NASA

Quantifying sequestration’s effects (and the odds)

On Friday the Office of Management and Budget released a report detailing the budget cuts that would go into effect in January because of budget sequestration. For NASA, these cuts involve reductions of 8.2 percent across its various budget lines, for a total of nearly $1.46 billion, as detailed in page 186 of the report (all amounts in millions of dollars):

Account Current Budget Sequester Amount
Space Operations $4,222 $346
Science $5,085 $417
Exploration $3,767 $309
Cross Agency Support $2,994 $246
Aeronautics $569 $47
Space Technology $575 $47
Education $136 $11
Construction $385 $32
Inspector General $38 $3
TOTAL $17,771 $1,458

The overall amount is not surprising: last week NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver warned that sequestration would reduce NASA’s budget by about that much, and that such cuts would come at a “great cost” to the agency. (How the cuts would be enacted within each account hasn’t been released yet.) But what’s the likelihood that these automatic cuts will go into effect; that is, can the administration and Congress reach a deal before the end of the calendar year to avoid sequestration? Earlier this week, MarketWatch reports, two defense analysts said that sequestration was increasingly likely. “I would count on it at this point,” John Hillen of Sotera Defense Solutions said.

20 comments to Quantifying sequestration’s effects (and the odds)

  • E.P. Grondine

    I my be wrong on this, but I think that to judge the effects of sequestration one would have to look to the language of each piece of spending legislation.

    In other words, I doubt if the neo-cons left it up to the Obama administration to pick and choose the cuts.

    However, that would make a great high court battle, as most of the line item spending is conditional on gross budget levels for each part of the federal government.

  • A M Swallow

    Cut overtime, give people a long Christmas holiday but do not actually fire anyone. After that the sequestration will probably be cancelled at the bequest of all the other government agencies.

  • Googaw

    Keep ignoring the evidence of your lying eyes. NASA funding is inevitable. It is known!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Sequestration is extraordinarily likely. I have predicted for sometime that this Presidential (and Congressional) elections are in the last few weeks going to be about sequestration and the implosion of the Romney campaign makes that in my view all more likely.

    The debate will eventually turn to 1) the realities of sequestration and then 2) the notion of a “fix” for the effort.

    in my view it is unlikely “now” that the effort can be avoided…and I htink that is a good thing. Sequestration is a bad idea whose time has come.

    I stand so far by my prediction 52-48 Obama over Romney with Obama getting 320 EC votes.

    Robert G. Oler

  • In other words, I doubt if the neo-cons left it up to the Obama administration to pick and choose the cuts.

    The who?

    The administration will decide where to cut, unless Congress passes a new appropriation bill, which isn’t going to happen.

  • Save Science? No Problem – just whack JWST and you can save SMD, Technology, Aeronautics, and education. Four for one is a good deal imho.

    Sounds like a good deal to me.

    VR
    RE327

  • James

    I’m with RGO, I can’t see congress tackling the creation of deficit reduction plan the stops sequestration in the 5 to 6 weeks they’ll have till the end of the year.

    However, the lame duckers on both sides of the isle may provide enough energy and push to muster a ‘new law’ that removes the axe of sequestration, or delays its enactment to allow the new Congress time to get in office, receive kick backs from lobbyist and deep pocketed corporations, etc. so they can tackle the issue.

    In either case, I bet on the axe falling.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Sequestration is actually one of the few things that the GOP house and party as a whole has done in the last two years which has been a service to The Republic…instead of their narrow party ambitions.

    Most of the cuts are painful; they are probably to painful to make in an environment where the notion is to stab the other party in the back even illogically or over a “lie”…and this can be seen by the members of the GOP who voted for sequestration…and now are saying “wow I didnt think we would actually get to this”.

    Sequestration succeeding actually depends on the worst attributes of both parties…ie the ability to appear blameless “I didnt want to have all those cuts to the home team pork, but gee that naughty sequestration bill which the (insert opposite party) failed to stop is at fault”. this is the inertia which has brought this country to its knees turned on its head for something valuable.

    The reality is that neither of the parties can really summon up its courage to do the right thing; because they all know or suspect at least that the other group will shaft them (instead of both working together to do it)…so it is amazing to me that this got signed into law.

    We can all thank the idiots in the tea party and other crusaders of the right wing of the GOP…

    and it wont hurt NASA all that much as long as Charlie gets a backbone (yeah Charlie this is your moment) and says “OK this is where I cut and does it….If all it is is across the board cuts to all programs…well no balls. RGO

  • common sense

    “If all it is is across the board cuts to all programs… well no balls”

    Not what I’ve heard… Plans do change though. FWIW.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “and it wont hurt NASA all that much as long as Charlie gets a backbone (yeah Charlie this is your moment) and says “OK this is where I cut and does it….If all it is is across the board cuts to all programs…well no balls.”

    The cuts from sequestration are across-the-board by account. So the White House and NASA don’t have discretion to, say, take the $417 million cut to the “Science” account in Jeff’s table above out of some other part of NASA. But within the “Science” account, the White House and NASA do have discretion to take more (or all) of the cut out of, say, JWST than the Mars Exploration Program (or vice-versa).

    Within “Exploration” account, one would hope that the White House and NASA would take most, if not all, of the $309 million cut in Jeff’s table above out of the Exploration Systems Development line-item, which is the ~$3 billion per year budget for SLS, MPCV and related ground systems development. This would spare the ~$1.1 billion per year going to the Commercial Spaceflight and Exploration Research and Development line-items. Even if Obama loses and the Administration becomes lame duck, this will still be the Obama White House’s decision. But given the rhetoric emanating from the Deputy Administrator on SLS this election season, it’s hard to say if that’s what will happen.

    It’s unfortunate that there is not discretion to take most or all of the cut from a single account or program. Terminating SLS/MPCV would solve NASA’s sequestration problem and still leave ~$1.5 billion in FY12 to redirect the exploration program towards a more affordable course.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Rand –

    “The administration will decide where to cut, unless Congress passes a new appropriation bill, which isn’t going to happen.”

    You sure about that? I doubt if that is what The Wrecking Crew has in mind.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dark Blue Nine wrote @ September 20th, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    I wrote:
    “and it wont hurt NASA all that much as long as Charlie gets a backbone (yeah Charlie this is your moment) and says “OK this is where I cut and does it….If all it is is across the board cuts to all programs…well no balls.”

    DBN
    The cuts from sequestration are across-the-board by account

    ….

    But I am correct that in an “account” issue not an across the board cut in the various programs in an “account”?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Martijn Meijering

    It’s unfortunate that there is not discretion to take most or all of the cut from a single account or program.

    Still, if the cuts in the Exploration account are focussed on SLS / Orion, it would further increases the probability of eventual cancellation. Every little bit helps. The competitive procurement approach can always be revived, the Shuttle political industrial complex not so much.

  • Das Boese

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 20th, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    Sequestration is actually one of the few things that the GOP house and party as a whole has done in the last two years which has been a service to The Republic…instead of their narrow party ambitions.

    Naturally, they’re fighting tooth and nail to avoid having to follow through with it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Why is the Oct 7 Dragon launch carrying only 1000 or so pounds? RGO

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “But I am correct that in an “account” issue not an across the board cut in the various programs in an “account”?”

    Yes. Like I wrote above, within the cut to the “Science” account, NASA and the White House can decide whether that cut falls entirely on JWST, or the Mars Exploration Program, or 50/50, or something else entirely.

  • You sure about that? I doubt if that is what The Wrecking Crew has in mind.

    I have no idea what “The Wrecking Crew” is, any more than I (or, I suspect, you) know what a “neocon” is.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 21st, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    Use your common sense. That toy never lives up to its own hyped press releases. They’ll find a good excuse- the ISS is overstocked; they’re dieting up there… But hey,Master Musk says them thare Dragons will be takin’ millions of retirees to Mars. =eyeroll=

  • DCSCA

    “The reality is that neither of the parties can really summon up its courage to do the right thing; because they all know or suspect at least that the other group will shaft them (instead of both working together to do it)…so it is amazing to me that this got signed into law.

    We can all thank the idiots in the tea party and other crusaders of the right wing of the GOP”

    Yep.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Use your common sense. That toy never lives up to its own hyped press releases. They’ll find a good excuse- the ISS is overstocked; they’re dieting up there… But hey,Master Musk says them thare Dragons will be takin’ millions of retirees to Mars. =eyeroll=”

    Actually they could indeed be overstocked…last shuttle mission carried one year worth of supply in case commercal cargo was late. The may flight deliverd 1,000 pounds of food/water and other items from dragon(and this cargo was more a lets send something than scheduled delivery).

    While dragon could carry 6MT up you would have to pack it full of something very dense to achieve that. Lifesupport(i.e. food/cothing) is a bulky item rather than a heavy one.

    Next flight is Jan(after the october flight).

Leave a Reply to E.P. Grondine 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>