NASA

FY09 NASA budget: first look

The White House has posted this morning the overall FY2009 budget proposal, including an overview of the NASA budget. The administration is requesting over $17.6 billion for NASA in FY09, up from the $17.3 billion the agency got for the current fiscal year. The summary has only a few details about the budget, calling out specific spending on a few programs like Ares 1, Orion, Shuttle, and ISS. There is a reference to $105 million for “a program of small lunar robotic missions and research”, as well as $173 million for COTS and plans for $2.6 billion over five years to purchase transportation services to ISS.

Interestingly, there’s a huge increase in the “Cross Agency Support programs” line item, from under $500 million in 2008 ($556.4 million according to the final omnibus appropriations bill) to $3.3 billion in 2009: apparently some programs are being moved into that line item, but the summary isn’t specific on what. Also, the New Millennium technology demonstration program would be cut by $54 million “due to its limited results”.

More details will be released this afternoon at a NASA briefing. (I’ll be occupied with a different meeting today, so I’ll have to wait until this evening to review the budget in greater detail.)

19 comments to FY09 NASA budget: first look

  • What can you do with $105 million for lunar robotic exploration?

  • canttellya

    What can you do with $105 million for lunar robotic exploration?

    About 1/20th of what could be done if the $2B being spent on Ares and Orion were being spent on robotic lunar exploration.

  • Jon,

    it depends on who “you” is. If you’re the original RLEP program at MSFC, not much. If you’re NASA Ames, you can send 2 rmicro landers/rovers.

    – Jim

  • Despite the increase to the NASA topline, Ares I and Orion appear to have received cuts versus in the FY 2009 projection in the FY 2008 President’s budget.

    Last year, the Crew Launch Vehicle (Ares I) was projected to get $1,077 million in FY 2009. A $1 billion budget for CLV this year represents a 7 percent cut in FY 2009 from the FY 2008 plan for Orion.

    Last year, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (Orion) was projected to get $1,425 million in FY 2009. A $1 billion budget for CEV this year represents a 30 percent cut in FY 2009 from the FY 2008 plan for Orion.

    Either personnel and overhead dollars were shifted into Cross-Agency Support, Ares I and Orion have suddenly gotten a lot cheaper (unlikely), or the Constellation schedule has shifted to the right again. Alternately, this is a lame duck budget for the Bush White House, and OMB is just putting in round budget placeholders for Ares I and Orion until the new President puts his/her mark on the FY 2009 budget. It will be interesting to hear Griffin’s explanation. Hopefully someone in the press catches on and asks some relevant questions.

    The restoration of $105 million for a small lunar robotic mission program is laudable, but solar system exploration overall got whacked to the tune of $377 million or 22 percent ($1.3 billion versus $1,677 million in last year’s plan). Again, unless personnel and overhead dollars are being shifted into Cross-Agency Support, that portends more delays in the Mars and Discovery programs.

    The maintenance of the COTS budget and the clearer identification of the funds for follow-on ISS transportation services are also laudable. It’s just too bad that the two aren’t managed under a single program with clear procurement linkages — would make fund raising more possible for those COTS competitors lacking deep pockets.

    A cut to New Millennium is regretful, but presumably there is specific programmatic basis to the reduction. After the success of DS-1, the introduction of ion engines to operational missions (finally), and other clear flight technology validation successes in New Millenium, it’s hard to see how the program overall has had “limited results”.

    FWIW…

  • “What can you do with $105 million for lunar robotic exploration?”

    Government lunar orbiter missions have been successfully executed for less money. IIRC, Lunar Prospector had a $65 million budget, and Clementine something on the order of $85 million or so.

    Private lunar lander missions like IdeaLab’s have gotten to the PDR stage with total budget estimates in the same range. And the Google Lunar X-Prize is offering $25 million, implying that the competing teams will also have to complete missions for a few tens of millions of dollars, at most.

    Also, that’s just one year’s money. Mission funding is almost always spread over multiple budget years.

    FWIW…

  • Al Fansome

    JEFF: nterestingly, there’s a huge increase in the “Cross Agency Support programs” line item, from under $500 million in 2008 ($556.4 million according to the final omnibus appropriations bill) to $3.3 billion in 2009: apparently some programs are being moved into that line item, but the summary isn’t specific on what.

    It appears that there are corresponding reductions in many of the mission directorates.

    A total WAG.

    NASA is retreating from “full-cost accounting”, and putting big chunk of overhead, infrastructure, personnel costs into this bucket.

    – Al

  • read Deputy Administrator Shana Dale’s remarks and charts at http://www.actionforspace.com

  • canttellya

    read Deputy Administrator Shana Dale’s remarks and charts at

    Oh boy, let me get this straight: the justification for the ISS is COTS?

    Shana Dale: “If NASA astronauts were not onboard the ISS, our national laboratory in space simply would not survive. If there is no ISS, there is no market for the commercial providers we are trying to help bring into existence, and our international partnership would simply fall apart.”

  • The greatest surprise in the budget request are the many new starts of exciting science missions – in my Cosmic Mirror the key statements by Dale are summarized. Telecon on the details coming up at 5 p.m. EST – the audio will be here.

  • reader

    If there is no ISS, there is no market for the commercial providers we are trying to help bring into existence
    Oh FFS. We could have done with one less myth. *sigh*
    Once again, commercial space industry in quite a few forms has existed before ISS got its first pieces flying, and human launches were also on the table way before. Could we _please_ stop justifying things with excuses that are too easy to shoot down by anyone paying the slightest attention ? ( *spinoffs* cough )

  • Jens Knudsen

    There is a mission in the Millennium program that includes the development and testing of solar sail technology. Is it axed? Sooner or later, this question needs some attention.

  • Reader: commercial space industry in quite a few forms has existed before ISS got its first pieces flying

    True enough, but the launch industry has been static for many years. The “traditional” markets have failed to generate much expansion and show little sign of doing so.

    human launches were also on the table way before

    Really? My recollection is that commercial human missions to orbit started out to Mir (another high-resource requirement destination), and transferred to the Space Station, and otherwise do not yet exist. Suborbital commercial flights may yet happen with or without the Space Station, but they haven’t yet and are a very long way from routine orbital commerce. There is today no large markiet for expansion of the commercial launch industry other than the Space Station.

    It is you who are touting myths.

    — Donald

  • Alex

    Almost a billion for a new fleet of Earth-observing sats. Hm. Any hope of finally flying “GoreSat” and perhaps saving some dough in development costs?

  • Ray

    I see a lot I don’t like with the document, but here are a few things that look good, or at least interesting pending more information:

    FAST (2M): The Facilitated Access to Space Environment for Technology Development and Training (FAST) program objective is to mature technologies for future space flight use, especially those technologies that need to be proven in the microgravity environment. FAST will provide access to commercial microgravity flight services to advance NASA technologies, reducing risk levels and enabling more verification and validation of these technologies for space flight missions. FAST also facilitates the procurement of commercial space services by NASA to support the development of future space flight-certified technologies.

    Lunar Robotic Lander (2008 funds): In FY2008, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate will fund a lander project as a pathfinder for an anticipated network of small lunar science landers based on requirements of the Agency’s expanded Lunar Science Program, to be outlined in the FY 2009 budget request. NASA envisions that the first two small landers will launch in the 2013/2014 timeframe. During FY 2008-2009, ESMD will use appropriations identified in FY 2008 to conduct Phase A definition, initiate related technical demonstrations for ESMD risk reduction, begin Phase B, and if necessary, begin procurement of long-lead items. The Exploration Systems and Science Mission Directorates will continue to work together combining resources to assure the goals of the science lander are achieved.

    Sounding Rockets (30.2M 2008 to 45.1M 2009) (hopefully there’s a way to integrate commercial suborbital rockets into this): The Sounding Rockets effort funds all suborbital mission activities (payload integration, launch, and mission operation) that support science investigations funded in other parts of the research program, such as the Heliophysics and Astrophysics Research and Analysis programs, as well as other NASA
    research benefiting from low-cost or periodic access to space such as exploration technology test and demonstration programs.

    Sounding Rockets present unique low-cost platforms that provide direct access to Earth’s mesosphere and lower thermosphere (40-120 kilometers) and precipitation regions of Earth’s magnetosphere. Because of their short duration and access to Earth’s upper atmosphere and the space environment, sounding rocket suborbital missions also enable calibration under-flights of orbital missions, repeated proof-of-concept technology demonstration missions, and valuable end-to-end space mission experience for scientists and engineers learning to develop and execute discovery-oriented orbital missions.

  • Joseph Hiddink

    For 150 Million dollars I will build a real Spacecraft that will reach the Moon in an hour. It will not use rockets, barfbags or activate osteoporosis
    and carry three or four people. I bet you ten dollars that Mr. Grifin would not be interested.

  • Concerned Rocketeer

    Alex wrote: “Almost a billion for a new fleet of Earth-observing sats. Hm. Any hope of finally flying “GoreSat” and perhaps saving some dough in development costs?”

    OMB shows that $1.4B in ’09 is for finishing up with NPP, GPM, LDCM, OCO, Glory, and evidently for starting some new missions–but I bet there won’t be much left for any new missions. (After all this time, Triana is probably never going to be launched… that’s if it is still intact.)

    Bottom Line: NASA Science overall goes from 5.5B in 2008 to 4.4B in 2009. That’s a 20% decrease. If Congress lets that happen, then the taxpayers will totally be getting the shaft from Bush and Co.

  • The People

    I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about this budget. The response from Congress and stakeholders has been negative all the way around. Even the budget rollout at NASA HQ and the Centers was low key.

    This budget is headed for a CR, big time.

  • Al Fansome

    The White House did not get the NASA memo.

    Each and every White House document explicitly uses the phrase “Vision for Space Exploration”. At the same time, Shana Dale’s remarks do not. The NASA presentation charts presented yesterday use the 4-letter “VSE” word only once — as a label for the White House’s 2004 VSE policy document.

    Since NASA is obviously trying to kill the White House’s “Vision for Space Exploration”, maybe it is time for the White House to return the favor to NASA, and kill ESAS.

    – Al

  • Habitat Hermit

    Couldn’t agree more with Al Fansome there.

    After killing ESAS (if it hasn’t suicided) and depending on who wins the election (especially if it’s McCain) Dr. Griffin needs to be told to leave too so as to remove any chances of him staying on (he did at some point say he wouldn’t continue but who knows what goes on in his head –I sure don’t*). If this is done during the last week of the present administration the interim administrator wouldn’t necessarily have to keep going all that much longer than usual.

    Sounds like a plan, does it make sense? Would it work?

    * I still believe Dr. G has the very best of intentions (but it’s getting awfully hot down that road).

Leave a Reply to Daniel Fischer 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>