Congress, NASA

FY2010 budget endgame

Congressional appropriations negotiators reached agreement last night on an omnibus spending bill for FY 2010 that is largely good news for NASA. Only the top-level details of the consolidated appropriations bill have been released by House and Senate appropriators, but the summary for the Commerce, Justice, and Science section indicates NASA will get $18.7 billion in 2010, approximately the same as the the original budget request.

The biggest issue had been funding for exploration, after the House slashed exploration by nearly $700 million. That funding has been largely restored, with $3.8 billion in the final bill “to extend America’s capabilities in human spaceflight”. The summary includes this explanation:

In October 2009, the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (The Augustine Commission) reported its findings on NASA’s human spaceflight program. The Augustine Commission raised several issues regarding the current program and budget profile that will require thoughtful consideration by the Administration. In the absence of a bona fide proposal from the Administration on the future of U.S. human spaceflight activities and investments, the bill provides the budget request of $3.8 billion for activities to support human spaceflight in fiscal year 2010; however, the bill requires that any program termination or elimination or the creation of any new program, project or activity not contemplated in the budget request must be approved in subsequent appropriations Acts.

That would seem to tie the funds to the current Constellation architecture even if the White House directs NASA in the coming weeks to take an alternative approach.

30 comments to FY2010 budget endgame

  • Anon2

    Given everything on Obama’s plate, and given how slow he makes decisions, I don’t expect to see any major change in NASA direction for months. Basically its on autopilot until something happens that would force it to the top of the stack of things to do for Obama.

    The only thing I see changing this would be a aggressive web campaign to get his attention on NASA, but given how disorganize space advocacy groups are I don’t see that happening. So don’t expect to see any major changes until the 2011 NASA budget.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Actually, the White House is completely done with FY10, and has been for a long time. So Obama has had nothing to do with FY10 since springtime, after inheriting the mess, and will not have anything to do with it until the bill lands on his desk for his signature. This has nothing to do with any slowness on the part of the administration to make decisions. Nothing. If anything, it indicates the (now increasingly traditional) slowness of Congress to pass appropriations bills.

    The timeline for the administration has events coming up as the FY11 budget proposal is being finalized. I suspect we’ll start hearing rumors and leaks about what is in it shortly, and what major changes might be in the offing.

    Calling the work of the White House “on autopilot” with regard to NASA is certainly unfair. The Augustine committee was chartered by the WH to think hard about our future in human space flight, in response to a program that was increasingly disfunctional. They were asked to deliver, and presented options that are getting turned into formal policy. This kind of formalization work is never done in public view, and is laid out when the budget is released. I’m not sure what “aggressive web campaigns” have to do with anything, but it is certainly true that space advocacy groups have been both disorganized, and have come up with pretty insipid advocacy products.

  • Major Tom

    “… the bill requires that any program termination or elimination or the creation of any new program, project or activity not contemplated in the budget request must be approved in subsequent appropriations Acts.”

    If true, this is strange bill language. One congress can’t tie the hands of either the Administration (separation of powers) or future congresses (anti-deficiency). If the White House proposes to redirect the Constellation Program in the FY11 budget release next February, there’s nothing that Congress can do to prevent the White House from proposing to start making those changes in NASA’s FY10 budget operating plan.

    It’s ultimately up to Congress to decide whether to accept or turn down an Administration proposal, but again, one congress can’t tie the hands of another congress. In the case of a NASA operating plan change, I think the appropriations staffers have up to 30 or 60 days to notify NASA that they don’t agree with the change. Whether they’ll care enough or even be paying attention next spring remains to be seen, even if this bill language is passed this fall/winter.

    Weirdly ineffectual…

    FWIW…

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    People on this site know that I am not an Obama fan, but still some remarks prompt me to reply. Checking my biases at the door, still no one (not even Doug Lassiter) can say that the spending for the next year has been out of the hands of the Administration!! What, we are obligating billions of dollars and the President has no influence over proposed spending bills, no way to offer opinions???? These spending bills do not show up in the Oval Office as a surprise. We cannot say that he has been out of the loop since “inheriting the mess”. Certainly the Bush Administration did us no favors but Obama has had many chances to support space exploration, etc and has had other priorities. President Obama has been hoping that somehow all of this space stuff would go away before he had to decide anything.

  • Anon2

    Based on Bolden remarks it looks like what whatever is decided will be in line with Obama’s second space policy plan, the one written by his education policy advisory that was heavy on STEM.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

    Guess that is no surprise. The only real question I guess is if Ares will be continued or replaced by EELV or COTS-D. The 2011 budget should tell as they will need to make a decision then, even if its the default one of staying the current course.

  • common sense

    “He said that one promise he made to President Obama was that NASA would again inspire future generations as it did during the Apollo era. “We need to change our mindset” from thinking about NASA as a collection of missions to focusing on its role in innovation that drives the national economy.”

    There may not be Boots (note the B) on the Moon in My Lifetime (Here is the M, heck the L too): All of the HSF budget goes to STEM! Well, we may not have boots on the Moon but a lot many people that are less ignorant…

    BTW, I prefer this one, personally: http://www.fladems.com/page/-/Obama_Space.pdf

    Oh well…

  • Doug Lassiter

    “What, we are obligating billions of dollars and the President has no influence over proposed spending bills, no way to offer opinions????”

    Formally, yes. You have that right. The President proposes, and the Congress disposes. What NASA does in FY10 (that’s the “next year”) is what Congress tells it to do right around now. Ideally, what it tells it to do is pretty close to what the President asked Congress to tell it to do back in March. In fact, the FY10 budget proposal largely came out of the last administration. Obama’s team had very little time to iterate on it. The White House is now hard at work on the FY11 budget proposal, and the ink is in the pen for when the congressionally approved appropriation bill for FY10 hits his desk.

    I’m really not quite sure what you’re saying. You’re thinking that maybe Obama has some magic hat that he can pull dollars out of? Or maybe he’s going to shunt money from one congressionally mandated NASA account to another? In fact, by forming a committee that was tasked with doing a top-down review of our efforts in human space flight, efforts that were clearly going off the rail, he is, in fact, doing a lot to support space exploration. Hopefully, that effort will inform the decisions he makes, that will appear in the FY11 budget proposal. You’re thinking maybe he’d slyly print money and throw it over a wall with a smile and a kiss to support a dysfunctional program? What a concept!

    You know, we’re all exasperated by the lack of progress we’re seeing in the next generation of U.S. manned space flight, but simplistic criticisms and delusions about basic civics aren’t going to help any. Why don’t you hold your fire until the FY11 budget proposal is released. That one actually belongs to Obama.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    It seems clear that Congress is not going to roll over and accept any decision (if it ever comes) from the White House. That will likely limit what the President can decide.

    As for Bolden’s speech–I fail to understand how it is interesting. It was filled with bureaucratic -political buzz language prefaced by an irrelevant tragic story. Griffin at least knew how to be inspirational and visionary.

  • Mark:

    I must admit that I am also not 100% impressed by Bolden. Some of what he says makes a great deal of sense, while some of it appears to come from out of left field.

    Some interesting and amusing reversals in these questions about congress and the While House:

    The conservatives are pushing for a large, expensive government-run space program, while the left-wing is pushing for private exterprise!

    The corrupt and directionless US Congress is being timely, decisive and responsible, while the decisive executive branch appears to be adrift and directionless.

    No doubt, we will shortly be seeing pigs in flight, and hell freeze over!

    Cheers,
    Nelson

  • Robert G. Oler

    I honestly dont see any of this as any big deal…Ares huggers like Whittington see it as some great stand by Congress but thats just wishful, and fairly uninformed thinking.

    Doug L and Major Tom hit the salient features about FY 10 in my view.

    NASA and space exploration are to small to be the subject of any real singular effort. What space “fans” need to do is show, in my view, a tad more sophistication and try and see where the bigger picture of federal spending and other issues (like creating some sort of environment to help the employment numbers) are going to see where NASA is going to be carried in the wake.

    Why is Bolden’s speech entertaining? As best I can see, since the AC dropped its final report…he has passed on quite a number of opportunities to endorse Ares 1.

    or have I missed something?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Bolden stressed that one of the changes will be increased international cooperation, a goal embraced by President Obama… He said that one promise he made to President Obama was that NASA would again inspire future generations as it did during the Apollo era. ‘We need to change our mindset’ from thinking about NASA as a collection of missions to focusing on its role in innovation that drives the national economy.” [Administrator Bolden speech summary]

    “Based on Bolden remarks it looks like what whatever is decided will be in line with Obama’s second space policy plan, the one written by his education policy advisory that was heavy on STEM.” [Anon2]

    “… All of the HSF budget goes to STEM!” [common sense]

    I don’t see how either of you get the human space flight budget going to education from the Administrator’s statements about involving more international partnes in NASA’s programs, refocusing NASA’s programs on innovation, and making the agency’s programs more economically relevant. I think you both need to read the speech summary more closely. Education by itself is not inspiring. He’s saying that NASA’s programs must be international, inspiring, innovative, and economically relevant.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “It seems clear that Congress is not going to roll over and accept any decision…”

    History says otherwise. Although someone in Congress is almost always dissatisfied with and complains loudly about a change in the direction of the civil human space flight program, they’ve never mustered the broad support necessary to overturn a major, funded change in direction by the White House. There are always other constituencies in Congress that favor the change in direction and when they nullify the opposing constituencies, the White House’s proposal becomes the last proposal standing and the de facto program going forward. It’s clear from the Apollo, Shuttle, Freedom/ISS, and VSE history that the White House leads and Congress follows when it comes to major, funded changes in the direction of the civil human space flight program.

    “… (if it ever comes) from the White House.”

    Per the usual annual budget cycle, the President’s FY11 Budget won’t be released until early February, and budget discussions are embargoed until then. The White House isn’t delaying any decision. In fact, unless NASA is appealing OMB passback through the holidays, the decision has already been made. The White House just can’t publicly discuss it yet.

    “That will likely limit what the President can decide.”

    Congress can oppose a President’s decision after it has been made, but any President can decide whatever he wants. Congress has no control over the White House decisionmaking process, especially the embargoed annual budget process.

    “As for Bolden’s speech–I fail to understand how it is interesting.”

    Because he’s providing insights into what’s in store for the agency. Duh?

    “It was filled with bureaucratic -political buzz language”

    How are key words like “international”, “inspiring”, “innovative”, and “economically relevant” buzz language?

    This is common vocabulary.

    “prefaced by an irrelevant tragic story.”

    How is a story about someone who travels the globe seeking common cause with other countries not relevant to a NASA Administrator who has been instructed by the President to seek greater international participation in NASA’s programs?

    How is a story about someone who has to deliver bad news not relevant to a NASA Administrator who is predicting “tough times ahead” for the agency?

    “Griffin at least knew how to be inspirational and visionary.”

    Yeah, that “Apollo on steroids” rollout was so visionary that it inspired a friendly Bush II White House and both Republican- and Democrat-controlled Congresses to underfund the program.

    Administrator Griffin was such an inspiring visionary that even he referred to himself as Spock.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “The corrupt and directionless US Congress is being timely, decisive and responsible…”

    How? Congress is passing an FY10 budget for NASA three months late that rubberstamps the President’s proposal. Congress did nothing timely or decisive for NASA in the omnibus bill.

    “… while the decisive executive branch appears to be adrift and directionless.”

    How? The White House recognized that it inherited a human space exploration program that is way over budget and way behind schedule, set up a blue ribbon panel to develop alternatives in time for FY11 budget deliberations, and will be in the embargoed period of those deliberations until the FY11 budget is released, per the usual annual budget cycle, in February. The White House decisionmaking process may be slow and deliberative, but there’s nothing adrift or directionless about it.

    Maybe for other issues, but in the case of the civil space program, your characterizations bear no resemblance to reality.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ December 9th, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Griffin at least knew how to be inspirational and visionary…

    really? I found Griffin at best droll…as the Brits would say.

    What Griffin knew how to do was to stroke the ego of the thunderheads that were in the last administration and the troglodytes who supported it.

    “Apollo on steroids”…all that is, is a lot of chest beating and flag wrapping that sounds really good to people who think that the key to American power is being the toughest country on the block and showing that to everyone at everymoment. It was “wow we are not only going to have a race to the Moon but we are really going to do it right this time”.

    And hence that has people like you inventing Chinese who are desperate to take over the Moon, but dont worry Bush the last program will, if only the pinko’s in this administration are smart enough to keep it going…save us.

    Little men inventing big enemies.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Major Tom:

    I was joking… ;)

  • Doug Lassiter

    “still no one (not even Doug Lassiter) can say that the spending for the next year has been out of the hands of the Administration!!”

    Just to add to this issue, Major Tom notes the unprecedented and rather remarkable provision in the Conference statement that specifically prohibits the administration from doing anything with the FY10 money (or holdover money from earlier years) that was not specifically planned for in the appropriation bill. That basically formally ties the hands of the administration. They can’t revise plans for things, and can’t pull the plug on old things.

    Nope, it’s not just me saying that spending is out of the hands of the administration. It’s Congress saying that!

    One gathers that however energetically the administration wants to revamp human space flight, Congress simply isn’t going to let them do it during FY10.

  • Anon2

    @Major Tom,

    I never stated the HSF budget was going to STEM. Once again you are putting words in other people’s mouth to attack them. I indicated Obama’s Space Policy version 2.0 spent a significant amount of time (‘heavy empahsis”) referring to NASA’s need to address STEM issues. Nearly a third of the text of the space policy discussed it, which is heavy given education is not part of NASA’s charter or even mentioned in it.

    http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html#POLICY

    But I guess that is what happens when your education policy expert is writing your space policy statements.

    Again read what people say before you attack them on it. And please learn to tell the different between a joke, as Common Sense was making on STEM, and real opinions before attacking their posts. (Shake head…)

    And yes, I know there has been more versions of Obama’s space policy issued since version 2.0, as well as the Augustine Committee. I am sure you will be following with an annotated list in one of your three page essays. But given how Bolden talks about Obama focusing on how NASA needs to address STEM by inspiring kids like his daughters as a key objective for NASA makes me wonder how much of the later versions of Obama’s space policy are actually impacting Obama’s view of NASA. It will be sad if it turns out the only justification for NASA in Obama’s eyes is K-12 education…. But we will see when Obama finally makes some decisions on NASA’s future direction.

  • @MT

    Everyone is surprised by how long it is taking for decisions to percolate out of our new “change” administration.

    Whether or not this is good is a matter of opinion.

    There are those who want change, and are disappointed :-(
    There are those who do not want change, and look at it as a good thing ;-)
    There are those who percieve it as a reluctance to make decisions or take action, which could be percieved as weakness.
    There are those who look upon this as a tendency towards wise deliberations rather than knee-jerk reactions, which could be considered very positive.

    In any case, these circumstances are quite different than almost any of us expected.

    I personally look at space exploration as a very long-term venture and favor continuity. I do not have any magical deadlines and don’t mind delays, as long as we do not totally change directions every 4 years. I also agree, long term, with those who favor commercial space, although to me now does not appear to be exactly the right moment.

    Cheers,
    Nelson

  • Major Tom

    “Just to add to this issue, Major Tom notes the unprecedented and rather remarkable provision in the Conference statement that specifically prohibits the administration from doing anything with the FY10 money (or holdover money from earlier years) that was not specifically planned for in the appropriation bill. That basically formally ties the hands of the administration. They can’t revise plans for things, and can’t pull the plug on old things.”

    Actually, to be clear (and maybe I wasn’t in my earlier post), I don’t think the omnibus language by itself ties the Administration’s hands at all. It may be remarkable and unprecedented language, but it’s also useless language. Even in legislative language, Congress can’t dictate to any White House what that White House can and cannot propose to Congress. Separation of powers, the executive branch proposes and the legislative branch disposes, and all that.

    If the White House wants to redirect Constellation starting in the FY10 budget, all the White House has to do is have NASA propose those changes in an FY10 operating plan to the appropriators. The appropriators then have 30-60 days (I forget which) to object. If the appropriators don’t object (and they usually don’t), NASA can proceed with the budget changes.

    “One gathers that however energetically the administration wants to revamp human space flight, Congress simply isn’t going to let them do it during FY10.”

    It could happen and maybe that’s what the appropriators are trying to telegraph in that otherwise useless omnibus language — that they’ll oppose any FY10 operating plan changes to Constellation next year. But based on general appropriator laziness when it comes to operating plans; based on Apollo, STS, ISS, and VSE history; and based on the near certainty that there will be a constituency in Congress that favors the budget change to negate those that don’t, I’d be surprised if the White House didn’t and couldn’t push through changes to Constellation in the FY10 budget after the President’s FY11 Budget request is rolled out next February.

    FWIW…

  • Doug Lassiter

    Major Tom, you are correct. Such changes to the operating plan for legislated funding are a routine part of the budgetary activities. But the kind of very big changes that may be looming are not, I believe, routine at all. So the fact that the appropriators usually just give a quick nod to operating plan changes is not necessarily applicable here. I think what these words implied to me is, as you say, that Congress was not going to just roll over when the White House wanted big FY10 changes at NASA. This doesn’t tie the hands of the White House, but it sure does serve notice that major changes will be taken seriously.

    These words say explicitly that FY10 funds will not be available for termination or elimination of a Constellation program element. So they are aimed directly at Constellation. If large changes are going to be made on Constellation, there will be very significant termination costs. That is, for example, NASA can’t take Ares I development money and just use it for prematurely closing down Ares I contracts.

    Instead of saying that Congress simply isn’t going to let the White House make big changes, I should have said that Congress isn’t going to let the White House simply make big changes!

  • Major Tom

    “I never stated the HSF budget was going to STEM.”

    You did state that whatever is decided will “be heavy on STEM”, which is pretty consistent with the other poster’s language.

    “Once again you are putting words in other people’s mouth to attack them.”

    Once again? Where have I done this before?

    That’s your modus operandi, not mine.

    “Obama’s Space Policy version 2.0… But I guess that is what happens when your education policy expert is writing your space policy statements.

    That’s not who wrote that plan. They’re responsible for the earlier campaign document.

    “And please learn to tell the different between a joke, as Common Sense was making on STEM, and real opinions before attacking their posts.”

    Thanks, I hadn’t figured it out after the other poster put up a note saying his statement was tongue-in-cheek. Your repeating the other poster’s clarification really adds to the conversation.

    “(Shake [sic] head…)”

    You’re telling me to shake my head?

    “And yes, I know there has been more versions of Obama’s space policy issued since version 2.0, as well as the Augustine Committee.”

    If you know that, then why are you using an earlier, outdated campaign document that was superseded by later campaign documents?

    “It will be sad if it turns out the only justification for NASA in Obama’s eyes is K-12 education”

    That’s clearly not the case when in his speech to the WIA/AIAA, Administrator Bolden “stressed that one of the changes will be increased international cooperation, a goal embraced by President Obama” and that NASA should be “focusing on its role in innovation that drives the national economy”.

    It’s obvious if you actually read the linked speech summary that the Administration is articulating international relations, innovation, and the economy as three other justifications for NASA’s programs.

    Don’t you read the references others provide you before you comment on them? Or are you having problems with reading comprehension?

    “But we will see when Obama finally makes some decisions on NASA’s future direction.”

    Decisions have already been made. OMB budget passback to the agencies occurs around Thanksgiving. Unless Administrator Bolden is still appealing the NASA passback, the decisions are now final. The President’s Budget is released in February.

    FWIW…

  • Anon2

    @Major Tom

    “Thanks, I hadn’t figured it out after the other poster put up a note saying his statement was tongue-in-cheek. Your repeating the other poster’s clarification really adds to the conversation.”

    The rest of us figured it out the first time, so I wanted to make sure it was clear to you since you seemed slow on the uptake on it. You still seem to think I was talking about NASA’s budget and not his space policy 2.0 from January 2008 (to that clearer to you) that was written by his educational policy expert.

    Also Obama’s Space Policy 2.0 referred to the ISS as an example of what could be accomplish with international cooperation, so what Bolden stated is still in conformance to it and says nothing on Obama’s current views on NASA.

    But we will see how much if any of the later versions of his space policy are in the 2011 budget when Obama lets the rest of the world know what his space decisions are.

    But unless you are part of the his budget team you have no evidence to claim these decisions have already been made. Perhaps they have and the 2011 NASA budget is a done deal, or perhaps they are still deciding on it. But if Obama has decided to kill Ares I in favor of commercial options he is just adding to the gap by not revealing it now and keeping it under wraps until February when the 2011 budget is released.

  • Major Tom

    “The rest of us figured it out the first time, so I wanted to make sure it was clear to you since you seemed slow on the uptake on it.”

    Thanks for reiterating the other poster’s clarification a third time. I am awestruck at how insightful and enlightening your comments are. They really add to the discussion.

    “his space policy 2.0 from January 2008 (to that clearer to you) that was written by his educational policy expert.”

    She didn’t write the document you linked to. She wrote the earlier blurb in the education policy document about cutting Constellation to pay for that policy’s education proposals.

    “But unless you are part of the his budget team you have no evidence to claim these decisions have already been made.”

    Sure I do.

    Anyone who knows the White House budget process will tell you that OMB passback (the letters from the White House Office of Management and Budget to department and agency heads telling them what their budgets will be) occurs around Thanksgiving. See:

    http://www.budgetanalyst.com/Passback.htm

    Just by knowing what day of the year it is, we know whether the White House has made budget decisions with regard to their NASA (or any other agency’s) budget.

    Moreover, sources in this article claim that “all four options [presented to the White House for the NASA budget] had commercial crew for LEO access. Ares I was not included in any scenario.”

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/11/ares-pressing-forward-plans-ares-i-x-prime-flight/

    And a Shuttle manager emphasized commercial crew in a recent talk in this article:

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-direction-extra-shuttle-flights-commerical-launcher/

    “But if Obama has decided to kill Ares I in favor of commercial options he is just adding to the gap by not revealing it now and keeping it under wraps until February when the 2011 budget is released.”

    For better or worse, The White House budget process is embargoed until February. The only details revealed are leaks.

    FWIW…

  • Anon2

    @Major Tom

    I could see the budget being embargoed until February. But having individuals continuing to work on the Ares I system, and the Orion that will be launched on it until February, or beyond, IF Obama has already made the decision to cancel it seems like a huge waste of resources, not to mention money. You would think at least a stop work would go out on it.

    Yes, I know the Orion may survive Ares I. But the Orion that may launch on an EELV will have major design differences then the Orion that would launch on the Ares I, so that is wasted effort as well IF the decision has been made to cancel the Ares I and go with EELV for it.

  • Major Tom

    “But having individuals continuing to work on the Ares I system, and the Orion that will be launched on it until February, or beyond, IF Obama has already made the decision to cancel it seems like a huge waste of resources, not to mention money. You would think at least a stop work would go out on it.”

    It may be a waste, but there’s no advantage legislatively to the White House releasing only a partial picture of the overall budget. If the White House released changes about Constellation now, there would immediately be questions about the other parts of the NASA portfolio, followed by questions about the rest of the nondefense R&D budget. And until those questions were answered, few in Congress would move forward on the changes to the Constellation budget — they’d want to know where their other interests stood first. And Congress can’t move forward on Constellation in isolation, anyway, since NASA’s appropriations are passed as part of a larger bill covering several other agencies. There is no “Constellation” appropriations bill.

    The point is that the White House isn’t stalling or being wasteful for no good reason. It’s just the way that the budget process and calendar works.

    FWIW…

  • Anon2

    Here’s an interesting talk from someone who should have better sources then Major Tom

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-direction-extra-shuttle-flights-commerical-launcher/

    ““I hear rumblings that some of you are concerned that we are not telling you what we know about the future direction of human space flight, Shuttle, MOD, et al,” Mr Hill added. “While I’d agree we haven’t passed along much in the way of new plans in a few months, you can still trust that we will pass along whatever we know, when we know it.”

    “That means there isn’t any news to pass along regarding executive office direction on space policy and the ramifications to MOD.”

    Mr Hill is highly respected in the space program, not least for his leadership skills, but also his ability to “say it how it is” – as was seen during a press conference when dealing with some repetitive questions from a BBC journalist during STS-114.

    BTW Paul Hill is MOD Director

    Doesn’t see to be talk here of killing Ares I. Commercial space flight appears to be a supplement to Constellation.

    Yes, it will be interesting when the 2011 budget is released and we see how many of the blogsphere experts were right.

  • Doug Lassiter

    ““That means there isn’t any news to pass along regarding executive office direction on space policy and the ramifications to MOD.”

    That’s supposed to mean that Paul Hill thinks the White House / OMB isn’t making plans for the future of our human space flight program? Sorry, but Mr. Hill may say it like it is for him, but can hardly be expected to say it like it is for the White House.

    Mr. Hill is Flight Director in the Missions Operations Directorate at JSC, not at headquarters. The White House doesn’t talk to JSC. They talk to NASA headquarters, and Paul Hill isn’t there. I don’t think anyone in the centers have much of a clue about what’s coming down with regard to the future of the agency and, most likely, only those on the 9th floor at headquarters even have a glimmer.

    I suspect that Gerst, Hill’s overseer at HQ, is starting to get some picture of the future, but that’s a front-office issue, not a JSC issue.

    In any case, I don’t see what that has to do with Ares I. Ares I is part of the Constellation program which, while having its program office at JSC, is not in Hill’s directorate, which is about ISS and Shuttle.

  • Major Tom

    “Here’s an interesting talk from someone who should have better sources then [sic] Major Tom”

    Sigh… I pointed out that Hill article to you four posts ago.

    “Doesn’t see to be talk here of killing Ares I. Commercial space flight appears to be a supplement to Constellation.”

    Like the Augustine Committee, Hill only refers to Constellation as the “program of record” in that article. Hill makes multiple references to a commercial crew “alternative”. If it’s an alternative, that implies Ares I termination. (There’s nothing else that commercial crew could be an alternative to.) Hill also refers to a “commercial alternative orbital vehicle”, which would also imply Orion termination. Hill also references actual ongoing NASA “requirements” work (more than just discussions with the White House) towards these commercial alternatives, which would indicate that decisions to move out on them have already been made. Hill also references ongoing NASA heavy lift studies, indicating that Ares V may also be up for change, consistent with the Augustine Committee report.

    Assuming they’re accurate (and they may not be), the nasaspaceflight.com article on Hill, combined with the sources in the other nasaspaceflight article, indicate that major changes are in store for Constellation. The fact that Administrator Bolden also told a WIA/AIAA crowd this week that tough changes are in store that will make him unpopular, appears to confirm the nasaspaceflight articles.

    FWIW…

  • The language of the appropriations for NASA’s Exploration Directorate only restricts the President from diverting funds specifically directed to the Constellation program to terminate that program or begin a new program without Congressional approval. This legislation does not prevent President Obama or NASA from using funds from other NASA programs to make changes in NASA’s overall mission. However, given the tightness of NASA’s overall budget and the likelihood of having to make cuts in other vital programs which may prove unpopular, the clause does effectively act as a brake to making changes.

Leave a Reply to Major Tom 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>