Science Eviscerated In NASA Budget, Planetary Society call to action Options

[elakdawalla]

The Planetary Society has issued a call to action, for people to contact House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to demand that NASA not cut their 2006 spending on science priorities like Europa before their 2007 budget has even taken effect; and to demand that they reconsider their priorities in the 2007 budget. Go to our Space Advocacy page for more on how to participate in this campaign. Please participate!

--Emily

[Jeff7]

Done. I redid most of the letter before sending it...something about sending form letters that I just don't like.
I'm amazed that they're trying to cancel the Europa mission. Isn't Europa the only other body we know of that has a significant amount of liquid water? (Or at least, damn strong evidence of it.)
And taking funding away from projects already promised funding by Congress? Well, promises and the current administration in the US....they just don't go together.

Retire the shuttle fleet (or heck, just one of the things), and auction off some of the parts on eBay. It could be great PR - Own your own piece of the shuttle - and it'll bring in money for the rest of the budget. Heck with selling small pieces of the ceramic tiles - sell them whole. It'll be the new Pokemon - collect them all!

[djellison]

What's TPS's advice for non-American-tax-payers - what can us foreigners do? (apart from bitch and moan about it)

Doug

[elakdawalla]

What's TPS's advice for non-American-tax-payers - what can us foreigners do? (apart from bitch and moan about it)

For this particular call to action, there is not much that non-U.S.-taxpayers can do. There is no harm in participating in the email campaign, but of course in a discussion about the U.S. budget the reps rightfully don't really care what anybody but their constituents thinks. Other calls to action are more international in scope, but this one is pretty much for people to say "you're spending my tax dollars on the wrong things."

--Emily

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

For this particular call to action, there is not much that non-U.S.-taxpayers can do. There is no harm in participating in the email campaign, but of course in a discussion about the U.S. budget the reps rightfully don't really care what anybody but their constituents thinks. Other calls to action are more international in scope, but this one is pretty much for people to say "you're spending my tax dollars on the wrong things."

I've been a TPS member since, I believe, late 1989 or early 1990; therefore, forgive me for asking what might turn out to be a rather naive question. Out of curiosity, and also because I haven't really paid that close attention, does TPS directly lobby non-U.S. governments for funding increases for their respective space science programs? I assume that there are not a few non-U.S. TPS members, so I was wondering if TPS, say, organized letter and/or e-mail writing campaigns to, for example, the Russian Parliament, EU ministers, CNES, ASI, etc.

[MahFL]

Message sent from this US Tax payer.

[dvandorn]

And also from this one.

Of course, I edited the pre-packaged message a little -- especially since "program" was mis-spelled "porgram" at one point in it.

-the other Doug

[MahFL]

I would not worry about spelling, it's well known politicians can't spell

[Bob Shaw]

I would not worry about spelling, it's well known politicians can't spell

It's still worthwhile ensuring that the politicos don't get the idea that there's a demand for an expanded space pogrom... ...we got one of those.

Bob Shaw

[elakdawalla]

Of course, I edited the pre-packaged message a little -- especially since "program" was mis-spelled "porgram" at one point in it.

Yikes -- a perennial problem -- I'll get on that.

Also, Alex, I'm looking for an answer for your question.

--Emily

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Also, Alex, I'm looking for an answer for your question.

Thanks, Emily. I was just curious.

BTW, the February 16, 2006, issue of Nature has a couple of related items:

Excerpt from:

Editorial
NASA in reverse
Nature 439, 764 (2006).
doi:10.1038/439764a

[...]

"But the Hansen debacle is just one element of the increasingly adversarial relationship that is developing between NASA and the research community. The sour mood was apparent at last month's American Astronomical Society meeting in Washington DC, when NASA's science chief Mary Cleave told assembled scientists that her most important 'stakeholders' were the White House and Congress. Cleave's real (if unintentional) message was clear: don't expect NASA to advocate research, as we work for other interests.

"Scientists were also dismayed at how fast NASA administrator Mike Griffin reneged on a promise made last autumn not to take 'one thin dime' from space science to address the budget problems of the space shuttle and the space station. At his budget news conference on 6 February, Griffin confessed to doing just that, shifting $2 billion over five years from research to the astronaut programme.

"The cuts to science were deep, and they were decided behind closed doors. Take the research and analysis grants that fund the basic intellectual work underlying NASA's space missions. Previous NASA administrators, recognizing that many space scientists rely on these grants to stay in business, kept the grant programme healthy. But the new budget slashes research grants by 15–25%, and by even more in areas such as astrobiology. And NASA is yet to give details of how deep the cuts actually are."

Excerpt from

News
US space scientists rage over axed projects
Tony Reichhardt
Nature 439, 768-769 (2006).
doi:10.1038/439768a

[...]

"Planetary scientist Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Washington says the cuts would devastate US space science — just as physics was jolted when the Superconducting Super Collider was cancelled in 1993, after $2 billion had been spent on it. 'High energy physics never quite recovered from that.'

"Scientists appreciate that NASA's administrator, Mike Griffin, is struggling to balance his books. Griffin explained during the budget press conference that the science cuts were necessary to pay for shuttle flights required to complete the International Space Station. 'It's what we needed to do,' he said regretfully.

"But Jonathan Lunine, a planetary scientist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, sums up the view of many when he says he finds it 'puzzling and frustrating' that NASA would divert money from science, widely considered its most productive enterprise, to keep the aged space shuttles flying. 'It seems that NASA is trying to capitalize on its failures rather than its successes,' says Lunine.

[...]

"There is fury not just at the size of the cuts, but at how they were decided and announced to the science community. Heidi Hammel, a planetary researcher with the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colorado, says that NASA's advisory council was not operating during much of last year and so 'there was absolutely no way to know how these decisions had been made. It's sort of like a black hole over there.'"

[elakdawalla]

I've been a TPS member since, I believe, late 1989 or early 1990; therefore, forgive me for asking what might turn out to be a rather naive question. Out of curiosity, and also because I haven't really paid that close attention, does TPS directly lobby non-U.S. governments for funding increases for their respective space science programs? I assume that there are not a few non-U.S. TPS members, so I was wondering if TPS, say, organized letter and/or e-mail writing campaigns to, for example, the Russian Parliament, EU ministers, CNES, ASI, etc.

I got this answer from Lou Friedman (our esteemed Executive Director):

The Planetary Society indeed does lobby from time to time on issues affecting space exploration. We are currently lobbying the U.S. Congress about the NASA Budget, arguing for restoration of space science funds. We have lobbied in other countries too -- although not very frequently. We need to be more active with governments in other space-faring countries. We also try to influence space leaders internationally in support of planetary exploration and the search for extraterrestrial life, both in direct contact with them and through international organizations and forums.

Lou

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

I got this answer from Lou Friedman (our esteemed Executive Director)...

Thanks for taking the time to track down a response, Emily. Also, please pass along my thanks to Lou Friedman for the reply.

I listened to the recent Planetary Radio interview of Lou Friedman and Bruce Murray regarding NASA's budget plans. Given Murray's experiences as JPL Director, when the Shuttle program threatened unmanned space projects (e.g., Galileo), I was wondering if Murray, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, thought the current situation was a case of "déjà vu all over again."

[Redstone]

We'll have a chance to see how effective the combined protest efforts of the Planetary Society, scientific community and public regarding NASA's budget request have been when Griffin and Shana Dale face the House Science Committee tomorrow at 10 am EST (3 pm GMT). The session is scheduled for 2 hours, and will be on NASA TV.

The representatives will say, "Why did you cut science so much?"
Griffin will say, "Because we need the money for Shuttle and Station"
Reps will say, "Why not keep the science and cut the budget for Shuttle?"
Griffin will say, "Because we can't delay Shuttle, or save money flying fewer missions. But we can delay the science."

What happens next is the interesting part. I'm hoping some of the 30% increase going to Exploration will go back to Science. It really doesn't cost much to keep SIM and TPF ticking over, and start work on EO.

Expect also a lot of complaints about cuts to aeronautics.

[Stephen]

All the complaints about shuttles taking money from space science and grumbles about how there would be more for science if only Griffin would retire a shuttle strike me as naive. NASA's new mandate to send people to the Moon & Mars is also consuming money. Why not cut that back instead, or delay its schedule?

The real problem is that NASA is underfunded for what it wants/needs/has to be able to do. The shortage of money for space science is merely a symptom of that. These sort of shortages are not new and the present shortages are not likely to be the last. (Indeed, I cannot help thinking that this present situation is partly an inevitable consequence of the generous tax cuts Bush persuaded Congress to make a few years back. If you cut back the amount of money a government has available to spend then inevitably there will be less in the kitty to spend.)

What we should be hearing are calls for NASA to be given more money in general. Trying to take money from one NASA pot to give to another is merely a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Manned moon missions and manned Mars missions are going to be even more expensive even if the CEV itself is cheaper than the shuttle. What happens a decade from now when inevitably the budget cutters strike again? The shuttle will no longer be around to act as whipping boy. Will we instead be hearing calls from this board for fewer manned missions to the moon and/or delays in the manned Mars program, not to mention complaints about what a bottomless pit the CEV is and how we ought to have less of them to free up funding so they can start planning for that nice Triton orbiter everyone is talking about?

======
Stephen