[____] [____] Allocating funds for one part of NASA has a snowball effect and results in Congress increasing the agency’s budget overall. Geoffrey Landis, NASA scientist in planetary exploration and interstellar propulsion, 1995, “ Footsteps to Mars: An incremental approach to Mars exploration,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 48, pp. 367-342 (1995); http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Footsteps.pdf Recently there has been an alarming tendency in the scientific and space advocacy communities for advocates to attack one project, in the belief that if that project could be canceled, the money saved would be used for their own, more desirable projects. This is false. Quoting from senate staffer Steve Palmer : “What space station and ASRM [advanced solid rocket motor] add up to is a drop in the bucket. If Congress cuts out both space station and ASRM, will the money be used for other programs of interest to the space industry? The short answer is no”. Arguments to cancel space projects are eagerly picked up in Congress, by people who have agendas and pet projects that have nothing to do with space. Further, attacking space projects has the result of making enemies out of allies. When we attack someone else’s project, we can count on having them attack ours. The result is that the arguments against both projects will be remembered by a money-starved Congress. It is not true that manned missions eclipse funds for unmanned sciencemissions. In fact, there is an excellent caseto be made for precisely the opposite correlation: the presence of large mannedmissions increases the funding and opportunities for unmanned science missions. Historically, the science budget of NASA has been a roughly constant fraction of the total budget; any major new initiative which increases the overall space budget is likely to increase the funding for science. If Mars advocates adopt the approach of pushing our initiatives by tearing down other space programs, the likely result is that nothing, neither Mars nor other programs, will be accomplished.
No Impact – NASA Program Unnecessary
[____] [____] NASA research on global warming is only a small part of total federal spending on climate change. Even if it were lost NASA was doing redundant research. Anthony Watts, meteorologist with the seal of approval from the American Meteorological Society, 2/9/2011, “NASA Climate Programs Being Eyed for Budget Axe” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/09/nasa-climate-programs-being-eyed-for-the-budget-axe/ NASA spent over a billion dollars last year on climate change studies…which would you rather have? Pronouncements about death trains, expert testimony for climate vandals, failed predictions, failed models, and a questionable GISTEMP dataset, or a continued manned spaceflight program? From my perspective, NASAGISS is a duplication of climate services already covered by NOAA/NCDC, and all we seem to get from it is climate activism of the chief scientist, a coffee table book by his assistant, and a snarky condescending blog called RealClimate that one private citizen and some volunteers are currently beating the pants off of in public outreach. Further, the government spent over $8.7 billion across 16 Agencies and Departments throughout the federal government on these efforts in FY 2010 alone. Inside NASA, we have duplication of climate services not only at GISS in NYC, Goddard Spaceflight in Greenbelt, MD, but also at JPL Pasadena. There’s been all sorts of domestic military base closures in the recent years to save money, and NASA Goddard and GISS re-purposed itself after the Apollo program ended and their mission did too. It’s time to close this duplication of services dinosaur, it will be missed far less than a TV comedy series by the American public. If you feel the same way, tell your representatives.
[____] Other countries are filling in by gathering climate change data. Tariq Malik, Senior Editor for space.com, 2/21/2009, “NASA Climate Satellite Crashes in Ocean After Launch Failure”, http://www.space.com/3355-nasa-climate-satellite-crashes-ocean-launch-failure.html The loss of NASA’s OCO spacecraft is a blow to global climate research after eight years of development to ready the satellite for launch. Researchers hoped the spacecraft wouldprovide definitiveanswerstoquestions surrounding Earth’snatural carbon dioxide cycle, as well as how the planet processes the 8 billion tons of greenhouse gas produced by the burning of fossil fuels and other human endeavors each year. “OCO was to make some important measurements of the carbon cycle,” said Michael Freilich, director of NASA’s Earth Science Division. “What we’re going to do is take a good, solid and thoughtful look at how best to advance earth system science in general, and with a focus on the carbon cycle, given all the assets that we have available now and into the near future.” Climate scientists expected OCO to take the lead in an international collection of weather-monitoring spacecraft known as the A-Train, which fly in a train-like progression over Earth with the goal of building a three-dimensional picture of the planet’s weather and climate change, as well as understanding human contributions to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Japan’s recently launched Ibuki climate-studying spacecraft, as well as other satellites already in orbit, may be able to compensatefor the lack of OCO. While there is hope to be able to pick up where the OCO’s loss left off, much work lies ahead before NASA officials can, “decide how it is best scientifically, and for the nation, to move forward,” Freilich said.