Feb 6 1997
From The Space Library
President William J. Clinton released his budget proposal, which included a request for US$75 million to develop the Space Infrared Telescope Facility. NASA had argued that the infrared telescope would aid scientists in answering some of the universe's most fundamental questions including, what is the energy source for the universe's brightest stars? and, where is the universe's missing dark matter? Presidential support for the initiative led NASA to hope that it might finally receive the funding necessary to begin building the last of four space-based telescopes proposed as a part of the Great Observatories program. In addition to the highly publicized Hubble Space Telescope (HST), NASA had successfully placed in orbit the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory and had immediate plans to launch the nearly completed X-ray Astrophysics Facility. NASA expected the four telescopes, using various kinds of cosmic radiation to survey the atmosphere, would provide an unprecedented view of the universe. The four telescopes operating together would allow us "to look at the universe at all ages at once," explained Michael Werner, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Upon the program's conception in 1991, the National Academy of Sciences had called the Great Observatories the "highest priority for any major new program in space-based astronomy," but a steady stream of budget cuts had made it increasingly difficult to realize the project.
NASA Administer Daniel S. Goldin praised the Clinton administration's budget proposal for 1998 as a sign that NASA's deep budget cuts were leveling off. NASA had braced itself for a budget as low as US$13.1 billion, and, therefore, found President William J. Clinton's US$13.5 billion proposal a pleasant surprise. The request still entailed a US$200 million budget cut, and Congress might reduce the budget further. Nevertheless, Goldin responded to the proposed budget exuberantly, exclaiming, "Holy mackerel-this is a great program," and remarking that for the first time during his five-year tenure, NASA could hope for budgetary stability. The proposal also projected that NASA's budget in 2000 would be approximately US$13.2 billion, rather than the US$11.6 billion forecast in previous Clinton administration proposals. NASA planned to absorb the small reduction in funding by increasing efficiency, especially in the Shuttle program, having recently transferred management of the program to the privately held United Space Alliance. NASA officials believed that NASA could continue sending up seven or eight Shuttle missions annually, if budget trends continued to stabilize. On the day of the budget announcement, however, a NASA advisory panel warned once again that a drastic decrease in the Shuttle's funding would compromise its safety. Nevertheless, Goldin maintained that the proposal would allow NASA to continue fostering "faster, better, cheaper" science.
Vice President Albert A. Gore Jr. met with Russia's Prime Minister Viktor S. Chernomyrdin to discuss, among other topics, the United States' concern that the Russian Space Agency's lack of funding might derail plans for the ISS. U.S. officials declared that funding was the primary issue in the construction of the ISS. "We have no doubts about their science and engineering proficiency. Where we have concerns relates to adequate funding on the Russian side," said one American space leader. Although the ISS had received contributions from the United States, Russia, Japan, Europe, and Canada, Russian construction stoppages on a crucial ISS component already had delayed the project. Before the Gore-Chernomyrdin meeting, NASA received assurances from the Russian Space Agency that, despite financial difficulties, Russia would maintain its commitment to the project. During the meeting, the leaders agreed upon a joint statement committing the Russians to a new deadline. Gore stated that he believed the summit's reaffirmation of previous commitments would satisfy members of Congress who were critical of Russia's trustworthiness.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
