Later today the Obama Administration will release its fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, with NASA planning a press conference this afternoon to discuss details of its proposed budget, adopting the “win the future” theme that the president rolled out in his State of the Union address last month. The atmosphere this year is very different than the rollout of the FY11 budget proposal, which the vehicle the administration used to make sweeping changes to the agency; any changes in this budget request are more likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary in nature.
Few details about what will be in the budget proposal have leaked out in advance of today’s official release. The Wall Street Journal does report in today’s edition that the agency is “scaling back” funding for commercial crew development. However, the article doesn’t say what that cutback in commercial crew funding is in respect to. If it’s compared to the 2012 projection in the administration’s FY11 budget request, which called for $1.4 billion, that is almost certainly correct, especially since the NASA authorization act passed last year included only $500 million for commercial crew development in 2012. It would be more newsworthy if the administration’s commercial crew request was less than that $500-million figure, especially since the article also indicates that the budget proposal “would be broadly consistent” with the act. (The article also deadpans that “Commercial-space projects are years behind schedule”; that is correct in some cases, such as when one looks Orbital’s and SpaceX’s progress compared to their original COTS schedules, but then again, government space programs are hardly paragons of punctuality.)
Separately, the Journal reported last week that some military space programs may get budget increases in the 2012 proposal, including the EELV program, as the Defense Department seeks to make more bulk buys to get long-term savings—which could trickle down to other EELV users, such as NASA and commercial providers. However, some in Congress may be skeptical of increased spending on EELV in particular: a Defense News article last week quoted Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, as suggesting the Defense Department should seek alternatives to United Launch Alliance. “The U.S. is spending more per rocket launch and battling more delays than anywhere else,” he said in the February 10th hearing. “That is because the United States has committed to a two-company alliance to handle all launches, despite the fact that other U.S. companies are showing promise.”
Well if they significantly cut back commercial crew CCDev Rd 2 funding, then they’ll be ‘cutting off their noses to spite themselves’. NASA needs commercial. Without them, they’ll be stuck relying on the Russians for years to come, probably into decades.
It may be that SpaceX and Boeing will decide to ignore NASA and aim for Bigelow instead. NASA will become another customer for crew and not that important. Their focus will be on meeting FAA requirements, not NASA’s which will probably be considerably less beaurecratic. NASA will also be able to save money by scaling back its astronaut corps. No spacecraft, no need for large numbers of them since the station will only need 6 at a time, not necessarily U.S. crew either. The U.S. Congress should enjoy continuing to pay out millions to the Russians for seats.
The Obama administration is in no financial position to ‘win the future’. They squandered the future on public union payouts. Since there is no apparent strategy for reorganizing NASA, budget cuts will visit all programs, even those with merit. The continuing obsession on these pages for ‘commercial space’ is amusing. There is no mission.
Good news, it’s only one of Andy Pasztor’s articles so take with a grain of salt. Whew!
“That is because the United States has committed to a two-company alliance to handle all launches, despite the fact that other U.S. companies are showing promise.â€
One of the more “intelligent” statements from a politician, though probably doesn’t mean much in the bigger picture of lobbyists and the politicians they support.
Until companies like SpaceX buy enough lobbyists of their own, policy isn’t really going to change from the current cost-plus hog trough aerospace contractors feed from IMHO.
And by the time that happens, SpaceX might be feeding from the same trough.
The proposed FY12 budget isn’t online yet, but I suspect when it’s released it will be at:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/
Interesting that Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) would casually say that the DoD should look at alternatives to ULA – who would he suggest??? If the DoD wants to launch a large satellite – the only option is ULA, which should more accurately be called “The Launch Alliance”. SpaceX has some good ideas but they can’t launch any large spacecraft. We aren’t going to launch DoD spacecraft on Ariane.
Or would he suggest that some new player get into an already low return market? Who would pay their startup costs?
This seems like a member of Congress making a suggestion that is patently nonsense.
I would think that Dutch had Orbital in mind. They use Wallops as their primary launch site.
I would think that Dutch had Orbital in mind. They use Wallops as their primary launch site.
I had the same thought and DoD does use OSC for smaller payloads.
In fact, they could very well be waiting for Taurus II to become operational.
In the meantime, since DoD is taxpayer funded, they’ll pay the increased cost from ULA.
Taurus II is too small for DOD. Also, Wallops is no good for most DOD. No infrastructure.
Dutch means Spacex and F9H.
Andy P of TWSJ is reliable only in the song he sings…not the information he passes. mark whittington on his blog is trying to give the credit for events in Egypt to Bush the last, Andy P is an opponent of Commercial space…and before long we will have Taylor D or Anne S telling us about the latest plans for the Chinese to steal our purity of essence by taking over the Moon.
Same song, same verse always wrong.
Robert G. Oler
An interesting little aside regarding the possible budget boost for EELV. The NASAS preliminary HLV report described in passing an upgraded EELV that the DoD is planning to pursue irrespective of NASA’s own choices over launch vehicles with a 1.25Mlbf kerolox core engine and a new upper stage.
This is a complete guess on my part, but I’m wondering if this is something like an Atlas-V Phase 1 with a US single-chamber engine (RS-84-derived?) and the long-proposed Common Centaur upper stage with uprated and human-rated RL-10 engines.
About the idea from Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger that the DoD should talk to someone else other than ULA (more properly called TLA, The Launch Alliance): sure he might want the DoD to launch more from his state, which means Wallops in this case.
But as wiser people have pointed out – it has limited infrastructure. And many DoD payloads go from Vandenberg AFB and there is no infrastructure there that Orbital or SpaceX is near to using. Taurus is still unproven and is too small for the big spacecraft.
So Dutch Ruppersberger probably does not know what he is talking about.
CharlesHouston wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 11:56 am
About the idea from Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger that the DoD should talk to someone else other than ULA (more properly called TLA, ..
there is going to be a Falcon 9 Heavy site at Vandy…SpaceX is opening (or has opened I dont have teh dates straight) an office across from NRO…
Robert G. Oler
@byeman wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Dutch means Spacex and F9H.
He might, but it’ll never happen because the DoD doesn’t like the engine clusters on the F9. They’ve told Elon unless he puts Merlin 2s on his rockets, they’ll never buy any from him.
And dammit, I can’t find the article!
So Dutch Ruppersberger probably does not know what he is talking about.
Probably not, and as I have just been reading around the InnerTubes, F9 is sub-Delta II capable anyway. Elon might better start staying away from government funding after SpaceX fulfills it’s COTS contracts anyways, they’ll have better luck under-cutting ECAS.
Purely FWIW, the Falcon-9 BEO figures I’ve been reading are 3t to the lunar surface including a stop in LLO parking orbit and 2t to the Martian surface with direct descent (a bit like the MERs). I may have misread the reporting of Mr. Musk’s (verbal) comments though.
NASA ‘won the future’ in 1969. It’s ‘mission’ has been accomplished. Dissolve it. The America of 2011, whose government has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends, cannot afford to keep this Cold war relic around any longer. Absorb it into DoD– or dissolve it.
Well, the Airforce already uses Minitors out of Wallops and the Taurus 2 will be launching the Cygnus from there starting in December.
Dutch and Mikulski have been big supporters of expanding the DoD’s use of the Wallops facility.
@MrEarl wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Use it or lose it, as they say. Was reviewing some video circa 1977-87. NASA was a stepchild of DoD for a long time as military space budgets soared while civilian space budgets evaporated. Tentacles of DoD have run through it since its inception. For HSF, shuttle was designed with DoD specs as a precursor for its very survival- and a key rationale for Carter not cancelling it.
The DOD has little use for the Taurus II and much less wallops. Once OSC establishes Minotaur capabilities at CCAFS, the DOD will have little use for wallops, despite what Dutch and Mikulski want.
NASA was never a step child of the DOD. DCSCA, you must have a reading/viewing comprehension problem. Also, read heppenhiemer (if you can), NASA had requirements for a large payload bay too.
The DOD’s budget didn’t pass NASA until the mid 80’s
The only tentacles that exist are the ones of delusions in your head
As Byeman said: The DOD has little use for the Taurus II and much less Wallops
The DoD launches large spacecraft from Florida – mainly to geosynch and transfer orbits. A launch from Wallops would cost them prop to change the orbital plane even more – and they need the largest boosters available. So don’t look for the DoD to launch from Wallops.
Now, NASA might for missions to ISS – the higher inclination would allow higher payload weights.
And as with all things – when we see a successful Falcon Heavy launch from VAFB we can all believe that it is real. Not a minute before. All the plans in the world don’t mean anything.
@Byeman wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
You’d do well to reacquaint yourself with the history of the space agency and its acqusition/use/procurment of military assets- everything from early missles and LVs to the roster of astronauts past and present. =sigh=
DCSCA , you would do well not to repeat the same inane comments over and over and learn something about present day NASA, instead of watching old videos. History is just that, history. What happened 50 years ago is not applicable to today. I am ex-military and I can see that the past military influences have been bred out.
You have no insight and experience to base any of your comments on. You are no more than a bystander looking through a peephole.
Byeman wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 7:29 am
You continue to embarass yourself.