Witness Calls for Abolishment of Mission to Planet Earth

At his first hearing as chair of the House Science Subcommittee on Space, to discuss authorization of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) enlivened the proceedings with a last-minute witness who urged abolishment of the program. The CATO Institute’s Edward Hudgins claimed that the program was politically-driven, “a bogus issue based on bad science,” and an excuse for NASA to keep asking for money. Hudgins said he would “like to see the federal government pull back from civilian space activities” and, ultimately, “get out of science.” Subcommittee Democrats protested that they had not been given sufficient notice of this late addition to the witness panel, and Rohrabacher agreed that their complaint was justified. Although Hudgins was the last witness to testify, the other witnesses addressed most of his charges in their testimony.

NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth is part of the multi-agency US Global Change Research Program. Rohrabacher, who in the past has called the theory of global warming “at worst...liberal claptrap,” declared that he supported scientific research to study “how the planet works,” but questioned why the program was requesting a 4% increase over its FY 1997 budget of $1.36 billion at a time when the total NASA budget is declining.

William Townsend, NASA’s Acting Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth, welcomed the opportunity to explain why the program should not be considered “liberal claptrap.” He said the program is not focused on global warming per se, but on how the Earth functions as a system, based on five principal themes laid out in its Science Plan: Land Cover and Land Use Change; Seasonal-to-interannual Climate Variability and Prediction; Natural Hazards Research and Applications; Natural Variability and Change of Long-term Climate; and Atmospheric Ozone Research. Since its origin in 1991, the program has instituted significant changes to respond to concerns about cost, spacecraft size, use of advanced technologies, complexity of the data system, and involvement of the private sector, Townsend reported. This has resulted in expected program costs through 2000 being reduced more than 60% from earlier projections. In 1998, he said, “the EOS era begins in earnest” with the launching of AM-1 and Landsat 7. The FY 1998 request of $1.42 billion, he explained, was “necessary to carry out” those upcoming launch plans.

The space agency’s efforts to rein in program costs run counter to Hudgins’ claim that NASA sees “environmental projects as potential cash cows.” Hudgins also claimed that NASA activities discouraged development of a private sector space infrastructure, and argued that NASA should simply purchase the data needed. Townsend noted that NASA has made an effort to involve the private sector more heavily in Mission to Planet Earth and is “moving toward data purchase whenever possible.” NASA Chief Technologist Samuel Venneri pointed out that requirements for the program’s Data and Information System and much of the hardware “exceeded today’s industry standards.” He added that while the program is considering transferring its data system out from under federal control in the future, it would require three to five years for next-generation networks to be able to handle the amount and complexity of information produced.

To Hudgins’ criticism that the “mission itself is of questionable value, based on political considerations rather than real science,” Harvard University’s Steven Wofsy, chairman of the Earth Systems Science Applications Advisory Committee, responded that the committee found the program to have “very high scientific integrity” and to be “motivated by important environmental and policy issues.” During the question-and-answer period, he called Hudgins’ remark a “pretty nasty charge with no corroborating evidence.” Wofsy noted that NASA has responded “very vigorously and positively” to the committee’s concerns, including a caution that the balance of program funding was tipped towards space hardware and away from research and analysis. Also, while Hudgins charged that the program was initially based on “fear of global warming” and that a broader research scope was an example of “mission creep,” Wofsy argued that “environmental data gathering has been a part of the program from the beginning.” In reply to Hudgins’ statement that NASA “muscled in on the territory of EPA,” Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) pointed out that such Earth system research was placed in NASA’s purview by the 1958 act that established the space agency.

Last year the House Science Committee passed an authorization that reduced Mission to Planet Earth funding by over $300 million from the FY 1997 request of $1.4 billion, but appropriators did not incorporate the reduction into their final funding bill. Rep. Walter Capps (D-CA) inquired about the effect of such a reduction to the FY 1998 budget. Townsend said it would result in a substantial delay in deployment of the full set of measurement capabilities. With a strong aerospace industry in his district, Rohrabacher is an avid supporter of some NASA programs, such as the space station, but also a deficit hawk. He warned that it was “a good idea to look for potential savings in all programs” to balance the budget. He gave no indication of when his subcommittee might draft a NASA authorization bill.