An article in this morning’s Washington Post has some more details about the NASA budget cuts approved by the VA-HUD subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday. The Post obtained a copy of the committee’s “as-yet-unpublished report” on the spending measure and found that the committee is not opposed to the exploration vision, only finds it to be a lower priority: “While the committee is supportive of the exploration aspect of NASA’s vision, the committee does not believe it warrants top billing over science and aeronautics.” The article also cites unnamed congressional sources who believe that although NASA’s shuttle request was fully funded at $4.3 billion, that budget may fall short by $450-760 million based on the increasing costs of return-to-flight activities. That, plus skepticism that NASA can complete the ISS by 2010 as currently planned, were the main reasons why funds for the CEV were cut, delaying the program by a year.
The Orlando Sentinel reports that $70 million was also cut by zeroing out a program “to begin developing robotic missions to the moon.” Presumably this means the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, as well as any initial planning for a follow-up lander.
Both the Sentinel and Florida Today get comments from Appropriations Committee member Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), whose district includes Cape Canaveral and who was formerly vice-chairman of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee. Weldon voted for the budget bill, but that he hoped more funding could be found later. “This bill takes care of most of our needs at Kennedy Space Center, so I’m hard pressed not to support my chairman when he’s taking care of Florida,” Weldon told the Sentinel.
This at least provides some context.
It is common for people to treat Congress as a point source–as if it is a single entity, rather than a gathering of legislators. I have seen numerous people express frustration that “Congress” expressed an interest in a new space policy from the President, and then did not immediately fully endorse the policy it was given.
First, it was not “Congress” that wanted a new space policy, it was some people in Congress. Second, there was no reason to expect, or demand, that Congress as a whole endorse the same space policy that Bush advanced. Third, even if Congress (collectively) agreed with the Vision, it could legitimately have other priorities. This is democracy.
I personally like the Vision for Space Exploration, although I am not thrilled with the implementation. But one has to understand how the overall process works in order to try and figure out what is the likely outcome.
You are missing the forest for the trees, Dwayne. The vote has nothing to do with NASA. NASA got caught in a larger housing and veterans funding issue being waged between WH and Congress. More to follow.
The budget cuts by the house.
Among the cuts:
$230 million for Project Prometheus, NASA’s nuclear-propulsion development program
Will cause research developement delays
$70 million for development of robotic missions to the moon
Will lower Lunar Recon Orbitor expectations of high tech instrumentation and could introduce delay in the 2008 launching.
$120 million from the international space station
Less air or less water, some repair supplies and even possibly closing for a time with manned presence aboard the ISS.
$438 million from the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, NASA’s next-generation spacecraft for manned space flight
Will not only delay the CEV but puts more of a burden on the use of the shuttle for manned flights.
I think most are under the assumption that no shuttle flights in 2003 for the most part and in 2004 with none until 2005 mid year should show an account surplus under shuttle refurbishment between flights catogory. At about a billion per flight with perhaps 8 missed flights.
Net balance Nasa Shuttle accounts of approximate 7 billion at least after upgrades to two shuttles.
When will the committee make it’s report public? a week or two?
I think most are under the assumption that no shuttle flights in 2003 for the most part and in 2004 with none until 2005 mid year should show an account surplus under shuttle refurbishment between flights catogory. At about a billion per flight with perhaps 8 missed flights.
Net balance Nasa Shuttle accounts of approximate 7 billion at least after upgrades to two shuttles.
Anyone under such an impression is completely clueless about Shuttle costing. It costs almost as much to not fly Shuttles as it does to fly them. The savings from not flying are minimal, since everyone continues to work on the program, and external tanks and SRBs continue to be procured per existing contracts.
So we will have a great big pile of SRBs and External tanks with no where to go if the shuttle is grounded forever. Due to contracts rather than purchase as you go from the given manufacturer. Everthing should have stopped and only the necessary design rework for the external tank foam sheding should have been active.
If you shut down production, you lose the capability to restart it later. The manufacturing facilities are designed to support production at a certain rate, and if they stop making them, workers get laid off, and once they find other jobs, it’s hard to rebuild the capability.
This is the first of many hurdles, and many complications the space advocate community must go through to get from where we are- stuck on Earth- and into space- in as many different places for as many different reasons as there are people who want to go to space in the first place.
I think what General William Tecumseh Sherman said about the Civil War in 1861 applies to today. He said and I paraphrase: “I think this is going to be a long war-very long. Much longer than anybody thinks it will last”.
Same thing applies to VSE and its commercial/private analogs; it is a long road to space for all, and we may as well get used to working for a marathon, not a sprint, and plan for a long seige and the battle for hearts and minds, and converts amongst the generations who have the chance to actually fly into space in their lifetimes.
Since current space advocacy organizations have only a tiny minority of adherents to work with, one of the things we need to do is to convert others to the cause of space, and do it en masse. We somehow fail to realize speaking to the common man and woman about space settlement is worth doing, and could gain converts for space, but we insist on conventional means from the 20th Century, when we should be using 21st Century means for 21st Century goals. Ad Astra.
I think the song “Faith of the Heart” (Theme to Star Trek:Enterprise) hits the nail on the head.
The word is Persistence, that is how we will get out of 20th century thinking and 21st century thinking. Advocates and related orginzations must continue the fight until it is reality. It’s a very very long road. We cannot expect either private or government to have the true vision.
Mr. Malkin wrote:
“I think the song “Faith of the Heart” (Theme to Star Trek:Enterprise) hits the nail on the head.”
That song sucks!
I prefer Bill Murray’s lounge-singer version of Star Wars: “Star Wars! Wonderful Staaaar Wars!..”
A WaPo story about the committee comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64974-2004Jul20.html
The committee also expressed skepticism that the administration can finish building the international space station by 2010 and then retire the shuttle. Knowledgeable congressional staffers, who declined to be identified by name because of committee policy, suggested that this view contributed to lawmakers’ decision not to fund the crew exploration vehicle.
“NASA needs to reevaluate this date in the context of the current budget environment and the technical challenges associated both with return-to-flight activities and the new system development needs,” the panel’s report said.
If ISS isn’t going to be finished by 2010, then its okay to delay CEV is how I read this.
That suggests 2010 isn’t a firm deadline for grounding orbiter.
= = =
As for Rand’s comment about SRBs and ETs – – I favor grounding orbiter today – – lay off all the orbiter tile workers, etc. . . and use those ETs and SRBs to build an uncrewed shuttle B cargo vessel.
The “need” for heavy lift is hotly debated but being “HEAP-NO-TIZED” you can count me in as a “Zubrin zombie”
Of course these committees are just guessing about completion of Space Station. How can non-technical committees make technical decisions? Congress needs a commission to look into IIS. NASA is going to press for 2010 because that is when CAIB said they would need to recertify the shuttle which is considered costly (however nobody knows). I think not only does there need to be an independent safety agency but an independent scheduling authority. Why do some government departments get mandatory allocations?
Mr. Day — Bill Murray, now there is a great man.
“License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations….To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint……They’re like the Viet Cong – Varmint Cong.” – Caddy Shack
Maybe we can have Vader take care of NASA’s civilian planetary ship acquisition in Congress.
That song sucks!
Them’s fightin’ wuhds.
Suh, I challenge you.
Phasuhs at twenty paces, at dawn.
Are you a Klingon, or a human? Or…a Zeta Reticulan?
The CAIB certification if used beyound 2010 was not spelled out for the set of requirements that would indicate a pass. With all the work that has been done one could claim each time it is recertified to fly.
As for closing and laying off those that work on External tanks and SRBs. When production levels drop it is normal practice to reduce the levels of full time staff. Which recently means in the electronic manufacting field is to fire all the temps or shared,leased agency employees. Also contracts are usually curtailed or severley lowered and or cancelled even if a fine is levied.
Again, you display a fundamental ignorance of the differences between electronics manufacturing, which involves millions of items and is scalable, and a government space program that only produces a few of each item per year.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about the theme to Enterprise. First, it is not the typical space community “educate the public” type of orchestral music accompanied by Vugraphs the space community is trapped in, hence older 20th Century Industrial Age command economy types disdain it. Having been born a late Boomer, I can relate.
On the other hand, it shows a progression from the far past to the distant future, and includes flashy graphics, a succession of people and craft, and lyrics that actually appeal to other than the Baby Boom spacer generation that has not been able to make space sexy, exciting, something the young folks would want to be a part of.
Space must appeal to the culture we want to change using tools and techniques suited to our audience; i.e.: we must speak their language, and use their slang and their way of looking at things if we ever hope to have a Revolution in the culture down here to beget a Revolution up in space, not the other way around.
Waaaayyy off topic here, but I do like the Enterprise theme. It fits the show, getting from here to there etc.
Another reminder of what is indicated by the commission and by the president is that the new space exploration vision is a pay as you go. Which is alot different than building by contracts something that is not needed under the stand still conditions that we are in.
Personally I have enjoyed all of the star trek’s shows and there respective theme songs from the original Enterprise to the next generation, voyager and deep space 9.
There again how many of you remember space 1999 and the dream of a lunar base that it portraid we would have soon. Only a few years after our own Lunar landings from Apollo.
I know that I have waited long enough to see this dream of space exploration, colonization and to going beyound our solar system.
Lets go…. full speed ahead.
The plan is “pay as you go” but there are also practical considerations with regard to retention of highly skilled technicians in many positions throughout the aerospace industry. Most of these people once gone can not be replaced by your average temp service.
I agree it’s not a great Star Trek theme but my point was the lyrics apply very much to this topic. Politics is the wind in which we must push through to make the dream of a growing space community come alive. Advocates cannot allow Politicians to bend or break their resolve. The voices of American can make this budget happen in a difficult time. FY05 budget is the first test of the vision in a very long road but if we only get $15.1, it’s not the end. However, Americans cannot allow the status quo to be expectable.
Sorry expectable = acceptable.
I wrote:
“That song sucks!”
Mr. Simberg replied:
“Them’s fightin’ wuhds.”
Rand, have you actually _listened_ to the song? It’s weepy and folksy and has no punch. Or are you the kind of guy who actually likes that music? Do you have a collection of Boston albums in your basement?
(And let’s take a moment to extend some sympathy for Dr. Foust here. He gets all this education, sets up a great website devoted to space policy, and then gets lame comments like the one I’m writing right now. Jeff, I’m sorry.)
I was just being contrarian.
Actually, truth be told, I’m not a big fan of it. The original version, when the series started, was all right, but the new, more bouncy, driving one they’ve used this season (and last?) does kind of suck.
But to get back on topic, I was told this weekend by someone who claimed to be in a position to know that the President was going to make an address on space at the NASM last night.
Did it happen? If so, the administration certainly didn’t use it as an opportunity to sell the president’s new vision, at least not to the public, because I’ve heard nothing about it.
It is not uncommon for presidents to make video addresses to these kinds of gatherings rather than showing up themselves. That’s what might have happened at NASM.
Notice that the White House said nothing about the House Appropriations budget cut.
Maybe now is the time to let President Bush know he needs to use the Bully Pulpit of his office to push for space, despite what the lying media, space ignoramuses and opponents, and indifferent people in his own party might think. In my opinion, Bush needs to lead by example, and not worry about what the great masses of people who shift with the wind think, because what they think can be changed, and they are willing to be led, despite this atomized culture.
I wish I was in the position to use President Bush’s place to be a pitchman for space development/settlement; I would give them a speech they won’t soon forget. And they would remember to see to space for a very long time too.
Actually, the White House, in the form of the President’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget, did issue a veto threat on the VA-HUD Appropriation bill.