NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[clongton]

We have *GOT* to get our space program out of the Congressional Funding Model. This budget sucks.

[HappyMartian]

So, SOMD gets $600m below 2010, in spite of the high need for STS-135 (will create risk to ISS).

ESMD (SLS and MPCV) gets a rise.

Technology Demonstration gets nothing, in spite of being an excellent way to utilise the ISS (will reduce return for investment on ISS).

Commercial crew gets only $225m, way off the $1b that NASA wanted (will create risk to ISS).

Bilateral activities with China are prohibited - in spite of them being in a position to contribute to the ISS, which could in turn build bridges between the US and China on Earth (will reduce return for investment on ISS).


All I see is a complete waste of capability in utilising the ISS, and more of the same when it comes to the future (chemical rockets, no money for BEO systems).

......
First of all, I in no way want to see any cooperation with China, the benefits are low and the price is high.... and will leave it there.
........

"First of all, I" want to see space exploration cooperation with every nation possible on the planet Earth, including China, for a diversity of LEO and BEO missions. Discussions to figure out what is doable with whoever should be one of NASA's important ongoing activities in order to fully utilize the ISS, devise LEO 'artificial gravity' experiments, and get us back to the Moon ASAP. The potential benefits of such international cooperation could be very high and the risks and costs of such discussions are low. International cooperation in space exploration is going to need to be an efficient and cost effective effort. It is best to started sooner than later.


Cheers!   

[Space Pete]

So, SOMD gets $600m below 2010, in spite of the high need for STS-135 (will create risk to ISS).

ESMD (SLS and MPCV) gets a rise.

Technology Demonstration gets nothing, in spite of being an excellent way to utilise the ISS (will reduce return for investment on ISS).

Commercial crew gets only $225m, way off the $1b that NASA wanted (will create risk to ISS).

Bilateral activities with China are prohibited - in spite of them being in a position to contribute to the ISS, which could in turn build bridges between the US and China on Earth (will reduce return for investment on ISS).


All I see is a complete waste of capability in utilising the ISS, and more of the same when it comes to the future (chemical rockets, no money for BEO systems).

......
First of all, I in no way want to see any cooperation with China, the benefits are low and the price is high.... and will leave it there.
........

"First of all, I" want to see space exploration cooperation with every nation possible on the planet Earth, including China, for a diversity of LEO and BEO missions. Discussions to figure out what is doable with whoever should be one of NASA's important ongoing activities in order to fully utilize the ISS, devise LEO 'artificial gravity' experiments, and get us back to the Moon ASAP. The potential benefits of such international cooperation could be very high and the risks and costs of such discussions are low. International cooperation in space exploration is going to need to be an efficient and cost effective effort. It is best to started sooner than later.


Cheers!   

Yes, I agree.

China is going to have a human spaceflight program whether everyone else likes it or not. They can either work with them, or work against them. Only one of those options is beneficial.

[yg1968]

I am hoping that 51D Mascot will comment on the full-year CR. Given how long the full-year CR has taken to pass, I wonder if NASA will manage to spend all of the appropriated funding for SLS and the 21st century complex prior to the end of the year.

Bolden had mentionned in a hearing early in 2011 that he didn't need that much money for the SLS in FY 2011 since the decision on the SLS has yet to be made and contracts have yet to be awarded . Does this mean that until the SLS is chosen, the SLS money continues to be spent on Constellation? 

I am also wondering what was the thinking in reducing the funding of commercial crew development from $312M to $225M (according to my calculations in the post below). Hopefully, Congress will not cut commercial crew development funding in FY 2012 when it is most needed (the NASA Authorization Act provides for $500M in FY 2012).

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22991.msg722347#msg722347

[Cog_in_the_machine]

China is going to have a human spaceflight program whether everyone else likes it or not. They can either work with them, or work against them. Only one of those options is beneficial.

I call false dichotomy. There's a third option I can think of - ignore them (the neutral option).

[robertross]

Bolden had mentionned in a hearing early in 2011 that he didn't need that much money for the SLS in FY 2011 since the decision on the SLS has yet to be made and contracts have yet to be awarded . Does this mean that until the SLS is chosen, the SLS money continues to be spent on Constellation? 

You don't have to 'bend metal' (in the broad sense) to spend money.

[EE Scott]

China is going to have a human spaceflight program whether everyone else likes it or not. They can either work with them, or work against them. Only one of those options is beneficial.

I call false dichotomy. There's a third option I can think of - ignore them (the neutral option).

I agree.  Cooperation doesn't make sense for the near- to mid- term.  China is on a slow but steady path to human space flight progress.  They are like the Tortoise to the U.S.'s Hare.  I see no plans from them to speed things up drastically.  And if they chose to drastically increase their HSF spending, far from being admired for it, they would probably receive much criticism for spending so much on HSF.  Let's not forget that China is still one of the world's poorest countries on a per-capita basis.

[savuporo]

We have *GOT* to get our space program out of the Congressional Funding Model...

The employees of a few companies in US can claim that its done already.

[sdsds]

the level for ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Aeronautics’’ shall be $535,000,000

Does this effectively gut the aeronautics program?  Maybe they've already spent nearly that much in this fiscal year, and now must simply shut down?

[psloss]

the level for ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Aeronautics’’ shall be $535,000,000

Does this effectively gut the aeronautics program?  Maybe they've already spent nearly that much in this fiscal year, and now must simply shut down?

No, they had to be aware that no budget was forthcoming when October arrived.  The amount in this bill is significantly less than the President's request, but is slightly more than what was enacted with FY 2010, which is what the clean CRs were tied to.

[sdsds]

The amount in this bill is significantly less than the President's request, but is slightly more than what was enacted with FY 2010, which is what the clean CRs were tied to.

Ah, thanks for that clarification! 

[Lurker Steve]

We have *GOT* to get our space program out of the Congressional Funding Model. This budget sucks.

If Congress isn't funding it, then it's not "our" space program.

[Prober]

We have *GOT* to get our space program out of the Congressional Funding Model. This budget sucks.

If Congress isn't funding it, then it's not "our" space program.

                                                                                                                                                                                          From what i;ve read Congress is done with 2011 this thurs, and it gets signed into law.

[yg1968]

I don't know if I am calculating this right but because the amounts for SLS and MPCV were increased in the full-year FY2011 CR bill from the amounts in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill, commercial crew would be reduced on a prorata basis from $312M to $225M.

I arrive at that number by substracting the SLS and MPCV amounts from the exploration funds in the NASA Authorization bill and the full-year CR and then doing a prorata based on the numbers in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill on the remainder of the funds given the fact that no specific number is given for the other exploration items in the full-year CR.

In other words, here is how I calculate the pro-rata for commercial crew:
(3808.3-1200-1800) / (3868-1120-1631) =
808.3/1117 =
72.36%

72.36% x $312M = $225.8M for commercial crew.

51D Mascot, am I correct in my reasoning here that the minimum amounts in the NASA Authorization bill get pro rated if they are not specifically mentionned in the full-year CR?   

[EE Scott]

Doesn't such a small amount budgeted for commercial crew pretty much guarantee that commercial crew won't make 2016?  Congress is explicitly turning SLS/MPCV from a "back up" into the only thing that has a chance to provide the service around 2016/2017.

Let's see:

1) Congress is ensuring that CCDev will fail.

2) NASA is dragging its feet, ensuring that SLS will not be ready by 2016

Hello -- FLASHING RED LIGHTS PLEASE

Both sides are sabotaging the other.  We all lose. 

What a bad joke.

[renclod]

I'm anxious to read Jeff's reply. But, the funding levels authorized don't look to be either minimum or maximum limits for appropriations. Also, it seems NASA is allowed to flexibly use funds not speciffically appropriated, inside the general scope of the activity. So the prorating is just one venue, could be anything.

[Jeff Bingham]

I don't know if I am calculating this right but because the amounts for SLS and MPCV were increased in the full-year FY2011 CR bill from the amounts in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill, commercial crew would be reduced on a prorata basis from $312M to $225M.

I arrive at that number by substracting the SLS and MPCV amounts from the exploration funds in the NASA Authorization bill and the full-year CR and then doing a prorata based on the numbers in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill on the remainder of the funds given the fact that no specific number is given for the other exploration items in the full-year CR.

In other words, here is how I calculate the pro-rata for commercial crew:
(3808.3-1200-1800) / (3868-1120-1631) =
808.3/1117 =
72.36%

72.36% x $312M = $225.8M for commercial crew.

51D Mascot, am I correct in my reasoning here that the minimum amounts in the NASA Authhorization bill get pro rated if they are not specifically mentionned in the full-year CR?   

I'm not an "appropriator," so cannot speak authoritatively without checking, but off the top of my head I would say it's not necessarily the case; In a manner of speaking, even the specified amounts are, in a sense, "prorated" for the balance of the year; they are used to establish a "spending rate" at a level that would equal that minimum amount for the full fiscal year. That will have to then be calculated against the actual expenditures to date, and then NASA will come up with an "Operating Plan" that shows their planned allocations for the appropriated amounts going forward, across the board, which they will have to submit to the appropriations committees for approval. Depending on limits on transfer authority between accounts, they can parse the unspecified funding levels in a variety of ways, but they need committee concurrence to be able to proceed with the op plan--which you can be sure will be carefully reviewed against the provisions and priorities of PL 111-267. I'll double-check, but that's my general understanding.

[sdsds]

Doesn't such a small amount budgeted for commercial crew pretty much guarantee that commercial crew won't make 2016?

This seems to assume that in 2011 government funding will be required to support development of commercial crew transport; that private investment will not be sufficient.  Was that your intent?  Do you think e.g. SpaceX won't internally fund its 2011 crewed Dragon activities sufficiently in the absence of NASA/CCDev support?

[Jeff Bingham]

the level for ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Aeronautics’’ shall be $535,000,000

Does this effectively gut the aeronautics program?  Maybe they've already spent nearly that much in this fiscal year, and now must simply shut down?

The requested amount for Aeronautics Research in the President's 2011 request was $579.6 million, up from the $507 million enacted level for FY 2010. While not the growth expected, this level represents a slight increase for Aeronautics.

You are possibly thinking of the proposed "Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology" funding account, in which "Space Technology" represented an additional $572.2 m in the FY 2011 request, but was included with the Aeronautics funding request in the proposed new line, bringing that to a total of about $1.51B. The CR does not recognize that combined budget line, so only reflects the aeronautics research portion.  Does that help answer your question?

[EE Scott]

Doesn't such a small amount budgeted for commercial crew pretty much guarantee that commercial crew won't make 2016?

This seems to assume that in 2011 government funding will be required to support development of commercial crew transport; that private investment will not be sufficient.  Was that your intent?  Do you think e.g. SpaceX won't internally fund its 2011 crewed Dragon activities sufficiently in the absence of NASA/CCDev support?

I was actually confused by that number.  I was thinking about FY2012 amounts in my head and comparing those numbers, and that was incorrect of me.  I do think that commercial companies will continue to fund their programs, however if Congress looks like it will be less fiscally supportive than hoped for, then I am sure that milestones will be slip sliding away to the right.

Generally speaking, Congress says that they do not have confidence that Commercial can be counted on (hence the need for a back up plan), and they push for less money for Commercial and more for SLS, well that makes me think that if they are not going to support that effort fully, they are ensuring it will not make its milestones.