Congress, NASA

Details about the House’s proposed NASA budget

In advance of this morning’s markup by the full House Appropriations Committee of its Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill, the committee released yesterday its report about the bill, which includes some additional funding details and other items about the bill. Some highlights:

  • On perhaps the bill’s biggest issue, the proposed termination of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) program, the committee effectively states that this move is designed to serve as an example, and warning, that cost overruns on NASA programs in general will not be tolerated in the future. “The Committee believes that this step will ultimately benefit NASA by setting a cost discipline example for other projects and by relieving the enormous pressure that JWST was placing on NASA’s ability to pursue other science missions.”
  • The bill includes $4 million to carry out “descoping studies” for the two highest-ranked planetary science missions in the recent decadal survey, a Mars rover that would cache samples for a future sample return mission and Europa orbiter, moves that are essential to make those missions affordable given projected budgets.
  • The bill includes $10 million for NASA to restart production of plutonium-238 needed for radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) for future planetary missions. But since that work must be done in cooperation with the Department of Energy, which did not get corresponding funding in its House appropriations bill, this could be a moot point.
  • For Space Technology, the committee justifies its more than 60 percent cut from the administration’s proposal by saying that the proposed growth in this area is “premature”, citing the ongoing technology roadmap studies and lack of “a sustainable budgetary plan for absorbing a new program of such significant size without causing damage to other necessary activities.”
  • The bill funds the Space Launch System at $1.985 billion, a little more than the administration’s request but below the authorized level of $2.65 billion. The committee makes clear that the ultimate goal of the SLS is a vehicle that can place 130 tons into orbit, and that any development of a smaller vehicle (in the range of 70-100 tons, as described in the authorization act) must be on the path to that larger SLS. “NASA should not expend funds on design or development of a smaller vehicle that does not add value to the overall SLS effort.”
  • The committee also asks NASA to develop a “destination-based approach” to its exploration plans “that would designate a specific target location, such as the Moon, to drive development decisions and timelines going forward.” It’s not clear how this would be different from the president’s stated goals of a human mission to a near Earth asteroid by 2025 and Mars orbit by the 2030s. (No specific asteroid has been identified yet, of course, and it’s even possible that the specific destination hasn’t even been discovered yet.)
  • The bill provides $312 million for commercial crew, the same as last year. The committee finds that the administration’s proposal for $850 million is, like that space technology proposal, “premature”, citing a lack of an acquisition strategy for next round of its Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. The committee also recommends NASA make use of unfunded Space Act Agreements for the next CCDev round, in addition to funded awards, “to maximize the number of commercial partners who stay engaged with the program and remain in contention for an eventual service contract.”
  • The committee, stating its frustration with “the uncertainty of leadership within the Administration on space policy and the resulting lack of focus within NASA itself,” has included $1 million for the Office of the Inspector General to perform “a comprehensive independent assessment of NASA’s strategic direction and agency management,” due 120 days after enactment of the appropriations bill.
  • The appropriations bill would also remove restrictions that have kept NASA from carrying out layoffs of its workforce.

85 comments to Details about the House’s proposed NASA budget

  • MrEarl

    All things considered, from just what I read in Jeff’s piece, this is a well reasoned initial markup.
    As many thought, the cancelation of the Web Telescope is an example and warning to projects that cost overruns are no longer tolerated. It also gives hope that a restructured management team that has the trust of congress may get some funding returned.

    The bullet point asking NASA to develop a “destination based approach” to its exploration plans and “that would designate a specific target location, such as the Moon, to drive development decisions and timelines going forward” to me is just common sense. No project, large or small, can be effective without clearly defined goals and timelines. While Jeff and many on this site see that in the administration’s musings, I think most people see just a list of places that would be nice to visit but no real plan to get there.
    I think the next to last bullet point is the most telling. It is a repudiation of Bolden, Holdren, Garver and company. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the OIG’s assessment, if it survives, and how the committee will use, what I believe will be, a very negative assessment of NASA leadership under this administration.

  • amightywind

    I can’t recall such a refudiation of NASA’s leadership. I eagerly await the results of the Inspector General investigation and only hope that person isn’t a member of Obama’s cabal.

    BTW, the smoke has hardly cleared from Atlantis’s launch and the SpaceX propaganda machine is working full speed. They do everything but launch rockets, it seems.

    http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/195703-post-shuttle-era-spacex-shows-off-lc-40.htm

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vandenberg-launchsite-20110713,0,798014.story

  • GeeSpace

    There are many good and valid ways to control the cost or cpst overun of the Webb Space Telescope/ Termination is probably the most extreme option and perhaps not the best option.

  • Aremis Asling

    “BTW, the smoke has hardly cleared from Atlantis’s launch and the SpaceX propaganda machine is working full speed.”

    While the Canaveral exposition was likely a bit of well-timed hype, the Vandenburg groundbreaking is pretty much critical to Falcon Heavy operations and has been an even planned well before Heavy was publicly announced and scheduled shortly thereafter.

    “They do everything but launch rockets, it seems.”

    Absolutely correct. Except for the times when they launched rockets. Oh and that time they brought the first commercially built capsule safely back down to Earth nearly flawlessly. But aside from those, yup, they don’t launch rockets.

  • VirgilSamms

    “It is a repudiation of Bolden, Holdren, Garver and company.”

    Someone is not taking money from Musk I guess.

    “the SpaceX propaganda machine is working full speed. They do everything but launch rockets, it seems.”

    I agree. I hate agreeing with you. But sometimes you are right.
    Propaganda is the perfect description. Look up the definition.

  • Bennett

    “The appropriations bill would also remove restrictions that have kept NASA from carrying out layoffs of its workforce. “

    Starting with the current and past managers of the James Webb Space Telescope.

  • John Malkin

    @amightywind wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 11:23 am

    But how much of the $30 million is tax payer? This is the kind of job creation the GOP support. Give millionaires more money and they will create jobs.

    Can you list the people you would like on the committee?

  • BRC

    “Propaganda machine?” Nothing at all wrong with that; especially with SpaceX actually bending metal and even lofting some into space (and getting it back!). Plus consider that the main-stream media and their “consultants” are wailing doom-propaganda: On how without the shuttle, all hope is lost for Americans-in-space. On how we’re doomed to fly on Soviet era Soyuzes… unless we dump some serious tonnage of cash into a “Invented-exclusively-here-in-NASA” system—- that would optimistically see a capsule in orbit a couple of years after the ISS has already become an artificial reef.

    Sure, SpaceX has launched several times, and sure there were mishaps — but that’s part of doing new-rocket business. Even the old Atlas had over a dozen spectacular failures before its first successful launch. Or perhaps back then, you’d be saying that the builder Convair should have been successful from the very start; since all they were doing was climbing on the backs giants like Goddard, Oberth, all those nice German guys, and of course those “superior” Soviet rocket scientists, who knew how to get-it-up. Maybe rather than try, Convair should have just given up and stuck to building aircraft.

    Speaking of aircraft, let’s toss this comment back 108 years. It’d be like you’re exclaiming:
    “What nerve of those silly bicycle shop amateurs, trying to one-up the US Government’s best scientific experts. Those Wright Brothers are just a pair of publicity-seeking con-men. If they were for real, they’d be already flying the very first time, and not waste it all on these so-called ‘tests’ — it’s all just propaganda to get money. If Government’s greatest intellectual giants, like Prof Langley, and his mega-buck backing by the Smithsonian, couldn’t get their “better” design to work, it must mean that man will never fly (until the Government finally figures it out in… oh… another 20-30 years). It’ll NEVER Fly, Wilbur! Don’t waste our time and money! Just give up, relax and watch those silly French guys, or even that crackpot Dumont, make fools of themselves.”

  • Rhyolite

    Space technology and CCDev are “premature” but go ahead and dump $2 billion or so on a missionless power point rocket.

  • vulture4

    I hate to say this. i don’t work for SpaceX. Probably I never will. But right now, NASA is eating SpaceX’s dust. They are showing us how it should be done. And if they flter, there are four other CCDev companies snapping at their heels.

    I am astounded at the whining and sour grapes from NASA. NASA had the most experienced workforce in the world in maintaining reusable spacecraft at KSC. They have an average of 15 years of work in actually putting their hands on the Shuttle and keeping it flying safely. There isn’t one of them who could not spend an hour telling you how their systems could be made more reliable and less expensive in a new generation of RLV. But they are all being fired, and they aren’t even being asked for their insights. NASA had an evolutionary derivative of the Shuttle in the X-37, but it was abandoned. We have laid off almost everyone with real, hands-on experience.

    We’ve poured tens of billions into Constellation, which would produce no practical benefits even if it succeeded in its clamed objectives, which is based on expensive and obsolete hardware. Most of the people I know do not even bother to read about why we went to the moon, and why the same strategy is not appropriate today.

    Many of my friends think Obama and SpaceX are somehow to blame for all their problems. They need to look in the mirror.

  • ok then

    I love that Congress can not only design rockets, they can cost them and mandate a time frame. It’s amazing that such talented lawyers and political science majors have the time to do that kind of math. Kudos!

  • Martijn Meijering

    There isn’t one of them who could not spend an hour telling you how their systems could be made more reliable and less expensive in a new generation of RLV.

    Then it is unlikely their knowledge will not be tapped by the CCDev participants. You may need only a fraction of the individuals, but the knowledge – to the degree it is useful – will not be lost.

  • amightywind

    It’ll NEVER Fly, Wilbur!

    Orville and Wilbur never asked for $800 million. It is not too much to ask for private capital to fund a private space venture. The fact that it doesn’t should tell you something.

    Oh and that time they brought the first commercially built capsule safely back down to Earth nearly flawlessly. But aside from those, yup, they don’t launch rockets.

    So flawlessly there has been a launch hiatus of 8 months and counting. Now that SpaceX is teh spacfe program, what have they done for us lately? Our only hope for the future as a failure that forces abandonment of ISS. It is the only way to free the needed funds from the ISS special interests that have strangled the space program.

    Can you list the people you would like on the committee?

    I wouldn’t appoint a committee. I would appoint a strong NASA Administrator who could sell an HSF vision to congress, and stick it to the bloated science programs, like Mike Leinbach.

    I agree. I hate agreeing with you. But sometimes you are right.

    I am here to drag you all kicking and screaming to the light of truth!

  • The House would punish SCIENCE?

    That is most definitely a GOP policy plank.

  • Vladislaw

    VirgilSamms wrote:

    “Someone is not taking money from Musk I guess”

    SpaceX gives out peanuts compared to the lobbying efforts of ATK, Boeing and Lockheed. Why don’t you talk about the congressional members who are taking all that lobbying money from those three?

    You are laughable when you try to use that as an arguement when the usual suspects give millions and millions to get their non competitive cost plus contracts.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 11:23 am
    “I can’t recall such a refudiation of NASA’s leadership.”

    Maybe you should revisit the hearings and reports assosicated with the Apollo fire in 1967; the Rogers Commision report; hearings on the Hubble mess and the CAIB report.

  • Jim Hillhouse

    I would also like the so-called “commercial” space companies to either recognize that they are sucking off the gov’t tete or reterm themselves as public-private endeavors. There is nothing commercial about CCDev, nor the extra $300 million that NASA had to give to SpaceX and Orbital last year to keep them afloat under the guise of added “…milestones aimed at reducing remaining developmental and schedule risks”. (GAO-11-629T, p. 7-8).

    I think the chances of the CCDev’s $312 million making it through the Senate are chancy given Mikulski’s need to fund JWST without increasing NASA’s budget. I’d love to see a budget increase–I just don’t think its going to happen until after the 2012 elections.

    Love the fact that NASA has to pay out of its own Cross Agency budget to investigate NASA’s leadership. Hilarious. And a first for NASA. Congrads to NASA’s leadership.

  • VirgilSamms

    “You are laughable when you try to use that as an arguement”

    I have had so many subtle and not so subtle insults thrown at me on this site that yours is making me laugh.

    The NASA leadership is pushing CCdev and the President has pocketed quite a bit of money for his campaign from Musk and doubtless alot more to come for his reelection. I am going to vote for him even though he is messing up our space program.

    It is a scam that will be revealed down the road when it is too late. Those NASA tax dollars for the heavy lift infrastructure diverted in another direction. The people who are fanatically supporting private space are destroying the future of space exploration. It is as simple as that.

    And me getting dogpiled with long condescending and totally inaccurate posts does not change that truth.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
    “I am here to drag you all kicking and screaming to the light of truth!”
    Hmmm. That light might very well be the glowing underside of the last orbiter coming at you down the runway. Per conservative opiniator Charles Krauthammer last week to his Fox News viewers: “The manned space program is dead.”

  • Vladislaw

    amightywind wrote:

    “Orville and Wilbur never asked for $800 million. It is not too much to ask for private capital to fund a private space venture. The fact that it doesn’t should tell you something.

    Oh and that time they brought the first commercially built capsule safely back down to Earth nearly flawlessly. But aside from those, yup, they don’t launch rockets.

    So flawlessly there has been a launch hiatus of 8 months and counting”

    Gosh windy, you should read history a little bit more.

    The Wright brothers made no flights at all in 1906 and 1907 while they pursued fitful negotiations with the U.S. and European governments. While grounded they experimented with a pontoon and engine setup on the Miami River in hopes of flying their airplane from the water. These experiments proved unsuccessful. In May 1906 they were finally granted a patent for their flying machine. In 1907 the brothers journeyed to Europe for the first time for face-to-face talks with government bureaucrats and businessmen. Orville joined his brother two months after Wilbur’s departure, but first packed a new Model A Flyer in a crate which was shipped to France and left in storage at Le Havre in anticipation of demonstration flights. In early 1908 the Wrights finally signed contracts with a French company and the U.S. Army.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers

    So they didn’t fly for two years because of ….. wait for it… They were looking for GOVERNMENT FUNDING… lol

  • I am going to vote for him even though he is messing up our space program.

    And I am going to vote against him even though the space policy is about the only thing he’s doing sort of right.

  • VirgilSamms

    “the space policy is about the only thing he’s doing sort of right.”

    Do you really think private space is going to do anything even comparable to what governmental resources can accomplish Rand?

    The SpaceX hobby rocket is a joke. The hype has everyone fooled except the people who anything about Rockets- or those part of the con.

    The shuttle derived HLV is the only way we are going to get anywhere besides LEO. I suspect that is the only place any of the private space fans want to go.

    The space station vacation fantasy is the worst thing that has ever happened to space exploration.

  • Coastal Ron

    Jim Hillhouse wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    I would also like the so-called “commercial” space companies to either recognize that they are sucking off the gov’t tete or reterm themselves as public-private endeavors.

    What planet do you live on?

    Companies that sell products on the commercial market call themselves commercial companies. Companies that are contractors for the government call themselves government contractors. And companies that do both can call themselves whatever they want, depending on what the conversation is. Does it matter? Or are you just having a hard time keeping up with current events?

    And let me see if I have this right.

    Public-Private Partnerships, in which the participating companies have to risk their own money along with NASA, are bad? Keep in mind also that these companies have no guarantee that NASA will ever buy their products, so their money is at risk from day one.

    But NASA Cost-Plus Contractors, who don’t have a stake in keeping costs down, are good? They are not “sucking off the gov’t tete” as you so eloquently put it?

    I sure hope you’re not responsible for spending any taxpayer money…

  • vulture4 wrote:

    Many of my friends think Obama and SpaceX are somehow to blame for all their problems. They need to look in the mirror.

    The other day I was lecturing to a group of tourists and said that the retirement of the Shuttle program had been planned for many years, since 2004.

    One of the tourists approached me and asked how could this be, because people in Titusville were telling him that Obama had cancelled the space program. Why were they saying this, he asked.

    I was diplomatic and said I could only tell him the facts, and that the people in Titusville would have to answer to him for what they said. Of course, the answer in my mind was far more, um, colorful.

    Doesn’t matter. Those people had seven years’ warning this day was coming and failed to plan for it. They didn’t, so now they’re dinosaurs.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Doesn’t matter. Those people had seven years’ warning this day was coming and failed to plan for it. They didn’t, so now they’re dinosaurs.”

    Where are they supposed to go? To work for Musk on his hobby rocket? He hasn’t launched anything in 8 months so he is not boosting the economy- just his profits by sucking up more CCdev money with nothing to show for it.
    Those space workers are getting retrained to work at McDonalds.

    They are people, not dinosaurs you idiot.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jim Hillhouse wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    I would also like the so-called “commercial” space companies to either recognize that they are sucking off the gov’t tete or reterm themselves as public-private endeavors.”

    you and Whittington and Wind and other supporters of big government NASA programs keep saying that, but other then to keep repeating a flawd assertion; it doesnt make it true…or even valid.

    Assume that it accurate what you are saying…then how would you describe the companies that were building Cx components and sucked 12-15 billion down the trough and got nothing?

    Until you can even try and answer that question you are turning out to be someone who cannot be taken as more then a “arch conservative” shill…and there are a lot of those going around so that doesnt make you unique RGO

  • vulture4

    V4: There isn’t one of them who could not spend an hour telling you how their systems could be made more reliable and less expensive in a new generation of RLV.

    MM: Then it is unlikely their knowledge will not be tapped by the CCDev participants. You may need only a fraction of the individuals, but the knowledge – to the degree it is useful – will not be lost.

    V4: Hopefully some will, but the vast majority must move on with their lives. There are almost no local jobs. I recently spoke to a young woman who had worked directly on orbiter systems for 15 years, from crawling through the passages in the orbiter to supervising as an engineer. She was planning to learn sign language and teach disabled children. It’s that dramatic. People are walking out the door with no chance at all to stay in the program or even the area. As the CCDev craft currently are under the gun to get crew to ISS ASAP, and thus are essentially throwaway capsules launched on ELVs, and NASA has no official interest in RLVs, it could be years before we understand what we are losing.

  • To be fair, retiring the Shuttle and “ending the space program” are two different things in many minds. One can recognize that Obama didn’t cancel Shuttle and still blame him for canceling Constellation, fantasizing that the latter was “the space program.”

  • reader

    cost overruns on NASA programs in general will not be tolerated in the future.

    Good ! NASA should take note, if they don’t want a particular pork program be foisted on them by ladies and gentlemen of the the honorable congressional rocket design committee, they should just let the program overrun a little. It should get cancelled then. Right ? Right ??!

  • NASA Fan

    Cancelling JWST does nothing to relieve pressure on other science missions. In fact it will have the opposite impact. NASA managers, fearing cancellation, will just double the price tag for future science missions, ensuring that they will never over run and then get axed by Congress. The impact of that, given Space Science monies will not be increased, means a decrease in the # of science missions, not an increase.

    And Congress did not plus up the rest of Space Science budget, so again, no ‘pressure relief’.

    Congress is, and always will be a bunch of children in old people bodies.

    Also, while Jeff’s post doesn’t say so, NASA RIF’s are back in play. Something not unexpected given the beginning of the end of NASA HSF and Space Science.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110713-bolden-says-sls-decision-might-slip-beyond-summer.html

    Time continues to move on and meanwhile SpaceX and possibly Orbital will be flying real hardware with real missions in sight.

  • nom de plume

    @Steven C. Smith
    Dinosaurs? Actually I think a lot of them are Republicans that watch Fox, listen to Rush, and follow certain blogs & trolls, which may explain why they are misinformed.

    Back to the topic — thanks, Jeff, for the summary. After I read it, I went to the web site and read the bill. Although this version will likely see puts and takes from several factions before reaching final form, I don’t imagine it will change much in dollars or direction, though the JWST impact would be huge either way it goes. I thought it proposes that JWST will not be funded in FY12. Is that the same as an out-right termination? Could it be “de-scoped” or reduced in scope and still send the same message that Congress wants to send to all federal agencies: billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule will not be tolerated.

  • gss_000

    So by this reasoning, when are they going to cancel the F-35 and other over budget and delayed military projects? The Defense Department would need to learn the same lesson.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
    ” Per conservative opiniator Charles Krauthammer last week to his Fox News viewers: “The manned space program is dead.””

    Charles has been correct about little in a long time. He is a pretty solid right wing ideologue who longs for the good old days when the red scare kept us all focused on our purity of essence…

    LOL RGO

  • SpaceColonizer

    I have a hard time wrapping my head around this idea that canceling JWST is going to send some kind of message and that is somehow a proper motivation for doing so.

    Let’s not forget that we just cancelled the Constellation program because it was absurdly over budget and behind schedule and somehow some of the same jerks who botched that are getting contracts for the Senate Launch System.

    I guess cancelling a bloated program that at least has a mission and replacing it with a train wreck that doesn’t is a pretty popular strategy so why not replace JWST with a telescope that will cost just as much but we send it up without mirrors… budget for the mirrors TBD at some unspecified point inf the future.

  • Bob Mahoney

    @ Stephen C. Smith: They didn’t, so now they’re dinosaurs.

    But dinosaurs are doing fine all around us: those two-legged winged vertebrates with the feathers, you know.

    Time to get another metaphor.

  • Terence Clark

    “The NASA leadership is pushing CCdev and the President has pocketed quite a bit of money for his campaign from Musk and doubtless alot more to come for his reelection.”

    Musk and SpaceX together have spent less than $200,000 total in campaign contributions over their entire history, the majority being spent by Musk himself. Of the $136,000 Musk has spent on individual candidates, $2300 went to Obama, $2300 went to Hillary Clinton, $2000 went to GW Bush (2004) and $2000 went to Kerry (2004). His donations to committees have been considerably larger, but that doesn’t support your claim either in that more money has gone to republican groups than democratic groups. Musk donated $123,000 to the Republican Congressional Committee. That’s in comparison to $79,600 total between all national-level democratic organizations.

    Last year boeing donated 15,000 to John Boehner alone. That’s 1/4 of SpaceX’s total corporate donations to all candidates over it’s 8 year history (SpaceX has spent roughly 60,000 as a company aside from Musk’s individual contributions). Boeing contributed $118,000 to members of congress last year. That’s, again, over half of the combined contributions of Musk and SpaceX over the past 8 years.

    SpaceX/Musk are small ball compared to the big guys. Musk’s total contribution to Obama is smaller than my monthly paycheck. Obama makes more in a few hours as president and raises more campaign funds in seconds than Musk’s contribution. Musk’s financial influence on the president is negligible.

    Source: Center for Responsive Politics http://www.opensecrets.org

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
    LOL well it was his usual opening and obvious dig at Obama but given his demeanor and rigid delivery, he’s more akin to Dr. Strangelove than General Jack. D. Ripper. Thing of it is, the down market and to the right crowd, aka Fox viewers, lap him up. THe only duller tool in their kit is Jonah ‘eat a salad’ Goldberg.

  • Bob Mahoney wrote:

    But dinosaurs are doing fine all around us: those two-legged winged vertebrates with the feathers, you know.

    Well, that’s just it. Those who evolved survived. A lot of people here in the Space Coast have been in denial for seven years. Perhaps some assumed Constellation would save their highly-paid union jobs, but studies have shown that Constellation would have saved only about 1,000 jobs for many years. So there still would have been at least 6,000 people who would have lost their jobs.

    At the height of Apollo, there were 46,000 jobs linked to that program. 23,000 of those jobs were lost at the end of Apollo. Brevard County was much smaller then in population than it is today. We’re losing about 7,500 jobs from Shuttle. It was nine years before Shuttle started flying; sure, we had Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz but those were not full-blown programs hiring a lot of people.

    So what’s happening now pales in comparison to what happened in the 1970s. And so far as I can tell, there was no effort to save or replace those 23,000 lost jobs, much less an attitude that the government owed them a job.

    Let’s not forget that in April 2010 Obama directed the creation of a Task Force on Space Industry Workforce and Economic Development. Its objective was to create “an interagency action plan to facilitate economic development strategies and plans along the Space Coast and to provide training and other opportunities for affected aerospace workers so they are equipped to contribute to new developments in America’s space program and related industries.”

    The report was issued on August 15, 2010. The U.S. Commerce Department’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) issued a request for applications from entities interested in funding to create jobs in the Space Coast.

    The proposal awaited $40 million in funding from Congress, but it never came. Florida Today on May 1 concluded that Congress failed to fund the program out of “neglect and fallout from political brinkmanship.”

    Neither local Congresscritter lifted a finger to save the program. In fact, Posey said he wouldn’t try to save it unless Obama personally asked him! Adams remained silent on the matter, although she keeps issuing press releases claiming China and India have surpassed us in space technology.

    We live in a capitalist society. No one owes you a job. Your job is not guaranteed. Evolve or perish. It’s ironic that many of those who are screaming for Obama to save their government jobs are the same ones who screamed “Socialist!!” when he proposed the stimulus program.

  • Dennis Berube

    If Mr. Musk can prove his Falcon Heavy, and at the price he has indicated, I think at that point he will be in a position to direct some space policy. I hope he can do it, but it remains to be seen. Sadly it looks like the James Webb wll fall by the way. However much science is ahead from the up and coming Mars Science Lab…. Cant wait..

  • amightywind

    It’s ironic that many of those who are screaming for Obama to save their government jobs are the same ones who screamed “Socialist!!” when he proposed the stimulus program.

    It would be a compelling argument if Obama had not increased government employment by 20% since the start of his term. Instead of Space Coast workers the republic is crawling with HHS and IRS nanny state bureaucrats. The time is now to cut up this madman’s credit card, consequences be damned!

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 7:17 am

    If Mr. Musk can prove his Falcon Heavy, and at the price he has indicated, I think at that point he will be in a position to direct some space policy.

    He’s not building the Falcon Heavy so he can direct space policy, he’s building it so people can get lots of mass into space without breaking the taxpayers pocketbook. If that ability influences policy (not direct), then so be it, but it’s not part of the business plan.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    He [Musk/SpaceX] hasn’t launched anything in 8 months so he is not boosting the economy…

    Sigh. Another financial newbie to deal with. You and DCSCA should take Accounting 101 classes together.

    SpaceX gets revenue when it launches, but it has been spending money far before that. How do you think rockets are made, that they just show up on the launchpad magically?

    Each rocket probably takes at least a year of work and testing before it’s ready to fly, and then some amount of time at the launch facility going through checkout before launch. Parts and materials are purchased, components are fabricated, expenses are incurred, employees are paid, and in general SpaceX is doing all the things every other company does to spend money well in advance of getting paid from their customer.

    All of that employs people and boosts the economy, regardless when they launch.

  • Coastal Ron

    vulture4 wrote @ July 13th, 2011 at 6:33 pm

    As the CCDev craft currently are under the gun to get crew to ISS ASAP, and thus are essentially throwaway capsules launched on ELVs

    You have that backwards. The spacecraft are planned to be reusable, but the launch vehicles are at this point disposable.

    it could be years before we understand what we are losing [i.e. retiring Shuttle].

    Only if a need comes up that requires all of the Shuttle unique capabilities. But that may never happen, and other than doing all the unique functions in one vehicle, we have the ability to do all of the functions in multiple vehicles.

    If you’re proposing spending $200M/month for insurance against the unknown, I don’t think you’ll find many takers.

  • John Malkin

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 7:17 am

    Sadly it looks like the James Webb wll fall by the way.

    It’s very unfortunately. NASA needs to understand that setting expectation and staying within those expectations is the most important part of management. When programs go over budget it makes Congress look bad and the program becomes a high stick. You never want a problem to become your boss’s problem and Congress is NASA’s boss. Of course any changes made in the last couple of years would take time to prove if they made a difference.

    It is like magic when Congress finds lots of money to fund things it really cares about but when it comes to NASA, they can never find that magic money.

  • John Malkin

    My point wasn’t in support of the GOP using JWST as example similar to the Mafia but to point out that over budget programs will always be vulnerable.

  • Larry

    Forget all of the rhetoric about who’s in charge, who we need to follow, and where we are going. You are being scammed. Just count the cars in parking lots and notice how much elbow room you have in elevators.

  • Dennis Berube

    Coastal Ron, I do understand that Mr. Musk is not about directing space policy. My point is, if he can deliver on what he claims, Im sure our government will listen to what he has to say. If he fails, the no one will listen to him. His suggestions will have more weight! That is only logical, as Mr. Spock would say! I truly hope his visions for Mars, work out and that I still have a chance to see men walking on Mars in my lifetime. Even a Phobos mission would be nice. Why stop at an asteroid, like Obama wants, when both Phobos and Demos are asteroids!

  • tom

    You can sum this up in a few words. Never offend the people (congress) that gives you money (appropriations). Never try and kill the other guys program (CxP) and expect yours to be left alone (JWST for a start). A new tone was set in 2010 for US Space Policy and many will not like the ride it gives us over the next several years.

  • Martijn Meijering

    It’s that dramatic.

    Yes, it’s very disruptive to the workforce and that’s very sad for the individuals involved. But at the same time, it merely illustrates what a sheltered position they’ve had for the past thirty years. They should be grateful for having been paid (and handsomely too I understand) to work on a manned spaceflight program, a privilege most of us will never have, but many seem to think that their nation should be grateful to them.

  • amightywind

    Never try and kill the other guys program (CxP) and expect yours to be left alone (JWST for a start).

    Agreed. I can’t ever recall when NASA was used as an arena for political reprisals. It started in 2009, and there is no end in sight.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 11:56 am

    My point is, if he can deliver on what he claims, Im sure our government will listen to what he has to say.

    All things being equal, why would you talk with your car manufacturer about where you plan to go on vacation? Now Musk certainly has ideas and opinions about what his products could be used for, but I think you’re reading way too much into how things really work.

    Musk would likely be quite happy to just get more orders from NASA, because that would show that Congress is more interested in exploration than building a rocket that has no funded missions (the SLS).

    If he fails, the no one will listen to him.

    If he fails, and no one will buys his products, then that is really the more important issue for him. Musk has stated numerous times that they will have set-backs as they go forward, but they have enough reserves to see them through. So far they have enough accomplishment to validate their approach, so minor setbacks shouldn’t be an issue, and other than getting Falcon Heavy to fly, they have proved out the majority of their initial business plan. I would be more worried about ULA’s long-term viability than SpaceX.

    His suggestions will have more weight! That is only logical, as Mr. Spock would say!

    If you haven’t figured this out yet, when politics are involved logic has little influence… ;-)

  • Monte Davis

    amightywind says: ” It would be a compelling argument if Obama had not increased government employment by 20% since the start of his term.”

    US Office of Personnel Management says:
    Total [federal] Government Employment
    2008: 2,692k
    2010: 2,776k…up 3%, *including* temporary census workers

    Whom to believe? It’s a puzzlement.

  • vulture4 wrote:

    Hopefully some will, but the vast majority must move on with their lives. There are almost no local jobs. I recently spoke to a young woman who had worked directly on orbiter systems for 15 years, from crawling through the passages in the orbiter to supervising as an engineer. She was planning to learn sign language and teach disabled children. It’s that dramatic. People are walking out the door with no chance at all to stay in the program or even the area.

    Well, again, who says we’re guaranteed to keep the same job for our entire lives?

    Should we have guaranteed that the people who built muskets, stagecoachs and biplanes could keep their jobs forever?!

    I’ve been laid off three times in my career. The first time was because the small company went bankrupt. The second time was because my job went into an evolutionary dead-end. The third time was budget cutbacks.

    My wife and I were responsible with our money so that when the recession hit we survived quite nicely. My job skills were no longer marketable but I finally found work a couple months ago. I make far less than I used to, but again that’s capitalism for ya. That’s not Obama’s fault or Bush’s fault or anyone else’s fault.

    If people thought they were going to be employed fifty years at $70,000/year gluing heat shield tiles to an orbiter, then they were deluding themselves. They had seven years’ warning this day was coming.

    And let’s not overlook WHY this day came:

    CAIB Report

    This day came because the CAIB concluded Shuttle is “a complex and risky system.” That report led the Bush administration to put astronauts on Soyuz rockets for crew rotation, to restrict Shuttle flights to ISS construction, and to retire Shuttle once ISS construction was completed.

    This was no secret to those living in the real world.

  • I can’t ever recall when NASA was used as an arena for political reprisals. It started in 2009, and there is no end in sight.

    It’s stupid to think that this was about “political reprisals.” It was about fixing a program that was FUBAR.

  • DCSCA

    “SpaceX gets revenue when it launches, but it has been spending money far before that. How do you think rockets are made, that they just show up on the launchpad magically?” Yeah, the magic of using scarce taxpayers funds to refurbish a launch pad on behalf of a ‘private enterprised’ firm. “A word of caution for eager profit-hunting investors may be in order, however. Musk has always made it quite clear that he is not primarily in the rocket business to make money, but rather to advance humanity’s frontier by making access to space cheaper. -source, theregister, uk 5/12/11 In other words, private capital investors- stay away from this bird– he won’t be flying for profit.

  • DCSCA

    @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 6:30 am
    The difference between the post Apollo period of the 70s and today is the shuttle was in work as a follow-along. Today there’s much less certainity in the wake of Constellation’s cancellation and shuttle ending.

  • John Malkin

    I doubt JWST would have been cancelled if it was within budget. Also CxP wouldn’t have been cancelled if it was on schedule and within budget. How many non-space state congressmen tried to save it. The house committee knew Ares I was a DOA so they gobbled up any pork that was available. Why did the house keep Orion and not Ares I? Besides JWST isn’t dead yet. Now the House can say they “tried” to save money and the Senate forced it on them.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Jeff –

    Please keep up. A candidate asteroid was selected in 1998, when the DPT first came up with the architecture.

    Asteroid criteria have since been revised:
    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/01/nasa-narrows-targets-manned-asteroid-mission/

    This process is continuing, with the latest candidate a C class asteroid.

    And of course, the real problem may be the 2022 deadline:

    http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/0073P/2011-pictures.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/73P/Schwassmann%E2%80%93Wachmann

  • GaryChurch

    “All of that employs people and boosts the economy, regardless when they launch.”

    Yes, like the heavy lift infrastructure. Economics 101.

  • Vladislaw

    But one is needed and has paying customers, the heavy lift infrastructure has no commercial demand. So it is a make work project. Atlas V has been ready to upgrade to heavier lift for how many years? 8? 10? Where are all the customers demanding heavy lift.

  • ok then

    The difference between the 70s and today is that NASA didn’t blow the first shot at an Apollo follow-on with an unworkable and unaffordable scheme (risky and pricey, but it flew).

    We are essentially starting over… in 1978.

  • Coastal Ron

    GaryChurch wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    Yes, like the heavy lift infrastructure. Economics 101.

    There is no “heavy lift infrastructure”. There are pieces and parts of Shuttle infrastructure left over from the Shuttle program, but there is nothing that can be used as-is for anything that is currently funded. And except for the Shuttle personnel that will be making the orbiters museum ready, most everyone else has moved on to other things.

    Of course what you’re alluding to is the government-funded, Senate-designed, Space Launch System, which will take years before it ever launches, but will be consuming our tax dollars in $Billion chunks in a futile attempt to launch non-existent 250,000 lb payloads. Essentially the SLS program is a jobs program, and doing something useful with it is not the prime concern.

    Logic 101

  • GaryChurch

    @ ok then

    Well, kind of….

    except while the orbiter was a flop, the hardware in the form of the SRB’s, SSME’s and the ET is the most powerful and evolved heavy lift system on earth, bar none.

    Each SRB puts out 80% more thrust than a Saturn F-1 and is reusable. The SSME’s are the most efficient hydrogen engines in their class. The ET has been lightened and changed over to friction stir welded construction.

    The U.S. paid dearly for this unique asset and most of the people posting here would gladly throw it away for a hobby rocket.

  • GaryChurch

    “the heavy lift infrastructure has no commercial demand. So it is a make work project.”

    The ISS has no commercial application so the Falcon and Dragon is really a make work project.

    Give me a break.

  • By not fully funding Commercial Crew as requested by President Obama the risk of a fledgling launch vehicle having a catastrophic event in space has significantly increased. The $300M or so above last years request was an effort to add on the ground testing of spacecraft performance in the environment of space, mandated as the government came to absolutely rely on commercial space vehicles.

    Congress is again pressing it’s view over that of NASA Engineers. The consequences of being cheap now are death in space. Such is the will of the US House Appropriations committee under Wolfe’s leadership.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    sftommy wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    No don’t think so. The companies involved will simply move slower with milestones reflecting the reduced funding. Safety won’t be compromised however the ‘gap’ will increase and the resultant risk to the ISS crew supply will also increase. Soyuz is reliable but not guaranteed.

  • Doug Lassiter

    John Malkin wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    “Besides JWST isn’t dead yet. Now the House can say they “tried” to save money and the Senate forced it on them.”

    But that’s not how it’s going to work. Senator Mikulski will come to the rescue, and get report language that obligates NASA to continue JWST. Except that language won’t come with money. An unfunded mandate. (So money is sill “saved”!) Happens all the time. So Bolden and Weiler will desperately try to scratch out $375M in FY12 in order to preserve a launch opportunity (maybe) in 2018, by raiding other pots that aren’t congressionally protected. Blood will be shed. The science community, advising Weiler and Bolden, will be spanked by making them concede other programs.

    I’ll be surprised if money is actually re-added to the NASA account to preserve JWST.

    The sad thing about JWST is that, whether it is continued or not, it has destroyed any remaining credibility NASA had for managing large science projects. For mid-sized missions, SMD actually does pretty well. Discovery missions are pretty much on target, cost-wise, and Explorers aren’t that bad. But we’re not going to see another flagship science mission, especially in astrophysics, for a long time.

  • All things being equal, why would you talk with your car manufacturer about where you plan to go on vacation?

    Have you never seen a Jeep commercial? Or a commercial for some local company that sells RVs? That sort of a conversation might be one-sided but it is going on.

  • Aggelos

    I dont understand why Nasa needs 7-10 years for Sls with most pieces ready and -maybe I am wrong -very few totally new stuff ,,Saturn V was built from nothing in 8 years..

    and now with first and second stage engines ready..and infrastucture ready Bolden say 2017 Sls 70t without upper stage will test fly..

    I think its not only about the less money,,but about the age we live,,no big dreams,,,,no vision,,just cut everything and solve the problems on earth,,dont look up..we have so many problems on earth..

  • This one is for Bennett, who was dying to know which company I heard wanted to go into OPF-3:

    Florida Today “Boeing, KSC in Talks About Space Taxi Site”

  • Aggelos wrote:

    I dont understand why Nasa needs 7-10 years for Sls with most pieces ready and -maybe I am wrong -very few totally new stuff ,,Saturn V was built from nothing in 8 years..

    The Saturn program went back to DOD in the late 1950s and had lots more money thrown at it than NASA gets now. At the height of the Moon program in the mid-1960s, NASA was about 4.5% of the federal budget. Today it’s less than 0.5%.

    Besides, Saturn is 50-year old technology. Time to do something new and more efficient.

  • Bennett

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 5:52 am

    This is good news. To locate production at KSC is a welcome departure for the usual paradigm of producing half way across the country and then shipping to KSC.

    Plus they get to pick from the best of the ex-shuttle workforce.

  • DCSCA

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 7:05 am
    Soyuz is 40-plus year old technology. It flies. It works. Reinventing the wheel is a flaw in NewSpace thinking. If you can do it, fine, just do it without government subsidies.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Soyuz is 40-plus year old technology. It flies. It works.

    It also only seats three. It’s like comparing a motorcycle w/sidecar with a modern minivan.

    Reinventing the wheel is a flaw in NewSpace thinking.

    Yes, yes, we know. In your eyes, innovation is bad.

    I mean really, what was Boeing thinking when they built the 747 instead of just building more 707’s. The 707 worked, it had four engines, and no one was clamoring for something bigger, more modern, less costly per person, and safer, right?

    And now Boeing wants to replace the Soyuz with something that carries more than double the amount of people. What are they thinking!!!! ;-)

  • Vladislaw

    “The ISS has no commercial application “

    Tell the Russians that, they sent commercial tourists there.

  • Coastal Ron

    GaryChurch wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    The ISS has no commercial application…

    Is was not designed specifically to have commercial applications, although it could.

    The ISS is an internationally-developed research facility, and the U.S. portion of the ISS is designated as a National Laboratory. If you don’t know what these terms mean, then I can’t help you, but people that pay the bills and do research think that the ISS is a necessary endeavor for us to pursue if we want to establish a presence beyond the Earth.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
    =yawn= more faux comparisons… except that we’re not comparing reliable motor tranport which employ the long in use internal combustion engine and, of course, Soyuz was designed with lunar flight capability- the kindest comparision is to a Gemini, which was not.

    =yawn= Again with the faux comparisons. NewSpace has yet to fly passengers a la ‘Boeing’… in ‘operation safety and comfort’… in fact, it has not even managed to get a piloted ‘Wright flyer’ off the ground. Tick-tock, tick-tock, there, fella. But by all means, reinvent the wheel if you choose to at your own expense, without government subsidies. no doubt Oler can give you an earful on Boeing and the private capital used to develop the 707.

    Vladislaw wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
    “The ISS has no commercial application “

    “Tell the Russians that, they sent commercial tourists there.”

    No, in a desperate bid for cash, they permitted qualified passengers woh had to rain for the trip and who paid for the ride and were kept out of the way of government employees at work there.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Soyuz was designed with lunar flight capability

    Well good for them. Then go tell Congress we don’t need the MPCV, that will save a couple of $Billion. Oh, that’s right, they are Russian, and that would make us TOTALLY dependent on Russia for any spaceflight. Is that what you’re suggesting?

    And then there is the Danny Downer act where you don’t offer any solutions except from the 60’s. What’s up with that?

    How do you propose that we create a redundant transportation system to LEO to service the ISS? Oh, and do it without your supposed “subsidies”. You say the “private capital investors” don’t want to step in, but you don’t say who will take the risk.

    And what is the difference between risking 100% taxpayer funded money for NASA versus public-private relationships that require far less taxpayer money? You know, ten’s of $Billions in tax money for NASA vs 100’s of $Millions to pay commercial firms to do the same job (i.e. crew to ISS).

    I know 2-year olds that provide more helpful information than you. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2011 at 8:17 pm

    “I know 2-year olds that provide more helpful information…”

    Which may explain why desperate NewSpace proponents such as yourself fail to convince mature, savvy investors in private capital markets to dump billions into a high risk, low ROI venture. And, of course, blatantly erronous assertions don’t help your case either: “Coastal Ron wrote @ July 5th, 2011 at 4:34 pm SpaceX has flown a Dragon test flight that someone could have flown on, and the passenger(s) would have returned safely.” Tick-tock, tick-tock, fella.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 16th, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Which may explain why desperate NewSpace proponents such as yourself…

    Provide a list of the companies or individuals that define your term “NewSpace”.

    Do you mean Boeing? Orbital Sciences? Sierra Nevada Corp.? I advocate for all of these companies, as well as others, so who do you think I’m so “desperate” about? Heck, I’m not even in the space industry, I just follow it for fun.

    And regarding “savvy investors”, who are you saying hasn’t been able to raise the capital that they’ve been looking for? Boeing had revenues of $64B last year, so I know you don’t mean them. Orbital and SNC haven’t said they need outside investors. And all of their current investors are far more “savvy” than you, so I’m sure you’re rather clueless on this part of the discussion anyways.

    Or are you alluding to only one specific company, but using the term “NewSpace” to hide your jealousy? Wished it was your company that was in the Iron Man 2 movie? Wished you knew how to build and IPO successful companies? Wished you had the phone numbers of the rich and powerful investors that drop $Millions on request? Or that you had $3B in customer orders? Stop drooling and go back to your Apollo models… ;-)

  • hb

    I have first-hand knowledge of how the astronomical community “let” us get into this situation on JWST.

    First, leaders in the astronomical community went along with the ridiculous cost estimates and the waste because they felt that any bad news for JWST would jeopardize the mission and there was no way that the budget could be used to fund other missions anyway (notice that they are still saying we should save the mission because of this same logic).

    I heard this sentiment over and over and over during the past 10 years of the project. Also, one of the official astronomy “watchdogs” over the mission, AURA/STScI, repeatedly told their employees to look the other way as GSFC squandered project money by having everyone and their mother charge the JWST project code in a series of endless engineering meetings on designs that were going to have to be redone by the real builders down the road (the contractors). We were told, “this is the way great missions get built, if you can’t stand to see sausage get made, then go do something else. Oh, and by the way, GSFC are the ones who write us that $50M check every year, so best be quiet.” I wouldn’t be surprised if JWST were to be a total technical failure if it did get launched, as all the “oversight” has been bought with cold hard cash.

    This reminds me of the bankers who were given their perp-walk in the financial meltdown, all the while explaining, “Well, everybody was doing this, so it must be ok.”

  • Coastal Ron

    hb wrote @ July 17th, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    I have first-hand knowledge of how the astronomical community “let” us get into this situation on JWST.

    I liked the idea of the JWST, however what you talk about is the kind of stuff I suspected was going on, and it’s one of the reasons why I wouldn’t mind JWST being cancelled outright. If people think that there are no consequences to bad behavior, then they will never be afraid of the bad behavior.

    Maybe being a cautionary tale, “to not end up like JWST“, is the best thing that could happen for future NASA science missions…

  • Das Boese

    GaryChurch wrote @ July 14th, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    The ISS has no commercial application

    LOL.

    Spaceflight Now: Commercial experiments get underway aboard station (2001)
    NASA Fact Sheet: Commercial Refrigerator Incubator Module – Modified (CRIM-M)
    NASA: Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) (CRIM-M)
    ESA: ISS Business – What We Do
    ESA: SkinCare experiment on board the ISS
    JAXA: “Kagoshima Shochu (distilled beverage) in space mission” ‘Commercial utilization’ samples have returned from ISS.
    NASA Fact Sheet: Robonaut

    “General Motors plan to use technologies from Robonaut in future advanced vehicle safety systems and manufacturing plant applications. Robonaut validates manufacturing technologies that will improve the health and safety of GM team members at manufacturing plants throughout the world.”

    And that’s with just a few minutes of research.

    Give me a break.

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “If people think that there are no consequences to bad behavior, then they will never be afraid of the bad behavior.”

    Until I see people being fired then their really isn’t any consequences, they just move on to the next piece of make work.

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>