Congress, NASA

The budget squeeze tightens

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) told the Huntsville Times this week that some hard decisions are coming for federal spending, including cuts in defense spending. “I think national defense is probably going to lose some ground,” he told the paper’s editorial board, although he wasn’t sure how it would affect agencies and companies in Huntsville. One area he does plan to support additional funding, though, is NASA’s human spaceflight programs: “I hope to increase (NASA) spending for manned spaceflight,” he said. And where would that money come from? He says he’ll look to shift funding from other parts of the agency, “such as studies of global warming”; he also said that “we might have to shift money” from the National Science Foundation to support human spaceflight.

One thing to keep in mind regarding his comments is that Brooks, in addition to being a freshman with little individual influence, is also not on the House Appropriations Committee. Thus, his comments are more likely a wish list than a concrete plan. And plans by House appropriators will make keeping NASA funding intact even harder.

On Thursday the new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Hal Rogers (R-KY), released his spending plan for FY 2011 appropriations bills, as Congress seeks to take care of unfinished business from the previous Congress. Rogers outlined $74 billion in cuts from the president’s FY11 request, $58 billion of which in non-defense discretionary spending, in his budget outlines distributed to the various appropriations subcommittees. “I am instructing each of the twelve Appropriations subcommittees to produce specific, substantive and comprehensive spending cuts,” Rogers said in the statement. “We are going go line by line to weed out and eliminate unnecessary, wasteful, or excess spending.”

For the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee, which includes NASA, Rogers set a budget of $54.1 billion, an 11-percent cut from the $60.5 billion from the president’s FY11 request a year ago. If applied across the board for all agencies, that would mean NASA would get $16.9 billion in 2011, down from the $19 billion in its FY11 request and below even its appropriations in FY2008, the goal that House leaders set for reducing overall non-defense discretionary spending. However, those cuts may not be applied equally, sparing some programs and agencies while inflicting deeper cuts on others.

An AP article yesterday does suggest that NASA might be spared the worst of the cuts, claiming that unidentified Republicans said that “some agencies such as the FBI, the Indian Health Service and NASA are unlikely to be cut all the way back to pre-Obama levels.” (The article repeats statements from an earlier AP piece that the White House warns that NASA cuts could force the US to abandon the ISS.) Any cuts the House makes, of course, would have to be reconciled with the Senate, which has not released its budget plans yet.

28 comments to The budget squeeze tightens

  • amightywind

    The article repeats statements from an earlier AP piece that the White House warns that NASA cuts could force the US to abandon the ISS

    Would abandoning the ISS mean a loss of national prestige when the only way US astronauts can get there for the foreseeable future is via a Russian Soyuz. Kill it.

  • Joe

    “However, those cuts may not be applied equally, sparing some programs and agencies while inflicting deeper cuts on others.”

    That is exactly what the new Speaker of the House said was going to happen (that is targeted rahter than across the board cuts) on one of last Sundays news interviews.

  • Well, there goes Bill Nelson’s magic rocket….

  • Vladislaw

    “Would abandoning the ISS mean a loss of national prestige when the only way US astronauts can get there for the foreseeable future is via a Russian Soyuz. Kill it.”

    It is a good thing that the Nation is investing in commercial sources for domestic access to LEO then, we are fortunate our President was thinking ahead and funded this.

  • common sense

    Let’s think about this for a minute:

    “They” want to cut the budget. I realize it will not come from the same pot of money but still. They will cut the DoD right? Yet they will try and spare NASA or possibly reroute budget from within to HSF? Yeah so cuts in the DoD affect pretty much everyone in the US, those in NASA only a few states. How is it they will convince each and every other Congress person, including Senators, that DoD is worth cutting while NASA is not? I am just curious what the strategy will be. Because if the “excuse” relates to national security then in what ways is NASA better equipped than DoD for that matter?

    Any idea? I mean constructive idea? Any one?

    Ah yeah, also, “they” will reroute budget from “global warming” (which I do not think exists at NASA) to HSF? Really? And of course the WH will roll over and bark happily and then sign? Hmmm interesting.

  • Windy…

    how dare you call for cancelling Ronald Reagan’s space station?

    – Jim

  • James T

    I’m all for manned spaceflight, but sucking funds from science missions to fund the SLS will turn it even more into a white elephant, a prestigious possession with a cost to maintain that outweighs the value it provides.

    Commercial launch services are the future of manned spaceflight. When we start spending less money on getting our crew and cargo into space, we have more money left over to spend on the missions, both manned and robotic. This is how we progress forward into a 21st century space exploration program, by not holding onto the obsolete and expensive infrastructure of the 20th century. If we want manned spaceflight to go beyond LEO, with individuals able to stay healthy in space longer then a several month expedition to the ISS, than we need to invest into the technologies that will make that possible.

    We need to end the SLS and invest that money into developing the stuff we need for BEO exploration missions. When we have stuff to launch, commercial entities will compete with each other to launch it, driving prices down. The less money we spend launching, the more money we have for stuff to launch, the more they compete to launch it, the less money we spend to launch and so on and so forth. SLS not only doesn’t have specified payloads to launch yet, making a payload capacity requirement meaningless, but will also take away from the market that commercial is trying to compete for. As far as I’m concerned, that makes it a job killer.

  • Vladislaw

    “If we want manned spaceflight to go beyond LEO, with individuals able to stay healthy in space longer then a several month expedition to the ISS, than we need to invest into the technologies that will make that possible.

    We need to end the SLS and invest that money into developing the stuff we need for BEO exploration missions. When we have stuff to launch, commercial entities will compete with each other to launch it, driving prices down. The less money we spend launching, the more money we have for stuff to launch, the more they compete to launch it, the less money we spend to launch and so on and so forth”

    You are beating a dead horse to the folks who only see “space program” as the means to do anything in space. This time we should be taking commercial with us every step of the way, LEO2GEO to landings on Luna.

    Until we have the private sector investing billions along with federal funding space is always going to be expensive rides for a tiny fraction of federal employees.

  • DCSCA

    When the government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends, the luxury of wasting those dwindling resources on continuing to fund ISS operations becomes all the more absurd. Americans have little or no idea what they’re getting in return for the billions already spent on this decade-long make work project for aerospace contractors. Dump it.

  • Joe

    common sense wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
    “ “They” want to cut the budget. I realize it will not come from the same pot of money but still. They will cut the DoD right? Yet they will try and spare NASA or possibly reroute budget from within to HSF? Yeah so cuts in the DoD affect pretty much everyone in the US, those in NASA only a few states. How is it they will convince each and every other Congress person, including Senators, that DoD is worth cutting while NASA is not? I am just curious what the strategy will be. Because if the “excuse” relates to national security then in what ways is NASA better equipped than DoD for that matter? “

    Any idea? I mean constructive idea? Any one?”

    Maybe they could argue that the Nation is losing its HSF capability and the money needs to be “invested” to save it for the good of the Country. No, that wouldn’t fit your narrow description of “good of the Country”; but it might fit theirs. That is why they are “evil”, right?

    “Ah yeah, also, “they” will reroute budget from “global warming” (which I do not think exists at NASA) to HSF? Really? And of course the WH will roll over and bark happily and then sign? Hmmm interesting.”

    First you say there is no “global warming” money in NASA, then you say the Obama Administration will not give the ““global warming” money in NASA up. Which is it?

  • common sense

    @ Joe wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    Ah… Joe ever so constructive.

    “Maybe they could argue that the Nation is losing its HSF capability and the money needs to be “invested” to save it for the good of the Country. No, that wouldn’t fit your narrow description of “good of the Country”; but it might fit theirs. That is why they are “evil”, right?”

    Please tell me what my narrow description of “the good of the country” is? You never cease to bother. Now you don’t even try. I thought you did not like people to put words in your mouth. I have a word for this: Hypocrisy.

    “First you say there is no “global warming” money in NASA, then you say the Obama Administration will not give the ““global warming” money in NASA up. Which is it?”

    No I did not. A little subtlety is on call. Any idea why I put “” around my statement? As I said there is no “global warming” program at NASA. But if there is make sure you let us all know its name and number and what directorate it is associated with.

    And this is what you call constructive? Wow you definitely have a case. We’ll see how that goes.

  • Joe

    common sense wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
    @ Joe wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
    “Please tell me what my narrow description of “the good of the country” is? You never cease to bother. Now you don’t even try. I thought you did not like people to put words in your mouth.”

    Since all of your comments concerned local political concerns I was sort of hoping you would tell us what your definition of “the good of the country” is.

    “No I did not. A little subtlety is on call. Any idea why I put “” around my statement? As I said there is no “global warming” program at NASA. But if there is make sure you let us all know its name and number and what directorate it is associated with.”

    The money in the FY 2011 Budget Proposal for “Climate Research” is there, look it up, I am not going to do your “homework” for you. The point is in your next sentences “Really? And of course the WH will roll over and bark happily and then sign?” clearly assume the existence of such money that you previously implied did not exist. Spin as hard as you can to avoid having to address that, but I will not be dragged any further into one of your endless circular debates leading nowhere.

    Discussion over.

  • common sense

    @ Joe wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    The point that you do not seem to understand is that if the WH is more concerned with climate research or even climate changes then they will not, NOT, sign something that takes the money from it and put it into HSF. That was my very, very subtle point. So much headache to try and understand, right? Further, I know it is sophistry to try and understand words but climate research/changes do not equate with global warming. Can you believe this?

    “Spin as hard as you can to avoid having to address that, but I will not be dragged any further into one of your endless circular debates leading nowhere.”

    As I said you have a very constructive post as always.

    “Discussion over.”

    Yes master Joe. Whatever you want. .

    But whenever you have something of substance to say I will welcome you back.

  • Joe

    common sense wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
    “Further, I know it is sophistry to try and understand words but climate research/changes do not equate with global warming. Can you believe this?”

    The use of the descriptor “Global Warming” became “Climate Change” (for political purposes) only when the planet refused to cooperate and wouldn’t just keep getting warmer and warmer. I understand that all too well.

    “But whenever you have something of substance to say I will welcome you back.”

    I will be back with” things of substance to say” sooner than I am sure you would like, I was only signing off from that particular subject with you. Only responding to this (this occasion only) because you tried to shove that one down.

  • VirgilSamms

    Interesting that I read in “Prescription for Disaster” that alot of the B-1 bomber was funded with space shuttle dollars under the table. The DOD is the cause of NASA underfunding, and thinking that the DOD is going to get cut before NASA is not very realistic. I can show you a whole fleet of supersonic bombers that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and are now headed for the boneyard to prove it. They did manage to kill a few birds but the birds took a couple B-1s down also.

    A real threat that is ignored by the DOD and only NASA has the infrastructure to defend us from is impacts- that is the path to funding BEO-HSF. The only path and it is a narrow one of Sidemount, moon water, and nukes in space.

    Private space is a dead end- as much a dead end as the endless circles of LEO.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    The DOD is the cause of NASA underfunding…

    No, Congress is, at least to the degree that you think NASA is “entitled” to a specific amount of funding.

    A real threat that is ignored by the DOD and only NASA has the infrastructure to defend us from is impacts…

    Nope. According to the DoD, “The mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.

    According to NASA, “NASA’s mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

    Now it could be that no one is highly concerned about asteroid strikes, but since no one really knows if/when we have to be concerned, it’s hard for the Nation, much less politicians, to be worried about it.

    Even so, I would see NASA’s part in the whole effort as “scanning the skys”, and the DoD would be in dealing with potential threats. To think that the Nation will cede a clearly military mission to NASA over the DoD is pure fantasy, regardless how talented NASA personnel truly are.

    The only path and it is a narrow one of Sidemount, moon water, and nukes in space.

    None of which are needed to protect the Earth from asteroids.

    Private space is a dead end- as much a dead end as the endless circles of LEO.

    If you think that Congress will 100% fund NASA to do your space fantasies, then you really don’t understand politics, capitalism and how hard it is to do things in space. But that’s OK, because it’s good to have dreams – just don’t expect many people to have the same dreams…

  • common sense

    @ Joe wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    “The use of the descriptor “Global Warming” became “Climate Change” (for political purposes) only when the planet refused to cooperate and wouldn’t just keep getting warmer and warmer. I understand that all too well.”

    It became “climate change” because we are having a climate change. I and quite a few other people believe it is some form of global warming. However, being a scientist, I would have to take the most objective way possible to study the phenomenon. Especially since a minority of people worldwide believe it is not happening. I would try and respect their viewpoint. So yes I would phrase it climate change or possibly climate research. Some population are being impacted by raising levels of sea waters as well as erosion of their coast (http://new.micsem.org/publications/counselor/print.php?aid=8P1LN). Including regions in the US (for example http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/lidar/AGU_fall98/) The potential impact from a “catastrophic” raise is far more important than HSF BEO if you can believe this. And no it is not because we want people to stay away from SUVs, even though that would be great. So and even though, unlike what you seem to believe, I am a fervent supporter of HSF, I do have my priorities straight. Earth climate is vastly more important than HSF BEO or even LEO for that matter.

    “I will be back with” things of substance to say” sooner than I am sure you would like, I was only signing off from that particular subject with you. Only responding to this (this occasion only) because you tried to shove that one down.”

    Hey whenever you feel like it but I don’t really care because so far it’s been very little of substance so I am not going to hold my breath. But I am happy to converse with you anytime.

  • common sense

    @ VirgilSamms wrote @ February 4th, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    “A real threat that is ignored by the DOD and only NASA has the infrastructure to defend us from is impacts-”

    It is because it is not in either charter to protect us from impacts. Is it important? Yes. Underfunded? Quite so. Is Sidemount prat of the solution? I don’t know, show us why.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The only path and it is a narrow one of Sidemount, moon water, and nukes in space.

    Very rarely is there only a single path towards a goal. When there appears to be only one path, I tend to take it as an indication of a blinkered view.

  • VirgilSamms

    “If you think that Congress will 100% fund NASA to do your space fantasies, then you really don’t understand politics, capitalism and how hard it is to do things in space.”

    Your space fantasies are the ones that say everything is cheap and easy and the market will open up the solar system.

    It seems to me you are the one that does not understand. The “blinkered view” is the one that only can see space travel in terms of airline travel and retiring on mars.

    You really don’t understand there is no market, there really is a threat that needs to dealt with, and my “fantasy” is pragmatic view that takes into account how hard it really is.

    Sidemount is the heavy lifter that can put the big pieces up in the shortest amount of time for the least amount of money and in the fewest possible launches. No fantasy 27 engine first stage launched refueling depot tinker toy schemes. I am showing you reality and now you know.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Is Sidemount part of the solution? I don’t know, show us why.”

    Common Sense, I have spelled it out exactly half a dozen or more times. The regulars just dogpile in a good ole boy group guffaw every time- and ignore the facts. Why don’t you try for once to accept a couple simple truths instead of digging up the same childish sophistry to deny them?

    Simple truth 1. There is no market that will get humans into space- we are so greedy we would absolutely be there by now if there was. LEO endless circles is not space- BEO is. There is no new technology, no wishalloy or unobtainium that is going to make it suddenly cheap. There is no cheap- space flight is inherently expensive. The shuttle program failed because they tried to go cheap.
    The nice powerpoints of fuel depots and pretty little spaceships are just powerpoints. The only reason to go into deep space is the survival imperative; planetary defense and a separate population as insurance for the human race. That’s it. And it is a far more important reason than filthy lucre or profits from DOD contracts.

    Simple truth 2. Space is a nuclear industry. As steam was to the industrial age, nuclear energy is to the space age. Space is not an ocean, it is a vaccuum seething with radiation. Only mass and distance can shield humans from the worst component of space radiation- on the order of 15 feet of water and 500 tons for a small crew cabin. This mass cannot be propelled by chemicals and the power required cannot be supplied by simple radioisotope batteries or solar panels- not in the asteroid belt where the easy resources are. Not only massive shielding, but artificial gravity will be required on long duration missions- and they will be long duration. Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons to deflect impact threats are the requirements.

    Simple truth 3. Sidemount is the only vehicle possible in the current fiscal climate than can effect a planetary protection and beyond earth orbit human space flight program. DOD is the only possible and the most appropriate source of funding considering the vast DOD budget and nuclear involvement. NASA has the SD-HLV infrastructure and human spaceflight base. Sidemount also has the orion LAS system that is adaptable to lift nuclear materials into space as safely as possible. Lifting the components of true spaceships into space- is a job for HLV’s. Piecing together smaller payloads is a recipe for failure. The most likely source for shielding is lunar ice and the lift required to put EDS and lunar water refineries in position for polar missions makes anything but an HLV a miserable proposition.

    I am tired of writing.

  • Dennis Berube

    What would happen if the US abandoned the ISS? Should it be put up for bids to the highest bidder? Once Bigelow attaches an inflatable to it, will he maybe put in a bid? China sure could afford to bid on it! I think the politicians would sell their grandmothers false teeth for the right price! If someone else buys the ISS they will have to worry about getting to it, not us! We are turning into a bunch of losers! Like I said before, maybe the explorers of the future, will be China setting up a flag on Mars, and quite probably the Moon. They will kick our flag over, if it is not already laying flat on the surface already.

  • Byeman

    “I have spelled it out exactly half a dozen or more times. ”
    and you have been wrong every time.

  • Byeman

    “I am tired of writing.”

    We are tired of you posting the same inane nonsense.

  • common sense

    @ VirgilSamms wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I am sorry you know but what you actually write is a laundry list of wishes at best. All I see is unsubstantiated claims. I would love, really, that you show us a plan, as detailed as possible. Maybe a link where the plan is exposed? But so far what you say is baseless. Mostly baseless. Evidence! Evidence please.

    Assume that I want to help. What evidence do I have with your claims to go forward in front of a scientific/engineering panel?

  • It became “climate change” because we are having a climate change.

    There has never been a period in the planet’s history in which the climate wasn’t changing. We’ve been warming up from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years. Even assuming we had the power to do so, to what idyllic climate do you think that we should attempt to reset the earth, and try to keep it there?

    Dennis:

    We are turning into a bunch of losers!

    Speak for yourself.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    There is no market that will get humans into space…

    Tell that to the Russians. They have the ISS and tourist market to themselves right now, and for at least another 5 years.

    Maybe you don’t think $50M/customer is much of a market, but it’s someplace to start. Seems to me most markets start small, and then expand as supply & demand forces come into play.

    For now, the ISS will be a source of demand through at least 2020, and there are other entities (Bigelow as the furthest along) that would like to offer in-orbit destinations, but need a dependable crew transportation system to rely upon. This is why the NASA Commercial Crew program is so important, because it benefits NASA (long-term savings, reliability, etc.) and it lets capitalism try out different business models to see what works. Dependable and affordable crew transportation to LEO is what has been holding back private efforts at human spaceflight.

    Wait for Congress to give NASA enough money to build something if you want, but that didn’t work out so well on Constellation, and nothing has been done to address the root cause of the cost & schedule issues that led to it’s cancellation.

    There is no new technology, no wishalloy or unobtainium that is going to make it suddenly cheap.

    Cheap is a relative term. The better term is “whatever the market will bear”, which is the supply & demand market forces at work.

    I have long stated that my personal opinion is that the commercial crew market will be slow to expand. If we get 20 paying customers per year, that will be doing pretty well in the first year or two.

    But the key here is that HSF under NASA is very predictable, because it depends on the whims of Congress, so you always know what the high-end is. With a commercial crew market, it’s less predictable for the high-end, because there are so many more potential sources of funding and demand.

    For instance, who would have thought that an NGO (Astrobotic) would be buying a Falcon 9 flight to send a robotic explorer to the Moon this decade. That is the power of capitalism when it has access to basic pieces of infrastructure, which in this case is the affordable Falcon 9 launcher.

    That could not happen for the same level of funding with a NASA program, and it is a stark example of why Congress will never be able to afford to have NASA build your 1,000 ton nuclear-powered spaceship.

    So while you pout in the corner because no one is listening to your space fantasies, the commercial space industry will be slowing gaining capabilities that will finally allow human expansion into space, which ironically is what you say you really want anyways. Funny how that works… ;-)

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    “Even assuming we had the power to do so, to what idyllic climate do you think that we should attempt to reset the earth, and try to keep it there?”

    Why are you trivializing my comment? Did I say I have an answer to that? Don’t you think that it’s worth trying to understand in order to mitigate the associated consequences? If and when the sea levels raise “too much” there will be major displacement of population, possibly. Forced immigration if you will. The societal consequences of this may be dramatic. I don’t think any one knows. So it is safe to at least keep an eye on it. Try to understand it. Can we do something about it today? Maybe not. Can we try to not worsen it? Maybe yes. So what would you rather do? Sit and watch? Come on Rand you can do better than that.

Leave a Reply to common sense 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>