The so-called “skinny” version of the federal budget proposal was released recently. The NASA portion is causing angst and consternation,
Here are the good, the bad and the ugly parts.
The good part of President Trump's budget proposal is how it deals with the human exploration of the moon and Mars, also known as the Artemis program. The proposal allocates more than $7 billion for the return to the moon and $1 billion for humans going to Mars. It eliminates, as expected, the Orion space capsule and the heavy lift Space Launch System after the Artemis III lunar landing mission. The proposal also eliminates the lunar gateway space station, though the parts that have already been built may be repurposed.
Further lunar exploration will be accomplished by commercial systems, either existing or soon to be developed. The idea, according to Ars Technica, is to develop "an ‘end-to-end’ solution for lunar missions ... an integrated plan to launch astronauts from Earth, land them on the Moon, and return them to Earth.” SpaceX and Blue Origin would be prime candidates for such a contract.
The bad part in Trump's budget is the near total evisceration of NASA’s science programs, both on Earth and in space. The budget proposal slashes $1.3 billion from Earth science and $2.3 billion from space science. The proposal eliminates the troubled Mars Sample Return mission as well as some “low priority” climate monitoring satellites.
The Planetary Society suggests that more missions may be on the chopping block because of the proposed cuts. They include the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the DAVINCI Venus probe, the Veritas Venus mapper, and the TESS planet hunter. The cancelation of these missions would be an incalculable loss for space science. Just as important, the abandonment of space science may lead to the U.S. ceding leadership in that field to other countries, particularly China.
Whatever one feels about the issue of climate change, and there are legitimate questions as to the extent of the phenomenon and possible solutions, the fact remains that data about what is happening to the Earth because of human activity is vital for policy decisions. The cutback of climate monitoring satellites is thus a problem, at least.
Unrelated to the Trump budget proposal, NASA is looking for ways to lower the cost of maintaining the International Space Station. They include lengthening crew stay times from six to eight months, decreasing crew rotation sizes from four to three, and canceling upgrades to the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer attached to the ISS.
The ugly part of the proposed budget cuts concerns what happens next. What will Congress do about them? Will it try to restore the cuts, at least to some extent?
One overriding fact hanging over not only NASA but also the rest of the federal government is that, according to the CBO, the national debt is in excess of $36 trillion. The estimated budget deficit for this fiscal year is $1.9 trillion. The budget situation is not sustainable.
Add to the current federal budget situation the fact that the Trump administration plans to increase spending on the military and provide additional tax cuts, the case for not cutting spending at NASA becomes harder.
Of course, supporters of every department and agency in the government targeted for cuts are already beating down Congress’ door to plead that their spending is vital to the country.
The restoration of the National Space Council, as reported by Space News, is certainly a positive development. The Space Council is a group of department and agency heads that meets periodically to formulate space policy — first formed by President George H. W, Bush, abolished by President Bill Clinton, then revived by Trump in his first term. It is supported by the Users Advisory Council and chaired by the vice president.
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger noted that the National Space Council's continued existence "will provide a counterweight" to White House budget pressures and help Trump's NASA nominee, Jared Isaacman, "develop a more balanced program.”
Will the National Space Council make a difference in the long run? If Berger is right, it should help to preserve both the Moon-Mars and the pure science parts of NASA going forward.
Mark Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration titled "Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?" as well as "The Moon, Mars and Beyond," and, most recently, "Why is America Going Back to the Moon?" He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Trump’s NASA budget cuts: The good, the bad, and the ugly )
Also on site :