Author Topic: Senate Hearing - President's FY2016 NASA Budget Request [Mar 12, 9:30am EDT]  (Read 24585 times)

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1602
  • Likes Given: 50
Senate Hearing

link to notice

Examining the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Republican Press Office - (202) 224-1251

Mar 12 2015 9:30 AM
Senate Russell Office Building - 253

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, will convene a hearing on Thursday, March 12, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. entitled, “Examining the President’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).” NASA Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr., will testify about the agency’s FY 2016 funding request and budget justification.

NASA is our nation’s civilian space and aeronautics research and development agency. On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration transmitted to Congress its FY 2016 Budget Request. The president’s budget request for FY 2016 is $18.53 billion in funding for NASA. The request represents an increase of $519 million, or 2.9 percent, from the FY 2015 enacted level of $18.01 billion.

Witness:

• The Honorable Charles F. Bolden, Jr., NASA Administrator

-----------------------

Live video link should appear in the hearing notice link given above.  Not listed NASA TV schedule at present.

Online Chris Bergin

Worth keeping an eye on folks. I'll be working, but I'm sure there will be a few people looking to keep an eye on interesting parts.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
we are on the 2010 roadmap
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
everyone is on the same page
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
the chairman
what is the core mission of NASA?
"it's to explore space"
« Last Edit: 03/12/2015 12:59 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
We are reducing the launch costs
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
cuts to Orion some 4xx million.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
"chartmanship"  don't know if I agree with your chart

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
going into a list of spending
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
seems to be politics at its best....now talking about the Clinton and old Bush admin spending
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
everything is set to get us to Mars
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Crew questions need the video on this one..
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
back to NASA's core mission
"NASA has drifted from our core mission"
Mars Rover funding isn't there
« Last Edit: 03/12/2015 01:21 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
we are the core producers of Sats
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I'm sorry but the usual BS about exploration without the "overall " budget increase...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Fy15-Fy16 Orion-SLS cuts
bugged about the cuts in the Mars Rover
« Last Edit: 03/12/2015 01:30 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
"I have to make choices"
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Sen. Nelson agrees with me... ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
What the Senator doesn't understand is that sensors developed to study Mars can be used to study Earth.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
asking about Delta IV human rating is it wise?
All about the RD-180 and wants the advanced engine for SLS
« Last Edit: 03/12/2015 01:39 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
nice exchange about Texas soil.....back to the 'Core Mission"
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Best to watch the video its up there for replay atm
Lot's of good stuff if you enjoy the 'political" nature.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Was excited for a moment with Sen. Nelson's question regarding the ICPS. Was really hoping he was going to ask to have the EUS ready for the EM-1 and ask Admin. Bolden costs to do so. Because we shouldn't be using a one-off interim stage on EM1 only to have to reconfigure the MLT for the EUS for EM2. And as far as I know, nobody has outright committed to flying crew on an un-flown brand new second stage which may mean EM2 is also un-crewed. Unless someone can point to a definitive statement from NASA stating otherwise.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
This nation is financially capable of BEO exploration as well as planet Earth. The whole back and forth about it is foolish and a waste of time. The "esteemed" senators should realize that the U.S. can both walk and chew gum... :o
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Best to watch the video its up there for replay atm
Lot's of good stuff if you enjoy the 'political" nature.
Which I don't, so I won't bother. This is just another crappy senate hearing that leads to nothing.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
What the Senator doesn't understand is that sensors developed to study Mars can be used to study Earth.

Mr Cruz's angle seems to be to cut NASA out of earth science and reallocate to the other divisions. It is not hard to understand why. NASA's earth science missions have taken an increased focus on studying climate change in recent years.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
What the Senator doesn't understand is that sensors developed to study Mars can be used to study Earth.

Mr Cruz's angle seems to be to cut NASA out of earth science and reallocate to the other divisions. It is not hard to understand why. NASA's earth science missions have taken an increased focus on studying climate change in recent years.
Without getting into any debate about the politics of climate change, or really anything else about Senator Cruz I would posit that there is a different angle to his comments. Earth Science is a line item on the budget as well as Planetary, Helophysics, and Astronomy. Historically the ratios of each of those line items to each other have been relatively similar throughout the years. That changed with the current administration which made the policy decision to prioritize Earth science. That line item is the only one which has consistently been proposed higher then the last enacted level while the others have either essentially been kept level or proposed to be cut. For example Planetary Science was proposed to get an inflation pacing increase of $16 million dollars while Earth Sciences is proposed for an increase of roughly $123 million over last year's enactment. This is not atypical of past years.

Personally I'm very much in favor of Earth science missions, my avatar picture is Landsat 8. That was a satellite paid for and launched in part as a part of the priority on Earth Science. However, I do not see a problem in reevaluating the priorities if working and scientifically fruitful missions keep getting zeroed out on the budget proposals to save money while the over all science budget is increasing.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
All this started under the Clinton administration as the "Mission to Plant Earth" IIRC... I don't see anything wrong with NASA doing this if it is funded properly.
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Remember the technology needed to study the Earth is the same technology you need to study other planets.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
What the Senator doesn't understand is that sensors developed to study Mars can be used to study Earth.

Mr Cruz's angle seems to be to cut NASA out of earth science and reallocate to the other divisions. It is not hard to understand why. NASA's earth science missions have taken an increased focus on studying climate change in recent years.

That's funny, congress just chased a bunch of earth science responsibilities out of other divisions (NOAA, USGS) and into NASA.

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say Cruz et. al maybe just have an aversion to spending any money on earth science at all...

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
That's funny, congress just chased a bunch of earth science responsibilities out of other divisions (NOAA, USGS) and into NASA.

Why, if I didn't know better, I'd say Cruz et. al maybe just have an aversion to spending any money on earth science at all...

Indeed, at one point Mr Cruz said that it was time for NASA to return to the "hard sciences". Apparently he does not consider earth science to be a hard science worth of study.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Archived video:


Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 988
Without getting into any debate about the politics of climate change, or really anything else about Senator Cruz I would posit that there is a different angle to his comments. Earth Science is a line item on the budget as well as Planetary, Helophysics, and Astronomy. Historically the ratios of each of those line items to each other have been relatively similar throughout the years. That changed with the current administration which made the policy decision to prioritize Earth science. That line item is the only one which has consistently been proposed higher then the last enacted level while the others have either essentially been kept level or proposed to be cut. For example Planetary Science was proposed to get an inflation pacing increase of $16 million dollars while Earth Sciences is proposed for an increase of roughly $123 million over last year's enactment. This is not atypical of past years.

Personally I'm very much in favor of Earth science missions, my avatar picture is Landsat 8. That was a satellite paid for and launched in part as a part of the priority on Earth Science. However, I do not see a problem in reevaluating the priorities if working and scientifically fruitful missions keep getting zeroed out on the budget proposals to save money while the over all science budget is increasing.

Totally agree.  As a huge fan of planetary science, I'm very disappointed that the missions seem to be getting less frequent (Discovery and New Horizons cycles), less risky (Insight chosen over TiME), and less cutting-edge (ASRG canceled).  I don't have a problem with increased Earth science per se, but come on, there are four or five agencies that do Earth science.  As the chart succinctly illustrates, NASA's science balance has gotten significantly skewed.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 12:56 am by Sesquipedalian »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I just finished watching the hearing. There was some positive points. A number of Republicans complained that the funding for SLS and Orion was decreased by $400M in the FY 16 budget while Earth Science was being increased. None of the Republicans complained that commercial crew was being overfunded in the FY 16 budget which is good news.

On the Earth science debate, Republicans said that Earth science has been increased by 41% since 2009 while space exploration has decreased by 6.7%. One Democrat Senator said that Earth science had decreased under Bush but that it was much higher under Clinton than it is under Obama. Democrat Senators emphasised the importance of weather prediction for States such as Florida, Texas and Colorado. But they didn't really explain why the President is asking for an increase in Earth science of about 10% for FY 16.

Bolden indicated that trying to argue that Mars human exploration is not being prioritized by the President because the funding for SLS and Orion was decreased (by $400M) is misleading because other aspects related to Mars exploration have been increased under the President's FY 16 budget. Bolden argued that the increase in the space technology budget is an example of an item critical to Mars exploration that is being increased by the President's FY 16 budget.

Cruz made the point that these discussions will help them in reauthorizing NASA this year.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 02:34 am by yg1968 »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
All this started under the Clinton administration as the "Mission to Plant Earth" IIRC... I don't see anything wrong with NASA doing this if it is funded properly.

Actually, that program started in the late 1980s under the first Bush administration.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
Without getting into any debate about the politics of climate change, or really anything else about Senator Cruz I would posit that there is a different angle to his comments. Earth Science is a line item on the budget as well as Planetary, Helophysics, and Astronomy. Historically the ratios of each of those line items to each other have been relatively similar throughout the years. That changed with the current administration which made the policy decision to prioritize Earth science. That line item is the only one which has consistently been proposed higher then the last enacted level while the others have either essentially been kept level or proposed to be cut. For example Planetary Science was proposed to get an inflation pacing increase of $16 million dollars while Earth Sciences is proposed for an increase of roughly $123 million over last year's enactment. This is not atypical of past years.


There's more to it than that, and you would have to do a deep dive into the budgets over the past 15+ years or so in order to figure it out. However, Earth science had its budgets gradually decreased for awhile. In addition, they produced their first decadal survey awhile back. There was an expectation among that community that they would get some money put back into their budget. And the Obama administration considers Earth science a slightly higher priority. So depending on how you look at it, the additional money for Earth sciences could be considered a rebalancing of the programs.

In addition, you have to consider things like recapitalizing the program, meaning that they put a lot of money into specific platforms that got launched in the early 2000s and are now at the point where they will have to be replaced. So you expect budgets to go up when you're building, down when you're operating, and then back up when you start building again.

That said, my own limited understanding of this is that NASA did a somewhat blurry job of implementing a number of the priorities of the last decadal survey. That creates skepticism about how they are spending their money.

I'm not coming down on either side of this issue because I simply don't know the details (although I've noticed that this is not a requirement for posting on this board). My own bias is toward planetary science missions. But we live on Earth, and so studying what is happening to it, and what we may be doing to it, should be a priority for us.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
That's funny, congress just chased a bunch of earth science responsibilities out of other divisions (NOAA, USGS) and into NASA.

I'm not totally up on this issue, but I've heard some general discussions about it. While it is popular for space enthusiasts to rant and kvetch about NASA screwing this or that up, within a number of technical communities NASA is actually considered to be pretty good. They do a better job than FAA of conducting air traffic research, according to some people. And they are better at program management than some other government agencies, according to others. And NASA also has better knowledge and expertise when it comes to space-based remote sensing than NOAA and USGS, at least in certain areas. Thus, one of the reasons that certain missions have migrated over to NASA is that the agency has a better reputation than NOAA for conducting them.

Now it is common for some conservatives, particularly in the blogosphere, to say that since NOAA has "atmospheric" right in its name and runs weather satellites the Earth sciences stuff should be pushed over to NOAA. But you might notice that the people who advocate this don't endorse it because they think that would actually be GOOD for Earth sciences. They advocate doing it because they don't actually care about Earth sciences. In other words, it's not about good government, it's about doing away with something they don't like in a disingenuous way. The people who do care about Earth sciences, including people who don't necessarily love it, but would at least like to see it done properly, don't want it over at NOAA.

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 988
Now it is common for some conservatives, particularly in the blogosphere, to say that since NOAA has "atmospheric" right in its name and runs weather satellites the Earth sciences stuff should be pushed over to NOAA. But you might notice that the people who advocate this don't endorse it because they think that would actually be GOOD for Earth sciences. They advocate doing it because they don't actually care about Earth sciences. In other words, it's not about good government, it's about doing away with something they don't like in a disingenuous way. The people who do care about Earth sciences, including people who don't necessarily love it, but would at least like to see it done properly, don't want it over at NOAA.

It does not follow that people who "don't actually care about Earth sciences" want to "do away with" it because they "don't like" it.  That is a conflating of two positions.  If you want to get rid of something, you do very much care about it, just not in a positive way.

People who truly don't care about Earth science will look at other factors.  They will see two parallel agencies doing much the same thing and wonder why it is necessary to have two of them.  Did someone not want to give up their own personal fiefdom?  Did some scientist from one agency see something cool in a different agency and decide to copy what they were doing?  Is there some pork-barrel arrangement where the two agencies benefit two jurisdictions?

People with that mindset will come to one of two views which are really two perspectives on the same conclusion.  In the first view, there are duplicate bureaucracies doing twice as much work and spending twice as much money as is necessary, so they should be consolidated.  Since Earth science seems to be a better fit for NOAA, that's where it should go.

In the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at.  The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy.  But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing.  Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at.  Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.

This is the way people are thinking about it.  And this line of reasoning is about good government.  It's presumptuous of you to claim that it isn't.

Now of course people in the know are going to have a more complex understanding of the factors involved.  It doesn't surprise me that NASA is pretty good at doing science no matter the stripe.  If that was more widely known, then the good government advocates might start thinking that maybe it is NOAA that should be shuttered and its funding and responsibilities given to NASA.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914




In the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at.  The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy.  But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing.  Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at.  Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.

This is the way people are thinking about it.  And this line of reasoning is about good government.  It's presumptuous of you to claim that it isn't.


The problem with this line of reasoning is that earth science is planetary science.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 988
Not for the purposes of planning and budgeting, which is the distinction being made here.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
In the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at.  The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy.  But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing.  Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at.  Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.

No, you're pretty much completely wrong about this. One of the things that NASA is good at is Earth science. And that's why the arguments that it should be pushed over to NOAA are disingenuous, because taking that stuff and putting it on another government agency would be highly disruptive and create inefficiencies and would screw it all up. It's not broke, don't fix it.

Oh, and go look at the National Aeronautics and Space Act and the long history of the agency and then come back and say that "Earth science is 'not what NASA does.'" It always has been.

If the people proposing this are not outright hostile to Earth science (they usually are), they often resort to some kind of bureaucratic purity argument, that 1-other agencies do Earth sciency stuff, so NASA doesn't need to do it and it should be consolidated, and 2-it is not NASA's primary mission, and it is some other agency's primary mission, so it should be pushed off of NASA and onto that other agency (i.e. NOAA).

But that's a pretty weak argument. NASA has lots of missions, and those who usually claim that space exploration is NASA's primary mission ignore the charter and the history of NASA, which gave it a broader mandate, not just space exploration. In addition, there's less duplication of effort here than people suspect--NASA and NOAA focus on different things. NOAA monitors ocean life and the fishing industry, for instance. And when you do a budget comparison of these specific tasks, you'd see that taking Earth science out of NASA and giving its budget to NOAA would dramatically skew what NOAA does. It would fundamentally change NOAA's focus, not just add to stuff that it already does (for example, NOAA does not build spacecraft in its own facilities, nor does it have any ability to test them).

Take one example: Goddard Space Flight Center is the primary location that NASA builds and tests Earth science spacecraft. Goddard also includes vacuum chambers and other spacecraft test equipment. Now if those facilities become NOAA facilities, does that make it harder for NASA to use them for other spacecraft, like space telescopes? Who owns the vacuum chambers that one day get used for an Earth science spacecraft and the next get used for a space telescope? If the goal is to reduce bureaucratic entanglements, how does this actually achieve that? NASA does spacecraft development and test, NOAA does not. If you transfer those facilities to NOAA you have just given NOAA a mission it has never had and probably would not do well, and you have increased the bureaucratic entanglements, not decreased them. And if you only give the Earth science budget and mission to NOAA, their spacecraft still have to be tested in NASA facilities, and that too has increased the bureaucratic entanglements.

Alas, this desire for bureaucratic purity would only create messy complications.

Finally, it would be highly disruptive to work all that out. It's not just drawing new lines on org charts and sending money elsewhere. NASA personnel would have to move. Many would quit their jobs or become demoralized or become inefficient because now they have to deal with different organizations, people and rules. Eventually the program could recover, but there are many examples from the past of major agency reorganizations messing things up in the short term.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 02:56 pm by Blackstar »

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Not for the purposes of planning and budgeting, which is the distinction being made here.
For the purpose of building and running it is, analysis is done by other agencies.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 988
In the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at.  The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy.  But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing.  Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at.  Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.

No, you're pretty much completely wrong about this. One of the things that NASA is good at is Earth science. And that's why the arguments that it should be pushed over to NOAA are disingenuous, because taking that stuff and putting it on another government agency would be highly disruptive and create inefficiencies and would screw it all up. It's not broke, don't fix it.

Oh, and go look at the National Aeronautics and Space Act and the long history of the agency and then come back and say that "Earth science is 'not what NASA does.'"

I see you missed the part where I said "People with that mindset will come to one of two views."  I'm familiar with these perspectives; just because I describe them doesn't necessarily mean I subscribe to them.  That's why I put "not what NASA does" in quotes.


Not for the purposes of planning and budgeting, which is the distinction being made here.
For the purpose of building and running it is, analysis is done by other agencies.

I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say.  I'm pointing out that Earth science (discover the Earth) and planetary science (discover other solar system bodies) have different plans and budgets.  They have different goals and they are managed by different sub-bureaucracies.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
I'm trying to point out that although the budgetary side comes from different places the design, development, production and deployment are all funneled through the same expertise and institutional knowledge that is NASA.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
It seems to me that the whole point of this hearing was to let Sen. Cruz to show his chart, so that he can say to Republican base:  "Look at me!  I'm anti-anti-global warming!"

I say this because, for one thing, the chart is misleading.  As others pointed, out, it cherry-picks history in using 2009 as a base, when the earth-science budget had suffered years of decreases to the point that the NRC--people who actually know the field, in other words--described the situation catastrophic.  When this and other relevant facts were pointed out to Cruz, he had no counter-argument and merely repeated his view.

Furthermore, the chart by itself takes no account of the fact that a 1% change in  earth science is a much smaller amount of money than a 1% change in exploration.  But Cruz made no attempt to correct this misimpression.

It was a lousy hearing, little more than a Cruz-for-president misinfomercial.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Now it is common for some conservatives, particularly in the blogosphere, to say that since NOAA has "atmospheric" right in its name and runs weather satellites the Earth sciences stuff should be pushed over to NOAA. But you might notice that the people who advocate this don't endorse it because they think that would actually be GOOD for Earth sciences. They advocate doing it because they don't actually care about Earth sciences. In other words, it's not about good government, it's about doing away with something they don't like in a disingenuous way. The people who do care about Earth sciences, including people who don't necessarily love it, but would at least like to see it done properly, don't want it over at NOAA.

It does not follow that people who "don't actually care about Earth sciences" want to "do away with" it because they "don't like" it.  That is a conflating of two positions.  If you want to get rid of something, you do very much care about it, just not in a positive way.

People who truly don't care about Earth science will look at other factors.  They will see two parallel agencies doing much the same thing and wonder why it is necessary to have two of them.  Did someone not want to give up their own personal fiefdom?  Did some scientist from one agency see something cool in a different agency and decide to copy what they were doing?  Is there some pork-barrel arrangement where the two agencies benefit two jurisdictions?

People with that mindset will come to one of two views which are really two perspectives on the same conclusion.  In the first view, there are duplicate bureaucracies doing twice as much work and spending twice as much money as is necessary, so they should be consolidated.  Since Earth science seems to be a better fit for NOAA, that's where it should go.

In the second view, NASA has a limited budget and a limited number of things it is good at.  The things it is good at are the things that no other agency does - planetary science, heliophysics, astronomy.  But certain politicians, for their own reasons, are pushing NASA to do this Earth science thing.  Since Earth science is "not what NASA does", it is a distraction and makes the agency less efficient at what it is good at.  Since NASA's budget is a zero-sum game, the Earth science focus is draining money from what it should be doing.

This is the way people are thinking about it.  And this line of reasoning is about good government.  It's presumptuous of you to claim that it isn't.

Now of course people in the know are going to have a more complex understanding of the factors involved.  It doesn't surprise me that NASA is pretty good at doing science no matter the stripe.  If that was more widely known, then the good government advocates might start thinking that maybe it is NOAA that should be shuttered and its funding and responsibilities given to NASA.

For the past several years congress (and somebody in the administration, because it made it into the budget requests) have been looking at how "other agencies" (NOAA and USGS) run their satellite procurement and the consensus has been that NASA is much better at acquiring these platforms than the others. NOAA drove the (absolutely essential) polar weather satellite program into a ditch and congress has been practically running NESDIS in an effort to get JPSS back on track. One part of this was taking all the "climate sensors" off JPSS and making them NASA's problem. The idea was to let NOAA "focus on its core mission of weather forecasting."

Part of the most recent bump in Earth Science budget request is that it now includes the next Landsat, as well as a gap-filler satellite to address a potential coverage gap. I don't know as much about Landsat as the climate/weather stuff, but somebody at some point wanted to hand the program off to private industry and failed. So Landsat 8 was originally just a "data continuity mission." One of the consequences of this is that the more important instrument on Landsat 8 was rushed and has only a 3 year design life.

So, "which agencies should do these missions" is not a new question, and after much recent debate the answer was apparently "NASA."

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
I'm trying to point out that although the budgetary side comes from different places the design, development, production and deployment are all funneled through the same expertise and institutional knowledge that is NASA.
Earth Science and Planetary are separate line items thus once the budget is enacted they cannot pull money from one to feed the other. There is some overlap of capability between the two as you point out. However, there are vital areas of institutional knowledge which do not overlap between them. A sensor developed for an Earth Science mission may develop technology used later Planetary sensors. Though Earth Science doesn't come up with ways to do things like land it on other planet, relay the data over long distances, protect it from extreme cold, hot, or radiation. Those things are not useful to Earth Science.

If the money is not in the budget to maintain (aka fly missions) these areas of institutional knowledge do not get maintained. A while back we were looking at the very real threat that the institutional knowledge of how to land and operate rovers on Mars would atrophy due to lack of funding for follow on missions. Other posters have pointed out the flip side with Earth Science. Landsat 8 absolutely had to be build and launched. Building and putting MRO in orbit around Mars was not going to protect enough of the institutional knowledge for the Landsat program to be picked up many years later if stopped now. Switching from one unbalanced funding profile to one unbalanced on the other side is recipe to endanger both.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
It seems to me that the whole point of this hearing was to let Sen. Cruz to show his chart, so that he can say to Republican base:  "Look at me!  I'm anti-anti-global warming!"

The words "Global warming" and "climate change" were actually not prononced during the hearing. You shouldn't expect Republicans to prioritize Earth science as much as Democrats. The Obama administration knows that a 10% increase in funding for Earth science in FY 2016 isn't going to be accepted by a Republican Congress. But they still suggest it in order to score points with their base.

In my opinion, planetary science and Earth science should be funded at similar levels. But planetary science seems to have gotten short changed under Obama's budgets.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 10:20 pm by yg1968 »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
"Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are in fact forbidden terms in Florida-sponsored science under the orders of Governor Rick ("I am not a scientist") Scott. It's unfortunate that science has become so politicized that NASA Earth science is attacked simply because the data it has uncovered don't support the conservative political agenda, which includes promoting fossil fuels, including coal, eviscerating environmental protection, and eliminating government support for development of renewable energy sources. Earth observation is absolutely critical. Although planetary science and astrophysics are vital to our understanding of the universe, Earth science is vital to our continued survival. The idea that NASA cannot study it because NOAA has already done so is transparent rationalization of a position that was adopted for ideological reasons.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162

It was a lousy hearing, little more than a Cruz-for-president misinfomercial.
Fully agree with you. These Senate hearings generally are pretty much subpar, but this one was particularly bad. Cruz at his worst, for now. Time will tell whether the guy can go even lower.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

It was a lousy hearing, little more than a Cruz-for-president misinfomercial.
Fully agree with you. These Senate hearings generally are pretty much subpar, but this one was particularly bad. Cruz at his worst, for now. Time will tell whether the guy can go even lower.

I disagree. These hearings are part of the NASA Authorization process. So they are important. I find the Senate hearings much better than the House hearings.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
All this started under the Clinton administration as the "Mission to Plant Earth" IIRC... I don't see anything wrong with NASA doing this if it is funded properly.

Actually, that program started in the late 1980s under the first Bush administration.
You are probably right, I’m losing track of my decades... Like President Reagan said, "When you get my age, you forget things"... ;D

But I did go back and look at this now just the same... You decide, It's all good for me...

http://history.nasa.gov/databooksvol8/NASA_Historical_Data_Book_8.pdf
« Last Edit: 03/14/2015 01:03 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7829
  • Likes Given: 2
But I did go back and look at this now just the same... You decide, It's all good for me...

http://history.nasa.gov/databooksvol8/NASA_Historical_Data_Book_8.pdf

The key difference that occurred during the latter 1980s was the concept of looking at Earth as a system--water affects atmosphere, atmosphere affects water, ground affects atmosphere and water, and so on. Once you decide to start studying the system level effects you have to field multiple spacecraft taking simultaneous observations over long periods of time to see those interactions. My guess is that scientists had been discussing this for decades, probably going back to the 1950s or earlier, but that they needed to figure out how to start doing that before they could advocate it on a bigger scale.


From the above document:


Earth Science and Applications Overview (1989–1998)
NASA’s focus on Earth science and applications began early in the Agency’s history with its first Earth observing satellite, TIROS

Over the next two decades, NASA increasingly made broader and more precise and sophisticated measurements while improving the technology needed to observe Earth. During the decade from 1989 to 1998, NASA stressed Earth system science—the observation and analysis of the integrated systems of Earth, incorporating the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the planet—and concentrated on global change. In collaboration with other federal agencies and international partners, the Agency carried out a wide variety of observation and research programs conducted both from spacecraft in orbit around Earth and from aircraft.

Beginning in 1991, the MTPE program became the cornerstone of NASA’s Earth science activities as NASA formally began a global-scale examination of Earth to study the interaction of all the environmental components—air, water, land, and life—constituting Earth’s system. Much of the national effort was coordinated through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Internationally, NASA collaborated with Japan, ESA, individual European nations, Russia, and Canada on several key spacecraft and instruments for programs in every area of environmental research. The Agency also was active in such international bodies as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Climate Research Program, and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program.

This global program was NASA’s long-term, coordinated research effort to study Earth as a global environmental system.
The first phase of MTPE consisted of free-flying satellites, such as UARS, and Space Shuttle missions, such as the Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS). Airborne and ground-based studies complemented the space missions. Phase 2 consisted of the Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites, whose overall goal was to advance understanding of the entire Earth system on a global scale by improving our knowledge of the components of the system, the interactions among them, and how Earth’s system is changing.
« Last Edit: 03/15/2015 04:22 pm by Blackstar »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
I agree with Blackstar's assessment above; the historical record is clear that under NASA's mandate as lead agency for scientific observations from space, Earth observation has always been a major and critical NASA mission.

Another article about the hearing:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/235719-battle-brewing-over-nasa-funding

However when I read the hundreds of comments which have been posted to the above article on The Hill website, I was shocked by the astonishing number of people who reject NASA climate research on purely political grounds. This is not based on any pretense of science, but on the axioms that 1) all "liberal" ideas are not only wrong, but actually fraudulent, devious and evil, 2) climate change is a "liberal" idea, therefore 3) climate change is a fraudulent and possibly evil idea, and in addition anyone, scientist or lay person, who supports the idea that climate change is a real problem is doing so only because it serves some devious purpose or because they are being paid to take that view. There is simply no room in this worldview for open-minded scientific debate, let alone real discussion of what agency is best equipped for the mission of studying changes in the Earth's climate.

It makes me appreciate how lucky we are to belong to a group here that may disagree but tries to debate the issues in a rational, courteous and informative manner.
« Last Edit: 03/15/2015 10:28 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
All this started under the Clinton administration as the "Mission to Plant Earth" IIRC... I don't see anything wrong with NASA doing this if it is funded properly.
In fact, NASA has been doing this from the start (as Blackstar mentioned). It's in NASA's original 1958 charter:
http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact.html

Quote
(c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;...
Things like studying the climate (or aeronautics or scientific robotic exploration) are clearly part of NASA's "core mission" (as is defined by public law in NASA's charter).

I wish Bolden would read a copy of NASA's charter sometime at one of these hearings so we're all on the same page. NASA has a broad mandate, and they do a pretty good job at hitting all the things in their charter and doing most of them pretty effectively.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2015 10:33 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
I wish Bolden would read a copy of NASA's charter sometime at one of these hearings so we're all on the same page. NASA has a broad mandate, and they do a pretty good job at hitting all the things in their charter and doing most of them pretty effectively.

HSF tends to be the most neurotic, but largely because it's also been the part of NASA that has been the least "results-driven" as opposed to "inputs-driven". Congress had no interest in giving NASA HSF an achievable and properly funded mission, but boy were they interested in making sure that whatever we do it uses as much of the old Shuttle infrastructure as practicable.

~Jon

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1