House appropriations
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the NASA budget. In this letter
to appropriations subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Ranking
Member Alan Mollohan (D-WV), Gordon and Udall fault the NASA budget
request for being more than a billion dollars under what Congress and
the Bush Administration authorized. Referring to the Moon/Mars and beyond
exploration initiative, Gordon and Udall declare, "We have been
consistent in our stated position that we support the goals of the exploration
initiative, but that we are not prepared to support an implementation
approach for that initiative that is predicated on the cannibalization
of NASA's other important missions."
They later state: "We believe that failure to provide the funds
necessary to carry out a balanced program of R&D in science, aeronautics,
and human space flight would call into question the wisdom of proceeding
with the exploration initiative as currently conceived. Congress would
be ill-advised to start down the road of making large investments in
the hardware and systems needed for human exploration beyond low-Earth
orbit - for which the magnitude of the required investment will increase
dramatically in the period beyond the current five-year NASA budget
plan - in the absence of a national consensus to provide the necessary
resources."
The letter's final paragraph outlines how to pay for an increase of
$587.4 million in the FY 2007 NASA budget which Gordon and Udall recommend.
They conclude, "It is our position that if it proves impossible
to augment the FY 2007 budget request with additional funds, budgetary
‘offsets' should be made from the Exploration Systems budget to
fund the above-mentioned priorities. In that regard, we believe that
making progress on the development of new crewed and cargo systems to
replace the Space Shuttle is a higher near-term priority than activities
in support of human expeditions to the Moon and Mars. At the same time,
we would not recommend augmenting funding for the Constellation program
beyond the request level given the absence of well defined cost and
schedule estimates at this point in the program. In any event, full
funding of the Constellation program budget request should be dependent
on first ensuring that the scientific and aeronautics priorities outlined
above are adequately funded."
This letter and a list of thirteen recommended increases to the Science,
Aeronautics, and Education appropriations account, and the Exploration
Systems and Space Operations appropriations account can be viewed at:
http://sciencedems.house.gov/
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice and
Commerce is scheduled to mark up its bill the week of June 12.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl