Congress, NASA

More details about Senate’s proposed FY11 CR for NASA

The Senate Appropriations Committee has released the full text of its proposed full-year continuing resolution (CR) for 2011, one that funds NASA at just over $18.5 billion. The table below compares the Senate’s proposal with what the House passed last month (amounts in millions of dollars, subject to rounding and other errors):

Account 2011 House CR (passed) 2011 Senate CR
Space Operations $5,946.8 $5,741.8
Exploration $3,746.3 $3,746.3
Science $4,469.0 $4,819.0
Aeronautics $501.0 $501.0
Education $182.5 $182.5
Construction $408.3 $397.3
Cross-Agency Support $2,833.0 $3,111.4
Inspector General $36.4 $36.4
TOTAL $18,123.3 $18,535.7

The Senate CR explicitly states that in the Exploration account, $1.2 billion will go to the “Orion multipurpose crew vehicle”, while $1.8 billion would go to the heavy-lift launch vehicle, specifying a minimum payload capability of 130 tons. The Senate CR also includes language rescinding the prohibition on terminating any elements of Constellation.

20 comments to More details about Senate’s proposed FY11 CR for NASA

  • amightywind

    The bloated space operations budget is a disappointment. It is a crushing tax on NASA’s worthwhile activities. They are starving Orion and SLV at $3 billion.

    My guess is Constellation will be saved in conference.

  • CharlesHouston

    Almost certainly, the heavy-lift launch vehicle is a way to give MSFC a gentle let down, as the employees transition to the commercial launcher business. The chance of any heavy lift launcher being developed in minimal, especially since there are few missions for it. Over the next couple of years, MSFC is going to be searching for a direction.
    Now, do not think that I am a MSFC opponent! They have done tremendous work and have a very talented workforce. But the future of heavy lift is perilous. They all need a life boat; ULA is in the life boat business.

  • Egad

    > “The chance of any heavy lift launcher being developed in minimal, especially since there are few missions for it.”

    If I might amend that slightly: “The chance of any heavy lift launcher being developed is minimal, especially since there are few missions proposed for it and none of those show any sign of being funded.”

  • My guessderanged fantasy is Constellation will be saved in conference.

    FTFY.

  • E.P. Grondine

    ATK and the Utah delegation have their 5 segs, and their medium heavy.

    Now they have to sell them to enough of the legislators.

    They’ll choose their battlefield carefully.

  • common sense

    Yes as I have always predicted. A zombie Ares and now a zombie Orion to help the workforce transition. I would hope they’d be less hypocritical and urge NASA to find a new direction for its workforce rather than let inertia takes care of it. Then again it requires imagination and courage, are these two in Congress? You judge.

    A ray of hope though: “The Senate CR also includes language rescinding the prohibition on terminating any elements of Constellation.” Slowly coming to their senses, maybe… Or the intent has been fulfilled already Sen. Shelby?

  • Jeff, where and what in this is the dollar amount for COTS/CCDev?

    Thanks in advance.

    Stephen

  • VirgilSamms

    Liberty and the sidemount cargo version is the corrected and affordable version of constellation. That is the way to go. The water on the moon and nuclear energy is waiting to take us into the solar system. The cheaper is better rockets are not up to it. CAPS is the mission and source of funding.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Virgil, your most recent post demonstrate the characteristics of most of Congress – lack of anything remotely resembling thought. You could start with the syntax in your posts.

  • Byeman

    NASA is not funding Liberty.
    NASA is not funding sidemount.

    Logic would say the rest of what Gary Church posts is just as wrong.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    CAPS is the mission and source of funding.

    Which means the budget for launchers is zero, so good luck with that.

    Let’s hope ATK is not depending on CAPS to be the bulk of their Liberty business – but I think they are way smarter than that, although who will be their customers (and why) is still a mystery. Any guesses?

  • Orion and SLV are the subject of $3 billion in spending and the dedicated work of many capable people. Unfortunately I must question whether their strategic goal, or that of Constellation in any form, is one that is either achievable or sufficiently valuable to warrant their cost. The sidemount concept would be logical if the Shuttle were still flying and could share the same infrastructure, but the Shuttle was dealt a mortal blow five years ago for reasons that remain in dispute.Preserving the Shuttle infrastructure for the few launches an SDLV might carry would be extraordinarily expensive, probably over $1 billion per launch if development is included.

    NASA can do many things; some are of practical value to science, industry, society, and our environment, even to advancing space tourism as an industry.

    We are trying to make a case for a very small amount of funding from within or outside NASA, about 1/30,000th of the proposed Orion/SDLV budget, to use a piece of space hardware to find the cause of Alzheimer’s disease. It is a challenge, because we are outside the traditional mission, but that’s the way R&D works; you must be willing to follow opportunities where they lead. NASA climate research is just as critical in saving lives, yet we have forces in Congress that want to eliminate it, ostensibly to transfer the money to human spaceflight.

    I think we must reduce the cost of human spaceflight, and support many practical initiatives in aeronautics, flight safety, climate and environment, space tourism, and many other fields. Some forms of science such as astronomy and planetology are largely of philosophical interest, yet they are informative science and much less expensive than human exploration, But dollars are precious, For every on NASA spends we must consider all the alternatives.

  • Jeff Foust

    where and what in this is the dollar amount for COTS/CCDev?

    CCDev would fall under Exploration; how to allocate the funding for the various programs within Exploration and other accounts is left up to NASA, with the exception of the specified amounts in the legislation for MPCV (Orion) and SLS.

  • Dennis Berube

    I still think those hot 5 seg. boosters will fly, on something! Light them up baby…

  • Martijn Meijering

    I still think those hot 5 seg. boosters will fly, on something! Light them up baby…

    You seem to have an unhealthy fixation with those 5 seg boosters even though you do not appear to possess any expertise that would allow you to judge whether they were in fact “hot”.

  • The House restriction on cooperation with China is not in the Senate bill.

  • Dennis Berube

    Just watch those 5 segments light up and you know the’re hot! That takes little expertise. All as Im saying is that they still could end up on either side of the HLV. Dont get me wrong either, if instead NASA wanted a Delta to launch Orion, that is great too. However it seems that our government is pushing the HLV, so it will probably get built, unless something changes soon!

  • common sense

    @ D. Messier wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    “The House restriction on cooperation with China is not in the Senate bill.”

    Did not realize that. Thanks. Good news, not that we will engage in outright collaboration but at least there is no stupid language barring any.

  • vulture

    Astounding that “exploration” and space ops get about 15 times as much as gets ten times the funding of aeronautics, even though a billion people fly in the air for every one that flies in space. I cannot use NASA technology to find the cause of a deadly disease unless I can create a myth that the work can only be done is space, or is essential for sending a few people to the moon. NASA’s priorities make no sense. I have yet to hear a single practical benefit from the billions NASA is spending on Constellation, Ares, Orion, and shuttle-derived launch vehicles.

    As to cooperation with China, it would at least build international trust and help to reduce the potential for a new cold war, which we certainly cannot afford.

  • common sense

    @ vulture wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    “As to cooperation with China, it would at least build international trust and help to reduce the potential for a new cold war, which we certainly cannot afford.”

    Which is not what Congress wants. They would love to have yet another enemy. It makes great front pages and the likes of Fox News really happy. Don’t get me wrong the war rumbling back in 2003 was every where, even in the so called leftist media. I just hope China will not play the (stupid) game. They don’t need it. The problem these people don’t (seem to) understand is that when you must show you are the strongest it usually means that you are not and feel insecure about it. Kind of similar to having a very big rocket on the pad if you see what I mean…

    Oh well…

Leave a Reply to vulture 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>