Congress, NASA

Lyles: NASA underfunded and out of balance

Retired general Lester Lyles, a member of the Augustine Committee, warned a key House appropriator in a letter released today that NASA is underfunded and its key programs out of balance. In a letter (available at SpacePolicyOnline.com) Lyles and two co-signers, Raymond S. Colladay and Len Fisk, who together led a 2009 NRC study “America’s Future in Space: Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs”, told Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) that NASA has shifted from an overemphasis on human spaceflight during the last few years to an underemphasis on it now.

“NASA has been under-funded and asked to do too much with too little, ever since President Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration, which led to the development of Constellation,” they write to Wolf, the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. That emphasis on Constellation took funding from science and aeronautics programs, a shift “that did not serve all aspects of the nation well”.

The FY11 budget proposal helps remedy those problems, but they argue that it goes too far by canceling Constellation. “It makes no more sense to have a NASA with an under-emphasis on human spaceflight than it did to have a NASA with an over-emphasis,” they write. They appear to be looking for some middle ground, but fall short of calling for a restoration of Constellation.

“The burden of proof thus now lies with Congress and NASA to define and to develop a human spaceflight program that does not re-inflict damage on the breadth of NASA’s activities and that serves the nation well. It is possible to do this.” However, they don’t explain how they think it should be done.

39 comments to Lyles: NASA underfunded and out of balance

  • “The burden of proof thus now lies with Congress and NASA”

    Wow, I really don’t think this guy knows how politics works.

  • […] Space Funding Out of Balance […]

  • mike shupp

    Lester Lyles was an AF General — a 4 star general, of which they do not make very many. He was seriously considered for the NASA administrator’s job when Obama came in; of the candidates proposed at the time, he would have been my choice.

    I think he does know how politics works; I think he knows how policy is made; and I think he knows what he is doing.

  • mike, I was implying that Congress doesn’t have fact based discussions… lighten up.

  • mike shupp

    Congress is a complicated institution, operating at several levels. Look away from space for a moment, and contemplate the Congress portrayed in newspapers and most of the politically-involved sites on the internet. 40 instransigant Republican senators who would vote in unison against a resolution praising Mother and Apple Pie if Democrats proposed it; lunatics in the house who insist on Monday that every line in Obama’s health care bill must be opposed, then cheerfully admitting on Wednesday that since the bill has been passed, 50% of it will stand until Hell freezes over.

    That’s one level of Congress. Then there’s the level where people bicker and dicker over space policy, or agricultural subsidy levels, or whether roads or railroads or airports ought to get the most help from the economic stimulus bill. We see it as Senators demanding jobs for Alabama and Congressmen demanding that Obama give more thought to manned space flight and other senators urging more funds for energy research. And Congress at that level gets mentioned in newspapers in Hunstville and Denver and Orlando, and just about nowhere else. And Congress at that level is totally invisible to 99% of the internet.

    Totally invisible. Now, as it ever has been, as it always will be. And yet at that level, Congress can do and often does do a great deal. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. There are fact based discussions there; there are policies formulated — often policies which surprise and annoy the White House. (Look at early NASA history for examples.)

    That said, just as background, my impression is that General Lyles and his partners didn’t like Constellation all that much but don’t like Obama’s replacement program all that much either, and are trying to gently nudge Congressmen toward devising yet another manned space program. I think that explains the tentative tone of his letter, I think it explains why it was sent “informally” to a minority member of the Congressional committee, rather than to a chairman. I think he wanted to affect Congressional debate on a future manned space program, I think he calculated what he might accomplish by different choices of action and decided this letter was a proper step. I don’t know that he’s a Machiavelli who can bend Congress to his will, but I do think he understands “politics.”

  • Doug Lassiter

    I interpret this letter not as a plea for more human space flight funding, but as a caution that, in the development of a new human space flight program, NASA and Congress will respect the breadth of NASA’s activities. It is that breadth, they say, that constitutes a vibrant civil space program. That respect clearly didn’t happen in the development of the last human space flight program. The problem isn’t the direction the pendulum has swung, but the fact that there is a pendulum.

  • Edgar Zapata

    On the matter of “proof” – the points being made in Mr. Lyles letter need to be clarified.

    The proof is in the budget, which in 2011 returns Human Space Flight to a traditional 60% of the NASA program budgets (I leave the calculation to the interested reader). This value has been the point at which the Human Space Flight enterprise has hovered for decades. For comparison, the Aldridge commission, pre-the-Constellation architecture decision, drew out a budget to 2020 that would have altered this ratio, hence the references in Mr. Lyles letter to science and aeronautics having been raided in the past by Exploration/Constellation.

    Still more context has to be had by noting that budget “cuts” that Constellation sometimes refers to never happened at the NASA top-line level; rather the raid on other budgets did not go as planned (as extreme) some years. The NASA top-line was more or less as planned, but the distribution not being as planned, Constellation often refers to as having been “cut”.

    Back to proof. The NASA website for the budget has the summary table on page v of the budget request detail. The Aldridge commission pdf can be found by any Google and the budget plan shifting the ratios in 2004 is on page 57 (59 of the pdf).

    The matter here is a debate on content again, and this should be clarified. As written Mr. Lyles letter leaves a large amount of room for mis-interpreting his point, which is likely more about the content of the “60%” of NASA (once again the historical value) that is Human Space Flight.

    Mr. Lyles letter would do well to have an appendix with some numbers, footnotes and calculations including past trends to show the point. Undoubtedly the point would not be made as is. The point is more likely about disagreement on content.

    Call me a stickler for details.

  • amightywind

    Enough with these Augustine Commission saboteurs! They had a change to provide clear guidance for NASA and failed. They have no credibility. American despises their fecklessness.

  • Ferris Valyn

    amightywind – wait, now I am confused. I thought Constellation was a religion.

    Are you saying that its opponents are part of the Illuminati and the New World Order?

    I am sorry, I just get confused who our enemies are suppose to be, and why we are doing this.

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Reading that letter, as a working level guy, I wonder what it was intended to do. Why write to a member of the House? Sure that person is in the chain of people who influence decisions, but…

    My observation is that: NASA develops systems and then turns it’s attention away towards the next project. It developed the Shuttle and then turned it’s attention away towards a series of other programs (X series) while Shuttle “starved” for money. They did not pursue cockpit upgrades vigorously. They let the VAB maintenance lag. Etc. NASA developed ISS and then turned it’s attention to Constellation. In the meantime we have continuing trouble with water recovery, Control Moment Gyros that fail too often, etc.

    It would be wonderful to see NASA seriously pay attention to the assets that it has, but it wants to go back to the Moon and on to Mars.

    So maybe we could consider putting the US on some reasonable, sustainable, path? Was that what Gen Lyles might have been talking about?

  • amightywind

    Ferris Valyn wrote
    “I am sorry, I just get confused who our enemies”

    Then let other people name them and be content.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind blew…

    “American despises their fecklessness.”

    So you’re saying that one American despises their fecklessness – would that be you? Not that it matters, since you are also implying that the rest of America (less that one American) does not think they are feckless. Or, in other words, you think the Augustine Commission did a good job. I agree.

  • Sum Guy

    “I am sorry, I just get confused who our enemies”

    Then let other people name them and be content.

    You.

  • Doug Lassiter

    As I said, the purpose of the letter was clear, especially since it was cosigned by the former NRC SSB chair, and the current chair of the NRC ASEB. The letter came from Lyles desk, but it’s cosigned by all three. It’s not about human spaceflight per se. It’s about the pendulum. Call it a sustainable path if you want, but a pendulum is not, by definition, representative of a sustainable program. It swings this way, and then it swings the other. All this letter does is try to make Congress conscious of that important dynamic, and the troubles that it can make. Do not kick the pendulum, they’re saying. Why was the letter sent to Wolf? Good question. The White House, and by reflex the congressional majority, understands the risk of this pendulum. The coauthors of the letter perhaps feel that the minority doesn’t.

  • Bennett

    C’mon Brobof, that farting fella had a distinct talent. You do him a disservice…

  • The White House, and by reflex the congressional majority, understands the risk of this pendulum. The coauthors of the letter perhaps feel that the minority doesn’t.

    Yes, and there’s an excellent chance that Wolf will be chairman in January, dealing with a continuing resolution. Mollohan is likely to lose his gavel, either by losing his election, or the House losing the majority.

  • Doug Lassiter

    I sort of doubt that Lyles, Fisk, and Colladay are trying to send a message that Wolf will be taking over by sending the letter only to Wolf. In fact, it’s a fact that Wolf wants to kick the pendulum the other way. (It’s better than whacking at news cameras, I guess!) Mollohan isn’t too happy about the cancellation of Constellation, but Wolf said “I am going to do everything I can to stop this and to see if there’s a way to kind of look at this thing in a different way”, in a NASA hearing a few months ago. The Lyles letter is intended as guidance for developing a “different way”. That it didn’t go to Mollohan allows the finger to be pointed squarely at Wolf with the “burden of proof” clause.

  • I sort of doubt that Lyles, Fisk, and Colladay are trying to send a message that Wolf will be taking over by sending the letter only to Wolf.

    I didn’t say that they are.

  • Gary Church

    It is underfunded and out of balance. The space shuttle was a mistake. Commercial space is not man in space. A B-2 bomber went down because a mechanic calibrated an airspeed indicator wrong; do you have any idea how much that thing cost? The military has lots and lots and lots and lots of programs that are nothing but political cash cows. The V-22 Osprey being a perfect example. There is money for manned space flight. There is a need for a new heavy lift vehicle. The United States needs to keep man in space. Any arguments? You people would argue about toilet paper.

  • Vladislaw

    “The United States needs to keep man in space. ”

    Then it is a good thing the President’s proposed budget extends the ISS until 2020 with a possible extention to 2028. That assures that the United States keeps humans in space. It is also great that funding for it increases so they can actually do some science there. It is also great that the 2011 budget calls for a ton of demonstrations that can be carried out there.

  • There is a need for a new heavy lift vehicle.

    No, there’s not.

    The United States needs to keep man in space.

    Why?

  • Coastal Ron

    I hadn’t thought about it until now, but I guess I look at the need for an HLLV and for humans in space the same way.

    Until we define a cargo that has to be wider than 5m and more than 50,000 lbs in mass (Delta IV Heavy), then we don’t need HLLV. There should be a pain that needs to be solved, i.e. our current launchers cannot launch enough mass. When you have a defined need (demand), that’s where market forces can have the incentive to offer solutions (supply). Until then, it’s building a launcher to nowhere.

    The need for humans in space should be because there are no robotic alternatives. For instance, I am a great believer that we should start a sustained program of surface lunar exploration. This type of program is well within our current launcher capabilities, and will also be a proving ground for future manned systems.

    We have to learn to maximize the funding we have, and robotic exploration, while not as glamorous as humans in space, can provide their own level of inspiration (Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, etc.).

  • Vladislaw

    An interesting article of support from another retired member of the Air Force:

    “Like the proverbial stuck clock, Barack Obama occasionally gets something right. To my shock, I find myself wholeheartedly supporting the Obama administration’s approach to manned space flight because it privatizes manned space flight, removing it from the command and control, centrally planned, and government-controlled activity it has been for nearly fifty years.”

    American Thinker

    “Alex Gimarc, USAF (ret.) has a Masters Degree in Space technology and is an Advocate with the Space Frontier Foundation, a free-market space organization”

  • Gary, you need first to work on maintaining a consistant stream of thought. Your last post read like a laundry list of angry causes more than a coherent paragraph on any one of those topics.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The need for humans in space should be because there are no robotic alternatives. For instance, I am a great believer that we should start a sustained program of surface lunar exploration. ”

    Agreed. The idea that harvesting the resources of the solar system is somehow inextricably linked with human space flight has always puzzled me. Especially for the Moon, for which telerobotics has almost no time delay. I’m happy to believe that humans might someday be necessary to manage mining, collecting, and refining operations on the Moon, but such investment should certainly wait until these tasks are proven telerobotically, at vastly lower cost than sending humans to prove them.

    A decision like this was never palatable in the Apollo generation. Telerobotics then was a lever attached to a crane, and maybe a switch attached to a light bulb. But the world has changed. The groans and grimaces of a nation pulling human space flight architecture out from under the weight of Apollo extends to pulling telerobotic expectations out of the 1970s.

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “The need for humans in space should be because there are no robotic alternatives.”

    | have to disagree with this a bit… or maybe a qualifier.

    There is a difference between want and need. If you are suggesting that should be the official space policy of the United States then I can understand it.

    If people want something and are willing to open their checkbook to pursue it, the market (entrepreneurs) generally will exploit that desire and provide the particular product or service. The government does not have to get involved in this if the product or service is easily able to bring to market.

    Once in a while there are roadblocks in this process because the ease of entry has a high bar to hurtle first. Sometimes it maybe just the amount of capital required or legislation has to be created to allow the activity et cetera.

    Human access to space has historically faced some of those hurtles. For me, Humans in space should be based on individual, corporate, academic, wants and needs ALONG with the needs of the public and NASA.

    If there is a market for launching non traditional personal (NASA) and those individuals and corporations have a big enough checkbook, then I am all for the federal government funding the start up for that new transportation system that allows the individual to decide if they need to be in space.

    I would rather have America capture this potential 10-50 billion market and dominate before another country does. If we want high tech jobs for the 21st century then lets get on with the business of industrializing and commercializing low earth orbit.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “| have to disagree with this a bit… or maybe a qualifier.

    There is a difference between want and need. If you are suggesting that should be the official space policy of the United States then I can understand it. ”

    Certainly. Your bucks, your bang. I’m talking about national policy. I’m talking about my money.

    “If we want high tech jobs for the 21st century then lets get on with the business of industrializing and commercializing low earth orbit.”

    Fine. But my point is that this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with human space flight. Well, unless we’re talking about tourism.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    The B-2 and V-22 at least serve a purpose…what do you think the role of people in space is?

    blowing soap bubbles? remember the bar is 10 million a day.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The United States needs to keep man in space. Any arguments?”

    I have no arguments for keeping man in space. He probably wouldn’t like to be kept there anyway.

    “You people would argue about toilet paper.”

    I guess if we weren’t worried about men in space we wouldn’t be arguing about toilet paper.

    I believe it is important that human beings exercise the ability to move beyond the Earth. Both physically and intellectually. This ability comes from development of transport architecture, and also from knowing what is beyond the Earth. But that’s my opinion.

    In the context of preserving the breadth of NASA activities, as per the lead post, it is sobering that the Space Act, which defines the task of NASA, says nothing about human space flight. NASA not only has no mandate to keep men in space, but no mandate to put them there.

  • Sorry if I sound like a skeptic, but Lyles was part of the “blue ribbon” tiger team appointed to come up with catch phrases and excuses for killing off Constellation.

    Only now, when it looks like Congress is not going to allow Constellation and NASA’s manned space mission to suffer a premature death, does he speak up.

    And what does he say in support of Constellation? That actually exploring space was getting in the way of other, more important goals. It is beginning to sound like Obama is worried that there might not be any extra funds left over for him to divert into the pockets of his supporters…

  • Ben Joshua

    FY 2011, and follow-up details, propose to extend ISS to 2020 or 2028, open LEO HSF to the private sector, develop advanced technologies for a host of more economical HSF capabilities, and develop precursor robotic missions BEO.

    Critics say this proposal means the end of American HSF.

    Translation: This proposal means the expansion of American HSF beyond an expensive, slow, risky, single-point-failure government monopoly.

    General Lyles (ret.) may be urging a sensible balance in NASA, but we are probably past due for a balance between NASA and the private sector. Not the cozy contractor balance of yore, but a balance springing from the wisdom of NASA’s charter, or mission statement.

    NASA should be making us proud by pushing the envelope of space technology, and making that technology available to private companies, including new-space start-ups.

    NASA should be an enabling resource for the private sector, not a roadblock. NASA, your culture may have been defined by Apollo and shuttle (by both their triumphs and their tragedies), but it’s time to leave that nest and fly into the future.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ May 11th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
    It is beginning to sound like Obama is worried that there might not be any extra funds left over for him to divert into the pockets of his supporters…

    that charge is one of the top ten that take a person out of being considered seriously as a space policy person.

    It is the stuff of simple partisanship

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “And what does he say in support of Constellation? That actually exploring space was getting in the way of other, more important goals.”

    As if Constellation, as funded, was going to end up exploring space.

    What General Lyles was talking about was balancing one key function of NASA with others. The oft valued enterprise sustainability isn’t achieved with propping up one function by pulling the rug out from under another, as was happening over the last few years.

  • that charge is one of the top ten that take a person out of being considered seriously as a space policy person.

    Another (and much more so) is mindlessly flinging about the phrase “right wing.” It might be close to number one, in fact.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 12th, 2010 at 1:07 am

    dont worry there are left wingers as well….its just that the right wing right now is so goofy.

    anyway back to space Robert G. Oler

  • […] Space Politics » Lyles: NASA underfunded and out of balance […]

  • Gary Church

    Mr. Oler.
    Man in space serves the opposite purpose of the B-2 and V-22. Here is a consistent stream of thought aremisasling; We are engineering organisms, which can do alot worse than loading a B-2 with 20 or 30 H-bombs. How many could those bombs kill? Millions. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fission firecrackers compared to tritium boosted fusion devices. 1 plane. But some educated person with a laundry list of angry causes with some religiously generated petrodollars could cook up our extinction in a modest lab any day now. It is true. You don’t think so? What would you have bet those towers would come down that way the day before it happened? We have all the pieces to insure there are places where the human race will survive. It is all simple engineering- and most it was done a half a century ago. Even back to 1929. Bernal spheres. If you think my reasoning is ridiculous that just might be the answer to the Fermi Paradox; life never becomes intelligent enough to keep from destroying itself.

  • […] are a huge variety of opinions on the subject, of course, as well as responses to those opinions. I won’t bother to repeat […]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>