I am tied up all day today at a space debris workshop at McGill University in Montreal, so I won’t be providing updates on the budget details released later today until tonight. So I’m leaving this post open to comment on the budget and any other policy announcements (such as the anticipated Constellation review) that might come out today.
Well, Jeff, after today’s announcements, I think there’ll be some “space debris” here in DC also.
Ha ha ha ha ha…
(Sorry, folks, I couldn’t resist.)
Jeff,
Are there any proposals for actually removing some space debris, or is it all about monitoring existing space junk, preventing new additions to same, can’t we all get along peacefully, and so on?
USAF’s Transformational Satellite Program is nixed. See:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/trs.pdf
FWIW…
Bottom Line
Cuts $3.6 billion out of human spaceflight for FY11-FY14. These are “placeholders” for the review that is going to be conducted this summer.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/05/nasa_fy2010_bud.html
Blue,
Can you make it easy on the reader, and explain how you come up with $3.6 billion in cuts in human spaceflight? (Name of document, Page number, Name of Budget Line).
Thanks,
– TANSTAAFL
“explain how you come up with $3.6 billion in cuts in human spaceflight? (Name of document, Page number, Name of Budget Line).”
See page “SUM-10″ in this PDF:
344612main_Agency_Summary_Final_updates_5_6_09_R2[1].pdf
The FY11-13 reductions in the “Total Change” line at the bottom of the Exploration budget table add up to $3,760 million (a little more than $3.6 billion). Note that $786 million has also been moved forward to FY08-10, making the net change over all years a little under $3 billion.
Contrary to Blue’s post, I don’t see that the $3,760 million has been set aside as a placeholder elsewhere in the NASA budget pending the recommendations of Augustine’s blue-ribbon panel. But I may have missed something in my first quick read of the documents.
If the $3,760 million is set aside, then this is similar to the budget strategy that was set up after the X-33 project augured in, and the Clinton White House set aside a multi-billion wedge in the outyears of NASA’s budget, pending decisions that eventually led to the Space Launch Initiative (which was later overtaken by events after the Columbia accident).
FWIW…
Whoops… link in the post directly above should be:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/344612main_Agency_Summary_Final_updates_5_6_09_R21.pdf
Apologies…
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. The already reduced budget numbers are referred to simply as “placeholders.” The $3.7B is gone…and I suspect the role of the Commission will be to see how much further manned spaceflight can be cut while retaining some capacioty (e.g., Orion on EELV a few times per year).
The review is to find out if there is a lower cost, faster way to achieve the goals of the VSE.
It isn’t hard to see that Ares is a very inefficient way to do it, with two brand new vehicles required to meet the goals.
There are clearly a few alternatives worth investigating in comparison. The President just seems to want that investigation done before we are committed to a path which looks fraught with delays, cost overruns and performance shortfalls.
I don’t blame him at all. I would not wish to inherit the mess NASA is in right now either.
SHERIDAN: It isn’t hard to see that Ares is a very inefficient way to do it, with two brand new vehicles required to meet the goals.
“It’s dead Jim.”
Constellation is the beneficiary of a $971M cut in FY11, a $1,088M cut in FY12, and a $1,700 cut in FY13.
It was clear to many that Ares was dead with the existing budget. But now with that large of a cut, there is no way that it works.
Ares is dead.
COTS-D, plus Orion on EELV, is the only option I can see that makes any sense.
We still have a significant budget for human spaceflight — growing to $6 Billion per year after the Shuttle retires — but the new numbers will force everybody at ESMD to rethink the future.
There will be two different reactions from E Street, and the NASA centers. One will be gnashing of teeth. The other reaction will those who pick themselves up, deal with reality, and suddenly start speaking about how that Orion+EELV option is not too bad after all.
FWIW,
– TANSTAAFL
That’s the positive spin, TANSTAAFL. I think there is also the possibility that this presages the elimination of manned spaceflight capacity entirely.
Senators Shelby, Nelson and Hutchison will all have something to say about it. Their states all rely upon the money which comes only from a Shuttle derived solution. They are all very serious players in Congress and Congress still have to approve this budget proposal from the White House.
We are not going to get an all-EELV/COTS solution. There is just too much money and political power backing Shuttle solutions. But there are a few plausible Shuttle derived alternatives which would not cost anywhere near as much as Ares-I plus Ares-V will.
We are not going to get an all-EELV/COTS solution. There is just too much money and political power backing Shuttle solutions. But there are a few plausible Shuttle derived alternatives which would not cost anywhere near as much as Ares-I plus Ares-V will.
Five meter SSME only solutions abound, however, and they’re the right price, and fit right in with the EELV and COTS vehicles already flying or coming. This is how our rocket factories (including Michoud) should look :
http://21stcenturywaves.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/atlas.jpg
Maybe they’ll toss a development contract for Shuttle-C to keep them happy…but I don’t think Obama is all that concerned about lame duck Hutchison or Shelby at this point in time.
I suspect that some of the loss is actually something of a shell game. Note that Space and Flight Support has now combined Shuttle Operations, ISS Operations [B]and[/B] Constellation Operations into Human Flight Operations and that it is getting a substantial chunk of cash. How much of that was formerly part of the Exploration/Constellation Operations budget?
Also note that the ISS is picking up almost $300m a year from 2011-14, I have not found an explanation for that yet. The budget overview claims there are no major changes to the ISS Program and yet there is this $300m annual increase in the ISS Cargo Crew Services line item?
I know this debate is primarily about Ares I and the cost of the whole Cxp program….
But now maybe Burt Rutan’s/Transformational Space Corporation (t/space) concept that received a $3 Million Dollar demonstration contract from NASA and then $3 Million more from DARPA for a CXV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) will resurface now. The core approach of the philosophy was:
“Value, not new technology, is the right Metric”
The plan was complimentary to EELV’s, COTS-D, **AND** promised to be $20 Million a launch (1/20 the cost of NASA’s CEV plans). It has a military angle (DARPA liked it for rapid launch) and since Air launch also allowed the launch point to match inclination and orbit phasing requirements for any particular mission in good or bad weather it would be a lot more flexibility and ease of scheduling.
It would also integrate with the ISS as it enables LEO access to the station and uses the ISS as a waypoint for an eventual moon return (if all three parts of the system were developed). The Whole system was envisioned to be 100% reusable & used aerocapture on the way back from the moon.
I believe it was ruled out as it did not include a Mars angle, was aircraft based, & the Lunar aspects required definite ISRU capabilities (maybe LCROSS/LRO can clear up if this is a real option). Leadership wanted to design backwards from Mars (with the right $$ – I agree actually) so this didn’t make the cut…
…but now with the new budget projections on Ares I –Maybe It’s worth a shot.
The CXV was based on launching a capsule on a VLA (Very Large Aircraft) which could be a modded 747 (similar to the White Knight/SpaceShip One approach) getting to 7600 m, releasing and igniting the Quick Reach 2 Booster to LEO.
Maybe this is a chance for Northrup Grumann to get back in the game for the Constellation program, after all the bought 100% of Scaled in 2007 didn’t they? Since Lockheed and Northrup do a lot of work together on the JSF F-35 maybe this could develop into a Plan B for Lockheed to stay in the Constellation game also…… (might keep their shareholders happier that way)
For details check out this astronatix.com description here:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cxv.htm
Wikipedia has two pdf’s: Initial and final reports — here is the link to the initial report -it’s short and sweet….
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/65852main_tSpace.pdf
I think combining this and keep the ARES V would be a great combo, but if can only be EELV based for the fuel needed going forward at least
Mr. Rand Simberg will be placated….
Mr. Sheridan,
you are incorrect in suggesting that the 3 Senators have the same policy positions or underlaying parochial interests.
Sen. Hutchison, more than anything, wants to make ISS a success.
Sen Nelson wants to fly out the manifest and then launch people to space from KSC sooner than later.
Sen. Shelby has white collar jobs at Marshall and blue collar jobs in Decatur.
That’s why they call it the World’s Greatest Debating Club.
Sigh. Some of you really don’t know how to read a budget request do you? You seem to forget who put out the budget request for FY2009 and the fact that a different administration is submitting this budget request. President Obama is in fact not cutting NASA’s budget, but just the initial budget projections for FY2011-2013 listed in the previous years request. So the budgets for those years have not really been cut. Also, you might notice that this year’s budget FY2010 request is almost a quarter of billion dollars higher than last year’s request for FY2010 with the bulk of that extra money going to none other than the Constellation program. A fairly good indication that Constellation and Ares 1 sticking around for awhile longer. Maybe until we get to the Moon? You also might remember that several major contracts involving the manufacturing of Ares 1 and Orion components have been handed out in the last few weeks. That is besides the comments from Scolese who seems pretty confident that the Constellation program is going to continue. Cheers.
Gary, some of us actually work in a budget office and know exactly how to read a budget. Yes, FY10 is OK. But this document telegraphs as clear as day that major changes are coming. The Blue Ribbon Review is simply the exclamation point on it.
@Blue
Or possibly not. You may be reading too much into the budget forecasts for FY2011-2013. There was a footnote that the budget projections for these fiscal years were preliminary and would likely be revised after the spaceflight review. The FY2010 includes 250 million for Constellation program alone. Do you honestly think that the Obama team would have included that in the stimulus package if they thought the Constellation program was DOA? A contract to manage the Michoud manufacturing plant in Louisiana was just recently awarded to Jacobs Technology. Michoud is where the major components for Ares 1 and Orion are being built. If the future of Constellation was really in doubt then we would be seeing contracts awards being put on hold and funding freezes. We are not seeing this at all. Furthermore, Scolese himself has said on record the Constellation was continuing. Rob Coppinger over at Hyperbola who has been studying and listening to NASA’s budget release is also of the opinion that the Constellation is here to stay and not in danger of being cancelled. He believes that the review is more likely to affirm the ESAS architecture and Constellation program. We will see what happens in the coming months.
I’ve done a quick and dirty analysis of the winners and losers for FY 10 to FY 13 compared to Bush’s budget projections. Overall, NASA is projected to receive $214M less in funding over this period. So, flat in nominal terms, but declining in real dollars by perhaps 8 to 10 percent by FY13.
This flat funding structure hides some major shifts in resource allocation, detailed below. In summary, there is a major boost in effort in Earth science, a minor reduction in effort in planetary science, an extremely large reduction in the development of the new architecture and a significant increase in space operations. The net effect has been to redirect money from Constellation to Earth Science, ISS operations (up nearly a billion), and the Shuttle and Space Flight Services accounts. There is also a boost in the Cross Agency Account.
Supposition: The large increase in ISS operations is intriguing and suggests that the Obama administration will abandon the policy of abandoning the outpost. This is also supported by the increase in the Shuttle and SFS accounts. I’m less certain about the modest increase in the Cross Agency account but perhaps it is related to COTS. All this points towards maintaining a LEO presence and pushing off deeper exploration.
Details of This Analysis
Science is up a total of $762M over the four year period. This is entirely contained within the Earth Science account. Planetary Science suffers $102M in cuts, Helioscience is down a total of $35, and Astrophysics is flat.
Aeronautics is up $247M.
Exploration is down $3,535M.
Space Operations is up a total of $1,992M. Shuttle is up $548M, ISS is up $991M, Space Flight Services are up $453M.
Cross Agency is up $321M.
Education is unchanged and IG is essentially unchanged.
“If the future of Constellation was really in doubt then we would be seeing contracts awards being put on hold and funding freezes. We are not seeing this at all.”
Yes, we are. Altair and Ares V contract awards have been deferred. The Orion PDR and Ares I-X are also slipping until after the Augustine review reports out. Money was redirected from Ares I/Orion’s share of the Recovery Act to begin pursuing commercial solutions for ISS crew transport. Etc., etc.
“Scolese himself has said on record the Constellation was continuing.”
Scolese’s comments were limited to the duration of the Augustine review. He didn’t say that Constellation would continue afterwards. (And Scolese will probably no longer be NASA Administrator by that time, anyway.)
“Rob Coppinger over at Hyperbola who has been studying and listening to NASA’s budget release is also of the opinion that the Constellation is here to stay and not in danger of being cancelled. He believes that the review is more likely to affirm the ESAS architecture and Constellation program.”
That’s not what Coppinger wrote. He argued that the Augustine review will reconcile the Constellation budget to an extension of ISS operations beyond 2016, forcing the deferment/termination of the lunar elements of the ESAS architecture and Constellation.
FWIW…
I don’t think so, Gary. First, I think the “placeholders” only move down, not up. Second, I think the analysis I just posted makes pretty damn clear that OMB shifted money around in the agency accounts at the expense of Constellation.
I think we’ll see Orion out ESAS and that’s it.
@Major Tom
Here is what Rob wrote:
and then here is a comment he wrote on that same post:
The Ares V and Altair contracts have been put on hold until after the review. That doesn’t mean they are cancelled. The other elements of the Constellation program are still moving forward. The Ares 1-X test was moved to August due more to the shuttle launch operations for the Hubble mission than anything to do with the reiview. In fact, the delay was expected before the budget request came out. Rob did not explicitly endorse the ISS focused plan, but only held out that it might be one possibility.
@George Purcell
To large extent, your stats are misleading. You ignore the fact that for FY2010 the Obama administration request for Exploration and Constellation is higher than the prev year request for that same fiscal year. The 2011-2013 projections are preliminary and as noted, with an asterisk, in the budget report will likely be revised after the review. One perspective would be that the Bush administration FY2009 budget cut a great deal from the science program and that Obama’s team is restoring that funding. So who is to say what is really being cut at this point.
My “stats” are not misleading. They are the Administration’s own statement of budget policy. Why, would the explictly cut the existing budget and label it “preliminary” if they weren’t intending to extract a cut of AT LEAST that magnitude?
What you need to understand is that all these numbers flow together through a single, coherent budgeting system. NASA was given a top line number to meet and this was how they met it. These aren’t “projections” like statistical projections. They are projections OF INTENDED POLICY.
Oh. The policy game. Where you try to determine presidential policy based on NASA’s budget request? Sigh. So according to your numbers everything is up except Exploration thus naturally Obama must be planning on cutting the Moon missions or getting rid of Constellation or changing architecture to EELV derived launch system or changing over to Direct or…I am running out of ors here. This is what I mean by reading too much into a budget request. What is clear is that President Obama has not set a comprehensive space policy yet. So perhaps we should wait until after the spaceflight review results and the final budget requests updates are made somtime toward the end of summer before we begin the crying game.
David,
To (belatedly) answer you, the focus is right now on debris mitigation (preventing the creation of debris, or at least reducing the rate of its production) rather than remediation (the active removal of debris), which is much more challenging on both technical and policy levels.
Apart from the blue-ribbon panel, an initial skim (without the benefit of search capability in my Adobe Reader from some reason) gives me the impression that it’s very similar to the Bush/Griffin budgets, with a small shift towards Earth observations and Aeronautics (considerably smaller than the earlier Science and Aeronautics cuts).
In IPP, Future Centennial Challenges gets $4M, exactly what it got in previous years from Bush (which was repeatedly rejected by Congress). I’ve always thought Centennial Challenges should pick a specific future Challenge or 2 and propose some details to get potential supporters onboard. Here’s what they say on future Challenges:
“Topics for future challenges that are under consideration include revolutionary energy storage systems, solar and other renewable energy technologies, laser communications, demonstrating near-Earth object survey and deflection strategies, innovative approaches to improving the safety and efficiency of aviation systems, closed-loop life support and other resource recycling techniques, and low-cost access to space”.
Innovation incubator (FAST suborbital/parabolic aircraft rides, etc) gets $2.5M again. There are a lot of cases like this, where (blue-ribbon panel aside) it almost seems like we’re on auto-pilot from the Griffin days.
I checked various places (again, without benefit of searching, or lots of time), and didn’t see much change in suborbital flights. Traditional sounding rockets and high-altitude balloons get about the same amount as last year in a couple areas. I couldn’t find anything about using, encouraging, or preparing for suborbital RLVs. There is a new “Venture class” Earth observation area (recommended in the NRC report) that could apply to suborbital services, smallsats, or hosted payloads, but it just starts to get funded in FY 2010.
I didn’t see much change in R&D, technology development, X Planes, New Millenium, smallsats … all sorts of areas cut severely or eliminated outright in recent years.
The Obama priorities like renewable energy, environment, science, and education seem about the same, which gives the impression he doesn’t consider NASA particularly relevant to his main efforts. There is some “Green Building” Cross-agency thing for energy efficiency, but I’m talking about space-specific items. The exceptions are the minor Earth Obseveration and Aeronautics items I already mentioned. The Earth Observation account increase seems entirely inadequate to deal with the related Decadal survey recommendations, estimated cost growth in those missions, DSCVR launch, and Orbiting Carbon Observatory replacement.
Oddly, Heliophysics, which seems relevant to Obama’s energy/environment push (with solar inputs to climate, effects on energy grids, and effects on telecom and Earth observation satellites relevant to energy/environment in areas like telecommuting and telemetering), got about what Bush gave it for FY 2010, with cuts compared to Bush in future years.
The Planetary Society seems excited, but I don’t see why since Planetary Science got considerably less than Bush recommended, and it picked up the NEOO (Near Earth Object Observations) project.
Commercial Crew and Cargo got $39.1M. It’s not clear to me if that’s just left over from the original COTS A-C $500M. I didn’t see anything (aside from already-known stimulus package items) on COTS-D, or anything resembling any more COTS-like approaches in or out of the human spaceflight area.
GARY MILES: Oh. The policy game. Where you try to determine presidential policy based on NASA’s budget request? Sigh.
Gary, Technically much of what you say is correct.
But on the essence, you (and I expect ATK) are holding on for dear life to your remaining sliver of hope that the game is not over yet for Ares 1.
I am saying the glass is at least 99% empty.
You are saying “The glass is not 99% empty. It is really 5% full! Maybe even 10% full.”
Since we are not arguing over “facts”, which are incontrovertible, we are arguing over interpretations of those facts.
But however you spin it, it is not looking good for Italian waiters, Emperors, and other advocates of Ares 1.
BTW — the end of Ares 1 and Ares V does not mean the end of Constellation.
FWIW,
– TANSTAAFL
Like a lot of folks on the board, I wouldn’t read too much into the budget numbers. They most likely DO telegraph someone’s intent, but I doubt Obama or the senior political folks in the WH have spent any time on them. More likely they reflect OMB’s, OSTP’s, and NASA’s attempt to reflect the general gist of what they think Obama’s priorities and promises mean. Others will likely disagree with me, but after that, the budget probably reflects an attempt to make the numbers work more than a desire to revamp the space program.
As for the future of human spaceflight, they probably will wait to see the results of Augustine’s review. We’ll know more about its paramaters and mission later today, but Augustine never struck me as the kind of guy to give top cover to a pre-determined attempt to eventually end the human spaceflight program. Personally, I’d love to see Hal Gehman on the commission. He flagged the mission/vision/culture problem after Columbia and seems particularly attuned to it.
Two cents worth, anyway.
RED: Apart from the blue-ribbon panel, an initial skim (without the benefit of search capability in my Adobe Reader from some reason) gives me the impression that it’s very similar to the Bush/Griffin budgets.
All valid points.
Some things need to wait for a new Administrator.
FWIW,
– TANSTAAFL
STERNER: Augustine never struck me as the kind of guy to give top cover to a pre-determined attempt to eventually end the human spaceflight program.
Eric,
Do you see any hard evidence that Obama wants to “end the human spaceflight program”?
There is ZERO evidence in this budget of any intent of the Obama White House to end the human spaceflight program?
Why would they form a commission, with Augustine as the Chair, if that was their intent?
I think Augustine’s appointment is a clear signal that they want to continue human spaceflight. If you were President, and wanted to *CHANGE* our strategy for human spaceflight, I think you could do a lot worse than appointing Augustine to lead a blue ribbon team to evaluate alternative strategies, and make recommendations.
STERNER: Like a lot of folks on the board, I wouldn’t read too much into the budget numbers. They most likely DO telegraph someone’s intent, but I doubt Obama or the senior political folks in the WH have spent any time on them.
Do you have any hard data, or is this speculation on your part?
My countervailing evidence is:
1) The President just gave a speech to the National Academy of Sciences on innovation. He has gotten the White House apparatus focused on the innovation and R&D agencies.
I think it is likely that senior level politicals in the WH have paid *some* attention to, and participated in this new prioritization of NASA’s budget.
2) The other parts of NASA that received the budget increases are now making concrete plans to lock in the use of these funds. For example …
A) ISS PROGRAM is signing contracts with SpaceX and Orbital, totaling over $3 Billion, that will obligate the extra $300 million per year that the ISS program is taking away from ESMD. This money can not go back to ESMD.
B) EARTH SCIENCE PROGRAM will be accelerating some of their Earth Science priorities, based on the recommendations by Earth Science community, utilizing their increase in the budget wedge. I expect that much of the $1.3 Billion increase in Earth Science will become obligated funds in the relatively near future
I don’t know how soon it will be obligated, but focusing on that issue misses the larger point. Do you seriously believe that the Obama White House did not mean to increase Earth Science budget in the outyears, and that they might give that money back to ESMD, and take it away from Earth Science?
FWIW,
– TANSTAAFL
@ TAANSTAAFL
I think you’re reading things into my post that aren’t there
My point is that Augustine is NOT the kind of guy to preside over a rubber-stamp commission putting the human spaceflight program on a path to extinction. Ergo, he wouldn’t chair the commission if he thought those were his marching orders (as another poster suggested). In short, we’re in agreement. Sorry for the lack of clarity in my comment.
In re the budget numbers, we pretty much had a similar discussion when it came to differing opinions about budget gimmicks and how well any administration’s run-outs truly reflect its fiscal or programmatic expectations.
I do think the budget reflects someone’s interpretation of Obama’s intentions regarding NASA’s future, which I said in the post. (“they reflect OMB’s, OSTP’s, and NASA’s attempt to reflect the general gist of what they think Obama’s priorities and [campaign] promises mean”.) I do NOT think they reflect a discussion of alternative future for NASA that involved the President, his chief-of-staff, the head of OMB, etc. etc. etc. None of the data points in your post contradict my conclusion in that they all reflect natural predilections of the various portions of NASA’s bureaucracy. (e.g., I want to do these things because they are desirable and if I quickly lock in the outyear obligations created by my sudden access to near-term dollars, I make it that much harder for anyone to cut my budget down the road.)
My conclusion that the budget does NOT reflect a substantive discussion with the President about what he wants to do with NASA (as opposed to the staff’s attempt to reflect what they think his priorities are based on his comments to date) is largely what I like to think of as reasonably-informed judgment (i.e., somewhat speculative.) Evidence for that conclusion:
1. Most first year budgets of a new administration reflect decisions made by the prior administration. No matter how hard everyone works, you can’t go back and repeat the multi-year process that went into crafting the budget you get handed on inauguration. So, new administrations tweak on the margins, which this budget does, and don’t revisit first principles for major changes of direction. I haven’t seen any evidence that suggests that this President is departing all that much from the norm in handling the civil space budget process, at least not so far.
2. Presidents don’t generally get down in the weeds of budgeting.
3. Senior WH politicals (Emanuel, etc. etc. etc.) who, on rare occasions, MIGHT take an interest in space, simply haven’t had time to get personally involved in anything so far down the food chain as NASA’s budget. That’s not a dig at the President or his admin; they have bigger fish to fry. So, I don’t think budget reflects any major decisions by them about NASA’s long-term future.
4. If they had made major decisions, then it would be colossally stupid for this administration to announce a commission headed by a man they can’t control to help guide the future of the human spaceflight program. I don’t think this administration is stupid. (I also have low expectations for the commission; there’s only so much anyone can do between now and August to support any major course change decisons in August, the talents and wisdom of Norm Augustine and the other commissioners notwithstanding.)
You asked, “Do you seriously believe that the Obama White House did not mean to increase Earth Science budget in the outyears, and that they might give that money back to ESMD, and take it away from Earth Science?” Um, no. Nothing in my post expressed that conclusion or speculated about that future.
Eric,
OK, you meant something else by your original email.
I interpreted your statement …
Like a lot of folks on the board, I wouldn’t read too much into the budget numbers.
as suggesting that the $1 Billion per year cut in ESMD’s budget (from FY11 – 13) — which is the biggest news in the budget numbers — was not real.
My interpretation — which you have now corrected — was that you thought that ESMD might get that money back in next year’s budget as this funding was in the out years.
Mea culpa.
Best,
– TANSTAAFL
@TANSTAAFL
No sweat. I get a lot out of your posts and it’s hard to have a nuanced discussion on-line. I just think it’s too soon to speculate one way or the other whether ESMD might get money back in next year’s request.