A reader was kind enough last night to send me an excerpt from the NASA section of the C-J-S appropriations bill conference report. (The full report is now available online; the NASA section is about two-thirds the way down the page.) Some highlights that stood out after a cursory reading of the report on the subway this morning:
- A quote about the level of detail, or lack thereof, in the original budget request: “The conferees are extremely disappointed in the lack of detail provided in the fiscal year 2006 congressional budget justification… In order for the budget justifications to be of value to the Committees, NASA shall present the fiscal year 2007 budget justification with detailed information on the prior year, current year, and requested funding levels for each program, project or activity funded within each division and directorate in each account, and provide detailed information on all proposed changes being requested.”
- The conferees did not agree to extend the authority granted in the FY05 bill that allowed NASA wide latitude to transfer funds among its accounts. However, they did state that NASA is free to transfer funds within each account “after first consulting with the Committees on
Appropriations.” - If NASA does decide to reprogram funds, it is directed to tell Congress the effects of such reprogramming on budgets in the out-years of the affected programs. Also, NASA is asked to perform “independent cost verification” for contracts exceeding $100 million. “This process should be a valuable guide for assessing when costs have exceeded expectations and will help identify projects for termination.”
- While the budget includes funding for the CEV and crew launch vehicle (CLV), Congress is concerned what effect the new, accelerated schedule for these programs will have on other programs at NASA, and directs the agency to “find an approach that will, to the maximum extent possible, mitigate the impacts within NASA of this planned redirection of funding in fiscal year 2006 and beyond.”
- The budget includes $198 million for commercial ISS crew and cargo services, including $98 million carried over from 2005. The conference report specifically states that “NASA is encouraged to utilize, to the fullest extent possible, commercially developed domestic cargo resupply and, ultimately, crew rotation capabilities for the International Space Station.”
- The conferees elected not to include any funding for Centennial Challenges in the FY06 budget, instead adopting language from the Senate report that the program’s unexpended balances from FY05 should be applied to 2006, and that future budget proposals provide specific details on the prizes that the money will be used for.
- The budget includes $271 million for a shuttle repair mission to Hubble, asking the NASA administrator to “continue to take all appropriate steps to ensure Hubble’s continued safe operations.”
- The budget also includes $10 million more for the Space Interferometry Mission and $60 million for the Glory earth sciences mission, which had been in danger of termination. $5 million is added to begin “development and planning” for the heavy-lift launcher proposed in the ESAS report.
- The budget cuts $25 million from the Discovery program and directs NASA to place a cost cap of $425 million on all future Discovery missions.
- Because of the redirection of Project Prometheus (which had its budget cut by $200 million), NASA had already indicated it was not planning to fly the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) mission for the indefinite future. However, the conferees, citing the scientific interest in a mission to Europa, directed NASA to include a “conventionally powered” mission as a new start in its 2007 budget request, noting that such missions “usually take a decade to complete from design to orbit.”
- In aeronautics, the conferees added $60 million, including $25 million specifically for continued hypersonics research, for a total of $912.3 million. Congress also directed the President to esablish a “National Aeronautics Policy” no later than one year after passage of this budget.
- And yes, there are plenty of earmarks.
On a cursory reading, this looks about as good as it could be if you support the current Exploration Architecture. It appears to explicitly continue support for the VSE, although all the funding directed in other directions may mean trouble later down the road.
Can anybody explain why Congress appears hostile to Centennial Challenges? Or is it just a case that they don’t want to give money to the program until it is in a position to actually spend it?
Actually, William, you’ll note that the bill allocates $34 million to the Centennial Challenges program (see the section “SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND EXPLORATION (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)”).
Centennial Challenges needs to more in the long run, but I think that this is an important start. Hopefully, this new appropriation will be matched in the near future by a NASA Authorization bill that gives the Agency the authority to award prize purses in excess of the $250,000 level they are currently using. If so, that should allow the Centennial Challenges office to quickly and wisely spend the money the have left over from previous years, plus the new $34 million, building their case for a stronger appropriation for future years. Indeed, as you hint at, the appropriations committe has explicitly stated that they won’t give more money to the program until it is properly authorized: “[f]unding for the Centennial Challenge is not available for obligation unless authorized.” (“ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS, #3″).
The text of both the House and Senate versions of the NASA Authorization Act include some sort of improved Authorization language, so if and when that gets passed, the program should be in a better position than it is today. Here’s hoping!
William,
Yep. I wasn’t to concerned about the budget since the cap has meant they couldn’t spend all of what they had. The fact that they get to keep it for next year and that few, if any, of the bigger prizes will be won next year means the budget is probably fine. What I’m slightly concerned about is that the appropriators or Congress might start monkeying with the prizes themselves. I can just see someone creating an earmark as a prize: “the first company to build a statue of the Congressman from Wyoming in his home town gets $1 million”. Just an unfounded fear at this point, though…
William P: The language in the conference report notes that it is decreasing the amount appropriated by $34 million; the House had $34M in its budget and the Senate none, so the Senate appears to have won that argument (also note that the conference report adopts the language from the Senate version regarding the program.) If I’m misinterpreting that, though, feel free to correct me.
William B: The House has been more supportive than the Senate in regards to the prize program (see above); I suspect the issue is a concern about appropriating more money than the program really can use at this time, particularly given the limits on prize purses to date with the lack of authorizing legislation. With access to the funding appropriated in FY05, I don’t think a lack of FY06 monies is a serious worry for the program.