NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[Jamie Young]

Utterly baffling. I know you have a thing about mentioning planes in your posts for some reason, but you keep talking as if anyone in the American public is going over NASA's budget expenditure each year.

I doubt 0.00001 percent of them do.

People are only interested in cool missions.

[SkyKing]

Utterly baffling. I know you have a thing about mentioning planes in your posts for some reason, but you keep talking as if anyone in the American public is going over NASA's budget expenditure each year.

I doubt 0.00001 percent of them do.

People are only interested in cool missions.

what makes you think that the "moon" or "Mars" is a "cool" mission for the American people?  There has been no massive uprising as Cx Was canned.

Sky King

[Jamie Young]

what makes you think that the "moon" or "Mars" is a "cool" mission for the American people? 

I think you're on the wrong site. You should be on "Space flight is boring.com".

[A_M_Swallow]

I suspect that we have been defining the mission incorrectly - instead of "return to the Moon and Mars"  NASA has to organise the much more difficult
"organise frequent trips to the Moon and Mars".

NASA does not have to pay for all the trips or even own all the infrastructure but will have to ensure that they are possible.

[KEdward5]

A manned mission to Mars would be the biggest TV event in the history of the planet and the proudest moment in American history, and there's people (sorry, one person) worried about a few of their tax bucks, bucks we'd get charged anyway, bucks that would end up being spent on far more random and useless nonsense.

Unbelievable!

[Robotbeat]

A manned mission to Mars would be the biggest TV event in the history of the planet and the proudest moment in American history, and there's people (sorry, one person) worried about a few of their tax bucks, bucks we'd get charged anyway, bucks that would end up being spent on far more random and useless nonsense.

Unbelievable!

I very much agree with this.

However. Congress.

[simonbp]

The approximate total cost of Apollo was $185 billion in 2010 USD, between 1960 (when funding really began) and 1973, giving an average of about $14 billion a year. That's not too different from the current NASA HSF budget...

The current HSF Budget is about half of NASA's total budget.

So for FY2010, Space Operations is $6,180.6 million and Exploration is $3,779.8 million. Add that to 50% of Cross-Agency Support (=$1771.7 million) and you get a total of $11.7 billion, or 83% of Apollo's average funding level.

But, you know, handwaving is always better than real numbers...

[RocketEconomist327]

Just watched the whole hearing.  I now convinced that there are members on both sides of the isle that:

1) have no damn clue about what the hell is going on
2) only view NASA as a jobs program
3) have staffers that are complete "yes men/women"

/boggle

Only NASA can save US Manned Spaceflight... what a croc.

VR
RE327

[Rabidpanda]

Utterly baffling. I know you have a thing about mentioning planes in your posts for some reason, but you keep talking as if anyone in the American public is going over NASA's budget expenditure each year.

I doubt 0.00001 percent of them do.

People are only interested in cool missions.

I don't think SkyKing is suggesting that people are carefully looking at how much NASA spends each year.  All it takes is one newspaper headline to communicate the cost of a program.

In my opinion people's aversion to expensive space exploration endeavors is illogical, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.  Imagine the headline, "Obama announces 200 billion dollar plan to land humans on Mars"  Do you seriously think that the majority of the American people would read that and not question why we are spending so much money on something that has no immediate benefits to the average person, simply because it's a 'cool mission'?  It doesn't matter if it's spread out over ten years and the yearly budget is only a tiny fraction of all our spending; people will see that number and shout "waste!" in the blink of an eye.

The fact that SkyKing (and myself for that matter) accepts this fact does not mean that he thinks space is boring, or that a mars mission is bad idea.  He is just being realistic about the level of public support such a program would experience.  In my opinion people who deny this are ignoring the hard truth because it hurts their personal dreams of space exploration.  The fact of the matter is that in this current political environment any government spending is criticzed, even if it has real tangible benefits for the taxpayer; how do you think would people react to spending a massive amount of money on something simply because it's a 'cool mission' and 'we haven't done it yet'?

[robertross]

I guess it's okay to post this ALL here:

http://science.house.gov/press-release/witnesses-say-future-nasa-human-space-flight-uncertain

Washington D.C. – Today, in a hearing of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, witnesses expressed serious concern about the lack of clear focus by the Administration on NASA’s transition from the Space Shuttle program toward development of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV).  These vital components of NASA’s human space flight program were outlined as top priorities in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, which was signed into law.

Discussing the Administration’s lack of compliance with the intent of Congress, Subcommittee Chairman Steven Palazzo (R-MS)said, “While a government-owned capability to extend deeper in space is a ‘nice-to-have,’ the Administration seems to reason there is no rush to develop such a system, arguing that we aren’t prepared – nor can we afford – to undertake a deep space mission in this decade.”

“I disagree, and I think the law is clear,” Palazzo said. “Congress expects NASA to develop a Space Launch System and Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle in time to serve as a back-up to the commercial companies, who will likely encounter delays. And just as importantly, by building a follow-on system now, NASA will provide continuity for the skilled engineers and technicians who underpin our nation’s space capabilities.”

The Administration’s FY2012 budget request does not adhere to the funding guidance in last year’s authorization bill, and seeks to redirect funding away from Exploration systems that would replace the capabilities NASA will lose with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.  Proposed Exploration systems funding is $1.24 billion below the amount specified in law, and is $2.5 billion below when comparing the two years FY2012 and FY2013.

Also at issue is NASA’s compliance with Congressional direction on extending and modifying the Constellation contracts, and the implications of NASA’s actions for the continued, uninterrupted progress on the MPCV and SLS.  Congressional intent, as reflected in authorization and appropriation language, seek to utilize the existing workforce and assets in order to limit the damage to the nation’s industrial base and workforce.

Attending today’s Subcommittee hearing, Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX)bluntly told Mr. Douglas Cooke, Associate Administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA, that “Congress is committed to ensuring that NASA follows the law,” and that “NASA should make the most expeditious choices possible to minimize the adverse impact on the aerospace workforce and industrial base.”

Representing companies that contract work for NASA’s space exploration program, Mr. Jim Maser, Chairman of the Corporate Membership Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, discussed the pressures of uncertainty these companies face.  Maser noted that there does not appear to be consensus between Congress and the Administration on priorities, or consensus even within the Administration.  “This uncertainty has our industry partners and suppliers very concerned about how we can position our businesses to meet NASA’s needs, while retaining our critical engineering and manufacturing talent.  It is creating a gap which our industry will not be able to fill.”  Drawing attention to the urgency of the situation Maser said, “the fact is that the space industrial base is not facing a crisis; we are in a crisis.”

“Designing, developing, testing, and manufacturing the hardware and software to explore space requires highly skilled people with unique knowledge and technical expertise which takes decades to develop,” Maser said. “These technical experts cannot be grown overnight, and once they leave the industry, they rarely return.”

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directed the agency to develop SLS and MPCV by building upon the technologies and extensive capabilities of the Space Shuttle and Constellation systems. In order to limit termination liability costs and avoid disruptions to the workforce and industrial base, the Act directs NASA to, “to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts.”

Addressing these ongoing contracts, Dr. Scott Pace, Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, said that this provision was a “prudent measure,” and that “the disruption that would have resulted from the wholesale cancellation of the Constellation contracts would have been harmful to the U.S. space industrial base.”  Pace highlighted the importance of the lessons learned from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, formed in the aftermath of the space shuttle Columbia accident.  He noted that the Administration does not seem to have learned the important lessons.  “With regard to the CAIB’s recommendations, NASA’s effort to transition from Constellation program designs to the Space Launch System can be seen as incomplete and arguably inadequate.”

[robertross]

From what I posted above:

"The Administration’s FY2012 budget request does not adhere to the funding guidance in last year’s authorization bill, and seeks to redirect funding away from Exploration systems that would replace the capabilities NASA will lose with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.  Proposed Exploration systems funding is $1.24 billion below the amount specified in law, and is $2.5 billion below when comparing the two years FY2012 and FY2013."

I just wanted to share these thoughts from those who are trying to vilify this architecture or that architecture:

It should also be noted that neither is it inline with the 'suggestions' of the Augustine Committee on what has been the 'chosen flexible path', which they said should fall under a 'less constrained budget'. Clearly we have diverged so far from THAT intent that any expectation of robust (or any form of) space exploration is becoming more and more a fantasy, rather than a reality. At the rate of declining budgets, there isn't likely to be ANY manned exploration unless they get serious with intent. Promises & hope don't get you much.

[robertross]

I highly recommend the testimony provided by Mr. Jim Maser.
He understands. Most in business usually do.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Maser%20testimony%20for%20March%2030%2C%202011%20Hearing%20NASA%20Exploration%20%28S%26A%29.pdf

[Jim]

Utterly baffling. I know you have a thing about mentioning planes in your posts for some reason, but you keep talking as if anyone in the American public is going over NASA's budget expenditure each year.

I doubt 0.00001 percent of them do.

People are only interested in cool missions.

I don't think SkyKing is suggesting that people are carefully looking at how much NASA spends each year.  All it takes is one newspaper headline to communicate the cost of a program.

In my opinion people's aversion to expensive space exploration endeavors is illogical, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.  Imagine the headline, "Obama announces 200 billion dollar plan to land humans on Mars"  Do you seriously think that the majority of the American people would read that and not question why we are spending so much money on something that has no immediate benefits to the average person, simply because it's a 'cool mission'?  It doesn't matter if it's spread out over ten years and the yearly budget is only a tiny fraction of all our spending; people will see that number and shout "waste!" in the blink of an eye.

The fact that SkyKing (and myself for that matter) accepts this fact does not mean that he thinks space is boring, or that a mars mission is bad idea.  He is just being realistic about the level of public support such a program would experience.  In my opinion people who deny this are ignoring the hard truth because it hurts their personal dreams of space exploration.  The fact of the matter is that in this current political environment any government spending is criticzed, even if it has real tangible benefits for the taxpayer; how do you think would people react to spending a massive amount of money on something simply because it's a 'cool mission' and 'we haven't done it yet'?

Bingo

[yg1968]

The approximate total cost of Apollo was $185 billion in 2010 USD, between 1960 (when funding really began) and 1973, giving an average of about $14 billion a year. That's not too different from the current NASA HSF budget...

The current HSF Budget is about half of NASA's total budget.

So for FY2010, Space Operations is $6,180.6 million and Exploration is $3,779.8 million. Add that to 50% of Cross-Agency Support (=$1771.7 million) and you get a total of $11.7 billion, or 83% of Apollo's average funding level.

But, you know, handwaving is always better than real numbers...

You are the one that's armwaving. First, you have lowered the average expense for Apollo by including years where the program was just starting or finishing creating a meaningless average number.

Secondly, I am not convinced that half of cross agency support is for HSF. The Augustine committee said that we can't afford Constellation based on real numbers (not using back of the envelop calculations like your just did). If you look at their numbers they considered that about half of NASA's budget goes to HSF.
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt#15

[robertross]

Okay, here's one people may not have seen yet:

From Cooke's testimony, page 4:

"The Authorization Act specified that the initial vehicle performance would range from 70 to 100 metric ton*1* (mT) to LEO, evolvable to 130 mT and that it use, to the extent practicable, existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the Space Shuttle and Orion and Ares I projects. Therefore, for the SLS, NASA has chosen a Reference Vehicle Design that is derived from Ares and Space Shuttle hardware. The current concept vehicles would utilize a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen core with five RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine-derived engines, five-segment solid rocket boosters, and a J-2X-based Upper Stage for the SLS as the 130 mT version of the heavy-lift vehicle – evolvable from the 70 to 100 mT version. This reference design would allow for use of existing Shuttle and Ares hardware assets in the near term, with the opportunity for upgrades and/or competition downstream for eventual upgrades in designs needed for affordable production."


"*1* The Authorization Act specified vehicle performance in terms of “tons” but NASA develops capability in terms of “metric tons.” Therefore, lift capability references in this testimony refer to metric tons."


Added ** to footnote for clarity and: now I want to see what congress does with this. Clearly Mr. Cooke got some 'wind' if this issue, and ensured his testimony was clear. It is, and that makes for an interesting situation now.

[Lars_J]

I highly recommend the testimony provided by Mr. Jim Maser.
He understands. Most in business usually do.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Maser%20testimony%20for%20March%2030%2C%202011%20Hearing%20NASA%20Exploration%20%28S%26A%29.pdf

Hey may understand the business, but has main argument boils down to saving the workforce, and indirectly the Shuttle/CxP contractors. While that is clearly important (especially from his perspective) - the primary objective should be to reduce the gap in both policy direction and HSF capability. The workforce should be secondary to that.

[Downix]

I highly recommend the testimony provided by Mr. Jim Maser.
He understands. Most in business usually do.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Maser%20testimony%20for%20March%2030%2C%202011%20Hearing%20NASA%20Exploration%20%28S%26A%29.pdf

Hey may understand the business, but has main argument boils down to saving the workforce, and indirectly the Shuttle/CxP contractors. While that is clearly important (especially from his perspective) - the primary objective should be to reduce the gap in both policy direction and HSF capability. The workforce should be secondary to that.

If you save the program, close the gap, the workforce will resolve itself.

[RocketEconomist327]

Utterly baffling. I know you have a thing about mentioning planes in your posts for some reason, but you keep talking as if anyone in the American public is going over NASA's budget expenditure each year.

I doubt 0.00001 percent of them do.

People are only interested in cool missions.

I don't think SkyKing is suggesting that people are carefully looking at how much NASA spends each year.  All it takes is one newspaper headline to communicate the cost of a program.

In my opinion people's aversion to expensive space exploration endeavors is illogical, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists.  Imagine the headline, "Obama announces 200 billion dollar plan to land humans on Mars"  Do you seriously think that the majority of the American people would read that and not question why we are spending so much money on something that has no immediate benefits to the average person, simply because it's a 'cool mission'?  It doesn't matter if it's spread out over ten years and the yearly budget is only a tiny fraction of all our spending; people will see that number and shout "waste!" in the blink of an eye.

The fact that SkyKing (and myself for that matter) accepts this fact does not mean that he thinks space is boring, or that a mars mission is bad idea.  He is just being realistic about the level of public support such a program would experience.  In my opinion people who deny this are ignoring the hard truth because it hurts their personal dreams of space exploration.  The fact of the matter is that in this current political environment any government spending is criticzed, even if it has real tangible benefits for the taxpayer; how do you think would people react to spending a massive amount of money on something simply because it's a 'cool mission' and 'we haven't done it yet'?

Agree with this statement except for my highlight.  People in DC do not mind spending the money as long as they are getting good value for it.  You have a lot of elected officials who look at the CxP kerfuffle and question whether NASA should be in the rocket business.

Almost every government agency has a lousy budget record so there is a lot of distrust with the numbers.

VR
RE327

[robertross]

I honestly don't know where to put this, either here in the Space Policy Section, or the HLV section, or the Orion section...but here it is: (from Cooke's testimony)

"While the current designs have been shown to be a good match with the requirements specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, affordability and sustainability are being re-examined and validated. Preliminary assessments indicate that environments and conditions driven by the Ares I vehicle, which drove the current Orion designs, tend to be more demanding than design-driving parameters of the SLS and therefore these new parameters will most likely not result in changes to Orion. This will, of course, be studied, verified, and tested as the designs for SLS mature. But at this point, NASA is confident that the robust design of the current Orion is such that integration with the SLS will not be a significant challenge."

Finally some good news for Orion...LOL

[yg1968]

It looks like talks are progressing on a long term FY2011 CR:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52267.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/152833-white-house-gop-edge-closer-to-spending-cut-deal