On Thursday, the first day of the 110th Congress, the heads of the House and Senate appropriations committees, Rep. David Obey and Sen. Robert Byrd, announced that they were reconciling their subcommittee structures, which had been out of whack the last two years (in part because of a reorganization in the House led by then-majority leader Tom DeLay that was started, at least in part, to keep NASA from having to compete with the VA and HUD for funding). Each committee will now have 12 subcommittees, with NASA falling under the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee.
The change on subcommittee structure, as well as the shift in control of Congress, has resulted in some new subcommittee assignments for some members. The full list of assignments hasn’t been published: the House Appropriations Committee web site, which was revamped yesterday, only states that the committee “will adopt a new subcommittee structure” this month. (The Senate Appropriations Committee web site, as of Friday morning, still had the Republicans in charge.) The Federal Times article linked to above notes that, as expected, Sen. Barbara Mikulski will chair the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee; no chairman for the House’s version of the subcommittee was announced.
One shift that could hurt NASA, or at least MSFC: Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL) has given up his post on the former Science, State, Justice, and Commerce appropriations subcommittee, which had NASA oversight, to take a spot on the Defense subcommittee. Cramer told the AP that “the defense subcommittee, which directs military spending and acquisitions, was well worth the tradeoff.” As Willie Sutton would have said, that’s where the money is.
Jeff
With all of the base realignment going on and with the gains the Redstone Arsenal has made in the process, Cramer knows where the votes are now.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has just confirmed that Rep. Alan Mollohan will become Chairman of the House NASA Appropriations Subcommittee. Congressman Alan Mollohan is a very strong supporter of NASA funding & a very strong supporter of the VSE!http://www.wtov9.com/news/10680793/detail.html
Great news, however, even as a supporter of Ms. Pelosi, I wouldn’t read too much into this. I suspect it has rather more to do with Mr. Mollohan’s desire for the job than with Ms. Pelosi’s interest in space exploration!
— Donald
Mollohan’s support for NASA extends only as far as NASA’s IV&V facility in West Virginia. Don’t expect Delay-like rescues of Constellation’s budget situation out of Mollohan.
With the new Democratic Congress forcing level funding on Constellation in FY07 and Bart Gordon over on the House Science Committee talking about restoring further balance to the overall NASA budget, the stage is set for a substantial rollback in the timeline and/or content of NASA’s human space exploration program.
…the stage is set for a substantial rollback in the timeline and/or content of NASA’s human space exploration program.
Well put, InsideTheBeltway. The only unknown is how much latitude NASA will have in reallocating funds among its programs. If Bart Gordon sticks to his guns, then the Ares-1 schedule will likely slip by a year or two.
Even then, I bet that the budget situation for NASA’s exploration plans will be even bleaker in ’08 and on. Translate…no U.S. Shuttle replacement until >2016.
“Even then, I bet that the budget situation for NASA’s exploration plans will be even bleaker in ’08 and on.”
Agreed. I’d bet dollars to donuts that Ares V, LSAM, and the rest are cancelled when the next President comes into office. Too bad NASA has wasted so much time (and continues to waste time) on Ares I when they could have locked Congress and the White House into actual exploration hardware.
“Translate…no U.S. Shuttle replacement until >2016.”
Could be. I just hope that Ares I delays (or technical failures) don’t result in an extension of the Shuttle program, per the interests of Senators Hutchison and Nelson. I have no love lost for Ares I, but keeping Shuttle past 2010 would be an even greater and more pointless drain on NASA’s strained resources. Better a massive robotic exploration program than continue that white elephant in the name of human space flight.
Unfortunately, I agree with you both. I said at the very beginning that the biggest threat to the VSE was Mr. Bush’s decision to continue his family’s squabble in Iraq, and the financial cost of that decision is definitely coming home to roost. (The second biggest threat I identified was the then-impending decision to develop new medium-class vehicles instead of using the existing EELVs, but, unfortunately, that decision was made.)
Better a massive robotic exploration program than continue that white elephant in the name of human space flight.
According to today’s Aerospace Briefing, NASA is likely to severely truncate the automated lunar program in an attempt to keep Ares-1, et al, on track. I argued for just this strategy in a recent Op Ed piece in Space News. It makes no sense to try to automate complex science operations at most of a billion dollars a pop when we’re going to be sending real scientists to the moon anyway.
— Donald
It makes no sense to try to automate complex science operations at most of a billion dollars a pop when we’re going to be sending real scientists to the moon anyway.
Only problem is that a significant amount of surface reconnaissance is needed to determine the best location for crewed landings and establishment of a lunar base. Furthermore, the data gleaned from orbital imaging will be limited.
Of course if the true intent is to minimize the gap between Shuttle and its replacement (which isn’t really motivated by exploration), then I can understand the rationale for maintaining the current crash program. However, the Ares-1 approach is flawed and is merely replacing a lemon with a lime.
I can understand the rationale for maintaining the current crash program. However, the Ares-1 approach is flawed and is merely replacing a lemon with a lime.
Working towards an operational date of 2014 is not exactly a crash program. The Ares I approach, that is safety and reliability is exactly the right approach. The human cost and mission delays due to Shuttle problems should make that abundantly clear, a vehicle for delivering crew must be as safe as possible. That means simplicity and design for crew right from the start. Modding EELVs, RLVs or cobbling together multi engine fantasies just isn’t good enough given current technology. If the concern is performance, then give the engineers time to complete their work and publish it before dismissing it. BTW please learn to spell the name of the vehicle before you make any further comments.
“The Ares I approach, that is safety and reliability is exactly the right approach.”
I’d agree if there were not so many indications to the contrary that Ares I will not be reliable or safe.
“That means simplicity”
Simple was four-segments. Complex is the five-segments we have today, with all their attendant safety issues, such as instability during launch and flight from the reversed CG/CM and new loads through the solid rocket motor interfaces and seals.
“Modding EELVs… just isn’t good enough given current technology.”
According to ESAS, the difference in safety between the four-segment and EELV-derived options was marginal at best. That margin has disappeared with the move to the five-segment.
And according to LockMart studies, ESAS got EELV flight profiles and related safety issues wrong. And Bigelow Aerospace has placed at least a minor bet that LockMart is right.
I don’t have a dog in the Shuttle-derived versus EELV debate. But ESAS analysis and NASA’s execution on Ares since ESAS are both flawed from a safety perspective.
“multi engine… just isn’t good enough given current technology.”
The Ruskies, Space Exploration Technologies, and all the engine-out advocates would beg to differ.
“If the concern is performance, then give the engineers time to complete their work and publish it before dismissing it.”
Ares I is unsafe even when the performance (or lack thereof) issues surrounding its ability to deliver CEV to “orbit” (hard to call a -30 x 160 nmi trajectory an “orbit”) are disregarded.
“According to today’s Aerospace Briefing, NASA is likely to severely truncate the automated lunar program in an attempt to keep Ares-1, et al, on track.”
And so it begins… I really did not expect the Vision to start falling apart so quickly. I thought we’d at least get to the next President before human and human-related exploration started getting eliminated.
“I argued for just this strategy in a recent Op Ed piece in Space News. It makes no sense to try to automate complex science operations at most of a billion dollars a pop when we’re going to be sending real scientists to the moon anyway.”
For Apollo-level science, that’s true. But if you want to do better than we did 30+ years ago, even with four crew, many operations (maintenance, ISRU, some science) need automation. Just look at ISS.
In fact, NASA’s proposed moonbase is starting to look pretty hollow, just like ISS.
Let’sGetReal: Only problem is that a significant amount of surface reconnaissance is needed to determine the best location for crewed landings and establishment of a lunar base.
This is nonesense. First, if this is really needed, the LRO will get it for us and no further automated missions should be required. Second, we already know where we want to put the base — the lunar South pole — and the terrain should not be dramatically different from that experienced by the last three Apollos (and if it is, the LRO will tell us, and we can reassess at that time). Having done it three times, we know how to land and operate at these types of locations. Apollo-17s survey of a complete alpine valley achieved far more science in three days than any number of automated missions could do, with today’s technology and skills or any foreseeable technology. If we are sending people, expensive automated missions to the same destinations are a complete waste of money.
Granted, the terrain at Shackleton crater is probably too steep to land on, but either automated or human missions will have to land nearby and travel there. Astronauts have demonstrated the ability to easily operate on relatively steep slopes (>20%) covered with loose dust and tallus, which is difficult at best for automated rovers.
Finally, if surface reconnaissance is really needed, a human crew would do it far more efficiently than any automated mission. If you’re sending human crews anyway, that’s probably even cheaper, and certainly so per unit knowledge returned.
— Donald