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.

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

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,

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

All valid points.

Some things need to wait for a new Administrator.

FWIW,

– TANSTAAFL

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.

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

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.

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.