Author Topic: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)  (Read 58768 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #41 on: 05/17/2022 02:30 pm »
https://twitter.com/genejm29/status/1526557183151902728
Wait a d*** minute. “Don’t have a way to sustain a crew on Mars for a year”??This is simply not true.

I support nuclear power development, but the claim we can’t sustain a crew on the surface, WHICH IS SAFER THAN ORBIT, is plain false. If we can get crew to the surface like we can get crew to the lunar surface for Artemis and do the other aspects of a Mars mission, then we absolutely can sustain the crew for a year, and it’s actually the safest way to do the mission, with or without nuclear propulsion.

I’m worried that false assumptions like this are getting baked into NASA’s plans. And communicating incorrect information like this to Congress is a recipe for continued failure.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2022 03:37 pm by Robotbeat »
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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #45 on: 06/02/2022 01:16 pm »
House committee questions proposed delay in NASA asteroid mission [in the FY23 NASA budget]:
https://spacenews.com/house-committee-questions-proposed-delay-in-nasa-asteroid-mission/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #47 on: 06/08/2022 04:37 pm »
Why does NEOS keep getting throttled? I genuinely don't understand. Congress explicitly told NASA to get it done almost 20 years ago, it's not an expensive mission, and the potential benefits are huge.

I thought once it got moved out of Discovery Program it would be smooth sailing.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #48 on: 06/08/2022 09:14 pm »
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1527129652661207040

What?!?!?!  Somebody in Congress took note of SLS's cost overruns?!?!?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
« Last Edit: 06/22/2022 01:06 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #51 on: 06/22/2022 01:05 am »
The report which has more details should come out on June 27th.
« Last Edit: 06/22/2022 12:38 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #52 on: 06/22/2022 01:20 am »
For those that were hoping that Senator Shelby's retirement in January 2023 will diminish SLS support in Congress, notice that this House CJS Appropriations CJS bill has very strong support for SLS and Orion.

Quote from: pages 88 and 89 of the House CJS Bill
6 [...] Provided, That not less
7 than $1,338,700,000 shall be for the Orion Multi-Purpose
8 Crew Vehicle: Provided further, That not less than
9 $2,600,000,000 shall be for the Space Launch System
10 (SLS) launch vehicle, which shall have a lift capability not
11 less than 130 metric tons and which shall have core ele
12 ments and an Exploration Upper Stage developed simulta
13 neously to be used to the maximum extent practicable, in
14 cluding for Earth to Moon missions and Moon landings:
15 Provided further, That of the amounts provided for SLS,
16 not less than $600,000,000 shall be for SLS Block 1B
17 development including the Exploration Upper Stage and
18 associated systems including related facilitization, to sup
19 port an SLS Block 1B mission available to launch on
20 Artemis IV in addition to the planned Block 1 missions
21 for Artemis I through Artemis III: Provided further, That
22 up to $749,900,000 shall be for Exploration Ground Sys
23 tems and associated Block 1B activities, including up to
24 $232,100,000 for a second mobile launch platform: Pro
25 vided further, That the National Aeronautics and Space

1 Administration shall provide to the Committees on Appro
2 priations of the House of Representatives and the Senate,
3 concurrent with the annual budget submission, a 5-year
4 budget profile for an integrated system that includes the
5 SLS, the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, and associ
6 ated ground systems that will ensure a crewed launch as
7 early as possible, as well as a system-based funding profile
8 for a sustained launch cadence that contemplates the use
9 of an SLS Block 1B cargo variant with an 8.4 meter fair
10 ing and associated ground systems.
« Last Edit: 06/22/2022 01:24 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #53 on: 06/22/2022 12:40 pm »
Fiscal Year 2023 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
Subcommittee Markup
Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 - 7:00pm

https://appropriations.house.gov/events/markups/fiscal-year-2023-commerce-justice-science-and-related-agencies-appropriations-bill

« Last Edit: 06/22/2022 12:41 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #55 on: 06/28/2022 02:15 am »
The Report to the House CJS Appropriations bill has come out (NASA starts at page 117):
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20220628/114966/HMKP-117-AP00-20220628-SD004.PDF

Quote from: page 129 of the Report
Human Landing System (HLS).—The Committee includes $1,485,600,000, as requested, and $290,600,000 above the fiscal year 2022 level, for the HLS. The Committee applauds NASA’s efforts to ensure competition among potential providers for a future sustained HLS services capability, and expects that NASA, through the Sustaining Lunar Development program, will commit significant resources to develop multiple HLS systems for use in the Artemis program once additional contracts are awarded.

https://appropriations.house.gov/events/markups/fy-2023-energy-and-water-development-and-related-agencies-and-commerce-justice
« Last Edit: 06/30/2022 01:28 pm by yg1968 »

Offline MGoDuPage

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #56 on: 06/28/2022 08:56 pm »
The Report to the House CJS Appropriations bill has come out (NASA starts at page 117):
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP00/20220628/114966/HMKP-117-AP00-20220628-SD004.PDF

Quote from: page 129 of the Report
Human Landing System (HLS).—The Committee includes $1,485,600,000, as requested, and $290,600,000 above the fiscal year 2022 level, for the HLS. The Committee applauds NASA’s efforts to ensure competition among potential providers for a future sustained HLS services capability, and expects that NASA, through the Sustaining Lunar Development program, will commit significant resources to develop multiple HLS systems for use in the Artemis program once additional contracts are awarded.


For context, just 3 paragraphs above the HLS language in the same report.....

Quote from: page 129 of the Report
Space Launch System (SLS).—The Committee provides $2,600,000,000, equal to the fiscal year 2022 appropriation, and $20,200,000 above the Administration’s request. Within the amount
provided, not less than $600,000,000 is provided for SLS Block 1B Development. The Committee also applauds NASA’s efforts to ensure competition among potential providers for a future sustained super heavy launch services capability, and expects that NASA will commit significant resources to develop multiple super heavy launch systems for use in the Artemis program once additional contracts are awarded.

OK, OK..... that last part isn't in the report.

The ACTUAL page 129 of the report is FAR more predictable:

Quote from: page 129 of the Report
Space Launch System (SLS).—The Committee provides $2,600,000,000, equal to the fiscal year 2022 appropriation, and $20,200,000 above the Administration’s request. Within the amount
provided, not less than $600,000,000 is provided for SLS Block 1B Development.

That's it.

In other words, when it comes to "ensuring competition among potential providers" for mission-critical elements of the Artemis program, what's good for the goose is apparently NOT good for the gander?  Of course, they don't make a peep about the various cost overruns, schedule delays, and ballooning cost-per-launch estimates that SLS has experienced over the last several years & in fact give them a little "atta boy" by ensuring that at least $600M will be specifically used to develop the next block. Maybe Congress felt that COVID still created enough budget/schedule chaos in the last few years such that it's decideding to give various Artemis elements that are over budget/behind schedule some slack?

Not so fast, my friends!  Sandwiched between the SLS & HLS entries--just a few lines away from each--we get this gem:

Quote from: page 129 of the Report
Mobile Launcher 2 (ML 2).—Within the amounts provided for EGS, up to $232,100,000 may be used for the ML 2. According to NASA’s Office of the Inspector General, the ML 2 has ballooned in cost from an estimated $380 million to nearly $1 billion. Already, Congress has appropriated nearly $500 million to ML 2, yet construction has not begun. Accordingly, the Committee includes a provision in the bill limiting the use of funds for ML 2 until 30 days after NASA submits a plan to Congress, GAO and the Office of Inspector General detailing a cost and schedule baseline for the ML 2. The Committee further urges NASA to consider new methods of ensuring that cost and schedule estimates are met on this project, including the possible use of outside management advisory services.

 ::) ??? :-[


To be 100% clear:

I have no issues with Congress starting to put the screws on ML-2 at this point.  And as much as I don't like it, I can at least *understand* why & can stomach (in limited doses) when Congress & NASA tout the virtues of "ensuring competition among potential providers" for HLS from the rooftops but staying stone-cold silent about the topic when discussing SLS.

But for Congress to do ALL of the following within inches of each other:


•   Highlight ways in which a major element is over budget & under-performing and require additional accountability for that element because of it.

•   Declines to do the same for a second major element that is also over budget & under-performing, but instead ensures that NASA spends $600M on the next phase of that second element.

•   Doesn't require NASA to ensure competition & redundancy for that second major element, even though that second major element is a single point of failure & the entire Artemis program would be greatly threatened if it were to fail.

•   When addressing a third major element that is still largely on track and might VASTLY surpass the original requirements and stay within budget, stay silent on all those positive attributes & instead rediscover their zeal for "ensuring competition & redundancy" for all single point of failure elements in the Artemis program that they've apparently been harboring all along.



...... Let's just say that's a *bit* over my tolerance thresholds for one afternoon.


Time for me to step away & get some fresh air.
« Last Edit: 06/28/2022 11:51 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #57 on: 06/30/2022 02:09 pm »
It seems that many of the provisions in the bill have bipartisan support, at 3h52m, Aderholt says that he is happy that the bill contains 100% of the funding needed for SLS (block 1b):


Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: FY 2023 NASA Budget (March 28th)
« Reply #58 on: 06/30/2022 02:16 pm »
FY2023 Funding for NASA Takes Another Step Forward, NEO Surveyor Gets a Boost:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/fy2023-funding-for-nasa-takes-another-step-forward-neo-surveyor-gets-a-boost/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0