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.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATIONThe 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 prioritiesof the science and applications communities, a savings of $102 million from the 2017 annualizedCR 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.
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.
CSF Statement on the Trump Administration’s FY18 Budget Requestby 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.”
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.
Quote from: Graham on 03/16/2017 11:43 amI 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.
I know Trump doesn't think NASA should study the Earth (which of course ignores that it's in the charter),
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/16/2017 02:49 pmQuote from: Graham on 03/16/2017 11:43 amI 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.
Quote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 03:17 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 03/16/2017 02:49 pmQuote from: Graham on 03/16/2017 11:43 amI 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.
Quote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 03:30 pmWhat's it's secondary objectivesSolar storm monitoring--i.e. space weather.Quote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 03:30 pmthat 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?
What's it's secondary objectives
that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?
Quote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 03:38 pmYep. 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?
Yep. But I hoped things like this would escape his notice.
Quote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 03:46 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 03/16/2017 03:44 pmQuote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 03:38 pmYep. 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?
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/16/2017 03:44 pmQuote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 03:38 pmYep. 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?
What's it's secondary objectives & that still doesn't answer why try cutting such a piffling amount, it looks silly or even petty?
Quote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 03:30 pmWhat'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.