The newly proposed funding for NASA will allow the curious minds to go closer to setting foot on Mars.
On Friday, the Space News reported that a new proposal about the first authorization of NASA funding has been submitted to the Congress.
Luckily, the Congress has passed the first NASA authorization bill in more than five years which would formally extend the operations of the International Space Station and support NASA’s Artemis exploration effort.
On July 28, the “Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act,” garnered 243–187 votes after the Senate passed the bill on a 64–33 vote.
Reports revealed that the proposal will include an extension to the Moon to Mars Program which also includes the Artemis campaign of lunar missions and potential human missions to Mars.
In a statement released by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson who also have worked on several NASA authorization bills as a senator, he welcomed the new bill, claiming that “this act shows continued bipartisan support of NASA’s many missions, including our Moon to Mars approach, as well extension of U.S. participation in the International Space Station to 2030.”
Eric Fanning, president and chief executive of the Aerospace Industries Association also released a statement in July 27 and stated that “it is encouraging to see Congress prioritize the enhancement of NASA technology, infrastructure, and workforce in this legislation, while also authorizing key programs including Artemis, ISS extension, sustainable aviation x-plane demonstrators, space nuclear systems, and a wide range of science missions.”
Moreover, following the Senate’s passage of the act, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), chair of the House space subcommittee also said in a statement that he was “thrilled to have helped craft and secure the first NASA authorization in five years. This bill is a big win for space policy, the U.S. space program and NASA.”
However, despite the full support from several lawmakers to pass the bill, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), a ranking member of the House Science Committee explained why he voted against the bill.
“For better or for worse — and it’s very clear for the worse — the CHIPS and Science Act has been irrevocably tied to a massive tax hike and spending spree in reconciliation. It is in no way a reflection of my feelings about the transformational research policies in this bill.”
