This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

AGU Urges Members to Action Over Budget

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 4, 2012
Filed under , ,

Save Planetary Science, AGU
“The time has come for us to again stand up and fight for the future of our science. In part due to you making your voices heard, the US Congress continues work to restore a large portion of the serious cut to the FY 2013 NASA Planetary Science budget. Although the final budget won’t be enacted for some months due to the election, planning in both houses of Congress looks positive. Now we must turn our attention to the source of the President’s budget – the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP).”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

4 responses to “AGU Urges Members to Action Over Budget”

  1. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0


    Our goal is to flood the offices with our support for Planetary Science, so please take a few minutes today and send your letters.

    Assuming that their members provide the flood as requested, this action is a positive one and there is nothing stopping all Americans from following their lead.  Make yourselves heard.

    Steve

    • npng says:
      0
      0

      Steve, unfortunately the declarations made in the letter leave the AGU wide open to a series of very uncomfortable questions that could be asked of AGU by OMB and OSTP, questions I fear the AGU is very poorly prepared to answer.  Specifically, the last statement in the support letter dares to point to tangible and intangible returns on investment from the $1.5B per year spent on planetary science.   When a statement is made to a budgetary decision-maker, financial analyst group whose core expertise involves money, costs-in and gains-out, you’d better have the ammunition in-hand, the proofs of very solid returns ready to respond to them with and it had better be in industry terms they understand and accept, i.e. – Zients and Shawcross aren’t stupid.

      If the private sector had to fund this (the $1.5B per year) they would be asking Laurie and the AGU for hard proof that the activity would result in a $15B per year demonstratably valuable outcome (10x).  

      Fortunately the USG does not demand that amplitude of return.  Still the OMB is capable of asking very hard questions.  They aren’t exactly in $1.5B hand out mode nor are they inclined to just take your word for it or spontaneously conclude there will be an incredible benefit on the backside when you ask them for buckets of money. 

      Don’t misread my position here.  I think there is great value in these planetary science pursuits.  Some, not all.  In some respects, the $1.5B may be viewed as being ridiculously low.  Why not $5B per year??  What is missing here is the analytical work that, with detail, reveals specific technology and economic gains – as a function of value, measured in money, knowledge, and sustained, breakthrough innovation.   Rah rah advocacy letters from the masses are devoid of that and OMB isn’t to be fooled by such antics. 

      The AGU and space fanatics may want to consider avoiding mass advocacy approaches.  They fail in ways somewhat similar to the old MasterCard “Priceless” commercials (see the parodies on You Tube), e.g. – Going to the ISS $20M, Funding the Apollo Moon Program $25B, Doing Planetary Science – Priceless!!   Priceless??   “Is there life beyond Earth? – Beyond Priceless!!  Statements like that get budgets killed.

      • dannsci says:
        0
        0

        To ALL;
        NPNG is saying something here.   These are questions that we should be raising within our communities, with each other, across the board, aside from any concerns over questions posed by an OMB or an OSTP.   

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        npng,

        Good post.  Your points are taken.  That said, I still believe there is value numbers.  If any or even most such appeals have holes in them, so be it.  But if increasing numbers of groups, and individuals, smother them with appeals professing interest in space spending and/or NASA, it can’t hurt our cause.  And we mustn’t forget that our “opponents” have the same means at their disposal and we don’t know what they’re up to.

        Steve