27.06.2023

The House Appropriations Committee has released its planned spending levels for each of its subcommittees for the fiscal 2024 budget, according to Space Policy Online. The numbers are as bad as bad can be, at least from the point of view of NASA and the Artemis moon program.

The Commerce Justice Science Subcommittee (CJS), which has NASA spending under its purview, would receive $58.676 billion to dole out to the departments and agencies it funds for fiscal 2024. The allocation is a 28.8 percent reduction from the $82.441 it spent during the current fiscal year.

NASA’s fiscal 2023 budget is $25.14 billion. The Biden administration has proposed that NASA spending increase to $27.1 billion. But if the CJS allocation were distributed across the board, the space agency would receive only about $18 billion, The devastation such a budget cut would visit on NASA programs, especially Artemis, can only be imagined.

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson warned of the harm that a reduction of the space agency budget to $24 billion would inflict. In a letter to the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, Nelson predicted the effective end of the Artemis program after Artemis IV with a delay for Artemis III. He suggested that the budget cuts would cause a loss of 4,000 NASA and contractor employees. He stated that Earth and planetary science, aeronautical research and development and commercial partnerships would be curtailed.

How much more damaging would an $18 billion NASA be? Perhaps it would mean the end of Artemis before it is hardly begun.

Robert Zimmerman, a space blogger, suggests that an $18 billion NASA is no big deal. As recently as 2018, he states, NASA spent about that much and operated just fine. But he neglects to account for inflation and the ramp up of Artemis. He suggests that NASA should just become more efficient and “learn to say no.”

But a demand that any government agency become efficient enough to weather a 28.8 percent budget cut is easier said than done. Even an organization as efficient and flexible as SpaceX would be stressed to cover such a shortfall.

Besides, thanks to commercial partnerships such as Commercial Crew and the Human Landing System, NASA has become more efficient. The space agency is doing a lot more with partners such as SpaceX and Blue Origin than it ever did before. Many of those benefits go away if a 28.8 percent planned cut goes into effect.

It has been noted before why a huge NASA budget cut would be counterproductive. The space agency brings plenty of economic benefits that offset the cost of running the organization. Any delay or cancellation of the Artemis program runs the risk that the next boots on lunar soil will be Chinese. Such an event would be catastrophic for American prestige and standing in the world. It would signal that the 21st century will be a Chinese century and that America is a power in an irreversible decline. The natural resources of the moon would be mined and used for the benefit of China, not the United States and its allies. Beijing would become the most influential capital on Earth.

All is not lost. House Republicans propose to claw back $115 billion in previous spending. Some of that money could be used to reduce the cuts to NASA’s budget or even cover them entirely. Also, the Senate is unlikely to slash space spending as much as the House Republicans propose.

Even so, NASA supporters, especially of the Artemis program, have their work cut out for them. The national debt has ballooned to over $31 trillion with no end in sight. The government can’t cut the military because the world remains dangerous. Entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare are off limits for political reasons.

The main argument Nelson should deploy is that the space agency addresses both economic and foreign policy needs that would be compromised if it is not adequately funded. Decreasing the deficit and creating a surplus to help pay down the national debt are important. But cutting NASA, in the long run, would work against those laudable goals.

Nelson and others, such as former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, should use their political skills to head off catastrophe to keep America on a clear path back to the moon, then on to Mars and beyond.

Mark Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled “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. 

Quelle: The Hill