Author Topic: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request  (Read 80021 times)

Offline CorvusCorax

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Germany
  • Liked: 362
  • Likes Given: 180
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #280 on: 03/06/2017 06:58 AM »
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control

FY16 Omnibus
Education: $37 million

FY17 Request:
Education: 0

Is that a fluke and education is now allocated under something else or is that just no longer a priority?
What is affected by this? No more student research on ISS flights?

It's an authorization bill, not an appropriation bill.

Can you put that in laymans terms? I am not familiar with the United Stated process of Authorization and Appropriation, so I had to read it up on Wikipedia. There, it says "Agencies and programs must have been authorized before they can have funds appropriated to them." Also it says that funding may only be appropriated up to the amount authorized, possibly less but not more.

As a layman not familiar with the process, I would interpret that as, if NASA is no longer authorized to spend money on education, then no funds may be appropriated to them on that program either.

So, no more education?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #281 on: 03/06/2017 01:26 PM »
Actually, I just noticed that $115M will be authorized for education for FY 2017:

Quote from: Page 6 of the 2017 NASA Authorization bill
SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2017.
12 There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for
13 fiscal year 2017, $19,508,000,000, as follows:
14 (1) For Exploration, $4,330,000,000.
15 (2) For Space Operations, $5,023,000,000.
16 (3) For Science, $5,500,000,000.
17 (4) For Aeronautics, $640,000,000.
18 (5) For Space Technology, $686,000,000.
19 (6) For Education, $115,000,000.
20 (7) For Safety, Security, and Mission Services,
21 $2,788,600,000.
22 (8) For Construction and Environmental Com
23 pliance and Restoration, $388,000,000.
24 (9) For Inspector General, $37,400,000.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2017 02:05 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #282 on: 03/07/2017 08:09 AM »
S. 422 is on today's schedule, with a vote to occur NET 18.30 EST.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #283 on: 03/07/2017 11:09 PM »
Quote from: Marcia Smith
S 442 has passed by voice vote.  No recorded vote requested.   Next stop: President's desk.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/839258131343486976

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
« Last Edit: 03/07/2017 11:11 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
« Last Edit: 03/08/2017 12:36 AM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #286 on: 03/08/2017 12:55 PM »
Good article by Jeff Foust on the 2017 Authorization bill:

http://spacenews.com/house-passes-nasa-authorization-bill/

Quote from: the article
The bill also has the support of the White House, according to congressional sources.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2017 12:56 PM by yg1968 »

Offline incoming

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #287 on: 03/08/2017 02:05 PM »
Can you put that in laymans terms? I am not familiar with the United Stated process of Authorization and Appropriation, so I had to read it up on Wikipedia. There, it says "Agencies and programs must have been authorized before they can have funds appropriated to them." Also it says that funding may only be appropriated up to the amount authorized, possibly less but not more.

It's probably worth clarifying this since this is a thread about NASA FY17 budget request that is also talking quite a bit about authorizations and appropriations, which can get quite confusing.

The president does not set the budget for NASA, congress does, but he does submit a recommendation called "the President's Budget Request." There is absolutely nothing binding about the President's budget request, other than the fact that the agencies are generally directed to plan to the PBR levels until congress passes a spending bill that actually establishes the levels.  This can create a bit of havoc when congress and the president are not on the same page.   There are three types of bills that influence or set spending levels for federal agencies like NASA - budget resolutions, appropriations bills, and authorization bills. 

A budget resolution does not get signed into law, but it contains the high level funding limits that congress sets for the appropriations process for a given fiscal year.  Appropriations bills that exceed the budget resolution are subject to a point of order - that means unless there is some sort of broad agreement worked out ahead of time they'd be easily defeated when brought to the floor.  Budget resolutions don't specify detail at the agency level; however they do drive an allocation to each appropriation subcommittee.  For example, NASA's appropriation comes from the Commerce Justice Science appropriations subcommittees in the House and Senate.  So from the budget resolution the CJS subcommittee will get a target number.  Then they'll need to balance funding priorities for agencies within their jurisdiction like NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the FBI within that allocation.

Appropriations bills actually allocate federal dollars to agencies - think of them as the check that actually fills the agencies' bank account.  They are limited to a single fiscal year and are not supposed to contain any policy (e.g., establishing a new program) that isn't directly related to the appropriation of federal dollars for the specified fiscal year.  However this rule is always stretched, commonly bent, and sometimes broken.

Authorization bills have two primary purposes - to establish authorized funding levels and to set policy.  The authorization of appropriations section often confuses people and commonly gets the most attention, but it really is often the least meaningful part of the bill.  The authorization of appropriations does set funding targets for agencies and sometimes individual programs, but the money doesn't "go into the bank" until it's actually appropriated. Furthermore the point of order against exceeding an authorization level with an appropriations bill is not often invoked, so the appropriators rarely feel bound by the authorized levels. Unlike appropriations bills, authorization bills can cover multiple years.  The idea being that if you have broad congressional agreement on funding over several years, the agency and stakeholders should get some element of long term certainty from that.  In practice, however, particularly since the budget control act and "sequestration," agency level multi-year authorizations are nearly impossible to pass and very few have. The second purpose of authorization bills is to set permanent policy.  This policy language gets incorporated into the US code and remains in place until repealed or amended by another bill.  For example, the space act of 1958 that established NASA was an authorization bill, and it has been subsequently amended by numerous NASA authorizations (including the one that just passed) and other bills. 



« Last Edit: 03/08/2017 02:07 PM by incoming »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10951
  • Liked: 2436
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #288 on: 03/13/2017 10:40 PM »
The second purpose of authorization bills is to set permanent policy.  This policy language gets incorporated into the US code and remains in place until repealed or amended by another bill.

Good summary, but of course there's a lot more buried in actual implementation of all of these things.

For authorization bills I'd add that, as you correctly noted, setting the monetary limits often gets a lot of attention, but in actuality is less important than the policy stuff. Anybody who really wants to know about these things should read the authorization bills and look at all the little things that they contain. Often those things can establish requirements for NASA that will last forever, and they could be pretty important. And often they will have budgetary consequences too--and the really sticky stuff is how the agency (and the administration then in power) chooses to deal with these budgetary consequences or not.

So two examples, both of which I was involved in or had to deal with:

-there's a provision in the 2005 NASA Authorization (Section 321) generally referred to as the "George E. Brown Amendment" that requires that NASA track asteroids (I'm simplifying). It was originally submitted as a separate bill. But it died in Congress. So a member of Congress inserted it into language in the NASA Authorization Bill and presto! Now NASA is responsible for tracking asteroids! The problem is that no money came along with that requirement. So that has created tension for over a decade on that issue. NASA has searched for asteroids, but it has not met the requirements set forth in that law. But... the very fact that NASA is the lead agency on this issue is due to an amendment in an authorization bill.

-the current authorization act changes the requirement for space science missions undergoing senior review from every two years to every three years. NASA operates DOZENS of space science missions, and most of them last longer than their primary mission. When they are going to go into extended mission they have to apply for money to do so in a process called a senior review. This requires a lot of work. And once they are in extended mission phase (75% of the operating missions right now are in extended mission) they have to keep applying. The previous requirement was to do this every two years, but Congress is now changing it to every three years. Considering that these applications usually take six months of work, that's a lot of effort for a two-year extension to a mission that may have cost billions of dollars to develop and that is otherwise working fine. So this policy change is going to save a lot of time and money for dozens of missions, and scientists are going to be able to do more science instead of paperwork. That's an important change, but I think that just about everybody on this forum will not know about it or even understand it.

So when it comes to authorization bills, the devil--and all the interesting stuff--is in the details.


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #289 on: 03/21/2017 01:21 PM »
President Trump should be signing the NASA Authorization bill at 11 a.m. today.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/trump-schedule/

Quote
Today’s Trump Schedule

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

9:15 am || Meets with the Republican House caucus; U.S. Capitol
10:30 am || Receives his daily intelligence briefing
11:00 am || Signs the NASA spending authorization act
3:00 pm || Holds a legislative affairs meeting; Roosevelt Room
7:30 pm || Makes remarks at the National Republican Congressional Committee March Dinner; Washington

White House briefing with Sean Spicer at 1:30 pm
« Last Edit: 03/21/2017 01:30 PM by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #290 on: 03/21/2017 02:17 PM »
President Trump should be signing the NASA Authorization bill at 11 a.m. today.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/trump-schedule/

Quote
Today’s Trump Schedule

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

9:15 am || Meets with the Republican House caucus; U.S. Capitol
10:30 am || Receives his daily intelligence briefing
11:00 am || Signs the NASA spending authorization act
3:00 pm || Holds a legislative affairs meeting; Roosevelt Room
7:30 pm || Makes remarks at the National Republican Congressional Committee March Dinner; Washington

White House briefing with Sean Spicer at 1:30 pm


Just saw something on NASA TV where astros and such were in the Oval Office. Trump said Orion wrong, but other than that. Bill Nelson was there. Cruz and Rubio were there...Cruz mentioned Texas.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
  • Liked: 1012
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #291 on: 03/21/2017 02:22 PM »
Can "scroll back" on NASA TV's YouTube channels, but as the WH.gov logo was there...assume this will go archive soon:


(Perhaps the statement that the President started with will be available eventually, too...although it wasn't terribly remarkable.)
« Last Edit: 03/21/2017 02:27 PM by psloss »


Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9566
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #293 on: 03/21/2017 04:30 PM »
OK, so now we have an authorization law that says "Mars is good" or some such, in the context of a reduced budget for NASA.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4812
  • Liked: 2886
  • Likes Given: 4056
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #294 on: 03/21/2017 04:36 PM »
OK, so now we have an authorization law that says "Mars is good" or some such, in the context of a reduced budget for NASA.

There is a way forward, unless you believe that NASA is operating at max efficiency.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #295 on: 03/21/2017 04:39 PM »
The following is a statement from NASA acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot on President Trump signing Tuesday the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017:

“We would like to thank President Trump for his support of the agency in signing the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017.

“We also want to express our gratitude to a bipartisan Congress for its thoughtful consideration of the agency’s path forward. We are grateful for the longstanding support and trust of the American people, which enables our nation’s space, aeronautics, science, and technology development programs to thrive.

“Our workforce has proven time and again that it can meet any challenge, and the continuing support for NASA ensures our nation’s space program will remain the world’s leader in pioneering new frontiers in exploration, innovation, and scientific achievement.”

For more information about NASA’s missions, programs and activities, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov

-end-

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #296 on: 03/21/2017 05:00 PM »

Just saw something on NASA TV where astros and such were in the Oval Office. Trump said Orion wrong, but other than that. Bill Nelson was there. Cruz and Rubio were there...Cruz mentioned Texas.

Trump said Orion was wrong? Did he imply that he would cancel it?

I think he meant he mispronounced it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #297 on: 03/21/2017 05:12 PM »
I just watched the archived video (at around 40 minutes). The most important news was mentionned at the end where Pence said that they will restart the National Space Council in short order and that he would lead it. 
« Last Edit: 03/21/2017 05:15 PM by yg1968 »

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1720
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #298 on: 03/21/2017 05:28 PM »
Eh outside of declaring "We're going to Mars now" this is the best I'd expect from someone like Trump.  ARM is dead, Europa Clipper is pushing ahead, Planetary Science is better funded v.s. Obama, and both government and commercial spaceflight remain on course.  Earth Science may be cut, but there was debate as to forcing NASA to do what was the EPA/NOAA's job anyway; at most NASA should just be assisting them much as it is merely assisting SpaceX's Red Dragon for example.  I'd settle for this as a budget.

Policy is going to be another story.  It's going to be "interesting" seeing how Trump handles deorbiting (or not) the ISS, what to have Orion do while circling Luna, and how we'll explore the Solar System via humans and (mostly as we all know) robots.  An administrator hasn't even been appointed yet.  So him approving the NASA budget I'd call merely a prelude at best.

In all cases hooray budget.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16935
  • Liked: 1012
  • Likes Given: 447
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #299 on: 03/21/2017 05:34 PM »
(Perhaps the statement that the President started with will be available eventually, too...although it wasn't terribly remarkable.)
Maybe not remarkable, but more interesting than I thought.  Eric Berger's story:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/president-trump-signs-nasa-funding-bill-says-its-about-jobs/

Tags: