Congress

NASA budget tension

In just over a week the Bush Administration will unveil its proposed FY2007 budget, and as the Washington Post reports, that budget may not offer as much money for NASA as what Congress anticipated or authorized. There isn’t too many additional information in the article about what the administration is planning for NASA, compared to earlier reports; most of the article focuses on how Congress gradually moved over the last two years to support the Vision for Space Exploration after some initial reservations, culminating late last year with the passage of the NASA authorization bill that includes an explicit endorsement of the VSE.

There are, though, a few notable details in the article, including word from sources that the administration has abandoned an earlier proposal by OMB to cut the number of remaining shuttle flights in half, as well as slipping the introduction of the CEV from 2012 back to 2014, the original deadline when the VSE was introduced. The latter move would reintroduce a lengthy gap in US government manned space access that some members of Congress have railed against, sometimes citing “national security” concerns (although whether such a gap is that big an issue is subject to debate). If the CEV is delayed, expect some in Congress to either attempt to reverse that decision or perhaps seek to extend the shuttle’s lifetime beyond 2010. Either move would likely require more money for the space agency.

23 comments to NASA budget tension

  • David Davenport

    If the CEV is delayed, expect some in Congress to either attempt to reverse that decision or perhaps seek to extend the shuttle’s lifetime beyond 2010.

    This isn’t as silly as it sounds, if one assumes a Shuttle flight rate of one mission per each 12-18 months between now and the middle of the next decade. One Shuttle launch a year, which may be an overly optimistic rate, will eke out ten more Shuttle missions until 2015.

    Ummm, NASA hasn’t said much lately about when a Shuttle will be launched during 2006. That is ominous. There may not be a Shuttle launch this year.

  • Nemo


    This isn’t as silly as it sounds, if one assumes a Shuttle flight rate of one mission per each 12-18 months between now and the middle of the next decade. One Shuttle launch a year, which may be an overly optimistic rate, will eke out ten more Shuttle missions until 2015.

    No, it is silly when you look at the economics. The shuttle costs $4 billion per year whether it flies or not, so your plan would spend $40 billion on ten shuttle flights. If you’re going to fly the shuttle at all, the only sensible plan is to fly at the highest flight rate that can be safely sustained. The historical data shows that 4-6 is easily achievable with a three-orbiter fleet.


    Ummm, NASA hasn’t said much lately about when a Shuttle will be launched during 2006.

    Only if you’re not paying attention.

  • David Davenport

    OK, great:

    ET work – positive progression
    1/26/2006 7:04:00 PM
    By: Chris Bergin


    The meeting is understood to have given positive indications that STS-121 will target a May window (stretching from May 3 to the 23rd), along with the potential for three more missions during the remainder of 2006.

    I suppose a shuttle launch in May is credible, but three more missions during 2006? There they go again. Not credible. Incredible. Oh, they hedged it by saying, “the potential for … ”

    Well, I have THE POTENTIAL FOR winning a big lottery payoff some time during 2006.

    The article also says:

    However, caution continues to be urged by sources associated with the Shuttle program, with a safe, clean and successful second test flight of Discovery on STS-121 being the singular focus of attention, ahead of any pre-emption of a return to regular flight operations, operations that are always prone to delays.

    This “test flight” phrase — it means that Discovery won’t carry a real ISS module payload aloft, will it?

    Question: why waste a Shuttle mission in this manner? I do not understand that. Will it shake more ice loose from the ET if an Orbiter has an ISS module in the cargo bay? Please explain.

  • Nemo


    I suppose a shuttle launch in May is credible, but three more missions during 2006? There they go again. Not credible. Incredible.

    It’s not likely, but more credible than you think. If 121 launches in May and has no significant foam-shedding, then the odds are very good that 115 will launch in July (it has to be ready for a June launch anyway, since it’s considered the rescue flight for 121 – part of the launch commit criteria for 121 is that 115 will be ready to launch within the safe-haven window).

    And then if 115 launches and has no significant foam-shedding, you’ve got the entire remainder of the year to launch just two more flights. Which will become a lot easier since the daylight launch limitation goes away after the first two flights.

    I don’t consider four likely – two or three is the most likely outcome for this year – but it’s not unreasonable if the first two flights demonstrate that the foam-shedding is under control.

    This “test flight” phrase — it means that Discovery won’t carry a real ISS module payload aloft, will it?

    No, it doesn’t mean that. 121 will carry an MPLM to ISS, just like 114 did. Which you would have known if you were paying attention.

  • David Davenport

    That MPLM is NOT an ISS structural module. It ain’t much more than a shipping container and trash dumpster.

    This upcoming Discovery misssion will carry “more than two tons of equipment and supplies” plus one ISS crewperson to the International Space Station? BIG EFFING DEAL! That is a scandalous waste of money and a scandalous risk of seven lives.

    This continued misuse of the Shuttle should be publicized, and Congress should put a stop to it.

    If a Shuttle is launched to the ISS, the Shuttle should absolutely, positively, categorically be carrying aloft an ISS structural module — the kind of space station building block that NASA says only a Shuttle can handle.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts121_overview.html

    Discovery will bring a third crewmember to the station, European Space Agency Astronaut Thomas Reiter. This will be the first three-person crew since the Expedition 6 crew returned to Earth May 4, 2003. Without the space shuttle to ferry equipment to the station after the Columbia accident, only two people could be supported onboard until the necessary provisions were in place.Discovery will carry the Italian-built Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) Leonardo, with more than two tons of equipment and supplies aboard.


  • David Davenport

    If you’re going to fly the shuttle at all, the only sensible plan is to fly at the highest flight rate that can be safely sustained.

    That’s just rhetoric. No one actually knows what a safe flight rate for the Shuttle system is or will be.

    As far as $40B a year in costs, I expect that savings could be realized if all but one leanly populated shift of thermal protection people were laid off, and if NASA laid off the people who fish spent SRB’s out of the sea. Allow the downsized thermal protection people at least twelve months to refurbish an Orbiter.

    We would want to run the ET factory at full capacity until eighteen or so improved External Tanks are built. Then lay all the Michaud people off, before the Shuttle has finished flying.

    Likewise for the good folks at Thiokal.

    ////////////////////

    Without the space shuttle to ferry equipment to the station after the Columbia accident, only two people could be supported onboard until the necessary provisions were in place.

    That is a lie. Additional Soyuz and Porgress launches could support three aboard the ISS.

    Progress M Description

    Revised Progress design using a Soyuz TM service module, Kurs (enabling docking at the forward Mir port which does not have Igla), and solar panels. The propellant section was connected to the propulsion section so propellant can be shared and unused orbital maneuvering propellant transfered to the station. The cargo compartment (orbital module) was slightly lengthened adding 1 cubic meter to the volume, and payload capacity was increased by 200 kg. (2700 kg. total). Capable of independent flight for up to 30 days. Docked lifetime is 108 days.
    The orbital module also can be equipped with a NPO Energia return capsule capable of carrying 100-150 kg.. The capusle is carried in the orbital module and is used to replace the docking probe after filling the Progress with trash, and the old probe. The capsule is 60 cm. in diameter. After retrofire the capsule seperates and pressure sensors trigger parachutes after reentry.

    http://home.comcast.net/~rusaerog/mikem/mikem.html

  • Keith Cowing

    Davenport says “If a Shuttle is launched to the ISS, the Shuttle should absolutely, positively, categorically be carrying aloft an ISS structural module — the kind of space station building block that NASA says only a Shuttle can handle.”

    DUH, I wonder what is inside MPLMs? Answer: the research hardware used to outfit the station modules. So let me get this straight: you support launching empty modules – but not the hardware to allow these modules to be used for their original purpose? And please don’t point out HTVs and ATVs to me – there are not enough of them to outfit the entire station.

  • Nemo


    If a Shuttle is launched to the ISS, the Shuttle should absolutely, positively, categorically be carrying aloft an ISS structural module — the kind of space station building block that NASA says only a Shuttle can handle.

    Incorrect. An MPLM is absolutely an appropriate payload for 121, for two reasons: ISS resupply capacity and EVA capacity.

    Since the Columbia mishap, Progress has been the sole means of ISS resupply. Progress is incapable of supporting a continuous crew of three, hence the reduction of ISS crew to two during the grounding of the shuttle fleet. Increasing ISS crew back to three necessarily means restocking ISS supplies, hence the MPLM.

    121 also has a couple of planned EVAs to test shuttle return-to-flight safety improvements. Most ISS assembly flights – including 115/12A – require multiple assembly EVAs and cannot accommodate the return-to-flight EVAs. It is therefore appropriate to use a non-assembly flight for those EVAs.

    Your complaint about the “misuse” of shuttle flights is without merit. Go ahead and whine to your Congressmen – if anyone on their staff has a clue, they will put your complaint where it belongs.


    That’s just rhetoric. No one actually knows what a safe flight rate for the Shuttle system is or will be.

    Incorrect. There is plenty of historical data (1988-92 flight rate, 1992-98 flight rate discounting Columbia) to support the assertion that 5-6 flights per year is achievable.


    We would want to run the ET factory at full capacity until eighteen or so improved External Tanks are built. Then lay all the Michaud people off, before the Shuttle has finished flying.

    Then who will build the CaLV?

    Likewise for the good folks at Thiokal.

    Then who will build the CLV, and the boosters for the CaLV?

    That is a lie. Additional Soyuz and Porgress launches could support three aboard the ISS.

    Incorrect. The Russians have repeatedly asked NASA to take up the slack for Progress using additional shuttle flights. First from six to four Progress per year, then from four to three. Russia has never demonstrated a sustained capability to build enough Progress to support a crew of three – and the website you quoted has no data to refute that.

  • Question – is there any fundimnental reason why we actually need to use the shuttle to loft the remaining modules? I mean, we’ve used unmanned operations before, at least for delivering the modules. Or is there a size/weight issue?

  • Chance

    I say scrap the station and the shuttle. If we are without a manned presence in space for a few years, boo-freaking-hoo. I support space exploration, and even (expensive) manned exploration, but you don’t have to be an aerospace engineer to suspect that something is awfully wrong with how things are today. And yes, I think I will “whine” to my congressman about how my tax dollars are being spent.

  • I think I will “whine” to my congressman about
    how my tax dollars are being spent.

    You mean like spending billions and billions of
    dollars and wasting away huge amounds of your
    grandchildren’s oil resources flying around
    in cirlces all night long for years and years,
    looking for the occasional drug smuggler?

    Indeed you should ‘whine’ about Homeland Security.

    Compared to Homeland Security, the STS and ISS
    are a great deal. So go ahead and whine like
    a good little fascist that you are.

    Everybody should be afraid of their own shadow.

  • Chance

    So, if you don’t agree with me, you result to ad hominem attacks? I feel your comments are not worthy of a board like this but are more suited to a school playground. I’m sure you could have made a reasoned argument on why my thoughts on the ISS and the shuttle were invalid, but you chose instead to name call and then to attack a straw man. By this I mean you may certainly make the argument that DHS and the drug war are a waste of funds, but this is irrelevant to whether the shuttle/ISS are “good” uses of funds.

    My point (perhaps expressed ineligently) was that we do have the right to express our concerns to our representatives, and this is hardly whining. Now, I have read many reasons why the shuttle/ISS programs should continue, and I find them unconvincing. Should you come up with a non-ad hominem/non-straw man argument, I am all ears.

  • Well, let’s just take a quick look at the relevant data.

    http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

    http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

    Houston, we have a problem. I utterly fail to see
    how anything OTHER than space flight,
    will solve these problems. Certainly DHS won’t.

    Certainly more oil wars won’t. VSE and ESAS won’t.

    You know, I think I’m going to have to go with the
    ISS and STS and our international space partners
    on this one.

  • Chance, the issue isn’t exploration – the issue is exploitation and colonization. We need to start embracing that, because that will help solve today’s problems.

  • Chance

    Ferris, I agree that exploitation and colonization are the real issue, but this doesn’t seem to be seriously debated in the halls of power. A colonization effort is a great idea, I support it, but it will probably be private sector that takes the lead on this. Throughout history, the vast majority of colonies were started or maintained for and by commercial interests. Usually the government in question just gave the colonists permission and a little help. I think this is the only model for the future that is likely to suceed. (No, I am not a republican)

    As for the problems Mr, Elifritz provided, world over population will (or has the potential) be solved by raising the standard of living in low GDP nations. Poor people have many children as a hedge against old age, so there will be someone to support them. All industrialized countries have very low or even declining population growth. Space is not an answer to this problem as no matter how cheap launches get you will never launch more people off the planet than are being born at any one time.

    The second link showing the debt clock is also not a good example. Space exploration/colonization will not easily produce any commodoties that can be easily transported to earth. The only exception to this is maybe power from orbiting solar plants, but are we really going to invest the trillon plus it would take to develop this tech? In a perfect world yes, in reality no. Space exploration will not solve this problem.

    Your third link shows the CO2 increases. Same thing, space exploration will not solve this. Investing in renewable and environmentally safe technologies, and changing peoples travel and energy habits will.

    Now, if you want to argue that we won’t solve these problems and therefore have to colonize space, fine. Or that the threat from an asteroid may make it wise to spread out, fine, but the space station and shuttle are not going to help with population/debt/global warming, except in a periphial(sic) way.

    Once again, I say boost the station high enough so it won’t burn up for a few years, sign the hand reciept over to the europeans so they can worry about it and start fresh.

  • Paul Dietz

    Your third link shows the CO2 increases. Same thing, space exploration will not solve this.

    However, space-based shadowing devices could ‘solve’ it (for a sufficiently non-PC definition of ‘solve’). A carefully engineered, sophisticated small-angle scattering system tuned to IR wavelengths in the earth-sun L1 point sufficient to counter a 2x CO2 increase could have a mass in the thousands of tons.

  • The second link showing the debt clock is also not a good example. Space exploration/colonization will not easily produce any commodoties that can be easily transported to earth.

    You really are thinking things through, aren’t you.

    We aren’t interested in imports in the near term,
    we are interested in scientific advancement and
    technological development here on Earth. None
    of that will happen as long as debt increases.

    Your third link shows the CO2 increases. Same thing, space exploration will not solve this.

    Space is the ONLY way to solve it.

    Your denial is stunning. These are the big three
    problems of the world, and they are intimately
    related. The whole house of cards is about to
    come crashing down, financially, environmentally,
    economically, socially, and technologically.

    We as a species are investing far too much of our
    resources on weapons and paranoia, and far too
    little on educating, feeding and employing the
    masses, of generally ignorant and selfish people.

  • chance

    Not sure why that is so stunning an opinion. Will space travel fix the debt, warming, and overpopulation, or will solving these issues allow us to invest the resources to further our space goals? I say the latter. There are limited resources in this planet, both physical and intellectual. Space will never in our lifetime get the lion’s share of these resources, period. Within the limits of these allocated resources, you have to wisely use what you’ve got. The shuttle and ISS are not wise uses, that’s my view and I’ve sticking to it. Space technologies will be useful in achieving solutions, but they are not THE answer. If I don’t respond anymore I’m not ignoring you, I just can’t make my views any clearer without writing another 10 pages to this already long thread.

  • Not sure why that is so stunning an opinion.

    Because you obviously are not a deep thinker.

    Will space travel fix the debt, warming, and overpopulation, or will solving these issues allow us to invest the resources to further our space goals?

    First, you need you to think clearly.

    Space ‘travel’ will solve nothing. Learning how to live in space will solve everything. Earth is in space. Get it?

    Space will never in our lifetime get the lion’s share of these resources, period.

    Stunning example of absolutism.

    Space technologies will be useful in achieving solutions, but they are not THE answer.

    There are no ‘answers’ in science. That’s mathematics.

    Please do tell, how else to you propose to solve the immediate problems of living in space? This I gotta hear.

  • Chance consider this my points, after your comments
    ************************************
    Ferris, I agree that exploitation and colonization are the real issue, but this doesn’t seem to be seriously debated in the halls of power. A colonization effort is a great idea, I support it, but it will probably be private sector that takes the lead on this. Throughout history, the vast majority of colonies were started or maintained for and by commercial interests. Usually the government in question just gave the colonists permission and a little help. I think this is the only model for the future that is likely to suceed. (No, I am not a republican)
    ************************************
    Well, I am glad to know that I am not the only dem supporting space. I suggest you check out my diary over at dailykos. And I agree the private sector has a role. I don’t believe that private sector has to take the lead, and neither does the public – colonizing space is gonna need both.
    Now, I hope you won’t mind, that I am gonna jump to your next entry.

    ************************************
    Not sure why that is so stunning an opinion. Will space travel fix the debt, warming, and overpopulation, or will solving these issues allow us to invest the resources to further our space goals? I say the latter. There are limited resources in this planet, both physical and intellectual. Space will never in our lifetime get the lion’s share of these resources, period. Within the limits of these allocated resources, you have to wisely use what you’ve got. The shuttle and ISS are not wise uses, that’s my view and I’ve sticking to it. Space technologies will be useful in achieving solutions, but they are not THE answer. If I don’t respond anymore I’m not ignoring you, I just can’t make my views any clearer without writing another 10 pages to this already long thread.
    The underlying point to that first question is the commonly posted idea that somehow we can/should solve the problems here on earth first, before we go into space. I suggest you check out this diary entry http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/26/92437/0610 .

    As to your second point, what your talking about means a) sustainability, which is basically rationing and b) that space has/will be a net drain on the resources of humanity. Now, concerning sustainability, again, see this link http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/why_implementing_the_space_option_is_necessary_for_society.shtml
    The fundamental point was actually made by Deng Xiaoping “We can either spread poverty, or we can spread wealth”. This is true economically, its also true about energy, also true about culture, about all aspects of society. And unless we engage the larger universe, we will be forced to ration, which means a general decline.

    As far as shuttle, or ISS, or the VSE/ESAS/CEV, you’ll find many people who have issue with how the funds are spent. And if your only point is we need a better plan, you won’t get any argument. But what you seem to be arguing is that a) manned spaceflight is inherently super expenseive and that B) it will continue to be for many years (maybe 100 or so). And that’s the problem that many people, myself, have with your points. It doesn’t need to be anywhere near as expensive as it is. Look at the VentureStar, and how close that came to significantly reducing manned spaceflight
    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4180 . And that’s not the only one out there – there is SpaceX, t/space, Rutan obviously, kistler – there is a whole host of potential ways to drop the cost of spaceflight in a relatively short time. I assume you’ve heard of many of them, but if you haven’t, I suggest you check out this link http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/5/214640/5315 and this link http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/SpecialTopics/toSpaceTimeLine.html
    . And that’s the point.

  • Chance Williams

    I said I wasn’t going to post, but you have brought up good points. I am not trying to imply space access will never cheapen, or that we should not give it all the resources we can. I just think that the implication that the other poster is making that space will inherently solve our problems is a bit of a red herring. Will we end up having to ration everything? I hope not. My vision would include more programs like COTS and the American Space Prize. Someone once made the statement that they should offer a billion for the first baby born on mars. The guy may have only been half serious, but if government can act as a facillitator for space travel rather than the gatekeeper, I think this will help with what you yourself stated, colinization will require both sectors. Another example might be renegotiating the treaties we have now so that if you set up a homestead on the moon (or where ever) you have full international property rights, and maybe you get free supplies for the first 2 years or something. Right now I don’t believe a private citizen can legally own any space body or piece of that body. Sure, once someone is set up there you can’t exactly evict them, but there are practical considerations to the lack of legal coverage as well. Apollo on steroids? No. A lottery to be one of the first 100 colonists on the moon? Yes. Hell, the lottery might pay for most of the trip. I know I am drifting a bit, but these are the types of initiatives I want to see more of. Creative thinking that makes the costs palatible to the American people.

  • Ok, well, with that understanding – here is the other thing chance – you implied both in last post and in this post that space was and would continue to be for the foreseable future, a net reduction on resources. And thats not the case. Part of the success of the internet is that it allowed us to use resources in new and better ways. What space offers is a whole bunch of resources. Space by itself won’t solve our problems, but if we use those resources, we can easily start to solve our problems. And I got to tell you, while money might not by happiness, I’ve got to say, it does make life easier. And resources woudl apply on a larger basis

  • chance

    I really don’t want to be disagreeable, but the main problem here was that I was trying to make two seperate arguments simultaneosly. I’ve read back through them and basically the implications you may have seen were a result from that. Unfortunately I am easily distracted. By the way, is anyone else going to the FAA commercial space conferance this week? It will be my first time, so I am pretty pysched.