Author Topic: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request  (Read 79405 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #40 on: 02/10/2016 11:13 AM »
Wouldn't the changes for Orion and SLS simple reflect a good portion of the development has been accomplished.

A similar change in budget happen after Apollo development was accomplished.

I don't think so, for two reasons.  For one, the funding level this year is almost exactly the same as what was proposed last year (see attachment).  In other words, the decrease with respect to the FY2016 level represents a difference in opinion between Congress and the administration as to the appropriate funding level.

In addition, Orion/SLS's funding profile over time is completely different from Apollo/Saturn's.  Apollo/Saturn ramped up rapidly and then came rapidly down, as is usual for a big development program.  Orion/SLS, on the other hand, is specifically designed to have a flat-ish budget over many years (suggesting to me, though maybe not to others, that it's a constant-employment program first, and a development program second).
« Last Edit: 02/10/2016 11:22 AM by Proponent »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2014
  • Likes Given: 689
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #41 on: 02/11/2016 04:31 AM »
Wow. SLS and Orion really hit hard. And they were already at zero percent confidence on the EM-2 schedule.

Every year the President tries to cut funding for SLS and Orion but it never works.

Out of curiosity, didn't SLS and Orion get a huge budget increase last year as part of the plus-up NASA got from the Omnibus spending bill? I'd be more interested in seeing how this compares with the enacated budget levels over the past several years. It still may be down, but likely not by as much.

~Jon

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9136
  • Liked: 1158
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #42 on: 02/11/2016 04:33 AM »
Listen to NASA Chief Financial Officer David Radzanowski discuss the budget request at 5 p.m. EST.
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html

This is currently on NASA News Audio. A copy of the slides can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/final_nasa_fy2017_summary_brief_02_5_16.pdf

Here is the teleconference with David Radzanowski on YouTube (audio amplified):


Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #43 on: 02/11/2016 03:41 PM »
Out of curiosity, didn't SLS and Orion get a huge budget increase last year as part of the plus-up NASA got from the Omnibus spending bill? I'd be more interested in seeing how this compares with the enacated budget levels over the past several years. It still may be down, but likely not by as much.

I just happen to have assembled the numbers, because I was thinking about this.

Even taking last year's big boost into account, the administration's 2017 request is still a sizable cut -- see the attached figure.  No doubt Congress will reverse most or all of it.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2014
  • Likes Given: 689
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #44 on: 02/11/2016 05:56 PM »
Out of curiosity, didn't SLS and Orion get a huge budget increase last year as part of the plus-up NASA got from the Omnibus spending bill? I'd be more interested in seeing how this compares with the enacated budget levels over the past several years. It still may be down, but likely not by as much.

I just happen to have assembled the numbers, because I was thinking about this.

Even taking last year's big boost into account, the administration's 2017 request is still a sizable cut -- see the attached figure.  No doubt Congress will reverse most or all of it.

They would've been better off proposing funding levels that they could pass off as a return to previous year funding after the one-time infusion from the Omnibus bill. Well, honestly, do you think there's any level of funding for SLS/Orion that would satisfy Congressional porkmeisters?

~Jon

Online notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #45 on: 02/11/2016 06:07 PM »
Out of curiosity, didn't SLS and Orion get a huge budget increase last year as part of the plus-up NASA got from the Omnibus spending bill? I'd be more interested in seeing how this compares with the enacated budget levels over the past several years. It still may be down, but likely not by as much.

I just happen to have assembled the numbers, because I was thinking about this.

Even taking last year's big boost into account, the administration's 2017 request is still a sizable cut -- see the attached figure.  No doubt Congress will reverse most or all of it.

They would've been better off proposing funding levels that they could pass off as a return to previous year funding after the one-time infusion from the Omnibus bill. Well, honestly, do you think there's any level of funding for SLS/Orion that would satisfy Congressional porkmeisters?

~Jon
Well the glib answer is exactly the funding level that they passed the last time.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12968
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2832
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #46 on: 02/13/2016 05:32 AM »
The is what the request says about SLS. EM-1 scheduled for Nov. 2018. From p.16

"The FY 2017 budget request fully supports the plan for crewed exploration of deep space. The Orion
Program, Space Launch System (SLS) Program, and Exploration Ground System Program completed
their Critical Design Reviews demonstrating the Programs are appropriately mature to continue with the
final design and fabrication phases. NASA is on track for a launch capability readiness date of November
2018 for Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), which will be an uncrewed test of the SLS rocket carrying an
Orion capsule."

The request is using EELV for Europa. From p.184

"Note: The Europa profile above assumes an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, as the cost of an SLS
flight is not yet known."

AA-2 moved to 2020. It is now NASA led. From p.396

"Orion changed the Ascent Abort Test (AA-2) implementation from contractor-led effort to Government led
effort and moved the test date from 2019 to 2020. AA-2 will still meet all test objectives."

Here's where they say EM-2 will be crewed with launch in the "2020s"! p.397

"In October 2015, Orion completed its CDR board, ensuring its readiness to progress to the next phase of
the development life cycle: full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration, and test. In FY 2016, Orion will
continue to focus on preparing for EM-1, an uncrewed test flight to distant retrograde lunar orbit, and the
first pairing with SLS. This mission will provide the program with new and increased fidelity data, which,
combined with information gained from EFT-1, will validate spacecraft design and operations for crewed
EM-2 in the 2020s."

Orion to be ready for crew no later than FY23! p.400

"Orion design, development, and testing (including the flight tests) will have the spacecraft ready to carry crew no later than FY2023."

Total Orion cost from 2015 to 2023 is $6.6B. p.406 Total SLS cost from 2013 to 2018 is $7.0B. p.418

Not much was said about EUS. p.415

"NASA is conducting preliminary planning for the EUS, which leverages technology investments made by
the STMD in areas such as cryogenic fluid management and advanced composites."

A possible clue is this on p.427

"Based on direction contained in the Consolidation Appropriations Act 2016, (P.L. 114-113), EGS is also
exploring changes required to support SLS upgrades for EM-2 to SCCS, the ML and additional liquid
hydrogen capacity at the pad."

That might be in reference to support for EUS.

SpaceX are planning to test their Raptor engine in the 4th quarter this year at Stennis Space Center stand E-1 C3. Testing will be going on for a year. p532
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 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #47 on: 02/13/2016 06:49 AM »
They would've been better off proposing funding levels that they could pass off as a return to previous year funding after the one-time infusion from the Omnibus bill. Well, honestly, do you think there's any level of funding for SLS/Orion that would satisfy Congressional porkmeisters?

As a matter of negotiating tactics, I really don't know.  But the House and Senate have both said they're not even going to give the president's budget a hearing this year, and they're considering not even trying to produce a budget (I presume that means a continuing resolution).  So the administration's proposal is of only symbolic significance.

Incidentally, it's only since the 1920s that the president has been required to submit a budget.:  previously, each department submitted a budget directly to Congress.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7285
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #48 on: 02/22/2016 10:26 AM »
Guess what politically involved entity has written an op-ed now that the president's budget proposal is taking bites out of SLS and Orion:

http://spacenews.com/upon-closer-look-nasas-exploration-systems-are-game-changers/

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4793
  • Liked: 2876
  • Likes Given: 4037
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #49 on: 02/22/2016 11:23 AM »
Guess what politically involved entity has written an op-ed now that the president's budget proposal is taking bites out of SLS and Orion:

http://spacenews.com/upon-closer-look-nasas-exploration-systems-are-game-changers/
@

On schedule for 2018/2021...
On budget...

By any measure*, both are false.

At least she correctly identified the organization as the 'industry team'

* She does also state that JWST is 'on track' -- must be that yardstick.
« Last Edit: 02/22/2016 12:21 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
  • Physics Professor in SC, USA
  • Liked: 399
  • Likes Given: 405
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #50 on: 02/22/2016 04:01 PM »
Guess what politically involved entity has written an op-ed now that the president's budget proposal is taking bites out of SLS and Orion:

http://spacenews.com/upon-closer-look-nasas-exploration-systems-are-game-changers/

I am pretty sure you didn't call CSF a "politically involved entity" when they posted an op-ed on SpaceNews. Implying that OldSpace are the only ones immersed in politics is incorrect. Both NewSpace and OldSpace have lobbyists and are involved in the political game. No one is "politically pure."
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4793
  • Liked: 2876
  • Likes Given: 4037
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #51 on: 02/22/2016 04:47 PM »
Guess what politically involved entity has written an op-ed now that the president's budget proposal is taking bites out of SLS and Orion:

http://spacenews.com/upon-closer-look-nasas-exploration-systems-are-game-changers/

I am pretty sure you didn't call CSF a "politically involved entity" when they posted an op-ed on SpaceNews. Implying that OldSpace are the only ones immersed in politics is incorrect. Both NewSpace and OldSpace have lobbyists and are involved in the political game. No one is "politically pure."

Appreciate your confirmation that this piece was pure lobbying and political gaming by OldSpace.
"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 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #52 on: 02/22/2016 06:13 PM »
On schedule for 2018/2021...
On budget...

By any measure*, both are false.

I agree that on the basis of what we've heard from NASA lately, the 2018 and 2021 dates are not going to be kept.

As for budget, though, notice that the author claims only that SLS is on budget -- Orion's compliance or lack thereof with budget is not mentioned.  With Orion running about a billion dollars a year and SLS about twice that, we can infer that the delays equate to big cost overruns.  Technically, though, to establish whether either one is or is not on budget, there would have to be a projected budget to compare to.  Has anyone seen such a budget?
« Last Edit: 02/22/2016 06:14 PM by Proponent »

Online eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #53 on: 02/22/2016 06:37 PM »
  Excuse me for butting in, I'm not totally used to internet protocol yet [computers are for buying albums and reading NSF.com], but what the heck is wrong with the Orion program? Seems like this is getting ridiculous, especially considering how far back this program goes, in one form or the other. I am a big pro-NASA guy and at this point the only excuse I can excuse would be a delay of the year or two to get SLS/Orion reoriented back to lunar exploration ASAP; the endless delays are inexcusable. I'm fully prepared to get blown out-of-the-water on this but man... ::)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7285
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2935
  • Likes Given: 870
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #54 on: 02/22/2016 09:17 PM »
Guess what politically involved entity has written an op-ed now that the president's budget proposal is taking bites out of SLS and Orion:

http://spacenews.com/upon-closer-look-nasas-exploration-systems-are-game-changers/

I am pretty sure you didn't call CSF a "politically involved entity" when they posted an op-ed on SpaceNews. Implying that OldSpace are the only ones immersed in politics is incorrect. Both NewSpace and OldSpace have lobbyists and are involved in the political game. No one is "politically pure."
That's correct, I didn't.  But mainly on account of not having spotted the CSF op-ed.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4793
  • Liked: 2876
  • Likes Given: 4037
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #55 on: 02/22/2016 10:35 PM »
  Excuse me for butting in, I'm not totally used to internet protocol yet [computers are for buying albums and reading NSF.com], but what the heck is wrong with the Orion program? Seems like this is getting ridiculous, especially considering how far back this program goes, in one form or the other. I am a big pro-NASA guy and at this point the only excuse I can excuse would be a delay of the year or two to get SLS/Orion reoriented back to lunar exploration ASAP; the endless delays are inexcusable. I'm fully prepared to get blown out-of-the-water on this but man... ::)

No excusing required... butting in is what we do here.

Orion technology does go back fifty years, water landing and USNavy retrieval included.  Abort system... 1960, heat shield... 1960 (maybe '65), parachutes..., no reuse..., short duration habitation..., but they did add another couch.  Boeing is building a fractionally smaller capsule with a modern pusher abort system and doing land landings -- for a couple billion dollars and in three years or so. Extra couch included.

SLS uses similarly dated technology, though maybe parts are a decade younger. All expendible including the incredibly expensive RS-25s which are were reusable. Same with the boosters.

Trying to sell this system because it goes fast is lipstick on a pig.
(Sorry porcine readers)
« Last Edit: 02/22/2016 10:40 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2155
  • Likes Given: 5090
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #56 on: 02/22/2016 10:53 PM »
Gee, with that headline I thought they were announcing "warp drive" or something... ???
« Last Edit: 02/22/2016 10:53 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2168
  • Likes Given: 2675
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #57 on: 02/22/2016 10:58 PM »
Both NewSpace and OldSpace have lobbyists and are involved in the political game. No one is "politically pure."

Just so no one has to read between the lines, who is OldSpace and who is NewSpace (a list would be nice)?

And why?

I ask because I've noticed that "NewSpace" as a name has been falling out of use, but even when it has been used it's mainly been shorthand for only one company.

Just curious.
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 notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1681
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #58 on: 02/23/2016 02:51 PM »
Both NewSpace and OldSpace have lobbyists and are involved in the political game. No one is "politically pure."

Just so no one has to read between the lines, who is OldSpace and who is NewSpace (a list would be nice)?

And why?

I ask because I've noticed that "NewSpace" as a name has been falling out of use, but even when it has been used it's mainly been shorthand for only one company.

Just curious.
Sometimes I just can't resist semantics. When those terms are used it almost always implies that "old space" is a pejorative. The exact definition seems to change with what is being debated and who is trying to make a point with them. For example some companies get put in both categories. When talking about Defense Department procurement ULA is "old space". However if the debate involves NASA human spaceflight especially including SLS then ULA is "new space". The funny thing about the new/old space thing is that you can make a comment like "I ask because I've noticed that "NewSpace" as a name has been falling out of use, but even when it has been used it's mainly been shorthand for only one company." and we all know which company you are talking about.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 305
Re: NASA FY 2017 Budget Request
« Reply #59 on: 02/23/2016 03:25 PM »
Every time I try to think of a definition, the definition collapses because they all want to make money and they all do it with similar customers (or at least want to have similar customers).

Tags: