Format: Paperback
Language:
Format: PDF / Kindle / ePub
Size: 6.34 MB
Downloadable formats: PDF
Daniel (Danny) Glavin, Astrobiologist at NASA�s Goddard Space Flight Center. S. should have an ongoing human space flight program.� I mean that the long-term goal of our human space flight program ought to be going to Mars and beyond.� I mean that our intermediate goal ought to be returning to the moon.� I mean that to finance such a venture - among other reasons - we need to stop flying the Space Shuttle by a date certain - the sooner, the better. "Now that is indeed a broad outline, and these points may even seem unarguable to some of you.� But, believe me, they are open to debate among the public and in the Congress.� In fact, I have no idea of how the Congress would vote right now on any of the notions I just mentioned, although I imagine that most Members would be reluctant to simply walk away from the human space flight program.� I'll get back to where Congress is a bit later; for now, let me return to speaking solely about my own views. "You'll have noticed, no doubt, that what I outlined leaves a lot of questions unanswered - starting with dates.� Even the President hasn't provided a rough estimate of when we could get to Mars - nor should he; we need to know a heck of a lot more before we can reasonably set a date for such a venture.� "Let's look, for example, at returning to the moon, which the President has proposed accomplishing between 2015 and 2020.� I don't have much doubt that we have the technological capability to do that.� After all, with a lot less experience and technical know-how, Neil Armstrong landed on the moon less than nine years after President Kennedy announced the goal of getting there by 1970. "So the issue isn't technology, per se; it's resources.� The President has quite properly announced that he is not going to seek Apollo-like funding, but even the requests he has put forward raise questions. "As part of the exploration initiative, the President has proposed increasing the NASA budget by 5.6 percent in the next fiscal year, to about $16.2 billion.� I just can't imagine that that's going to happen, and I don't think it should. "Total federal non-security, domestic discretionary spending in fiscal 2005 is likely to increase by less than half a percent.� Congress may even freeze spending, as the House voted to do in its Budget Resolution.� In such a budget, should NASA receive almost a 6 percent increase?� Is it the highest domestic spending priority?� I don't think so, and I doubt my colleagues will either. "NASA is an appropriations bill in which it competes for funds against veterans programs, against housing programs, against environmental programs and against basic science and education programs - almost all of which are high priorities in my book.� "As Science Committee chairman, I'm especially concerned that we do right by the National Science Foundation, which Congress has said, in statute, ought to be increasing by 15 percent a year.� I would note that a healthy NSF is the key to carrying out the education agenda you call for in your policy document.� "Moreover, Congress isn't likely to even take up the NASA spending bill until after Election Day.� (I'm not proud of that, but its reality.)� That means that for at least a month, and potentially for several months, NASA will be funded by a continuing resolution.� That, in turn, means that for some portion of next year, NASA will be flat-funded and will not be allowed to start new initiatives.� That alone could delay aspects of the exploration initiative.������ "And my funding concerns are not limited to those raised by the funding competition between NASA and other agencies.� The President's proposal also raises tough questions about the funding balance within NASA, as your document notes.� The budget proposes to fund the exploration initiative, in part, by cutting Earth Science programs, eliminating some Space Science projects, and flat funding aeronautics, a major concern of yours, I know. "We may indeed have to rethink some other programs to fund the exploration initiative, but I'm concerned that the proposed cuts may go too far.� The Earth Science cuts, for example, may hinder climate change research, itself an Administration research priority. "Do I think that it's more important to know more about the Earth than it is to know more about Mars?� I do, and I don't think it's a close question.� And knowing more about the Earth will take plenty of aerospace know-how. "Now, some have suggested moving Earth Science programs out of NASA, either in whole or in part, and moving them over to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.� The U.