The Bush Administration released its FY2005 budget proposal today, which includes $16.2 billion for NASA. The announcement doesn’t contain many surprises, since most of the basic details were already publicized last month when the new space initiative was announced. See SPACE.com and SpaceRef for more details, including what programs will contribute to the $11.6 billion being reassigned from other programs to pay for the initiative. The good news is that most space and earth science programs will avoid cancellation, although several, including the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, will be delayed by several years. The budget plan would also phase out the Next Generation Launch Technology program as well as cut ISS research not related to the exploration initiative’s goals.
While the NASA budget tosses a $10 million bone to the likes of Kistler and SpaceX for ISS resupply, the Department of Defense budget just added $200 million onto the EELV contracts for Lockheed Martin and Boeing for ‘assured-access-to-space’. More like assured gov’t dependence on the two usual space transport providers.
“The 2005 total includes nearly $200 million in so-called assured-access-to-space funding, or supplemental funding on engineering and other tasks. If the Defense Department opts to add supplemental funding to all of the more than two dozen previously awarded launch contracts, the long-term benefit to Boeing and Lockheed could climb far above $1 billion in additional revenues. Some of those launches are slated to occur past 2010.” – WSJ 2004/02/03
The EELV and the Boeing USAF tanker leasing deal are two nasty examples of borderline corporate welfare.
I think the budget release is important, because it is the first true event which matches the President’s words regarding his new space policy with action.
JIMO would likely have been delayed anyway. But they can’t cut it, because it is the flagship mission for Project Prometheus. The bad news is that this will give the anti-nuke folks more time to rant and rave (remember Cassini back in 1997?)
I’m surprised, but happy, to see that New Horizons to Pluto is still in the budget.
As John points out, it would have been better if substantial funds had been allocated to contracting Kistler and other entrepreneurs.
Feeding government contracts to entrepreneur-type outfits will only serve to turn lean and mean businesses into the same sort of flabby, taxpayer tit-sucking behemoths that LockMart and Boeing are. The best thing that can happen for private space exploration is to keep the government as far away from it and as hands off as possible.
Kirsten,
If the airline industry had held the attitude you seem to hold, they would never have survived past the 1930s.
1/1000 of NASA’s ’05 budget will go to funding competitive prizes, in exchange for our encouraging congress to approve the other 999/1000 of it? How about bigger prizes, first?
http://www.SpaceProjects.com/prizes
The airline industry would have survived so long as it was providing a product that people were willing to pay for sufficiently for the industry to stay afloat and government were not regulating it out of existence. If people do not want a product enough to pay for it, then they should not be forced to pay for it through taxdollars coerced from them.
Kirsten,
In the early days of the airline industry, the government paid the airlines to air deliver mail, even though it was financially wasteful and could have been done more cheaply by ordinary railway travel. Everyone involved knew this was the case.
However, it funneled enough money into the airlines to keep them afloat at a time when air travel was still primitive and not yet profitable. This, in turn, allowed the airlines to further develop their operations and their technology to the point where, once this government-charity was finished, the airlines were able to underatek very profitable operations, including passenger travel.
Had the government not done this, the early airlines would have gone out of business. Technology development would have been curtailed, and investors would not have approached what would have been seen as a useless undertaking.
It wasn’t a case of government regulation- it was a case of the government being a particularly nice customer (like a person who shops at a locally-owned neighborhood bookstore, even though he knows he could buy books more cheaply at Amazon.com).
The best way for private space industry to really take off is not to have the government stay entirely out of the picture, which would be a big mistake, nor is it for massive government regulation, which would be an even bigger mistake. The government has a role to play, but it must be a role of common sense.
What the launch industry needs is increased demand for flights to LEO. The private sector is poised to provide light and maybe light medium lift (Elon Musk, for example) yet private sector heavy lift is way over the horizon.
Using the air mail example, a HLLV launched space hotel would be a fine way to create new demand for privately owned light and medium/light lift to carry supplies and guests.
Commercial sponsorship and naming rights could be sold to repay NASA all of the incremental costs of lifting a space hotel on a shuttle derived launcher. If only NASA actually had a heavy lifter capable of putting up a one shot space hotel following the example of SkyLab, that is.