What can NASA expect for the next 2 years?
Nov 13th, 2006 by Moonage
SOME people constantly badgered the Bush led Republicans as being bad for science in general. So, I imagine they were quite relieved when the Democrats took the house a week ago. Here’s a little look at what NASA can expect to deal with now that those people who hated Bush got their way:
Regarding funding, Representative David Obey is set to take charge of the House Appropriations Committee. Earlier this year Obey submitted legislation to CUT NASA’s budget by $200 million. He has also been quite vocal in his opposition to several NASA programs, notably space flight programs. The article mentions things get better for NASA below the appropriations committee, but that’s a caveat of little comfort to me. Regardless of what the sub-committees propose, if it don’t fly in the appropriations committee, it won’t make it to the floor. It’s not so much that Obey has voted negative regarding NASA, he has been very vocal about it.
The House Science Committee is the committee that tends to watch over NASA, it will be led by Bart Gordon. This is what Rep. Gordon had to say about his potential oversite of NASA:
“An important part of the Committee’s agenda will be serious and sustained oversight of all of NASA’s activities,” Gordon said in a written response to questions from Space News. “In that regard, we will of course be examining the Administration’s exploration initiative — including its objectives, its schedule and funding, and the roles of international cooperation and the commercial sector —‑ to make sure the nation gets the best return on its investment in this important initiative.”
I see a bad moon on the rise. I’m sure the science community still has their blinders on. They got what they wanted, so how can they criticize? Expect NASA funding to be slashed along with the things that are not the "best return on its investment" as deemed by Bart Gordon. I mean, how exactly will they determine what science is the best return for NASA’s investment?
Things look better on the Senate side, with Barbara Mikulski looking to be the primary, and most powerful, supporter for NASA. The article goes on to mention she could be as good for NASA as, you guessed it, Tom Delay was. However, it also does mention that if Jack Murtha gets control of the Senate over Hoyer, Mikulski will be limited in what she can do.
IMMEDIATE UPDATE: No sooner than I had posted this, I read THIS:
NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor has been out of contact with Earth for nearly a week and engineers tried Friday to re-establish communication with the craft, which may be showing its age after 10 years in space.
See! I told ya there’s a bad moon on the rise. Looks like Obey’s pulling the plug on anything Mars already! Looks like Gordon came to the conclusion a bunch of pictures of Mars just ain’t much of an investment as well.
And the Bad Astronomers were worried about Bush stifling science. They ain’t seen nothing yet. Not even in power yet and the Dems have stifled the Surveyor. I’m sure the Rovers are the next to go:
- They are on Mars.
- Their "investment" value at this point is basically nil.
Kiss them good-bye very shortly.
Democrats are stifling science
A while back I got into a little to-do with a Bad Astronomer who got political. He fully felt, along with a lot of academic science folks, that Republicans were bad on science. He noted a couple of reasons why.
[...] A while back I got into a little to-do with a Bad Astronomer who got political. He fully felt, along with a lot of academic science folks, that Republicans were bad on science. He noted a couple of reasons why. I noted a couple of reasons why not. Immediately after the election and the Democrats took over, I made a prediction on what NASA could expect for the next two years. [...]
[...] prefer to speak English. As of now, HR 3737, funding supporting SETI, is effectively dead. With David Obey on the oversight committee, we can expect a whole lot more of science getting axed if it has nothing to do with proving global [...]