NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[Lars_J]

He could have been the hero and "saved" CxP by making tough changes within CxP and following up with modest increases in $$.

IMO it was more heroic to put CxP out of its misery. Sure it is chaotic right now, but the HSF future looks brighter now than before FY2011.

All IMO, of course. 

I'm not saying he should have done that, just that he could have done that.  He would be much more popular in Florida, Alabama and Texas if he would have worked it that way rather than his FY11.

Well good on him then for making hard choices even though it reduces his chance to be re-elected.

[pummuf]

Yes, but when Obama came in he could have embraced Constellation and used his early political capital to ensure the funding increases that would be necessary.  He is great at talking the talk about winning the future, etc., but he chose not to make that case; he basically chose to re-boot the whole thing.

He could have been the hero and "saved" CxP by making tough changes within CxP and following up with modest increases in $$.

I'm not saying he should have done that, just that he could have done that.  He would be much more popular in Florida, Alabama and Texas if he would have worked it that way rather than his FY11.

CxP wasn't worth saving. There was no groundbreaking new technology to justify the costs. The prime contractors had enjoyed monopolies on their shuttle parts for decades, along with a rationale to be the most expensive in the world. The cost+ contracts trained the contractors that they could make billions in R&D, even if they didn't make the schedule, even if they went over budget -- even if they never flew hardware. Obama did exactly the right thing.

[2552]

A CR extension of 2 weeks is likely to be passed by the House and Senate:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50384.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/146715-dem-senator-says-senate-has-accepted-house-gop-spending-plan

Here is a copy of the draft (2 week extension) House bill:
http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/March-18-CR_xml.pdf

It doesn't contain anything specific about NASA.

Here's the final passed version of the 2-week CR, and nothing NASA related in it. Many modifications to Public Law 111–117, the law that contains the contract termination/new start restrictions, but nothing like this language that was in the previous full-year CR passed by the House on February 19th.

What happened, was there a failed attempt to get the language inserted?

[psloss]

A CR extension of 2 weeks is likely to be passed by the House and Senate:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50384.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/146715-dem-senator-says-senate-has-accepted-house-gop-spending-plan

Here is a copy of the draft (2 week extension) House bill:
http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/March-18-CR_xml.pdf

It doesn't contain anything specific about NASA.

Here's the final passed version of the 2-week CR, and nothing NASA related in it. Many modifications to Public Law 111–117, the law that contains the contract termination/new start restrictions, but nothing like this language that was in the previous full-year CR passed by the House on February 19th.

What happened, was there a failed attempt to get the language inserted?

No, as noted earlier in the thread, this CR is about bigger issues than NASA policy -- it's only two weeks because the first thing that Congress leadership agreed to was that they didn't want a "government shutdown."  When this CR is signed into law, Congress will have another two weeks to try again to reach a compromise on overall funding levels for the remainder of the current FY.

Without funding in place at the end of the week, a shutdown would have had a large impact on day-to-day NASA operations (including some impact to the coverage of the current Shuttle mission to ISS).

[yg1968]

A CR extension of 2 weeks is likely to be passed by the House and Senate:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50384.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/146715-dem-senator-says-senate-has-accepted-house-gop-spending-plan

Here is a copy of the draft (2 week extension) House bill:
http://rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/March-18-CR_xml.pdf

It doesn't contain anything specific about NASA.

Here's the final passed version of the 2-week CR, and nothing NASA related in it. Many modifications to Public Law 111–117, the law that contains the contract termination/new start restrictions, but nothing like this language that was in the previous full-year CR passed by the House on February 19th.

Your link to the bill is now broken (the search has timed out). But here is a more permanent link to the bill that was passed by the House:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hjres44eh/pdf/BILLS-112hjres44eh.pdf

Like you said, nothing specific about NASA.

[yg1968]

Update on a Senate Appropriation bill:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110307-senate-bill-provide-orion-heavy-lifter.html

See also:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=7e62b4eb-ed09-4dd4-86f0-411534783127

NASA
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $18.5 Billion. This level is a reduction of $461 million, or 2.4 percent, below the FY 2011 request. A year of rethinking NASA’s investments to ensure a portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments resulted in a NASA Authorization Act signed in October 2010. At this level, NASA will not be provided any funds for requested but new long-range space technology research activities that have the potential to lead to new discoveries and new technologies that could improve life on Earth. However, it avoids an additional $412 million cut by the House that would disrupt ongoing science missions and cause layoffs of 4,500 middle class contractors who provide landscaping, IT, janitorial, and other services for NASA centers.

[Jeff Bingham]

Update on a Senate Appropriation bill:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110307-senate-bill-provide-orion-heavy-lifter.html

See also:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=7e62b4eb-ed09-4dd4-86f0-411534783127

NASA
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $18.5 Billion. This level is a reduction of $461 million, or 2.4 percent, below the FY 2011 request. A year of rethinking NASA’s investments to ensure a portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments resulted in a NASA Authorization Act signed in October 2010. At this level, NASA will not be provided any funds for requested but new long-range space technology research activities that have the potential to lead to new discoveries and new technologies that could improve life on Earth. However, it avoids an additional $412 million cut by the House that would disrupt ongoing science missions and cause layoffs of 4,500 middle class contractors who provide landscaping, IT, janitorial, and other services for NASA centers.

I would hope this begins to clarify the degree to which the Senate is serious about implementation of PL 111-267 and moving forward on SLS/MPCV development. $18.5 is less than the authorized $19, but a healthy level (in this fiscal environment) above the $17.4 FY 2008 level that has been discussed by the House as the "targeted level" across the full government. Outcome remains to be seen, but this is a solid "statement" of support for the path outlined in the law, IMHO.

[yg1968]

Update on a Senate Appropriation bill:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110307-senate-bill-provide-orion-heavy-lifter.html

See also:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=7e62b4eb-ed09-4dd4-86f0-411534783127

NASA
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $18.5 Billion. This level is a reduction of $461 million, or 2.4 percent, below the FY 2011 request. A year of rethinking NASA’s investments to ensure a portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments resulted in a NASA Authorization Act signed in October 2010. At this level, NASA will not be provided any funds for requested but new long-range space technology research activities that have the potential to lead to new discoveries and new technologies that could improve life on Earth. However, it avoids an additional $412 million cut by the House that would disrupt ongoing science missions and cause layoffs of 4,500 middle class contractors who provide landscaping, IT, janitorial, and other services for NASA centers.

I would hope this begins to clarify the degree to which the Senate is serious about implementation of PL 111-267 and moving forward on SLS/MPCV development. $18.5 is less than the authorized $19, but a healthy level (in this fiscal environment) above the $17.4 FY 2008 level that has been discussed by the House as the "targeted level" across the full government. Outcome remains to be seen, but this is a solid "statement" of support for the path outlined in the law, IMHO.

It seems that neither the House bill nor the Senate bill are likely to pass in the Senate:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/147967-dems-seek-budget-vote-game-change

[Robotbeat]

Yup, no new technology. Great. Now, we'll still be circling in LEO but now with a bigger rocket!

[Jeff Bingham]

Update on a Senate Appropriation bill:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110307-senate-bill-provide-orion-heavy-lifter.html

See also:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=7e62b4eb-ed09-4dd4-86f0-411534783127

NASA
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $18.5 Billion. This level is a reduction of $461 million, or 2.4 percent, below the FY 2011 request. A year of rethinking NASA’s investments to ensure a portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments resulted in a NASA Authorization Act signed in October 2010. At this level, NASA will not be provided any funds for requested but new long-range space technology research activities that have the potential to lead to new discoveries and new technologies that could improve life on Earth. However, it avoids an additional $412 million cut by the House that would disrupt ongoing science missions and cause layoffs of 4,500 middle class contractors who provide landscaping, IT, janitorial, and other services for NASA centers.

I would hope this begins to clarify the degree to which the Senate is serious about implementation of PL 111-267 and moving forward on SLS/MPCV development. $18.5 is less than the authorized $19, but a healthy level (in this fiscal environment) above the $17.4 FY 2008 level that has been discussed by the House as the "targeted level" across the full government. Outcome remains to be seen, but this is a solid "statement" of support for the path outlined in the law, IMHO.

It seems that neither the House bill nor the Senate bill are likely to pass in the Senate:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/147967-dems-seek-budget-vote-game-change

Not in their precise current form, though it's too soon to say...these are both "going in" negotiating positions, and anything that comes out will have to be a compromise between the two. And remember that the focus is not on NASA, but on the broader overall issue of the level of cuts that can be agreed to. NASA is down in the weeds and not a big enough of a slice to make much more of a "contribution" to the level of cuts being discussed government-wide. The negotiations are likely to focus on more "big ticket" items elsewhere.

[Namechange User]

Yup, no new technology. Great. Now, we'll still be circling in LEO but now with a bigger rocket!

This all goes back to what I have been saying for sometime now.  How does this "new technology" fit in with the now re-branded "flexible path to Mars"?

Where is the first destination on the path?  Maybe an L-point?  When do we go there?  What do we do?  Do we need "advanced in space propulsion" to get there?  Do we need automated rendezvous technology?  Do we need orbital debris clean-up to do it?

As I have said, tech development is going to be necessary.  It would be great to do it, and do it now, and have it dovetail into a clearly intended use at some point in some sort of baselined architecture that takes advantages of existing technologies at first along with what we need and hope to develop for future use.  However, none of that has happened and it is all just a big blank slate still two years on.  With no answers and nothing to show why this is necessary, etc you get what you get and the stuff that is tangible, deemed necessary for those first initial steps will likely get all the attention as much as that may bother some.  That seems to be what has happened here. 

This is why this is the beginning of the end that has been a train wreck in the making for a long time and warned about by many.  The unwise end of Shuttle.  The consequently slow death of ISS and "commercial".  An SLS/MPCV with no real missions yet defined by those who need to define it. 

[Jeff Bingham]

Yup, no new technology. Great. Now, we'll still be circling in LEO but now with a bigger rocket!

It's not as black and white as you seem to think, notwithstanding the characterization of a single journalist. There will be money for technology development; it is likely not to be at the level requested, and likely to be more "mission-focused" as opposed to technology for technology's sake, because it was agreed last year and incorporated into the law that mission-driven, focused R&D was a higher priority.

[Robotbeat]

Yup, no new technology. Great. Now, we'll still be circling in LEO but now with a bigger rocket!

It's not as black and white as you seem to think, notwithstanding the characterization of a single journalist. There will be money for technology development; it is likely not to be at the level requested, and likely to be more "mission-focused" as opposed to technology for technology's sake, because it was agreed last year and incorporated into the law that mission-driven, focused R&D was a higher priority.

Well, it's good that it isn't ripped out entirely, but seeing as we are now looking at a two- (or three-) way compromise between positions that all include a decrease in funding, this doesn't look good. Granted, it can always be worse, but I still have a hard time believing that we will get very far when much of Congress (the vocal part, not necessarily the majority) seems to want NASA-built rockets at the expense of payloads even if there is a significantly smaller budget than almost anyone envisioned a couple years ago. If CxP's rockets failed because of lack of sufficient budget (and we never even got started on the lander for the same reason), what hope is there for SLS (etc) in the age of austerity?

[yg1968]

Here is the text of the Senate Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 198):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.download&id=2a092519-fc3c-491c-866f-613d9745f2ee

See also this link for a table:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/03/08/more-details-about-senates-proposed-fy11-cr-for-nasa/

On page 198 of the Senate Appropriation bill:

(b) Of the amounts appropriated by this division for
10 ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Explo
11 ration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
12 Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, and not less than
13 $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy lift launch vehicle
14 system which shall have a lift capability not less than 130
15 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core
16 elements developed simultaneously.

P.S. Here is a table that compares the funding under the Senate and House Appropriation bills to the NASA Authorization bill:

[Robotbeat]

Here is the text of the Senate Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 198):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.download&id=2a092519-fc3c-491c-866f-613d9745f2ee

See also this link for a table:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/03/08/more-details-about-senates-proposed-fy11-cr-for-nasa/

On page 198 of the Senate Appropriation bill:

(b) Of the amounts appropriated by this division for
10 ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Explo
11 ration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
12 Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, and not less than
13 $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy lift launch vehicle
14 system which shall have a lift capability not less than 130
15 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core
16 elements developed simultaneously.

Yay.

If this passes (and is not soon amended), we will not see SLS launch in this decade.

[yg1968]

Here is the text of the Senate Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 198):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.download&id=2a092519-fc3c-491c-866f-613d9745f2ee

See also this link for a table:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/03/08/more-details-about-senates-proposed-fy11-cr-for-nasa/

On page 198 of the Senate Appropriation bill:

(b) Of the amounts appropriated by this division for
10 ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Explo
11 ration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
12 Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, and not less than
13 $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy lift launch vehicle
14 system which shall have a lift capability not less than 130
15 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core
16 elements developed simultaneously.

Yay.

If this passes (and is not soon amended), we will not see SLS launch in this decade.

If I remember 51D post's on similar wording in past proposals, he said that this language was not meant to contradict the 2010 NASA Authorization bill but to simply confirm what they have said previously.  In other words, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The HLV has to be evolvable to 130 tons. That was already the case.

51D Mascot didn't say this but I think that it also means that the J-2X contract should not be terminated. But given the fact that the J-2X contract is for about $1.2 billion and that about half of it has already been paid, this shouldn't make much of a difference.

[Jeff Bingham]

Here is the text of the Senate Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 198):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.download&id=2a092519-fc3c-491c-866f-613d9745f2ee

See also this link for a table:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/03/08/more-details-about-senates-proposed-fy11-cr-for-nasa/

On page 198 of the Senate Appropriation bill:

(b) Of the amounts appropriated by this division for
10 ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Explo
11 ration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
12 Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, and not less than
13 $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy lift launch vehicle
14 system which shall have a lift capability not less than 130
15 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core
16 elements developed simultaneously.

Yay.

If this passes (and is not soon amended), we will not see SLS launch in this decade.

If I remember 51D post's on similar wording in past proposals, he said that this language was not meant to contradict the 2010 NASA Authorization bill but to simply confirm what they have said previously.  In other words, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The HLV has to be evolvable to 130 tons. That was already the case.

51D Mascot didn't say this but I think that it also means that the J-2X contract should not be terminated. But given that the J-2X contract is for about $1.2 billion and that about half of it has already been paid, this shouldn't make much of a difference.

Correct on both points.

[Robotbeat]

The bill is what the bill says, though.

All the inside information in the world doesn't compensate if Congress passes a bad law. What Congress passed previously was bad.

An SLS without payloads is a waste of money, folks.

[Gregori]

Yup, no new technology. Great. Now, we'll still be circling in LEO but now with a bigger rocket!

It could be worse. We could be just developing a random series of technologies that may or may not be useful in a mission that hasn't been properly defined.

I am all for new technologies, but I would be worried if there selection wasn't guided by a coherent and defined mission. NASA has done a lot of these technology development programs before there has been a long string of failures and things that didn't lead anywhere.

I actually quite appalled by both plans. Building an overly expensive rocket on old technology with no payloads or proper missions planned for it looks like a disaster. Trying a random bunch of "nice to have" technologies with no mission guiding their selection and with no critical path seems equally bad and a waste of money.

I think there needs to be better defined goals!!!!

[Robotbeat]

Yup, no new technology. Great. Now, we'll still be circling in LEO but now with a bigger rocket!

It could be worse. We could be just developing a random series of technologies that may or may not be useful in a mission that hasn't been properly defined. ...

That'd be far better. A big rocket (made out of existing components) doesn't advance the state-of-the-art, so after it's canceled, we're no better than we were before. That's not the case for technology development which advances the TRL of many technologies past the TRL valley-of-the-shadow-of-death and puts them in range of the next exploration architecture. EDIT:Not only that, but new technology development has a far better chance of spin-offs for the rest of the economy.