 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 NASA Aeronautics in Freefall: Alexandria, Virginia. April 7, 2005 The FY06 Presidential Budget Request (the PBR) reflects a cut of $104.4 in NASA aeronautics compared to projected FY 06 figures in the 05 budget request. All of this, and more, is achieved through a FY06 reduction to the Vehicle Systems budget which bears the brunt of the cuts, down $147.3M from the $606.4M projected in FY05, and in FY07 the cut grows to $202.6M compared to the FY05 budget projection for 07. Of NASA's FY06 budget ($16.5B in the PBR), only 5.16% or $852.3M is allocated to aeronautics. Rotorcraft at NASA has been eliminated altogether. Rotorcraft researchers have already been banished to the "transitional workforce," the final step in eliminating what was once a NASA core competency. Yet aeronautics generates more than $32B in positive trade surplus - the largest of any industry segment - while the country as a whole in 2004 suffered an adverse balance of payments exceeding $600 billion. The U.S. market share of world commercial aircraft sales has dropped from a high of 91% in 1969, to 67% in 1991, to less than 50% in 2003 and 2004. There is a correlation here that the White House OMB is missing; and it must be corrected without further delay. Aerospace jobs in the U.S. have declined from 1.3 billion in 1987 to just 600,000 in 2004 (one association commented favorably recently on the small rebound in aerospace jobs from 587,000 to 616,000, but - reminded that we've lost more than 700,000 jobs in slightly more than a decade - some of us find it hard to follow.) For FY06, the only effective response will be a Congressional plus-up for NASA aeronautics on the order of at least $100M. Until now, the Washington-based professional technical societies have done relatively little other than wring their hands. The cuts impacting the NASA rotorcraft community, however, have been so draconian that AHS has had little choice but to publish commentaries, op-ed pieces, and phone contacts in Congress and other associations to call attention to the plight of rotorcraft research. This week, though, things appear about to change. IEEE's Bill Williams, who heads their legislative efforts, has been drafting a letter to Congress expressing concern about the cuts in aeronautics; AHS responded with suggestions and comments that what is needed is action. IEEE today responded that they are ready. AIAA's staff and leadership, as you know, has done very little about the decline of aeronautics. But this morning the AIAA chief for legislative affairs Ben Korb called to ask whether we would support an Aeronautics Forum next week on Thursday, April 14, to be held in the Rayburn building. This afternoon, AIA announced it is prepared to lead the charge. Of course, what is needed at this point is not words, but "action, " not any action but "joint action" and "focus." Do for aeronautics what you've been doing for space; that's all we ask of the aerospace community. So I'm encouraged that a joint effort is about to come together. Hopefully in a few short weeks we can create a coalition to rebuild NASA aeronautics, including those who support the military aerospace community as well as the academic community. We have little time to come together on a plan and launch forward with a coordinated effort. To achieve our goal we will have to bring together the Congressional delegations from California (NASA Ames), Virginia (NASA Langley), Ohio (NASA Glenn), Pennsylvania (Penn State), Georgia (Georgia Tech), and Maryland (UMD), plus the many other states hosting activities supporting the US aeronautics community. We can do it if we have the will.
|
