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.
Artemis

Congressional Push Back On Artemis / #Moon2024

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 15, 2019
Filed under
Congressional Push Back On Artemis / #Moon2024

Chairwomen Johnson and Horn Question Funding Plan for NASA’s Accelerated Moon Landing Program
“While I am a supporter of challenging human space exploration endeavors that can take us to the Moon and eventually to Mars, based on the limited information provided to Congress it is impossible to judge the merits of the President’s budget amendment,” saidChairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson. “We don’t know how much money will be required in total to meet the arbitrary 2024 Moon landing deadline or how that money will be spent. We don’t know how much additional money will subsequently be required to turn the crash program to get astronauts to the Moon by 2024 into a sustainable exploration program that will lead to Mars. And we don’t know what NASA’s technical plan for its lunar program is. What we do know is that the President is proposing to further cut a beneficial needs-based grants program that provides a lifeline to low-income students, namely the Pell Grants program, in order to pay for the first year of this initiative–something that I cannot support.”

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

49 responses to “Congressional Push Back On Artemis / #Moon2024”

  1. rb1957 says:
    0
    0

    damn ! don’t you hate really good questions.

  2. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    She’s not wrong about the things we don’t know even if you ignore the whole raiding money from the Pell Grant program.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Well, the whole “plan”, as described, seems to be give us $1.6 billion in FY2020, plus TBD more in the following four years, to do TBD in order to get people on the Moon by 2024 instead of 2028. When I write grant proposals, typically for just $120,000 or so per year and for three years, I can’t get away with that sort of vagueness. If it’s funded and things don’t go as expected in the first year, there’s quite a bit of freedom to change the plans for the later years (but good luck getting extra money…) But you have to go in with at least some plan. Even at the half million dollar level, the reviewers expect more than, “I’m making it up as I go along.”

      • sunman42 says:
        0
        0

        But this is Congress. Sometimes, simply saying, “We’re going to spend it all in Alabama and Texas, even if we never get anything off the ground” is enough.

        • TheBrett says:
          0
          0

          But you still need something specific with deadlines, even if you’re never going to meet those deadlines and blow right past the spending limits.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          Didn’t work for the Superconducting Super Collider, but I suppose that was only in Texas.

          • sunman42 says:
            0
            0

            Even though the SSC was not NASA, it took 10 years and $2B before Congress pulled the plug, I know, chicken feed compared with a moondoggle.

  3. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    About what I expected…

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      …from a WH full of incompetents?

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        With Democrats saying no to anything proposed from the WH its what I expected. BTW the same budget amendment reportedly also includes using surplus Pell Grant money for the Special Olympics and restoring the Everglades. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats disapprove of that as well.

        Like I said, its popcorn time. 🙂

        BTW as also expected there is the usual criticize of Jeff Bezos for advocating space development.

        https://www.nbcnews.com/thi

        Jeff Bezos’ ‘O’Neill colony’ dreams ignore the plight of millions living on Earth now
        May 15, 2019, 3:25 PM CDT
        By Paris Marx

        • Tom McIvor says:
          0
          0

          Considering the awful working conditions and pay for many working at Amazon, it is perfectly fair to criticize his spending on space. A tiny fraction of what he’s spent would greatly improve the lives of many lowly Amazon employees.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          This is a very broad question for sure, but to focus on the specific issue:

          Very broadly speaking, we’ve seen that as countries DO better, they make fewer children; populations age. That’s over the long term.

          The second point here is much harder to grasp, but it’s this: the O’Neill POV emphasizes heavy construction and attendant resource utilization/ depletion occurring in space, moving pollution to a more suitable environment. This is far from simple; moving heavy finished goods planetside is far from solved and could be a deal killer, but that’s the idea.

          [Headline, c.2350: Air Pollution From Ablative Materials Worst Ever and Seen Rising, No End In Sight]

          The idea here then is something like the old right wing notion that a rising sea lifts all of the boats. Imagine a population of <1 billion people, or less, all enjoying the heavenly largess!

          As someone will surely observe, there are MANY problems with this idea.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      The questions were reasonable. What’s wrong with asking reasonable questions?

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Funny they only seem to ask them for this Administration…

        • Courtney Bailey says:
          0
          0

          Your bias is showing.

          Have you already forgotten that Congress refused to fund Commercial Crew at requested levels for years? (An established program with companies under contract and a stronger mandate (eliminate dependence on the Russians) than boots on the moon.)

          Or that Congress responded to the cancellation of Constellation by mandating the development of SLS and Orion?

          Unless you are simply being disingenuous, I have serious doubts regarding your bona fides if you think that Congressional skepticism for new NASA initiatives is unique to this Administration.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Exactly, where was the tough Congressional questioning then? Or when Project Constellation was first proposed?

            All NASA is seeking is extra money to start procurement of a lunar lander. The other elements of a return to the Moon. SLS/Orion/Gatway are in place, or may be replaced by commercial ones. They are not trying to reinvent the wheel. As they are proposing to pay for it without cutting programs (remember this surplus has been sitting idle for years…) or increasing the national debt.

      • gunsandrockets says:
        0
        0

        Reasonable? A full budgetary accounting of up to decades of out-year spending? and a full technical accounting of all plans right up to a Mars landing? Spending and plans which no one can predict at this time? Reasonable? Seriously?

        Nope. Sorry. Not gonna fly. Those are not reasonable questions. Those questions are mere excuse making for knee jerk partisan opposition.

  4. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Taking the money from Pell Grants is sticking it to poor students, who can no longer afford state universities because of skyrocketing tuition. Why not simply ask Congress for more funding? Or transfer the money from The Wall? And starting a crash program to land on the Moon while, purely by coincidence, he is (presumably) still president requires more than a little hubris. Kennedy did not propose a landing while he might still be in office, and his goal was not his own aggrandizement but rather to divert the inescapable conflict with the USSR away from a perilous race in nuclear arms that could have destroyed civilization.

  5. moon2mars says:
    0
    0

    Not one student will lose a Pell Grant, the facts are that the Pell Grant Program has been in a cumulative budget surplus situation ranging from $7 to 11 billion since 2012: See Table 6 on page 21 from the Congressional Budget Office, Pell Grant Program: R45418 November 28, 2018.

    Officials insisted the re-allocation of the Pell Grant money would have no impact on those currently receiving grants, which help low-income students pay for college.“This does not cut any spending for Pell Grant programs as the budget continues to ensure all students will get their full Pell Grant and keeps the program on sound fiscal footing,” Office of Management and Budget spokesman Wesley Denton said in a statement.

    Enrollment in the program has declined since 2011, leading to a surplus of nearly $9 billion, according to the budget office. The administration had originally proposed using $2 billion of that surplus to fund other spending. The new request brings that total to $3.9 billion, which OMB described as similar to its request in the 2018 budget.

    Billions in Pell Grants go to students who aren’t graduating
    https://www.pbs.org/newshou……

    • Joey says:
      0
      0

      But that’s because Pell grants have not increased with inflation, meaning students who are poor and need help aren’t eligible anymore. These surpluses are meant to go to poor students still; Congress just needs to increase the Pell grant income level to where it should be.

    • SpacePrincess says:
      0
      0

      Not sure what the link to a story on Haiti has anything to do with Pell grants but it’s interesting to see that NASA is logging into comment on NASA Watch.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Did you read the actual data on Pell Grants? There are millions more “qualified” applicants than awarded grants. Few applicants with a total family income over $20,000 get anything. The average grant is just over $3000 yet even a year at a community college costs far more and families with barely enough to live cannot afford to even apply let alone pay the thousands they would need beyond what the grant provides. To simply award more of the money to students who are fully qualified and desperately need it would be the right thing to do, but the Trump Administration does not want low income Americans to go to college and wants to go back to handing out tax dollars to private banks so they can lend it at exorbitant interest rates and add to student debt, so they refuse to award grants to people who need them and spread the lie that poor Americans don’t want the opportunity to go to college.

  6. gunsandrockets says:
    0
    0

    Golly Gee, do you suppose Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson ever asked for such specificity of the NASA Mars program, during the Obama administration? I’m guessing no.

    It’s pretty obvious what’s going on here. And it’s exactly the sort of reactionary crouch I expected to see after the Pence announcement of 2024 Lunar South Pole.

    • Joey says:
      0
      0

      Obama wasn’t asking for billions more over the course of 5 years.

      • gunsandrockets says:
        0
        0

        Actually Obama asked for six billion more dollars over the course of 5 years. He said so himself April 2010, during a formal speech he gave about his NASA policy.

        How about that.

    • tutiger87 says:
      0
      0

      Actually she did. Next question.

      • gunsandrockets says:
        0
        0

        Assertion does not equal evidence. Now if you had an actual link proving your claim, that would be interesting.

        But the notion that Eddie Bernice Johnson ever had any reaction towards the Obama Mars plan anywhere near her reactionary stance towards Lunar South Pole, is laughable.

  7. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    $ 1.6 billion is one-quarter the cost of a new aircraft carrier or roughly sixteen F-35 Lightning II clunker fighter jets . Start there, Mr. Trump…

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Maybe if American allies like Germany and France paid their fair share for defense the U.S. would have that option. But since we need to protect Europe, and Japan, and Australia, and a host of other nations we need a strong military.

      • PsiSquared says:
        0
        0

        Yeah, that doesn’t wash. $1.6 billion from the defense budget would have no negative impact on our security. Something’s gotta give, and it shouldn’t be social or other programs. It’s about time that the defense budget felt the knife.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          So even though those surplus Pell funds have set there for many years, and given demographics trends will NEVER be spent, you still want to cut money out from somewhere else on purely philosophical grounds?

      • spacegaucho says:
        0
        0

        While I agree Germany should pay more, the US spends way, way too much on Defense. Trump even wanted to cut it until the Republicans in Congress reminded him who funds their campaigns. If Bolton starts a war with Iran, you can forget about the moon.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          To be fair, German does not have many military commitments or threats outside Europe. Nor does France, Italy, etc. I’d have to check, but I’m fairly sure the German constitution places heavy limits on non-defense (real, direct, they-crossed-our-border defense) deployments, as does the Japanese constitution. The United States has large commitments in both Europe, the Pacific rim and the middle East. If we’re sending our military to more places than Germany or Japan, we shouldn’t be surprised if we’re spending more on our military.

          • spacegaucho says:
            0
            0

            From my understanding, the Bundeswehr and Luftwaffe are something of a joke theses days. Japan despite it’s Constitutional prohibitions, maintains a robust military. Germany should do more to help defend the Baltic states std not expect the US to do so. We keep acting like it is still the immediate postwar world not gong in 75 years later.

          • space1999 says:
            0
            0

            Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
            But that couldn’t happen again.
            We taught them a lesson in 1918
            And they’ve hardly bothered us since then.

            Tom Lehrer

      • cb450sc says:
        0
        0

        I’m foolish for taking the bait, but the narrative that the countries you listed are undefended if not for the US is nonsense. The JSDF (the Japanese military) is the 4th most powerful in the world and the 8th by budget. They have over a quarter million active duty personnel, which makes them per capita about a factor of two below the US. The UN weapons inspectors I have spoken to call them a “30-day nuclear power” in that if they really wanted to, they could be nuclear armed almost immediately. Meanwhile, back to the actual thread…

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          The Japan Self Defense Force, like South Korea, is doing much better in recent years, but they will still need the help of the U.S. in facing China.

      • mfwright says:
        0
        0

        They pay their share because if war in Europe breaks out, their cities and infrastructure are the first to be hit.

      • Tom McIvor says:
        0
        0

        I sincerely doubt that even if every NATO country spent the suggested 2% of GDP on defense that the US military budget would drop by even one dollar. That is just not how the military-industrial complex operates, as President Eisenhower tried to warn us.

      • tutiger87 says:
        0
        0

        No. We put money into the military to support the military industrial complex. Stop believing the lie. Even better, read ‘War is A Racket’ by Gen Smedley Butler

    • Bill Housley says:
      0
      0

      Start there…Congress. $1.6B is chump change.

  8. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    Free Markets in space folks… congress is nothing more than a millstone hung around NASA’s neck.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Bingo! That is why regulation reform has been number 1 on the National Space Council’s prority list.

  9. SpacePrincess says:
    0
    0

    If the Administration was serious about wanting to accelerate the plan to go back in 2024, they would have found money from another source. It’s as if they specifically chose Pell Grants to antagonize the Democrats and create a stalemate on the issue. Not to mention someone at NASA decided they needed a new kingdom and turned the Gateway, a small outpost, into another space station around the Moon. I can see the massive org chart being created now. As a result, the House response was not only no plus up but no Gateway, no Lander, no Moon. Regardless of how much the NASA Moon to Mars propaganda machine rolls, pretty pictures and videos won’t get astronauts to the Moon. At least it looks like we won’t have the Gateway anchored around NASA’s neck for another 20 years. Unfortunately, it looks like NASA will be in limbo for a few years and we’ll have to wait to see where the next administration wants to take us.

  10. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    “Suprise response from the currently miopic U.S. House of Representatives.” — No one

  11. Synthguy says:
    0
    0

    Firstly, Trump was stupid to take the money from Pell Grants – designed to help poorer kids have a chance at a university education. That was just needlessly antagonistic when the money could have been found elsewhere. It just encouraged a Democrat controlled House to push back, and of course, NASA pays the price by having its funding cut. The risk is that the Moon 2024 initiative will become a political football between a Democrat-controlled House that is determined to erode or eliminate any sort of legacy for Trump – including a Moon landing – and POTUS who is thinking purely of himself. In the meantime as partisan budget feuds rage, NASA goes nowhere, the return to the Moon falls behind schedule, and we fail to get back there by 2024. A new administration comes in, and cancels the whole thing – as happened with Obama and Constellation. We are back to square one…again.

  12. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    The actual data on Pell Grant program awards is publicly available and is clear. The number of “fully qualified” applications is millions greater than the number of actual grants awarded. The average grant is only about $3000, barely half the maximum allowed under the program, and far less than the cost of even a year of study at a local community college, yet most awards are limited to families with incomes of $20,000 or less, not enough to pay the difference and still survive. The reason more money isn’t awarded is that the Trump administration refuses to award it to students who desperately need it, while spreading the myth that poor and minority students don’t want to go to college.