LIVE: NASA FY14 Budget Proposal - April 10, 2013

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Q) Keith Cowing asking about "Mars in the goal, pound your shoe on the table". Have I missed something? Asks about ISS extension too.

Bolden: Our central focus is to lead the world in space exploration. We will sustain ISS with commercial crew and cargo. We'll respond to the President's challenge. And continues our ground breaking...

Pretty much read off a script and ended with "thanks very much". Didn't answer the question.

Chris - back story on this can be found here

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks, and by the way, the "have I missed something?" was what Keith asked.....as in where is the proof Bolden has pounded his shoe.

[Chris Bergin]

CFO: No discussion with the space mining interests over the asteroid target. Mining has not been first and foremost in our thoughts.

[Chris Bergin]

Q) The 31 percent decrease in education.

CFO: Don't think it will decrease, but will increase the impact of the assets. It'll change how we do it. Every mission will contribute to education. We'll be streamlining, etc. It's very exciting for NASA.

Over.

[Star One]

CFO: No discussion with the space mining interests over the asteroid target. Mining has not been first and foremost in our thoughts.

Perhaps they should include it and look to do a public-private partnership on it?

[Chris Bergin]

Right, I'm going to get something to eat and then spend some hours on that asteroid mission, so keep the thread going - and it can be used for reaction comments.

[yg1968]

OSTP ‏@whitehouseostp 10m
WATCH LIVE at 1:30pm EDT: Administration S&T officials discuss 2014 Federal R&D Budget: http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/aaas/130410/# … #STEM

The OSTP briefing with Holdren and Bolden is archived here:
http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/aaas/130410/globe_show/default_go_archive.cfm?gsid=2244&type=flv&test=0&live=0

[yg1968]

Here is the zipped mp3 file of the Bolden and Robinson teleconference on the NASA FY 2014 budget:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/23177526/FY+2014+Budget+-Bolden+and+Robinson.zip

Here is the presentation that goes with it:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740427main_NASAFY2014SummaryBriefFinal.pdf

The Bolden and Robinson presentation was also recorded by US Stream (with slides) here:
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/31257039

[deltaV]

The knitty gritty budget documentation (a few hundred page worth) is at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740512main_FY2014%20CJ%20for%20Online.pdf .

Here are some of the numbers from there (millions of dollars):

                   FY '12 FY '13 FY '14 FY '15 FY '16 FY '17 FY '18
MPCV:              1200.0     -- 1026.8 1024.9 1027.1 1027.1 1028.3
SLS:               1497.1     -- 1384.9 1356.5 1360.2 1354.4 1345.4
Expl gnd sys:       304.5     --  318.2  408.4  414.2  436.8  445.8
Comm crew develop:  392.0     --  821.4  821.4  821.4  590.0  371.0
ISS Crew & Cargo:  1185.7     -- 1503.8 1681.8 1686.7 1819.7 2019.6

The FY 2012 numbers are actual, FY 2013 numbers are annualized continuing resolution estimates (which were apparently only calculated for the broadest line items), FY 2014 are what this current proposal is all about, and FY 2015-2018 are notional placeholders. Note that commercial crew development and certification money appears in the exploration budget but the actual procurement of crew and cargo appears in the space operations budget. The budget for ISS Crew and Cargo includes money for Soyuz as well as money for SpaceX, OSC, and so on.

[Prober]

Terrible webcast, can only just make them out.

Agreed, after I heard this is a budget based on no reductions (signed into law) not worth the time listening to it.

[spectre9]

There it is!

Boom! Commercial Crew $821m!

No chance.

The appropriate drop from SLS to cover the difference

Commercial Crew test flights starting in 2015.

Space Technology $743m?

That would be nice but I think it's unlikely.

Earth Science is a monster budget, I don't see why they should get so much more than planetary. Are they a space agency or an Earth agency?

They say the Mars 2020 rover is included but with such a small budget they will not be able to do a sample return. Is Charlie sabotaging Mars 2020 to get it cancelled so they can change to the #2 priority of Europa?

Mostly the same old thing for NASA. Lots of money to maintain all the old stuff.

[deltaV]

The FY 2010 budget request had about $9 billion/year for human space flight. The Augustine Committee determined that this level of funding (the "constrained" budget) was insufficient to do any significant exploration. The current FY 2014 budget request is for a bit less than that level of funding. Surprisingly the current NASA plans have key dates similar to those in the deep space "less constrained budget" case studied by the Augustine Committee (page 91 of report and slide 27 of the "Sally Charts") despite the budget being about $3 billion per year less. I guess sometimes margins combined with good luck are sufficient for good news, "Hofstadter's law" notwithstanding. (That law is "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.")

Augustine report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
Augustine "Sally charts":
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt
FY 2010 budget request:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/345948main_1_Introduction_FY_2010_UPDATED_final.pdf
FY 2014 budget request:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740512main_FY2014%20CJ%20for%20Online.pdf

[robertross]

Right, I'm going to get something to eat and then spend some hours on that asteroid mission, so keep the thread going - and it can be used for reaction comments.

Thanks Chris.

My own 2 cents is that it would seem NASA is to be put on life support, much like the rest of America, just keeping a holding pattern (holding its head above water): all because they can't sort out their priorities in government circles. It's crippling their country & their ability to move forward in any meaningful way.

(and as an aside: the infrastructure issue is even more troubling for America)

With erosion happening around the outside edges of all these NASA programs, we might just see (more) whole programs get shut down in the coming years.

[KEdward5]

Right, I'm going to get something to eat and then spend some hours on that asteroid mission, so keep the thread going - and it can be used for reaction comments.

Thanks Chris.

My own 2 cents is that it would seem NASA is to be put on life support, much like the rest of America, just keeping a holding pattern (holding its head above water): all because they can't sort out their priorities in government circles. It's crippling their country & their ability to move forward in any meaningful way.

(and as an aside: the infrastructure issue is even more troubling for America)

With erosion happening around the outside edges of all these NASA programs, we might just see (more) whole programs get shut down in the coming years.

Chris's article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/04/captured-asteroid-mission-redefining-em-2-challenge/

[AnalogMan]

Just to add to the thread record, a transcript of the NASA teleconference is now available:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740871main_FY14_budget_telecon_trans.pdf

Copy also attached.

[yg1968]

Here is Lori Garver's blog which discusses the NASA FY 2014 budget:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/garver/posts/post_1365619770038.html

[JohnFornaro]

That is why we made an asteroid our next destination for human exploration three years ago. In addition to funding this asteroid mission planning, our budget funds an initiative to accelerate identification and characterization of asteroids that pose a threat to our planet. We will use existing capabilities including the Orion crew capsule and the SLS rocket, to benefit more fully from our ongoing investments.

It is a full court press by the Administration.  "Leadership" seems to be interpreted as getting your way, winning at all costs.

The key factor for the success of this mission, the asteroid bag, which only seems to work on a non-tumbling asteroid, is at a solid TRL of One.  Count 'em, One.  [Oh-Enn-Eee]  This is falsely characterized as an "existing capability".

In order to do this, they propose reducing the funding on another "existing capability", SLS.

The silver lining of course, is the funding for commercial crew.

[deltaV]

That is why we made an asteroid our next destination for human exploration three years ago. In addition to funding this asteroid mission planning, our budget funds an initiative to accelerate identification and characterization of asteroids that pose a threat to our planet. We will use existing capabilities including the Orion crew capsule and the SLS rocket, to benefit more fully from our ongoing investments.

It is a full court press by the Administration.  "Leadership" seems to be interpreted as getting your way, winning at all costs.

The key factor for the success of this mission, the asteroid bag, which only seems to work on a non-tumbling asteroid, is at a solid TRL of One.  Count 'em, One.  [Oh-Enn-Eee]  This is falsely characterized as an "existing capability".

In order to do this, they propose reducing the funding on another "existing capability", SLS.

The silver lining of course, is the funding for commercial crew.

1. The Kreck study (http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf) discusses how they plan to de-tumble tumbling asteroids. What is the source of your claim that the asteroid bag won't work on tumbling asteroids?

2. It's now eight years before 2021 and twelve years before 2025. Eight years is the time between the first US manned suborbital spaceflight and Apollo 11. Twelve years is the time between Sputnik and Apollo 11. It was 12 years from the invention of the sky crane concept until MSL's launch and 8 years between the start of the MSL program and its launch (http://www.popsci.com/bown/2012/innovator/mars-curiosity-sky-crane). Why exactly do you think the TRL of the asteroid bag is a show-stopper?

[JohnFornaro]

The key factor for the success of this mission, the asteroid bag, which only seems to work on a non-tumbling asteroid, is at a solid TRL of One.  Count 'em, One.  [Oh-Enn-Eee]  This is falsely characterized as an "existing capability".

In order to do this, they propose reducing the funding on another "existing capability", SLS.

1. The Kreck study (http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf) discusses how they plan to de-tumble tumbling asteroids. What is the source of your claim that the asteroid bag won't work on tumbling asteroids?

2. It's now eight years before 2021 and twelve years before 2025. Eight years is the time between the first US manned suborbital spaceflight and Apollo 11. Twelve years is the time between Sputnik and Apollo 11. It was 12 years from the invention of the sky crane concept until MSL's launch and 8 years between the start of the MSL program and its launch (http://www.popsci.com/bown/2012/innovator/mars-curiosity-sky-crane). Why exactly do you think the TRL of the asteroid bag is a show-stopper?

1.  First, I didn't say it would never work; I said that the bag was at TRL1.  Do you have any links that would establish a higher TRL level for the asteroid bag concept?

Second, the NASA video, which is the only "source" out there today, shows the bag approaching a non-tumbling asteroid.  No other devices are shown in the video; the de-tumbling maneuver is merely "assumed" by the producers of the video.  The Keck Kids assert that they will capture and detumble the asteroid, in that order, on page 28.  The video clearly shows that they will detumble and then capture the asteroid.  Somebody's going to have to decide how they want to proceed.

The detumbling procedure is sketched out in the Keck paper; you can have the debate point if you wish, because they did mention that.  You cannot have an implication that this effort is a done deal.

Although not shown in Fig. 11 it may be necessary to include a "Stewart Platform" in which six linear actuators would allow the ring to be moved in x, y, z, roll, pitch, and yaw.

It's not clear whether they are referring to Jon Stewart.  But hey.

Third, please tell me the source of your apparent acceptance of the claim that the asteroid bag scheme is accurately characterized by Ms. Garver as "existing capability"?

2.  Thanks for doing the calendar math for me.  Interestingly enough, in eight years, I will be eight years older than I am today, but I don't see how those basic calendar facts that you mention guarantee mission success, when mission success depends entirely upon accurate costing of every mission component. 

And again, I haven't used the "term show-stopper".  I have discussed the inaccurate cost estimates which would enable the mission to succeed.  The $2.6B number is dependent on billions of dollars of additional funding for what are euphemistically called "existing capabilities".

What is the source for this additional funding, explicitly not included in the Keck Paper?  Do you think that funding instability could be a showstopper?

[deltaV]

It's just occurred to me that this asteroid retrieval mission seems like a great candidate for a payment-on-delivery contracting model. Programs to draw inspiration from include the prize that SpaceShipOne won, the DARPA Grand Challenge autonomous road race, COTS, and IIRC several aviation firsts achieved by people seeking prizes. It's easy to measure success of an asteroid retrieval mission, which is a factor in favor of fixed-price contracting. Asteroid retrieval is similar to launch in this way and unlike e.g. a Mars rover.

Funding a $2 billion mission entirely from a prize is probably not workable, especially since Congress can't be trusted not to cancel it, so some of the funding would probably need to be COTS/CCdev style milestone payments with perhaps half the funding payable upon delivery. Putting the money for the prize in a trust fund that's built up over the years before delivery may build confidence that Congress would actually deliver the prize even if Congress cannot constitutionally bind itself to pay out the prize. It would probably make sense to have separate prizes for finding candidate asteroids and for building and operating the vehicle to retrieve the asteroid.

The key techs of SEP and solar panels are used frequently commercially in GEO comsats. It looks like existing engines such as the NEXT ion engine (http://esto.nasa.gov/conferences/nstc2007/papers/Patterson_Michael_D10P3_NSTC-07-0014.pdf) or the BPT-4000 Hall effect thruster (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/bpt4000.htm) should be sufficient for the mission (albeit not ideal since would need cluster of 5-10 of them).

The key tech of asteroid location may be similar to what asteroid mining firms need so they may be convinced to spend some of their own capital on the tech development. The credibility gain from winning milestone payments and/or a prize would presumably helpful for them to attract additional private capital even if the type of asteroids found isn't quite the same as they need. (The B612 foundation's proposed telescope appears to be too far away from the Earth to find sufficiently small asteroids, so it would only be useful if the option mentioned in the Kreck study of picking up a small rock from a big asteroid is chosen.)

The asteroid bag itself is pretty new but I don't see any reason to doubt it being doable. Even if it's hard there's plenty of precedent for prizes that yield solutions to difficult problems.