spcefrk
AeroEng
The AIAA Executive Director Robert Dickman (ret. Major General USAF) testified before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation that "At a funding level of only a fraction of a percent of the annual federal budget, NASA is being systematically starved."
He went on to testify:
"NASA is being forced to eliminate or severely reduce some very important work, to the detriment of critical aerospace research and development, and more broadly to the detriment of our aerospace strength and our industrial base. The Vision for Space Exploration was an aggressive, forward-looking proposal when offered by the President and endorsed by the Congress. However, while NASA has undertaken a positive exploration agenda, funding levels have not been at all sufficient to meet those goals.
... For example, research cuts since 2003 have reduced fundamental space-related life science and physical science research programs by 85%, affecting over 1,700 scientists and nearly 3,000 students. NASA is the sole steward of this research. If NASA doesn't do it, it won't get done – at least not in this country. At the same time, China, Japan and other nations are continuing robust research in these areas, and those countries are poised to assume the scientific and technological leadership that we are letting slip away.
... In 1994 NASA’s aeronautics budget was $1.54 billion. By FY07 the aeronautics budget was cut to $594 million. The FY09 budget reflects further cuts at $447 million.
... government investment in advanced launch concepts ... has dropped to nearly zero ... Absent investment in the truly breakthrough science and technology that would lead to revolutionary changes in space transportation, ... US access to space in 2040 will not look significantly different from 2020, or 2000, or 1980.
... Without NASA, this country would be a very, very different place now.
...In 2003, there were over 1,000 research projects focusing on basic non-exploration space physical and life sciences across the United States, which supported over 1,500 scientists, and over 3,000 students. Today, only five years later, there are 85 such research projects, supporting approximately 300 students. This is a decrease of 90%.
...
- We are not doing the work we should be doing in basic aeronautical research and development ... for education ... for life sciences ... for space sciences ... for solar science.
- And we are not going to be able to succeed at the exploration program with the budget we've got."
=======================================================
AIAA 07 May 2008 Public Testimony: http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/public/BDickmanTestimonyMay08.pdf
I don't think I need to tell anyone here about NASA's lack of funding, but here you have evidence of it. 90% decrease in aeronautical research, 85% decrease in life & physical science research.
NASA is synonymous with America's Technological prowess and wellbeing and to my knowledge neither Senators Clinton, Obama, or McCain have any plans to revive it.
What are your thoughts:
-With regard to the upcoming elections?
-With regard to China and India's rising technical prowess?
-With regard to politics in general?
He went on to testify:
"NASA is being forced to eliminate or severely reduce some very important work, to the detriment of critical aerospace research and development, and more broadly to the detriment of our aerospace strength and our industrial base. The Vision for Space Exploration was an aggressive, forward-looking proposal when offered by the President and endorsed by the Congress. However, while NASA has undertaken a positive exploration agenda, funding levels have not been at all sufficient to meet those goals.
... For example, research cuts since 2003 have reduced fundamental space-related life science and physical science research programs by 85%, affecting over 1,700 scientists and nearly 3,000 students. NASA is the sole steward of this research. If NASA doesn't do it, it won't get done – at least not in this country. At the same time, China, Japan and other nations are continuing robust research in these areas, and those countries are poised to assume the scientific and technological leadership that we are letting slip away.
... In 1994 NASA’s aeronautics budget was $1.54 billion. By FY07 the aeronautics budget was cut to $594 million. The FY09 budget reflects further cuts at $447 million.
... government investment in advanced launch concepts ... has dropped to nearly zero ... Absent investment in the truly breakthrough science and technology that would lead to revolutionary changes in space transportation, ... US access to space in 2040 will not look significantly different from 2020, or 2000, or 1980.
... Without NASA, this country would be a very, very different place now.
...In 2003, there were over 1,000 research projects focusing on basic non-exploration space physical and life sciences across the United States, which supported over 1,500 scientists, and over 3,000 students. Today, only five years later, there are 85 such research projects, supporting approximately 300 students. This is a decrease of 90%.
...
- We are not doing the work we should be doing in basic aeronautical research and development ... for education ... for life sciences ... for space sciences ... for solar science.
- And we are not going to be able to succeed at the exploration program with the budget we've got."
=======================================================
AIAA 07 May 2008 Public Testimony: http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/public/BDickmanTestimonyMay08.pdf
I don't think I need to tell anyone here about NASA's lack of funding, but here you have evidence of it. 90% decrease in aeronautical research, 85% decrease in life & physical science research.
NASA is synonymous with America's Technological prowess and wellbeing and to my knowledge neither Senators Clinton, Obama, or McCain have any plans to revive it.
What are your thoughts:
-With regard to the upcoming elections?
-With regard to China and India's rising technical prowess?
-With regard to politics in general?
