NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Space Policy Discussion => Topic started by: Proponent on 02/28/2019 03:29 pm

Title: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Proponent on 02/28/2019 03:29 pm
According to the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, the Trump administration will in a few weeks submit a budget featuring a 5% across-the-board cut in non-defense discretionary spending (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/02/25/congress_must_join_the_president_in_cutting_spending_139568.html) for FY 2020 (defense spending will be excepted through the usual gimmick of using Overseas Contingency Operations funds).  The Houston Chronicle connects this directly to a 5% cut in NASA's budget request (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/space/article/NASA-could-see-a-5-percent-budget-cut-next-year-13649007.php#photo-15767704), though I don't see a specific reference to NASA in Vought's article.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: SWGlassPit on 03/01/2019 04:24 pm
Before anybody panics about this, the general budgetary process for agencies like NASA is this:

1) Executive branch gets inputs from various agencies regarding budgetary needs for the coming FY.

2) OMB then considers those inputs to varying degrees and crafts the President's Budget Request and submits it to Congress.

3) Congress tosses the PBR in the bin and comes up with their own plan, which they then fail to pass.

4) Hilarity A government shutdown ensues.

5) A continuing resolution is passed, funding everything at generally the previous levels.

6) Lather, rinse, repeat.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: Proponent on 03/02/2019 02:41 pm
It's quite true that the president's budget is only the beginning of the process, and that hasn't even been produced yet.  I will, however, hazard a prediction that now the US again has a divided government (the presidency, the House and the Senate are no longer all controlled by the same party) many politicians who have been in a borrowing mood over the last couple of years will suddenly recall their deep commitments to fiscal responsibility.  At any rate, we'll soon begin to find out:

  2 March (i.e., today):  The government hits the debt ceiling.  Though the Treasury can keep paying the bills for several months by means of various gimmicks, there is probably a melodrama brewing over raising the debt ceiling.

  11 March:  Expected release of the president's budget outline.  Vought has telegraphed that this will call for 5% cuts in non-defense discretionary spending.  My guess is that the president's party will go along with this, setting up a big budget fight and likely cuts of some sort, though maybe not the full 5%.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2019 06:17 pm
Democrat house and dems in the senate are not going to vote for a 5% cut on anything. Neither are most Republicans. Expect another shutdown. White house budget request is honestly a dead document. Won't pass won't even come close. Doubt there will be any cuts on anything.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/06/2019 04:10 am
I think we should all remember that the last Congress actually passed all of the needed funding legislation pretty much on time, and quite a bit of it well before the end of the fiscal year. They were even celebrating how bipartisan the funding legislation was.

What wasn't passed on time were the departments that ended up being shutdown when Trump would not sign the legislation Congress passed.

The Presidents budget is a suggestion to Congress, but it does actually provide a roadmap for some of the funding priorities that Congress considers.

As to NASA, Congress has been giving NASA far more funding than what the Trump Administration has been asking for, and funding programs that the Trump Administration did not want funded, so Congress will do what THEY want, not what anyone else wants (i.e. the President).

So we'll need to wait and see what the new House does with NASA hearings. For instance, to see if they hold any hearings on the activities NASA is working on that include the SLS and Orion, which could signal a reassessment of the SLS and Orion. Or not. Too early to tell...
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: hektor on 03/11/2019 12:23 pm
WSJ from last Saturday announces a 2 % (not 5) reduction of overall NASA budget and an increase of more than $500 million for moon exploration and related programs.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nasas-2020-budget-request-aims-to-speed-lunar-exploration-11552188623

The hike in moon exploration is linked to the following

Quote
To pay for its stepped-up lunar initiative, NASA seeks to trim money from deep-space exploration projects including some ultimately targeting astronaut trips to Mars, according to the people briefed on the numbers. Projects expected to be affected include the heavy-lift SLS rocket and Orion capsule, one of these people said. These and other deep-space technology efforts would get less than previously projected, this person said.

Also

Quote
Congress may balk at some of the moon-centric concepts, partly because there has been strong bipartisan support to pump up spending on SLS, officially called the Space Launch System, which was supposed to fly next year but now may not blast off on its first demonstration mission until 2022, according to another person briefed on the numbers.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/11/2019 02:39 pm
Budget request is out: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/budget-fy2020.pdf

Quote
Funding Highlights:
• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is responsible for leading an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and bring new knowledge and opportunities back to Earth.
• The  Budget  takes  steps  to  achieve  lunar  exploration  goals  sooner,  improve  sustainability  of  NASA’s  exploration campaign, and increase the use of commercial partnerships and other procurement models  to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of NASA programs.
• The  Budget  includes  $363  million  to  support  commercial  development  of  a  large  lunar  lander  that  can  initially carry cargo and later astronauts to the surface of the Moon.
• The Budget focuses funding for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, a heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle, to ensure the rocket is operational in the early 2020s when it will be needed to carry astronauts to the vicinity of the Moon.
• The Budget requests $21 billion for NASA, a $283 million or 1.4-percent increase from the 2019 estimate.

Also found this interesting (my emphasis):

Quote
Supports   an   Ambitious   Program   of   Solar   System  Exploration.    The  Budget  provides  $2.6  billion  for  Planetary  Science,  including  approxi-mately $600 million for a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa that would launch in 2023. By launching that mission on a commercial launch vehicle, NASA would save over $700 million, allowing multiple new  activities  to  be  funded  across  the  Agency.    The  Budget  would  also  initiate  a  mission  to  return  samples from Mars, a top priority of the science community that also supports future human explora-tion. The Budget fully funds the James Webb Space Telescope, which is planned to be NASA’s premier observatory of the next decade.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/11/2019 02:43 pm
Some initial feedback from Eric Berger:

Quote from: @SciGuySpace
I've been saying for awhile that the Exploration Upper Stage (which is the key upgrade to SLS for Block 1B) has been put on ice. This raises a number of questions about how NASA will build the Gateway, which was intended for that rocket.

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1105130829846581248

Quote
What will happen is they will open up non-crew Gateway launches to private rockets. "Lunar Gateway elements would be launched on competitively procured vehicles, complementing crew transport flights on the SLS and Orion."

Edit to add: similarly from Jeff Foust

Quote from: @jeff_foust
The budget funds “the SLS and Orion crew capsule to support a first uncrewed test launch in the early 2020s” [which sounds like a slip from 2020…]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1105130622232731648

Quote
It defers work on the Block 1B version of the SLS (which uses the Exploration Upper Stage), and instead desires an “annual cadence” of Block 1 SLS missions. Gateway components will be launched “on competitively procured vehicles.”
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: hektor on 03/11/2019 03:35 pm
Curious to see what the Congress makes of this. Will they reinstate WFIRST like last year for instance ?
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: Proponent on 03/11/2019 03:48 pm
Wow.  While a 1.4% increase for NASA is actually a cut after inflation, against the backdrop of general 5% cut in non-military discretionary spending, it's really something.  And s Scaling Orion/SLS back about as much as possible without committing the utter political impossibility of canceling it, is surprising too.

I see Bridenstine's fingerprints on this:  he gets my vote for best NASA administrator in a long time.  And, though I do not like Orion/SLS, I must grudgingly admit to more respect for the Trump administration's approach to NASA than I have given it in the past.

At the top of this thread, my expectation was that the 5% across-the-board cut would apply to NASA to, and I expected support for that in Congress (because [1] congressional Republicans have been backing Trump to the hilt recently, and [2] an emerging theme of Trump's 2020 run seems to be that Democrats are big-government socialists).  So, while I was wrong about a 5% cut for NASA, at least my prediction of support for it in Congress can no longer be proven wrong.  Instead, I now expect even more widespread support for the actual proposal.

EDIT:  Crossed out much of the post, because the administration's characterization of it's budget as a 1.4% increase, while possibly not technically false, is at best very misleading (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47537.msg1921541#msg1921541).
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/11/2019 06:29 pm
The budget summary and departmental fact sheets are attached as PDFs below.

I've also attached the summary chart.

In the fact sheets, the future estimates for specific exploration line-items have been excised.  But poorly (https://i.imgur.com/Ln57JJU.png), allowing them to be forensically recovered.  I've done so.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: woods170 on 03/11/2019 06:51 pm
Curious to see what the Congress makes of this. Will they reinstate WFIRST like last year for instance ?

This president's budget proposal for NASA is, like all preceding budget proposals, Dead On Arrival. Expect most, if not all, proposed cuts to be ignored by Congress.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/11/2019 07:29 pm
Jim Bridenstine’s presentation today on the budget request & moon to Mars plans etc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE1BoaqJ3sc
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/11/2019 08:15 pm
https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/1105213630864416769

slides attached
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: yg1968 on 03/12/2019 12:55 am
Curious to see what the Congress makes of this. Will they reinstate WFIRST like last year for instance ?

This president's budget proposal for NASA is, like all preceding budget proposals, Dead On Arrival. Expect most, if not all, proposed cuts to be ignored by Congress.

The President's Budget is the starting point. So it does have an impact. But you are right about the cuts, the Democrats control the House, so it won't pass the House. It won't pass in the Senate either since you need 60 votes for appropriation bills. Spending cuts rarely get passed regardless of which party controls Congress or the Presidency.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 03/12/2019 01:25 am
Lot of things to like with this budget. SLS/Orion handle crew launch while commercial rockets handle the Gateway elements. Because of the once a year flight rate a cargo launch (w/o EUS) would automatically preclude a crew launch in a given year. This option allows much more flexibility in mission design and quite possibly a faster (and cheaper) buildup of the Gateway and return to the lunar surface.

There are still some kinks to work out given that some modules were intended to be launched as co-manifested payloads. I am bummed about EUS being put on ice but I would rather see progress be made and flights happening than wait for an additional development.

I see Bridenstine's fingerprints on this:  he gets my vote for best NASA administrator in a long time.  And, though I do not like Orion/SLS, I must grudgingly admit to more respect for the Trump administration's approach to NASA than I have given it in the past.

Agreed. I was cautiously optimistic when it was announced that he would be NASA admin and so far he has been doing a great job. Would love to be able to talk shop with him.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/12/2019 09:14 am
In terms of exploration, I think this is a budget request that is trying to wean NASA off SLS, to have more funds for the administration's lunar and beyond ambitions etc. I think reveals what Bridenstine really thinks about SLS!

Of course congress may well have different ideas, although the plan doesn't really change the SLS flight rate (in the next 3-4 years) so may be there's still enough work and thus money in the right districts? I guess we're about to find out how much Bridenstine's political background will enable him to navigate between what the administration wants to achieve and what congress is prepared to fund.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/12/2019 09:53 am
Considering that the FY2019 final budget specifically called for funding of EUS and a second MLP, my expectation is to see those items put back in, along with a full education budget, which was cut to zero in this budget.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Dante80 on 03/12/2019 09:55 am
A question, why are they trying to eliminate the education budget? This is not the first time I think. What is the rationale here?
Title: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/12/2019 09:56 am
Lot of things to like with this budget. SLS/Orion handle crew launch while commercial rockets handle the Gateway elements. Because of the once a year flight rate a cargo launch (w/o EUS) would automatically preclude a crew launch in a given year. This option allows much more flexibility in mission design and quite possibly a faster (and cheaper) buildup of the Gateway and return to the lunar surface.

There are still some kinks to work out given that some modules were intended to be launched as co-manifested payloads. I am bummed about EUS being put on ice but I would rather see progress be made and flights happening than wait for an additional development.

I see Bridenstine's fingerprints on this:  he gets my vote for best NASA administrator in a long time.  And, though I do not like Orion/SLS, I must grudgingly admit to more respect for the Trump administration's approach to NASA than I have given it in the past.

Agreed. I was cautiously optimistic when it was announced that he would be NASA admin and so far he has been doing a great job. Would love to be able to talk shop with him.

Anyone who keeps trying to kill a project like WFIRST would hardly qualify under my idea of good.

A question, why are they trying to eliminate the education budget? This is not the first time I think. What is the rationale here?

Partisan politics.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/12/2019 02:00 pm
A question, why are they trying to eliminate the education budget? This is not the first time I think. What is the rationale here?

Partisan politics.

An oversimplification (IMO).

The reasoning, as I understand it, is: We already have a federal Department of Education.  It's not NASA's job to perform or fund STEM education.  All the various education programs sprinkled throughout the federal government are perceived as inefficient.  Consolidation into one organization is alleged to be less expensive due to eliminating unnecessary multiple management/administration overhead costs.  Therefore, such efforts become more efficient, and more effective.  (Efficient does not necessarily equal effective.)

(Putting aside the strict constitutionalist/10th Amendment argument that federal funding of education on the state or local levels is a usurpation of the powers of the several states)

Similar reasoning: Bush the Younger administration officials proposed to consolidate all federal science administration, funding, and grants within one executive agency.  (National Science Foundation, IIRC)  This would have included NASA-funded research.

(If this [NASA STEM education] grows into a full topic of discussion, it should be split into its own discussion thread.)  EDIT re: below: Or just let it go.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: RonM on 03/12/2019 04:43 pm
A question, why are they trying to eliminate the education budget? This is not the first time I think. What is the rationale here?

Partisan politics.

An oversimplification (IMO).

The reasoning, as I understand it, is: We already have a federal Department of Education.  It's not NASA's job to perform or fund STEM education.  All the various education programs sprinkled throughout the federal government are perceived as inefficient.  Consolidation into one organization is alleged to be less expensive due to eliminating unnecessary multiple management/administration overhead costs.  Therefore, such efforts become more efficient, and more effective.  (Efficient does not necessarily equal effective.)

(Putting aside the strict constitutionalist/10th Amendment argument that federal funding of education on the state or local levels is a usurpation of the powers of the several states)

Similar reasoning: Bush the Younger administration officials proposed to consolidate all federal science administration, funding, and grants within one executive agency.  (National Science Foundation, IIRC)  This would have included NASA-funded research.

(If this grows into a full topic of discussion, it should be split into its own discussion thread.)

I don't think we need to discuss this part of the NASA budget on this forum. It's more of a fundamental political discussion on how the federal government should operate.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/12/2019 07:42 pm
A question, why are they trying to eliminate the education budget? This is not the first time I think. What is the rationale here?

Partisan politics.

An oversimplification (IMO).

The reasoning, as I understand it, is: We already have a federal Department of Education.  It's not NASA's job to perform or fund STEM education.  All the various education programs sprinkled throughout the federal government are perceived as inefficient.  Consolidation into one organization is alleged to be less expensive due to eliminating unnecessary multiple management/administration overhead costs.  Therefore, such efforts become more efficient, and more effective.  (Efficient does not necessarily equal effective.)

(Putting aside the strict constitutionalist/10th Amendment argument that federal funding of education on the state or local levels is a usurpation of the powers of the several states)

Similar reasoning: Bush the Younger administration officials proposed to consolidate all federal science administration, funding, and grants within one executive agency.  (National Science Foundation, IIRC)  This would have included NASA-funded research.

(If this grows into a full topic of discussion, it should be split into its own discussion thread.)

I don't think we need to discuss this part of the NASA budget on this forum. It's more of a fundamental political discussion on how the federal government should operate.

Suddenly when it’s inconvenient you want to separate the two?
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/12/2019 07:53 pm
Please see below for the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration’s statement regarding the FY 2020 NASA budget request.
 
 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                   
March 12, 2019                                                 
 
COALITION FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION STATEMENT ON FY 2020 NASA BUDGET REQUEST
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The President’s FY 2020 Budget Request for NASA proposes nearly a half billion dollar cut to agency funding from its current, FY 19 enacted level. While this marks an improvement in the topline budget request from previous years, the request contains significant cuts to most parts of the NASA budget to accommodate both this reduction and several new program starts. The impacts include:
 

    Science: A $600M reduction, totaling 9%, with cuts of $152M to Earth Science, $162M to Planetary Science and $347M to Astrophysics. The Administration proposes to terminate PACE, CLAREEO and WFIRST, as it did last year – program cuts that Congress has previously rejected
    Aeronautics: A $58M reduction, while advancing the X59
    Space Operations - includes the International Space Station, Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew: A $354M reduction, while continuing the proposal to end direct federal funding of the ISS in 2025. Commercial transportation also sees ongoing reductions in the out years.
    Exploration Systems: A $699M reduction, with cuts of $375M to SLS, $84M to Orion, $190M to Exploration Ground Systems and $50M to the Mobile Launch Platform-2
    STEM Education: Terminates the office, as proposed last year and also rejected by Congress, with a cut of $110M

 
The only proposed budget increases above the FY 19 enacted level would go to funding public-private partnerships with lunar focus including Lunar Landers (+$247M), Gateway (+$371M) and Space Technology focused on lunar missions and development (+$88M), as well as a Commercial LEO Platform ($110M).  The budget also includes much-needed support of infrastructure and environmental compliance across the agency (+$581M).
 
“The Coalition applauds the Administrations’ desire to “lean forward” on the Moon to Mars effort. We also strongly support the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to develop new capabilities both for the government and in the private sector. However, this budget appears to overly rely on to address funding shortfalls due to the proposed topline budget cut,” said Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, President and CEO of the Coalition. “While there are some positive aspects to the Administration’s request – the focus on lunar Gateway and on sending humans to deep space to stay, the decision to begin a Mars Sample Return effort, and the desire for new starts to advance the agency’s mission – the proposed budget would nevertheless cut a number of the agency’s resources in key science and exploration programs at a critical moment in time. It is our hope that Congress will balance funding in support of all of the agency’s key priorities, rather than forcing false trades between important missions.”
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/12/2019 07:59 pm
Considering that the FY2019 final budget specifically called for funding of EUS and a second MLP, my expectation is to see those items put back in, along with a full education budget, which was cut to zero in this budget.

I think that you are right. I think that the Administration will consistently ask for certain things to be cancelled in its budget and Congress will consistently refuse to do it. Same thing for WFirst.

However, the Europa mission being changed to a commercial rocket instead of SLS might happen especially given the fact that Frank Culberson (who insisted SLS be used for it) wasn't re-elected.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/12/2019 08:31 pm
Please see below for the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration’s statement regarding the FY 2020 NASA budget request.
 
 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                   
March 12, 2019                                                 
 
COALITION FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION STATEMENT ON FY 2020 NASA BUDGET REQUEST
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The President’s FY 2020 Budget Request for NASA proposes nearly a half billion dollar cut to agency funding from its current, FY 19 enacted level. While this marks an improvement in the topline budget request from previous years, the request contains significant cuts to most parts of the NASA budget to accommodate both this reduction and several new program starts. The impacts include:
 

    Science: A $600M reduction, totaling 9%, with cuts of $152M to Earth Science, $162M to Planetary Science and $347M to Astrophysics. The Administration proposes to terminate PACE, CLAREEO and WFIRST, as it did last year – program cuts that Congress has previously rejected
    Aeronautics: A $58M reduction, while advancing the X59
    Space Operations - includes the International Space Station, Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew: A $354M reduction, while continuing the proposal to end direct federal funding of the ISS in 2025. Commercial transportation also sees ongoing reductions in the out years.
    Exploration Systems: A $699M reduction, with cuts of $375M to SLS, $84M to Orion, $190M to Exploration Ground Systems and $50M to the Mobile Launch Platform-2
    STEM Education: Terminates the office, as proposed last year and also rejected by Congress, with a cut of $110M

 
The only proposed budget increases above the FY 19 enacted level would go to funding public-private partnerships with lunar focus including Lunar Landers (+$247M), Gateway (+$371M) and Space Technology focused on lunar missions and development (+$88M), as well as a Commercial LEO Platform ($110M).  The budget also includes much-needed support of infrastructure and environmental compliance across the agency (+$581M).
 
“The Coalition applauds the Administrations’ desire to “lean forward” on the Moon to Mars effort. We also strongly support the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to develop new capabilities both for the government and in the private sector. However, this budget appears to overly rely on to address funding shortfalls due to the proposed topline budget cut,” said Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, President and CEO of the Coalition. “While there are some positive aspects to the Administration’s request – the focus on lunar Gateway and on sending humans to deep space to stay, the decision to begin a Mars Sample Return effort, and the desire for new starts to advance the agency’s mission – the proposed budget would nevertheless cut a number of the agency’s resources in key science and exploration programs at a critical moment in time. It is our hope that Congress will balance funding in support of all of the agency’s key priorities, rather than forcing false trades between important missions.”

Their PR company made a boo boo. And there's a mistake in the correction, but may the first person who's never suffered typos throw the first typewriter! ;D

CORRECTION: Our apologies as their was a few missing words from Dr. Dittmar’s quote. The corrected quote is below:
 
“The Coalition applauds the Administrations’ desire to “lean forward” on the Moon to Mars effort. We also strongly support the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to develop new capabilities both for the government and in the private sector. However, this budget appears to overly rely on public-private partnerships to address funding shortfalls due to the proposed topline budget cut,” said Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, President and CEO of the Coalition. “While there are some positive aspects to the Administration’s request – the focus on lunar Gateway and on sending humans to deep space to stay, the decision to begin a Mars Sample Return effort, and the desire for new starts to advance the agency’s mission – the proposed budget would nevertheless cut a number of the agency’s resources in key science and exploration programs at a critical moment in time. It is our hope that Congress will balance funding in support of all of the agency’s key priorities, rather than forcing false trades between important missions.”
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Proponent on 03/12/2019 10:15 pm
Budget request is out: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/budget-fy2020.pdf

Quote
Funding Highlights:
• The Budget requests $21 billion for NASA, a $283 million or 1.4-percent increase from the 2019 estimate.

Hang on a minute.  Per the extract from the fact sheet kindly posted by theinternetftw (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47537.msg1921118#msg1921118), budget authority would decrease from $21,500 million to in FY 2019 to $21,019 million in FY 2020, a decrease of $481 million, as Doug Messier points out (http://parabolicarc.com/2019/03/11/trump-proposes-481-million-cut-nasa-fy-2020-budget/#more-68214).  That's a 2.2% cut (before inflation) -- in line with the Wall Street Journal reported (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47537.msg1920950#msg1920950).

Since the Trump administration describes its budget proposal as being a 1.4% increase on the "2019 estimate," I wonder if it's referring to the administration's 2019 budget request, not to the NASA budget.  If so, then the administration's characterization is, while not technically false, quite misleading.  And I fell for it!



Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Rocket Science on 03/12/2019 10:21 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3pGNTIC4c
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/12/2019 10:59 pm
Budget request is out: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/budget-fy2020.pdf

Quote
Funding Highlights:
• The Budget requests $21 billion for NASA, a $283 million or 1.4-percent increase from the 2019 estimate.

Hang on a minute.  Per the extract from the fact sheet kindly posted by theinternetftw (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47537.msg1921118#msg1921118), budget authority would decrease from $21,500 million to in FY 2019 to $21,019 million in FY 2020, a decrease of $481 million, as Doug Messier points out (http://parabolicarc.com/2019/03/11/trump-proposes-481-million-cut-nasa-fy-2020-budget/#more-68214).  That's a 2.2% cut (before inflation) -- in line with the Wall Street Journal reported (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47537.msg1920950#msg1920950).

Since the Trump administration describes its budget proposal as being a 1.4% increase on the "2019 estimate," I wonder if it's referring to the administration's 2019 budget request, not to the NASA budget.  If so, then the administration's characterization is, while not technically false, quite misleading.  And I fell for it!

When they were preparing the Budget, they did not have the final FY19 numbers, so they probably used last year's President budget request as a reference. This often happens, I wouldn't call it misleading, they don't have time to update their numbers to take into account, late budget deals.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/13/2019 02:38 am
Here are the NASA Budget documents:

https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/13/2019 02:41 am
Here is the audio of the teleconference:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/audio/2108963446.mp3

Transcript of the teleconference:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/transcript_fy_2020_budget_telecon.pdf

Slides of the teleconference:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2020_summary_budget_brief.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/13/2019 03:04 am
WFirst isn't actually cancelled. Slide 7 states:

Quote
Continues exploring the universe with launch of James Webb Space Telescope in 2021.

Provides no funding for WFIRST space telescope while Webb is still being built.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/13/2019 03:29 am
The idea of using SLS solely as a crew launcher for lunar missions is absolutely stupid. No need for mincing words here, it's simply a stupid idea by every measure and metric.

While I greatly support a commercial BEO program you cannot do that and also keep SLS as the new Stick v2 CALV. Launch crew on the same vehicles used to take up gateway elements. SLS would simply become an even bigger and more expensive dead weight as a crew only launcher. Literally ares 1 reborn.

With that said I don't think we will have to worry about it. This budget will not pass and both parties of congress do not support ANY cuts to SLS. Most of the people involved want to increase SLS funding and build EUS despite the endless delays and contractor embezzlement. Congress usually wins these things and they almost always get what they want. Obama FY2010-2011 canceled all BEO activities in the near term and wanted to focus on a commercial industry which was still nascent. As we all know this plan never happened the opposite happened instead with congress designing their own plan.

Even more to the point here, all the proposed cuts to things like WFIRST and other science missions. There is absolutely no way either the house or the senate is going to back this. There are also many other similarly proposed cuts to other agencies and pet programs, congress critters do not EVER let people take all the pork away. This budget would essentially do that but more on top of it. And yes stating it's a 1.9% increase is misleading and untrue. WH spin nothing more.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/13/2019 07:47 am
WFirst isn't actually cancelled. Slide 7 states:

Quote
Continues exploring the universe with launch of James Webb Space Telescope in 2021.

Provides no funding for WFIRST space telescope while Webb is still being built.


This seems to be a point of contention.  From the budget telecon: (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/transcript_fy_2020_budget_telecon.pdf)

Quote
TARIQ MALIK (Space.com): Yes. Thank you. You know, I had a question about the WFIRST
space telescope itself, just because I know there was the attempt to cancel it in 2019 and then
the funding, the $321 million, was added back in there to kind of aim for that 2020's launch
date. You know, in the language that was released today, it says both to terminate the
telescope itself as well as to kind of delay any funding in it, pending a JWST completion. So is
the goal with this request to unequivocally cancel the telescope for all time, or is there a
window that is open there that would allow renewed funding in the 2021 pending a JWST
launch at that time? Thank you.
ANDREW HUNTER: Yeah. I think that would be something we would revisit in subsequent
budget cycles. It's just assumed canceled in this one,
but by no means will science not be
revisited if it's found to be a priority.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: woods170 on 03/13/2019 08:21 am
WFirst isn't actually cancelled. Slide 7 states:

Quote
Continues exploring the universe with launch of James Webb Space Telescope in 2021.

Provides no funding for WFIRST space telescope while Webb is still being built.


This seems to be a point of contention.  From the budget telecon: (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/transcript_fy_2020_budget_telecon.pdf)

Quote
TARIQ MALIK (Space.com): Yes. Thank you. You know, I had a question about the WFIRST
space telescope itself, just because I know there was the attempt to cancel it in 2019 and then
the funding, the $321 million, was added back in there to kind of aim for that 2020's launch
date. You know, in the language that was released today, it says both to terminate the
telescope itself as well as to kind of delay any funding in it, pending a JWST completion. So is
the goal with this request to unequivocally cancel the telescope for all time, or is there a
window that is open there that would allow renewed funding in the 2021 pending a JWST
launch at that time? Thank you.
ANDREW HUNTER: Yeah. I think that would be something we would revisit in subsequent
budget cycles. It's just assumed canceled in this one,
but by no means will science not be
revisited if it's found to be a priority.

It does not actually require a mandated-by-law cancellation order to cancel a program. Usually a program is cancelled by simply de-funding the program.
That is what is happening here (or at least, it is being attempted) : in the President's budget request the program is de-funded. If, in the final appropriations the program remains de-funded (not likely to happen though) than the program is effectively cancelled.

Something similar happened when President Obama "cancelled" the Constellation Program. Via his budget request the program was de-funded. US Congress than did its thing and in the final appropriations the program remainded de-funded. Therefore effectively cancelling the program. A formal closure of the program wasn't issued by NASA until almost a year later.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/13/2019 02:41 pm
There is some logic in deferring funding for WFIRST until James Webb is launched. Although, I imagine that some funding is still required to keep the program active. From what I recall that is essentially what Congress is doing now (WFIRST gets some funding but not a lot).
Title: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/14/2019 03:49 pm
There is some logic in deferring funding for WFIRST until James Webb is launched. Although, I imagine that some funding is still required to keep the program active. From what I recall that is essentially what Congress is doing now (WFIRST gets some funding but not a lot).

This appears to be what many feared might happen that JWST is now damaging this whole budget area at NASA.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 03/14/2019 09:09 pm
This appears to be what many feared might happen that JWST is now damaging this whole budget area at NASA.

This is true.  Privately there are many scientists and PIs who say this.  Some of us said it publicly.

JWST killed a lot of science.  JWST will produce a lot of science.

We should never use the JWST model again.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Proponent on 03/14/2019 10:12 pm
We should never use the JWST model again.

I fully agree that JWST should never be repeated, but what is the JWST model?  What are the key things that have sent it so far off the rails?
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 03/15/2019 01:15 am
We should never use the JWST model again.

I fully agree that JWST should never be repeated, but what is the JWST model?  What are the key things that have sent it so far off the rails?
JWST was originally promised for under $1 billion, then $1.5 billion and then $3 billion and the sucker keeps growing.  Some people think it has crippled a lot of potential from astrophysics.

I will look for the briefing we gave back in 2011 - found it.  We sourced it well in the notes pages.

Short answer is when the deputy says "...a billion dollars doesn't buy you much" you fire them and you move to smaller programs that develop technologies.

I am not complaining - plenty of people asking how could we have known back in 2011. 
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Proponent on 03/15/2019 01:23 am
I fully agree that JWST should never be repeated, but what is the JWST model?  What are the key things that have sent it so far off the rails?
JWST was originally promised for under $1 billion, then $1.5 billion and then $3 billion and the sucker keeps growing.  Some people think it has crippled a lot of potential from astrophysics.

I will look for the briefing we gave back in 2011 - found it.  We sourced it well in the notes pages.

Short answer is when the deputy says "...a billion dollars doesn't buy you much" you fire them and you move to smaller programs that develop technologies.

I am not complaining - plenty of people asking how could we have known back in 2011. 

Thank you.

One minor point about that very clear presentation, if I may.  Page 7 mentions the budgeting error of not using a "bottoms up approach."  I'm thinking you meant "bottom-up"?  To me, "bottoms up" suggests the rapid consumption of alcohol, which I presume is best avoided!  :)
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 03/15/2019 01:47 am
LOL THAT IS AN AWESOME CATCH!

We have not given this brief to congress in years.  Honestly - once Senator Barbara Mikulski thanked us with a back handed comment we knew they were going to steamroller this through with SLS.  Personally, I know this was directed at us because one of her staffers made sure I knew she was letting us know.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-webb-telescope-mikulski-20111026-story.html 

It was fun back then.  We presented this to over 200 congressional offices and 40 plus senate offices in like a week.  We had an awesome team.

We need to do one of those charts for SLS and roll in CxP too.  The dollars are staggering. 

//salute//
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/17/2019 12:27 pm
Son of Star Wars?

Pentagon Wants to Test A Space-Based Weapon in 2023 (https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/03/pentagon-wants-test-space-based-weapon-2023/155581/)

Quote
Defense officials want to test a neutral particle-beam in orbit in fiscal 2023 as part of a ramped-up effort to explore various types of space-based weaponry. They’ve asked for $304 million in the 2020 budget to develop such beams, more powerful lasers, and other new tech for next-generation missile defense. Such weapons are needed, they say, to counter new missiles from China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. But just figuring out what might work is a difficult technical challenge.

So the Pentagon is undertaking two studies. The first is a $15 million exploration of whether satellites outfitted with lasers might be able to disable enemy missiles coming off the launch pad. Defense officials have said previously that these lasers would need to be in the megawatt class. They expect to finish the study within six months.

They’re also pouring money into a study of space-based neutral particle beams, a different form of directed energy that disrupts missiles with streams of subatomic particles traveling close to light speed — as opposed to lasers, whose photons travel at light speed.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: JH on 03/18/2019 01:00 am
Pentagon Wants to Test A Space-Based Weapon in 2023 (https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/03/pentagon-wants-test-space-based-weapon-2023/155581/)
Quote
...a different form of directed energy that disrupts missiles with streams of subatomic particles traveling close to light speed...

It emits hydrogen, not subatomic particles.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/18/2019 03:32 pm
https://twitter.com/spcplcyonline/status/1107674387229093889

File attached
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/18/2019 08:09 pm
Is NASA’s Golden Age of Space Telescopes Ending? (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nasas-golden-age-of-space-telescopes-ending/)

Quote
“If that budget is really the budget, there are not going to be future flagships,” said David Spergel, a Princeton University theoretical astrophysicist, who co-chairs the WFIRST science team.
“We will have JWST—a wonderful observatory—and that’s it,” said Jon Morse, who led NASA’s Astrophysics Division from 2007 to 2011. He now serves as CEO of the BoldlyGo Institute, a nonprofit devoted to developing space-science missions.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: docmordrid on 03/19/2019 03:51 pm
Pentagon Wants to Test A Space-Based Weapon in 2023 (https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/03/pentagon-wants-test-space-based-weapon-2023/155581/)
Quote
...a different form of directed energy that disrupts missiles with streams of subatomic particles traveling close to light speed...

It emits hydrogen, not subatomic particles.

At very high energies.

BEAR target,

Link... (https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/washington-d-c-the-u-s-tested-its-beam-experiment-aboard-news-photo/515213634)
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Proponent on 03/19/2019 07:39 pm
Is NASA’s Golden Age of Space Telescopes Ending? (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nasas-golden-age-of-space-telescopes-ending/)

Quote
“If that budget is really the budget, there are not going to be future flagships,” said David Spergel, a Princeton University theoretical astrophysicist, who co-chairs the WFIRST science team.
“We will have JWST—a wonderful observatory—and that’s it,” said Jon Morse, who led NASA’s Astrophysics Division from 2007 to 2011. He now serves as CEO of the BoldlyGo Institute, a nonprofit devoted to developing space-science missions.

Well, that's what happens when you produce a managerial and budgetary disaster like JWST.  Astrophysicists like Morse did this to themselves.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 03/20/2019 12:47 am
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/20/2019 03:31 am
Elephant in the room: What happens if the insanely complex deployment sequence doesn't work and JWST fails.
What happens if the sun shield is damaged by MMOD during operations?

Not trying to go down the infinite what if loop but these seem to be outstanding issues. With so much money and years lost on this project what is the outcome if the many risky design choices backfire?
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/20/2019 06:31 am
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

Don’t even joke about things like that as it isn’t funny especially when it hasn’t even launched yet.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: woods170 on 03/21/2019 07:12 am
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

IMO no.

Long before the Hubble Space Telescope got famous for having a flawed primary mirror it was famous for being hugely over-budget. When it finally reached orbit it had gone over-budget a whopping 400%.

IMO with JWST NASA made exactly the same mistakes it made with Hubble: no cost control for missions that are deemed "too big to fail / too big to cancel".

IMO JWST should have been cancelled when the CDR-approved budget plan of $6.5B was breached (which happened in 2011).
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/21/2019 07:24 am
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

IMO no.

Long before the Hubble Space Telescope got famous for having a flawed primary mirror it was famous for being hugely over-budget. When it finally reached orbit it had gone over-budget a whopping 400%.

IMO with JWST NASA made exactly the same mistakes it made with Hubble: no cost control for missions that are deemed "too big to fail / too big to cancel".

IMO JWST should have been cancelled when the CDR-approved budget plan of $6.5B was breached (which happened in 2011).

You could have cancelled Hubble then by that way of thinking and look at all the science we would have lost as a result. Some are a bit too fond of this reductionist way of thinking that says the only way of fixing a program is to cancel it.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: woods170 on 03/21/2019 08:03 am
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

IMO no.

Long before the Hubble Space Telescope got famous for having a flawed primary mirror it was famous for being hugely over-budget. When it finally reached orbit it had gone over-budget a whopping 400%.

IMO with JWST NASA made exactly the same mistakes it made with Hubble: no cost control for missions that are deemed "too big to fail / too big to cancel".

IMO JWST should have been cancelled when the CDR-approved budget plan of $6.5B was breached (which happened in 2011).

You could have cancelled Hubble then by that way of thinking and look at all the science we would have lost as a result. Some are a bit too fond of this reductionist way of thinking that says the only way of fixing a program is to cancel it.

Programs can be fixed by being smart. That's not what was being applied during Hubble- and JWST development. Management at those times decided to go for the easy fixes: throw more money at the problem, in stead of making decisions that really would have helped.
But when 'money-throwing' is becoming the only means of fixing a program than yes, IMO, the program should be put out of its misery by cancelling it.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/21/2019 10:53 am
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

IMO no.

Long before the Hubble Space Telescope got famous for having a flawed primary mirror it was famous for being hugely over-budget. When it finally reached orbit it had gone over-budget a whopping 400%.

IMO with JWST NASA made exactly the same mistakes it made with Hubble: no cost control for missions that are deemed "too big to fail / too big to cancel".

IMO JWST should have been cancelled when the CDR-approved budget plan of $6.5B was breached (which happened in 2011).

You could have cancelled Hubble then by that way of thinking and look at all the science we would have lost as a result. Some are a bit too fond of this reductionist way of thinking that says the only way of fixing a program is to cancel it.

Programs can be fixed by being smart. That's not what was being applied during Hubble- and JWST development. Management at those times decided to go for the easy fixes: throw more money at the problem, in stead of making decisions that really would have helped.
But when 'money-throwing' is becoming the only means of fixing a program than yes, IMO, the program should be put out of its misery by cancelling it.

In that case you improve the management of the program not cancel it. Your answer seems to be the ‘lazy’ one because it doesn’t actually mean getting involved and fixing stuff. Which in my view is better answer as it probably not just helps the existing program but also future ones as well.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: woods170 on 03/21/2019 11:14 am
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

IMO no.

Long before the Hubble Space Telescope got famous for having a flawed primary mirror it was famous for being hugely over-budget. When it finally reached orbit it had gone over-budget a whopping 400%.

IMO with JWST NASA made exactly the same mistakes it made with Hubble: no cost control for missions that are deemed "too big to fail / too big to cancel".

IMO JWST should have been cancelled when the CDR-approved budget plan of $6.5B was breached (which happened in 2011).

You could have cancelled Hubble then by that way of thinking and look at all the science we would have lost as a result. Some are a bit too fond of this reductionist way of thinking that says the only way of fixing a program is to cancel it.

Programs can be fixed by being smart. That's not what was being applied during Hubble- and JWST development. Management at those times decided to go for the easy fixes: throw more money at the problem, in stead of making decisions that really would have helped.
But when 'money-throwing' is becoming the only means of fixing a program than yes, IMO, the program should be put out of its misery by cancelling it.

In that case you improve the management of the program not cancel it. Your answer seems to be the ‘lazy’ one because it doesn’t actually mean getting involved and fixing stuff. Which in my view is better answer as it probably not just helps the existing program but also future ones as well.

The trick is not to improve the management of the program. The trick is to make sure there is excellent management from the very beginning. Unfortunately neither Hubble nor JWST had excellent management. In fact, both programs started with very poor management. It was in fact this poor management that was one of the driving causes behind Hubble ending up with a flawed primary mirror. But that is a story for another day...

Improving management after the program has already rolled down the hill and has crashed into the barn is not going to fix anything afterwards because the program has already become a complete and utter train wreck. That is exactly why the supposed improvements in program management for JWST have failed to keep the JWST costs within the congressionally imposed cost cap for JWST. The program is completely out of control and at this stage no level of even the most excellent management will be able to do anything about it.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/21/2019 01:45 pm
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

IMO no.

Long before the Hubble Space Telescope got famous for having a flawed primary mirror it was famous for being hugely over-budget. When it finally reached orbit it had gone over-budget a whopping 400%.

IMO with JWST NASA made exactly the same mistakes it made with Hubble: no cost control for missions that are deemed "too big to fail / too big to cancel".

IMO JWST should have been cancelled when the CDR-approved budget plan of $6.5B was breached (which happened in 2011).

You could have cancelled Hubble then by that way of thinking and look at all the science we would have lost as a result. Some are a bit too fond of this reductionist way of thinking that says the only way of fixing a program is to cancel it.

Programs can be fixed by being smart. That's not what was being applied during Hubble- and JWST development. Management at those times decided to go for the easy fixes: throw more money at the problem, in stead of making decisions that really would have helped.
But when 'money-throwing' is becoming the only means of fixing a program than yes, IMO, the program should be put out of its misery by cancelling it.

In that case you improve the management of the program not cancel it. Your answer seems to be the ‘lazy’ one because it doesn’t actually mean getting involved and fixing stuff. Which in my view is better answer as it probably not just helps the existing program but also future ones as well.

The trick is not to improve the management of the program. The trick is to make sure there is excellent management from the very beginning. Unfortunately neither Hubble nor JWST had excellent management. In fact, both programs started with very poor management. It was in fact this poor management that was one of the driving causes behind Hubble ending up with a flawed primary mirror. But that is a story for another day...

Improving management after the program has already rolled down the hill and has crashed into the barn is not going to fix anything afterwards because the program has already become a complete and utter train wreck. That is exactly why the supposed improvements in program management for JWST have failed to keep the JWST costs within the congressionally imposed cost cap for JWST. The program is completely out of control and at this stage no level of even the most excellent management will be able to do anything about it.

There is no justifiable reason for the saying the program is completely out of control now other than you wanting to put a particular spin on things to justify your earlier statements.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: JH on 03/21/2019 11:06 pm
What happens if the sun shield is damaged by MMOD during operations?

Extremely unlikely at Sun-Earth L2, at least compared to LEO.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: FinalFrontier on 03/22/2019 04:12 am
What happens if the sun shield is damaged by MMOD during operations?

Extremely unlikely at Sun-Earth L2, at least compared to LEO.
Still doesn't solve the deployment sequence issue.

It's not even the fact that this vehicle is so massively over budget and behind. It's the fact that on top of that the design is so ridiculously exotic even after all the testing and money and time there is a significant chance this thing won't work. And unlike hubble you can't fix this one.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: woods170 on 03/22/2019 07:04 am
What happens if the sun shield is damaged by MMOD during operations?

Extremely unlikely at Sun-Earth L2, at least compared to LEO.
Still doesn't solve the deployment sequence issue.

It's not even the fact that this vehicle is so massively over budget and behind. It's the fact that on top of that the design is so ridiculously exotic even after all the testing and money and time there is a significant chance this thing won't work. And unlike hubble you can't fix this one.

On JWST 178 individual releases/deployments must be executed perfectly or the telescope is a write-off.
The total number of individual releases/deployments on Hubble was less than 30.

Purely looking at the number of releases/deployments to be executed JWST is six times more complex than Hubble. Let's hope that every single one of those 178 releases/deployments is successful. Otherwise the blood at NASA HQ is going to be knee-deep.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: mlindner on 03/22/2019 09:31 am
Too many kool-aide drinkers supported JWST.  We will get JWST and then we will feel the ramifications of no cost controls on a program that was too big to fail.

It is only after the fact that things like this are realized.  Hopefully other directorates learn from Webb's mistake.

I still say we name JWST to the Barbara Mikulski Telescope to Nowhere and then cancel it.

Too harsh?

IMO no.

Long before the Hubble Space Telescope got famous for having a flawed primary mirror it was famous for being hugely over-budget. When it finally reached orbit it had gone over-budget a whopping 400%.

IMO with JWST NASA made exactly the same mistakes it made with Hubble: no cost control for missions that are deemed "too big to fail / too big to cancel".

IMO JWST should have been cancelled when the CDR-approved budget plan of $6.5B was breached (which happened in 2011).

I like the idea of establishing a policy of the government suing any contractor that fails to deliver within budget to return any money spent. And apply that across the entire government.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/22/2019 03:09 pm
I like the idea of establishing a policy of the government suing any contractor that fails to deliver within budget to return any money spent. And apply that across the entire government.

OK, as long as:

1. The government has to provide detailed and complete specs before bids are accepted.
2. It would be illegal for the government to change the specs after they award the contract.

Government contractors are not blameless in contract overruns, but neither is the government...  ;)
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Star One on 03/22/2019 04:05 pm
I like the idea of establishing a policy of the government suing any contractor that fails to deliver within budget to return any money spent. And apply that across the entire government.

OK, as long as:

1. The government has to provide detailed and complete specs before bids are accepted.
2. It would be illegal for the government to change the specs after they award the contract.

Government contractors are not blameless in contract overruns, but neither is the government...  ;)

You say that but you certainly appear to be on the contractors side of we just take your post at face value.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: mlindner on 03/22/2019 05:00 pm
I like the idea of establishing a policy of the government suing any contractor that fails to deliver within budget to return any money spent. And apply that across the entire government.

OK, as long as:

1. The government has to provide detailed and complete specs before bids are accepted.
2. It would be illegal for the government to change the specs after they award the contract.

Government contractors are not blameless in contract overruns, but neither is the government...  ;)

1. I'm sure the contractors have perfectly capable engineers that can design something without being told how to do it. Specify what the craft must do (measure infrared light with a given sensitivity and given reliability) and let the contractor figure out the rest.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/22/2019 06:58 pm
1. I'm sure the contractors have perfectly capable engineers that can design something without being told how to do it. Specify what the craft must do (measure infrared light with a given sensitivity and given reliability) and let the contractor figure out the rest.

It sounds easy on paper, but designing one-off complex systems without complete specs is not easy. There can be many unknowns, and sticking the contractor with the responsibility of understand everything the customer wants - without the customer providing enough detail - is a recipe for not having any contractors bid on challenging programs.

You say that but you certainly appear to be on the contractors side of we just take your post at face value.

I've been management at government contractors, so I do understand the pain of when we do something thinking it's right, only to have the government representatives tell us we're wrong.

And this is not limited to the U.S. Government and government contractors. This happens everywhere there are customer-supplier relationships. Whether we like it or not, the old saying of "If it's not written, it doesn't exist" is a truism.

And while high-level specifications can work, the customer has less control over the final product/service.

For instance, the Commercial Cargo program detailed how the cargo service would be provided, but the service providers controlled how the transportation systems would be built. It was a successful program, and more should be like that, but for Commercial Crew NASA took back more control over the transportation systems, and that has been blamed for part of the schedule delays (i.e. NASA tinkering too much).

As for the SLS program, that was a product dreamed up in Congress without any detailed specifications or studies to support the design, and then Boeing was given a LOT of freedom to structure the program the way they wanted it - which obviously has not resulted in a final product yet, despite over $10B being spent on it.

So was Boeing to blame for the SLS, or the politicians in Congress that created it? Or both?
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: speedevil on 03/22/2019 07:11 pm
1. I'm sure the contractors have perfectly capable engineers that can design something without being told how to do it. Specify what the craft must do (measure infrared light with a given sensitivity and given reliability) and let the contractor figure out the rest.

If you put liability on contractors to actually deliver systems that are more complicated than '1 more identical widget', availability of contractors that will bid at all goes down, and the internal risk they are taking goes way up.
This may increase prices, not reduce them.
Or in many cases, you simply may not get bidders.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/27/2019 10:33 pm
NASA’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2020 : House Appropriations Committee

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bpkpd8gk1hc
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/29/2019 01:09 am
Bridenstine's statement:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP19/20190327/109156/HHRG-116-AP19-Wstate-BridenstineJ-20190327.pdf
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 03/29/2019 01:38 am
There is a lot of interesting information in that statement. Here are some of the highlights:

Quote from: Bridenstine
Through the Commercial LEO Development program, NASA will continue to leverage its resources and capabilities to enable the development of a commercial market in LEO. The program’s first solicitation activity, which will go out in the next few months, will support the development of new commercial LEO platforms and capabilities. These partnerships will further accelerate the transition of human spaceflight operations in low-Earth orbit to commercial partners for NASA and non-NASA needs.

While more powerful SLS configurations remain an important future capability, recent delays in SLS core stage manufacturing require that NASA concentrate in the near term on the successful completion of EM1 and EM-2 rather than split attention between EM-1, EM-2, and developing an upgraded upper stage. As a result, SLS Block 1B final development efforts will be deferred.

The Lunar Gateway will be launched on competitively procured commercial launch vehicles and assembled in orbit around the Moon where it will be used immediately as a staging point for missions to the lunar surface. It can evolve depending on mission needs, and will support human-class reusable landers, landing a crew of up to four astronauts on the lunar surface and ultimately developing sustaining lunar operations on the Moon.

This budget integrates the NASA Docking System (NDS) into the modules of the Lunar Gateway, reducing development cost and allowing NASA, international and commercial partners to easily dock with Lunar Gateway to support lunar landers (including reusable human), the Lunar Gateway itself and science objectives.

The budget request supports commercial development of a large lunar lander that can initially carry cargo and later astronauts to the surface of the Moon.

In order to address power requirements for long-duration human missions to the lunar surface, NASA is continuing work on its Kilopower technology project to demonstrate a small, lightweight fission power system. The Kilopower project will transition into a demonstration mission in FY 2020 that would permit long-duration crewed missions on the surface of the Moon. 
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/29/2019 01:50 am
There is a lot of interesting information in that statement:

Quote from: Bridenstine
While more powerful SLS configurations remain an important future capability, recent delays in SLS core stage manufacturing require that NASA concentrate in the near term on the successful completion of EM1 and EM-2 rather than split attention between EM-1, EM-2, and developing an upgraded upper stage. As a result, SLS Block 1B final development efforts will be deferred.

Well, either the sudden EUS-is-vital-and-needed-asap lipservice was just that, or this statement was written before the 180 on Tuesday and they just never changed it because who will ever care, or they're trying to play every side while having their cake and eating it too.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 04/01/2019 11:36 pm
Town hall with Bridenstine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2gz2E-Wrws
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: JohnFornaro on 04/02/2019 07:02 pm
There is a lot of interesting information in that statement. Here are some of the highlights:

Quote from: Bridenstine
Through the Commercial LEO Development program, NASA will continue to leverage its resources and capabilities to enable the development of a commercial market in LEO. The program’s first solicitation activity, which will go out in the next few months, will support the development of new commercial LEO platforms and capabilities. ...

... recent delays in SLS core stage manufacturing require that NASA concentrate in the near term on the successful completion of EM1 and EM-2 ... As a result, SLS Block 1B final development efforts will be deferred.

The Lunar Gateway will be launched on competitively procured commercial launch vehicles and assembled in orbit around the Moon where it will be used immediately as a staging point for missions to the lunar surface. ...

This budget integrates the NASA Docking System (NDS) into the modules of the Lunar Gateway, ...

The budget request supports commercial development of a large lunar lander that can initially carry cargo and later astronauts to the surface of the Moon.

... NASA is continuing work on its Kilopower technology project to demonstrate a small, lightweight fission power system. ... 

I finished the townhall meeting a few minutes ago, and just snipped out several things from Bridenstine's remarks above for clarity. 

My understanding is that none of the bolded hardware items have been built yet, except for NDS, nor have they been tested, nor have they been priced for Congress and actually authorized.  This is a very tall order for five years.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/02/2019 07:42 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PzXrPeVJdE
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Proponent on 04/02/2019 10:38 pm
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PzXrPeVJdE>

If you just want some yucks, have a listen to Rep. Pete Olson (TX-22) about 1:20.  He has a really good rant.  He thinks vasimir can accelerate a spacecraft not only faster than sound (imagine that!) but up to the speed of light!  He is also of the impression that "there is a big belt of radiation between Earth and Mars."  I suspect all he knows about space technology is what he learned watching Star Trek about the age of 7!

A possible contender for the 116th Congress's Mo Brooks Prize for most ridiculous statement on science and technology?

Maybe it's a good thing he's on the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee -- he might learn something! :)
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/03/2019 07:25 am
Yea the only thing I learned from listening to this was that counting on Congress to explore space is like counting on water not to be wet.
It ain't happening. These guys are clowns and I'm sad to admit it but I was wrong to try and defend some of the decsisions circa 2011. There's nothing of merit to be found in Congress these days if there ever was.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: woods170 on 04/03/2019 08:40 am
Yea the only thing I learned from listening to this was that counting on Congress to explore space is like counting on water not to be wet.
It ain't happening. These guys are clowns and I'm sad to admit it but I was wrong to try and defend some of the decsisions circa 2011. There's nothing of merit to be found in Congress these days if there ever was.

I nominate you for "quote of the day". :)
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 04/04/2019 11:21 pm
During the House hearing, Bridenstine mentionned that an amended FY20 NASA Budget request would be made likely prior to April 15th. The intial request assumed a 2028 Moon landing thus the need for an amended request (for the revised 2024 timeline).
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/05/2019 12:48 am
Meanwhile:
FH on the pad again.
Startank with raptor on the pad.
BE4 continuing development
Vuclan and ACES getting closer
Commercial crew mission 1 before the year ends.

SLS still in multiple dysfunctional pieces. Congress still demanding that they get their giant flying expendable billion dollar hydrogen tank with two Roman candle accessories attached. Absolute circus watching how out of touch this Congress is.

I hope the amended budget passes and Congress just gives up on this. It seems unlikely to happen but it would be really great to see Bridenstine's commercial initiatives get the green light.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/05/2019 01:13 am
I'm really curious to see the House reaction to fund Trump's vanity project...
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: woods170 on 04/05/2019 06:53 am
I'm really curious to see the House reaction to fund Trump's vanity project...

You've already seen the House's reaction in the recent hearing: lackluster.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/05/2019 02:18 pm
I'm really curious to see the House reaction to fund Trump's vanity project...

You've already seen the House's reaction in the recent hearing: lackluster.
True, but on April 15th he'll more than likely be asking for more money for a 2024 Moon landing...
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 04/07/2019 05:48 pm
I'm really curious to see the House reaction to fund Trump's vanity project...

Even if this were a vanity project, how is that a bad thing? Presidents should want to be remembered for getting us back to the Moon and eventually to Mars.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/07/2019 08:10 pm
I'm really curious to see the House reaction to fund Trump's vanity project...

Even if this were a vanity project, how is that a bad thing?

Because one person is using taxpayer money to benefit themselves, not the public. I don't know about you, but that is a bad thing to me...  ;)

Quote
Presidents should want to be remembered for getting us back to the Moon and eventually to Mars.

As an American I support the use of my tax money to help move humanity out into space. It is NOT the first priority that America has though, and I DON'T support efforts that are inherently unsustainable.

My concern with this effort, besides it likely being a vanity project, is that it may not be sustainable...
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 04/07/2019 09:56 pm
You haven't seen the amended budget. So you don't know if any money is being waisted. Your misgivings seem more related to who is proposing this than what is actually being proposed. Plus, there is also no guarantee than this will happen before Trump is out of office. NASA is unlikely to respect the 2024 target date even if Trump is re-elected.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/07/2019 11:48 pm
You haven't seen the amended budget.

Right - April 15th is the target date Bridenstine gave for an amended budget. Still, we already know some of the elements that COULD be used, and we already have an idea what they would cost.

Quote
So you don't know if any money is being wasted.

Who said anything about money being "wasted"? What do you mean by that?

Quote
Your misgivings seem more related to who is proposing this than what is actually being proposed.

And if this effort is being proposed to make a certain someone look good when they exit their 2nd term in office, why would that be a good reason to do anything? All of America is paying for this, so the inspiration should be to do something that benefits America, not just one person.

Quote
Plus, there is also no guarantee than this will happen before Trump is out of office.

No, but that is the date that Trump set.

Quote
NASA is unlikely to respect the 2024 target date even if Trump is re-elected.

NASA works for whoever the President is, and if Trump is re-elected to a 2nd term of office then NASA's priorities will be HIS priorities. The only entities that can disagree with Trump are the other co-equal branches of government (i.e. the Judiciary and Congress), but within the Executive Branch the President gets to set the priorities.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 04/08/2019 12:01 am
wasted=waisted

I meant that NASA tends to be late with deadlines.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/08/2019 01:57 am
wasted=waisted

I meant that NASA tends to be late with deadlines.

Still not sure what you mean, but OK.

As for NASA and dates, I'm sure everyone has heard of the project management triangle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle), and the phrase "Fast, good or cheap. Pick two."

President John F. Kennedy delivered in person before a joint session of Congress May 25, 1961 (https://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/features/jfk_speech_text.html) and said:

Quote
...I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.

A little over 8 years later NASA met that goal, but only because Congress was willing to allocate up to 4.4% of the federal budget to NASA in order to make that happen.

There is no limit to how much money NASA can get per year, and it is quite clear that Congress will have to provide significantly more money for Trump's goal, since if you want "Fast", then you can only pick "Good" or "Cheap", and I don't think anyone wants NASA to fail returning to the Moon after so many successes 50 years ago.

And a big unanswered question is whether Trump is going to let V.P. Pence and NASA Administrator Bridenstine carry the water for his goal, or whether Trump will step up and try his hand at making his own Kennedy-level argument for why this A) needs to be done, and B) has to be done in 5 years. Is he willing to spend his own "political capital" for this?
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 04/08/2019 01:39 pm
We will find out soon enough. Bridenstine said that they would ask for more money but I doubt that it will be a significant amount. In the end, it may be similar to the FY2011 Budget in the sense that it will give us a better idea of what the Administration wants to achieve in terms of human space exploration. But I think that this is Pence's baby. Trump will only be making passing comments on the subject.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/08/2019 01:51 pm
I'm really curious to see the House reaction to fund Trump's vanity project...

Even if this were a vanity project, how is that a bad thing? Presidents should want to be remembered for getting us back to the Moon and eventually to Mars.
Very simple yg, "he is here to serve the nation, the nation is not here to serve him"... "We the people"...
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: yg1968 on 04/08/2019 02:55 pm
I'm really curious to see the House reaction to fund Trump's vanity project...

Even if this were a vanity project, how is that a bad thing? Presidents should want to be remembered for getting us back to the Moon and eventually to Mars.
Very simple yg, "he is here to serve the nation, the nation is not here to serve him"... "We the people"...

It doesn't serve him personally. NASA isn't going to build a Trump tower on the Moon. Politicians want to be remembered for their achievements and that is how it should be.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/08/2019 03:22 pm
I'm really curious to see the House reaction to fund Trump's vanity project...

Even if this were a vanity project, how is that a bad thing? Presidents should want to be remembered for getting us back to the Moon and eventually to Mars.
Very simple yg, "he is here to serve the nation, the nation is not here to serve him"... "We the people"...

It doesn't serve him personally. NASA isn't going to build a Trump tower on the Moon. Politicians want to be remembered for their achievements and that is how it should be.
Hence the word "vanity"...

 “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”...

John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address:
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Proponent on 04/08/2019 03:28 pm
It doesn't serve him personally. NASA isn't going to build a Trump tower on the Moon. Politicians want to be remembered for their achievements and that is how it should be.

I suspect the political drivers here are that Trump wants to be re-elected in 2020, and Pence wants to be elected in 2024.  Those objectives overlap largely but not entirely.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Cinder on 04/09/2019 02:59 am
Achievements in service to their country.  Hopefully something in that vein can constructively be gleaned by one party from whatever is proposed by the other.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Lar on 04/09/2019 03:14 am
Drift warning.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Proponent on 04/12/2019 03:21 pm
Even if this were a vanity project, how is that a bad thing? Presidents should want to be remembered for getting us back to the Moon and eventually to Mars.

The more it's about vanity, the more likely it is to fade away.  Apollo was a national vanity project: it faded as soon as it accomplished its goal.  If a lunar mission is a politician's vanity project, it may well fade at the sooner of achieving its goal and its patron's departure from the political stage.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/12/2019 04:00 pm
We will find out soon enough. Bridenstine said that they would ask for more money but I doubt that it will be a significant amount.

Then the 2024 goal won't happen. Significant changes in direction require significant amounts of money - and soon.

Quote
In the end, it may be similar to the FY2011 Budget in the sense that it will give us a better idea of what the Administration wants to achieve in terms of human space exploration.

The timeline is pretty clear here. The FY2020 funding laws that are being worked on right now, and that would not take effect until October 2019, funds the government through September 2020, which means if the significant funding required for this effort is delayed until after September 2020, that gives NASA less than 4 years to get human-rated hardware designed, built, tested, and shipped to the Moon.

In comparison, it took NASA 7 years from program start to launch for the NASA Mars Science Laboratory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory), which included a lander but was not human-rated. Human-rating hardware takes a lot of time and money.

Quote
But I think that this is Pence's baby. Trump will only be making passing comments on the subject.

Then the 2024 goal won't happen. No one cares what Pence wants.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: SWGlassPit on 04/12/2019 05:09 pm
We will find out soon enough. Bridenstine said that they would ask for more money but I doubt that it will be a significant amount.

Then the 2024 goal won't happen. Significant changes in direction require significant amounts of money - and soon.


And in the same way that nine women can't make a baby in a month, there's a limit to how much an infusion of resources can accelerate a program, particularly when the resource bump happens late in the design-build cycle.
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/15/2019 09:04 pm
Any news on the promised dollar figure amount for the lunar excursion?
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/16/2019 05:18 pm
Come on Jimmy B, show us your Moonshot bill$$$... ???
https://www.aaas.org/news/fy-2020-budget-request-space-rd
https://www.wlrn.org/post/nasa-amending-21-billion-budget-request-speed-moon-mission
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Markstark on 04/16/2019 06:31 pm
Another two weeks

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/how-much-will-the-moon-plan-cost-we-should-know-in-two-weeks/
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/16/2019 07:40 pm
Another two weeks

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/how-much-will-the-moon-plan-cost-we-should-know-in-two-weeks/
Maybe he needs time to get over the "sticker shock"....
Title: Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/17/2019 02:39 am
Another two weeks

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/how-much-will-the-moon-plan-cost-we-should-know-in-two-weeks/
Maybe he needs time to get over the "sticker shock"....

Relevant quote:

Quote
Q. Why should we have confidence that a goal like 2024 is realistic? NASA was saying only last month that it could not do this before 2028.

A. I would say, technologically, it's realistic. It's not easy. There's a lot of schedule risk, programmatic risk, and technical risk. And so it's not easy, but it's doable. I think the bigger risk, that has to be retired earlier, is the political risk. How do we get the money?

We'll see what Congress thinks.