![]() NASA’s Decadal Survey, a periodic effort by scientists to prioritize research for the next 10 years, found in 2007 that “he U.S. In 2007, the National Research Council of the National Academies said there was an urgent need to increase funding in order for the agency to “restore its leadership in Earth science and applications.” The increase in recent years reflects an effort to follow that recommendation. “Opportunities to discover new knowledge about Earth are diminished as mission after mission is canceled, descoped, or delayed because of budget cutbacks, which appear to be largely the result of new obligations to support flight programs that are part of the Administration’s vision for space exploration.” “Today the nation’s Earth observation program is at risk,” wrote the authors, which included experts from many universities around the country. National Academies, criticized those cuts. Earth sciences funding was cut approximately 37 percent from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2006, as documented in a 2008 report by the NASA Office of Inspector General. A 2005 report from the National Research Council, which is part of the U.S. In 2000, that amount represented about 12.4 percent of the total enacted NASA budget in the 2016 request, that proportion is 10.5 percent.Ĭruz’s comments ignore a debate over earth sciences funding dating back to the early days of the George W. In 2000, for example, the enacted budget for earth sciences was $1.69 billion, which is equal to $2.29 billion in today’s dollars when adjusted for inflation - more than the 2016 request. In fact, NASA’s spending on earth sciences in the past has been higher as a percentage of the total budget. Though Cruz is correct that spending on earth sciences has increased during the Obama administration, his statement that it is a “disproportionate increase” does not fully reflect NASA’s budget history. Using inflation-adjusted dollars, the increase is 30 percent. His chart correctly showed that the earth sciences budget would increase by 41 percent during that seven-year time span, from $1.38 billion to a requested $1.95 billion. To illustrate his point on inward versus outward focus, Cruz showed a chart comparing the agency’s 2009 budget with the president’s proposal for fiscal year 2016. It ignores deep budget cuts that were made in NASA’s earth sciences funding under the Bush administration that caused concern within the scientific community and that prompted specific recommendations to restore that funding. … I am concerned that NASA in the current environment has lost its full focus on that core mission.Ĭruz is entitled to his opinion, but his version of NASA’s recent budget history fails to tell the whole story. Since the end of the last administration we have seen a disproportionate increase in the amount of federal funds that have been allocated to the earth science program at the expense of and in comparison to exploration and space operations, planetary science, heliophysics and astrophysics, which I believe are all rooted in exploration and should be central to the core mission of NASA. During the hearing, he said that the agency spends too much money and effort on earth sciences.Ĭruz, March 12: As we begin the process of putting together a roadmap for the future of NASA, there is one vital question that this committee should examine: Should NASA focus primarily inwards, or outwards beyond lower Earth orbit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |