NASA FY 2015 Budget

[yg1968]

If you carry the maximum of 7 astronauts per flight, it would amount to $65M per crew member. If you replace a crew member with cargo, you have to factor in the extra cargo (about 100kg per empty seat) that you gain by doing that.

Yes, but my understanding is that ISS can only support one additional crew member and that dual operations also won't be supported, except in an emergency where there's a problem with the first vehicle. This means crewed NASA missions to ISS will only carry four astronauts at a time.

Yes, I know. But if the extra 3 seats are sold to spaceflight participants, NASA would get a better price. If NASA decides to replace the three extra seats with cargo, you would have 300 kg (3 x 100 kg) of extra cargo. Based on the CRS2 prices, 300 kg of pressurized cargo is worth about $19M to 20M. So that would reduce your price even further.

But in 2011, Gerst said that the crew transportation system (CTS) would cost about $480M per year. So I am guessing that your $920M estimate is too high. See this link:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28699.msg1151257#msg1151257

[Steven Pietrobon]

Yes, I know. But if the extra 3 seats are sold to spaceflight participants, NASA would get a better price.

Where would those three participants sleep and eat for the six months they would have to wait before coming back to Earth? As I said before, there won't be dual operations where those participants could transfer across. I'm also pretty sure that NASA will not want to look after three tourists for a couple of weeks.

If NASA decides to replace the three extra seats with cargo, you would have 300 kg (3 x 100 kg) of extra cargo. Based on the CRS2 prices, 300 kg of pressurized cargo is worth about $19M to 20M. So that would reduce your price even further.

$920M -2x$20M = $880M. That is now $110M per crew member.

But in 2011, Gerst said that the crew transportation system (CTS) would cost about $480M per year. So I am guessing that your $920M estimate is too high.

That was three years ago. Obviously, the price has gone up since then as the true costs were realised.

[Robert Thompson]

The Path Forward In American Space - 2014 Edition
http://spaceref.com/the-path-forward-in-american-space---2014-edition.html

[yg1968]

That was three years ago. Obviously, the price has gone up since then as the true costs were realised.

Perhaps but your numbers assume that all of the increases for the ISS budget comes from commercial crew which may not be the case. When NASA is asked about the price of commercial crew, they have always said that they are competitive with Soyuz. Some proposals come under and some come over. Furthermore these numbers are nominal and I doubt that they take into account the numbers in the CCtCap proposals.

Where would those three participants sleep and eat for the six months they would have to wait before coming back to Earth? As I said before, there won't be dual operations where those participants could transfer across. I'm also pretty sure that NASA will not want to look after three tourists for a couple of weeks.

I don't know what the arrangements would be but spaceflight participants are possible under the CCtCap RFP documentation. I think that it's up to the commercial crew providers to suggest arrangements.

[Steven Pietrobon]

OK, the FY2015 Budget Estimates is now available from the NASA website.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf

The SLS budget is cut by $219.7M or 13.7% to $1380.3M.

The Orion budget is cut by $144.2M or 12% to $1052.8M.

Exploration Ground Systems is increased by 33.1M or 10% to $351.3M.

The ISS Crew and Cargo Transportation budget jumps by $528.2M or 32% from FY2018 to FY2019. Assuming six crew at $70M a year in previous years and offsetting the cost of launching 300 kg of other payload on each launch, gives a total of 6x$70M+$528.2M-2x20M = $908.2M. For eight crew a year, this is $113.5M per crew member.

p.442 EXP-56: EM-1 to carry three cubesats

"AES (Advanced Exploration Systems) plans to continue developing at least three secondary CubeSat payloads in 2015 in preparation to fly on the Space Launch System in 2017. Initial mission concepts include a “Lunar Flashlight” to look for lunar volatiles such as ice, a “Biosentinel” to further study the effects of the deep space radiation environment on simple organisms, and a “Near Earth Asteroid Scout” to characterize and visit candidate asteroids in support of ARM (Asteroid Rendezvous Mission) and future human exploration."

p.443 EXP-57: Program Schedule

Apr 2014 Demonstrate autonomous landing and hazard avoidance in flight test of Morpheus lander

Apr 2014 Determine potential for commercial industry led lunar lander partners and select initial partnerships to be conducted under space act agreements

May 2014 Select Mars 2020 payload to demonstrate oxygen production from atmosphere

Aug 2014 Determine potential for international partner to develop robotic lunar lander

[mlindner]

Re-upload of the presser. Gamefront tends to delete its files.

https://mega.co.nz/#!yBh3iYDC!79HVXGx55K6wuFFBD0utWCimrAK01d-1uffcSP0QCHA

[woods170]

NASA Budget Justification Details Delays, Descopes and Cancellations

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39813nasa-budget-justification-details-delays-descopes-and-cancellations

Amongst others:
- MER Opportunity will be shut down in 2015
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.
- Sofia is grounded (defunded) because “contributions to astronomical science will be significantly less than originally envisioned.”

[yg1968]

Here is the 700 pages FY 2015 NASA Budget estimate which was released today:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf

[arachnitect]

- MER Opportunity will be shut down in 2015

I don't find this explicitly stated anywhere... but its budget line does get zeroed. They do say that there will be insufficient funds to continue operating all high priority missions identified by the upcoming senior review and the fact that MER's line disappears tells you what its chances are.

the "OGSI" supplement includes an additional ~$30M for planetary extended mission funding.

[yg1968]

Here is the 700 pages FY 2015 NASA Budget estimate which was released today:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf

NASA is considering extending CCiCap, see page 427:

NASA is evaluating whether to extend CCiCap milestones through FY 2015. Competition is an important component of the commercial crew program. Competition is a key to controlling costs over the long term and NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has opined that competition should be maintained until safety confidence is achieved.

[clongton]

- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

[Robotbeat]

Really dumb if they intend to shutdown MER Opportunity. Even a very minimal budget, with the science and even operations outsourced to universities (grad students are cheap... better experience than cubesats) would be a better idea, IMHO. They should keep it running until it breaks, at very least as a weather station!

[yg1968]

Sunjammer solar sail is delayed pending a review. Also sad.

[veblen]

Even beyond the science return MER Opportunity generates tremendous goodwill for NASA. It is hard to explain but Curiosity with its science instrument suite and fabulous location at the base of Mt. Sharp has not piqued my imagination like Oppie's trek across Meridiani.


I would write a letter to my Rep but I don't have one, I am not American. I support the Planetary Society in their endeavour to keep Planetary Science programs intact and I know of course there are limits for the budget. If in 2015 Oppie is functioning like it is now the rover will have value and should not be discarded.

[Star One]

Even beyond the science return MER Opportunity generates tremendous goodwill for NASA. It is hard to explain but Curiosity with its science instrument suite and fabulous location at the base of Mt. Sharp has not piqued my imagination like Oppie's trek across Meridiani.


I would write a letter to my Rep but I don't have one, I am not American. I support the Planetary Society in their endeavour to keep Planetary Science programs intact and I know of course there are limits for the budget. If in 2015 Oppie is functioning like it is now the rover will have value and should not be discarded.

I can't imagine that decision about the MER will play very well in the court of public opinion once it gets picked up upon. And there is one thing that all politicians worry about and that's public opinion.

[Blackstar]

Don't assume that the Opportunity statement is a done deal. The senior review has to play out. Not everything that is going on is written down in the budget document.

[john smith 19]

- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

I did not even realize this was still going on.   

I wonder who else recalls a page in a Powerpoint of Robert Brauns.

The one with a set of different technologies for use on the Mars mission overlaid on an exponentially  falling graph of system mass to orbit.

And how better propellant management was the biggest way to reduce that mass in the first place?

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that sometimes NASA's plans completely ignore it's stated objectives?

[Proponent]

Yup.  It's (still more) evidence that NASA's spending priorities are determined principally by parochial politics.

[JohnFornaro]

- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

I did not even realize this was still going on.   

I wonder who else recalls a page in a Powerpoint of Robert Brauns ... how better propellant management was the biggest way to reduce that mass in the first place?

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that sometimes NASA's plans completely ignore it's stated objectives?

Ya think?

I continue to struggle with the incompetence argument which Jim raises from time to time.

This is nothing more than deliberate mis-prioritization.

[Prober]

- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget