Griffin criticized by Congress for cutting science program

[askold]

WASHINGTON – The House Science Committee’s Republican chairman and senior Democrat told NASA Administrator Mike Griffin they had little interest in accelerating the U.S. space agency’s exploration plans at the expense of science and research.<br /><br />Griffin appeared before the House Science Committee Thursday to defend his agency’s 2007 budget request of $16.792 billion, which would hold science spending to a 1.5-percent increase next year in order to fund a nearly $1 billion increase for exploration. NASA plans to postpone or cancel several major science missions to help free up the additional money its needs to build new spacecraft and launchers while also operating a space shuttle fleet slated to fly 16 missions to the international space station before its retired in 2010.<br /><br />“I am extremely uneasy about this budget, and I am in a quandary at this point about what to do about it,” Boehlert told Griffin. “This budget is bad for space science, worse for Earth science, perhaps worse still for aeronautics. It basically cuts or de-emphasizes every forward looking, truly futuristic program of the agency to fund operational and development programs to enable us to do what we are already doing or have done before.”<br /><br />.... <br /><br />Boehlert, who said he had not made up his mind about what should be done about the NASA budget, said he would be willing to vote for giving NASA more money than the White House requested as long as the money went to unmanned side of the program and did not come from other science agencies.

 

[kdavis007]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.....

 

[frodo1008]

Did you go over to the Planetary Societies site and sign their excellent protest letter? I would hope that you of all SDC posters will do this (I have), The letter doesn't go to Mike Griffin who in attempting to do all the things that congress wants him to do is not the one to complain to. The letter goes to your representative in congress.<br /><br />Personally. I think that by far the most correct thing for congress to do would be to at the very least give NASA the same budget boost that the administration is asking them to give the military (a 7% boost after inflation). I don't even object to the militaries boost in itself. I just think if we can manage to give some $28 billion more to the military, then we ought to be able to find some $1 billion to boost NASA!<br /><br />This amount would be enough to fully fund the manned side of NASA (including shuttle, ISS & CEV) without cannibalizing the space science side! Most of us that support the manned side ALSO support the space science robotics side! I am even willing to see the CEV and return to the moon slip some schedule wise to keep up the science side! It IS this very same congress (not necessarily this committee) that wants as little a lag time between the shuttle retirement and the activation of the CEV as possible!! It is THEY not Mike Griffin that are the problem!<br /><br />I lived through the last time that congress wouldn't fund NASA properly because we were fighting a war, and the result of this was the very shuttle that so many now complain about!! I don't want to see it happen again!!!<br />

 

[alokmohan]

Space projects are meant for miltary superiority.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

The Committee weren't criticising Griffin. If they were criticising anyone it was the Administration.

 

[askold]

Yes, I signed the protest letter.<br /><br />I disagree that the solution is to throw more money at the problem.<br /><br />Is Griffin holding the science programs hostage in order to get more overall money - so he can spend even more on the shuttle?<br /><br />In life we always have to prioritize and make choices, because we never get 100% of what we want. Griffin is being criticized for making bad choices. I agree with the Congressmen.

 

[frodo1008]

If you truly believe this then that is all the more reason to give NASA at least as much of an increase as the administration intends to give the military!!!!

 

[frodo1008]

You are totally forrect here, but of course such a realatively minor committee can't possibly ask for an explaanation from President Bush, so Griffin takes the gaff!! As I have stated before, IF the administration had at least given NASA as much of an increase as the military is getting then there wauld have been no problem!!

 

[frodo1008]

I am indeed glad you signed the letter!! <br /><br />A number of years ago I read (I even think it was an article in the LA Times, usually thought to be a liberal paper) where the return in investment for the overall space program was at least 10X and possibly as high as 14X! This is of course in direct technological invention. Even if you took the smaller figure and taxed it for federal taxes at some 20% then the space program basically costs NOTHING!! And this applies to both the manned and the robotic efforts. Which is why I fully support both areas!<br /><br />Somebody once asked one of the Apollo astronauts (it was a long time ago, and I don't remember which astronaut) why were we spending some $100 billion dollars on the moon, the replay was, "We didn't spend ANY money on the moon, ALL the money was spent right here in the USA!!"<br /><br />You DO have a credibility problem with at least me on this issue, as you stated rather categorically in your first thread (it may even have been your very first post) that you were totally against the manned potion of NASA's efforts!! So when you state things like they shouldn't throw more money at the manned portion (shuttle, ISS, CEV or otherwise) then I have to take your statements with a certain "Grain of Salt" as the expression goes!<br /><br />The STS system will have been in operation for some 30 years or more by the time the last shuttle is retired. There is NO agency on Earth that can plane such a complex system for that long and NOT overrun its budget!! Just how do you plan for the unexpected to take place?? The shuttle is overrun by less than $5 billion, but that is in comparison to some $100 billion spent on the program over those 30+ years. This is a total overrun of 5% or less, which isn't just good for such a program it is EXCELLENT! Under the circumstances very little extra money has to be "thrown" at the program in order to accomplish what CONGRESS itself has already asked NASA to do!! Do we "walk the t

 

[gsuschrist]

Aslold. I agree with you. NASA doesn't need more money just to flush more down the toilet. The last way to promote excellence is to reward failure and inefficiency. <br /><br />Frodo. what's the connection between NASA's budget increases and the military? The country is at war. One would hope that when at war military budgets are independent of other considerations. In WW2 94% of the Federal budget was spent on winning the war.

 

[frodo1008]

Do you have ANY knowledge at all of what you are talking about here? Did you even bother to read my entire post? NASA is and has been all along one of the most efficient government agencies in history at developing new technologies that have resulted in industries that are worth not just billions of dollars, but trillions of dollars! And yes, the military is also responsible for some technological development, but at a far higher cost! <br /><br />Do you have any knowledge or experience in the aerospace industry? If you did you certainly wouldn't run down the good, hard working, and intelligent people of NASA and its contractors with such statements!! <br /><br />Yes, it is definitely true that the shuttle has its problems. But if you had any knowledge of how the program was originally handled, and mishandled by a congress that was intent on fighting another war in Viet Nahm that most Americans today would call a losing cause, then you certainly wouldn't want to see history repeat itself again!! <br /><br />I was there, and a part of that very same aerospace industry for some 37.5 years, and I do NOT want to see that happen again!! Am I being too obtuse for you here?<br /><br />Even askold at least supports the scientific and robotic work of NASA, as I do! Is that also so very inefficient? <br /><br />I would not be very far off to state that most Americans today would say that it IS congress, and the present administration that IS inefficient! <br /><br />I don't like to rant on this manner, but I really grow tired of the kind of negativity shown by some on these boards!! <br /><br />Heck, I even fully support the pure private start up company efforts as well!! <br /><br />At least NASA along with its private contractors, and workers like myself have actually done things to put human beings not only into space, but even on the moon!! How many other government agencies have actually done what they said they would do? Has the “War on Poverty” actually eliminated pove

 

[frodo1008]

If mankind hadn't have wasted so much in finding better ways of killing each other over the centuries, we could be on our way to the stars by now!!!!

 

[askold]

I've been completely consistent in my posts - I believe that <b>this</b> NASA should get out of the manned mission business because <b>this</b> NASA has become so risk-averse that all it's going to do is waste money tinkering with manned launch vehicles rather than flying them.<br /><br />Furthermore, I believe we shouldn't waste money on manned programs while we have no legitimate reason for sending people into space at a huge cost, and we don't have technology to do it as safely as the public demands. If sometime in the future, our technological capability and the public's stomach for risk intersect, and we have a worthwhile purpose for sending people into space, then we should go.<br /><br />Lastly, I believe we have a vibrant science program that is producing tremendous results and even paving the way for eventual manned travel. Let's concentrate on the science programs.<br /><br />Regarding the shuttle program, you and othesr want to keep going with it becasue "we promised" - or something like that. Why? Governments change their mind about projects all the time. The LA subway was supposed to extend all the way to the beach, but after the first section was built, they decided to end with that. Same with the shuttle - we did 90% of what we planned to do with it and now it's time to move on.

 

[mikeemmert]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The last way to promote excellence is to reward failure and inefficiency.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>The first question a politician asks himself is, "Will taking this action get me votes?".<br /><br />The acid test came in the year 2000. Al Gore had spent a tireless carreer in public service promoting and funding the development of the internet.<br /><br />And what was his reward? First, he was seriously misquoted , substituting the word, "invented" for the phrase, "took the initiative in creating". This is flat out lying, people.<br /><br />Did any tech type people come to his aid against this smear campaign? Some did. Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf did:<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials <br />in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the <br />passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in <br />1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education <br />Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the <br />spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science...No one in public life has been more intellectually <br />engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the <br />Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the <br />councils of government and with the public at large.<br /><br />The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value <br />of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and <br />consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American <br />citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.<font color="white">"<br /><br />But th is was September 28, 2000; it was too little and too late to save Al Gore</font></font>

 

[askold]

Thank you for your detailed argument in support of Al Gore.<br /><br />Now, could you support your assertion that "W. ... demands that science be de-emphasised to fund stunt flying, ..."

 

[mikeemmert]

Yes, sir, I can:<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">Griffin appeared before the House Science Committee Thursday to defend his agency’s 2007 budget request of $16.792 billion, which would hold science spending to a 1.5-percent increase next year in order to fund a nearly $1 billion increase for exploration. NASA plans to postpone or cancel several major science missions to help free up the additional money its needs to build new spacecraft and launchers while also operating a space shuttle fleet slated to fly 16 missions to the international space station before its retired in 2010.<br /><br /> <br /><br />“I am extremely uneasy about this budget, and I am in a quandary at this point about what to do about it,” Boehlert told Griffin. “This budget is bad for space science, worse for Earth science, perhaps worse still for aeronautics. It basically cuts or de-emphasizes every forward looking, truly futuristic program of the agency to fund operational and development programs to enable us to do what we are already doing or have done before.”<br /><br /> <br /><br />Boehert said that while he supports the Vision for Space Exploration, he does not “see any reason to accelerate it beyond the president’s original plans” which called for fielding the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) by 2014 and landing astronauts on the Moon by 2020.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Boehlert, who said he had not made up his mind about what should be done about the NASA budget, said he would be willing to vote for giving NASA more money than the White House requested as long as the money went to unmanned side of the program and did not come from other science agencies. “But money is not exactly growing on trees around here so what to do is not clear,” he said.<font color="white">"<br /><br />I know it's hard to wrap you mind around the concept of a supposedly Republican administration cutting back funding for the space program. But W is a renegad</font></font>

 

[mikeemmert]

600 votes would have made Gore President. I would like to point out that he lost the election in Florida.<br /><br />The statement you suggested to replace what Gore actually said is subject to the distortion, "<font color="yellow">See, Gore is for regulation. He wants the Internet to be a liberal, government regulated tool of the big bureaucracy!<font color="white">"<br /><br />Nice try, offsprey5. Really, thanks for trying to help. I was just trying to show that the people in power now will find a way to distort anything. It's up to the people who know what the facts are and what the history is to speak up when a grossly distorted misquote like "invented" shows up.<br /><br />Kerry (and a lot of politicians) could do a lot better tailoring his speeches to the audience. It may well be, though, that Kerry wrote off the KSC vote after seeing what happened to his friend, Al Gore. Thus, KSC would be just another campaign stop. And in hostile territory, too.<br /><br />Historically, the Democrats have been the ones promoting space exploration; Kennedy and Johnson sent men to the moon. I remember during Apollo 11 thinking how ironic it was that Nixon would be the one to have his name associated with the moon landing after having opposed "wasteful" spending during much of his carreer.<br /><br />How space exploration was hijacked by the Republicans is a huge mystery to me. For most of my life they have held it up as something to cut to save money. But when they go to KSC, the speech is tailored to that audience.<br /><br />25 Nobel laureates endorsed Kerry, yet reading this message board has shown me that these endorsements have had no effect at all on the target audience. Can you begin to get the message about why Kerry treated KSC as a whistle stop?<br /><br />Democrats are FOR science. Republicans are AGAINST.</font></font>

 

[mattblack]

Republicans didn't exactly "hijack" space, Democrats LOST it. The highly influential, far-left faction of the Democrats have consistently voted against space initiatives and space funding. If Jimmy Carter could have cancelled the Space Shuttle, he would have. Heaven knows Walter Mondale wanted it gone almost as much as he wanted Apollo gone, which is a matter of historical fact. <br /><br />The Clinton Administration nearly allowed ISS to die, and when it wouldn't (by ONE vote), altered it drastically to include the Russians. A cynic would say that all the Democrats did for space in the 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's was; best case scenario -- perpetuate space pork, worst case -- try to stifle any space technology innovation, if not downright cancel everything to pay for more socialist programs. Heck, it's been said that all the Clinton folk did was give $2 billion bucks to Russia's space industry as welfare, and fly John Glenn again.<br /><br />Democrats have EVERY chance and opportunity to be as space visionary as Republicans, but the record of recent history speaks for itself... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Vey well stated.<br /><br />Of course, Democrats will tell you that they support the space program, almost all politicians do if they see something in it for themselves or their constituents which translates into votes. Its too bad but the really supportive Dems seemed to be JFK and LBJ and both are long gone. I say seemed to be only because as we really don't know these people, we ultimately can only judge their support by the strength of their actions and while JFK did commit us to the moon. If he had not been assassinated, he might have later been convinced to go another route. As for LBJ, it could easily be argued he did it because Texas wanted it.<br /><br />Ultimately, I suspect its time to find another way to justify human space flight and associated costs. Not for us here on Space.com, most of us support it including me. But the public at large barely know it exists, much less support it. And for those who are barely aware of it, all they need to hear are media pundits criticising it to form their opinions. Thats just reality.<br /><br />Time for private enterprise to take the LEO puppy over and let NASA free up funds directed to that effort. Use the freed money for development of the infrastructure that private enterprise will utilize when they get beyond LEO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

Sir, could you provide some links for some of these things? John Kerry got the endorsements of 25 Nobel Prize laureates, something prizewinners NEVER used to do. They must have seen some threat to science and learning. Al Gore always pushed for betterment through technology. Jimmy Carter, a nuclear submarine officer, tried to modernize the US nuclear industry.<br /><br />ISS did <i>not</i> die under Bill Clinton. His wise foresight in making peace with the Russian people saved the ISS in the wake of the tragic Columbia disaster.<br /><br />Maybe Democrats would support it better if they saw some benefit in the form of votes and support.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> ...the record of recent history speaks for itself...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Yes, sir, the current budget speaks for itself.

 

[mikeemmert]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the really supportive Dems seemed to be JFK and LBJ <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Yes, sir, that's true. We wouldn't have gone to the moon without them.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the public at large barely know it exists, much less support it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Ah, no sir, I don't believe that's true. They see satellite photos every day on the weather report. They know how posts from New Zealand and Finland get here. They are proud that America led the way.<br /><br />In 2011, with other nations sending men into space and America grounded, people will go back over the history of space funding and boil it all down to one letter.<br /><br />W.

 

[qso1]

I would agree that ISS did not die under Clinton. But it was saved well before Columbia as the vote that nearly killed it was in 1993. That is unless there was one in 2003 or 4 that nearly killed its continuation.<br /><br />The Clinton Administration could have done quite a bit more for NASA budget wise as his admin was the one in which a budget surplus occured. Making it one of the strongest admins economically in three decades. I usually mention Reagan Clinton economic booms but even Reagans boom did not erase the deficit.<br /><br />The problem is that to me, neither side supports human spaceflight that much. After all, the Bush plan does not actually inject the funding needed to make up for decades past budgets that were just short of inflation or just above it. Like LBJ, the Bush proposal is as much about satisfying the space constituency in Texas as it is about any visionary new goals.<br /><br />The real problem IMO is that NASA was simply unable to build a shuttle replacement without the funding. The Venture Star being the prime example. Private enterprise must now step up to the plate and build a solution for robust, inexpensive access to LEO.<br /><br />Despite NASAs missteps in some cases, I have to agree with Frodo1008 that NASA is one of, if not the most efficient of the Government agencies we have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

This is only true for military space projects. NASA, as a civilian organization does not develop anything terribly useful for purely military purposes.<br /><br />The military opted out of human space flight decades ago when they cancelled Dyna Soar, MOL, and pulled out of shuttle operations post Challenger. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

mikeemmert:<br />Ah, no sir, I don't believe that's true. They see satellite photos every day on the weather report. They know how posts from New Zealand and Finland get here. They are proud that America led the way.<br /><br />My response:<br />First off, I'll make the distinction that needed to be made. Its not about the public not supporting spaceflight. Its about human spaceflight which is not in your reply. I agree the public sees satellite photos...unmanned satellite photos. I agree they are proud. Part of the gee whiz factor I mentioned. But when pressed on sending man to the Moon or Mars. In polls they generally support it but when cost is mentioned, the old "We could spend the money better right here on Earth" response prevails.<br /><br />Watch TV, look at the media, do you see much about HSF there? I see stuff like who in Hollywood is getting married. What rock or rap star is making some hugely significant contribution to society through there works. Ask any young person above the age of 12 who 50 Cent is and they will know. Ask those same people who died in the Columbia accident and I'd bet half or less would know. Older people as well although parents of the 1980s would probably fare better if you asked them who Sting was. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

To further expand:<br /><br />How many shows can you see about Hitler on the Discovery or History Channel? Then how many shows about HSF are there? And these Channels are actually good places to go for anything HSF related.<br /><br />Now to regular TV, reality shows and gossip stuff prevails. People want to know intimate details about celebrity lives. Details that actually are just as boring as the details of a non-celeb life. Yet this audience would call a show about actual HSF boring.<br /><br />I distinguish actual HSF from various Sci Fi shows which are abundant. But Sci Fi space shows are about good vs evil. Not actual HSF. Stories of good and evil set in space.<br /><br />To be sure, there are those who support HSF, including those here in this forum or places like the NSS. But we are among the minority just as I was when I was a space geek in school. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>