Congress, NASA

A bit of wiggle room in Senate budgets

The Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to formally markup its version of the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill (it’s not on the schedule for this coming week), but there is one sign that its budgets, including those for NASA and NOAA, won’t be as constrained as what their House colleagues faced this summer. Last week the committee approved “302(b) allocations” for its subcommittees, effectively giving each appropriations subcommittee their own topline budget they have to fit their appropriations bills into. In the case of CJS, that allocation is $52.701 billion. That’s less than the $57.675 billion from the president’s 2012 request. However, it’s more than $2 billion more than the 302(b) allocation in the House for CJS, which was only $50.237 billion.

There’s no guarantee that any of that additional money (when compared to the House version) would go to NASA and NOAA. And those agencies are facing critical budget concerns about a number of their programs, from the James Webb Space Telescope to the Space Launch System to the Joint Polar Satellite System. The allocations suggest, though, that senators may not have to sharpen their budget-cutting knives as sharply as their House colleagues—at least not initially.

35 comments to A bit of wiggle room in Senate budgets

  • vulture4

    I know where NASA could cut a few billion and apply it to useful tasks. Unfortunately it may be difficult to make the cut; isn’t called the Senate Launch System for nothing.

  • DCSCA

    Terminating funding for the JWST will make for a nice fiscal and political trophy for campaigning pols in the next election cycle who wanna tout saving monies in the Age of Austerity. These all these government funded space scientists will have to go out and get real world, productive, private sector, supply-sided jobs. They’re always hiring at Denny’s. Shade of ending the Super Collider boondoggle. The science folks have the HST to play with and it’s really less than 20 years old and recently serviced in 2009. High time these stargazers realize their toys are luxuries in an era of necessities. Make the most of what you’ve got.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The science folks have the HST to play with and it’s really less than 20 years old and recently serviced in 2009. High time these stargazers realize their toys are luxuries in an era of necessities.”

    JWST is about to get deep-sixed, and may well deserve to be for it’s fiscal incompetence. Ideally, the runout obligated funds for it can be plowed into other great science missions. Several HST subsystems are approaching their well-understood lifetimes, and some kind of servicing and reboost would have to happen before 2015 to keep it alive. That’s just a fact. Do you have other information you’d like to share?

    The age of necessities? Ah, like SLS,for example? High time these hot nozzle-gazers realize that their toys are luxuries in an era of necessities. Make the most of what you’ve got. Which for launch technology, is actually quite a bit. With regard to SLS and fiscal incompetence, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet, though Constellation should have given you a big clue.

    Never found those meds, did you? Sounds like a astronomer who got fired, and is taking out frustrations. There, there.

  • SLS will get it’s pork dinner before the JWST will get funded and the HST another facelift, so DCSCA, Windy and others of their ilk will enjoy more government games.

    Enjoy them while you can fellas.

  • DCSCA

    @Doug Lassiter wrote @ September 11th, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    Still unable to justify your projects on the basis of a ROI to the Treasury. Uncle sam already bought you a toy- the HST. Now go play with it.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ DCSCA,

    Just to let you know that, post the last servicing mission, Hubble is expected to last until 2016, if we’re lucky.

    As for JWST, it operates in a completely different wavelength and is intended for totally different observations to the HST. What you’re proposing is essentially using a photo-recon bird for the thermal imaging mission. I’m sure even you can work out the problem there.

    I’m not defending the cost overruns on JWST. The minute the phrase ‘folding mirror’ and that huge folding thermal shield entered into the equation, someone should have shown the project a yellow card and told the team to sit down and think again. Even if those aren’t the source of the problems, something that cutting-edge was never going to be delivered on time and on budget. I’m just saying that to say that it wouldn’t have offered anything new or that astronomers can ‘make do’ with HST is just plain wrong.

  • josh

    the only toy here is the sls. a toy for little boys in grown men’s bodies who want to play with a biiiig rocket. lol. it would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic really..

  • It is my humble opinion that we are coming to a crossroads with NASA. 14 or 15 billion is a LOT of money. However, how we use that money remains to be seen.

    I hope that the Gentle Lady from Maryland finds a way to plus up CCDev. Everyone acknowledges it will give us the quickest access to space. If there is an extra $2.5 billion to play with on the senate side, how much can we realistically expect to be sent NASA’s way? $300 million? Maybe $500 million?

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space

  • John Malkin

    ATK/NASA has an announcement tomorrow on commercial crew. Finally low cost man spaceflight (very very sarcastic).

  • wodun

    Between JWST and Constellation, NASA seems to be nearly total fail. They need a radical adjustment to their organizational structure and priorities even if it means altering their charter and having other government organizations take over some of their current duties.

    It is great that NASA might get a tiny bit more funding but as things stand now I can’t see how they will be able to maintain the ISS and any meaningful BEO exploration. At some point NASA will need a significant increase in funding to expand their operations.

    How do they convince congress and the public that they deserve it with their recent failures and a total lack of specific goals, strategies, tactics, and timetables that are not constantly shifting and largely exist on powerpoint or in someone’s imagination?

    NASA is a lot like the trash collector. As long as the trash is picked up every week no one cares about how the trash collectors run their agency. As soon as the trash stops getting picked up on schedule people start to pay attention and start being critical.

    Soon NASA might wish they were an obscure organization that people didn’t really pay attention to.

    The next few years will see NASA in the spotlight like it hasn’t been in decades. Let’s hope they can rise to the challenge and their efforts will be rewarded with the funding necessary to do what is expected of them.

  • amightywind

    Terminating funding for the JWST will make for a nice fiscal and political trophy

    I am sad people who praise destruction for destruction’s sake. We need a replacement to Hubble. I’d rather see effort put into a less exotic design. I’m afraid we let the propeller heads who designed JWST a bit too far off the leash.

    …so DCSCA, Windy and others of their ilk…

    Not much to gloat about. Our space program is a joke. It lacks vision and leadership, and has been hijacked by internet adolescents trippin’ on the acid of their nerd wealth. It is a mess. Makes you wonder who and how one advances these days through the government bureaucracy.

    It is my humble opinion that we are coming to a crossroads with NASA.

    You really went out on a limb here.

  • DCSCA

    @Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 6:11 am

    “… Hubble is expected to last until 2016, if we’re lucky.”

    Great! Another place to vut NASA and the space sciences by winding down funding and terminating HST budgeting by 2016!! Then you best make hay while the sun shines, as it were. Or find other sources of funding in the private sector or academia. Luck? Oh, you’ll find some when the threat of disappearing funds materializes. Spirit and Opportunity were ‘projected’ to last only a few months, too. Voyager as well. Funny how they take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’.. and kept going, and going, and going… Sheesh. Several active ALSEP components, deployed by Apollo crews on the moon, were switched off due to lack of funding BTW. And the world went on.

    @wodun wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 11:55 am

    “Between JWST and Constellation, NASA seems to be nearly total fail.”

    Because it’s a sitting duck as a stand alone civil agency. And yet the most vocal proponents against cutting government funding in the face of massive debt and deficits and super committees have been Panetta and Rummy for DoD. And bear in mind, national defense/security is a required mandate under the Constitution whereas ‘civil space programs’ are not. Which is why NASA’s best chance of preserving a core, viable HSF program for mid to long range planning through the Age of Austerity, with some kind of stabel funding, is as a ‘civilian division/research group, safely tucked under the wing of DoD where the rationale of ‘nat’l security’ works for them.

    @amightywind wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    “We need a replacement to Hubble.”

    No ‘we’ don’t. You confuse ‘need’ with ‘want.’ There’s no “need” for it. The world got along fine w/o Hubble for centuries. And it still operates with plenty of stars to gaze at so space scientists best get cracking 24/7. Another few decades of denial as the world gets its fiscal house in order won’t change the motion of the stars. Still plenty of telescopes on Earth. It’ll just frustrate space scientists who can only survive on government grants. Golly gee, Windy, nothing wrong with demanding space scientists justify their pet projects with the caveat that they deliver a ROI to the Treasury beyond pretty pictures that make for niver screen savers and classroom wall posters– just as they insist HSF do the same. These projects are little more than government sponsored welfare programs for over educated, under productive space scientists unable to secure real world jobs or funding for research from private firms or in academia. So they tap the taxpayers. You wanna replace Hubble? Ask Apple, Google or to fund and build one. Then pay SpaceX to launch it. See how that goes.

  • Robert G. Oler

    It strikes me that none of the spending levels are real based on the super committee working the budget numbers. RGO

  • Byeman

    “nothing wrong with demanding space scientists justify their pet projects with the caveat that they deliver a ROI to the Treasury”

    Another idiotic post. Space science does not deliver ROI. Never did. The Keck, Polomar, Hale, Wilson telescopes never did either. Space science is pure research and not technology development.

  • DCSCA

    @Byeman wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 4:14 pm

    “Space science does not deliver ROI. Never did.”

    No kidding. But surprise! The time for it to to start pulling its weight and do so has arrived- the Age of Austerity. Americans aren’t going to go deeper into debt to finance play time for space scientists to stargazer and pen white papers which returns nothing to the Treasury. PTrying pitching your projects to the private sector- like Apple, Google or Exxon, fella. Or, more likely, the night manager at Denny’s.

  • Doug Lassiter

    DCSCA wrote @ September 11th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
    “Still unable to justify your projects on the basis of a ROI to the Treasury. Uncle sam already bought you a toy- the HST. Now go play with it.”

    I gave you a number of value justifications a couple of threads back. Guess you missed those.

    So NASA telescopes are 0.1% of the federal non-defense discretionary budget, and you’re here grousing to us about them? You need to think bigger if you really want to help the U.S. Treasury. Why it took you longer than 0.1% of your day to even write that comment! (Though the lack of time for thought was self-evident.) Hope your bank account got a decent ROI for that grousing. A couple of pennies maybe? I mean, for 0.1% of your time you ought to get at least a dime with minimum wage. Now grousing does achieve some level of personal satisfaction for you, thinking about the world in a different way, and maybe trying to inspire others. Hey, but that’s what space telescopes do! Oops.

    The American public thinks it gets a good ROI on space astronomy. That’s why they pay the U.S. Treasury to do it. It’s really just that simple.

  • Not much to gloat about. Our space program is a joke. It lacks vision and leadership, and has been hijacked by internet adolescents trippin’ on the acid of their nerd wealth.

    I’m not gloating at all, I’m saddened actually. And NASA’s problems have been on the grill since the 1970s, not since 2002 when Elon Musk first formed his space company.

    And equating NASA with the MIC doesn’t necessarily make it right either, no matter what you neo-cons say.

  • Robert G. Oler

      dad2059 wrote @ September 11th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
    SLS will get it’s pork dinner before the JWST will get funded and the HST another facelift, so DCSCA, Windy and others of their ilk will enjoy more government games.
    “…………

    Probably not the entire pork mess is about to unwind. No money. Robert G Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    The time for it [space science] to to start pulling its weight and do so has arrived

    Luckily you have no say in the matter, since you have no clue how or why people pay for things, or even how or why they invest.

    Governments do what individuals and companies can’t or won’t do. And that includes vast amounts of federal spending, not just space science. It is in the publics interest to do big science, since there is no business reason to do it, and the public realizes that.

    The question is whether funding for it should take the same budget reductions as all other federal spending, not whether it should be abolished altogether. Without a National Imperative that is widely recognized, all departments should “feel the pain”, including defense. If no department thinks it will ever have it’s budget cut, then it will never try really hard to spend money wisely and find new ways to do things.

    Space science will survive – maybe at a reduced level, but it won’t go away.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    “Governments do what individuals and companies can’t or won’t do.”

    Which is PRECISELY why governments do manned spaceflight and space exploration projects of scale. Congratulations, you’ve finally evolved and learned something.

  • DCSCA

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ September 12th, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    More squawking but zero justification for government funding for space science projects in austere times. Guess it’s time you pitched a profitable enterprise to Apple or Google. If they buy it, you can pay SpaceX to loft it.

    The American public thinks it gets a good ROI on space astronomy. Who says- youi? Link please. “That’s why they pay the U.S. Treasury to do it.” No, they pay the treasury to fund the necessities mandated in the Constitution. Space astronnomy isn’t a necessity. Plenty of telescopes at universities to play with and losts of private capital to source. Sell your project and make a profit at it. It’s really just that simple, indeed… isn’t it… just ask Elon.

  • John Malkin

    The NASA and Alliant Techsystems (ATK) announcement of an agreement that could accelerate the availability of U.S. commercial crew transportation capabilities at 3 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, Sept. 13 will be carried live on NASA Television.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_M11-101_ATK_Agreement.html

  • John Malkin

    Their words not mine… Didn’t read before posting. Bad habit.

  • And equating NASA with the MIC doesn’t necessarily make it right either, no matter what you neo-cons say.

    What do “neo-cons” have to do with any of this? Why do you imagine that abreakingwind is a “neo-con”? Do you have any idea whatsoever what that word means? Or is it just code for “people with whom I disagree politically”?

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2011

    First he said:

    Which is PRECISELY why governments do manned spaceflight and space exploration projects of scale.

    Then he said:

    More squawking but zero justification for government funding for space science projects in austere times.

    How many multiple personalities do you have? Your house must be a mess, what with each personality fighting for dominance.

    So make up your mind – is space exploration something for the U.S. taxpayer, or is it supposed to be funded by Apple and Google?

    Let us know when you’ve settled on one course of action, and then maybe (maybe) people will take you seriously.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 11:09 am

    Ah come on. DCSCA is making absolute sense. We all know that the government is sold to large corporations. Even not so large ones, y’know the President walked with someone at the Cape, y’know. Crony capitalism and all that sort of things. So basically the government, all of it, is run by business lobbyists therefore there is a self sustaining private-government conspiracy to allow government astronauts to be private and the same for gigantic space telescopes. Note that even the military are going private. For troops and for LVs. Now. Astronauts of the 60s really are different. They were the pure at heart, the bold, the valiant. Non of them tried to go make a buck or two using their fames. Oh, wait! Okay some did. Some say that astronauts are even trying to use their connections in the government and int he industry (can you believe this?!?!) to push forward their own agendas. And no I am not talking about Buzz Aldrin, we all know what camp he’s in…

    I think it works. Or something like this.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 11:09 am

    It’s fairly easy to make space science advocates squirm when they have to justify their projects in the Age of Austerity just like HSF advocates. As you say, ‘what a maroon.’

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    It’s fairly easy to make space science advocates…

    At least space advocates have a consistent perspective, regardless whether it’s the Moon, Mars, commercial, government or whatever.

    You, on the other hand, don’t have a consist point of view. You can’t even agree with yourself if spaceflight should be done by governments or privately funded. You are more windy that Windy… ;-)

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    “You are more windy that Windy…”

    Ouch! That was rough.

    But sometime they do seem to agree so…

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    “At least space advocates have a consistent perspective, regardless whether it’s the Moon, Mars, commercial, government or whatever.”

    Yes, to spend government monies, of which 42 cents of every dollar is borrowed, during a time of massive deficits and debt on esoteric projects with no ROI to the Treasury. Pitch Apple, Google or SpaceX. They await your business plan on space science for profit.

  • Bennett

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Actually, windy is so over the top that he’s humorous, whereas that other guy is just bitter, boringly repetitive, and mean spirited.

    I’ve softened my position on JWST a bit, but unless NASA gets a budget increase specifically for the project, with a caveat that it may not go over it’s budget or touch other budgets to survive, I fear we will lose to many other great projects.

    The loss may not be worth the possible gain.

  • common sense

    @ Bennett wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    “The loss may not be worth the possible gain.”

    You know that is a tough call. If I had to choose I would keep JWST in a heart beat. At least the potential return in scientific discovery is huge, enormous! Even if mismanaged, so long it is finished we will get something out of it.

    Unlike SLS/MPCV that are abominable waste with no scheduled flights!

  • Coastal Ron

    Bennett wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    I’ve softened my position on JWST a bit

    I could go either way, but I like the idea of a cap if they keep it. I just wonder what the trade off would be if we ended it now – would there be smaller programs that could take over it’s budget? If not, then that would create a pretty big hole in the science category.

    whereas that other guy is just bitter, boringly repetitive, and mean spirited.

    Regarding Windy Jr., even on his response post he can’t see the contradictions in his positions. One minute boasting space should be government funded (in the DoD), and the next that it should be privately funded (42 cents of every dollar… blah, blah, blah). He’s consistently inconsistent.

  • Das Boese

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    I honestly don’t understand what DCSCA is even doing on this website, since he doesn’t seem to care about space, at all. He’s not your typical space enthusiast for sure, honestly I don’t think he even understands the concept of enthusiasm.

    I mean, even Windy, in his own bizarre way, sometimes argues from a positive conviction, an idea of what spaceflight is about. But every single of DCSCA’s statements I have ever read is negative and contrarian, usually with a bit of gloating and condescending smugness thrown in. I can’t remember reading a single word of positive advocacy or constructive suggestion from him, ever.

    So, DcSCA… what is it you actually want? For spaceflight, or rather, out of it?

  • Bennett

    @ common sense at 7:09 pm

    At least the potential return in scientific discovery is huge, enormous! Even if mismanaged, so long it is finished we will get something out of it.

    Agreed. And for once (although I rue the “supersize” up-size) I think that sunk costs are worth following up on, especially since Congress’s dithering on the CRs helped bloat the cost-to-date. I would love to see what the JWST could discover.

    @ Coastal Ron at 7:22 pm

    …would there be smaller programs that could take over its budget? If not, then that would create a pretty big hole in the science category.

    Yeah, actually cutting NASA science programs by the amount that JWST would need to continue would be a lose-lose for everyone concerned, i.e. you and me and the world.

Leave a Reply to Coastal Ron 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>