[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – Scientists and the chairman of a key committee in the House expressed concern at the June 11 hearing that NASA could attack scientific programs to pay for its accelerated return to the moon.
Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), Chair of the House's Science Committee, raised the issue in an opening statement at a hearing of the NASA Space Science Subcommittee. She cited the wording of the administration's budget amendment, sent to Congress a month ago, which proposed to give NASA the power to transfer funds from other accounts, such as science, if necessary to what the agency now calls the Artemis program.
"It puzzles me as to why the administration would even consider foray into science to fund a lunar program," she said after giving several examples of NASA's findings . "Still, it may be the direction of NASA."
She added that the proposed authority might indicate that the White House will not request new funding sufficient to pay Artemis without taking money elsewhere in the agency. "Hungry science to fund human exploration is not the answer," she said.
NASA's director, Jim Bridenstine, has repeatedly stated that he would not "cannibalize" a scientific program to pay Artemis. "This path does not work," he said at an astrophysics workshop in April.
However, at a NASA Advisory Board meeting on May 31, Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, said he doubted that any of the things 39 Money needed for Artemis for the fiscal year 2021 and beyond is added to the overall budget. "We will have to look for efficiencies and make internal cuts to the agency," he said, commenting on Johnson's comments.
NASA insists that science will not be cut to pay for Artemis. "However, the administrator said that we would not do scientific looting to pay Artemis and that is the position of the agency," said NASA spokesman last June 5. , Bob Jacobs, in response to Gerstenmaier's comments.
Scientists who testified at the hearing were not convinced. "This request is troubling," said Mark Sykes, chief executive and director of the Planetary Science Institute, of this transfer authority. "This seems to allow for a complete reorganization of the agency, including the expulsion of space science, if necessary, without any congressional oversight. This must be rejected. "
David Spergel, an astrophysicist at Princeton University and former president of the Space Studies Board, expressed concern that funds for the scientific program would be allocated to the Moon, which he considered to be a lower priority on the basis of the latest decennial survey. in planetary sciences.
"The global decennial survey, however, has not identified a major investment in the study of the lifeless moon as one of its highest priorities," he said. declared. "I am concerned that high priority [Science Mission Directorate] the programs will be completed to allow a lower priority science and accelerate the lunar program. "
Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA's Assistant Administrator for Science, said the planning of the draft budget for fiscal year 2021 was just starting within the agency. "I have not been directed, or am I engaged in any planning with a huge drawback for the scientific program," he said.
Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) Asked Zurbuchen to bear the full cost of the Artemis program during the first landing in 2024 or 2028, when the agency hopes to have a "sustainable" lunar presence. Zurbuchen stated that these cost estimates, which mainly involved programs outside its management, were still under development.
Brooks was clearly frustrated by the lack of details about the costs. "In order for Congress to address these issues, we need some idea of the amount of costs that should be borne over the next five years," he said while unsuccessfully asking for a range of costs. potential. "Or do we literally have no idea what we are committing ourselves to?"
[ad_2]
Source link