NASA, White House

Administration to propose $18.7B NASA budget for FY2010

On Thursday the Obama Administration is scheduled to release the “outline” of its FY2010 budget proposal (the complete budget proposal won’t be ready until late March or early April). Aviationweek.com reports that the administration will propose $18.7 billion for NASA for FY10. That would be nearly $1 billion more than what they agency is likely to get in the regular FY09 omnibus appropriations currently being considered by Congress. However, when the $1 billion in stimulus funding is added, it works out to about the same (although the stimulus money will remain available to the agency through the end of FY2010). This issue—how FY10 budgets would stack up to FY09 plus the stimulus package—had caused some concern in the scientific community in general: some worried that a one-time bump from the stimulus would lead to starting programs that could not be sustained over the long haul. At least for NASA this appears to be less of a concern.

The Aviationweek.com article adds that the budget proposal “sticks with the goal of returning humans to the moon by 2020″. This is not necessarily surprising, since that had been part of the campaign’s space policy document, which stated that Obama “endorses the goal of sending human missions to the Moon by 2020.” What the article doesn’t say, though, is whether the administration endorses the current exploration architecture, the multibillion-dollar question occupying much of the civil space community in recent months. Given that the budget document released tomorrow is only an outline of the complete budget—and that the administration has yet to announce a nominee for NASA administrator—such details may not be forthcoming for some time.

6 comments to Administration to propose $18.7B NASA budget for FY2010

  • Commenter

    I am sure that ATK and proponents of the Stick are jumping with joy. What a disappointment. So much for real change, at least with regards to the U.S. Space Program. They might as well bring back Griffin now, so we can get into the ditch faster.

  • richardb

    Let me see if I understand. Two administrations are supporting the same goal. One administration a right of center Republican the other a left of center Democrat. Both say go to the Moon by 2020.
    Multiple Congresses have agreed on the exact same thing.
    The next shoe to drop is Obama sticking with Ares I/V.

    Yet people in the blogsphere still carp and complain about VSE, Ares and Mike Griffin. If this AWST story is correct, I got to say I’m real pleased that Nasa is getting more support from Obama than Bush gave. Real nice.

    Sour grapes? Time to move on folks.

  • sc220

    Sour grapes? Time to move on folks.

    This isn’t sour grapes, it’s just concern over what’s appearing to be total lack of fiscal responsibility. The whole architecture was selected based on a quick study whose assumptions are now widely recognized to have been flawed. Add to that the robot-like insistence on one way, without even considering a Plan B or C. Griffin fit in very well with the mindset and practices of the Bush Administration.

    Many of us were hoping for real change with Obama. He didn’t seem to be the type to accept something, just because that’s the way we’ve been doing it.

    I can understand going further in the red to save important job-dependent industries, rebuild deteriorating infrastructure or move us to sustainable energy. But spending non-existant dollars to perform an Apollo redux is foolhardy and stupid.

  • richardb

    “Many of us were hoping for real change with Obama. He didn’t seem to be the type to accept something, just because that’s the way we’ve been doing it.”

    Not to be snarky, but can you point to 1 or 2 instances in Obama’s past where he pushed for reform of any consequence? From his Chicago days where he worked in one of the most politically corrupt cities of America, corruption that goes back to the turn of the last century. Must have reformed something there?

    How about in D.C., again deeply corrupt, deeply in the pay of special interests, surely he’s offered real change there?

    As of now, Obama is maintaining the key Bush policies whether its Nasa,
    CIA interrogation methods, government secrecy in the war on terror, renditions, denial of rights to prisoners held overseas, certification of Gitmo as humane.

    One area where Obama is changing from Bush is “fiscal responsibility”. I believe Obama is on pace to exceeds Bush’s 8 years of public debt. In just the first year of his presidency. To hoist the banner of fiscal responsibility because Nasa is using Ares I over something else while Obama is spending trillions of dollars we don’t have is like getting mad at the pilot while the plane is spinning out of control. Silly.

  • [...] Analysis can be found at Space Politics. [...]

  • [...] section on NASA’s budget request. The document contains little additional information than what Aviationweek.com reported last night: only a topline figure of $18.7 billion is included in the document. The document emphasizes [...]

Leave a 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>