Congress, NASA

Senate boosts NASA funding, but no miracle yet

The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up an FY208 appropriations bill this afternoon that includes $17.45 billion for NASA, according to Space News (subscription required), about $150 million more than what the administration requested but about $150 million less than what their House counterparts approved earlier this month. Full details about the budget aren’t available yet, but it appears that most of the increase will go to Earth sciences programs, with $130 million increase. Exploration systems, aeronautics, and shuttle and ISS operations are all fully funded, according to both Space News and a press release from subcommittee chair Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD).

The full Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the funding bill this Thursday. It’s not clear yet whether Mikulski will use that hearing as the opportunity to introduce an amendment to add $1 billion to the NASA budget, similar to the “Mikulski miracle” maneuver last year. She told Space News that she is looking at “what are our best options” fur such an effort, which could come later in the appropriations process.

One little item in the budget with some significance for exploration plans: Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said in a press release that he has added money for a robotic lunar lander mission to the budget. The funding bill includes $48.7 million for a “Lunar Lander” mission plus $20 million for the lunar robotics program office at NASA Marshall, which Shelby fought to keep open earlier this year. The Shelby press release also points out funding he won for a number of other, smaller programs, like an “Advanced Space Propulsion Material Research and Technology Center”, “Composite Material Research for Space Exploration” (for the “Marshal [sic] Space Flight Center”), and “Radially Segmented Launch Vehicle (RSLV) LOX/Methane Technology Maturation”, among others.

24 comments to Senate boosts NASA funding, but no miracle yet

  • RSLV, the other Porklauncher. Umm…Bacon.

    But the news about a lunar lander is interesting, if it ends up getting funded. $48.7M is far too little for MSFC to build a lander with (though it may be thought of as a down payment), so maybe, just maybe they’ll have it done by a field center that can actually do semi-affordable robotic landers.

    But most likely it’s just more pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, porketty pork!

    ~Jon

  • With every area of the budget fully funded or even more as in the case of Science and Aeronautics, and with around $100 million less than the House budget, how can Exploration be fully funded? It isn’t.

  • MarkWhittington

    Nearly fifty million is a good down payment if one were to do it as a Centennial Challenge, of course (g).

  • Ferris Valyn

    On that, I have to agree with Mark (yes, hell just froze over – a strong Dem and a strong R agreed on something)

    That is the program I am most curious about – how is CC making out.

  • GuessWho

    Jon is right, this is just pork. MSFC has zero experience with landers and zero history of performing any program without significant cost over-runs. Their experience to date is serving as the contracting center for Discovery/Scouts. The Lunar Robotics program was shifted to MSFC due to politics in the first place. This is just a continuation of that process to try and consolidate as much of the potential VSE activities in Alabama as possible.

  • I noticed two other slices of ham… $2m for UAH work on LOX-Methane and the $500k for LOX-Methane on the RSLV.

    I believe that both KT Engineering (that’s making the RSLV) and ATK’s GASL Division (with XCOR) are both working on LOX-Methane propulsion for the LSAM. So why not take this money and divide it between the companies that won competitive awards, rather than earmark it to UAH and (apparently) KT?

  • ColdWater

    “This is just a continuation of that process to try and consolidate as much of the potential VSE activities in Alabama as possible.”

    Everyone should know that this is all what VSE’s about…jobs and pork to JSC and MSFC. Sure, the people working on the programs think otherwise, but when all is said and done, the only thing keeping VSE alive are a few select congressional delegations and states.

  • ColdWater: Everyone should know that this is all what VSE’s about…jobs and pork to JSC and MSFC. Sure, the people working on the programs think otherwise, but when all is said and done, the only thing keeping VSE alive are a few select congressional delegations and states.

    This is undoubtedly true, but so what? That is a basic political requirement for any gigantic project without a clear political or commercial market that has to survive multiple Administrations and Congresses. If a clear competitive threat in human spaceflight ever emerges and grows to the point of being visible to a majority in Congress, than you have the beginnings of another motivation. But, ask yourself, what motivation that appeals to politicians will justify the outlandish bills of creating a lunar base, let alone a Mars mission? There aren’t many, and pork (in this broadest sense) is one of the very few. In the mean time, we should all hope that China invests more of the money we are paying them to produce our junk into human spaceflight. . . .

    LEO is different. Now that we have the Space Station, there is a political and commercial market for human-related transportation. That opens up a large pallet of potential justifications for spending money — but today and for the foreseeable future, the political and commercial constituency for a lunar base is almost non-existent.

    — Donald

  • anonymous.space

    “This is undoubtedly true, but so what?”

    The “so what” becomes important when the workforce or institution gets in the way of the program or mission.

    For example, folks have argued that Griffin’s mandate for “full employment at all NASA field centers” drove ESAS analysis away from sharing LEO transport costs and leveraging existing systems outside the agency (e.g., EELV) and towards more expensive, NASA-only, LEO transport systems that are not affordable within the budget and that are having needlessly negative impacts on the schedule and content of actual exploration systems development, science, and aeronautics programs. If true — if the size of Orion and other technical requirements were picked to exclude EELV and ensure a NASA-only solution that fully employed the workforce — that would be a pretty massive example of where a strategy to appease parochial politics is actually holding back, not accelerating or sustaining, civil space development.

    A smaller example would be the earmark for the lunar robotic program office at MSFC, an office that arguably will spend $20 million per year of taxpayer money on NASA personnel with nothing to do — an amount that could make a huge difference to smaller, highly efficient programs like NASA’s prizes. Even if Shelby succeeds in an obtaining an additional $40 million earmark for an actual lunar lander, the funding will not be enough to complete the lander (Shelby will need to secure a series of earmarks year after year for many years of development), likely leading to further waste. And even if the lander is completed, the year-to-year nature of the funding will prevent the mission from being effectively and efficiently integrated as part of a larger series of lunar robotic missions. Like most internal agency earmarks, it’s a good example of how parochial politics related to an agency’s workforce or institution do more to hinder than help progress towards mission goals.

    “But, ask yourself, what motivation that appeals to politicians will justify the outlandish bills of creating a lunar base, let alone a Mars mission? There aren’t many, and pork (in this broadest sense) is one of the very few. In the mean time, we should all hope that China invests more of the money we are paying them to produce our junk into human spaceflight. . .”

    There are alternatives to fear. For example, the ISS was arguably saved by cooperation (not competition) with a foreign power (Russia).

    There are also smarter ways to play pork. O’Keefe, for example, secured the necessary budget increases for the first year or two of the VSE with Delay, despite the fact that O’Keefe was going to make major changes to NASA’s institution. O’Keefe either made the point, or Delay saw, that even if NASA’s workforce was going to shrink, that it was important to support the growth programs in the VSE to keep that workforce shrinkage to a minimum.

    FWIW…

  • Well, suppose the alternative to the “pork” motivation were complete cancellation of any attempt to go beyond LEO? That appears to be Dr. Griffin’s calculation. . . .

    That said, your recollection that the ISS was saved by cooperation is well taken. I do think we should open the door to at least limited cooperation with strings with China, especially since we could then use that as a stick to discourage more bad behavior. If we’re willing to sell them transport aircraft that can in theory be adapted to refueling tankers and give them a global air force, why are we not willing to cooperate with them in civilian space activity?

    — Donald

  • Anonymous,

    I think ESAS sized Orion (and other systems) to go to Mars, on the presumption that NASA would never get permission to “upgrade”
    the transportation systems to shift over from the Moon to Mars.

    ESAS drove the transportation to be Shuttle-derived not to exclude EELV but to use the expertise of NASA’s current workforce (which is largely Shuttle-oriented).

    So one could say that “10 healthy centers” isn’t a bug, it’s a FEATURE.

    – smile

  • anonymous

    “Well, suppose the alternative to the “pork” motivation were complete cancellation of any attempt to go beyond LEO?”

    Sure. But pure parochial politics, as the sole justification for an entire civil human space flight program (or any national undertaking), should be the rationale of last resort. Webb may have spread NASA’s human space flight centers around the south to ensure congressional support for Apollo, but that was done as an add-on to (not in the absence of) the driving rationale of demonstrably beating the Soviets at the big missile game. Between accelerating the burgeoning astrobiology revolution, stimulating new commercial space markets, creating new avenues for international cooperation, providing positive demonstrations of American power, and just making proper use of the billions spent and of astronaut lives risked in human space flight (per the CAIB), there are plenty of solid rationales for a sustained, human/robotic space exploration effort like that embodied in the VSE. Unfortunately, Griffin sunk to the lowest political denominator from the get-go, and no national effort can be sustained by local politics alone.

    “That said, your recollection that the ISS was saved by cooperation is well taken. I do think we should open the door to at least limited cooperation with strings with China, especially since we could then use that as a stick to discourage more bad behavior. If we’re willing to sell them transport aircraft that can in theory be adapted to refueling tankers and give them a global air force, why are we not willing to cooperate with them in civilian space activity?”

    Yeah, unless there’s major missile technology proliferation issues relating to ISS participation that I’m not sensitive to, I don’t see what we get by keeping China out of the partnership. It would be a nice carrot for negotiations on ASAT, missile, nuclear proliferation, and human rights issues. It would provide a second, independent foreign capability for supporting the ISS, especially during the gap. And per Nixon and Clinton’s policies of engagement, it would tie China closer to the U.S. over the long haul. Setting aside the still-raw impact of the ASAT test, my 2 cent perception is that political taboos, more than any substantive issues, are what’s keeping us from pursuing this.

    FWIW…

  • anonymous

    “I think ESAS sized Orion (and other systems) to go to Mars, on the presumption that NASA would never get permission to “upgrade”
    the transportation systems to shift over from the Moon to Mars.”

    Even with six crewmembers, Orion doesn’t have to be as big as it is. There’s no good reason to have that much volume per crewmember for an orbital transfer mission (whether to ISS or a Mars mission). Space-X Dragon and LockMart/Bigelow CTV designs show this to be true.

    I honestly don’t know if political considerations, bad/missing ESAS analysis, or something else led to the oversized Orion. But a requirement to transfer six crewmembers for Mars missions alone does not explain Orion’s size.

    (Of course, this is setting aside the dubiousness of a strategy that locks in technologies and systems today for a mission that won’t be fielded for few decades, at least. But that’s another discussion.)

    “ESAS drove the transportation to be Shuttle-derived not to exclude EELV but to use the expertise of NASA’s current workforce (which is largely Shuttle-oriented).”

    And if that’s true, I would argue it’s a mistake to allow political considerations to drive requirements or technical studies. A study like ESAS needs to provide political decisionmakers with the clearest analysis and best technical options, irrespective of politics. The decisionmakers can then muddle with the politics from there. But start with a technical solution that’s muddled by politics and you’ll never get out from under all the comprises, especially in such complex, high-performing, and narrow-margin systems like launch vehicles.

    “So one could say that “10 healthy centers” isn’t a bug, it’s a FEATURE.

    – smile”

    Snicker, snicker…

    But I won’t laugh too much. LockMart won’t be able to close Orion’s mass by PDR. See nasawatch.com and the presentation at this link:

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=24647

    The content and schedule impacts on pages 32-36 of the presentation create quite the slippery slope. It looks increasingly likely that NASA will pay a high price for the underperformance of its Shuttle “heritage” (but not really) launch vehicle and the dubious requirements driving its oversized human capsule.

    FWIW…

  • Even with six crewmembers, Orion doesn’t have to be as big as it is. There’s no good reason to have that much volume per crewmember for an orbital transfer mission (whether to ISS or a Mars mission).

    For comparison here are the habital volumes for other manned spacecraft:

    Apollo (3 crew, 5.9 cubic meters)
    Orion (6 crew, 12 cubic meters)
    Shenzhou (3 crew, 14 cubic meters)
    Soyuz TMA (3 crew, 9 cubic meters)

    In its primary role as crew transport to and from lunar orbit with 4 crew, the volume per crew member is the same as Souyz TMA and less than
    Shenzhou.

  • Al Fansome

    The Soyuz and Shenzou include a second compartment.

    – Al

  • vze3gz45

    “Even with six crewmembers, Orion doesn’t have to be as big as it is. There’s no good reason to have that much volume per crewmember for an orbital transfer mission (whether to ISS or a Mars mission). ”

    I totally disagree. The days of spam in the can ended with the space shuttle. We should not launch people into orbit in cans anymore like the Apollo command/service module. Astronauts should have a decent amount of room while launching and while waiting on orbit to transfer to a space station or Mars spacecraft. The size of Orion is good. Who knows. Orion may have to be used as a rescue craft to rescue astronauts from a damaged Mars space ship someday.

    vze3gz45

  • anonymous.space

    “In its primary role as crew transport to and from lunar orbit with 4 crew, the volume per crew member is the same as Souyz TMA and less than
    Shenzhou.”

    For lunar transport, the apples-to-apples comparison would be Apollo (obviously). And if the numbers above are accurate, Orion’s volume per crewmember is again bigger than Apollo’s by a factor of a little over 50 percent.

    And for LEO transport, I’d just reiterate Mr. Fansome’s statement.

    “We should not launch people into orbit in cans anymore like the Apollo command/service module. Astronauts should have a decent amount of room while launching and while waiting on orbit to transfer to a space station or Mars spacecraft.”

    When looked at in isolation, it’s a value judgement that can go either way.

    But in terms of the system, every extra cubic foot of volume carries with it tens to hundreds of additional pounds in terms of the extra structural mass needed to enclose it and the extra propellant needed to launch it. In that context, which is the one the engineers have to deal with, and especially on systems with thin margins like launch vehicles, extra crewmember volume becomes a “nice-to-have”, not a “must-have”.

    It’s also strange (at least to me) that we’re designing in extra volume for taxpayer-paid, risk-taking, right-stuff astronauts while the private astronauts paying their own way on Dragon and CTV will make do with less. It’s kind of like mandating first class airfare for government employees (which of course the federal government does not do) when most folks are fine flying coach. Not a good use of taxpayer dollars, at least in my opinion.

    “Who knows. Orion may have to be used as a rescue craft to rescue astronauts from a damaged Mars space ship someday.”

    If it’s a legitimate requirement, it should be documented as such. Unspoken and unwritten requirements assumptions are the bane of complex development projects (in human space flight or elsewhere).

    FWIW…

  • Anonymous: Of course, this is setting aside the dubiousness of a strategy that locks in technologies and systems today for a mission that won’t be fielded for few decades, at least. But that’s another discussion

    Maybe it shouldn’t be another discussion. Let us recall that, while the United States wasted (as it turned out) bazzilians on the Shuttle, the Space Station is being supported by one of the earliest human spacecraft and launch vehicles ever designed. Meanwhile, B-52s even older than I am seem to be doing a fine job, and few if any of the Shuttle’s problems seem directly related to the airframe’s age (although I’ll be interested to hear the thoughts of others on that). Why do we insist on continuing to re-invent the wheel? We have decades of experience building capsules capable of functioning in cis-Lunar space: if we can’t do it now, when will we be able to do it better? For that job, why do we not design for the ages, leaving room for the “astroionics” to be changed out as new equipment becomes available.

    In that light, vze3gz45 makes some interesting points. . . .

    — Donald

  • Paul Dietz

    Why do we insist on continuing to re-invent the wheel?

    The previous triangular and square versions didn’t work all that well.

  • Paul: The previous triangular and square versions didn’t work all that well.

    Is that so? We got multiple crews to the moon with no deaths or serious injuries in space. We achieved far better and more comprehensive science than has been even attempted at any other extraterrestrial location, before or since. We gained a great deal of practical experience and sustained an immensely steep learning curve.

    Sounds like a pretty successful version to me. . . .

    — Donald

  • anonymous.space

    “Let us recall that, while the United States wasted (as it turned out) bazzilians on the Shuttle, the Space Station is being supported by one of the earliest human spacecraft and launch vehicles ever designed. Meanwhile, B-52s even older than I am seem to be doing a fine job,”

    If we could accurately predict which aerospace vehicles would have the longevity of the B-52 or manned Soyuz, I’d agree with you.

    The problem is that there’s only a handful or two such vehicles out of the hundreds to thousands of vehicles developed since the advent of powered flight. Against those odds, it’s arguably foolish hubris to presume that a system we’re designing today will be used a few decades from now, especially if that presumption drives the system’s requirements, design choices, and costs.

    I’d also note that the longevity of the B-52 and Soyuz are due more to accidents of history than any careful planning.

    “few if any of the Shuttle’s problems seem directly related to the airframe’s age”

    You’re absolutely right that the Shuttle airframes have lots of flights left in them (100 each total, IIRC). But the airframes are not the parts of the system that drive Shuttle’s operational, maintenance, and upgrade costs. Nor are they the parts of the system that make it so dangerous to fly.

    “Why do we insist on continuing to re-invent the wheel?”

    There’s big differences between:

    1) needlessly reinventing a recently built and working wheel (Ares I and EELV),

    2) spending lots of very limited funds trying to make a wheel last for decades to fulfill a future mission (Ares I/V),

    3) and replacing a dangerously and expensively designed wheel (Shuttle).

    I’d agree with you that 1 is not justified. I’d argue that 2 is also not justified. But 3 is obviously justified.

    “For that job, why do we not design for the ages, leaving room for the “astroionics” to be changed out as new equipment becomes available.”

    Upgrades to computer-intensive GN&C systems will only shrink in mass and volume over time.

    FWIW…

  • Upgrades to computer-intensive GN&C systems will only shrink in mass and volume over time.

    Really? Maybe for each unit calculation, but the mass in electronics in modern vehicles is unlikely to be significantly less than in prior vehicles. We always seem able to fill every available space with electronic gizmos. Look at the recent Airbus fiascos. What is the total mass of electronics in a B-2 versus a B-52? If anything, we should probably be limited the mass of Orion so that future generations have limited space to put more electronic crap to go wrong. . . .

    — Donald

  • […] the bill, although at first glance it appears that the committee made few, if any, major changes to what the subcommittee approved on Tuesday. Space News reports that Sen. Barbara Mikulski proposed, and then withdrew, an amendment for a […]

  • You’re absolutely right that the Shuttle airframes have lots of flights left in them (100 each total, IIRC)

    That was the design specification. But then, they had other design specifications, like 65,000 lbs to LEO, and $22M per flight, and 55 flights per year…

Leave a Reply to Jim Muncy Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>