Yesterday the full House, as expected, approved the joint funding resolution that the appropriations committee passed on Tuesday. The vote was not strictly on party lines, with 57 Republicans voting for the resolution while only two Democrats (including Dennis Kucinich) crossing over to oppose it.
The House did not change the NASA funding levels in the bill, leaving the agency about a half-billion short of what the president had requested for 2007. In a press release yesterday, the Coalition for Space Exploration warned that the current budget would deal “a heavy blow” to the Vision for Space Exploration by likely delaying development of the Ares 1 and Orion. The coalition called on the Senate “to take an aggressive stand opposing the House cuts”, noting that last year the Senate Appropriations Committee had approved the so-called “Mikulski Miracle” that would have added a billion dollars on top of the proposed budget.
One member of Congress, Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), sharply criticized what he deemed a partisan cut of NASA’s budget by Democrats. “The raid on NASA’s budget has begun in earnest,” he claimed. “Clearly, the new Democrat [sic] leadership in the House isn’t interested in space exploration. Their omnibus proposal lists hundreds of new increases, including a $1.3 billion increase—over 40%—for a Global AIDS fund, all at the expense of NASA.” How all those things, including that $1.3-billion increase in AIDS programs alone, were funded by cutting NASA’s proposed budget by about $0.5 billion is one of those mysteries of Congressional mathematics, one supposes. Weldon also states that the House’s FY07 budget for NASA is “nearly $400 million less than NASA’s current budget”, apparently referring to the FY06 NASA budget. True, but much of that difference is one-time Katrina relief included in the FY06 budget.
The Planetary Society fears the worst from the budget cuts, with Lou Friedman claiming that “now the whole enterprise seems to be collapsing.” The statement goes on to suggest that “it does seem that the plans to get humans back to the Moon and on to Mars will at the very least be delayed — if not outright lost.” Last month The Planetary Society made a big deal about delivering petitions with over 5,000 signatures to President Bush asking him to restore funding to space science programs in his FY08 budget. Of course, 5,000 signatures isn’t that much.
The most entertaining reaction to the overall joint funding resolution, while not related directly to NASA, belonged to Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), who complained that the resolution contained earmarks, in contradiction to a Democratic pledge not to do so. “It’s a hooker dressed up as a nun,” he said of the bill.
The FY07 budget is a minor wrinkle, and it ultimately stemmed from the ineptitude of the Republican-led 109th congress. Dave Weldon has no one to blame but his GOP compadres and himself. Besides, his complaints sound more like the whining of a spoiled child, rather than an advocate of space exploration.
The big question now is what comes out on Monday with release of the Administration’s FY08 budget. This will say much more about the Administration’s willingness to support its VSE. Word right now is that the budget will weaken VSE further and force delay of a Shuttle replacement well into next decade. There will be lip service to the Moon and Mars, but these efforts will be relegated to the netherworld of studies and eternal planning.
NASA has already scheduled several center-level Q&A sessions after Griffin’s “short” budget briefing on Monday. Seems more like the therapy sessions set up after a disaster.
Huh, looks like the whole thing could implode – and a heckavu lot faster than I thought. I figured that Bush and the Repub Party would be able to muddle through the rest of his term and leave his successor a mess to clean up.
This follows form, however. Put forth expansive vision at the beginning of an election year. Grossly underestimate the complexity and cost. Pursue fiscal policies that run up massive deficits and put severe pressure on the budget. Underfund other vital programs. Blame the opposite for the mess you’ve made.
“The big question now is what comes out on Monday with release of the Administration’s FY08 budget. This will say much more about the Administration’s willingness to support its VSE. Word right now is that the budget will weaken VSE further and force delay of a Shuttle replacement well into next decade. There will be lip service to the Moon and Mars, but these efforts will be relegated to the netherworld of studies and eternal planning.”
That’s basically what I’m hearing, too, but we’ll see if the rumors are confirmed next Monday.
It’s not like any of this is a big surprise.
The dems have been pretty clear on their priorities for spending inside NASA. Although they have not attacked the VSE, they clearly did not think it was the top priority.
Griffin had made made noises in the last couple weeks that he was going to kill off a bunch of additional things inside NASA to protect Orion and Ares 1. The dems took him at his word, and made sure to allocate the cuts within NASA as they felt was appropriate, and made sure to not give Griffin transfer authority.
For those who want to complain, this is what “go as you pay” really means.
BTW, I expect that whatever the White House proposes on Monday, that the reality is that the WH priorities will play second fiddle to new spending on “Mission to Planet Earth” programs out of Goddard by the end of the year.
– Al
“It’s not like any of this is a big surprise.
The dems have been pretty clear on their priorities for spending inside NASA. Although they have not attacked the VSE, they clearly did not think it was the top priority.
Griffin had made made noises in the last couple weeks that he was going to kill off a bunch of additional things inside NASA to protect Orion and Ares 1. The dems took him at his word, and made sure to allocate the cuts within NASA as they felt was appropriate, and made sure to not give Griffin transfer authority.”
Mr. Fansome and I must be reading each other’s minds since he agreed with a post of mine in another thread. But I have to say that I like his succinct summary of what has happened over the past few weeks.
I winced when Griffin telegraphed his moves at the STA. Although I like Griffin’s engineering chops, I’ve always worried about his political naivete. I think it has hurt him both strategically (setting up an ESAS plan that was unsustainable even in the face of minor but inevitable budgetary setbacks) and tactically (telegraphing his budget moves to the press and Congress).
“For those who want to complain, this is what “go as you pay†really means.”
I’d argue it’s what “go as you pay” means when you forgo competition and throw nearly all your budget eggs into a single, expensive development project that lacks margins and is driven by unaffordable requirements — instead of balancing affordability with content, schedule, and risk.
“Go as you pay” can be done, but NASA has to unlearn a lot of practices from every prior human space flight development project and from the military aerospace development system it inherited — practices that are just not compatible with a near-level budget and no single, driving rationale for the effort. As with so many things in this business, in the end it comes down to requirements and culture and the ability to adapt both to the environment at hand.
ANONYMOUS said: “Go as you pay†can be done, but NASA has to unlearn a lot of practices …. — practices that are just not compatible with a near-level budget and no single, driving rationale for the effort.
Anon,
I totally agree that “go as you pay” can be done, but it requires some out of the box thinking; and somebody who has a deep understanding of the political challenges, and how take advantage of the political opportunities.
A Hindsight is 20-20 thought …
Griffin likes to say that James Webb was NASA’s best administrator. The facts back Griffin up. Webb was a political operator who deeply understood the political problems and how to take advantage of political opportunities. His Deputy Administrator (Hugh Dryden) was the technical/program manager. If we take Griffin at his word, then Griffin should have been the Deputy Administrator. IMO, it is not Griffin’s fault that he is failing — he is only doing what he knows how to do, and what he said he would do.
– Al
“Griffin likes to say that James Webb was NASA’s best administrator. The facts back Griffin up. Webb was a political operator who deeply understood the political problems and how to take advantage of political opportunities. His Deputy Administrator (Hugh Dryden) was the technical/program manager. If we take Griffin at his word, then Griffin should have been the Deputy Administrator.”
Well put. If only we could get O’Keefe back or someone like him with heavy budget and political chops… and partner them with someone like Griffin.
“IMO, it is not Griffin’s fault that he is failing — he is only doing what he knows how to do, and what he said he would do.”
I see what you’re saying — and maybe Marburger should get some blame for picking the wrong guy to pull this off — but the buck has to stop somewhere and all the decisions we’re talking about were ultimately Griffin’s.
I agree that the buck stops with Griffin on his decisions. I guess I am saying I hoped for, but did not expect, better results.
The real issue is what to do now, and I generally agree with your posts elsewhere on that subject.
If U.S. wants to eliminate the “gap” the best current solution are the commercial firms. They should double-down (or better) on the commercial investment in ISS crew and cargo services, cancel ARES 1, cancel the plans to send Orion to ISS, and refocus the Orion on going to the Moon by using EELVs. If Griffin really wants his HLLV, he can use some of the funds freed up to start that effort also. There is a LOT of money tied up in rushing the Orion to the ISS, which could be better spent elsewhere. (If Griffin does not want his HLLV, one way to make sure he does not get it is to stick to the current plan.)
– Al
Its looking more and more like something close to this is the way to go.
http://www.teamvisioninc.com/services-consulting-space-exploration-optimization.htm
teamvisioninc
Status Quo, only bigger. Very expendable. Not sustainable.
I suggest that not much of anything credible nor sustainable is going to happen in space, let alone the moon, until we can start doing something with those tanks, and get those engines back. Other than that, anybody can put a capsule on an ELV and get the upper stage to the ISS. The sooner the better.
http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=267
Well until the Millennium Falcon shows up I’m afraid the first and second laws of thermodynamics along with Newton will continue to thwart the efforts of us in the real world. The laws of physics and human ambition do not have to correspond.
While our first attempt at a RLV could be improved upon today the Space Shuttle Launch System is still pretty close to the practical material limits for a propulsion system that must through stuff out the tail pipe to go places. In fact many of the technologies that could improve an RLV could be applied to ELV so you would be chasing your tail to some extent.
Our approach is significantly less expensive in Era 1 and 2. We have significantly improved the cost structure in Era 3 since the paper. Era 4 -6 (Mars-Beyond)? well no one said achieving great things would be easy. In fact it would still be difficult even with the Millennium Falcon.
Actually, expendable SSTO with SSMEs is generally accepted as technologically viable right now. SSTO flight specifications have already been achieved with much lesser technology. For instance :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSTO
“It is now clear an expendable SSTO vehicle is achievable”
Ok, that’s settled. Now how about rendezvousing with the space station after completion, have some astronauts (presumably they will have some free time on their hands) remove the SSME, have the robotic arm stow said SSME into a specially designed and fitted aerodynamic reentry vehicle (the nose cone of the rocket, with it’s payload removed), and then send that engine back to Earth, thus definitively demonstrating SSTO flight operations with payload and fuel delivery to the International Space Station.
Thermodynamics and mechanics are no longer the issue here. Claiming that SSTO is improbable or impossible is like claiming increasing carbon dioxide content of a planetary atmosphere will not cause global warming.
Making a four stage expendable moon rocket with hydrogen cores and SRB support is ludicrous at the outset, since clearly stage and a half will work.