NASA

Reactions to the NASA budget rollout

With so much attention devoted to planned cuts in planetary science funding in general, and Mars exploration in particular, much of the reaction to the budget focused on that. “The priorities reflected in this budget would take us down the wrong path,” Planetary Society CEO Bill Nye said in a statement released by the organization. “The country needs more of these robotic space exploration missions, not less.” The organization was critical of NASA’s termination of its participation in the ExoMars program, as well as a lack of funding for flagship-class missions to Mars or elsewhere in the solar system. It proposes that NASA’s budget “be rebalanced among NASA’s directorates to reflect value to the nation”, with science getting at least 30 percent of the overall agency budget.

“The proposed cuts to planetary science are devastating,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), whose district includes JPL, told the Pasadena Star-News. “I’m going to be working to put together a coalition to oppose these draconian cuts and keep the Mars program healthy,” he said. “I expect we’ll have a lot of allies in that fight.” Those allies might include the Star-News itself, which published an editorial critical of the proposed Mars mission cuts. The editorial said it was “strange” to hear that “efficient robotic programs are being targeted while inefficient manned exploration is being promoted.”

The National Space Society also mentioned Mars exploration in its release, but mixed that message in with discussions of human exploration. “The programs of record must come in on schedule and on budget; support for commercial spaceflight must be unwavering; and our Mars program, while undergoing restructuring, must still strive to make upcoming launch windows with relevant missions,” said new NSS executive director Paul Damphousse.

The proposed $830 million for commercial crew development won the support of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. “We are pleased that the Administration is requesting the funding necessary to make that happen,” said CSF executive director Alex Saltman, referring to the goal of restoring a human spaceflight capability for the US. “Now it’s Congress’s job to help put America back in space.” Recall that last year the administration proposed $850 million for the program, but Congress only provided $406 million.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was critical, though, of cuts of “hundreds of millions of dollars” for the Space Launch System and Orion. The budget provides $1.88 billion for SLS and $1.03 billion for Orion; the latter program is cut by $175 million from 2012, NASA officials say, to keep it in phase with SLS. “These reductions will slow the development of the SLS and the Orion crew vehicle, making it impossible for them to provide backup capability for supporting the space station,” she said. “The Administration remains insistent on cutting SLS and Orion to pay for commercial crew rather than accommodating both.”

Jim Maser, president of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, expressed similar concerns in a statement emailed by the company. “The request to increase funding for commercial space transportation development is the right decision to keep our space program balanced, but it also requires appropriate insight and controls to ensure progress toward integrated capability can be confirmed,” he said. “The funding increase in commercial space transportation development shouldn’t come at the expense of other top American priorities, including dedicated, full funding of the Space Launch System launch vehicle development that can’t be siphoned off for other, lower priority programs or uses.”

19 comments to Reactions to the NASA budget rollout

  • Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison oinked:

    “These reductions will slow the development of the SLS and the Orion crew vehicle, making it impossible for them to provide backup capability for supporting the space station,” she said. “The Administration remains insistent on cutting SLS and Orion to pay for commercial crew rather than accommodating both.”

    No one in their right mind would build a “monster rocket” (to use the phrase coined by her co-conspirator, Sen. Nelson) just to go to the ISS. That’s like buying a Hummer to go to the 7-11 down the block.

    I’m so looking forward to her retirement at the end of this session.

  • SpaceColonizer

    Someone needs to tell Hutchison the meaning of the phrase “national priorities”. We need commercial crew availability ASAP. Ever year they delay its progress is another year we give money to the Russians. SLS, on the other hand, is a rocket without a payload. There is no incentive we have to accelerate or even maintain its development excpect to preserve jobs.

  • GuessWho

    SC – “Someone needs to tell Hutchison the meaning of the phrase “national priorities”. We need commercial crew availability ASAP.”

    That’s laughable. We don’t “need” HSF period. ISS could splash and HSF could be eliminated, and except for local hits to local job markets around HSF dominated centers like JSC and KSC, the US would simply go along oblivious to the loss. HSF is a luxury.

  • GeeSpace

    The National Space Society also mentioned Mars exploration in its release, but mixed that message in with discussions of human exploration

    The National Space Society did not mix that message (supporting Mars exploration with human exploration becaise they support one another..

    Some people, I guess, see exploration only by machines and not by humans; others see exploration by humans and not by machines, still others see exploration only as a way to make a profit.

    The best exploration plans includes both machines and humans; making a profit and not making a profit with definite goals or objectives which are not always 10-15 years in the future.

    One of the basic problems with developing a good American space policy and program is commitment to sufficient space development within a reasonable timeframe and implementing to plans for that development

  • Explorer08

    @guesswho

    Do you not aspire to anything? Do you live in a cardboard box because it is sufficient? Without HSF space exploration is a drudge. Living through robots is just pretending to do exploration. It’s like reading a book on Antarctica and then saying you’ve been there. Sort of a Matrix-like existence.

  • Coastal Ron

    Senator Hutchinson said:

    These reductions will slow the development of the SLS and the Orion crew vehicle, making it impossible for them to provide backup capability for supporting the space station

    A bizarro statement indeed, especially since the MPCV/SLS combo won’t be ready for human flight until far beyond when we need them to back up the back up for Soyuz.

    She keeps forgetting that she is starving the primary U.S. capability for supporting the ISS. That Commercial Crew, per Congress, is the primary method of supporting the ISS, not the MPCV/SLS.

    Her priorities are all wonky.

  • Alex M

    What is Hutchison so angry about? Even with this budget, SLS/Orion are still on track for their ’17/21 dates, according to NASA.

  • Egad

    Who is likely to replace Hutchison?

  • While I am unhappy with the cuts to automated planetary science, if a choice has to be made, laying the groundwork for eventually sending field geologists to Earth’s moon, the Martian moons, Mars, and asteroids (in that order of importance) should be the priority. Over the long term, that is the way we will get the best scientific answers with the most efficient investment of resources. At first glance, and except for the lowered investment in commercial crew vehicles (a decision made by Republicans, not the Administration), Mr. Obama’s team appears to have made the correct decisions.

    — Donald

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “While I am unhappy with the cuts to automated planetary science, if a choice has to be made, laying the groundwork for eventually sending field geologists…”

    The cuts in planetary science went to JWST, not “groundwork” for “field geologists”, of which there are none in the astronaut corps.

    “… laying the groundwork for eventually sending field geologists to Earth’s moon, the Martian moons, Mars, and asteroids (in that order of importance) should be the priority.”

    But it’s not the (or a) priority in this budget. No transit stages, landers, rover, or other human surface exploration systems are funded in this budget. In fact, NASA’s head of human flight can’t even tell us what the exploration destinations are, nevertheless what the plan for accessing them is:

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1611

    “Over the long term, that is the way we will get the best scientific answers with the most efficient investment of resources.”

    An overly generic and unsupportable statement. It depends on what questions the planetary decadal surveys are asking in any particular decade.

  • Dark Blue Nine wrote:

    NASA’s head of human flight can’t even tell us what the exploration destinations are, nevertheless what the plan for accessing them is.

    That’s because Congress hasn’t authorized any.

    The President has proposed an asteroid rendezvous as a stepping-stone to Mars. Congress has failed to act on that proposal. Congress is only interested in perpetuating jobs in their districts. They don’t care about missions or destinations.

    The blame isn’t with NASA. It’s with Congress.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “Congress is only interested in perpetuating jobs in their districts. They don’t care about missions or destinations.

    The blame isn’t with NASA. It’s with Congress.”

    Agreed. Gerst’s response is a symptom, not a cause. The Senate Launch System and Multiple Procured Congressional Votes are sucking all the oxygen out of NASA human space flight.

  • Actually, the budget for SLS and its ground infrastructure is INCREASED by $25.3 million, which makes the reduction in the combined SLS/Orion programs $146.5 million. Not an insignificant amount, but not hundreds of millions.

    If they decide to take this from commercial crew, that would reduce the amount in that budget from $829.7 million to $687.2 million. I don’t know how severe a setback that would be for the program.

    If Congress for some reason decides to resurrect the ExoMars effort using the same approach, commercial crew is completely screwed over.

  • MrEarl

    As I told you, the in-fighting between Commercial Crew and Exploration has already begun.
    We must fight for any increase in Exploration funds to be provided by an increase in NASA funding not by robbing peter to pay paul.

  • well

    ASAP says that commercial crew is in jeopardy if it continues to be underfunded by Congress.

    If Congress short changes it again, when exactly will we return to regular ISS flights?

  • Coastal Ron

    well wrote @ February 14th, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    ASAP says that commercial crew is in jeopardy if it continues to be underfunded by Congress.

    Don’t know who “ASAP” is, but the underfunding of Commercial Crew has been discussed at length in the past by CCDev participants and pundits alike. In short, yes the program is in jeopardy if it underfunded too much.

    If Congress short changes it again, when exactly will we return to regular ISS flights?

    Return? We haven’t stopped. Unless you mean when the Shuttle “visited” the ISS for less than two weeks at a time, but that doesn’t really count as much as “staying” like Soyuz does. Without Soyuz, there would be no long-term occupation of the ISS.

    However the Soyuz is one system operated by one entity, and that is never a good thing if you want redundancy and an increasing market capability. That is why Commercial Crew is so important, not only for ISS support, but for expanding human activity in space overall.

  • Here’s a sobering assessment out of today’s commercial crew conference in Cocoa Beach:

    The Obama administration has asked Congress for $830 million in fiscal 2013 to fund on-going development of new commercial manned spacecraft to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station. But NASA only got half of what it asked for in 2012, a cut that effectively pushed the first operational launch back one year to 2017, and program officials said Tuesday any similar cuts in 2013 and beyond could push the program to the brink of irrelevance.

    That’s because the space station is the primary destination for private-sector spacecraft and the government currently is committed to operating the lab complex only through 2020. While NASA and its partners hope to keep the station going beyond that, funding is not assured.

    If Congress significantly reduces funding for the commercial crew initiative again, if NASA only ends up with $300 million to $400 million per year for the next five years instead of the $800 million or so per year that’s currently envisioned, “I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” said Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight development at NASA headquarters.

  • @MrEarl
    “As I told you, the in-fighting between Commercial Crew and Exploration has already begun.
    We must fight for any increase in Exploration funds to be provided by an increase in NASA funding not by robbing peter to pay paul.”

    I agree there should be an increase in the Exploration budget. However, as the situation exists in all branches of the federal government, such an increase has the proverbial snowball’s chance in Hell. Given that fact, if we choose “Peter” as the inherently wasteful SLS and “Paul” as Commercial crew, it would be a true service and benefit to the nation as a whole.

  • Martijn Meijering

    These reductions will slow the development of the SLS and the Orion crew vehicle, making it impossible for them to provide backup capability for supporting the space station

    Do people who argue for SLS + Orion as a backup for commercial crew want to see EELV / Falcon + commercial crew as a backup for SLS + Orion? If not, what does that suggest about their real motives?

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>