Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

Bill White · 2004-04-21 17:12:35

Boehlert is a republican Congressman from New York and the Chairman of the Committee that is responsible for NASA's budget.

Excepts below and http://www.house.gov/science/press/spee … 4.htm]Link here.

. . . But let me give you a sense of what I'm thinking at this point. I don't think that anything I have to say should come as a surprise to anyone who's had to listen to my statements on this issue this year.
Let me start by saying, as I often have, that the President deserves enormous credit for doing what many of us had been calling for - laying out a clear vision for the space program, making tough choices, and providing a plan that does not rely on Apollo-like spikes in spending.
And let me go perhaps a bit further than I have before and say that, in its broad outlines, I think the President's proposal ought to be the blueprint for how we move forward. But what do I mean by "in its broad outlines"?
I mean that the U.S. should have an ongoing human space flight program. I mean that the long-term goal of our human space flight program ought to be going to Mars and beyond. I mean that our intermediate goal ought to be returning to the moon. I mean that to finance such a venture - among other reasons - we need to stop flying the Space Shuttle by a date certain - the sooner, the better.
Now that is indeed a broad outline, and these points may even seem unarguable to some of you. But, believe me, they are open to debate among the public and in the Congress. In fact, I have no idea of how the Congress would vote right now on any of the notions I just mentioned, although I imagine that most Members would be reluctant to simply walk away from the human space flight program. I'll get back to where Congress is a bit later; for now, let me return to speaking solely about my own views.
You'll have noticed, no doubt, that what I outlined leaves a lot of questions unanswered - starting with dates. Even the President hasn't provided a rough estimate of when we could get to Mars - nor should he; we need to know a heck of a lot more before we can reasonably set a date for such a venture.
But I think we need a lot more information before we can be too sure of the dates for other aspects of the exploration initiative as well.
Let's look, for example, at returning to the moon, which the President has proposed accomplishing between 2015 and 2020. I don't have much doubt that we have the technological capability to do that. After all, with a lot less experience and technical know-how, Neil Armstrong landed on the moon less than nine years after President Kennedy announced the goal of getting there by 1970.
So the issue isn't technology, per se; it's resources. The President has quite properly announced that he is not going to seek Apollo-like funding, but even the requests he has put forward raise questions.
As part of the exploration initiative, the President has proposed increasing the NASA budget by 5.6 percent in the next fiscal year, to about $16.2 billion. I just can't imagine that that's going to happen, and I don't think it should.
Total federal non-security, domestic discretionary spending in fiscal 2005 is likely to increase by less than half a percent. Congress may even freeze spending, as the House voted to do in its Budget Resolution. In such a budget, should NASA receive almost a 6 percent increase? Is it the highest domestic spending priority? I don't think so, and I doubt my colleagues will either.
* * *
As Science Committee chairman, I'm especially concerned that we do right by the National Science Foundation, which Congress has said, in statute, ought to be increasing by 15 percent a year. I would note that a healthy NSF is the key to carrying out the education agenda you call for in your policy document.
Moreover, Congress isn't likely to even take up the NASA spending bill until after Election Day. (I'm not proud of that, but it's reality.) That means that for at least a month, and potentially for several months, NASA will be funded by a continuing resolution. That, in turn, means that for some portion of next year, NASA will be flat-funded and will not be allowed to start new initiatives. That alone could delay aspects of the exploration initiative.
And my funding concerns are not limited to those raised by the funding competition between NASA and other agencies. The President's proposal also raises tough questions about the funding balance within NASA, as your document notes. The budget proposes to fund the exploration initiative, in part, by cutting Earth Science programs, eliminating some Space Science projects, and flat funding aeronautics, a major concern of yours, I know.
We may indeed have to rethink some other programs to fund the exploration initiative, but I'm concerned that the proposed cuts may go too far.
The Earth Science cuts, for example, may hinder climate change research, itself an Administration research priority.
Do I think that it's more important to know more about the Earth than it is to know more about Mars? I do, and I don't think it's a close question. And knowing more about the Earth will take plenty of aerospace know-how.
Now, some have suggested moving Earth Science programs out of NASA, either in whole or in part, and moving them over to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy just this week recommended a partial transfer, and the President's commission on space exploration, headed by former Air Force Secretary Pete Aldridge, is also reportedly considering such an idea.
I'm skeptical of such moves for a number of reasons, but, in any event, such a move wouldn't necessarily free up funds for space exploration. The assumption behind such recommendations is always that the money should be transferred along with the program, so NASA would actually have less of a "piggy bank" for exploration after such a transfer occurred.
Now my point in going through all this is not to suggest that we shouldn't move ahead with the President's exploration initiative. I hope that's clear from my earlier comments. My point is that the pace at which we move ahead probably will have to be slower than what the President proposed because funds are likely to be more limited than he assumed.
How much slower? Slow enough to delay a return to the moon beyond 2020? It's too soon to know that. My staff is continuing to pore through the proposed budget to see how we might put together a NASA budget for fiscal 2005 that would be affordable, that would not cut valuable programs excessively, and that would allow work to get started on programs critical to the exploration initiative.

Bill White · 2004-04-21 17:16:31

This is why I am so eager to find money at places like Nike and for space hotels from the commercial sector.

clark · 2004-04-21 17:56:37

I read this earlier... look at who he was talking to.

Politicans play to their audience.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-22 14:10:25

And politicians decide policy.

clark · 2004-04-22 14:13:57

And most politicans don't care about space exploration.

Let's just see how this goes, considering that BOTH versions (House and Senate) of the appropriations bill for NASA give them either the funds they requested, or more.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-22 15:03:44

NASA is going to get funded. You can't not fund NASA. The question in my mind is whether or not it's going to be enough, and if it's being spent wisely.

clark · 2004-04-22 15:12:23

Well, I think they will get all they are asking for at the least, and time will tell if it's enough.

Bill White · 2004-04-22 16:47:36

The game continues. Sean O'Keefe says that without the requested budget increase, the orbiter may never fly again.
http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/ … A.htm]Link.

clark · 2004-04-22 17:01:46

Translation: Congress will kill the Shuttle, and we (NASA) will then use the funds saved to start on Project Constellation.

That would effectively kill the ISS too.

clark · 2004-04-23 10:05:54

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04p.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetra … .html]Plan Bush Snagged By 'Hill'

Meanwhile, the administration is moving along another track to bolster the new space plan.
The White House has endorsed language in a proposed NASA reauthorization bill that essentially takes the goals embodied in the new space plan and defines them as the central purpose for NASA's existence. Should the reauthorization bill pass this year, it would formalize all of the advanced human spaceflight goals that Bush is seeking to pay for with his budget. That way, even if the full budget request fails to pass, having the supporting language written into law might create an easier starting point for the FY 2006 budget debate.
The move would create a political backstop in case Bush fails to win reelection and Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., is elected instead.

Ooooh Josh....

dickbill · 2004-04-23 12:13:29

Boehlert is a republican Congressman from New York and the Chairman of the Committee that is responsible for NASA's budget.
Excepts below and http://www.house.gov/science/press/spee … 4.htm]Link here.

what he said makes sense, in short, you know what the present is, but you don't know what's gonna be the future in 30/40 years. It's too far ahead. That you can plan a project for the next 10 years, I can buy it, but a project for the next 40 years depending on subprojects for the next 20 years, that's very hypothetic.
That's why I support a vision a la Zubrin where Mars is the primary target, planned for the next 15 years.

The currrent administration was unable to predict the most obvious setback in Iraq for example, and Bush policy is that there may be a global warming, maybe, and we don't know if it is caused by human activities, so do nothing about it.
I say and I am not alone that there is a global warming, caused by human activities and it's gonna cost a lot in the next 40 years, beside other ecological disasters and pandemia, all very predictible. So in 40 years all budgets worldwide might be cut to faces emergencies. Mars ? where it is ?

You might ask, well, if there must be disaster, then if we are on MArs change nothing. maybe yes maybe not. Maybe in the course to prepare a trip to Mars in the next 15 years, discoveries will be make that could have an impact on forecoming predictible disasters and on our survival. Not necesseraly technological discoveries but any situation in which the US choose funding exploration versus funding security and military forces, will have an effect.

clark · 2004-04-23 12:42:45

what he said makes sense, in short, you know what the present is, but you don't know what's gonna be the future in 30/40 years. It's too far ahead. That you can plan a project for the next 10 years, I can buy it, but a project for the next 40 years depending on subprojects for the next 20 years, that's very hypothetic.
That's why I support a vision a la Zubrin where Mars is the primary target, planned for the next 15 years.

But NASA has been following this exact formula since Apollo! Smaller, dis-jointed projects that don't neccessarily work together. There hasn't been an overlying rationale to anything that NASA has done in the last 30 years. It's just different budget cycles with new reasons to continue funding. There isn't a "plan".

We go to Mars, like we did Apollo (ala Zubrin), and we will get the same Apollo like results. We will not stay. We will circle around after the party is over and everyone has gone to bed.

If there is a future disaster, then any amount of funding for R&D now, for any reason, might achieve some technological breakthrough. Going to Mars in and of itself dosen't give us the technology- working towards going to Mars does. That is precisely what Plan Bush is. It dosen't set hard target dates becuase the simple truth of the matter is we still need to learn a lot more before we go out that far.

dickbill · 2004-04-23 14:07:25

We go to Mars, like we did Apollo (ala Zubrin), and we will get the same Apollo like results. We will not stay. We will circle around after the party is over and everyone has gone to bed.

I don't agree with that Clark. Zubrin's plan is very down to earth, very articulate. Not very comfortable for the crew maybe, I would say the trip to Mars is made in spartiate conditions, while Bush and the official NASA vision is more fuzzy and involves remote dates and accomplishments in the far future in addition to grandiose ideology and poesy. Nothing of that with Z. The official Bush/NASA vision is depicted by that cheap, not very good, 3d rendering video clip where you can see the astronauts clamping and saluting the US flag, ala Apollo, have you seen the clip on CNN ?
The Zubrin mission is still to send people on MArs for 6 months, not just a foot print as you said. 6 months is plenty to explore and settle a little human biosphere. Plenty of time...but not enough to know everything of the Red planet. Some crew members will hate the place, other will like it. Some might want to come back with new ideas and technologies.

It dosen't set hard target dates becuase the simple truth of the matter is we still need to learn a lot more before we go out that far.

You'll never know enough until you go. Fifteen years is more than enough to send rovers misions to increase our knowledge of the most important dangers to face and to test some technologies.

Yesterday in the NYTimes, Thomas Friedmann made a joke at our depends. He said something like "what, the world is a disaster and Bush wants to go to ...MArs ?" That's what many people think. And the longer we wait, the worst it's gonna be.

Bill White · 2004-04-23 14:25:55

MarsDirect will lead to Apollo like results, unless we have previously made the commitment to settle space, to become a two planet, or multi-planet species. Once we make that commitment, how we do it becomes far less important.

Interesting link from the http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/ … m]Atlantic Monthly - - the author has also written a lenghy piece on the Columbia accident investigation.

= = =

Will slow and steady work? IMHO? No!

Palomar · 2004-04-23 14:36:04

MarsDirect will lead to Apollo like results, unless we have previously made the commitment to settle space, to become a two planet, or multi-planet species. Once we make that commitment, how we do it becomes far less important.
... Will slow and steady work? IMHO? No!

*I agree. If not handled purposefully and aggressively, with those goals in plain sight, the public will soon begin whining "Why are we going back to Mars again? We've already been there." By comparison, Apollo 13 (prior to the accident) didn't even get first-page coverage in newspapers on launch day, or live TV coverage by the major networks during the "tour" (less than an hour before the explosion).

--Cindy

dickbill · 2004-04-23 21:30:55

MarsDirect will lead to Apollo like results,

People may have been bored after a couple of Apollo missions because the Moon was boring, not the missions.
I bet that Mars is different. Every region on Mars is different, we can expect (or fake to expect) to discover fossils, if not a piece of an alien lost spaceship, under every stones. And we can make a little bit for the show. Organizing big shows is an american specialty, that shouldn't be too difficult to make a better show than the bachelor.

Mars direct must be adapted too. I wish that a new edition of Mars direct would include more of in situ ressources utilisation description. But to say that Mars direct will have no future is unfair.
Again, the issue of WHEN the first Mars manned mission has to be done is crucial. The Bush vision has no deadline, yeah 40/50 years...people need deadline to stay focused. A 15 years deadline ala Zubrin is damn soon but not too soon and it will sharp the minds and keep focus on the goal.

By the way, the CNN scientist reporter for the Rover mission was asked by Bill Hammer what was like a place on Mars. He answered in a second : the dry valleys in Antarctica, not even mentioned the moon. The idea of a similarity with the moon didn't even touch his mind. Does Mars looks like the Moon ? hmmm not really, not at all. Does it look like Antarctica then ? hmmm, yeah a little bit, actually. SEE ?

clark · 2004-04-24 13:25:20

Dickbill, we have timelines for the moon, with the idea that the pace of our development will dictate any future mars mission. There are too many unknowns, so we say Moon by 2020, with the discoveries made there determining when we set out for Mars.

Setting out for Mars directly dosen't make it any more likely that we will get there, and forces us to live under an artifical time line. What's the rush? There is none.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-24 14:02:34

I think the important difference between the Mars and the Moon, is that you can stay on Mars longer, and easier. Just send up Mars Direct with a good CELSS-type system, and you're set. You can't have that on the moon without a lot of infrastructure; solar panels, underground habitats, etc.

Yes, Mars Direct could definitely lead to Apollo 2, but with a little more effort it doesn't need to.

clark · 2004-04-24 14:05:58

Point out a "good" CELSS system. Point out the solutions to the effects of space rad and zero-g. Point out the experience we have in building artifical g space ships.

We have a long way to go, and going to the Moon, focusing on that in a smaller time frame, makes better sense. The Space policy explicitly states that beyond the moon is determined by our progress to the moon.

It's sensible becuase it dosen't make any grand promises.

dickbill · 2004-04-25 16:18:50

Dickbill, we have timelines for the moon, with the idea that the pace of our development will dictate any future mars mission. There are too many unknowns, so we say Moon by 2020, with the discoveries made there determining when we set out for Mars.

non sense, in no cases Mars missions should be Moon dependant.
Imagine that a biosphere on the moon is not viable, that doesn't mean that the exact same biosphere wouldn't work on Mars.
If however, it happens that we are not able to install and run a selfsufficient enclosed ecosystem in Antarctica or at high altitude on earth, then that means that the technology is probably not ready.
Again, for the Unknowns on Mars (reminds me of "the unknowns" of D. Rumsfeld") send cheap robots or probes on Mars.

Setting out for Mars directly dosen't make it any more likely that we will get there, and forces us to live under an artifical time line. What's the rush? There is none.

You only know when there was a rush when it is too late. But I give you that, that maybe, there is no rush. We'll know it for sure when we get there, or never.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-21 17:12:35

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#2 2004-04-21 17:16:31

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#3 2004-04-21 17:56:37

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#4 2004-04-22 14:10:25

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#5 2004-04-22 14:13:57

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#6 2004-04-22 15:03:44

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#7 2004-04-22 15:12:23

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#8 2004-04-22 16:47:36

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#9 2004-04-22 17:01:46

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#10 2004-04-23 10:05:54

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#11 2004-04-23 12:13:29

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#12 2004-04-23 12:42:45

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#13 2004-04-23 14:07:25

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#14 2004-04-23 14:25:55

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#15 2004-04-23 14:36:04

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#16 2004-04-23 21:30:55

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#17 2004-04-24 13:25:20

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#18 2004-04-24 14:02:34

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#19 2004-04-24 14:05:58

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

#20 2004-04-25 16:18:50

Re: Sherwood Boehlert - gives a speech

Board footer