Author Topic: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request  (Read 31291 times)

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« on: 03/16/2017 10:41 AM »
Quote
The Trump Administration's FY2018 budget blueprint proposes $19.1 billion for NASA, less than a one percent cut according to a copy of the document posted by the Washington Post.   It is good news considering the draconian cuts proposed for many other agencies.  President Obama's Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) would be cancelled and NASA's Office of Education would be eliminated under the proposal, but other NASA programs survived relatively unscathed.  The earth science program is cut, but not as deeply as many feared.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/trump-budget-request-kills-arm-supports-sls-orion-and-public-private-partnerships

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #1 on: 03/16/2017 10:54 AM »
Here's the text of the NASA section, copied from the Washington Post:

Quote
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is responsible for increasing understanding of the universe and our place in it, advancing America's world-leading aerospace technology, inspiring the Nation, and opening the space frontier. The Budget increases cooperation with industry through the use of public-private partnerships, focuses the Nation's efforts on deep space exploration rather than Earth-centric research, and develops technologies that would help achieve US. space goals and benefit the economy.

The President's 2018 Budget requests $19.1 billion for NASA, a 0.8 percent decrease from the 2017 annualized CR level, with targeted increases consistent with the President's priorities.


The President's 2018 Budget:

Supports and expands public-private partnerships as the foundation of future U.S. civilian space efforts. The Budget creates new opportunities for collaboration with industry on space station operations, supports public-private partnerships for deep-space habitation and exploration systems, funds data buys from companies operating small satellite constellations, and supports work with industry to develop and commercialize new space technologies.

Paves the way for eventual over-land commercial supersonic flights and safer, more efficient air travel with a strong program of aeronautics research. The Budget provides $624 million for aeronautics research and development.

Reinvigorates robotic exploration of the Solar System by providing $1.9 billion for the Planetary Science program, including funding for a mission to repeatedly fly by Jupiter's icy ocean moon Europa and a Mars rover that would launch in 2020. To preserve the balance of science portfolio and maintain flexibility to conduct missions that were determined to be more important by the science community, the Budget provides no funding for a multi-billion-dollar mission to land on Europa. The Budget also supports initiatives that use smaller, less expensive satellites to advance science in a cost-effective manner.

Provides $3.7 billion for continued development of the Orion crew vehicle, Space Launch System, and associated ground system, to send American astronauts on deep-space missions. To accommodate increasing development costs, the Budget cancels the multi-billion-dollar Asteroid Redirect Mission. NASA will investigate approaches for reducing the costs of exploration missions to enable a more expansive exploration program.

Provides $1.8 billion for a focused, balanced Earth science portfolio that supports the priorities
of the science and applications communities, a savings of $102 million from the 2017 annualized
CR level. The Budget terminates four Earth science missions (PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR Earth-Viewing instruments, and CLARREO Pathfinder) and reduces funding for Earth science research grants.

Eliminates the $115 million Of?ce of Education, resulting in a more focused education effort through 5 Science Mission Directorate. The Of?ce of Education has experienced significant challenges in implementing a NASA-wide education strategy and is performing functions that are duplicative of other parts of the agency.

Restructures a duplicative robotic satellite refueling demonstration mission to reduce its cost and better position it to support a nascent commercial satellite servicing industry, resulting in a savings of $88 million from the 2017 annualized CR level.

Strengthens cybersecurity capabilities, safeguarding critical systems and data.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 10:54 AM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #2 on: 03/16/2017 10:59 AM »
For posterity, the full Budget request as attachment (downloaded from the Office of Management and Budget website) and the screenshots of the NASA section.

-cala

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #3 on: 03/16/2017 11:10 AM »
Would very much like to hear more details on the "initiatives that use smaller, less expensive satellites to advance science," and the refueling demo, if folks here are "in the know."  Thanks!
Recovering astronomer

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #4 on: 03/16/2017 11:22 AM »
Here's Jeff Foust's write-up:

http://spacenews.com/white-house-budget-proposal-targets-arm-earth-science-missions-education/

Quote
Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, [...] [had] a briefing with reporters March 15 [...]

NASA, Mulvaney suggested at the briefing, was a priority for the Trump administration and thus spared the deeper cuts other agencies received. “Space exploration is part of his priorities,” he said of the president.

Offline Graham

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • New York
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 111
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #5 on: 03/16/2017 11:43 AM »
If this budget makes it out of congress in one piece we could be looking at a very serious gap in earth observation satellite coverage through the early 2020s. Some of the cancellations are bizarre for the Trump Admin. OCO, sure. I don't agree, but it's in line with what I would expect. But PACE? CLAREO? They seem like pretty agreeable missions on both sides of the aisle, neither is particularly involved in with climate change study.

I know Trump doesn't think NASA should study the Earth (which of course ignores that it's in the charter), but then I would ask the Admin to identify who exactly should be doing this.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 12:00 PM by Graham »
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night
- Sarah Williams

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #6 on: 03/16/2017 12:32 PM »
Commercial Spaceflight Federation likes what it sees:

Quote
CSF Statement on the Trump Administration’s FY18 Budget Request
by Tommy Sanford on March 15, 2017

“Last year, the Trump-Pence campaign outlined an inspirational vision for America’s space enterprise to explore and develop space as America’s 21st Century Frontier,” said Dr. Alan Stern, Chairman of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF’s) Board of Directors. “That vision called for expanding public-private partnerships and increasing reliance upon the commercial space industry to ensure America leads the way on the final frontier. President Trump’s FY18 budget request represents a good first step towards realizing that vision.”

“The commercial space industry is committed to achieving incredible things in space and launching a new era of American space innovation and leadership at lower costs, accelerated timelines, and best value for the taxpayer,” said Eric Stallmer, President of CSF.  “America’s greatest strengths include its ingenuity and innovation.  In an era of constrained budgets and fiscal realities, the commercial space industry stands ready to support the President’s agenda of achieving great things in space, leveraging commercial approaches and the rapid results that come with them.”

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/2017/03/csf-commercial-capabilities-definition/

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #7 on: 03/16/2017 12:46 PM »
March 16, 2017
RELEASE 17-026
NASA Acting Administrator Statement on Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Proposal

The following is a statement from NASA acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot on the Fiscal Year 2018 agency budget proposal:

“The President mentioned in his speech to both houses of Congress that, ‘American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.’ NASA is already working toward that goal, and we look forward to exciting achievements that this budget will help us reach.

“NASA teams continue to do amazing work to develop and launch our missions and increase this nation’s technical capabilities across the board. America needs NASA more than ever, and the agency’s work every single day is vitally important.

“While more detailed budget information will be released in May, we have received a top line budget number for the agency as part of an overall government budget rollout of more than $19 billion. This is in line with our funding in recent years, and will enable us to effectively execute our core mission for the nation, even during these times of fiscal constraint.

“While the budget and appropriation process still has a long way to go, this budget enables us to continue our work with industry to enhance government capabilities, send humans deeper into space, continue our innovative aeronautics efforts and explore our universe.

“The budget supports our continued leadership in commercial space, which has demonstrated success through multiple cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station, and is on target to begin launches of astronauts from U.S. soil in the near future.

“The budget also bolsters our ongoing work to send humans deeper into space and the technologies that will require.

“As discussions about this budget proposal begin with Congress, we continue to operate under the funding provided by a Continuing Resolution that runs through April 28.

“Overall science funding is stable, although some missions in development will not go forward and others will see increases. We remain committed to studying our home planet and the universe, but are reshaping our focus within the resources available to us – a budget not far from where we have been in recent years, and which enables our wide ranging science work on many fronts.

“This budget also keeps aeronautics on stable footing allowing us to continue our forward movement in many areas, including the New Aviation Horizons initiative.

“While this budget no longer funds a formal Office of Education, NASA will continue to inspire the next generation through our missions and channel education efforts in a more focused way through the robust portfolio of our Science Mission Directorate. We will also continue to use every opportunity to support the next generation through engagement in our missions and the many ways that our work encourages the public to discover more.

“We remain committed to the next human missions to deep space, but we will not pursue the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) with this budget. This doesn’t mean, however, that the hard work of the teams already working on ARM will be lost. We will continue the solar electric propulsion efforts benefitting from those developments for future in space transportation initiatives. I have had personal involvement with this team and their progress for the past few years, and am I extremely proud of their efforts to advance this mission.

“This is a positive budget overall for NASA. I want to reiterate that we are committed to NASA’s core mission of exploration – in all the ways we carry that out.

“As with any budget, we have greater aspirations than we have means, but this blueprint provides us with considerable resources to carry out our mission, and I know we will make this nation proud.”

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

http://www.nasa.gov

-end-

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #8 on: 03/16/2017 01:30 PM »
Trump is cutting Earth science by 5% but increasing planetary science by a larger amount:

Quote
The budget proposal provides $1.8 billion for Earth science programs, a cut of about five percent from what NASA received in 2016.

One area getting a budget increase is NASA’s planetary science program, which would receive $1.9 billion in the administration’s request, up from $1.63 billion in 2016.

That is exactly what I predicted would happen, a couple of weeks ago:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42425.msg1649289#msg1649289
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 01:44 PM by yg1968 »

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3415
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2171
  • Likes Given: 2683
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #9 on: 03/16/2017 02:37 PM »
In case anyone wants to see how NASA's proposed budget decrease compares to the decreases and increases across other agencies (they have a nice chart):

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-trump-budget/
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10949
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #10 on: 03/16/2017 02:42 PM »
I told you the cuts would be less than the rumors, right?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #11 on: 03/16/2017 03:17 PM »
I know Trump doesn't think NASA should study the Earth (which of course ignores that it's in the charter),

How is this $1.8 billion Earth science budget proposal--which does not gut Earth science--consistent with "doesn't think NASA should study the Earth"?

There's still $1.8 billion for Earth science, which is nearly the same as planetary, and more than both astro and helio.

But cancelling something like DSCOVR is bizarre when it's only recently been launched and the projected spending on it was only $1.2 million.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 03:19 PM by Star One »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 995
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #12 on: 03/16/2017 03:26 PM »
Since NASA is only cut by about 1%, I'm confident that Congress will ignore the Administration's suggestions and the President won't mind. He'll be too busy trying to get the bigger cuts approved.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #13 on: 03/16/2017 03:28 PM »
I know Trump doesn't think NASA should study the Earth (which of course ignores that it's in the charter),

How is this $1.8 billion Earth science budget proposal--which does not gut Earth science--consistent with "doesn't think NASA should study the Earth"?

There's still $1.8 billion for Earth science, which is nearly the same as planetary, and more than both astro and helio.

But cancelling something like DSCOVR is bizarre when it's only recently been launched and the projected spending on it was only $1.2 million.

DSCOVR isn't cancelled.  Only its secondary objectives.  The primary mission is still funded.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #14 on: 03/16/2017 03:30 PM »
I know Trump doesn't think NASA should study the Earth (which of course ignores that it's in the charter),

How is this $1.8 billion Earth science budget proposal--which does not gut Earth science--consistent with "doesn't think NASA should study the Earth"?

There's still $1.8 billion for Earth science, which is nearly the same as planetary, and more than both astro and helio.

But cancelling something like DSCOVR is bizarre when it's only recently been launched and the projected spending on it was only $1.2 million.

DSCOVR isn't cancelled.  Only its secondary objectives.  The primary mission is still funded.

What's it's secondary objectives & that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 03:31 PM by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #15 on: 03/16/2017 03:38 PM »
What's it's secondary objectives

Solar storm monitoring--i.e. space weather.

that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?

You do know who is in the White House, right?

Yep. But I hoped things like this would escape his notice.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #16 on: 03/16/2017 03:46 PM »
Yep. But I hoped things like this would escape his notice.

Again: forest for the trees.

Or to belabor the point: despite dire predictions that Trump was going to wipe out NASA Earth science, or transfer it all to NOAA, he actually only proposed a 5% cut for NASA Earth science. That's it. 5%. The question that everybody should be asking right now is why was that cut so small?

Doesn't believe his own rhetoric?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #17 on: 03/16/2017 04:04 PM »
Yep. But I hoped things like this would escape his notice.

Again: forest for the trees.

Or to belabor the point: despite dire predictions that Trump was going to wipe out NASA Earth science, or transfer it all to NOAA, he actually only proposed a 5% cut for NASA Earth science. That's it. 5%. The question that everybody should be asking right now is why was that cut so small?

Doesn't believe his own rhetoric?

I'm sure that is the case. However, I'd also note that NOAA gets cut. So why cut NOAA and not NASA Earth science? NOAA includes weather satellites, which are not politically unpopular. So I find this a bit puzzling. And that's why I think people should be asking the question of why such a small cut?

Playing up to the prejudices of his audience?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #18 on: 03/16/2017 04:06 PM »

What's it's secondary objectives & that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?

Earth viewing.  The primary mission is space weather monitoring and that is still funded.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #19 on: 03/16/2017 04:08 PM »

What's it's secondary objectives & that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?

Earth viewing.  The primary mission is space weather monitoring and that is still funded.

Thanks for the info. Obviously knew about the space weather part of it but didn't realise that there was a dedicated secondary mission on it.

Offline blah

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #20 on: 03/16/2017 04:22 PM »

What's it's secondary objectives & that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?

Earth viewing.  The primary mission is space weather monitoring and that is still funded.

Thanks for the info. Obviously knew about the space weather part of it but didn't realise that there was a dedicated secondary mission on it.

I believe this secondary mission was Al Gore's contribution  ;)

https://www.algore.com/project/the-deep-space-climate-observatory

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #21 on: 03/16/2017 04:23 PM »

What's it's secondary objectives & that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?

Earth viewing.  The primary mission is space weather monitoring and that is still funded.

Thanks for the info. Obviously knew about the space weather part of it but didn't realise that there was a dedicated secondary mission on it.

As Goresat, the two Earth viewing instruments (NISTAR and EPIC) were the primary mission and the three instruments grouped as PlasMag were secondary. The roles are reversed for DSCOVR.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 04:24 PM by Jim »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #22 on: 03/16/2017 04:40 PM »
Yep. But I hoped things like this would escape his notice.

Again: forest for the trees.

Or to belabor the point: despite dire predictions that Trump was going to wipe out NASA Earth science, or transfer it all to NOAA, he actually only proposed a 5% cut for NASA Earth science. That's it. 5%. The question that everybody should be asking right now is why was that cut so small?

I already offered you an explanation in the other thread: Republicans aren't against gathering collecting Earth science data, they are against NASA being used as an advocate against climate change.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 04:40 PM by yg1968 »

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #23 on: 03/16/2017 05:39 PM »
By specifically removing the $1.2M for DSCOVR's earth viewing instruments, they are hoping to block access to full disk irradiance data (basically, data that shows that the planet is now taking in more energy than it is losing).

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #24 on: 03/16/2017 05:55 PM »
By specifically removing the $1.2M for DSCOVR's earth viewing instruments, they are hoping to block access to full disk irradiance data (basically, data that shows that the planet is now taking in more energy than it is losing).

Let's see if they can get this cut past the generals as by the sound of it they may face a degree of resistance on this.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 995
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #25 on: 03/16/2017 07:30 PM »
By specifically removing the $1.2M for DSCOVR's earth viewing instruments, they are hoping to block access to full disk irradiance data (basically, data that shows that the planet is now taking in more energy than it is losing).

Let's see if they can get this cut past the generals as by the sound of it they may face a degree of resistance on this.

Generals? Nope, only members of Congress matter in this discussion. While the USA has the largest military budget in the world by a wide margin, we're still a civilian government.

As I've written before, this Presidential budget for NASA doesn't matter. Congress will stay their course and the Administration won't interfere, especially since the two are almost in complete agreement.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3415
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2171
  • Likes Given: 2683
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #26 on: 03/16/2017 07:39 PM »
I already offered you an explanation in the other thread: Republicans aren't against gathering collecting Earth science data, they are against NASA being used as an advocate against climate change.

NASA doesn't advocate, it only discovers and explains.

Those that advocate against the idea that humans are contributing to climate change don't want any data to be revealed, since others can use that data.  Remove the data, then you remove the ability to point out changes are happening...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #27 on: 03/16/2017 08:12 PM »
By specifically removing the $1.2M for DSCOVR's earth viewing instruments, they are hoping to block access to full disk irradiance data (basically, data that shows that the planet is now taking in more energy than it is losing).

Let's see if they can get this cut past the generals as by the sound of it they may face a degree of resistance on this.

Generals? Nope, only members of Congress matter in this discussion. While the USA has the largest military budget in the world by a wide margin, we're still a civilian government.

As I've written before, this Presidential budget for NASA doesn't matter. Congress will stay their course and the Administration won't interfere, especially since the two are almost in complete agreement.

Well not in agreement on everything.

Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust

@ZachInFlight Europa Clipper is not being cut. What’s not being funded is a follow-on lander (and Rep. Culberson will likely rescue it.)

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/842421466184400896

Offline incoming

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #28 on: 03/16/2017 08:22 PM »
By specifically removing the $1.2M for DSCOVR's earth viewing instruments, they are hoping to block access to full disk irradiance data (basically, data that shows that the planet is now taking in more energy than it is losing).

The DSCOVR thing is just plain weird.  The budget doesn't say anything about cancelling the mission (the spacecraft is already up there and functioning), just the Earth observing part. We have a spacecraft up there with a camera and some other instrumentation pointing at Earth, as well as taking some important space weather measurements.  And they just want to turn off the camera?  What sense does that make?  It'll save almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's almost like they really are afraid of what the camera will show.

Also - there's been a bit of confusion on CLAREO, but by my reading of the white house release it's just the pathfinder/tech demo on ISS that's being cancelled, not the actual mission.



Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #29 on: 03/16/2017 08:45 PM »
Yep. But I hoped things like this would escape his notice.

Again: forest for the trees.

Or to belabor the point: despite dire predictions that Trump was going to wipe out NASA Earth science, or transfer it all to NOAA, he actually only proposed a 5% cut for NASA Earth science. That's it. 5%. The question that everybody should be asking right now is why was that cut so small?

I already offered you an explanation in the other thread: Republicans aren't against gathering collecting Earth science data, they are against NASA being used as an advocate against climate change.

That doesn't explain gutting NOAA, which mostly doesn't do "advocacy against climate change." They do weather satellites.

From what I read, most of the NOAA cuts are also global warming related.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/proposed-budget-for-commerce-would-cut-funds-for-noaa/2017/03/15/6c93d864-09ad-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 08:50 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9566
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #30 on: 03/16/2017 09:23 PM »

What's it's secondary objectives & that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?

Earth viewing.  The primary mission is space weather monitoring and that is still funded.

Apparently, the Earth isn't that important.

Offline JH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 190
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #31 on: 03/16/2017 09:54 PM »
The DSCOVR thing is just plain weird.  The budget doesn't say anything about cancelling the mission (the spacecraft is already up there and functioning), just the Earth observing part. We have a spacecraft up there with a camera and some other instrumentation pointing at Earth, as well as taking some important space weather measurements.  And they just want to turn off the camera?  What sense does that make?  It'll save almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's almost like they really are afraid of what the camera will show.

The token monetary savings are a fig leaf. The goal is to hamper the accumulation of evidence of climate change.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 09:57 PM by JH »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #32 on: 03/16/2017 11:06 PM »
If you wanted an explanation for the cuts to climate funding, here it is:

White House: Climate funding is ‘a waste of your money’
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/324358-white-house-says-climate-funding-is-a-waste-of-your-money

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #33 on: 03/17/2017 01:29 AM »
Yes, I saw that. I guess that there is no easy way to cut 17% of NOAA's budget. The budget has already been called DOA by some in Congress. So we'll see what happens.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2017 01:30 AM by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #34 on: 03/17/2017 09:33 AM »
If you wanted an explanation for the cuts to climate funding, here it is:

White House: Climate funding is ‘a waste of your money’
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/324358-white-house-says-climate-funding-is-a-waste-of-your-money

It sounds like Trump wants to cut out anything to do in any way with climate change (at least outside of DoD; his own Secretary of Defense has said that DoD needs to prepare for climate change).  That's pretty radical; not only does Trump seek to avoid gathering data, but he may not even want to fund efforts to cope with climate change.  That's a step beyond even his own EPA chief, who does not claim that climate change is not occurring, but only that it is largely a natural phenomenon.

We'll have to see how far other Republicans go along with this.
« Last Edit: 03/17/2017 10:02 AM by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #35 on: 03/17/2017 12:45 PM »
The DSCOVR thing is just plain weird.  The budget doesn't say anything about cancelling the mission (the spacecraft is already up there and functioning), just the Earth observing part. We have a spacecraft up there with a camera and some other instrumentation pointing at Earth, as well as taking some important space weather measurements.  And they just want to turn off the camera?  What sense does that make?  It'll save almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's almost like they really are afraid of what the camera will show.

The token monetary savings are a fig leaf. The goal is to hamper the accumulation of evidence of climate change.

Though Triana was a NASA project, canceled under Bush II, it was DoD that resurrected it as DSCOVR, was it not?  Didn't DoD have a use for DSCOVR's Earth-viewing instruments?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31287
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9570
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #36 on: 03/17/2017 01:59 PM »

Though Triana was a NASA project, canceled under Bush II, it was DoD that resurrected it as DSCOVR, was it not?  Didn't DoD have a use for DSCOVR's Earth-viewing instruments?

NOAA resurrected it and DOD has no need for earth viewing instruments.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6041
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2016
  • Likes Given: 691
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #37 on: 03/17/2017 02:25 PM »
Would very much like to hear more details on the "initiatives that use smaller, less expensive satellites to advance science," and the refueling demo, if folks here are "in the know."  Thanks!

The refueling demo is Goddard's Restore-L mission that was being developed to restore a LandSat Earth Observation spacecraft.

~Jon

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2517
  • Liked: 1712
  • Likes Given: 656
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #38 on: 03/17/2017 04:19 PM »


This week's Space to Ground video is all about the cargo, internal and external, Dragon is bringing back:



Does anyone know if these "Space to Ground" videos are part of the "education" budget zeroed out in the budget request?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #39 on: 03/18/2017 09:55 AM »
Trump’s biggest budget cuts to NASA: ranked

Quote
But packed within NASA’s small budget decrease are some pretty sizable cuts. A few major upcoming missions are canceled, and NASA’s entire education program, which is responsible for outreach and grants, is eliminated. The budget request also proposes wasting technologies already in space.

Some of these cuts could have a positive impact on NASA, while others could deprive students and the science community of the space agency’s expertise. Here are the biggest cuts to NASA ranked from “This is good actually” to “What the hell are you doing?”

In regards to cutting the education budget.

Quote
“Aerospace is a growing sector that provides good quality jobs here in the US. We want to get students from all backgrounds trained in these fields,” says Larson. “STEM education is critical to our long-term competitiveness as a country, and it's interesting in a year where a movie like Hidden Figures was on the national stage that the administration would de-emphasize the role NASA plays in getting kids excited about space.”

http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/17/14947444/trump-budget-plan-cuts-nasa-asteroid-mission-europa
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 10:13 AM by Star One »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #40 on: 03/18/2017 11:04 AM »
...

In regards to cutting the education budget.

Quote
“Aerospace is a growing sector that provides good quality jobs here in the US. We want to get students from all backgrounds trained in these fields,” says Larson. “STEM education is critical to our long-term competitiveness as a country, and it's interesting in a year where a movie like Hidden Figures was on the national stage that the administration would de-emphasize the role NASA plays in getting kids excited about space.”


Results are important, not just intentions. 

How much more effective can NASA be at inspiring youth by either, 1. doing something inspirational, or 2. talking about doing something inspirational.

The administration is choosing to use NASA money for #1. 
(they could have chosen to cut NASA by 20%)
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 11:08 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #41 on: 03/18/2017 02:07 PM »
...

In regards to cutting the education budget.

Quote
“Aerospace is a growing sector that provides good quality jobs here in the US. We want to get students from all backgrounds trained in these fields,” says Larson. “STEM education is critical to our long-term competitiveness as a country, and it's interesting in a year where a movie like Hidden Figures was on the national stage that the administration would de-emphasize the role NASA plays in getting kids excited about space.”


Results are important, not just intentions. 

How much more effective can NASA be at inspiring youth by either, 1. doing something inspirational, or 2. talking about doing something inspirational.

The administration is choosing to use NASA money for #1. 
(they could have chosen to cut NASA by 20%)

That's an incredibly feeble defence of the cut as you know very well that NASA will not see any of that cut money. So that's not like they even have the fig leaf of saying the money was going to be invested in other elements of NASA. It's also going to mean that it's likely less people are going to go in the related STEM areas.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #42 on: 03/18/2017 02:28 PM »
Their budget is only cut 0.8% in the proposal.
Actually more funding for projects(building stuff) if headcount reductions for the eliminated lines are realized.  If headcount remains unchanged as has happened repeatedly when programs ended, then you are right.

I'm not defending the cut, mostly saying that NASA has the means to inspire without this function.

Examples:  HST wasn't preceded by the uninspired 'education' outreach... it just launched, (got fixed,) and then published the images.  Presto!  Education, inspiration.  New Horizons cost 0.3% of NASA's budget over a 15 year timespan ($0.7B end-to-end) -- sent back pictures -- inspiration.

(If NASA wants to contribute to STEM in a more fundamental way, they could stop using American Standard units and push for a Nation-wide transition to metric.)
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 02:47 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10949
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #43 on: 03/18/2017 03:05 PM »
I think that if you're going to discuss the education office at NASA, it might help if you looked into what it actually does instead of writing in generalities like "inspiration" or "contribute to STEM."

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #44 on: 03/18/2017 03:46 PM »
I think that if you're going to discuss the education office at NASA, it might help if you looked into what it actually does instead of writing in generalities like "inspiration" or "contribute to STEM."

Every other activity has 'inspire' or STEM in it.
That's apparently what they think their job is.

Example:
Quote
NASA Invites You to Create James Webb Space Telescope-inspired Art

How?

    Browse through our images and videos and see what inspires you.
    Create art! (Note: this is not limited to art you can hang on a wall.)
    Share it with us on social media.

Why?

In November 2016, a small group of artists was selected to visit NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, to see the James Webb Space Telescope in person, and to be inspired to create art. They have been busy ever since, producing amazing work that we are presenting for exhibit during Spring 2017 at the Goddard Visitor Center (date TBA).

Their offerings include painting, poetry, sculpting, textiles, woodworking, music, silk screening, 3-D design, jewelry, posters, tattooing and letterpress printing.

Though we were only able to physically accommodate a small number of artists, we were so impressed by the number of talented people who were interested in participating. We want to offer more artists a chance to participate virtually.

Talking about it instead of doing it... there is nothing 'inspirational' about a telescope that is sitting in a cleanroom in Maryland, ten years (and many billions of dollars) after it was supposed to be in orbit doing science.  The self-indulgence/hubris of this flavor of 'education' deserved to be defunded.

Launch JWST, prove that it works, send back pictures/data (on the most distant galaxies ever observed, or the composition of a habitable planet atmosphere, for instance)... inspiration.


"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10949
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #45 on: 03/18/2017 06:20 PM »


Every other activity has 'inspire' or STEM in it.
That's apparently what they think their job is.

You're missing my point. They have specific projects and programs, like grants that people apply to and projects that send money to people to perform defined activities. Look that up and see SPECIFICALLY what they do. Otherwise, this discussion is like somebody sitting at the bar and saying "I hate tooth decay!" and somebody else yelling "I do too!" and a third person saying "I don't think tooth decay is all that bad..."

UPDATE: Because I was feeling less lazy than usual I went to the NASA Education Office website and called up an alphabetical list of their projects:

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/education/programs/descriptions/All_Alpha.html

Here are a few:

Aeronautics Academy
[Students Higher Education]
[Available: Nationally]
This U.S. college student opportunity offers intense training in aeronautics that includes research, leadership development, and broad exposure to the nation's aeronautics enterprise.


Airborne Research Experiences for Educators and Students
[Educators Grades 5-12 & Students Higher Education]
[Available Nationally]
NASA offers the perfect package of adventure and career development. Teachers earn graduate level credits while spending six weeks in California as part of a residential science research program that includes flying on a NASA aircraft.


Applied Physics Laboratory Internship Project
[Students Higher Education]
[Available: Nationally]
The NASA APL Internship project is a 10-week summer internship at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory for students interested in civil and/or defense space projects.


Astro Camp
[Students Grades K-8]
[Available: Nationally]
Astro Camp is an exciting, week-long mission for children located in Bay St. Louis, MS. Each year, it has activities centered around a new space exploration theme.


C

Caltech Postdoctoral Scholars at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
[Students Higher Education]
[Available: Nationally & Internationally]
Opportunities for research positions provide significant training and professional growth for future scientific and technological leaders.


Center for Astronomy Education
[Educators Higher Education]
[Available: Nationally]
The Center for Astronomy Education is a professional development project for instructors of the introductory astronomy course, with emphasis on community colleges.


Community College Aerospace Scholars
[Students Higher Education]
[Available: Texas]
Funded by the Texas legislature, CAS is an interactive online learning experience highlighted by a two-day experience at Johnson Space Center. Selected students are encouraged to study math, science, engineering and computer science by interacting with engineers at JSC.

Consortium for Undergraduate Research Experience
[Students Higher Education]
[Available: CA]
CURE is a year-round research internship project for underrepresented minority and women undergraduates in the Los Angeles area. CURE matches students with mentors at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Caltech in a real research experience.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 09:05 PM by Blackstar »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #46 on: 03/20/2017 07:47 PM »
Quote
Jonathan Amos‏ @BBCAmos

Nasa EO chief Mike Freilich at #Banff #Canada suggests DSCOVR's Earth-facing data could simply be stored but not analysed under FY18 cut

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/843889088507920385

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #47 on: 03/24/2017 01:26 AM »
« Last Edit: 03/24/2017 01:27 AM by yg1968 »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #48 on: 03/24/2017 09:26 AM »
Quote
Jonathan Amos‏ @BBCAmos

Nasa EO chief Mike Freilich at #Banff #Canada suggests DSCOVR's Earth-facing data could simply be stored but not analysed under FY18 cut

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/843889088507920385

Just serve it to the public and let them do their pleasure. 
Paid for it already... (most of it, anyway)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27024
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6914
  • Likes Given: 4878
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #49 on: 03/24/2017 10:06 PM »
Raw data from an instrument without some kind of analysis is very nearly the same as noise.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #50 on: 03/25/2017 10:06 AM »
Raw data from an instrument without some kind of analysis is very nearly the same as noise.

With an adequate data model, and maybe even a basic pipeline to bootstrap from, the data will be reduced and used.  The science community, private enterprise, and interested private individuals have the tools.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Florida
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 911
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #51 on: 03/25/2017 12:19 PM »
FWIW

Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, SpaceX SES-11.

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3415
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2171
  • Likes Given: 2683
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #52 on: 03/25/2017 02:47 PM »
FWIW

Well, that was odd if that was the entire weekly update, since there were other important things that happened too (and didn't happen) that would interest our nation.

It's an interesting contrast here too since Trump is embracing a space program he inherited, even though the legislation he signed doesn't really change the direction of NASA.  But that is a President's prerogative to take credit for whatever is happening in our nation that is going right, and in this case tugging on a lot of heart strings from what has happened in the past.

For NASA though it's not enough to just keep doing what those before you have done, because there are serious mismatches between goals and budgets that are set to collide just after Trump's first term in office, so time will tell whether he steps up to fix those before it's too late...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #53 on: 03/25/2017 10:05 PM »
He's laying groundwork for the next phase...  that is more presidential text on the space program than the last several administrations combined.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3415
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2171
  • Likes Given: 2683
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #54 on: 03/26/2017 06:12 AM »
He's laying groundwork for the next phase...  that is more presidential text on the space program than the last several administrations combined.

Not that I remember.  Clinton, Bush and Obama put a lot of political capital into space, and Trump has yet to do that.

Maybe he will, and it's still early in his term, but so far he hasn't...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #55 on: 03/26/2017 12:30 PM »
He's laying groundwork for the next phase...  that is more presidential text on the space program than the last several administrations combined.

Not that I remember.  Clinton, Bush and Obama put a lot of political capital into space, and Trump has yet to do that.

I agree.  Obama, for example, went to KSC twice and spoke both times.  He even took the political risk of visiting the first Falcon 9 on the pad:  had that rocket had failed on its inaugural flight, as it very well might have, we'd have been reminded over and over again that he'd been there.  He and Bush both personally announced major space-policy proposals (ARM and VSE).

Trump, on the other hand, gives a pep talk (and a surprisingly good one, in my opinion) with no specifics whatsoever.  It's been a very bad week for Trump:  this is probably just his way of trying to change the subject.

Had I  composed the video on Trump's behalf, I would have avoided the clip from the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (3:55):  he has enough trouble with allegations of colluding with the Russians as it is!

There is enormous irony in Trump's closing line (4:30):  "We are truly a great place to be."  Here Trump is lifting one of Hilary Clinton's campaign lines: “America never stopped being great.”!

Quote
Maybe he will, and it's still early in his term, but so far he hasn't...

Yes, he may.  Signs are against it.  First of all, he is proposing to cut NASA's budget.  Compared to what he proposes for the rest of non-defense discretionary spending, the cut is small, but it is a cut, not an increase.

More significantly, Trump has transmitted a consistent negative message about space, from the campaign trail, where he said that filling potholes was more important, to the last week's signing of the 2017 NASA authorization, where he said, in response to Rep. Culberson's remark about creating an Interplanetary Highway System, (6:00).



Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #56 on: 03/26/2017 03:48 PM »
...
First of all, he is proposing to cut NASA's budget.
...

We're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year.  Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%?  This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else.  NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.

IMO, that would be good money after bad.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #57 on: 03/26/2017 03:54 PM »
A flat budget is a cut, some folks still don't get that...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3415
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2171
  • Likes Given: 2683
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #58 on: 03/26/2017 03:57 PM »
More significantly, Trump has transmitted a consistent negative message about space, from the campaign trail, where he said that filling potholes was more important, to the last week's signing of the 2017 NASA authorization, where he said, in response to Rep. Culberson's remark about creating an Interplanetary Highway System, "First we want to fix the highways, need to fix the highways.  Got to fix the highways."[/url] (6:00).

For those that want to watch the clip actually starts at 5:45 to hear the whole statement from Rep. Culberson and Trump's response (i.e. "First we want to fix the highways...").

Also, just prior to that, Trump shook hands with Senator Nelson after Senator Nelson described that commercial space was supporting LEO, and that NASA was going on to Mars.  That could be interpreted as an endorsement of that plan.

There are many reports regarding the AHCA vote failure that Trump was not involved in the details of what was going on, and that he was pretty hands-off.  Of course he never has had to worry about finding doctors and worrying about coverage and costs like most Americans, and he has stated that he is a "Big Picture" kind of person.

I only point that out to show that even with signature issues that he ran his campaign on, that if it's not something he already had experience with (i.e. constructing buildings for instance) that he won't spend the time to become knowledgeable about the topic.  Prior Presidents all spent time with large briefing books on topical subjects, and even Presidents I may not have liked were able to articulate important points about many subjects when interviewed.  I don't expect Trump to become articulate with the important points and issues about NASA and space.

Which means that if the National Space Council is reconstituted with V.P. Pence at it's head, that we should really be looking to V.P. Pence for indications of where the administration will be pointing NASA.  That all we can and should expect from Trump will be platitudes, but no actionable details.

My $0.02
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #59 on: 03/26/2017 04:12 PM »
He's laying groundwork for the next phase...  that is more presidential text on the space program than the last several administrations combined.

Not that I remember.  Clinton, Bush and Obama put a lot of political capital into space, and Trump has yet to do that.

Maybe he will, and it's still early in his term, but so far he hasn't...
Does he still any political capital left after his first two months of fails? If he still spends like he thinks he does they may come back "NSF" and I don't mean Nasa Space Flight... ;)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #60 on: 03/26/2017 09:47 PM »
Which means that if the National Space Council is reconstituted with V.P. Pence at it's head, that we should really be looking to V.P. Pence for indications of where the administration will be pointing NASA.  That all we can and should expect from Trump will be platitudes, but no actionable details.

Good point.  What do we know about Pence's record on space when he was in Congress?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2833
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #61 on: 03/27/2017 08:59 AM »
We're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year.  Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%?  This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else.  NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.

NASA traditionally has needed large budgets to do the big programs. It doesn't know how to or can't do it cheaper. Cost in 2017 dollars.

Gemini $8B
Apollo $121B
Skylab $11B
Space Shuttle $221B
ISS $167B (to 2015)

So, an increase would make a difference. A doubling of the NASA budget means increasing the exploration budget from $3.7B to $23B. It would give NASA sufficient funds to build a Lunar Lander, a Lunar Base, a new Space Station and a Mars Mission. The alternative though is cutting the exploration budget to $2B and giving that to industry in public-private-partnerships ($1B each to two companies, say SpaceX and Blue Origin). It will be interesting to see what happens.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #62 on: 03/27/2017 12:38 PM »
To me this just seems to stating the obvious on the ideological driven cuts.

Quote
Ideology, Not Reality, Drives Trump NASA Cuts
Aviation Week & Space Technology
President Donald Trump’s first stab at a federal budget, like all such “top-line” documents over past decades, is dead on arrival. Congress will take it as the notional plan that it is, and begin the laborious, highly complex and usually obscure process of balancing the interests its members represent with the public funds available to support them. What comes out the other end probably will bear faint resemblance to Trump’s initial proposal. The president’s ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/space/ideology-not-reality-drives-trump-nasa-cuts
« Last Edit: 03/27/2017 12:39 PM by Star One »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #63 on: 03/27/2017 01:57 PM »
We're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year.  Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%?  This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else.  NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.

NASA traditionally has needed large budgets to do the big programs. It doesn't know how to or can't do it cheaper. Cost in 2017 dollars.

Gemini $8B
Apollo $121B
Skylab $11B
Space Shuttle $221B
ISS $167B (to 2015)

So, an increase would make a difference. A doubling of the NASA budget means increasing the exploration budget from $3.7B to $23B. It would give NASA sufficient funds to build a Lunar Lander, a Lunar Base, a new Space Station and a Mars Mission. The alternative though is cutting the exploration budget to $2B and giving that to industry in public-private-partnerships ($1B each to two companies, say SpaceX and Blue Origin). It will be interesting to see what happens.

New article:
Quote
NASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costs

Quote
After President George W. Bush announced a plan to return to the Moon and move on to Mars in 2004, NASA began to consider how best to carry out that vision. Although there were some promising private-sector rockets even then, administrator Michael Griffin set the agency on the course of building its own rockets and spacecraft. Those programs have evolved into the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.

Since then, according to a new report published by the nonpartisan think tank Center for a New American Security, NASA has spent $19 billion on rockets, first on Ares I and V, and now on the SLS. Additionally, the agency has spent $13.9 billion on the Orion spacecraft. The agency hopes to finally fly its first crewed mission with the new vehicles in 2021. If it does so, the report estimates the agency will have spent $43 billion before that first flight, essentially a reprise of the Apollo 8 mission around the Moon.

These costs can then be compared to the total cost of the entire Apollo program, which featured six separate human landings on the Moon. According to two separate estimates, the Apollo program cost between $100 billion and $110 billion in 2010 dollars. Thus just the development effort for SLS and Orion, which includes none of the expenses related to in-space activities or landing anywhere, are already nearly half that of the Apollo program.

Quote
For Orion, according to the report, approximately 56 percent of the program's cost, has gone to NASA instead of the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, and others. For the SLS rocket and its predecessors, the estimated fraction of NASA-related costs is higher—72 percent. This means that only about $7 billion of the rocket's $19 billion has gone to the private sector companies, Boeing, Orbital ATK, Aeroject Rocketdyne, and others cutting metal.

Quote
By comparison the report also estimates NASA's overhead costs for the commercial cargo and crew programs... the NASA overhead costs for these programs is just 14 percent, the report finds.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/

NASA needs to learn to do more with the funds it has...
(Hint: Cuts to a bloated bureaucracy might be a place to start.)
« Last Edit: 03/27/2017 02:08 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #64 on: 03/27/2017 04:11 PM »
We're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year.  Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%?  This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else.  NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.

NASA traditionally has needed large budgets to do the big programs. It doesn't know how to or can't do it cheaper. Cost in 2017 dollars.

Gemini $8B
Apollo $121B
Skylab $11B
Space Shuttle $221B
ISS $167B (to 2015)

So, an increase would make a difference. A doubling of the NASA budget means increasing the exploration budget from $3.7B to $23B. It would give NASA sufficient funds to build a Lunar Lander, a Lunar Base, a new Space Station and a Mars Mission. The alternative though is cutting the exploration budget to $2B and giving that to industry in public-private-partnerships ($1B each to two companies, say SpaceX and Blue Origin). It will be interesting to see what happens.

New article:
Quote
NASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costs

Quote
After President George W. Bush announced a plan to return to the Moon and move on to Mars in 2004, NASA began to consider how best to carry out that vision. Although there were some promising private-sector rockets even then, administrator Michael Griffin set the agency on the course of building its own rockets and spacecraft. Those programs have evolved into the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.

Since then, according to a new report published by the nonpartisan think tank Center for a New American Security, NASA has spent $19 billion on rockets, first on Ares I and V, and now on the SLS. Additionally, the agency has spent $13.9 billion on the Orion spacecraft. The agency hopes to finally fly its first crewed mission with the new vehicles in 2021. If it does so, the report estimates the agency will have spent $43 billion before that first flight, essentially a reprise of the Apollo 8 mission around the Moon.

These costs can then be compared to the total cost of the entire Apollo program, which featured six separate human landings on the Moon. According to two separate estimates, the Apollo program cost between $100 billion and $110 billion in 2010 dollars. Thus just the development effort for SLS and Orion, which includes none of the expenses related to in-space activities or landing anywhere, are already nearly half that of the Apollo program.

Quote
For Orion, according to the report, approximately 56 percent of the program's cost, has gone to NASA instead of the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, and others. For the SLS rocket and its predecessors, the estimated fraction of NASA-related costs is higher—72 percent. This means that only about $7 billion of the rocket's $19 billion has gone to the private sector companies, Boeing, Orbital ATK, Aeroject Rocketdyne, and others cutting metal.

Quote
By comparison the report also estimates NASA's overhead costs for the commercial cargo and crew programs... the NASA overhead costs for these programs is just 14 percent, the report finds.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/

NASA needs to learn to do more with the funds it has...
(Hint: Cuts to a bloated bureaucracy might be a place to start.)

Spoken like a commercial space 'true believer'. Rather than making a knee jerk response maybe you should stop and consider that a lot of that bureaucracy rather than being a waste is actually carrying out important functions.   

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #65 on: 03/27/2017 07:30 PM »
That's quite a leap of logic to go from "72% of SLS money going to NASA, not contractors" to "72% of SLS money going to overhead."  Is NASA 100% overhead??

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 628
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 491
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #66 on: 03/27/2017 09:45 PM »
Spoken like a commercial space 'true believer'. Rather than making a knee jerk response maybe you should stop and consider that a lot of that bureaucracy rather than being a waste is actually carrying out important functions.   

Who is really making the knee jerk response here?  AncientU provided quotes and figures.  You provided an insult followed by a non sequitur.

We already know that there is plenty of room for NASA to do things a lot more efficiently.  Commercial Shuttle (remember those discussions from years ago?) proved it in theory.  Commercial Cargo is proving it in practice.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #67 on: 03/27/2017 10:59 PM »
Spoken like a commercial space 'true believer'. Rather than making a knee jerk response maybe you should stop and consider that a lot of that bureaucracy rather than being a waste is actually carrying out important functions.   

Who is really making the knee jerk response here?  AncientU provided quotes and figures.  You provided an insult followed by a non sequitur.

We already know that there is plenty of room for NASA to do things a lot more efficiently.  Commercial Shuttle (remember those discussions from years ago?) proved it in theory.  Commercial Cargo is proving it in practice.

Because it's quoting a think tank report, any such body that claims to be non-partisan you can bet their bottom dollar that they aren't and instead have an angle to sell you. We have no shortage of such groups over here in the U.K. and like this one it's quite clear that this one does have a bias. Let's hear who is funding this body (there is nothing about this on their website) and maybe then we will have a better idea on this.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2017 11:01 PM by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #68 on: 03/28/2017 06:23 AM »
Because it's quoting a think tank report, any such body that claims to be non-partisan you can bet their bottom dollar that they aren't and instead have an angle to sell you.

If you dig down deeper, you discover that the person who wrote the report:

a-does not actually work for that think tank, he only presented his paper during one of their events (during lunch time, to a small audience, according to the author himself)
b-is actually a blogger
c-is in no way "non-partisan"

Go look him up. Read his numerous blog posts on political subjects. See if they fit the definition of "non-partisan."

Thanks for that clarification & info. As I can now see just another internet blogger pushing an agenda.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #69 on: 03/28/2017 09:56 AM »
How about focusing on the contents of the paper rather than on the author.  Do the arguments stand up or not?

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #70 on: 03/28/2017 10:11 AM »
So, why does it take several times as much for NASA to develop a rocket -- by their own accounting -- than it does for a company like SpaceX?  They can be considered non-partisan and without agenda, right?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #71 on: 03/28/2017 10:19 AM »
Spoken like a commercial space 'true believer'. Rather than making a knee jerk response maybe you should stop and consider that a lot of that bureaucracy rather than being a waste is actually carrying out important functions.   

Who is really making the knee jerk response here?  AncientU provided quotes and figures.  You provided an insult followed by a non sequitur.

We already know that there is plenty of room for NASA to do things a lot more efficiently.  Commercial Shuttle (remember those discussions from years ago?) proved it in theory.  Commercial Cargo is proving it in practice.

No doubt 'a lot' of it is. But the other half?
NASA is carrying way too many people...
you who know the most about the organization know that!

Don't give me that agenda line. 

"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5370
  • Likes Given: 3553
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #72 on: 03/28/2017 10:25 AM »
How about focusing on the contents of the paper rather than on the author.  Do the arguments stand up or not?

Yes please. The past few posts come off as fairly petty, playing the man, not the ball behavior. (the author of the paper, as well as each other)... increase the "be excellent to each other" quotient, here please. And stop with the "CommSpace Sux / No, SLS Sux" line altogether.

(that was a mod view)
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 01:03 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #73 on: 03/28/2017 10:37 AM »
How about focusing on the contents of the paper rather than on the author.  Do the arguments stand up or not?

Is it that easy to separate one from the other though, especially in this case. Doesn't one immediately bring doubt to the other.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #74 on: 03/28/2017 11:34 AM »
Read his paper carefully.  Does he present coherent arguments?  Is it logically sound?  Is it supported by facts?  Are the arguments comprehensive, or does he ignore significant information that would contradict his claims?

I find that I learn more from reading things I disagree with.  I try to accept the author's starting point and then see whether I really can make a good case against it.  If you reject things on the grounds that "oh, well, he would say that, wouldn't he," you miss an opportunity to learn.  Focus on what is said rather than on who is saying it or toward what end.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #75 on: 03/28/2017 12:17 PM »
Read his paper carefully.  Does he present coherent arguments?  Is it logically sound?  Is it supported by facts?  Are the arguments comprehensive, or does he ignore significant information that would contradict his claims?

I find that I learn more from reading things I disagree with.  I try to accept the author's starting point and then see whether I really can make a good case against it.  If you reject things on the grounds that "oh, well, he would say that, wouldn't he," you miss an opportunity to learn.  Focus on what is said rather than on who is saying it or toward what end.

But the trouble with people who you suspect to have an agenda is you start to question whether you can even rely on something as basic as their figures, bringing to mind the old adage lies, damned lies, and statistics.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 12:19 PM by Star One »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #76 on: 03/28/2017 12:18 PM »
Check the figures.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5370
  • Likes Given: 3553
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #77 on: 03/28/2017 01:02 PM »
(non mod view)

I think both Proponent and Star One are right. Especially in this day and age, it's hard to trust numbers presented without some independent corroboration. But once you trust the numbers, evaluate the case on merits.... a blending of what they are saying is probably how to look at stuff. Trust but verify? no, wrong order these days, Verify first unless you REALLY trust the source.

As for that pull quote I mostly agree but it hasn't been "occasional" for a long time, and the number of yachts is increasing. Especially among some vendors whose book of business is mostly commercial birds (yes you can argue about whether those birds benefit from NASA tech and subsidies and government linked corps (especially in Asia) being the owners, and etc)....
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5370
  • Likes Given: 3553
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #78 on: 03/28/2017 01:24 PM »
Launch can't be a free market, ever? That's an interesting assertion. I think there are no free markets anywhere in the classical sense, all are regulated. But some are freer than others. I see launch moving in the freer direction (thanks to NewSpace, you knew I'd say that) but I could be wrong.

And I'm going to stand behind my assertion that some providers book of business is mostly commercial birds (yachts) and only a few non commercial (aircraft carriers)....
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 01:24 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #79 on: 03/28/2017 01:31 PM »
(non mod view)
I think both Proponent and Star One are right. Especially in this day and age, it's hard to trust numbers presented without some independent corroboration. But once you trust the numbers, evaluate the case on merits.... a blending of what they are saying is probably how to look at stuff. Trust but verify? no, wrong order these days, Verify first unless you REALLY trust the source.

That makes perfect sense.  I have not read the paper, but I did skim it and notice that detailed references for cost figures are provided.  Verifying those numbers ought to be pretty straightforward in this case.  Then one can move on to consider whether the argument the author makes on the basis of those numbers is valid.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 01:39 PM by Proponent »

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 995
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #80 on: 03/28/2017 03:14 PM »
Launch can't be a free market, ever?

Yes. You don't understand that?

Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?

Space is not Walmart.

True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5370
  • Likes Given: 3553
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #81 on: 03/28/2017 03:25 PM »
Launch can't be a free market, ever?

Yes. You don't understand that?

Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?

Airplanes are munitions or can be. Cars are munitions or can be. Suitcases are munitions or can be if they are carrying the right things. That all governments today treat rockets as super special? Sure. True fact.

That they always will, if we get to flight rates similar to commercial airliners ("millions of people living and working and living in space")? No, you haven't convinced me that no government anywhere ever will decide to relax and treat rockets more like airplanes. regulated, but freer than they are now.

You don't have to convince me, that's cool. We have different views. All good. But I don't buy your blanket assertion. And "You don't understand that?" isn't the tone one uses when one wants to convince me of things. You don't have to care one whit what I think... but if you do....

Space is not Walmart.

True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.

That's another model that works too.

Launch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.

Today. We have different visions about how things SHOULD be in the future.

We might be veering more than we should (it was driven by that reference, to be sure) so I'll stop for now.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2017 03:27 PM by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 995
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #82 on: 03/28/2017 03:29 PM »
True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.

Launch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.

That's the current situation, but SpaceX and Blue Origins have different plans for the future. It could take a long time, but never say never.

BTW, aren't we all getting off topic? How does this apply to NASA FY 2018?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #83 on: 03/28/2017 03:33 PM »
By the way, has anyone here actually read either paper?  Is a link to Pace's piece available anywhere?  (I've checked SpaceNews's website and have googled around, to no avail).

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8619
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5370
  • Likes Given: 3553
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #84 on: 03/28/2017 03:41 PM »
BTW, aren't we all getting off topic? How does this apply to NASA FY 2018?
Mostly doesn't... I think we posted at about the same time. (there are some supposed free-marketeers in the 45 administration who supposedly have some influence... which is an ultra vague tie in but that's about it)
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #85 on: 03/28/2017 04:27 PM »
Launch can't be a free market, ever?

Yes. You don't understand that?

Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?

Space is not Walmart.

1. IIUC until about 1930 heavier-than-air aircraft were primarily of military interest (initially for reconnaissance). There were civilian applications of course but they were mostly stunts and/or heavily subsidized by governments (e.g. air mail). It wasn't until circa 1950 that civilian aviation really took off.

2. If you define "free market" as "no government regulation" then Walmart doesn't participate in any free markets.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12969
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2833
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #86 on: 03/29/2017 07:53 AM »
By the way, has anyone here actually read either paper?  Is a link to Pace's piece available anywhere?  (I've checked SpaceNews's website and have googled around, to no avail).

I started to read the paper. Not impressed so far. In "Reasons for why it is essential for any nation that wishes to thrive and compete on the world stage to have a successful and flourishing aerospace industry,..." he includes "The resources in space – raw materials from asteroids and the planets as well as energy from the Sun – are there for the taking." He does not include satellite applications, such communications, remote sensing and positioning, which are the biggest contributors in the space economy. He gives a reference to one of his own papers with the title "The Lie that is Orion". So not biased at all! Paper attached.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #87 on: 03/29/2017 04:36 PM »
Having now read Robert Zimmerman's piece "Capitalism in Space," I shall opine at length, as is my wont.

Despite the grandiose title and rather sweeping assertions about space (with one of which Steven Pietrobon takes issue in the previous post), the author's focus is on the comparative cost efficiencies of NASA-managed space-vehicle on the one hand and of commercially-managed vehicles on the other:

Quote from: "Capitalism in Space," p. 4
The central focus of this paper is a comparison between the two approaches to maintain and expand American access to space that NASA and the federal government have followed since the mid-2000s.

He neither claims nor assumes that an efficient space-launch market exists.  He simply analyses the existing commercially-managed programs as they are in the existing controlled market.

For each program, Zimmerman gathers historical budget allocations, which are well documented and reliable, and contract amounts, which are only partially documented and are to some extent uncertain, for a variety of reasons.  He adds up the historical allocations over the life of each program--without an inflationary adjustment to a common year (e.g., FY 2017).  Amounts for FY 2017 are only estimates, such not yet having been enacted at the time of writing.  He further adds in estimated future spending to get the total over a horizon corresponding to the underlying contracts.  Finally, he subtracts the aggregate value of the contracts to determine the amount of NASA "overhead," the amount of money NASA received for each program which was not spent on the major contracts.

For Orion, the uninflated total budget through FY 2017 comes to $13.89 billion.  Optimistically assuming just $1 billion per year to a first crewed flight optimistically in 2021, the author arrives at a total of about $18 billion.  The only contract identified is the $8.15 agreement signed in 2016, under which Lockheed Martin develops Orion and supplies an unspecified number of vehicles through 2019.  Subtracting that amount from the projected total allocation of $18 billion gives an overhead of $9.8 billion, i.e., about 55% (here and below, my figures tend to differ slightly from Zimmerman's, likely because of rounding).

I have difficulty accepting this number too literally, for a number of reasons.  One is the lack of adjustment for inflation, which would tend to lower the overhead (by inflating the contract price more than the budget).  I also wonder whether there are not additional contracts or amendments to be considered, since, for example, the Orion's service module is now being supplied by ESA.  Despite that arrangement, NASA still in effect pays something for the service module, because in exchange it picks up ESA's responsibilities for resupplying ISS, effectively raising Orion's budget and lowering the overhead estimate by several hundred million dollars.  The overhead estimate would probably still come out above 30%, however.  And higher costs through the first crewed flight would tend to raise the overhead.

For SLS, Zimmerman identifies spending of $18.983 billion through FY 2017 and projects, again optimistically, $25 billion through first crewed flight in 2021.  Zimmerman includes Ares spending in the total for SLS.  This may or may not be justified, depending on whether one is interested in assessing the NASA-Congress-Executive Branch system of developing launch vehicles, with it's inherent risk of politically-motivated design changes, or focusing more narrowly on SLS itself.  Spending after FY 2011 comes to about $20 billion. Some of the spending before then, however, is surely relevant to SLS itself (e.g., work on 5-seg SRBs).

Zimmerman does not entirely nail down the several contracts for SLS.  Values are given for each, but for only one is a reference cited.  And, again, there is the question of how much to allocate to SLS as opposed to Ares.  The total cited, $7 billion, seems plausible but cannot be taken as definitive without more information.  Hence I have little confidence in the overhead rate that's derived for SLS: ($25G - $7G)/$25G = 72%.

For commercial crew and cargo, the budget through FY 2017 comes to $5.647 billion and is projected to $12 billion through 2024, currently the horizon for ISS.  Contract costs are on fairly firm ground for commercial crew and cargo at $10.6 billion.  Hence, the overhead estimate is ($12G - $10.6G)/$12G = 12%.  Since we are subtracting two approximately equal numbers, however, the relative uncertainty is magnified.  And there is some optionality here: we don't know how many flights from each provider NASA will ultimately pay for.

All things considered, I have no great confidence in the precision of any of the figures, and Zimmerman does not claim it.  I do find his general conclusion that the numbers "suggest that NASA’s overhead for commercial space is relatively small" (p. 16) is valid.

Though I am usually very favorably impressed by Ars Technica's space coverage, I would say it erred in running "New report: NASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costs" as a headline.  While the 72% figure does appear in the paper, it is qualified as being quite uncertain and is not itself taken as a conclusion.

Zimmerman's implication is that NASA overhead is wasteful.  Having watched Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks pound the table during a NASA hearing because of how little of the money in a particular contract was being spent at MSFC itself, I do tend to share Zimmerman's skepticism to a degree.  But we would really need to know more about what NASA does with the overhead money to draw a conclusion.

Though they receive relatively little space in the paper, Tables 4 and 5 (p. 23), which show overall numbers of vehicles delivered and total costs for the NASA- and commercially-managed programs, seem more interesting and relevant than the overhead story.  Even taking into account the greater capabilities of Orion and SLS, it's hard not to wonder whether the commercial approach doesn't make more sense.  Would you rather have 42 flights to LEO on the commercial vehicles for $12 billion or 2 flights on SLS for $43 billion?  I think this, more than the overhead story, is the take-home message.  A similar point was made by the Space Access Society in 2015 (see attachment to this post), perhaps more forcefully and certainly more concisely.

If anyone can give me a pointer to Scott Pace's critique of "Capitalism in Space," which was mentioned yesterday, I'd be grateful.

EDIT:  "now opine" -> "opine" in opening sentence.
« Last Edit: 04/13/2017 02:56 PM by Proponent »

Offline incoming

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • washington, DC
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #88 on: 03/29/2017 05:08 PM »
By the way, has anyone here actually read either paper?  Is a link to Pace's piece available anywhere?  (I've checked SpaceNews's website and have googled around, to no avail).

I have. I don't have time to post a really thorough critique.  While I do fundamentally agree with many of the points in the paper - particularly about the importance of competition and the use of fixed price contracts, there are a couple of pretty significant faults (in addition to the ones pointed out by proponent in his last post) that detract from what otherwise might be a good analysis. 

The paper has a gross oversimplification of the design and capability differences between CST-100, Dragon, and Orion. It misleadingly compares Dragon's 7 person, 2.5 days free fly in orbit LEO capability to Orion's 21 day, 4 person cislunar capability.  A more accurate comparison would be Dragon's ability to take two people on a ~week long free return trip around the moon, a far less challenging mission that performing a lunar orbit insertion, week long plus cislunar orbital mission, and Earth return, with twice the crew size.  There are several second order implications of the comparison that are significant.  Just one of many examples - recovery of the capsule and crew.  Water recovery of a capsule and crew in anything but the calmest sea conditions is exceedingly difficult. Probably deadly in something on the order or 4-8' seas depending on a bunch of other factors, especially with deconditioned crew. This is less of a problem with ISS as they know exactly what they weather conditions will be when they make their deorbit burn.  There is no reliable way to predict sea state conditions for a lunar free return mission prior to departure.  Your only choice is to hope that either you get lucky in your designated landing area or you have a number of backup sites spread over thousands of miles of ocean, which can get expensive very quickly.  In apollo they had all the resources of the U.S. Navy to help.  Orion has the ability to choose when to return to Earth from the moon (still a challenging multi-day forecast), a couple of different recovery area targets, and NASA has agreements with the Navy and coast guard to rescue the crew (but probably not the capsule) in emergency returns to unplanned locations. It's unclear how SpaceX will handle this for commercial space "tourists."

Another outright falsehood in the article is the fact that it identifies funds that NASA spent on the programs but did not allocate to the prime contractors as "probably cover[ing] NASA’s administrative and overhead costs (some caused by the change from Ares to SLS imposed by changing administrations and Congress) as well as other infrastructure expenses not directly tied to the construction of the rockets."

That's just total conjecture, even though the author eventually makes this one of his key findings.  He appears to have done nothing to interrogate what that funding actually went to.  While there certainly some civil servant administrative costs in those non-prime dollar amounts, a significant amount of the money actually goes to things like:

-Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) - in other words, hardware that it was more advantageous for the gov't to buy directly and provide to the primes instead of having the primes subcontract for it (and add on their fee accordingly). Nearly all of this equipment is still produced by the private sector.

-Infrastructure - NASA owns much of the infrastructure that SLS is built with and has to maintain it.  You couldn't build SLS without it, and any other company that wants to build a rocket as big as SLS would need something similar.  When Elon was asked where he'd build SpaceX's huge new Mars rocket, he responded that they'd probably look at MAF (where SLS is built).  All of this infrastructure is maintained via contracts with the private sector.

-Integration - (As the the paper correctly states) NASA does not use a single prime for SLS, it uses primes for the major elements and performs the systems engineering and integration work (both analytical and physical) with a combination of civil service labor and engineering and operations support contracts.  The support contracts are generally all competitively awarded and are re-competed fairly regularly.  Arguably, having civil servants actually having to produce things and be directly responsible for engineering products, vs. simply looking over a contractors shoulder - is actually a good thing. This integration work - which on a large, complex program like SLS, is a very significant amount of work - is not overhead.  It's absolutely necessary.   

There are several other items I think the author misses the mark on, and if I have more time I'll come back to them, but these were a couple I noticed right away. 





« Last Edit: 03/29/2017 05:09 PM by incoming »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #89 on: 03/30/2017 11:26 PM »
Loren Thompson has a critique of Bob Zimmerman's "Capitalism in Space" up at forbes.com.  As we've discussed upthread, Zimmerman's piece certainly has some flaws.  But rather than addressing them, Thompson chooses to attack a collection of strawmen of his own creation.  Zimmerman's piece compares commercially-managed space vehicles developed by Boeing, ULA, Orbital ATK and SpaceX with NASA's Orion and SLS.  Rather than addressing that comparison, Thompson chooses to compare SpaceX with ULA, which is simply not relevant, and it's badly done to boot.  My paragraph-by-paragraph take on Thompson's piece starts from the sixth paragraph (beginning "Zimmerman offers ..."), where the meat begins.

Quote from: 'Loren Thompson in "Capitalism In Space: The Beguiling Myth Market Forces Can Fix Everything", Forbes.com, 16 March'
Zimmerman offers a series of complex comparisons purporting to do just that, but he doesn't cite hardly any numbers to support his case....
Bad grammar aside, Thompson's claim that Zimmerman offers hardly any numbers to support his claims is flat-out wrong.  I wonder whether Thompson actually read "Capitalism in Space."  Later in the same paragraph, Thompson pivots to ULA:
Quote
United Launch Alliance, the Boeing-Lockheed joint venture that is SpaceX's main competitor for government launches, has never lost a payload in 117 launches.  SpaceX has lost two missions in just the last two years, in both cases due to design features in its launch vehicle.
That's fine, but "Capitalism in Space" is not a comparison of SpaceX against ULA, it is a comparison of commercial providers, including both SpaceX and ULA, against NASA's Orion and SLS.  That ULA has a good track record, better than that of any NASA-managed launch vehicle, actually strengthens the argument made in "Capitalism."

In paragraph 7, Thompson points out that Falcon 9 is running well behind schedule:
Quote
No doubt about it, SpaceX prices are low -- but it isn't the model of market-driven responsiveness that Zimmerman would have you believe.  On average, its launches are over two years late, and the unlaunched missions it is carrying in its backlog on average are nearly three years late.
This is may be true, but, again, it is not relevant to "Capitalism," and, again, ULA's good record actually supports the thesis of "Capitalism."  Since Orion/SLS was supposed to achieve initial operational capability by 2016, implying a test flight(s) in 2015, but is now scheduled to carry a crew for the first time in 2021 (and few have confidence in that deadline), SpaceX is doing better than NASA.

Thompson next turns to safety, beginning with
Quote
Companies typically achieve low prices by taking out cost, but much of the overhead associated with space efforts goes into assuring the safety of missions.
Presumably, then, Thompson refuses to fly on commercial airlines, since, by historical standards, air travel has become extremely cheap.  And note the shady technique of implying that SpaceX has low safety standards without actually saying so or, of course, offering any evidence.  Thompson next turns to last September's Falcon 9 explosion, stating that
Quote
One problem with buying launch services under commercial contracts rather than using the traditional approach is that the government has less latitude to investigate what happened when things go wrong.  The company leads investigations of mishaps rather than the government.  The company may be forthcoming about what it finds, but it doesn't have to be.
Perhaps the company need not be fully forthcoming, but then NASA need not allow its astronauts to fly on the company's vehicle.  Here Thompson again uses inuendo to suggest that SpaceX has not been forthcoming without evidence.  More generally, the government has been "buying launch services under commercial contracts" for years, from, for example, ULA.  Contracts for launch services are the rule; SLS is the exception.  To imply that SpaceX differs from ULA or Orbital ATK in this regard is dishonest.

More pointedly, if NASA agrees to put a crew on EM-1, which, as of today, seems a distinct possibility, the accusation that commercial vehicles flown multiple times might not be safe enough for NASA astronauts becomes abject hypocrisy.  I personally fail to understand how NASA can even seriously consider the possibility, absent some urgent national need.

Thompson's final criticism of SpaceX is that it is not "exactly a 'commercial' launch provider," because of the large fraction of its revenues that come from the government.  While NASA's use of the terms "commercial crew" and "commercial cargo" is not entirely accurate, the precision of the description of either program has no bearing whatsoever on its merit.  ULA is much less commercial than SpaceX, and NASA--which, let is remember, is actually the relevant comparison--is not commercial at all.  The issue of degree of commerciality, is irrelevant.

Thompson closes with a delicious absurdity:
Quote
Imagine where Donald Trump's business empire would stand today if he typically delivered project two years late, and every once in a while one of the blew up due to design features.
Well, where would NASA be if it did those things?  Just where it is, except that Orion/SLS is much more than two years late.  As for Trump, he's done his industry's equivalent of blow up--namely, go bankrupt--several times!  What the hell is the point of bringing this up?  Is Thompson trying to ingratiate himself with Trump?

Rather than actually addressing the issue raised in "Capitalism in Space," namely the merits of NASA using commercially-developed space vehicles rather than developing its own, Thompson uses misdirection, inuendo and outright falsehood to attack SpaceX.  Thompson does have the decency to acknowledge (in the third paragraph) that Boeing is a sponsor of his institution and Lockheed Martin is both a sponsor and consulting client.  That he barely even acknowledges the thesis of "Capitalism in Space" suggests that his sponsors may be terrified of it.  That he changes the subject to SpaceX and then attacks it below the belt suggests they feel threatened by that company.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 10:12 AM by Proponent »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #90 on: 03/31/2017 11:10 AM »
I do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 11:14 AM by Star One »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #91 on: 03/31/2017 01:34 PM »
I do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?

You are blatantly begging* the question.

*For those who only know today's misuse of the term, it classically means assuming your premise is true -- a rhetorical fallacy.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #92 on: 03/31/2017 02:16 PM »
I do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?

To AncientU's post I might add that if you read my previous post in this thread, you'll see that I am not defending Zimmerman at all:  I'm attacking Thompson quite heavily, but I do not defend Zimmerman.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #93 on: 03/31/2017 02:30 PM »
I do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?

You are blatantly begging* the question.

*For those who only know today's misuse of the term, it classically means assuming your premise is true -- a rhetorical fallacy.

Well you're hardly an unbiased observer in these things considering your track record.

I do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?

To AncientU's post I might add that if you read my previous post in this thread, you'll see that I am not defending Zimmerman at all:  I'm attacking Thompson quite heavily, but I do not defend Zimmerman.

But both pieces are horribly biased and it just seemed a waste of your time attacking or defending either. What I mean is neither piece from looking at them adds anything useful to the debate.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 02:35 PM by Star One »

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #94 on: 04/01/2017 10:13 AM »
So, to cut to the chase:
What is the full accounting of what gets spent where on SLS/Orion?
What fraction goes to Boeing, LM, Centers?
What has the program cost to date and what are the spend plans going forward?
Is this information available, anywhere?

Seems to me that a hell of a lot of money has been and will be spent on a program that is showing few results... but maybe that is just me, I'm biased.

Note: Star One, please share these data with those of us that are so mis-informed.  You surely have a factual basis for your protestations of bias.
« Last Edit: 04/01/2017 10:43 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #95 on: 04/01/2017 11:32 AM »
Is there any sign in the budget for the gateway station for which NASA will apparently end up paying much/most of the cost?  I see slides from the NAC that show a 4-piece station up and working by 2026...

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf

...but with those slides should go a budget and cost and such.  How is the station supposed to be paid for?  Sounds like ESA might be contributing an ECLSS, and Canada an arm, but there's a lot more than that that needs to get paid for.
Recovering astronomer

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #96 on: 04/01/2017 04:43 PM »
We don't have the details yet but the President's FY18 budget does mention a private-public partnership for a deep space habitat (this likely means NextStep-3). The details of the FY18 budget should come out in mid-May.
« Last Edit: 04/01/2017 04:59 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #97 on: 04/02/2017 12:27 PM »
Is there any sign in the budget for the gateway station for which NASA will apparently end up paying much/most of the cost?  I see slides from the NAC that show a 4-piece station up and working by 2026...

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf

...but with those slides should go a budget and cost and such.  How is the station supposed to be paid for?  Sounds like ESA might be contributing an ECLSS, and Canada an arm, but there's a lot more than that that needs to get paid for.

And there is another question that goes with this - How does NASA structure it's method for obtaining the gateway?  Does it follow an ISS model?  Or does it follow a Commercial Crew model? 

Both of those questions impact the question of how is the station supposed to be paid for.

As to whether we'll see that in this year's full budget request - I am not prepared to bet any money.
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline DarkenedOne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #98 on: 04/04/2017 05:38 PM »
Launch can't be a free market, ever?

Yes. You don't understand that?

Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?

Airplanes are munitions or can be. Cars are munitions or can be. Suitcases are munitions or can be if they are carrying the right things. That all governments today treat rockets as super special? Sure. True fact.

That they always will, if we get to flight rates similar to commercial airliners ("millions of people living and working and living in space")? No, you haven't convinced me that no government anywhere ever will decide to relax and treat rockets more like airplanes. regulated, but freer than they are now.

You don't have to convince me, that's cool. We have different views. All good. But I don't buy your blanket assertion. And "You don't understand that?" isn't the tone one uses when one wants to convince me of things. You don't have to care one whit what I think... but if you do....

Space is not Walmart.

True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.

That's another model that works too.

Launch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.

Today. We have different visions about how things SHOULD be in the future.

We might be veering more than we should (it was driven by that reference, to be sure) so I'll stop for now.

Can we stop acting like Russia does not exist?  Russia sells Arianespace the Soyuz rocket to be launched from Arianespace launch sites.   Russia also sells rocket engines to ULA.  They have assisted South Korea with their rocket technology.  Everything you guys are arguing about has been done. 

Yes of course rocket technology is a technology that can be weaponized, but that only means that the market is restricted to our allies and friendly nations.  Our private companies sell weapons to other nations all of the time.    There is no reason to believe that companies like SpaceX will not be able to sell reusable rockets to allies especially ones that already have ballistic missile technology. 

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #99 on: 04/04/2017 06:21 PM »

Can we stop acting like Russia does not exist?  Russia sells Arianespace the Soyuz rocket to be launched from Arianespace launch sites.   Russia also sells rocket engines to ULA.  They have assisted South Korea with their rocket technology.  Everything you guys are arguing about has been done. 

Yes of course rocket technology is a technology that can be weaponized, but that only means that the market is restricted to our allies and friendly nations.  Our private companies sell weapons to other nations all of the time.    There is no reason to believe that companies like SpaceX will not be able to sell reusable rockets to allies especially ones that already have ballistic missile technology. 

I don't think that's the fundamental issue here.  Sure we can export vehicles.  The real issue can be broken down into effectively 2 questions

1)  Is it technically feasible to have drastic reductions in the price to space and various destinations, but dramatically increase the tempo?  For example - can we develop a system to put a human into earth orbit, whose ticket price per customer is roughly $1 million, and can fly it every day?  Obviously you can change the destination, or the price points, or the number of people, but it does boil down to the first question

2)  Is there a justification for developing such a system?  It can be economic justification (some sort of new market, or better market), or a political justification (allows us to explore space, provides much more robust military space activity), but just because you can do something, doesn't mean you will.  You must have a good reason to do so. 

this is somewhat off topic, so I'll leave it here.  But this goes back to fundamental justifications. 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #100 on: 04/15/2017 01:34 PM »
May I please ask that any responses to the following be focused and to the point.  If you find fault in my analysis, please point out precisely where and how I am wrong.

I've now read Scott Pace's op-ed in Space News, "Wishful thinking collides with policy economic realities in 'Capitalism in Space'," which appeared in print on 25 March and on line on 4 April.  It is a criticism of Robert Zimmerman's paper "Capitalism in Space,"  discussed (and criticized) upthread (by incoming and by me).

Pace mischaracterizes Zimmerman's argument by claiming
Quote from: Scott Pace in "Wishful thinking collides with policy economic realities in 'Capitalism in Space'," Space News, 25 March
The core problem is that based on this minimal experience the author poses a false binary choice between “government” or “private sector” approaches to space transportation, a choice in which he argues that the government should abandon traditional acquisition practices in favor of relying on “free enterprise.”

In effect, he makes an unsupported claim that commercial markets exist (or should exist) for the public goods of science, exploration, and security.
Although the title "Capitalism in Space" is bombastic and Zimmerman does spew quite a bit of verbiage about free markets, his focus is on the much narrower question of how the costs of NASA-managed vehicles, SLS and Orion, compare with those of commercially managed launch and delivery vehicles, namely those used in the commercial crew and cargo programs*.  Zimmerman does not claim that markets exist for science, exploration and security but merely that the government should buy launch and delivery services from industry rather than creating and managing those capabilities itself.

That there is no commercial market in national security, for example, has not prevented the US Air Force from buying launch services from industry for many years.  The Air Force itself got out of the launch-vehicle business with the retirement of the Titan IV over a decade ago.  In fact, SLS is the sole exception to the rule that the US government has exited the launch-vehicle business and now buys launch services.  That the government buys launch services for military and scientific payloads falsifies Pace's argument.

Pace also attempts to argue that SLS's large size dictates that it be managed by NASA:
Quote
the reported first stage Falcon Heavy thrust is approximately 1.71 million pounds. SLS thrust is 8.87 million pounds of thrust. The SLS is designed to place more than twice as much payload into a low Earth orbit and over three times as much into a trans-Mars injection orbit. Again, these are government requirements, not commercial requirements, and that’s why SLS is a NASA program.
This is just wrong, for two reasons.  First of all, the thrust, if that's a particularly relevant metric, of Falcon Heavy is 5.13 million pounds at sea level, three times what Pace claims**.  If the payload figures are correct, they must apply to SLS Block 2, which is many years and billions of dollars in the future, it it is ever built.  More fundamentally, the fact that SLS's specs are set by government requirements does not mean it must be managed by the government.   The Delta IV, for example, was built to satisfy government requirements and has never flown a commercial payload yet is managed by ULA.  (There is also the larger issue that NASA has never established the need or even desirability of an SLS-like launch vehicle for its purposes; if you think I'm wrong, please post the relevant information in this thread.)

Like Loren Thompson, Pace avoids addressing Zimmerman's argument by creating a strawman.  Neither actually addresses Zimmerman's primary point, which is that NASA could save a great deal of money by contracting with American industry for launch and delivery services instead of building Orion/SLS.


* See p. 4: "The central focus of this paper is a comparison between the two approaches to maintain and expand American access to space that NASA and the federal government have followed since the mid-2000s."
** Somebody has pointed this out before in this forum; unfortunately, I cannot find the post.

EDIT:  "compared" -> "compare" in 3rd paragraph.  "The must" -> "They must" in penultimate paragraph.
« Last Edit: 04/16/2017 08:36 PM by Proponent »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7288
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2936
  • Likes Given: 873
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #101 on: 04/15/2017 06:07 PM »
May I please ask that any responses to the following be focused and to the point.  If you find fault in my analysis, please point out precisely where and how I am wrong.

<snip>
Excellent analysis. Couldn't agree more.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #102 on: 05/19/2017 06:17 PM »
FY'18 proposed budget due Tuesday but a possible leaked version gives some details about likely NASA impact:

http://spacenews.com/2018-budget-proposal-to-spread-cuts-across-nasa-programs/

Edit to add attachment from:

Quote
Here are the NASA numbers in raw form.
https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/865627780381155329
« Last Edit: 05/19/2017 06:19 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #103 on: 05/22/2017 01:39 PM »
Quote
May 22, 2017
MEDIA ADVISORY M17-056

NASA to Discuss FY2018 Budget Proposal, Provide Virtual Tours of Centers

NASA will hold a series of events Tuesday, May 23, highlighting the agency’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget proposal, including a televised State of NASA address by acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot and Facebook Live virtual tours of NASA’s 10 centers, where innovation is enabling exploration and discovery.

Lightfoot will give a presentation at 12:30 p.m. EDT to NASA employees at the agency’s Headquarters in Washington on FY2018 budget highlights, setting the stage for the coming year at NASA and spotlighting the past work that led to current achievements. This presentation will air live on NASA Television and the agency’s website.

At 1:30 p.m., NASA's social media team will take visitors behind the scenes for a virtual tour of NASA and a look at the cutting-edge work here and on humanity's destiny in deep space. These Facebook Live events will be hosted on each center's Facebook page and will run about 15 minutes each. The following list of virtual tours includes times, centers and highlights of each tour:

1:30 p.m. -- Glenn Research Center, in Cleveland, will host a tour of its Electric Propulsion Lab, where the agency tests solar propulsion technologies that are critical to powering spacecraft for NASA’s deep-space missions.
1:50 p.m. -- Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, Alabama, will host a tour from a Marshall test stand where structural loads testing is performed on parts of NASA's Space Launch System rocket.
2:10 p.m. -- Stennis Space Center, in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, will take visitors on a tour of their test stands to learn about rocket engine testing from their Test Control Center.
2:30 p.m. -- Armstrong Flight Research Center, in Edwards, California, will host a tour from their aircraft hangar and Simulator Lab to learn about NASA’s X-Planes program.
2:50 p.m. -- Johnson Space Center in Houston will take viewers on a virtual exploration trip through the mockups of the International Space Station and inside the agency’s deep-space exploration vehicle, the Orion spacecraft.
3:10 p.m. -- Ames Research Center, in California’s Silicon Valley, will bring viewers into its Arc Jet Facility, a plasma wind tunnel used to simulate the extreme heat of spacecraft atmospheric entry.
3:30 p.m. -- Kennedy Space Center, in Florida, will bring visitors inside the Vehicle Assembly Building to learn about how NASA is preparing for the first launch of America's next big rocket, SLS.
3:50 p.m. -- Langley Research Center, in Hampton Virginia, will bring visitors inside its 14-by-22-foot wind tunnel, where aerodynamic projects are tested.
4:10 p.m. -- Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Maryland, will discuss the upcoming United States total solar eclipse and host its tour from the Space Weather Lab, a large multi-screen room where data from the sun is analyzed and studied.
4:30 p.m. -- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in Pasadena, California, will bring viewers to the Spacecraft Assembly Facility to learn about robotic exploration of the solar system.
Also on Tuesday, at 5 p.m. NASA’s acting Chief Financial Officer Andrew Hunter will brief media on the agency’s 2018 budget proposal. To participate in this briefing, media must contact Karen Northon in the NASA Headquarters newsroom at 202-358-1540 or karen.northon@nasa.gov no later than 4 p.m. Tuesday.

Audio of the media teleconference will be streamed live on NASA's website at:

https://www.nasa.gov/live

NASA budget information will be available online at noon Tuesday at:

https://www.nasa.gov/budget

-end-

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-discuss-fy2018-budget-proposal-provide-virtual-tours-of-centers

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #104 on: 05/22/2017 03:22 PM »
This was forwarded to me (and most of the media), by SLS!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Thomas Culligan" <tom@slsorionsuppliers.com>
Date: May 16, 2017 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: ACTION NEEDED - Senate SLS-Orion-GSDO Appropriations Letter
To: "Thomas Culligan" <tom@slsorionsuppliers.com>
Cc:

    All, I'm pleased to share a final copy of the Senate letter in support of SLS, Orion and GSDO funding for the FH 2018 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill, which was led by Sens. Hatch (R-UT) and Peters (D-MI).  Thanks to everyone who reached out to their Senate offices to urge them to sign on - we increased the number of signers from 16 last year to 23 this year, which is a significant improvement and represents nearly a quarter of the entire Senate. 

     

    A copy of the final signed letter is attached, and the list of Senators who signed this year is copied below.  Thanks again for all your efforts to support these programs during the FY 2018 Appropriations process. 

     

    Hatch (R-UT)

    Peters (D-MI)

    Feinstein (D-CA)

    Inhofe (R-OK)

    Wyden (D-OR)

    Durbin (D-IL)

    Nelson (D-FL)

    Stabenow (D-MI)

    Menendez (D-NJ)

    Brown (D-OH)

    Gardner (R-CO)

    Bennet (D-CO)

    Blumenthal (D-CA)

    Schatz (D-HI)

    Baldwin (D-WI)

    Kaine (D-VA)

    Markey (D-MA)

    Booker (D-NJ)

    Kennedy (R-LA)

    Cassidy (R-LA)

    Van Hollen (D-MD

    Hassan (D-NH)

    Cortez Masto (D-NV)

     

    On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Thomas Culligan <tom@slsorionsuppliers.com> wrote:

        All, After our great success last month on the House side with the FY18 Appropriations letter receiving 144 signatures, we now need your help reaching out to your Senators in support of the letter below, which is being circulated by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI).   

         

        URGENT REQUEST:  Please forward the letter below to the Senate staff you met with, and urge them to contact Matt Jensen (Matt_Jensen@hatch.senate.gov) in Sen. Hatch's office or Sydney Paul (Sydney_Paul@peters.senate.gov) in Sen. Peters office to sign on by next Thursday, MAY 4.

         

        All of the Senate offices have already received an e-mail from Sen. Hatch's office inviting them to sign the letter, but your outreach, support and reminder will be essential to getting many of these Senators to sign on.  If you have any questions about the contact information for the Senate staff you met with in February, please e-mail your team lead for assistance. 

         

        Thanks again for your continued support for the SLS-Orion-GSDO programs, and please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions.  - Tom

         

         

        April 27, 2017

         

        The Honorable Richard Shelby

        Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science

        Senate Committee on Appropriations

        S-128 The Capitol

        Washington, D.C. 20510

         

        The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen

        Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science

        Senate Committee on Appropriations

        S-146 A The Capitol

        Washington, D.C. 20510

         

        Dear Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Shaheen:

        American-led exploration of deep space is vital to inspiring our future innovators and growing our economy through technological innovation and development.  NASA and its industry partners are currently building the infrastructure today that will extend human presence into deep space:

        ·      the Orion Spacecraft – the only spacecraft capable of taking humans to multiple deep space destinations;

        ·      the Space Launch System (SLS) – the most powerful rocket ever built;

        ·      and the Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) that will support these unique national assets.

        For the first time in nearly 50 years of human space exploration, interplanetary destinations – including the moon, moons of Mars, and Mars itself – are within reach of American astronauts.  We believe SLS, Orion and EGS are the cornerstone of our nation’s human space exploration enterprise and a source of national pride.  We also recognize the critical contributions of the more than ten thousand Americans working at supplier companies in every state building key components for these new systems.  Over the 15th and 16th of February this year, hundreds of these individuals traveled to Washington, DC – as they have every year for the past 5 years – to advocate for the funding levels necessary to ensure America remains the world leader in space exploration.

        We respectfully urge your continued support for the appropriations necessary to meet the EM-1 and EM-2 launch schedules.  The Appropriations Committee has repeatedly worked to ensure that these programs have sufficient funding, and we urge you to continue this commitment in the FY 2018 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill

        Sincerely,

         

         



     

    --

     

    Tom Culligan

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #105 on: 05/22/2017 05:21 PM »

...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Thomas Culligan" <tom@slsorionsuppliers.com>
Date: May 16, 2017 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: ACTION NEEDED - Senate SLS-Orion-GSDO Appropriations Letter

...

    A copy of the final signed letter is attached, and the list of Senators who signed this year is copied below.  Thanks again for all your efforts to support these programs during the FY 2018 Appropriations process....

Why aren't Sens. Cruz and Nelson among the signatories?  They are among SLS's biggest, uh, boosters.

Online rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 419
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #106 on: 05/22/2017 08:20 PM »

...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Thomas Culligan" <tom@slsorionsuppliers.com>
Date: May 16, 2017 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: ACTION NEEDED - Senate SLS-Orion-GSDO Appropriations Letter

...

    A copy of the final signed letter is attached, and the list of Senators who signed this year is copied below.  Thanks again for all your efforts to support these programs during the FY 2018 Appropriations process....

Why aren't Sens. Cruz and Nelson among the signatories?  They are among SLS's biggest, uh, boosters.

Nelson is on there, 7th down.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #107 on: 05/23/2017 05:43 PM »
FY18 NASA Budget documents are online:

https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
« Last Edit: 05/23/2017 05:44 PM by yg1968 »

Offline jacqmans

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16670
  • Houten, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2348
  • Likes Given: 156
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #108 on: 05/23/2017 07:09 PM »
May 23, 2017
RELEASE 17-050

NASA Acting Administrator Statement on Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Proposal

The following is a statement from NASA acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot on the Fiscal Year 2018 budget proposal released Tuesday:

“Today, President Trump released his Fiscal Year 2018 budget request for the federal government. At $19.1 billion, we have a very positive budget that retains the same parameters we saw in March, and which reflects the president’s confidence in our direction and the importance of everything we’ve been achieving.

“I want to reiterate how proud I am of the NASA team and its hard work. It’s making a real difference in this country and around the world. NASA missions inspire the next generation, inject innovation into the national economy, provide critical information needed to address national challenges, and support global engagement and international leadership.

“As the President has said, American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream. NASA is executing programs, step by step, to make this dream a reality, as well as the broader quest to explore and understand the universe. We’ve had a horizon goal for some time now of reaching Mars, and this budget sustains that work and also provides the resources to keep exploring our solar system and look beyond it. And, it enables us to keep innovating and creating the technologies that will take us to deep space and improve the aeronautics systems on which all of us rely.

“The hard choices are still there, and we can’t do everything. But we can certainly do a lot, and each member of the NASA team, every day, is helping to create the future.

“As NASA approaches its 60th anniversary in 2018, the Fiscal Year 2018 budget request will maintain NASA’s place as the global leader in space. We appreciate the bipartisan commitment to our continuity of purpose. It’s essential that our near term work be stable as we plan for the long term and look toward the next horizons, and this budget helps us do that. The NASA Transition Authorization Act and the Fiscal Year 2017 appropriation we recently received also represent important contributions to that continuity.

“Working with commercial partners, NASA will fly astronauts from American soil on the first new crew transportation systems in a generation in the next couple of years. We are continuing the development of solar electric propulsion for use on future human and robotic missions. NASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023. Our budget request supports progress toward these and many other major milestones as part of the diverse portfolio of work we execute as we explore, discover, and develop on behalf of the American people.

“We are ending formulation of a mission to an asteroid, known as the Asteroid Redirect Mission, but many of the central technologies in development for that mission will continue, as they constitute vital capabilities needed for future human deep space missions.

“While this budget no longer supports the formal Office of Education, NASA will continue to inspire the next generation through its missions and the many ways that our work excites and encourages discovery by learners and educators. We are as committed to inspiring the next generation as ever. We’re going to engage the public in the compelling story of exploration by the successful and safe execution of our missions, which is where our focus has to be.

“At the same time, we’re going to take this opportunity for NASA to revisit the public engagement and outreach activities that take place on the ground at centers every day to ensure that we are leveraging the synergies between education and outreach to facilitate meaningful connections.

“All the details online, but I did want to mention some other specifics about the budget. In Science, for instance, this budget supports about 100 space missions -- 40 missions currently preparing for launch and 60 operating missions. The Solar Probe Plus (SPP), Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), the InSight Mars lander,   and the James Webb Space Telescope are on track to launch in 2018, and the next Mars rover is on pace for a 2020 launch.

“While we are not proposing to move forward with Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3), Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem (PACE), Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory Pathfinder (CLARREO PF), and the Radiation Budget Instrument (RBI), this budget still includes significant Earth Science efforts, including 18 Earth observing missions in space as well as airborne missions.

“The budget keeps us on track for the next selection for the New Frontiers program, and includes formulation of a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa. It supports research on space weather and upcoming Heliophysics missions, and continues support for the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, or WFIRST, which will eventually succeed Webb. Our work in science leads the world in its size, scope and output.

“NASA’s Aeronautics research program advances U.S. global leadership by developing and transferring key technologies to make aviation safer, greener, and more efficient. This budget takes the next significant step in the New Aviation Horizons initiative -- the bold series of experimental aircraft known as X-planes -- and systems demonstrations towards revolutionary aircraft and improving the efficiency of the national air transportation system.

“Our Space Technology program enables rapid development and incorporation of transformative space technologies in NASA’s future missions, which increases our nation’s overall capabilities and helps industry, as well. The budget supports our diverse portfolio, which is creating a technology pipeline to solve the most difficult challenges in space, from solar electric propulsion to laser communications and cross-cutting technologies that benefit our work across the board.

“We have a budget that also provides the necessary resources in the coming year to support our plans to send humans to Mars orbit in the 2030s. The European service module will be delivered to the Kennedy Space Center for integration with Orion in 2018.  Prototype ground testing of habitat modules under our broad area announcement activity will happen in 2018.

“The International Space Station, commercial crew and cargo, and the Space Launch System and Orion all continue to advance our future in space with this budget. Having an additional NASA crew member on the space station will greatly enhance the research and advancement towards exploration. The station continues to create new opportunities for collaboration with industry and supports public-private partnerships for exploration systems that will extend human presence into the solar system. So there’s a lot to look forward to.

“The program of exploration and discovery we propose with this budget should be a source of pride for all Americans. The impact of NASA’s work is immense, and we have great momentum and support to keep moving ahead.”

For NASA’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget materials, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/budget

Offline theonlyspace

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Rocketeer
  • AEAI Space Center, USA
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #109 on: 05/23/2017 07:23 PM »
'''Funding for NASA’s education office will be cut from $100 million to $37 million, enough to close down operations across the agency.''''  My querry is the education office  will receive 37 million dollars, why is it going to shut down?  37 million should be plenty for several years to fund NASA public relations  informing the public of their activities. Or do they have such high wages and fancy offices it costs more than   37 million in a year just to keep the lights on and doors unlocked?? That seems unbelievable. What will the 37 million be spent on then ,unemployment checks and locking the offices doors? It just seems so wasteful

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #110 on: 05/23/2017 09:08 PM »
Quote
NASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023.

First time 2021 was dropped as party line AFAIK, though everyone knew it was coming.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #111 on: 05/23/2017 11:36 PM »
Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot Discusses NASA’s FY 2018 NASA Budget Request:

« Last Edit: 05/27/2017 01:15 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #112 on: 05/23/2017 11:40 PM »
NASA FY18 Budget Media Teleconference May 23 2017:



Slides are available at this link:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_presentation_media_telecon.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/23/2017 11:41 PM by yg1968 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7288
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2936
  • Likes Given: 873
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #113 on: 05/24/2017 05:52 AM »
Quote
NASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023.

First time 2021 was dropped as party line AFAIK, though everyone knew it was coming.
The year 2021 for EM-2 was based on getting EM-1 of the ground in early 2018 at the latest. We all know that EM-1 has moved into the latter half of 2019 recently. The gap between EM-1 and EM-2 has been four (4) years for ages now so EM-2 is shifting to the right as much as EM-1 is shifting to the right.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #114 on: 05/24/2017 09:48 AM »
Quote
NASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023.

First time 2021 was dropped as party line AFAIK, though everyone knew it was coming.
The year 2021 for EM-2 was based on getting EM-1 of the ground in early 2018 at the latest. We all know that EM-1 has moved into the latter half of 2019 recently. The gap between EM-1 and EM-2 has been four (4) years for ages now so EM-2 is shifting to the right as much as EM-1 is shifting to the right.

Right, we've seen this coming for a long time, but new dates have not been official party line.  Now, '2023 flying humans' is the new party line... maybe.  But 2023 is EM-2 (EUS/Europa Clipper) as you've explained. 
Humans get EM-3.

So, as I said (to howls of protest) a few months ago, crew will fly in 2024-2025.
If EM-1 doesn't slip.  Again.

This really locks them into a three-year or so gap between EM-1 and the subsequent launch.  Can't start modifying the ML until EM-1 flies, no matter how late it slides into 2019 or 2020.  (Once you start the mods, a 'cargo' launch can't fly using a second ICPS -- don't know if that was the plan, though.)  Probably pushes the first manned flight to 2024/2025.  There was talk of compressing the big interval between EM-1 and EM-2 (so that the manned flight -- EM-3 -- wouldn't also slip), but now that seems unlikely.

Thread: Will NASA put crew on EM-1?
I voted no because I don't think SLS will ever fly with crew.

Edit: Added quotes
« Last Edit: 05/24/2017 10:28 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8169
  • UK
  • Liked: 1319
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #115 on: 05/24/2017 10:23 AM »
Quote
NASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023.

First time 2021 was dropped as party line AFAIK, though everyone knew it was coming.
The year 2021 for EM-2 was based on getting EM-1 of the ground in early 2018 at the latest. We all know that EM-1 has moved into the latter half of 2019 recently. The gap between EM-1 and EM-2 has been four (4) years for ages now so EM-2 is shifting to the right as much as EM-1 is shifting to the right.

Right, we've seen this coming for a long time, but new dates have not been official party line.  Now, '2023 flying humans' is the new party line... maybe.  But 2023 is EM-2 (EUS/Europa Clipper) as you've explained. 
Humans get EM-3.

So, as I said (to howls of protest) a few months ago, crew will fly in 2024-2025.
If EM-1 doesn't slip.  Again.

This really locks them into a three-year or so gap between EM-1 and the subsequent launch.  Can't start modifying the ML until EM-1 flies, no matter how late it slides into 2019 or 2020.  (Once you start the mods, a 'cargo' launch can't fly using a second ICPS -- don't know if that was the plan, though.)  Probably pushes the first manned flight to 2024/2025.  There was talk of compressing the big interval between EM-1 and EM-2 (so that the manned flight -- EM-3 -- wouldn't also slip), but now that seems unlikely.

Edit: Added quote

Time not long now I think for Europa Clipper to look for another launcher.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4806
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4050
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #116 on: 05/24/2017 11:09 AM »
Every year it will become increasingly difficult to plan around SLS availability, since every year that passes makes the program less viable.  With others' plans for early 2020s, hard to see the role SLS/Orion will play.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2017 11:09 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #117 on: 05/24/2017 02:04 PM »
During the media teleconference, the NASA CFO said that it will be a challenge for the Europa clipper to meet the 2022 deadline set by Congress (because of its funding).
« Last Edit: 05/24/2017 02:16 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #118 on: 05/24/2017 02:35 PM »
Here is a very good summary by Jeff Foust of the President's detailed FY18 budget:

http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-1-billion-nasa-budget-cuts-earth-science-and-education/
« Last Edit: 05/24/2017 02:37 PM by yg1968 »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #119 on: 05/29/2017 02:19 AM »
I agree. The cuts to Earth science and observation are substantial. In many cases these are operational programs that are porducing useful data at modest cost. It's just difficult to see any purpose here other than to try to hobble climate science.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #120 on: 06/09/2017 02:11 AM »
NASA Proposed FY 2018 Budget Overview, House Space Subcommittee, June 8, 2017 (starts at 35m50s):


« Last Edit: 06/10/2017 12:44 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #121 on: 07/01/2017 08:20 AM »
Which means that if the National Space Council is reconstituted with V.P. Pence at it's head, that we should really be looking to V.P. Pence for indications of where the administration will be pointing NASA.  That all we can and should expect from Trump will be platitudes, but no actionable details.

Good point.  What do we know about Pence's record on space when he was in Congress?

To answer my own question, attached is a budget-cutting proposal prepared by the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Mike Pence, in 2005.  It called for canceling "NASA's New Moon/Mars Initiative" (Constellation).  I learned of this from NASA Watch's recent post, "Mike Pence Was Against Ares 5/Orion Before He Was For SLS/Orion."

I would guess, though, the Pence has now flip-flopped into supporting Orion/SLS (not that it's much of a flip-flop by Washington's standards).
« Last Edit: 07/01/2017 08:21 AM by Proponent »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #122 on: 07/07/2017 01:00 AM »
NASA FY18 Budget Request Review, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, June 29, 2017:

« Last Edit: 07/07/2017 01:05 AM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #123 on: 07/07/2017 01:25 AM »
Here is the House committee's proposed CJS bill (NASA starts at page 60):

https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-115hr-sc-ap-fy2018-cjs-commercejusticescience.pdf

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394951

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – NASA is funded at $19.9 billion, $219 million above the 2017 enacted level. This funding includes:

$4.6 billion for Exploration – $226 million above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This includes funding to continue the development of the Orion crew vehicle and Space Launch System and related ground systems.

$5.9 billion for NASA Science programs – $94 million above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This targets funding to planetary science and astrophysics to ensure the continuation of critical research and development programs, while reducing funding for lower-priority research.
« Last Edit: 07/07/2017 01:43 AM by yg1968 »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #124 on: 07/11/2017 05:52 AM »
Quote
FAA Space Office To Get Budget Boost from House Appropriators http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-space-office-to-get-budget-boost-from-house-appropriators

https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/884560906797142016

Quote
House appropriators are recommending a budget boost for FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST).  The office received $19.8 million for FY2017, but the Trump budget proposal for FY2018 is $2 million less.  By contrast, the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the office is proposing $21.587 million.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #125 on: 07/11/2017 01:46 PM »
Here is the House committee's proposed CJS bill (NASA starts at page 60):

https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-115hr-sc-ap-fy2018-cjs-commercejusticescience.pdf

https://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394951

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – NASA is funded at $19.9 billion, $219 million above the 2017 enacted level. This funding includes:

$4.6 billion for Exploration – $226 million above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This includes funding to continue the development of the Orion crew vehicle and Space Launch System and related ground systems.

$5.9 billion for NASA Science programs – $94 million above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This targets funding to planetary science and astrophysics to ensure the continuation of critical research and development programs, while reducing funding for lower-priority research.

The bill will be marked up on Thursday:

https://appropriations.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=394969

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #126 on: 07/15/2017 12:18 AM »
Here is the House CJS Committee report (NASA starts at page 53):

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20170713/106248/HRPT-115-HR-p1.pdf

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #127 on: 07/24/2017 02:45 PM »
Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 4m4 minutes ago

In NASA Advisory Council science cmte meeting, NASA’s Craig Tupper says he thinks FY18 budget for NASA science will follow past trends.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/889495428139503616

Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 3m3 minutes ago

Tupper says he expects Senate to fund NASA science at a similar overall level to House bill, but with more money for Earth science.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/889495625468923905

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4256
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2853
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #128 on: 07/25/2017 03:34 PM »
Quote
Marcia Smith‏ @SpcPlcyOnline 47s47 seconds ago

Senate Approps THUD sbcmt approved FY2018 bill, but info released doesn't provide enuf detail to know how FAA space office fared.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/889871109830709253

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #129 on: 07/25/2017 11:04 PM »
Quote from: Summary of Senate Appropriation bill
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – $19.5 billion for NASA, $124 million below the FY2017 enacted level and $437 million above the budget request, to support the human and robotic exploration of space, fund science missions that enhance the understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe, and support fundamental aeronautics research.  This includes:
•    $2.15 billion for the Space Launch System (SLS), which is $212 million above the request.  The funding continues the development schedule for SLS, and provides $300 million in critical funding for upper stage engine work for future crewed missions.
•    $1.3 billion for the Orion crewed spacecraft, $164 million above the request, to continue development of NASA’s next deep-space crewed capsule.
•    $5.6 billion for Science, $193 million below the FY2017 enacted level and $140 million below the request. 
•    $732 million, the same as the request, to further develop a domestic crew launch capability.
•    $700 million for Space Technology, $14 million above the FY2017 enacted level and $21 million above the request.  Funding is included to advance projects in early stages of development that are expected to eventually demonstrate capabilities needed for future space exploration.
•    $100 million is provided for the Education programs proposed to be eliminated in the budget request.  NASA EPSCoR is funded at $18 million, Space Grant is funded at $40 million, the Minority University Research and Education Project is funded at $32 million, and STEM Education and Accountability projects is funded at $10 million.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/fy2018-commerce-justice-science-appropriations-bill-clears-senate-subcommittee
« Last Edit: 07/25/2017 11:07 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
« Last Edit: 07/27/2017 12:12 AM by yg1968 »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10949
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #131 on: 07/27/2017 08:23 PM »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #132 on: 07/27/2017 11:06 PM »
The Senate put the money back into Earth sciences:

http://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/

The Senate took the money from planetary science in order to put it into Earth science. The Senate needs Democratic votes to pass its CJS appropriations bill (the House doesn't).
« Last Edit: 07/27/2017 11:18 PM by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #133 on: 07/28/2017 03:15 PM »
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 28, 2017

 

 

Coalition For Deep Space Exploration On Approval Of The Senate FY 2018 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Bill

 

WASHINGTON, DC - The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration (Coalition) commends the Senate Appropriations Committee’s approval of the FY 2018 Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) Appropriations bill, which would fund NASA from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018.  The bill incudes funding for key NASA exploration programs in a challenging budget environment where overall spending allocations for the bill, including NASA, were reduced.  The bill provides $19.5 billion for NASA overall, which is a reduction of $124 million below the current FY 2017 funding level, but is $437 million above the FY 2018 President’s Budget Request.

 

“The Coalition appreciates Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Shaheen’s leadership in supporting NASA’s human exploration and science programs in their FY 2018 bill,” said Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, the President and CEO of the Coalition.  “The funding provided for NASA’s programs will continue America’s leadership in space, while strengthening our national aerospace industrial base through the work of suppliers across all 50 states that are contributing to these groundbreaking science and exploration missions.”

 

Within this allocation, the bill continues the full funding levels from FY 2017 for NASA’s deep space rocket, the Space Launch System ($2.15 billion), and crew spacecraft, Orion ($1.35 billion), while providing an increase for Exploration Ground Systems ($640.9 million) to support the launch of these systems for the upcoming Exploration Missions.  The bill also provides $350 million for Exploration Research and Development to support in space propulsion, robotic lunar landers and deep space habitat development.  Within this funding, the Committee provided $119.7 million for habitat development and the establishment of a habitat program office.

 

The Committee provided $5.571 billion for NASA’s Science portfolio, including funding for the James Webb Space Telescope ($533.7 million), the Wide-Field InfraRed Survey Telescope ($150 million) and the Double Asteroid Redirection Test ($66 million).  It also provides $10 million to establish a new space weather research program in coordination with the Department of Defense and NOAA.

 

The bill would provide a small increase for Space Technology ($700 million) to support key exploration technologies that will enable human and scientific research beyond low Earth orbit, such as nuclear thermal propulsion systems ($75 million) and other technologies.  It also includes continued funding for cargo and crew transportation services to the International Space Station, which provides an important platform for human exploration and science research in advance of upcoming Exploration Missions.

 

About the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration

 

The Coalition for Deep Space Exploration is a national organization of more than 70 space industry businesses and advocacy groups focused on ensuring the United States remains a leader in space, science and technology. Based in Washington D.C., the Coalition engages in outreach and education reinforcing the value and benefits of human space exploration and space science with the public and our nation’s leaders, building lasting support for a long-term, sustainable, strategic direction for our nation’s space program.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #134 on: 07/28/2017 04:21 PM »
The bill and report of the Senate's CJS Appropriation bill are now available:
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/full-committee-markup-of-the-cjs-thud-and-legislative-branch-appropriations-bills-for-fy2018

Here is the bill (NASA starts at page 69):
Link to Bill

Here is the report (NASA starts at page 101):
Link to Report
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 04:31 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #135 on: 07/28/2017 04:43 PM »
Some of the interesting parts of the Report:

Quote from: Page 108 of the Report
Nuclear Propulsion.—NASA is continuing its work to develop the foundational technologies and advance low-enriched uranium nuclear thermal propulsion systems that can provide significantly faster trip times for crewed missions than non-nuclear options. The Committee provides $75,000,000 for ongoing nuclear thermal propulsion technologies for space transportation and exploration. This funding is provided for NASA to work towards the goal of being able to conduct a propulsion subscale ground test by 2020.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 04:58 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #136 on: 07/28/2017 04:46 PM »
Quote from: Page 110 of the Report
Advanced Exploration Systems.—The amount provided for Advanced Exploration Systems enables NASA to continue current activities within NASA and with industry related to VASIMR propulsion technology, In Situ Resource Utilization, and Lunar CATALYST. The Committee also encourages NASA to continue to study and quantify potential exposure to cosmic rays through initiatives such as the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer.

The Committee further includes the request level of $119,700,000 for habitat systems research and development. The Committee expects NASA to establish in fiscal year 2018 a habitat development program office at a center that holds proficiency and heritage in habitation, life support systems development, and science operations to oversee and support NASA’s current and future in-space habitat development activities.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 04:51 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #137 on: 07/28/2017 04:50 PM »
Quote from: page 107 of the Report
The Committee is supportive of many of the technologies being developed within Space Technology, which will have wide ranging benefits for NASA missions and throughout the agency. Of particular note are the enabling technologies of Solar Electric Propulsion, the laser communications relay demonstration, and composite tanks and structural materials. These key supporting technologies will provide enabling capabilities for multiple robotic and human exploration missions.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #138 on: 08/02/2017 12:23 AM »
Another article on the Senate CJS appropriations bill:

http://spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-appropriators-give-nasa-mixed-news/
« Last Edit: 08/02/2017 12:24 AM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #139 on: 09/06/2017 06:09 PM »
A short term CR will be passed until December 15th 2017:

Quote
“In the meeting, the president and congressional leadership agreed to pass aid for Harvey, an extension of the debt limit, and a continuing resolution both to December 15, all together,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/349447-dems-say-trump-agrees-to-short-term-funding-debt-package

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #140 on: 09/08/2017 09:34 PM »
A CR, until December 8, 2017, was enacted today (i.e., it was passed by the House and signed by President Trump today):
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/08/house-passes-disaster-aid-package-debt-ceiling-increase-stopgap-spending-242486

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/906262336855560194
« Last Edit: 09/09/2017 08:33 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #141 on: 09/12/2017 11:29 PM »
It will looks like the House will consider a number of appropriations bills this week (including NASA and other CJS funding):
https://www.speaker.gov/general/11-conservative-wins-funding-bill

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/09/05/hr-3354-make-america-secure-and-prosperous-appropriations-act-2018
« Last Edit: 09/12/2017 11:35 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #142 on: 09/14/2017 08:35 PM »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9139
  • Liked: 1159
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2018 Budget Request
« Reply #143 on: 10/31/2017 11:36 PM »

Tags: