In perhaps his last meeting with reporters, NASA administrator Mike Griffin warned yesterday that the agency could be forced to lay off contractors if the existing continuing resolution is extended, the Houston Chronicle reports. Griffin didn’t say how many positions would be at risk, but did say they would primarily come from Constellation, which would get a half-billion dollars less than planned if the CR is extended for the full fiscal year. The paper adds, though, that “Griffin’s comments reflected a timeworn practice by agency chiefs who often use dire warnings to try to persuade lawmakers to ante up additional funds.”
In the same briefing, Griffin said that increasing NASA funding, perhaps as part of a stimulus package, would create jobs as well as “shore up the U.S. leadership in aerospace”, according to Reuters. “If you accelerate Ares and Orion as shuttle replacement vehicles, you provide immediate jobs to all of the aerospace states, which is quite a large number. That’s immediate. I can start buying parts tomorrow if I have the money,” he said.
That’s such a great idea to James Pinkerton, writing for Fox News, that he advocates putting “space exploration at the center of the new stimulus package” that the new administration will request from Congress. That interest in space exploration is less a desire to explore the universe, though, and more to exploit the perceived geopolitical benefits of being a leader in spaceflight. “Space exploration, despite all the bonhomie about scientific and economic benefit for the common good, has always been driven by strategic competition.” Pinkerton’s idea of “space exploration” is also apparently broad enough to include missile defense.
The more pessimistic case comes from The Hill, with this headline: “Recession may ground space flights” and this lede: “President-elect Obama will have to decide the fate of the costly U.S. space program amid a global recession and skyrocketing deficits.” It’s a bit hard to follow the author’s logic, though, when saying that the $3 billion a year proposed to extend the life of the shuttle is “even more expensive with a $1.2 trillion fiscal-year deficit as a backdrop”; with deficits that high, $3 billion is lost in the noise. The article also plays up comments by Congressman Barney Frank last fall that opposed human spaceflight, noting that “Frank’s comments are particularly interesting given the integral role he’ll play in the country’s economic recovery as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.” But as the discussion to the post linked to above noted, Frank isn’t involved in appropriations any more than the typical member (he can, like other members, propose amendments during floor debate on appropriations, as he as done in the past), and his committee will be pretty busy this year dealing with TARP and other bailout issues.
Unfortunately, departments and agencies with large portions of their budgets dedicated to multi-year development projects — like NASA and DoD — are extremely poor prospects for near-term economic stimulus funding. Congress appropriates the vast majority of NASA’s $17 billion budget as two-year funding, meaning that NASA has two years to get the funding on contract or otherwise awarded. NASA has an even longer period of time to spend the funding — i.e., obtain a receipt from the contractor and pay them. If the White House and Congress want to see federal funding pumped into the economy in early to mid-2009, NASA would be a very poor choice of vehicle for that funding (as much as I wish it were otherwise). Funding appropriated for NASA in 2009 would not really be flowing until 2010-12.
On cost estimates for Shuttle extension, NASA has spoken out of both sides of its mouth on this issue during Griffin’s tenure. Under the VSE, funding for the Shuttle program was to be drawn down from the program’s long-standing $4-5 billion annual budget to a $2-3 billion annual budget in the 2008-2010 timeframe, based on the fact that suppliers and contractors would be coming off the program as it wound down. When Griffin came onboard, he rejected this logic, claiming it was an unsafe course for the Shuttle program, and cut NASA’s science and aeronautics programs to bring Shuttle program funding back up to $4-5 billion funding level in the 2008-2010 timeframe. Now, Griffin claims that it is an acceptable risk to run the Shuttle program at a $2-3 billion annual funding level in the post-2010 timeframe. If it was unsafe for the Shuttle program to operate on $2-3 billion per year in 2008-2010, why is it suddenly safe in the post-2010 timeframe?
FWIW…
I think two things reduce the cost post-2010. One is the number of shuttle flights per year and the other is retiring Atlantis to use as spare parts.
I agree that pumping money into NASA wouldn’t make a difference in our economy in the short term. Even creating a very large new project like solar based power or the space elevator would take years of desgin and development. Of couse long term investments in COTS, space science and engineering education and other projects would help the economy but when has the government invested in long term solutions.
“I think two things reduce the cost post-2010. One is the number of shuttle flights per year…”
The marginal cost of a Space Shuttle flight is ~$100 million. So going from, say, four flights per year to two flights per year only saves ~$200 million. The change in flight rate can only explain a small part of the billion dollar-plus drop from $4-5 billion to $2-3 billion per year.
“… and the other is retiring Atlantis to use as spare parts.”
Turning off suppliers in favor of used Atlantis parts may be a significant source of savings. But it doesn’t explain why it’s now acceptable to realize savings from turning off suppliers in the 2010+ timeframe, but it was not acceptable in the 2008-10 timeframe.
There may be a logical explanation, but I havn’t seen it yet. I suspect that Griffin, under pressure about the gap, broke some of his own Shuttle flyout rules when commissioning the Shuttle extension study. The Obama Administration should probably treat Griffin’s estimate as a lowball, and if they’re really interested in extending Shuttle operations, understand that the figure will probably increase to $4-5 billion per year based on actual history.
Contrary to Mr. Foust’s statement about a $3 billion (or $15 billion through 2015) Shuttle extension being a small drop in the $1.2 trillion deficit, I can’t imagine that Shuttle extension will make the new White House’s list of domestic discretionary priorities, which will total much less than the $1.2 trillion deficit, in this historically awful budget environment. And if the new Administration did want to spend that kind of money on NASA, I’d hope they’d choose much higher-return investments in Ares alternatives, COTS D, exploration technology, science missions, and/or aeronautics, rather than just putting a few more flagstones on Shuttle’s path to retirement. But who knows…
FWIW…
There are many topics to ponder when you begin the process of explaining why you are going to fly the Shuttle longer – the cost of flying it and the number of Shuttles to fly are two related topics. Over the decades, many statements have been made to Congress about how many Shuttles you “need” to fly safely. Fred Gregory (retired astronaut and senior manager) stated that you “need” four. And so we could NOT mothball one for use as a hangar queen. Now we have fewer than four and apparently are flying safely. Can we go down to two? One? Whether mothballing one would save money or not is highly debatable, especially when you compare that “saving” to the cost of maintaining facilities – you need a VAB and at least one pad no matter how many Shuttles you have. Etc.
And the cost of continuing to fly the Shuttle is more of a political decision than you might think. Do we “require” an OMDP or would a mini-OMDP be suffiicient? How about a nano-OMDP? Similarly, many costs can be adjusted to get the answer that you desire.
So the old discussion about “How much does it cost to fly the Shuttle for a little longer” generates a timeworn response of “How much do you have?”.
Oh if I only had the time and energy to dig into the NASA As Stimulus discussion!!
OK, I can’t help myself!!! I have to at least fire off a controversial and pointlessly realistic posting on the NASA As Stimulus idea!!!
Why not create a few more NASA centers? We have created lots of jobs by opening the Shared Services Center and the Independent Verification center and some other center that I forgot about and maintaining a whole host of overlapping Centers for years. Why not open a few more in Detroit and hire a bunch of auto workers to do something or the other?? You would build parking lots and visitor’s centers and attract tourists – all NASA facilities attract tourists like picnics attract ants.
[…] problem is that, as “anonymous.space” points out, it isn’t particularly stimulating in the short run: Unfortunately, departments and agencies […]
Per NASAWatch, neither Shuttle extension nor Constellation acceleration are part of the draft economic stimulus bill. See (add http://www.):
nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/american_recove.html
The bill does contain $600 million for NASA, including $400 million in Earth science/sensors, $150 million in aviation safety/NextGen air traffic control development, and $50 million for hurricane damage repair at NASA field centers.
There may be some individual Earth science and aeronautics projects in that mix that are “shovel ready” this year, but the hurricane repair will probably be the only project that flows money in the coming months (and that assumes that NASA does not redesign any damaged facilities).
FWIW…
To add to what anonymous.space listed for NASA, from:
appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary01-15-09.pdf
Don’t lose sight of the first sentence here …we’re digging quite a hole …
“With passage of this package, we will face a large deficit for years to come. Without it, those deficits will be devastating and we face the risk of economic chaos.”
There are various energy provisions … could NASA or commercial space get a piece of this? For example:
“GSA Federal Buildings: $6.7 billion for renovations and repairs to federal buildings including at least $6 billion focused on increasing energy efficiency and conservation. Projects are selected based on GSA’s ready-to-go priority list.”
NASA does have some infrastructure issues beyond hurricane damage.
“Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research: $2 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities to foster energy independence, reduce carbon emissions, and cut utility bills. Funds are awarded on a competitive basis to universities, companies, and national laboratories.”
Could there be energy-related space demos or spin-offs?
“Department of Defense Research: $350 million for research into using renewable energy to power weapons systems and military bases.”
SPS folks, is there a demo in there for you?
“National Science Foundation: $3 billion, including $2 billion for expanding employment opportunities in fundamental science and engineering to meet environmental challenges and to improve global economic competitiveness, $400 million to build major research facilities that perform cutting edge science, $300 million for major research equipment shared by institutions of higher education and other scientists, $200 million to repair and modernize science and engineering research facilities at the nation’s institutions of higher education and other science labs, and $100 million is also included to improve instruction in science, math and engineering.”
… will any NSF efforts related to space get funded?
There is also lots of health, medicine, and biology money … any ISS experiements in there?
“National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellites and Sensors: $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including climate sensors and climate modeling.”
“NOAA Habitat Restoration: $400 million for ready-to-go habitat restoration projects.”
NOAA outdoes NASA with $1B total … wake up NASA …
“Small Business Credit: $430 million for new direct lending and loan guarantee authorities to make loans more attractive to lenders and free up capital.”
Is this of any use to small startup space companies?
… and billions and billions and billions more … let’s hope a decent amount of it gets put to productive use.
I’m not surprised Constellation didn’t get extra funding, even if Griffin says it’s “shovel ready”. NASA might want to consider the types of things that are getting funded, and try to align itself more to those priorities of the incoming Administration and Congress while still making progress in space.
Recovery grows with confidence in the country and its civil and government enterprises. It seems to me that there is no shortcut to generating confidence – the system has to empower and direct resources to the most capable people on projects of fundamental importance to their respective fields.
[…] the role Barney Frank will be playing in NASA funding, I think we’re screwed. “…The more pessimistic case comes from The Hill, with this headline: “Recession may ground space flights†and this […]
ANONYMOUS.SPACE: Unfortunately, departments and agencies with large portions of their budgets dedicated to multi-year development projects — like NASA and DoD — are extremely poor prospects for near-term economic stimulus funding. Congress appropriates the vast majority of NASA’s $17 billion budget as two-year funding, meaning that NASA has two years to get the funding on contract or otherwise awarded. NASA has an even longer period of time to spend the funding — i.e., obtain a receipt from the contractor and pay them. If the White House and Congress want to see federal funding pumped into the economy in early to mid-2009, NASA would be a very poor choice of vehicle for that funding (as much as I wish it were otherwise). Funding appropriated for NASA in 2009 would not really be flowing until 2010-12.
Anon,
This apology is conflicts with the facts. Let’s review the other R&D agencies, which have schedules.
I reviewed the stimulus package for the science & tech agencies. I have listed them by order of amount received in the stimulus bill.
DOE receives $43.9 Billion (for energy related projects.)
NIH receives $4.6 Billion.
National Telecommunications & Information Administration receives $3.8 Billion.
NSF receives $2.5 Billion.
NOAA receives $1 Billion.
NASA receives $600 million.
NIST receives $500 million.
Now you may think “well at least NASA got more than somebody.”
But wait, the President’s budget request for NIST for FY2009 was $678 million.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/budget_2009.htm
The NIST stimulus package of $500M is 74% of its FY2009 budget request.
FWIW,
– Al
PS — This is completely depressing.
[…] Al Fansome has some numbers to show where the Obama administration puts space in terms of federal R&D priority (scroll down to the eleventh comment): I reviewed the stimulus package for the science & tech agencies. I have listed them by order of amount received in the stimulus bill. […]
“This apology”
In fairness to me, it’s not an apology. I wrote that post before the bill was released. (And I had no foreknowledge of what was in the bill.)
I was just pointing out that departments, agencies, and programs that are heavy with multi-year development projects (like NASA generally or Constellation specifically) are not good candidates for short-term economic stimulus spending. The planning and procurement processes involved ensure that little of the funding will be spent over the next few months.
“is [sic] conflicts with the facts. Let’s review the other R&D agencies, which have schedules.”
Without reviewing the specific spending proposed for each of these agencies, we really can’t say whether they should have received more funding than NASA in an economic stimulus package. For example, it could be that the bulk of the NSF and NIH spending is going to be used to expand the number of awards in ongoing and oversubscribed grant programs, which would get money into the hands of university researchers in the next few months. (I don’t know that, but it’s possible.)
But since the bulk of the NASA funding went to projects that are probably not “shovel-ready”, it would not surprise me to learn that’s true of the other R&D agencies. In that case, your point stands.
The possible exception would be DOE. I would guess that much of the DOE spending is going to energy infrastructure, which was clearly a higher priority than almost any other domestic discretionary issue for the Obama campaign and which probably has a backlog of “shovel-ready” projects to boot.
One other point that I’d make at the risk of receiving the apology accusation a second time… I think it’s actually a positive sign for space advocates that NASA made the bill at all, even if the funding was smaller than that for other R&D agencies and didn’t go to space exploration, technology, or science. Instead of taking Earth science and aeronautics research out of the hide of space exploration, technology, and science — arguably a real possibility with the new Administration and Congress — money was added to the topline. Heck, the prior Congress and White House forced NASA to eat hurricane repairs out of the hide of the human space flight program — this is the first time in years that funding has been added to take care of those repairs.
Not perfection, but a lot better than it could have (and arguably has) been.
I’d also point out that given the mess that Constellation, and NASA’s human space flight plans in general, are in, it may be some number of months until the new White House figures out where it wants to place its bets in space exploration and technology, anyway. Until they figure out a (hopefully good) path forward, I’d rather see them keep their powder dry. Sure beats blowing $4 billion trying vainly to bring the Ares I/Orion schedule one lousy year to the left as Griffin has suggested, or $15 billion (probably more) tying the Shuttle albatross around NASA’s neck for another five years.
We have to be realistic — a leap to COTS D or Orion on an EELV to shorten the gap, or a restructuring of the lunar architecture to something more sustainable, or some other innovative shift in direction for the human space flight program was not in the cards for this bill or timeframe. The new President has yet to be sworn in, Griffin just left office today, and his successor has yet to be named. I wouldn’t begin furrowing brows and wringing hands until the new Administration has at least submitted its 2010 budget to Congress in the April/June timeframe. At that time, if there’s no shift towards or study of alternatives (i.e., Ares I/Orion forever), or if space exploration, technology and/or science is getting whacked budgetarily, then there will be reason to worry.
My 2 cents… FWIW…
ANONYMOUS:In fairness to me, it’s not an apology. I wrote that post before the bill was released. (And I had no foreknowledge of what was in the bill.)
Point conceded.
ANONYMOUS:Without reviewing the specific spending proposed for each of these agencies, we really can’t say whether they should have received more funding than NASA in an economic stimulus package. For example, it could be that the bulk of the NSF and NIH spending is going to be used to expand the number of awards in ongoing and oversubscribed grant programs, which would get money into the hands of university researchers in the next few months. (I don’t know that, but it’s possible.)
No need to speculate or guess. Anybody can read the bill, and the report language here:
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryReport01-15-09.pdf
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryBill01-15-09.pdf
ANONYMOUS:The possible exception would be DOE. I would guess that much of the DOE spending is going to energy infrastructure, which was clearly a higher priority than almost any other domestic discretionary issue for the Obama campaign and which probably has a backlog of “shovel-ready†projects to boot.
No more guessing is needed. The list of areas for DOE funding is clearly delineated in starting in page 27 of …
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryReport01-15-09.pdf
FWIW,
– Al
anonymous.space: “But since the bulk of the NASA funding went to projects that are probably not “shovel-readyâ€, it would not surprise me to learn that’s true of the other R&D agencies. In that case, your point stands.”
I wonder if the “satellite sensors that measure solar radiation” is a reference to DSCOVR (i.e. Triana). Is it ready to move into test and launch fairly quickly?
It sounds like some of it is to add researchers to study climate change. This might be quickly done if it’s using existing data, beefing up existing projects or funding proposals that have already been made, etc.
I didn’t see Al’s post at the time I made my previous post, but using one of his links
appropriations.house.gov/pdf/RecoveryReport01-15-09.pdf
we have more detail on the NASA changes:
“NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
SCIENCE
Science
Recovery funding: $400 million
Investments in the areas of Earth science, planetary science, heliophysics and astrophysics seek to answer fundamental questions concerning the ways the Earth’s climate is changing; the comparison of the Earth with other planets in the solar system and around other stars; and the connections among the Sun, Earth and heliosphere. These investments are critically important to understanding climate change and mitigation.
Within the funds provided, not less than $250 million will be used to accelerate the development of the Tier 1 set of Earth science/climate research missions recommended by the National Academies decadal survey as being critically important for answering key Earth science/climate
research questions. Funds are also provided to restore the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor to an NPOESS satellite, which measures solar radiation and is critical to understanding climate change; and to add a thermal infrared sensor to the Landsat Continuing Mapper necessary for water management (e.g., soil moisture and water use) particularly in the western states. It is estimated by NASA that these investments will support in excess of 2,600 jobs.
AERONAUTICS
Aeronautics
Recovery funding: $150 million
The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 requires system-level research, development, and demonstration activities related to aviation safety, environmental impact mitigation, and the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Investments in environmentally-friendly or “green†aviation, supersonic testbeds, and development of aerospace systems and technologies require substantial participation by the aerospace industry and inter-governmental agencies, and result in significant job creation. NASA believes it is possible to expend all of these funds by the end of the second fiscal year after receipt and estimates that nearly 1,000 jobs will be supported.
CROSS AGENCY SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Disaster Assistance
Recovery funding: $50 million
To date, insufficient funding has been provided for reconstruction at affected NASA centers precipitated by hurricanes and floods during the last calendar year. NASA has identified over $85 million in reconstruction projects. NASA estimates that over 440 jobs will be created.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
PROCUREMENT, ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION
Acquisition and Development of NOAA Satellites and Sensors
Recovery funding: $600 million
$600 million will address critical requirements in satellite acquisition and development and provide necessary resources to address unmet national climate change research and mitigation activities, including the acquisition of climate sensors on soon-to-be deployed satellites. In addition, funds are provided to address critical gaps in climate modeling, and establish climate data records for continuing research into the cause, effects and ways to mitigate climate change.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESEARCH AND SERVICES
Scientific and Technical Research and Services
Recovery funding: $100 million
The STRS program is an intramural research program made up of laboratories and technical programs and national research facilities. Funding will be used to establish environmental measurements and standards, including remote sensing for climate change;” …etc…
Hey, they even have a Centennial Challenge … just not the one we’re familiar with:
“CENTENNIAL CHALLENGE
Centennial Challenge Matching Grant Program
Recovery funding: $100 million
This program was created in 2007 to prepare the National Park Service for its second century of service…”
How about this one?
“Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Enforcement and Clean-up Program
Recovery funding: $200 million”
And you thought only space missions have great acronyms.