Like some members of Congress, a handful of organizations have spoken out about the NASA budget request, although their reactions are more varied. Aerospace Industries Association president and CEO Marion Blakey said she was “disappointed” by the NASA budget because it fell short of previous projections for NASA spending, such as the nearly $19.5 billion projected for 2012 in the FY11 request. “[T]he administration’s request for NASA fails to recognize the return on investment – both now and in the future – that our nation’s space program provides as we strive to innovate, educate and build an America of which we can be proud,” she states, without going into specific detail about specific programs.
“Where’s the innovation?” asks Bill Nye, executive director of The Planetary Society. He is critical of flat or reduced spending for science while “Congress insists on building a new heavy lift rocket based on old designs”. NASA administrator Charles Bolden, he added, “talked about ‘hard choices,’ but what can he do when NASA has not been given a real budget for this fiscal year,” a reference to the lack of a final FY11 appropriations bill.
The Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF), though, appeared satisfied with the $850 million in the 2012 budget request for commercial crew development. “In this constrained fiscal environment, commercial spaceflight is more important than ever,” said CSF president Brett Alexander in the organization’s statement. “Leveraging private investment is the only way NASA can make its dollars go farther in these times of belt-tightening.”
“Leveraging private investment is the only way NASA can make its dollars go farther in these times of belt-tightening”
But will they? It seems NASA is falling back to their old ways. Orbital Sciences has been paid $20M and are expecting at least $100M more for a test flight of their Taurus II launch vehicle. This isn’t money to be paid when they demonstrate the vehicle can fly, this is money being paid in advance – the very antithesis of the COTS program.
And what of CCDev? So far the only money has been supplied as upfront payments. When (if?) the Congress get an appropriations bill for NASA passed, will we finally see a COTS-like procurement of commercial crew? Or will NASA continue to talk about supplying the “seed money” in place of private investment?
@ Trent,
I have no problem with government subsidies to help develop capabilities. It would probably be very difficult to get alternate sources of investment from private sources.
However, I would prefer this to be followed by open and fair competition, paid on delivery, for launch and transport services. Perhaps NASA can get ‘at cost’ launch services in exchange for the assistance with development? They can still charge full price to other customers but give NASA a discount for the first contract period.
“This isn’t money to be paid when they demonstrate the vehicle can fly, this is money being paid in advance – the very antithesis of the COTS program.”
Trent, this has been my criticism of the Obama approach to commercial space all along. And yet there are still some people who still defend it.
Mark, it hasn’t happened yet. If you’re actually willing to support “commercial space” in some form, advocate for that form.. but it seems to me that you’ve spent the last year criticizing COTS as much as CCDev.
“[T]he administration’s request for NASA fails to recognize the return on investment – both now and in the future – that our nation’s space program provides as we strive to innovate, educate and build an America of which we can be proud,
If the special interests bellyache over Obama’s milquetoast proposal what will they say when the Teal Party takes its collective chainsaw to it. Obama’s plans to spend 25.3% of GDP on his beloved Big Government, a high since WWII. This after a slaughterhouse of an election for democrats where spending was the main issue. Good luck with that.
What is innovative about a space program whose highlight is to send a battery of crude Gemini replicas to a space station no one wants?
That’s not true about CCDev, Trent. The CCDev winners have been paid according to reaching their milestones negotiated with NASA. It was not all up front.
We’re doing similar milestone agreements with the commercial tech development projects starting up for Station and CCDev 2 will also be executed according to pay-for-performance milestones. NASA is not “falling back to [its] old ways.”
The $20 million went to Orbital Sciences for completing a mission concept review. The additional funds you speak of would be to add another test flight to the schedule that was not previously included. You and Mark Whittington are both misrepresenting what’s really going on.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 7:49 am
“Trent, this has been my criticism of the Obama approach to commercial space all along. ”
dont rewrite history. I know you can put the WMD in Iraq and try and label the Egyptian revolution a Bush thing…but your own words?
First off the money spent on commercial space so far and even anticipated would not even put a dent in the Cx money that has been spent so far with little or nothing to show for it.
You were silent all the years of the Bush the last administration as billions after billions were poured into a project that had no chance of owrking…and spent around 11-12 billion dollars to get one single phoney suborbital flight of a vehicle that only resembled the Ares 1 in “mold form”.
What OSC wants is not what necessarily OSC will get, but SpaceX and quite a few others have been paid for what they have demonstrated…which is in the case of SpaceX that for 1/10th of what has been wasted on Cx…develop two rockets and a capsule which is on the verge of being human rated.
HAD ONCE during the Bush years you would have deviated from the administration line, had you once found something that was going so badly wrong that it was obvious even to the dolt who was President…and you had criticized it then you might have some leg to stand on. But in the Bush years you did nothing but cheerlead and make excuses for subpar performance….
and you have like most of the GOP right done nothing but be critical of things this administration has done, even when in Space policy in July of 1996 you had your name attached to a policy paper which is so “not different” from what Obama is doing in commercial lift that it is not distinguishable.
Robert G. Oler
amightywind wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 8:16 am
” will they say when the Teal Party takes its collective chainsaw to it. ”
and when will that be? The Tea Party so far has barely found the heads in the Congress…The Congress has struggled as hard as it can and at best what it can find is 100 billion of cuts most of which will never happen. At least Rand Paul has a budget that he actually believes in and it will go nowhere.
The Tea Party and the rest of the GOP group are more or less really good on the talk circuit but get them to legislating and so far at least it is the same old pork projects…
You are a good example of that actually. Ares spent 10 billion dollars with nothing to show for it, and yet you are still a fan.
Tea party person…heal theyself
Robert G. Oler
Looks like Obama’s 2012 NASA proposals won’t be taken seriously by much of anyone anyway. The US House isn’t going to send him anything like this to sign. Republican House will also strip out anything that has the word “climate” in it, or in the case of the Senate anything not including a Heavy-Pork-Lifter.
Best US-HSF can hope for in this environment is keeping commercial funded and crew-rating either the Delta or Atlas. Skip the fanciful visions of going anywhere with this budget.
Wonder if Bolden noticed how the Air Force got an extra EELV with a Value-Pak of 4 for 2012?
You are a good example of that actually. Ares spent 10 billion dollars with nothing to show for it, and yet you are still a fan.
I won’t apologize for the shortcomings of an ambitious program, abandoned by malevolent political clique, just as it was achieving visible results. Ares I and V would have setup the exploration of the inner solar system for decades. What has happened since then is less than impressive. You dote on childish missions by government backed entrepreneurs to a space station without a purpose. Hail the victors!
Don’t feed the trolls!
I’m with Rand Simberg on this budget. It’s not worth anyone’s time to pick apart. Assuming the likely case that the vast majority of the budget is not stuck in another CR for the rest of 2011, this is going to get picked apart and bled out by the compromise process to something wholly unrecognizable. Sit tight.
Justin, are you providing new information or has that actually been published somewhere? Insider info is pointless so long as insiders continue to be surprised by what the agency does.
Image the CSF being ‘satisfied’ at a proposal which may give them access to $850 mil, denied to them through the private sector, which the U.S. government, teetering on bankruptcy,must to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends. It’s absurd. And in the end, they’ll never get it.
@Roga wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 3:32 pm “I’m with Rand Simberg on this budget.” Which puts you in weak company.
Roga wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Don’t feed the trolls!
I’m with Rand Simberg on this budget. It’s not worth anyone’s time to pick apart. Assuming the likely case that the vast majority of the budget is not stuck in another CR for the rest of 2011, this is going to get picked apart and bled out by the compromise process to something wholly unrecognizable. Sit tight…
if that is what Rand is saying then RAnd is wrong. Obama will at the end of it get just about everything he wants. The “numbers” are not for sure, but I would right now even bet on those. The “Tea Party” folks are the most disorganized group that I have seen since I participated in the Dean Campaign.
Robert G. Oler
http://www.spacecolorado.org/news/sierra-nevada-passes-third-ccdev-milestone-dreamchaser.html
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/01/31/nasa-ccdev-update/
http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/ccdev2/
Go look at the “Pre-Proposal Conference Material” charts. They explicitly state pay-for-performance milestones will be used for CCDev 2.
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110107-nasa-boosted-cots-funding.html
The payments from stimulus funding were all for new milestones added to the program to buy down risk.
Rob, I see you still haven’t learnt how to quote.
@ sftommy: Republican House will also strip out anything that has the word “climate†in it, or in the case of the Senate anything not including a Heavy-Pork-Lifter
Don’t have to wait for the climate killing republicans. Seems Obama’s budget has canceled two earth science missions already…….
The “Tea Party†folks are the most disorganized group that I have seen since I participated in the Dean Campaign.
This has nothing to do with those scary “Tea Party folks.” It’s about Paul Ryan.
….and wacked part of a third…..
Justin, ok first link does not say that Sierra Nevada were paid for completion of those milestones.. it says they were awarded the funds and then completed the milestones. Which was it?
The second link says the funds were given out “last February”. Is that right?
I see the pay-for-performance buzz words in the pdf.. I’ve heard it come out of Bolden’s mouth. What I’m asking is: what does that mean?
The final link is the most revealing. SpaceX received their payouts (4 of them) for completing ground testing milestones – they actually did something. Orbital Sciences received a single $20M payment for doing a paper study? Really? And what was the study for.. a test flight of the Taurus II. Before NASA came up with this milestone was Orbital not planning to test fly the Taurus II? Really?
It smells and I don’t think you can blame me for being a bit concerned.
Look at what Sirangelo actually said, not Klamper’s poor writing. They were paid for $12 million for milestones completed at the point the article was written. By the Parabolic Arc status update, SNC had completed its milestones and was fully paid. Thus, it is not possible for NASA to have given out all of the CCDev money up front.
You’re confusing the fact that the contracts were awarded last February with meaning that the funds were given out at that time.
And, again, the additional funds for Orbital would be for an ADDITIONAL test flight of Taurus II. There was one demo flight of Taurus II and Cygnus planned. This would add a second demo flight. It explicitly says that in the Space News article, Trent.
I still don’t think your concerns are founded.
Rand Simberg wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
This has nothing to do with those scary “Tea Party folks.†It’s about Paul Ryan.
The tea party folks are really not scary they are more or less "goofy". as for Paul Ryan…we will see what he can crank up. So far he has not been all that impressive. The 12 percent or so of the budget that they are banging on is the low hanging fruit…and they are not even doing a very good job there.
In the end if Ryan is "serious" about killing off the high dollar figures of growth in budgets like NASA he has to tackle things like the HLV syndrome that is holding together the patchwork of "support" that the project has…it is the only budget item left at NASA that has any real "money savings both in real dollars" and in growth dollars…
the rest of the budget has slim pickens.
My own prediction is that in the end Ryan is going to not be able to change all that much of the budget…
Robert G. Oler
Justin, well I’m glad to hear it. Thank you.
No worries, Trent. I’m all for constructive criticism.
When America decided that Social Programs were going to be our focus the space program was doomed. We can talk about Obama’s budget and NASAs role for Muslim outreach, whatever that is supposed to be. We can also argue about the Republicans and the Tea Party, weather any of them will be affective at cutting budgets. But the one thing that cannot be argued is that spending cannot go on, like it currently is, forever. The big social programs, SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obama Care will gobble up larger and larger portions of the Federal budget. You can’t get around this issue it’s going to keep growing and growing. The part that most people miss is that Even with Rand Paul’s enormous budget cut of 500 billion it would only put a small dent in deficient spending. Any wishful thinking about manned space travel or trips to the moon and planets is right up there with Unicorns and Elves. If we don’t get our fiscal house in order there won’t be any space program. Don’t get me wrong I’m as pro manned space travel as you can get. We have to colonize space for the long term survival of our species. But none of this will happen if we don’t realize that we can’t borrow our way to prosperity. What strikes me the most about this is that well educated people seem to ignore our budgetary woes.
Regular Guy wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
When America decided that Social Programs were going to be our focus the space program was doomed. ..
the “space program” has been doomed for sometime, the two points for the current “dispair” center around both JFK doing the lunar “thing” and Nixon going ahead with the space shuttle.
Of course both are great examples of hindsight being 20/20 had I been “an adult” at both times given the circumstances of each, I would have probably supported both…but in the end they were both a dead end canyon…they allowed the notion that government central focus programs (with a tip of the hat to Rick Tumlinson) were a way to make space a place just like everywhere else in The Republic.
Of course we are all responsible for the role we play in the timeline and clearly NASA deserves a great deal of blame for taking the gift of the space shuttle and then not managing it well…
but in my view after the carnage of the last 40 or so years this is a chance to start anew to try new things and Obama’s space politics and policy in my view hit the right note. If we cannot find something of value for humans to do in space, there will never be enough excess money to do grand things in space; particularly at the price NASA ramps things up to.
Where The Republic has gone off track and badly is not in social spending but in my view the notion that Bush thelast cemented into reality…that (to quote Dick Cheney) “deficits dont matter”. The trillions spent on goffy adventures in Iraq and Afland and homeland security have not only made us “less” safe but have simply vanished into thin air with nothing to show for it.
The social safety net you mention is in my view a good thing. While some right wing dolts are happy living in a Mississippi type world with bad roads and poor services and fat people dying of various fat people problems…the reality is that we are a better nation based on the fact that we make sure that people have food when they are unemployed and health care services when they cannot afford it.
I know that the right wingers here dont feel that way…but they would if they had to use those services.
Robert G. Oler
Regular Guy wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
…and your point is? For a regular guy you sure used up a lot of characters without saying a hell of a lot.
Hi Reguar Guy. Your comments explain why NASA needs to get together and partner properly, not the old cost-plus way, with commercial companies. They will no longer have access to big program dollars so without them, there will be no NASA in LEO or BEO.
With them, they can go BEO because commercial can provide all that’s required in LEO. As an example, we have Bigelow space modules, SpaceX both cargo and quite likely crew, Boeing crew access, plus others coming along with new systems and ideas. NASA needs to tap and encourage that creativity and move back into exploration (i.e. developing the capabilies) rather than slowly fade away and becoming irrelevant in HSF.
@amightywind wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Ares I and V would have setup the exploration of the inner solar system for decades.
Surrre Windy. And how was that going to get paid for? Oh yeah, “…Reagan proved deficits don’t matter…” – Vice President Dick Cheney.
And now the GOPers who supported the neo-cons during the 2000s are crying and singing the blues about the deficit because the country has become so right-wing that a supposed Democrat is acting like a country club Republican from the 1970s is out GOPing the GOP.
Obamacare was Romneycare before last year and the media didn’t spin that into the memestream because it didn’t make money for them.
Outrageous.
Cheer up guys, with talk of five or eight dollar a gallon gas prices, the economic picture will only worsen over the next few years. The government will also have to reel in, and I dont think they will like thatat all. I do think that deficits are here to stay, and probably borrowing money from other countries. China just moved up in the economic world.
@ablastofhotair
“What has happened since then is less than impressive. You dote on childish missions by government backed entrepreneurs to a space station without a purpose. Hail the victors!”
And as you have been told over and over again, the idea is to make access to LEO cheap enough to where we can afford BEO. It’s like the old fable of the ant and the grasshopper. You (the grasshopper) want to use all the resources up right now so we end up with a starved man space operation, the rest of us (the ant) want to lay the infrastructure for bigger and better things in the near future. Our ultimate goal is to have Americans spread throughout the inner solar system and that takes some vision rather than looking for more immediate gratification.
As you’ve let slip before, what you are most concerned about is the ATK gravy train. If NASA gave ATK a contract to build SRBs and then go bury them in the desert, heck why not? After all, continuing Constellation would have been the equivalent. Either way you would get the financial benefit.
“I won’t apologize for the shortcomings of an ambitious program, abandoned by malevolent political clique, just as it was achieving visible results.”
It’s publicly stated goals were ambitious, not it’s methods. Given that fact it was that program that was malevolent, whether intentionally so or not. All done at an outrageous cost to the taxpayer. Such hypocrisy from someone who claims to be a TEA Partier. You really don’t realize why you’re the Rodney Dangerfield of this blog.
We’re allowed to worry, then?
Cheer up guys, with talk of five or eight dollar a gallon gas prices…
I likely scenario that alone could bring down Obama.
I do think that deficits are here to stay, and probably borrowing money from other countries.
You may soon see that the bond market can’t be robbed infinitely. An increase in interest rates will increase the pain of borrowing so that even a liberal will recoil. The debt bubble will pop and deficit spending will screech to a radical stop. It would be wise to act before then, but it is questionable if this country is collectively wise enough.
@ dad2059 wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 5:36 am
See you and I seem to have priorities that do not match those of the idiotic SLS first system. What they fail to understand is that we as a nation could really have every thing. Unfortunately we also have to pay special interests all the time. What about that “farm bill”? People want to cut? Really? Utter nonsense. According to some, it appears that “subsidies” are bad when they are for others, that’s all.
Idiocracy is coming fast… That and “soylent green”… Nah let’s get a big rocket to nowhere that will be really useful stuff.
Oh well…
“the idiotic SLS first system”
A Heavy Lift Vehicle is really idiotic- if we want to open up the solar system. Maybe you should start a website for Luddites.
According to some, it appears that “subsidies†are bad when they are for others, that’s all.
Yessir, I agree with you 1000% ! (If that’s possible).
Guns ‘n Butter, and who gets more than their share of butter!
My point is there are no quick fix solutions to our nations problems. It appears that for the most part politicians are self oriented egotistical, opportunist that only look at their own pockets. When will they start paying back the social security system they have borrowed from for so many decades, leaving it to now desintigrate from its own weight. Then they figure instead of paying it back lets change it so no one will live long enough to retire or collect it, while their retirement allowances continue to grow. I had some kids approach me one day and we got talking about retirement. They said they wouldnt get to retire until they were 80! It is no wonder our governments finances are in such dire straights, with money being so easily available to them and their control. It should end, but I fear it will never change. We probably will go to Mars someday, but will pay for it with a credit card!
“if we want to open up the solar system.”
If we want to and whether NASA should do it are two separate issues.
Also, an HLV is not required to do it and repeatedly saying it is does not make it true.
@VirgilSamms wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
“A Heavy Lift Vehicle is really idiotic- if we want to open up the solar system. Maybe you should start a website for Luddites.”
You know VirgilSamms you really, I mean really, do not know what you are talking about. What’s new might you ask? Well Constellation charter was to use existing and past technologies: Shuttle derived and Apollo (sub)systems which are 40 to 60 years old.
Now I may be a Luddite but how do you call yourself? Enlightened?
Oh well…
I come here everyday to see what progress is being made, but the years of drift is wearing thin….. It is hard to even be excited anymore….. I can’t even pick out a point in the future where things start to look up for NASA. I am looking forward to the lunar prize stuff though, that might spark someones imagination.
“Also, an HLV is not required to do it and repeatedly saying it is does not make it true.”
An HLV is required and saying it is not does not make me liar.
@Scott Bass wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
I come here everyday to see what progress is being made, but the years of drift is wearing thin….. It is hard to even be excited anymore…”
The Cold War ended 20 years ago this Christmas. And with it, the last valid piece of rationale for keeping the luxuriy of a civilian space agency. ‘Drift’ to you may be ‘vigilance’ under the veil of national security to the space operations of the DoD. NASA’s future, if not its survival through the Age of Austerity, rests with becoming a ‘wholly owned subsidiary’ of the DoD.
Guys I would love nothing more than to see the star ship Enterprise zipping through the cosmos. But we’ve been asleep at the wheel for so long, 30 plus years, that the politicians have promised the moon while picking our pockets. I think Dennis Berube is spot on with “We probably will go to Mars someday, but will pay for it with a credit card!†The problem is where will the card come from? We have to spend our money wisely. Look at all the money spends on H2 Fusion research since 1953 $22.4 billion for a system that will probably never be more than a scientific curiosity. When the fusion experts are asked, when will we see a payoff for our investment, they say 50 years. Well that was said 50 years ago and probably will be said 50 years from now. I’m not saying that this is allot of money over time but why invest in something that may only be feasible in the lab or the center of a star. H3 has already been demonstrated feasible with a small scale working unit. We could direct future energy funding to return to the moon for Helium 3. If we could make space travel profitable, Helium3/energy, then the race would be on. If we cannot find a way to make space make money then we will go the route of ESA. They do some great science but they probably will never have a manned space program.
This is your wishful thinking. No semblance to reality. When will you tire of it? Bit like ‘SpaceX has flown nobody’ adage but at least that has a factual basis.
“An HLV is required and saying it is not does not make me liar.”
Yes it does
“NASA’s future, if not its survival through the Age of Austerity, rests with becoming a ‘wholly owned subsidiary’ of the DoD.’
nothing could be more far from the truth. In fact, it is so far away from the truth, it is a lie.
An HLV is required and saying it is not does not make me liar.
“Yes it does”
Does not.
An HLV is required and saying it is not does not make me liar.
No, you probably believe it. It does make you an ignorant fool, though.
It doesn’t make you a liar but it does say you are not doing your DD.
How about, as a mental exercise, you start with the idea that there is no such thing as a heavy lift. All the tools you have in your tool kit are what we are already using on the ground.
How would you drive tax policy and spending policy, as it relates to space, to achieve your goals with the tools you have.
I believe you would find a spiral development that takes you farther out in space can be started today with the need for heavy launch. In the future, once we have incorporated cis lunar space into our economy, heavy lift will naturally evolve or not, but market forces would determine it.