Author Topic: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request  (Read 6055 times)

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 614
  • Likes Given: 2432
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #20 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.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 04:55 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium!

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2676
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1455
  • Likes Given: 1091
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #21 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.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
  • UK
  • Liked: 2023
  • Likes Given: 208
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #22 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?

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #23 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.”
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 07:53 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9786
  • Liked: 1472
  • Likes Given: 889
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #24 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.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 08:00 pm by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #25 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.”

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5721
  • Liked: 1226
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #26 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, 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.  That's a 2.2% cut (before inflation) -- in line with the Wall Street Journal reported.

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!



« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 10:17 pm by Proponent »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9306
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3133
  • Likes Given: 8728
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #27 on: 03/12/2019 10:21 pm »

"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9786
  • Liked: 1472
  • Likes Given: 889
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #28 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, 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.  That's a 2.2% cut (before inflation) -- in line with the Wall Street Journal reported.

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.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2019 11:00 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9786
  • Liked: 1472
  • Likes Given: 889
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #29 on: 03/13/2019 02:38 am »
Here are the NASA Budget documents:

https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9786
  • Liked: 1472
  • Likes Given: 889
« Last Edit: 03/13/2019 02:51 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9786
  • Liked: 1472
  • Likes Given: 889
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #31 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.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2019 03:08 am by yg1968 »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4060
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 614
  • Likes Given: 163
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #32 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.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2019 03:39 am by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Online theinternetftw

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
    • www.theinternetftw.com
  • Liked: 716
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #33 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:

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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8929
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6130
  • Likes Given: 2075
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #34 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:

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.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2019 08:23 am by woods170 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9786
  • Liked: 1472
  • Likes Given: 889
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #35 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).
« Last Edit: 03/13/2019 02:43 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10193
  • UK
  • Liked: 2023
  • Likes Given: 208
NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #36 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.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2019 03:51 pm by Star One »

Online Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 269
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #37 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.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5721
  • Liked: 1226
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #38 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?

Online Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 269
Re: NASA's FY 2020 Budget Request
« Reply #39 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. 

Tags: