As a result of the disastrous initial markup of the House appropriation for NASA last week, the Space Access Society, the Space Frontier Foundation, and Tea Party in Space have all put out alerts for everyone to call your Congressman (extra points if your congressman is one of the chairs of the appropriations committee or subcommittee, Hal Rogers or Frank Wolf).
Briefly, to summarize, the top line of the NASA budget has been cut back to pre-2008 levels (no shock, except to those living in denial), but the real problem is where the cuts are, and aren’t. The Webb Telescope was canceled, which was probably necessary given how out of control it was, but Commercial Crew and space technologies were severely chopped back as well, putting off further the day that we will no longer be reliant on the Russians for ISS, and that we can start moving humans beyond LEO. Instead, the Senate Launch System and Orion-by-another-name earmarks were actually increased, though there is still insufficient funds to build them in any timely manner, and no missions described or funded for them. Go follow one or more of the links, where there are useful instructions as to who to call and what to say. And as always in these matters, be firm, but polite. You have until tomorrow to make a difference.
[Update a few minutes later]
One other disastrous cut, though it’s small, is the CRuSR program. It’s only fifteen million, but it could really help jump start the suborbital industry. Given the trivial amount, it can’t really be about the money. I would guess that it’s pressure from the traditional sounding rocket people, who stand to be put out of business by low-cost reusables.
NASA budget has been cut back to pre-2008 levels (no shock, except to those living in denial),
but Commercial Crew and space technologies were severely chopped back as well, putting off further the day that we will no longer be reliant on the Russians for ISS, and that we can start moving humans beyond LEO.
Why the “but”? Surely you saw that coming as well? It wasn’t “unexpected”.
Again, I shouldn’t have to ask this, but which Congresspersons or Senators have a reasonable NASA plan in mind? We should be calling and writing them, urging them to take leadership of these issues and reminding them that they will have support. It is likely a waste of time to contact Congresscritters who are wedded to the wrong kind of budget. They’ll only be more careful in hiding their fingerprints.
Good luck on this important legislation.
FWIW, CRuSR is under NASA Office of the Chief Technologist which administers the overall Space Technology budget line. I’d say it’s a reasonable inference that the CRuSR people are expecting cuts because of Space Technology overall getting cut to only 37% of the request for this year.
As for Leland’s selectively-quoted comment, as Rand makes clear in his original, the issue is not the expectedness of the thing, it’s the distribution – what cuts will and won’t damage NASA’s future usefulness. Many of us weren’t surprised at all that the first round of the process showed more respect for pork than practicality. That still doesn’t mean we don’t need to fight back today.
Trashhauler, that turns out not to be the case. Congress tends to function as an elaborate pain-meter when there are multiple budget cuts underway. The projects that generate the most constituent protests over cuts tend to be the ones that get their funding restored. It’s very much a numbers game – the most calls to the most Congressmen is what gets their attention in these things.
Henry, look for the tongue in cheek before taking things negatively. Still, I agree with Trashhauler. First, all my local Congresscritters know their constituents are losing jobs with NASA’s budget cuts. Those jobs would only be saved by sending even more money to SLS and MPCV. Really, my Representatives are a bit more reasonable than my Senators, who would do exactly as Trashhauler suggests, “hide their fingerprints”. I’d say my situation is about as bad, if not worse, than Rand not having a local representative to call. At least he can call the one next door to his district.
Pity about the Webb Telescope. Think of the money spent on the Hubble servicing missions that could have been better spent on Webb instead (although this obviously doesn’t excuse the JWT program mismanagement).
I love these idiot Democrats who, when reminded that Democrats are the enemy of space research, said, “Nooooooo! Obama is pro-NASA!”
Idiots. You don’t deserve a vote or a say in anything, because you fail to educate yourselves. Just stay home next time. You’ve done enough damage.
Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
“Congress tends to function as an elaborate pain-meter when there are multiple budget cuts underway. The projects that generate the most constituent protests over cuts tend to be the ones that get their funding restored.”
Pardon if I disagree somewhat, Mr. Vanderbilt. Yes, Congress will respond to deep and widespread pressure on certain issues. But I’m afraid this isn’t one of them, especially when there are so many other concerns before the public. A few hundred urgent, but scattered, messages from obvious partisans (meant in the generic sense) might cause one or two Congresspersons to have a staffer crunch the numbers for them. But without mass appeal from regular folk, almost nothing we can say is likely to sway the average Congresscritter, let alone put them in fear of their jobs.
Having had some experience writing reclamas on various bills, I can vouch for the difficulty of getting language changed once it is in the bill. It takes at least one Congressperson or Senator willing to send their staff up against a committee staffer – who probably wrote the original language. Getting such folks to change their minds can be awfully tedious work, at least requiring one to provide substitute language ready-made for insertion. That usually takes the dedicated and consistent support from legislators holding a similar opinion to your own, as well as a well-funded lobbying group.
The future of manned space flight is extremely important. Howeveer, I fear these ad hoc approaches to adverse legislation are doomed to failure. It will take more than enthusiasm from one or several blogs and their readers. What is needed is someone on K Street, representing and channeling all the diverse efforts of the commercial space community. In other words, a paid lobbyist who will take the time to develop close contacts, not only with legislators, but also their staffs. Such a lobbyist must be able to say that he or she represents as broad a group as possible, even competitors. Call the thing the National Association of Commercial Space Endeavors (NACSE) or something catchier and let them do their work. Then you’ll have a chance to catch and forestall such unfortunate decisions before they are made.
Best wishes.