Skip to footer

What would Obama's proposed FY 2017 budget mean for NASA?

The federal budget proposal, while up from the $18.5 billion request placed by Obama for the fiscal year 2016 budget, is lower than the nearly $19.3 billion amount approved by Congress in December.

|
NASA/Reuters/File
The blackness of space and the thin line of Earth's atmosphere provide the backdrop for a section of the International Space Station (ISS) in this image photographed by a space walking astronaut in 2009. The US could send astronauts to the ISS for the first time in years if provisions related to the National Aeronautic and Space Administration in President Barack Obama's 2017 federal budget proposals make it through Congress.
  • By Ben Thompson Staff

As part of President Obama’s federal budget proposal released by the White House Tuesday, his administration would grant the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) $19 billion dollars in fiscal year 2017.

The funding, while up from the $18.5 billion requested by Mr. Obama for the current fiscal year, is lower than the nearly $19.3 billion amount approved by Congress in December.

The proposed budget provides for continuing many of the high-profile projects NASA has in development, including the ongoing preparations and planning for an eventual manned Mars mission, an upcoming mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa, and the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope.

NASA’s science division funding would remain around the same level, at $5.6 billion, with around $2 billion allocated to Earth sciences and $1.9 to planetary sciences. The Earth-related projects that benefit from the proposal include "the development and operation of a fleet of spacecraft to study our own planet, increasing our understanding of the Earth and its climate." This comprises of various monitoring satellites, including the Landsat 9 which is now slated to launch in 2021.

While some members of the Republican-controlled Congress are not supportive of certain NASA projects related to the study of climate change on Earth, satellite programs like Landsat have seen success in recent years. Conversely, Congress and the White House have also disagreed on appropriations for the space agency’s planetary projects. That department’s budget saw a slight drop, although Obama may not have adjusted the amount after Congress granted NASA more than expected last year.

"I don’t think the White House is going out of its way saying, 'We’ve got to cut NASA,'" Casey Dreier, The Planetary Society’s director of space policy, told Science, adding that "Congress came out with a very good number late in the game."

In a Planetary Society release on the budget numbers, Mr. Dreier also said that the proposed $19 billion allocation represents "A step in the right direction, though NASA needs to grow, not shrink, if we want it to achieve the goals set out for it by the nation."

The planetary sciences funding would also cover several space telescopes, ongoing operations on Mars, and support other probes currently in space.

A total of $8.4 billion, including around $5 billion for efforts related to the International Space Station, would be spent on human exploration. Space technology and aeronautics research would get slightly over and under $800 million, respectively.

The budget also includes several provisions for research related to developing "clean fuels and transportation technologies," for American use, such as new aircraft with low carbon emissions and environmentally-friendly public transportation.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to What would Obama's proposed FY 2017 budget mean for NASA?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0210/What-would-Obama-s-proposed-FY-2017-budget-mean-for-NASA
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe