NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[jongoff]

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'm pretty sure they won't.  They only have so much IR&D budget, and they'll put that into things like Falcon Heavy and their Vandenburg site to get it ready for EELV flights.

~Jon

[sdsds]

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

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.

Hurray, and thank you for reducing my confusion.

You're right, I was only looking at the top line in the aeronautics authorization.  I should have read further!  PL 111–267:

For Aeronautics, $929,600,000, of which—
(A) $579,600,000 shall be for Aeronautics Research;

You are possibly thinking of the proposed "Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology" funding account

Ah yes!  PL 111–267, Sec. 904-907.

The CR does not recognize that combined budget line, so only reflects the aeronautics research portion.

Thanks yet again.  I am humbled, but gladly so, by your understanding of all this! 

By the way, how's that report from NASA required by sec. 905 looking?  Does NASA’s space technology program meet the goal described in section 904? 

[Spacely]

So, uh, that little niggling sentence now in the budget about SLS needing to be 130 tons with an Upper Stage...

Are they going to take that out, or is that actually going to be signed into law at the end of this week?

[jongoff]

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?

So did the technology funding end up under another line item, or did technology get raided again?

~Jon

[joek]

---snip---
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?

So if I'm reading it right (using PBR budget line headings)...
-- FY10 Actual:
$501.0M Aeronautics Research
-- FY11 PBR:
$1,151.8M Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology =
$579.6M Aeronautics Research +
$572.2M Space Technology
-- FY11 CR:
$535.0M Aeronautics Research

Or Congress saying: (a) "We're calling it Aeronautics, and you get $535.0M for what you call Aeronautics and Space Research Technology, deal with it."?; or (b)  "We're not funding Space Technology and you have an additional $34.0M for Aeronautics programs."?; or (c)...?

Is that nominally correct?  Thanks.

edit: clarify budget line headings.

[sdsds]

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. 

I was actually confused by that number.  I was thinking about FY2012 amounts

Ah yes:  keeping the years straight gets extra confusing when two of them are "in play" at the same time!

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.

Agreed!  If Congress later wants to bring them back to the left -- ooh -- that's going to be pricey.  The longer the government waits to purchase domestically-provided seats to the ISS, the more expensive they're going to be!

On the flip side, if CCDev is unfunded and Orion or its launcher slips past the INKSNA deadline, then a commercial player that had moved forward independently should rightly get to charge monopoly prices....

Do you think e.g. SpaceX won't internally fund its 2011 crewed Dragon activities sufficiently in the absence of NASA/CCDev support?

I'm pretty sure they won't.  They only have so much IR&D budget, and they'll put that into things like Falcon Heavy and their Vandenburg site to get it ready for EELV flights.

Are you suggesting their FH and VAFB efforts will take priority over crewed Dragon all the way to 2016?  Or that SpaceX can't be ready with crewed Dragon in 2016 unless they "go big" funding it in 2011/2012?

[joek]

---snip---
So did the technology funding end up under another line item, or did technology get raided again?

If I'm reading the PBR and CR properly, it appears*:
new Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology (CR11 $535.0M) =
old Aeronautics Research (FY10 $501.0M) +
old Innovative Partnerships Program (FY10 $175.2M)

Net between those two programs $-141.2M = $535.0M - $175.2M + $501.0M.
What parts of which programs gets raided is unclear.

* PBR contains no request explicitly shows $0 for Innovative Partnerships Program for FY11 and beyond, and states:

NASA's Space Technology Program builds upon the success of its Innovative Partnerships Program and responds to input from the NRC in establishing an advanced space systems concepts and enabling technology development activity.

[Jeff Bingham]

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

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.

Hurray, and thank you for reducing my confusion.

You're right, I was only looking at the top line in the aeronautics authorization.  I should have read further!  PL 111–267:

For Aeronautics, $929,600,000, of which—
(A) $579,600,000 shall be for Aeronautics Research;

You are possibly thinking of the proposed "Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology" funding account

Ah yes!  PL 111–267, Sec. 904-907.

The CR does not recognize that combined budget line, so only reflects the aeronautics research portion.

Thanks yet again.  I am humbled, but gladly so, by your understanding of all this! 

By the way, how's that report from NASA required by sec. 905 looking?  Does NASA’s space technology program meet the goal described in section 904? 

Section 905 required report has not been submitted to the Congress yet, so can't say.

[Jeff Bingham]

---snip---
So did the technology funding end up under another line item, or did technology get raided again?

If I'm reading the PBR and CR properly, it appears*:
new Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology (CR11 $535.0M) =
old Aeronautics Research (FY10 $501.0M) +
old Innovative Partnerships Program (FY10 $175.2M)

Net between those two programs $-141.2M = $535.0M - $175.2M + $501.0M.
What parts of which programs gets raided is unclear.

* PBR contains no request explicitly shows $0 for Innovative Partnerships Program for FY11 and beyond, and states:

NASA's Space Technology Program builds upon the success of its Innovative Partnerships Program and responds to input from the NRC in establishing an advanced space systems concepts and enabling technology development activity.

The Space Technology funding was derived from moving IPP into that line along with a transfer of funds from Exploration Technology Development as the base, then a bit added to get to the requested total. NASA's op plan after final action is taken on appropriations will be where the "puts and takes" will be proposed.

[clongton]

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'm pretty sure they won't.  They only have so much IR&D budget, and they'll put that into things like Falcon Heavy and their Vandenburg site to get it ready for EELV flights.

~Jon

What about Elon's pledge to get a Crewed Dragon operational with or without NASA funding? I've lost track of the number of times he said that.

[yg1968]

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'm pretty sure they won't.  They only have so much IR&D budget, and they'll put that into things like Falcon Heavy and their Vandenburg site to get it ready for EELV flights.

~Jon

What about Elon's pledge to get a Crewed Dragon operational with or without NASA funding? I've lost track of the number of times he said that.

He also said that it would take a lot more time to have a crewed Dragon without NASA funding.

[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 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.

That might explain why Senator Mikulski said that there was some flexibility in the full-year CR. For example, it would be nice if NASA could use this flexibility to allocate some of the FY 2011 COTS funding to commercial crew.

[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.

That might explain why Senator Mikulski said that there was some flexibility in the full-year CR. For example, it would be nice if NASA could use this flexibility to allocate some of the FY 2011 COTS funding to commercial crew.

I believe they have that flexibility, so long as they can justify it to the approps folks in their submission of the FY 2011 amended operating plan. They just need to be able to demonstrate COTS doesn't need it to stay on--or make up lost--schedule, since ISS logistics resupply is the critical area of concern in the near-term. (If no COTS service available within 18 months after last shuttle flight, ISS will have to be "gracefully degraded" with less crew--and thus less available research time.)

[Lurker Steve]

I don't believe Congress would accept a "degraded" ISS.

They already gave additional COTS funding for risk reduction. If NASA wants more commerical crew funding, then they need to steal it from some other project.

[yg1968]

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.

That might explain why Senator Mikulski said that there was some flexibility in the full-year CR. For example, it would be nice if NASA could use this flexibility to allocate some of the FY 2011 COTS funding to commercial crew.

I believe they have that flexibility, so long as they can justify it to the approps folks in their submission of the FY 2011 amended operating plan. They just need to be able to demonstrate COTS doesn't need it to stay on--or make up lost--schedule, since ISS logistics resupply is the critical area of concern in the near-term. (If no COTS service available within 18 months after last shuttle flight, ISS will have to be "gracefully degraded" with less crew--and thus less available research time.)

Perhaps COTS is a bad example given the risks but this type of flexibility could be useful for commercial crew in the future. I am concerned about commercial crew development being underfunded.

[robertross]

I don't believe Congress would accept a "degraded" ISS.

Well, they have the resposibility to fund it properly, as per the GAO reports for many years, and they really aren't.

The same goes for BEO exploration. The Augustine Committee recommended an unconstrained budget, but now we have reduced funding, and FLAT LINE funding (expected, but it could be less) up until 2016. Tell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.

[simonbp]

Tell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.

By changing how you do business. By not funding NASA to develop a heavy lift vehicle when there are two separate companies that could provide that capability for much cheaper. By finding ways to monetize ISS, to tun it from a liability into an asset. By focusing on doing things that the commercial market won't, rather that trying (and failing) to compete with them.

In other words, by treating NASA as a respectable federal government agency, rather than a Texas/Florida/Alabama jobs program.

[yg1968]

I don't believe Congress would accept a "degraded" ISS.

Well, they have the resposibility to fund it properly, as per the GAO reports for many years, and they really aren't.

The same goes for BEO exploration. The Augustine Committee recommended an unconstrained budget, but now we have reduced funding, and FLAT LINE funding (expected, but it could be less) up until 2016. Tell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.

Speaking of GAO reports on the ISS, here is a recent one:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11519r.pdf

See also this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24770.0

[Namechange User]

I don't believe Congress would accept a "degraded" ISS.

Well, they have the resposibility to fund it properly, as per the GAO reports for many years, and they really aren't.

The same goes for BEO exploration. The Augustine Committee recommended an unconstrained budget, but now we have reduced funding, and FLAT LINE funding (expected, but it could be less) up until 2016. Tell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.

Speaking of GAO reports on the ISS, here is a recent one:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11519r.pdf

Yeah, it basically says that ISS, as a functioning vehicle itself, *should* be ok but admits that it is very sensitive to assumptions.  Yeah, those situations always turn out well and just like expected....

It also seems to blow by, and only talk about it in passing, the whole utilization aspect with regard to transportation.  While ISS *may* function, if it not being used as intended, then it is just a waste. 

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

What about Elon's pledge to get a Crewed Dragon operational with or without NASA funding? I've lost track of the number of times he said that.

Ah but which space station will the Dragon be compatible with?  ISS or Bigelow?

Compatibility with both may require the ISS to be enhanced.  Elon cannot order that but NASA and Congress do have the power.