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.
Quote from: Jim on 03/16/2017 04:06 pmQuote 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.Thanks for the info. Obviously knew about the space weather part of it but didn't realise that there was a dedicated secondary mission on it.
By specifically removing the $1.2M for DSCOVR's earth viewing instruments, they are hoping to block access to full disk irradiance data (basically, data that shows that the planet is now taking in more energy than it is losing).
Quote from: JH on 03/16/2017 05:39 pmBy specifically removing the $1.2M for DSCOVR's earth viewing instruments, they are hoping to block access to full disk irradiance data (basically, data that shows that the planet is now taking in more energy than it is losing).Let's see if they can get this cut past the generals as by the sound of it they may face a degree of resistance on this.
I already offered you an explanation in the other thread: Republicans aren't against gathering collecting Earth science data, they are against NASA being used as an advocate against climate change.
Quote from: Star One on 03/16/2017 05:55 pmQuote from: JH on 03/16/2017 05:39 pmBy specifically removing the $1.2M for DSCOVR's earth viewing instruments, they are hoping to block access to full disk irradiance data (basically, data that shows that the planet is now taking in more energy than it is losing).Let's see if they can get this cut past the generals as by the sound of it they may face a degree of resistance on this.Generals? Nope, only members of Congress matter in this discussion. While the USA has the largest military budget in the world by a wide margin, we're still a civilian government.As I've written before, this Presidential budget for NASA doesn't matter. Congress will stay their course and the Administration won't interfere, especially since the two are almost in complete agreement.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust@ZachInFlight Europa Clipper is not being cut. What’s not being funded is a follow-on lander (and Rep. Culberson will likely rescue it.)
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/16/2017 04:40 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?I already offered you an explanation in the other thread: Republicans aren't against gathering collecting Earth science data, they are against NASA being used as an advocate against climate change. That doesn't explain gutting NOAA, which mostly doesn't do "advocacy against climate change." They do weather satellites.
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?I already offered you an explanation in the other thread: Republicans aren't against gathering collecting Earth science data, they are against NASA being used as an advocate against climate change.
The DSCOVR thing is just plain weird. The budget doesn't say anything about cancelling the mission (the spacecraft is already up there and functioning), just the Earth observing part. We have a spacecraft up there with a camera and some other instrumentation pointing at Earth, as well as taking some important space weather measurements. And they just want to turn off the camera? What sense does that make? It'll save almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's almost like they really are afraid of what the camera will show.
If you wanted an explanation for the cuts to climate funding, here it is:White House: Climate funding is ‘a waste of your money’http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/324358-white-house-says-climate-funding-is-a-waste-of-your-money
Quote from: incoming on 03/16/2017 08:22 pmThe DSCOVR thing is just plain weird. The budget doesn't say anything about cancelling the mission (the spacecraft is already up there and functioning), just the Earth observing part. We have a spacecraft up there with a camera and some other instrumentation pointing at Earth, as well as taking some important space weather measurements. And they just want to turn off the camera? What sense does that make? It'll save almost nothing in the grand scheme of things. It's almost like they really are afraid of what the camera will show. The token monetary savings are a fig leaf. The goal is to hamper the accumulation of evidence of climate change.
Though Triana was a NASA project, canceled under Bush II, it was DoD that resurrected it as DSCOVR, was it not? Didn't DoD have a use for DSCOVR's Earth-viewing instruments?
Would very much like to hear more details on the "initiatives that use smaller, less expensive satellites to advance science," and the refueling demo, if folks here are "in the know." Thanks!
This week's Space to Ground video is all about the cargo, internal and external, Dragon is bringing back:
But packed within NASA’s small budget decrease are some pretty sizable cuts. A few major upcoming missions are canceled, and NASA’s entire education program, which is responsible for outreach and grants, is eliminated. The budget request also proposes wasting technologies already in space.Some of these cuts could have a positive impact on NASA, while others could deprive students and the science community of the space agency’s expertise. Here are the biggest cuts to NASA ranked from “This is good actually” to “What the hell are you doing?”
“Aerospace is a growing sector that provides good quality jobs here in the US. We want to get students from all backgrounds trained in these fields,” says Larson. “STEM education is critical to our long-term competitiveness as a country, and it's interesting in a year where a movie like Hidden Figures was on the national stage that the administration would de-emphasize the role NASA plays in getting kids excited about space.”
...In regards to cutting the education budget.Quote“Aerospace is a growing sector that provides good quality jobs here in the US. We want to get students from all backgrounds trained in these fields,” says Larson. “STEM education is critical to our long-term competitiveness as a country, and it's interesting in a year where a movie like Hidden Figures was on the national stage that the administration would de-emphasize the role NASA plays in getting kids excited about space.”
Quote from: Star One on 03/18/2017 09:55 am...In regards to cutting the education budget.Quote“Aerospace is a growing sector that provides good quality jobs here in the US. We want to get students from all backgrounds trained in these fields,” says Larson. “STEM education is critical to our long-term competitiveness as a country, and it's interesting in a year where a movie like Hidden Figures was on the national stage that the administration would de-emphasize the role NASA plays in getting kids excited about space.”Results are important, not just intentions. How much more effective can NASA be at inspiring youth by either, 1. doing something inspirational, or 2. talking about doing something inspirational.The administration is choosing to use NASA money for #1. (they could have chosen to cut NASA by 20%)
I think that if you're going to discuss the education office at NASA, it might help if you looked into what it actually does instead of writing in generalities like "inspiration" or "contribute to STEM."
NASA Invites You to Create James Webb Space Telescope-inspired ArtHow? Browse through our images and videos and see what inspires you. Create art! (Note: this is not limited to art you can hang on a wall.) Share it with us on social media.Why?In November 2016, a small group of artists was selected to visit NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, to see the James Webb Space Telescope in person, and to be inspired to create art. They have been busy ever since, producing amazing work that we are presenting for exhibit during Spring 2017 at the Goddard Visitor Center (date TBA).Their offerings include painting, poetry, sculpting, textiles, woodworking, music, silk screening, 3-D design, jewelry, posters, tattooing and letterpress printing.Though we were only able to physically accommodate a small number of artists, we were so impressed by the number of talented people who were interested in participating. We want to offer more artists a chance to participate virtually.
Every other activity has 'inspire' or STEM in it.That's apparently what they think their job is.
Jonathan Amos @BBCAmosNasa EO chief Mike Freilich at #Banff #Canada suggests DSCOVR's Earth-facing data could simply be stored but not analysed under FY18 cut
QuoteJonathan Amos @BBCAmosNasa EO chief Mike Freilich at #Banff #Canada suggests DSCOVR's Earth-facing data could simply be stored but not analysed under FY18 cuthttps://mobile.twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/843889088507920385
Raw data from an instrument without some kind of analysis is very nearly the same as noise.
FWIW
He's laying groundwork for the next phase... that is more presidential text on the space program than the last several administrations combined.
Quote from: AncientU on 03/25/2017 10:05 pmHe's laying groundwork for the next phase... that is more presidential text on the space program than the last several administrations combined.Not that I remember. Clinton, Bush and Obama put a lot of political capital into space, and Trump has yet to do that.
Maybe he will, and it's still early in his term, but so far he hasn't...
...First of all, he is proposing to cut NASA's budget. ...
More significantly, Trump has transmitted a consistent negative message about space, from the campaign trail, where he said that filling potholes was more important, to the last week's signing of the 2017 NASA authorization, where he said, in response to Rep. Culberson's remark about creating an Interplanetary Highway System, "First we want to fix the highways, need to fix the highways. Got to fix the highways."[/url] (6:00).
Quote from: AncientU on 03/25/2017 10:05 pmHe's laying groundwork for the next phase... that is more presidential text on the space program than the last several administrations combined.Not that I remember. Clinton, Bush and Obama put a lot of political capital into space, and Trump has yet to do that.Maybe he will, and it's still early in his term, but so far he hasn't...
Which means that if the National Space Council is reconstituted with V.P. Pence at it's head, that we should really be looking to V.P. Pence for indications of where the administration will be pointing NASA. That all we can and should expect from Trump will be platitudes, but no actionable details.
We're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year. Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%? This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else. NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.
Ideology, Not Reality, Drives Trump NASA CutsAviation Week & Space TechnologyPresident Donald Trump’s first stab at a federal budget, like all such “top-line” documents over past decades, is dead on arrival. Congress will take it as the notional plan that it is, and begin the laborious, highly complex and usually obscure process of balancing the interests its members represent with the public funds available to support them. What comes out the other end probably will bear faint resemblance to Trump’s initial proposal. The president’s ...
Quote from: AncientU on 03/26/2017 03:48 pmWe're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year. Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%? This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else. NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.NASA traditionally has needed large budgets to do the big programs. It doesn't know how to or can't do it cheaper. Cost in 2017 dollars.Gemini $8BApollo $121BSkylab $11BSpace Shuttle $221BISS $167B (to 2015)So, an increase would make a difference. A doubling of the NASA budget means increasing the exploration budget from $3.7B to $23B. It would give NASA sufficient funds to build a Lunar Lander, a Lunar Base, a new Space Station and a Mars Mission. The alternative though is cutting the exploration budget to $2B and giving that to industry in public-private-partnerships ($1B each to two companies, say SpaceX and Blue Origin). It will be interesting to see what happens.
NASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costs
After President George W. Bush announced a plan to return to the Moon and move on to Mars in 2004, NASA began to consider how best to carry out that vision. Although there were some promising private-sector rockets even then, administrator Michael Griffin set the agency on the course of building its own rockets and spacecraft. Those programs have evolved into the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.Since then, according to a new report published by the nonpartisan think tank Center for a New American Security, NASA has spent $19 billion on rockets, first on Ares I and V, and now on the SLS. Additionally, the agency has spent $13.9 billion on the Orion spacecraft. The agency hopes to finally fly its first crewed mission with the new vehicles in 2021. If it does so, the report estimates the agency will have spent $43 billion before that first flight, essentially a reprise of the Apollo 8 mission around the Moon.These costs can then be compared to the total cost of the entire Apollo program, which featured six separate human landings on the Moon. According to two separate estimates, the Apollo program cost between $100 billion and $110 billion in 2010 dollars. Thus just the development effort for SLS and Orion, which includes none of the expenses related to in-space activities or landing anywhere, are already nearly half that of the Apollo program.
For Orion, according to the report, approximately 56 percent of the program's cost, has gone to NASA instead of the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, and others. For the SLS rocket and its predecessors, the estimated fraction of NASA-related costs is higher—72 percent. This means that only about $7 billion of the rocket's $19 billion has gone to the private sector companies, Boeing, Orbital ATK, Aeroject Rocketdyne, and others cutting metal.
By comparison the report also estimates NASA's overhead costs for the commercial cargo and crew programs... the NASA overhead costs for these programs is just 14 percent, the report finds.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/27/2017 08:59 amQuote from: AncientU on 03/26/2017 03:48 pmWe're not going anywhere unless NASA learns to do more with the NINETEEN BILLION dollars it has available every year. Do you really(!!!) think NASA would actually do anything exploration-wise if its budget was raised 5%, 10%, 20%? This might help SLS/Orion be less behind, but not much else. NASA-philes seem to think doubling the NASA human space flight budget is what is needed to get the current program off the ground.NASA traditionally has needed large budgets to do the big programs. It doesn't know how to or can't do it cheaper. Cost in 2017 dollars.Gemini $8BApollo $121BSkylab $11BSpace Shuttle $221BISS $167B (to 2015)So, an increase would make a difference. A doubling of the NASA budget means increasing the exploration budget from $3.7B to $23B. It would give NASA sufficient funds to build a Lunar Lander, a Lunar Base, a new Space Station and a Mars Mission. The alternative though is cutting the exploration budget to $2B and giving that to industry in public-private-partnerships ($1B each to two companies, say SpaceX and Blue Origin). It will be interesting to see what happens.New article:QuoteNASA spends 72 cents of every SLS dollar on overhead costsQuoteAfter President George W. Bush announced a plan to return to the Moon and move on to Mars in 2004, NASA began to consider how best to carry out that vision. Although there were some promising private-sector rockets even then, administrator Michael Griffin set the agency on the course of building its own rockets and spacecraft. Those programs have evolved into the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.Since then, according to a new report published by the nonpartisan think tank Center for a New American Security, NASA has spent $19 billion on rockets, first on Ares I and V, and now on the SLS. Additionally, the agency has spent $13.9 billion on the Orion spacecraft. The agency hopes to finally fly its first crewed mission with the new vehicles in 2021. If it does so, the report estimates the agency will have spent $43 billion before that first flight, essentially a reprise of the Apollo 8 mission around the Moon.These costs can then be compared to the total cost of the entire Apollo program, which featured six separate human landings on the Moon. According to two separate estimates, the Apollo program cost between $100 billion and $110 billion in 2010 dollars. Thus just the development effort for SLS and Orion, which includes none of the expenses related to in-space activities or landing anywhere, are already nearly half that of the Apollo program.QuoteFor Orion, according to the report, approximately 56 percent of the program's cost, has gone to NASA instead of the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, and others. For the SLS rocket and its predecessors, the estimated fraction of NASA-related costs is higher—72 percent. This means that only about $7 billion of the rocket's $19 billion has gone to the private sector companies, Boeing, Orbital ATK, Aeroject Rocketdyne, and others cutting metal.QuoteBy comparison the report also estimates NASA's overhead costs for the commercial cargo and crew programs... the NASA overhead costs for these programs is just 14 percent, the report finds.https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/NASA needs to learn to do more with the funds it has...(Hint: Cuts to a bloated bureaucracy might be a place to start.)
Spoken like a commercial space 'true believer'. Rather than making a knee jerk response maybe you should stop and consider that a lot of that bureaucracy rather than being a waste is actually carrying out important functions.
Quote from: Star One on 03/27/2017 04:11 pmSpoken like a commercial space 'true believer'. Rather than making a knee jerk response maybe you should stop and consider that a lot of that bureaucracy rather than being a waste is actually carrying out important functions. Who is really making the knee jerk response here? AncientU provided quotes and figures. You provided an insult followed by a non sequitur.We already know that there is plenty of room for NASA to do things a lot more efficiently. Commercial Shuttle (remember those discussions from years ago?) proved it in theory. Commercial Cargo is proving it in practice.
Quote from: Star One on 03/27/2017 10:59 pmBecause it's quoting a think tank report, any such body that claims to be non-partisan you can bet their bottom dollar that they aren't and instead have an angle to sell you.If you dig down deeper, you discover that the person who wrote the report:a-does not actually work for that think tank, he only presented his paper during one of their events (during lunch time, to a small audience, according to the author himself)b-is actually a bloggerc-is in no way "non-partisan"Go look him up. Read his numerous blog posts on political subjects. See if they fit the definition of "non-partisan."
Because it's quoting a think tank report, any such body that claims to be non-partisan you can bet their bottom dollar that they aren't and instead have an angle to sell you.
How about focusing on the contents of the paper rather than on the author. Do the arguments stand up or not?
Read his paper carefully. Does he present coherent arguments? Is it logically sound? Is it supported by facts? Are the arguments comprehensive, or does he ignore significant information that would contradict his claims?I find that I learn more from reading things I disagree with. I try to accept the author's starting point and then see whether I really can make a good case against it. If you reject things on the grounds that "oh, well, he would say that, wouldn't he," you miss an opportunity to learn. Focus on what is said rather than on who is saying it or toward what end.
(non mod view)I think both Proponent and Star One are right. Especially in this day and age, it's hard to trust numbers presented without some independent corroboration. But once you trust the numbers, evaluate the case on merits.... a blending of what they are saying is probably how to look at stuff. Trust but verify? no, wrong order these days, Verify first unless you REALLY trust the source.
Quote from: Lar on 03/28/2017 01:24 pmLaunch can't be a free market, ever? Yes. You don't understand that?Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?Space is not Walmart.
Launch can't be a free market, ever?
Quote from: Lar on 03/28/2017 01:24 pmLaunch can't be a free market, ever? Yes. You don't understand that?Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2017 02:30 pmSpace is not Walmart.True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.
Space is not Walmart.
Launch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.
Quote from: RonM on 03/28/2017 03:14 pmTrue, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.Launch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.
True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.
BTW, aren't we all getting off topic? How does this apply to NASA FY 2018?
By the way, has anyone here actually read either paper? Is a link to Pace's piece available anywhere? (I've checked SpaceNews's website and have googled around, to no avail).
The central focus of this paper is a comparison between the two approaches to maintain and expand American access to space that NASA and the federal government have followed since the mid-2000s.
Zimmerman offers a series of complex comparisons purporting to do just that, but he doesn't cite hardly any numbers to support his case....
United Launch Alliance, the Boeing-Lockheed joint venture that is SpaceX's main competitor for government launches, has never lost a payload in 117 launches. SpaceX has lost two missions in just the last two years, in both cases due to design features in its launch vehicle.
No doubt about it, SpaceX prices are low -- but it isn't the model of market-driven responsiveness that Zimmerman would have you believe. On average, its launches are over two years late, and the unlaunched missions it is carrying in its backlog on average are nearly three years late.
Companies typically achieve low prices by taking out cost, but much of the overhead associated with space efforts goes into assuring the safety of missions.
One problem with buying launch services under commercial contracts rather than using the traditional approach is that the government has less latitude to investigate what happened when things go wrong. The company leads investigations of mishaps rather than the government. The company may be forthcoming about what it finds, but it doesn't have to be.
Imagine where Donald Trump's business empire would stand today if he typically delivered project two years late, and every once in a while one of the blew up due to design features.
I do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?
Quote from: Star One on 03/31/2017 11:10 amI do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?You are blatantly begging* the question.*For those who only know today's misuse of the term, it classically means assuming your premise is true -- a rhetorical fallacy.
Quote from: Star One on 03/31/2017 11:10 amI do wonder why you're still wasting your time on defending Zimmerman's highly biased & flawed piece?To AncientU's post I might add that if you read my previous post in this thread, you'll see that I am not defending Zimmerman at all: I'm attacking Thompson quite heavily, but I do not defend Zimmerman.
Is there any sign in the budget for the gateway station for which NASA will apparently end up paying much/most of the cost? I see slides from the NAC that show a 4-piece station up and working by 2026...https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf...but with those slides should go a budget and cost and such. How is the station supposed to be paid for? Sounds like ESA might be contributing an ECLSS, and Canada an arm, but there's a lot more than that that needs to get paid for.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2017 02:30 pmQuote from: Lar on 03/28/2017 01:24 pmLaunch can't be a free market, ever? Yes. You don't understand that?Rockets are munitions. They are licensed that way and regulated that way and treated that way in policy. You think that any government anywhere in the world is not going to look at a space rocket and see the connection to ICBMs? You think that any government anywhere in the world that has space rockets is also not going to regulate them because of their importance to national security?Airplanes are munitions or can be. Cars are munitions or can be. Suitcases are munitions or can be if they are carrying the right things. That all governments today treat rockets as super special? Sure. True fact.That they always will, if we get to flight rates similar to commercial airliners ("millions of people living and working and living in space")? No, you haven't convinced me that no government anywhere ever will decide to relax and treat rockets more like airplanes. regulated, but freer than they are now.You don't have to convince me, that's cool. We have different views. All good. But I don't buy your blanket assertion. And "You don't understand that?" isn't the tone one uses when one wants to convince me of things. You don't have to care one whit what I think... but if you do....Quote from: RonM on 03/28/2017 03:14 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2017 02:30 pmSpace is not Walmart.True, but there is a difference between selling rockets and selling launch services. Commercial launch services can be a free market with some regulation while launch providers can't sell the rockets directly to the customer. Unlike commercial aircraft, you'll won't see reusable rockets being sold to space freight companies, but rocket manufactures can take customer payloads to space.That's another model that works too.Quote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2017 03:21 pmLaunch is heavily-regulated around the world. Launch is heavily-subsidized around the world. Not a free market. This is space policy 101.Today. We have different visions about how things SHOULD be in the future.We might be veering more than we should (it was driven by that reference, to be sure) so I'll stop for now.
Can we stop acting like Russia does not exist? Russia sells Arianespace the Soyuz rocket to be launched from Arianespace launch sites. Russia also sells rocket engines to ULA. They have assisted South Korea with their rocket technology. Everything you guys are arguing about has been done. Yes of course rocket technology is a technology that can be weaponized, but that only means that the market is restricted to our allies and friendly nations. Our private companies sell weapons to other nations all of the time. There is no reason to believe that companies like SpaceX will not be able to sell reusable rockets to allies especially ones that already have ballistic missile technology.
The core problem is that based on this minimal experience the author poses a false binary choice between “government” or “private sector” approaches to space transportation, a choice in which he argues that the government should abandon traditional acquisition practices in favor of relying on “free enterprise.”In effect, he makes an unsupported claim that commercial markets exist (or should exist) for the public goods of science, exploration, and security.
the reported first stage Falcon Heavy thrust is approximately 1.71 million pounds. SLS thrust is 8.87 million pounds of thrust. The SLS is designed to place more than twice as much payload into a low Earth orbit and over three times as much into a trans-Mars injection orbit. Again, these are government requirements, not commercial requirements, and that’s why SLS is a NASA program.
May I please ask that any responses to the following be focused and to the point. If you find fault in my analysis, please point out precisely where and how I am wrong.<snip>
Here are the NASA numbers in raw form.
May 22, 2017MEDIA ADVISORY M17-056NASA to Discuss FY2018 Budget Proposal, Provide Virtual Tours of CentersNASA will hold a series of events Tuesday, May 23, highlighting the agency’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget proposal, including a televised State of NASA address by acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot and Facebook Live virtual tours of NASA’s 10 centers, where innovation is enabling exploration and discovery.Lightfoot will give a presentation at 12:30 p.m. EDT to NASA employees at the agency’s Headquarters in Washington on FY2018 budget highlights, setting the stage for the coming year at NASA and spotlighting the past work that led to current achievements. This presentation will air live on NASA Television and the agency’s website.At 1:30 p.m., NASA's social media team will take visitors behind the scenes for a virtual tour of NASA and a look at the cutting-edge work here and on humanity's destiny in deep space. These Facebook Live events will be hosted on each center's Facebook page and will run about 15 minutes each. The following list of virtual tours includes times, centers and highlights of each tour:1:30 p.m. -- Glenn Research Center, in Cleveland, will host a tour of its Electric Propulsion Lab, where the agency tests solar propulsion technologies that are critical to powering spacecraft for NASA’s deep-space missions.1:50 p.m. -- Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, Alabama, will host a tour from a Marshall test stand where structural loads testing is performed on parts of NASA's Space Launch System rocket. 2:10 p.m. -- Stennis Space Center, in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, will take visitors on a tour of their test stands to learn about rocket engine testing from their Test Control Center.2:30 p.m. -- Armstrong Flight Research Center, in Edwards, California, will host a tour from their aircraft hangar and Simulator Lab to learn about NASA’s X-Planes program.2:50 p.m. -- Johnson Space Center in Houston will take viewers on a virtual exploration trip through the mockups of the International Space Station and inside the agency’s deep-space exploration vehicle, the Orion spacecraft.3:10 p.m. -- Ames Research Center, in California’s Silicon Valley, will bring viewers into its Arc Jet Facility, a plasma wind tunnel used to simulate the extreme heat of spacecraft atmospheric entry.3:30 p.m. -- Kennedy Space Center, in Florida, will bring visitors inside the Vehicle Assembly Building to learn about how NASA is preparing for the first launch of America's next big rocket, SLS.3:50 p.m. -- Langley Research Center, in Hampton Virginia, will bring visitors inside its 14-by-22-foot wind tunnel, where aerodynamic projects are tested.4:10 p.m. -- Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Maryland, will discuss the upcoming United States total solar eclipse and host its tour from the Space Weather Lab, a large multi-screen room where data from the sun is analyzed and studied.4:30 p.m. -- Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in Pasadena, California, will bring viewers to the Spacecraft Assembly Facility to learn about robotic exploration of the solar system.Also on Tuesday, at 5 p.m. NASA’s acting Chief Financial Officer Andrew Hunter will brief media on the agency’s 2018 budget proposal. To participate in this briefing, media must contact Karen Northon in the NASA Headquarters newsroom at 202-358-1540 or [email protected] no later than 4 p.m. Tuesday.Audio of the media teleconference will be streamed live on NASA's website at:https://www.nasa.gov/liveNASA budget information will be available online at noon Tuesday at:https://www.nasa.gov/budget-end-
...---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "Thomas Culligan" <[email protected]>Date: May 16, 2017 10:33 AMSubject: Re: ACTION NEEDED - Senate SLS-Orion-GSDO Appropriations Letter... A copy of the final signed letter is attached, and the list of Senators who signed this year is copied below. Thanks again for all your efforts to support these programs during the FY 2018 Appropriations process....
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/22/2017 03:22 pm...---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "Thomas Culligan" <[email protected]>Date: May 16, 2017 10:33 AMSubject: Re: ACTION NEEDED - Senate SLS-Orion-GSDO Appropriations Letter... A copy of the final signed letter is attached, and the list of Senators who signed this year is copied below. Thanks again for all your efforts to support these programs during the FY 2018 Appropriations process....Why aren't Sens. Cruz and Nelson among the signatories? They are among SLS's biggest, uh, boosters.
NASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023.
QuoteNASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023.First time 2021 was dropped as party line AFAIK, though everyone knew it was coming.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/23/2017 09:08 pmQuoteNASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023.First time 2021 was dropped as party line AFAIK, though everyone knew it was coming.The year 2021 for EM-2 was based on getting EM-1 of the ground in early 2018 at the latest. We all know that EM-1 has moved into the latter half of 2019 recently. The gap between EM-1 and EM-2 has been four (4) years for ages now so EM-2 is shifting to the right as much as EM-1 is shifting to the right.
This really locks them into a three-year or so gap between EM-1 and the subsequent launch. Can't start modifying the ML until EM-1 flies, no matter how late it slides into 2019 or 2020. (Once you start the mods, a 'cargo' launch can't fly using a second ICPS -- don't know if that was the plan, though.) Probably pushes the first manned flight to 2024/2025. There was talk of compressing the big interval between EM-1 and EM-2 (so that the manned flight -- EM-3 -- wouldn't also slip), but now that seems unlikely.
I voted no because I don't think SLS will ever fly with crew.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/24/2017 05:52 amQuote from: AncientU on 05/23/2017 09:08 pmQuoteNASA is fabricating and assembling the systems to launch humans into lunar orbit by 2023.First time 2021 was dropped as party line AFAIK, though everyone knew it was coming.The year 2021 for EM-2 was based on getting EM-1 of the ground in early 2018 at the latest. We all know that EM-1 has moved into the latter half of 2019 recently. The gap between EM-1 and EM-2 has been four (4) years for ages now so EM-2 is shifting to the right as much as EM-1 is shifting to the right.Right, we've seen this coming for a long time, but new dates have not been official party line. Now, '2023 flying humans' is the new party line... maybe. But 2023 is EM-2 (EUS/Europa Clipper) as you've explained. Humans get EM-3.So, as I said (to howls of protest) a few months ago, crew will fly in 2024-2025.If EM-1 doesn't slip. Again.Quote from: AncientU on 10/28/2016 07:28 pmThis really locks them into a three-year or so gap between EM-1 and the subsequent launch. Can't start modifying the ML until EM-1 flies, no matter how late it slides into 2019 or 2020. (Once you start the mods, a 'cargo' launch can't fly using a second ICPS -- don't know if that was the plan, though.) Probably pushes the first manned flight to 2024/2025. There was talk of compressing the big interval between EM-1 and EM-2 (so that the manned flight -- EM-3 -- wouldn't also slip), but now that seems unlikely.Edit: Added quote
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 03/26/2017 03:57 pmWhich means that if the National Space Council is reconstituted with V.P. Pence at it's head, that we should really be looking to V.P. Pence for indications of where the administration will be pointing NASA. That all we can and should expect from Trump will be platitudes, but no actionable details.Good point. What do we know about Pence's record on space when he was in Congress?
FAA Space Office To Get Budget Boost from House Appropriators http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/faa-space-office-to-get-budget-boost-from-house-appropriators
House appropriators are recommending a budget boost for FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). The office received $19.8 million for FY2017, but the Trump budget proposal for FY2018 is $2 million less. By contrast, the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the office is proposing $21.587 million.
Here is the House committee's proposed CJS bill (NASA starts at page 60):https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-115hr-sc-ap-fy2018-cjs-commercejusticescience.pdfhttps://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394951National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – NASA is funded at $19.9 billion, $219 million above the 2017 enacted level. This funding includes:$4.6 billion for Exploration – $226 million above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This includes funding to continue the development of the Orion crew vehicle and Space Launch System and related ground systems.$5.9 billion for NASA Science programs – $94 million above the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This targets funding to planetary science and astrophysics to ensure the continuation of critical research and development programs, while reducing funding for lower-priority research.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 4m4 minutes agoIn NASA Advisory Council science cmte meeting, NASA’s Craig Tupper says he thinks FY18 budget for NASA science will follow past trends.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 3m3 minutes agoTupper says he expects Senate to fund NASA science at a similar overall level to House bill, but with more money for Earth science.
Marcia Smith @SpcPlcyOnline 47s47 seconds agoSenate Approps THUD sbcmt approved FY2018 bill, but info released doesn't provide enuf detail to know how FAA space office fared.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – $19.5 billion for NASA, $124 million below the FY2017 enacted level and $437 million above the budget request, to support the human and robotic exploration of space, fund science missions that enhance the understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe, and support fundamental aeronautics research. This includes:• $2.15 billion for the Space Launch System (SLS), which is $212 million above the request. The funding continues the development schedule for SLS, and provides $300 million in critical funding for upper stage engine work for future crewed missions.• $1.3 billion for the Orion crewed spacecraft, $164 million above the request, to continue development of NASA’s next deep-space crewed capsule.• $5.6 billion for Science, $193 million below the FY2017 enacted level and $140 million below the request. • $732 million, the same as the request, to further develop a domestic crew launch capability.• $700 million for Space Technology, $14 million above the FY2017 enacted level and $21 million above the request. Funding is included to advance projects in early stages of development that are expected to eventually demonstrate capabilities needed for future space exploration.• $100 million is provided for the Education programs proposed to be eliminated in the budget request. NASA EPSCoR is funded at $18 million, Space Grant is funded at $40 million, the Minority University Research and Education Project is funded at $32 million, and STEM Education and Accountability projects is funded at $10 million.
The Senate put the money back into Earth sciences:http://spacenews.com/senate-restores-funding-for-nasa-earth-science-and-satellite-servicing-programs/
Nuclear Propulsion.—NASA is continuing its work to develop the foundational technologies and advance low-enriched uranium nuclear thermal propulsion systems that can provide significantly faster trip times for crewed missions than non-nuclear options. The Committee provides $75,000,000 for ongoing nuclear thermal propulsion technologies for space transportation and exploration. This funding is provided for NASA to work towards the goal of being able to conduct a propulsion subscale ground test by 2020.
Advanced Exploration Systems.—The amount provided for Advanced Exploration Systems enables NASA to continue current activities within NASA and with industry related to VASIMR propulsion technology, In Situ Resource Utilization, and Lunar CATALYST. The Committee also encourages NASA to continue to study and quantify potential exposure to cosmic rays through initiatives such as the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. The Committee further includes the request level of $119,700,000 for habitat systems research and development. The Committee expects NASA to establish in fiscal year 2018 a habitat development program office at a center that holds proficiency and heritage in habitation, life support systems development, and science operations to oversee and support NASA’s current and future in-space habitat development activities.
The Committee is supportive of many of the technologies being developed within Space Technology, which will have wide ranging benefits for NASA missions and throughout the agency. Of particular note are the enabling technologies of Solar Electric Propulsion, the laser communications relay demonstration, and composite tanks and structural materials. These key supporting technologies will provide enabling capabilities for multiple robotic and human exploration missions.
“In the meeting, the president and congressional leadership agreed to pass aid for Harvey, an extension of the debt limit, and a continuing resolution both to December 15, all together,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
It provides a $131 billion increase for nondefense programs — $57 billion in new funding over the next two years above the cap established by the 2011 Budget Control Act. It sets a nondefense funding cap for 2018 that is $117 billion higher than what President Trump requested in his 2018 budget request.
This budget caps deal would be attached to a short-term spending bill, to give lawmakers time to write the specific appropriations bills. There are reports that the agreement could include a one-year increase to the debt ceiling as well.
The legislation would keep the government funded for another six weeks, through March 23. That would give lawmakers enough time to write an omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year and break the pattern of passing continuing resolutions.
The accord increases defense spending by $80 billion in fiscal year 2018 and by $85 billion in fiscal year 2019, while raising nondefense spending by $63 billion and $68 billion. It suspends the debt ceiling until March of 2019, ensuring Congress won’t have to deal with the legislative headache again until after this year’s midterm elections. The Senate is expected to pass the deal on Thursday and send it to the House for final approval, hours before government funding is due to expire at midnight.
Another article by Jeff Foust on the same topic:http://spacenews.com/nasa-receives-20-7-billion-in-omnibus-appropriations-bill/
Here’s a clip-and-save budget chart for NASA comparing the original FY18 request, House and Senate bills, and the final omnibus. (All values in millions of dollars, and the 2nd SLS launch platform is included in exploration ground systems.)
I am considering a VETO of the Omnibus Spending Bill based on the fact that the 800,000 plus DACA recipients have been totally abandoned by the Democrats (not even mentioned in Bill) and the BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded.
And he has gone ahead and signed it so its official.
Based on the Wikipedia record of NASA budgets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) that makes it the highest budget since 1997. Right?
... history suggests that under a Republican president [Republican senators and representatives] would lose their zeal for cutting the federal budget. So I think there is reason to believe NASA would do a little better under a Republican president, though the prospect of reaching the funding levels promoted by Augustine and the NRC is very remote.