Comments on: NASA operating plan adjusts commercial crew, planetary science funding

By: Hiram

Hiram — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:34:42 +0000

I don’t think anyone said that JWST was getting “more funding now”. The agreed-upon JWST cost plan never agreed upon where those dollars were going to come from, unless you really believe in those artifices called budget runouts. All we know is that those funds are going to come. The peak funding in the JWST funding profile happens to be in FY14.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 04:04:42 +0000

Dark Blue Nine said:

“The PMs need to get a grip on this program, and they clearly donâ€™t have it if they swing from â€œon budgetâ€ to needing a $50 million increase in less than 60 days. Scheduled for launch in 2018, JWST canâ€™t survive five more years of budget growth.”

I wonder if there is a “point of no return” where Congress would just give in to budget growth instead of canceling it? I think we’re something like $5.5B into what is supposed to cost $8B through 2018?

And if they have run out of their reserve budget, then we could find out pretty soon if it has in fact hit that point. Not that running out of their reserve budget is anything unusual – the JWST was originally budgeted for $1B…

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 01:09:58 +0000

“I can imagine this will open up some old discussions.”

Not really. The offset for the commercial crew increase —
savings from Shuttle closeout — is not very controversial:

“The money for Commercial Crew came out of the space operations account, using funds originally budgeted for a space shuttle closeout effort that has since winded down, according to the government source who saw the operating plan.”

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/35684commercial-crew-gets-reprieve-in-nasa-operating-plan#.UbWPEetdqbE

Cutting planetary science for JWST and earth science will torque off the California delegation, as the quotes in the article above show. But there won’t be much discussion as long as Mikulski chairs Senate approps.

The bigger, more ominous question is why does JWST need more funding now? Just a month or two ago, the deputy PM was claiming that the program was on schedule and on budget, despite half of JWST’s instruments slipping almost a year:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/25/not-so-news-about-jwst/

The PMs need to get a grip on this program, and they clearly don’t have it if they swing from “on budget” to needing a $50 million increase in less than 60 days. Scheduled for launch in 2018, JWST can’t survive five more years of budget growth.

By: common sense

common sense — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:35:14 +0000

“And it seems unfair to me to so favor Earth science when Mars science is in such need of support.”

Well surprisingly our species lives on Earth. For now anyway.

Dunno, could be why.

By: DougSpace

DougSpace — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:06:03 +0000

I would call it a mixed bag. It is good that commercial funding is being brought back up. The public-private programs are the most hopeful approach to creating a sustainable path by reducing costs. SLS will do just the opposite and planetary missions are largely unable to reduce costs of future operations.

On the other hand, James Webb is an example of continued funding of the worst budgetary offender. And it seems unfair to me to so favor Earth science when Mars science is in such need of support.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:48:33 +0000

I can imagine this will open up some old discussions. Not sure if anything good will happen with those discussions, but it will be interesting to see what everyones stance is these days.

Call it a trial balloon for the bigger budget battles to come, when they debate the full-up FY14 NASA budget…