THE HILL
 

Panel’s report threatens NASA’s mission

By Walter Alarkon - 09/10/09 05:05 AM ET

A report suggesting that NASA’s space travel goals are too ambitious for its budget is imperiling efforts by Florida and Texas lawmakers to win more money for the agency’s budget.

The Human Space Flight Committee, which was created by President Barack Obama, said this week that NASA’s flight program is on an “unsustainable trajectory” due to its “pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources.”

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who sponsored the House appropriations bill calling for fewer 2010 NASA funds than the Obama administration requested, said the report confirms his concerns that “the emperor has no clothes.”

Mollohan echoed the committee in criticizing the approach to spaceflight for having a “disconnect between its means and ends,” suggesting that NASA must either find more funding or rein in its ambitions.

The panel, in the executive summary of a full report to come later, noted that NASA’s next-generation space travel vehicles won’t be ready until 2017, two years later than scheduled, and that the space agency should turn to private companies for missions that don’t venture beyond Earth’s low orbit.

If NASA wants to achieve its goals of sending humans to the moon and Mars, it needs $3 billion more annually, the panel said.
That would be a significant boost to NASA’s budget, expected to be less than $19 billion next year.

The report by the committee, led by former Lockheed Martin executive Norman Augustine, led to renewed calls to overhaul NASA’s approach.

Mollohan’s Commerce, Justice and Science 2010 spending bill set NASA’s budget at $18.2 billion — $650.6 million less than what NASA had requested.

Mollohan had said he would consider the higher funding level after the report’s release. He has called on NASA to more clearly spell out its plans for manned space missions.

The Senate, in its spending bill for NASA, set the agency’s funding at the higher, requested level of $18.7 billion. The House and Senate have yet to reconcile their bills’ differences in conference.

Mollohan said he looks forward to working with the Obama administration and his colleagues in Congress “as we determine the best way to align resources with NASA’s human spaceflight mission.”

A bipartisan group of about a dozen lawmakers from Texas and Florida, home to major spaceflight bases, have pressed for more NASA funding, arguing that it would have national security and economic benefits. They used the report’s findings to call on the administration to provide even more funding for the agency.

“It’s time to step up to the plate and give them what they need — $2 billion or $3 billion [a year],” said Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), whose district includes the Johnson Space Center.

Augustine, whose former company is a leading aerospace contractor, will testify before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA next week, according to the panel’s chairman, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

Nelson, whose state is home to the Kennedy Space Center, said that whether the space program will get funding to meet its goals will depend on the White House.

“There’s only one person who can lead the space program, and that’s the president,” Nelson said.

Source:
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/technology/58007-panels-report-threatens-nasas-mission-to-get-a-boost-in-funding

Comments (32)

All who are interested in supporting NASA should remember that its programs include much more than human space flight missions. Research in climate science, aeronautics, space observatories, unmanned missions to the far reaches of our solar system, are just a few of the programs that grew out of NASA's 1958 enabling Space Act. There are many high priority programs that support important national priorities and these must continue to be funded at appropriate levels.BY Don Beattie on 09/10/2009 at 16:34
I don't know which planet Mr Mollohan is on, but it is him (the Legislature) that decides NASA's1. Aims Objectives2. Missions3. BudgetSo really he is criticising himself !BY Stuart Hurst on 09/11/2009 at 04:06
It is absurd to imagine that this country would abandon exploration of our universe and cede leadsership to another nation. The annual price of an ambitious exploration program is roughly the cost of another "cash for clunkers" program. Surely our leaders in Congress and the White House will maintain the proper perspective as they chart a course in the coming weeks.BY Alfred A Boyd on 09/11/2009 at 09:19
Why didn't the Augustine committee invest the commercial space shuttle? see: www.nasaproblems/comBY Don Nelson on 09/13/2009 at 10:04
.I'm sorry, but, the 7 years NASA/USA spaceflight GAP can't be reduced by more than a couple of years, not even adding $3 billion to the annual NASA budgetthe reality of facts is that NO ONE say the TRUTH about this point, while, ALL think, say and want to hear only optimistic words, as I've explained, point by point, in this EE Times article "One big problem, eight vague options, no solutions for NASA":http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219700475pgno=1the RESIZED-Ares-5-called-Direct, the "new.space" companies, the old Shuttle-C concept, the "orbital refuel" are ONLY BIG ILLUSIONS… but NO ONE wants to see, say, hear this!also, it's completely unclear WHAT has been the "purpose" of the HSF Committee, since, after THREE months of "hard work", its TEN "experts" are UNABLE to give just ONE, clear and good SOLUTION, but, only EIGHT (vague, similar and already well known) "options", as explained in these articles:http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/052strangestory .htmlhttp://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/053decisionsmachin e.html.BY gaetano marano on 09/14/2009 at 15:30
we get what we pay for. Augustine has been an opponent of manspace flight for years and it shows in this report. Who benefits? Lockheed Martin for one. Augustine's co. Who else is going to build all those robots for outspace that he wants.BY bmerr2009 on 10/05/2009 at 11:19
NASA is a big waste of money.There is nobody up there.Not even a Sabrett Hot Dog cart,no McDonalds,no Walmarts,NO PEOPLE !Get it…nobody lives there,get used to it,BY Billy Bitz on 10/05/2009 at 18:03
I guess I find it hard to justify spending on this currently. That said, it may be worth it in just National Pride. I hadn't realized that the NASA budget was so small. Perhaps most of the cost cutting has already been done, and they appear to do quite a bit with relatively small resources.BY murphyslaww on 10/06/2009 at 07:55
Space is a species imperative plain an simple. Any species that does not expand its range is doomed to unhappiness due to crowding and extinction due to statistical causes. We must research and explore now for the longer term goals of colonization and space mining later. Short term, basic space research, even if the goals are not reached, pushed technology useful in many economic areas and increases our technological edge. NASA work in aerospace alone is worth the cash. Want a happy economy, and more engineers? Put money into NASA, goals or not.BY Propellerhead on 10/07/2009 at 13:29
Technology is our only edge in this world. Without it, we'd have only 3d world ambitions. Increase funding now!BY Michael in Atlanta on 10/07/2009 at 16:04

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.