Congress, NASA, White House

SOTU, the budget freeze, and Mollohan

Will President Obama mention space in tonight’s State of the Union address? Space advocates are hopeful yet doubtful NASA will get a shoutout in the address. “I don’t know that he’s going to talk about NASA in the State of the Union,” Sen. Bill Nelson tells Florida Today. The two representatives who serve Florida’s Space Coast region, Suzanne Kosmas and Bill Posey, hope that he’ll mention space in his speech.

Nelson, though, did release a statement about the prospects for NASA funding given word of a freeze on non-security discretionary spending. “Will freezing the budget impact the space program? No – it shouldn’t, as long as the president is committed to a robust space program and keeping America first in science and technology,” Nelson’s statement reads, as published by Central Florida News 13. “Such a freeze would be on the overall budget within which some agencies could get more and some less.”

Meanwhile, the House member who chairs the appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA will be able to work on the FY11 budget without worrying about a criminal investigation. The Justice Department has closed a four-year investigation into the finances of Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) without filing charges. Mollohan chairs the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. There had been speculation that he would not seek reelection this year, and although he did file papers to run again last week he’s expected to face a strong fight in the general election after not facing a Republican challenger in 2008.

17 comments to SOTU, the budget freeze, and Mollohan

  • Doug Lassiter

    I frankly find it hard to imagine that a human space flight program that has gone through such angst in the last few years, culminating in a select committee that reported it was currently unaffordable, can be featured, or even mentioned in the SOTU. What’s Obama supposed to say — “Don’t worry, we’ll eventually get it right!”? It is likely that Obama will refer to the importance of science and technology investment to the country, and he may remind the nation that space exploration is one item in a list of things that pertains to that investment. It would be marvelous if he refers to “new thinking” about the direction of human space flight, even if there are no details to give. That would imply some priority in eventually getting it right.

    Worth remembering that in Bush II’s 2004 SOTU, delivered 6 days (6 days!) after the dramatic announcement of his Vision for Space Exploration, there was NOTHING in it about space. Closest he came to that was an invitation to math and science professionals from the private sector to teach part-time in our high schools, and I guess some extended verbiage about faith-based initiatives, which is what VSE largely turned out to be.

  • Major Tom

    Typically, if an agency is not going to be held flat or cut and there is no other major factor besides goodwill driving the agency’s topline budget, the White House will give the agency a more or less inflationary increase. The Fed is projecting an inflation rate of 1.7% or less in 2011. Based on the White House’s FY 2010 request of $18,686M for NASA, that would translate into a budget increase of $317M in FY 2011.

    As previously linked by Mr. Foust, the Orlando Sentinel has reported that Constellation funding will be redirected in whole:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,6969808.story

    The FY 2011 Constellation budget projection was $5,543M in the FY 2010 budget. Add that to the $317M, and there should be something on the order of $5,860M — call it $5.8B — to spend.

    Where will it go?

    Shuttle will likely be extended into 2011 to complete ISS assembly — call it a couple flights at $1billion each or $2 billion total.

    Also as previously linked by Mr. Foust, WSJ reports that $200M will go towards kicking off a commercial crew program:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

    Other sources report that Earth Science will get a boost. As a placeholder, I’d assume $300M to recover the $278M Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission.

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17498

    Subtracting $2B for Shuttle extension, $200M for commercial crew, and $300M for Earth Science from the $5.8B in available funds leaves $3.3B for a redirected human space exploration program.

    Again, as Mr. Foust has previously linked here, the Sentinel reports that the new program will initially focus on exploration technology and heavy lift development:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,6969808.story

    So something on the order of $3.3B for a new exploration technology program and a new heavy lift development program. (Personally, I hope it’s more of the former, than the latter, but that’s another thread.) Even if the overall NASA budget is held flat (or more funding goes to Shuttle extension, commercial crew, or Earth Science), we’re still looking at around $3B for exploration technology and heavy lift. That’s a big injection in these two areas given that almost nothing went towards them over the past five years.

    Given the dismal federal budget environment and the legacy of failure left by ESAS and Constellation (and SEI before them), I’d argue that this is a pretty darn good outcome and better than I would have expected a couple years ago as Constellation technical issues, budget overruns, and schedule slips started tearing things apat. Given the dismal state of the program, the danger was that the new Administration would simply cancel Constellation and redirect its much-needed funding elsewhere, rather than putting the effort into fixing the program. For better or worse, this White House has been willing to give NASA a third shot at a developing post-Apollo human space exploration program, and it would appear that there will be substantial funding left in the 2011 budget proposal to get the key investments started.

    It will be interesting to see what’s actually rolled out next week, but as long as the overall NASA budget is held flat or slightly higher and all or most of the Constellation budget is redirected, there should be considerable investments right out of the gate on commercial crew, exploration technology, and heavy lift, instead of the billions spent during the Griffin regime on the nation’s fourth intermediate lift LEO launcher.

    From other links provided by Mr. Foust here, specific exploration destinations, schedules, and mission content will await further studies and decisions:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/science/space/27nasa.html?ref=science

    A lot of us space cadets will be unhappy about this, but it’s important to remember that took the Apollo Program over a year from Kennedy’s announcement to decide on a mission mode and more than another half-year to finalize the engines and engine configuration for Saturn V. ESAS, and to a lesser extent SEI, tried to set a similar set of decisions in stone in only 60-90 days and failed.

    Given the ESAS and SEI debacles, it is very understandable if the White House wants to make sure that NASA has it ducks in a row for once before settling on the targets and timelines for a new human space exploration program and very understandable if the new NASA leadership wants to take the time to do it right for once.

    Follow-up in future years will be critical, but piecing together the budget puzzle, it looks like a pretty good foundation is being built in the 2011 budget. If nothing else, more will be spent in 2011 on commercial crew, exploration technology, and heavy lift — actual enablers to sustaining human space activities beyond LEO — than was spent during the previous five years.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    This article appears to confirm a ~$300M increase to the NASA topline budget and total redirection of Constellation funding:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-nasa-budget27-2010jan27,0,814100.story?track=rss

    FWIW…

  • Bill White

    In our current political climate, Obama not talking about NASA tonight is probably better for NASA.

  • Galactic Dave

    Major Tom,

    I admire your optimism, but how does this square with the Augustine panel’s insistence that exploration beyond LEO can’t be done with less than a $3 billion boost to NASA’s budget?

    There was discussion during the panel meetings about how little flexibility there really is in moving money around within NASA’s human space exploration budget – ending the shuttle program and canceling Ares I doesn’t free up as much money as one might expect because of fixed costs for facilities, etc, that don’t go away when these programs do.

  • I admire your optimism, but how does this square with the Augustine panel’s insistence that exploration beyond LEO can’t be done with less than a $3 billion boost to NASA’s budget?

    The Augustine Panel is wrong.

  • Major Tom

    “how does this square with the Augustine panel’s insistence that exploration beyond LEO can’t be done with less than a $3 billion boost to NASA’s budget?”

    It doesn’t, at least not yet. The indications we have so far are only that down payments are going to be made in commercial crew, exploration technology, and heavy lift in 2011. Future studies and decisions will determine targets, timelines, and budget increases, if any, involved in actual exploration missions.

    “I admire your optimism”

    I’m only optimistic in that it appears that some significant billions of dollars in the 2011 budget are going to be directed to investments in new capabilities that would actually enable human space exploration — versus the past five years where billions of dollars were spent on an intermediate-lift LEO launcher that largely duplicates existing Atlas and Delta capabilities and Falcon capabilities well underway, an ISS capsule, and little else.

    Putting in place the building blocks is critical and good, but as I wrote in my prior post, so is follow-through. If the new NASA leadership and their White House overseers don’t match programmatics to budget, as happened under Griffin/Bush II, then post-Apollo civil human space exploration will continue to move over the horizon. (Although, unlike Ares I, at least some of these commercial crew and technology building blocks would be applicable to other sectors and uses.)

    “There was discussion during the panel meetings about how little flexibility there really is in moving money around within NASA’s human space exploration budget – ending the shuttle program and canceling Ares I doesn’t free up as much money as one might expect because of fixed costs for facilities, etc, that don’t go away when these programs do.”

    It depends on if you get rid of those fixed facilities, workforce, etc. Option 5B in the final report of the Augustine Committee actually did that, relying on a 75mT EELV-derived heavy lift launcher, instead of a Shuttle-derived heavy lift launcher and all the costly, unique infrastructure that comes with it.

    Based on Saturn V costs, which ran $2.5-3.5B per launch (so two lousy HLV launches per year for one lunar mission would wipe out the annual Shuttle budget and more), I’m very skeptical that any exploration architecture that relies on heavy lift, especially a Shuttle-derived vehicle, is going to be affordable within a NASA budget that doesn’t have a huge funding increase like Apollo did. Personally, I think that a Shuttle-derived heavy lifter is more about providing a temporary solution to NASA institutional issues than providing a permanent solution to the problem of sustainable human space exploration.

    Given that human exploration missions assembled in LEO are mostly propellant by weight, I’d prefer that NASA spend a billion or two on revolutionary systems like these (links below) that could break the back of propellant and other consumable launch costs and only pursue a heavy lift vehicle (which could be done at a later time via EELV) when it was absolutely necessary:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarius_Launch_Vehicle

    http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/cannon-shooting-supplies-space?page=

    But in the absence of a Shuttle-derived heavy lifter or other work, that would require hard decisions be made to close and layoff the old Apollo/Shuttle infrastructure and workforce. So far, it appears that the new NASA leadership and White House are not willing to make/pursue such hard decisions and thus are not pursuing Option 5B or similar alternatives.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    @Major Tom:

    “Personally, I think that a Shuttle-derived heavy lifter is more about providing a temporary solution to NASA institutional issues than providing a permanent solution to the problem of sustainable human space exploration. ”

    It is precisely what it is if it is done. Let’s think about it for a minute. Assume NASA gets the direction to build an HLV. How long will it take? Look at Ares I as a basis for estimate if you wish. During that time the workforce which is at risk may still be employed, may be with some trimming but not too bad. All the while commercial is given a chance to go to LEO. But why would they stop there? Look how quickly SpaceX is developing an LV and an RV and on what budget. IF (BIG IF) they are successful then there is no reason why they could not build an HLV themselves. As time goes by the attrition by retirement takes some of the workforce away while the younger ones move to companies like SpaceX that will need the people to work all these programs.

    How about that?

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ January 27th, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    It is precisely what it is if it is done. Let’s think about it for a minute. Assume NASA gets the direction to build an HLV. How long will it take? ..

    that depends entirely on what one thinks of General Bolden’s leadership.

    Assume for a moment that the direction most are speculating about is the direction everything goes.

    Assume Bolden’s imprint on the agency is a new heavy lift vehicle one that is affordable to build AND fly.

    We are at that point going to get to see how good a leader he is. With all the layoffs etc he should be able to pick his own team…and see where it goes.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Robert G. Oler:

    You are giving a lot of responsibility to Charles Bolden. Not everything resides in his lap! How would you see NASA designing AND flying an “affordable” HLV? Especially based on past programs including the ongoing one. I cannot think he or anyone would be able to alter NASA so much in so little time (3 years left so far) to do anything about it. It is not just NASA, nor Charles Bolden. What do you plan to do about certain Congress members?… Unless of course they get elected out, but that is a lot of ifs…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ January 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Good leadership can accomplish a lot, particularly in the absence of any coherent alternative programs…

    Look…I didnt vote for Obama, I voted for McCain (and in retrospect although I hate the idea of dynasties am starting to think that the “best man” (grin) in the race was HRC…) but actually I am quite hopeful that something good is going to come out of this.

    Things like legacy programs end with a whimper not a bang (see Obama’s health care program) and that is what the Bush “vision” is doing…just fading to black and its pretty painful to watch.

    BUT I can see how Bolden could use his skills honed at 3MAW to make some good work out of this. I can see “right now” three pivots occurring.

    First the pivot to commercial access (and I think) eventually commercial rebuild of the space station.

    Second a very reduced NASA/contractor infrastructure.

    Third a very aggressive R&D agency…with heavy lift being part of that. I can see Bolden putting together a smart tough team, sort of “Cougar vehicle” sort of effort among both industry and internal NASA…that freed of legacy designs goes “postal” and looks at different (SpaceX like) combinations that can make a low(er) cost vehicle emerge.

    Look in my mind NASA has become a microcosm of the US in general.

    The program of record and the folks like Whittington who fight to preserve it are legacy programs tired and run out of innovation…infact they stifle innovation. One reason Obama is floundering nation wide is that he has accepted the notion of his predecessor that somethings are “to big to faiL” and hence we have to find ourselves dragged down trying to save them.

    The only thing that cannot fail is The Republic. That means jettisoning “things and institutions” which no longer serve it. NASA and its POR are things which serve only NASA, not The Republic in general.

    If Charlie is half the leader he was at 3MAW he can do this.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Robert G. Oler:

    I am not sure what HRC or McCain would have done differently be it for Space or the rest for that matter. But it’s another topic.

    I am not worried about this. I came to learn my lessons and I am not surprised. I would not confuse VSE and Constellation though. VSE was not all that bad, it actually was a fairly good plan, save for the ridiculously optimistic milestones. The spiral approach to which Flex-Path is similar in spirit at least would not have put HSF in that much trouble. ESAS and its implementation with no Plan B is what killed the whole thing. No, not this WH. Of course for one to be able to know one would have had to work inside it and most commenters here did not. Period.

    I believe you are very optimistic so to speak about your three points, regardless whether I adhere to them as goals.

    But we shall see. Pretty soon for that matter since if you predict is to happen it has to start right with the new budget. If not you’ll know. He has 3 years as of now, not 7.

  • Major Tom

    “It is precisely what it is if it is done. Let’s think about it for a minute. Assume NASA gets the direction to build an HLV. How long will it take?”

    In the absence of a good reason to meet a certain schedule (e.g., beat the Soviets to the Moon by midnight Dec. 31, 1969), the HLV timeline is really secondary to its costs and sustainability over the long-term. This is especially critical in an era of flat or inflationary budgets, versus the huge Apollo-era NASA budget ramp-up.

    Although history can always be proven wrong, there is no history showing that an HLV could be developed and operated at a cost that would allow more than maybe a couple launches per year within a flat or inflationary NASA budget profile (assuming NASA still has other activites like science, aeronautics, ISS, etc. to fund). Saturn V didn’t show that, the Shuttle stack (another HLV) didn’t show that, SEI didn’t show that, and Ares V didn’t show that. And all that a couple HLV launches would enable is maybe one exploration mission per year. That’s not much of a human space exploration program.

    Again, maybe Bolden’s HLV study will reveal a better, more viable option. All those examples were built around the existing Apollo/Shuttle infrastructure. Maybe an EELV heavy lifter, by sharing common component production across a larger market and industrial base, could squeeze in another couple launches per year within a within a flat or inflationary NASA budget profile.

    But to really enable a vibrant exploration program with several to many missions per year, we have to enable a much larger annual lift to orbit (especially for propellant and other consumables) at the same cost and to do that, I think we have to pursue something more revolutionary than another big expendable rocket for which the basic technology has not changed in several decades. Propellant storage in space is critical, of course, and ready for testing. Hopefully the new exploration technology program will get this tested. On the launch side, a lot of folks look to reusable launchers. I would just add the more radical concepts, like small dumb expendable and gun-launched concepts I referenced above, to the mix. I think their development costs may be quite a bit lower than the equivalent reusable launcher.

    “All the while commercial is given a chance to go to LEO. But why would they stop there? Look how quickly SpaceX is developing an LV and an RV and on what budget. IF (BIG IF) they are successful then there is no reason why they could not build an HLV themselves. As time goes by the attrition by retirement takes some of the workforce away while the younger ones move to companies like SpaceX that will need the people to work all these programs.

    How about that?”

    To be honest, I need to familiarize myself with Space-X’s HLV plans. With their vertical integration, I would guess that they might be able to squeeze in a couple more annual HLV launches over EELVs (maybe up to six HLV launches or three exploration missions per year) within a flat to inflationary NASA budget. That would be better, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone could enable a significant jump in mission rate if their HLV is still fundamentally an expendable, chemical rocket. I think we have to move to a different set of technologies if we want to move out of the mode of one or two Apollo missions per year.

    Unfortunately, any of these options besides Shuttle-derived HLV (EELV-derived HLV, Space-X/clean-sheet HLV, in-space propellant storage and small reusable launchers, in-space propellant storage and radically cheap launch solutions, etc.) would make the Apollo/Shuttle infrastructure/workforce obsolete. So I think we’re in for another 2-6 years of HLV design, and maybe even some development, before the next Administration figures out that it’s not affordable or productive, cancels the HLV, pursues a more productive alternative, and finally lifts the albatross of Shuttle’s carrying costs off of NASA’s neck.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    @Major Tom:

    I’d like to come back to the HLV subject for a minute. I am and was not saying that it is the way to go. That I don’t know for sure. But the HLV timeline is important in the following sense and this is based on the Ares I observation. Had Ares I been flying today we probably would not be all ecited about LVs. The fact of the matter is that Ares I is years away while current EELVs do fly today and Falcon 9 might pretty soon. Therefore those LVs essentially killed Ares I despite all the work put on it. If the same logic applies to a HLV, NASA might be on for one big HLV but considering how long it will take for something even more complicated to develop than Ares I, the commercials may come up with a solutions YEARS before NASA is done. Therefore the NASA HLV will eventually be canned. BUT while they, NASA and contractors, work on that, and I assume Shuttle-derived, the workforce is not laid off, save for retirements, the younger ones aree being trained and might be hired by the private sector in the end. So politically (the keyword here) you get some sustainability since you make some people in Alabama for example your “friend”.

    I was not talking financial or technical issues, not even operational ones.

  • Major Tom

    “If the same logic applies to a HLV… the commercials may come up with a solutions YEARS before NASA is done.”

    I’m not sure that it does because there’s no commercial or military market for an HLV. I don’t think industry has the same incentive to start developing a competitor to Ares V or its successor as they did to start developing Falcon 9.

    That said, some of the press reports indicate that even the new HLV will be “commercial” so who knows… I assume that means either an EELV derivative or an open industry HLV competition that could include Falcon derivatives or clean-sheet designs.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    @Major Tom:

    Yes. ;) And I suspect this is where a real competition is about to start. The RFP will state to come up with a LV whose requirements will be to send a crewed spacecraft somewhere, and it’ll be far, far away… Hence the purported $6B for commercial space…

    We shall see.

  • common sense

    @Major Tom:

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/01/direct-delusion.html

    “if/when NASA decides to go ahead and procure a replacement for Ares V or any other heavy lift launch system, it will do so via standard commercial procurement process – just like it is going to be doing for LEO access. ”

    ;)

Leave a Reply to Rand Simberg 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>