Congress, NASA

House appropriators propose $16.6 billion for NASA

The House Appropriations Committee released Tuesday night its proposed Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill, scheduled to be marked up by the CJS subcommittee Wednesday morning. The bill offers just under $16.6 billion overall for NASA, compared to $17.7 billion in the administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget request. A comparison of the House bill and the administration’s proposal (all amounts below in millions of dollars):

Account White House House CJS draft Difference
Science $5,017.8 $4,781.0 -$236.8
Space Technology $742.6 $576.0 -$166.6
Aeronautics $565.7 $566.0 $0.3
Exploration Systems $3,915.5 $3,612.0 -$303.5
Space Operations $3,882.9 $3,670.0 -$212.9
Education $94.2 $122.0 $27.8
Cross Agency Support $2,850.3 $2,711.0 -$139.3
Construction $609.4 $525.0 -$84.4
Inspector General $37.0 $35.3 -$1.7
Total $17,715.4 $16,598.3 -$1,117.1

The bill doesn’t provide breakdowns for spending within the accounts (i.e., for astronomy, planetary science, etc. in science), which are usually specified in the report accompanying the bill. The bill, though, does mention that $1.05 billion of the Exploration account should be spent on Orion and $1.775 billion should be spent on SLS (specifying a 130-metric-ton payload capacity for the launch vehicle), leaving $787 million for commercial crew development and exploration R&D. (The administration, by contrast, requested $821 million for commercial crew alone.) In the science account, the bill specifies that $80 million will be set aside for “pre-formulation and/or formulation activities” for a Europa mission, similar to what was set aside in the 2013 appropriations bill for that effort.

17 comments to House appropriators propose $16.6 billion for NASA

  • Coastal Ron

    For those that thought Obama didn’t like NASA this should be an eye-opener, as it’s the Republican controlled House that is wanting to cut NASA’s budget across the board.

    The only account the Republicans proposed to increase was Education – I guess they really do like that public outreach Obama has NASA do… ;-)

    • Joe

      That the current Republican leadership on the Appropriations Committee does not like NASA either does not mean that Obama does.

      Neither version of the budget supports anything like a real program with reals goals and commensurate budgets. So there is no practical difference between the two.

      • Dave Klingler

        Development of low Earth orbital infrastructure is in and of itself a goal. It’s also a faster way to get to other destinations; once the infrastructure exists, it’s a whole lot easier and cheaper to go anywhere.

        Until Congress allows a focus on the small stuff, instead of big pork-laden boosters, and until folks are able to grok that another big booster doesn’t really mark progress, anywhere beyond LEO is going to be a big deal.

        • Joe

          A lot of unsubstantiated (though popular around here) assertions that seem to amount to – orbital propellant depots good/big boosters bad.

          You might notice I mentioned neither in my post, but talked about objectives instead.

          But since returning to that argument is all that interests you, you might also notice that both budgets contain substantial funds for the much hated (around here) SLS and very little (if any) money to work on orbital propellant depots. Again even hypothetically accepting your version of reality there is no practical difference between the two budgets.

      • Coastal Ron

        Joe said:

        That the current Republican leadership on the Appropriations Committee does not like NASA either does not mean that Obama does.

        Apparently Obama likes NASA more than the Republicans, which is all I was pointing out.

        That space is not a “big deal” is pretty much a given, and has been for many administrations. Even after Bush43 announced his VSE, he refused to use any of his “political capital” to support it.

        Those that are waiting for politicians to offer up some magical and unifying “space goal” are kidding themselves. Space is no longer a special place, it’s just a place of work – and an expensive one at that.

        Space Advocates need to be telling the politicians what they should be spending money on, not the other way around. However if we don’t speak in unison, then the politicians will continue to get mixed signals, like they are today, and we can expect more disjointed spending like we have today.

        I’m not saying you have to agree with my vision of what we should be doing in space, or that I should be agreeing with what you think. But between us and the rest of the space community, WE need to come to some sort of consensus so that the politicians don’t get confused.

        So what would you like the goal for NASA to be, from a high level perspective?

        • Joe

          “So what would you like the goal for NASA to be, from a high level perspective?”

          You do not need me to tell you that again.

          You have elicited my position on what I would like to see the goals for a HSF program to be at least three times (once – a long time ago – on this website). Each time you make a critique of my assertion. When I answer that critique you present another (often contradictory) one. Then when three or so such iterations have been performed you restate the original critique. Eventually (and mercifully) the pointless process is ended having resolved nothing. There is no reason to go through another circular and redundant exercise that leads nowhere.

          So why not try something different.

          This time you state what you like the goal for NASA to be, from a high level perspective. Not your usual process double talk, something specific. Below is an example.

          I would like the goal to be to go to:
          (a) The Moon
          (b) Mars
          (c) Pluto

          In order to:
          (a) Learn to use extraterrestrial resources
          (b) Establish an independent settlement
          (c) Build a really cool low gravity swimming pool – because you always wanted one

          Then others (not me), if they desire to do so, can discuss your plans with you.

          At least (for once) you would be original.

          • Coastal Ron

            Joe said:

            This time you state what you like the goal for NASA to be, from a high level perspective.

            OK, I’ll go first.

            I think the President and the Congress should state that the next goal for the U.S. in space is to be a spacefaring nation. And the initial phase of that would be to create a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon (EM-L, LLO, etc.).

            As part of that the government may decide to fund destinations too, like an EML Gateway, but the focus is on developing the transportation system itself. NASA and the government would not own any part of the transportation system, but NASA would be the agency in charge of spending government funds as needed to put such a system in place.

            Such a system would get us closer to ALL destinations.

            My philosophy is that NASA should always be on the leading edge, and not mired in the exploitation part of opening up a new frontier. And since NASA has lots of capabilities, it should also be used as a force multiplier, which means helping companies, and not NASA doing everything themselves. That also means that NASA could wean off it’s support as non-government traffic increases, which would free up funding for what comes next.

            Putting such a system in place to the region of the Moon should keep NASA busy for at least a decade, and by then the goal could be extended for a transportation system to the region of Mars (and points along the way obviously). Since travel in open space entails lots of additional challenges like long-term radiation mitigation and long-term health, that should keep NASA busy for at least another decade or more.

            As we have seen here on Earth, the key to opening up new frontiers is to have good transportation to them, and that’s what this does for space. What people and companies do at those new frontiers is not part of NASA’s charter, NASA just opens up the frontiers.

            My $0.02

            • Joe

              “OK, I’ll go first.”

              And as far as I am concerned last. Like I said I am not going to get into another drawn out “debate” on architectures. The subject has already been over discussed.

              I will say this however, my original post stated “So there is no practical difference between the two” budgets. Nothing you said changes that. You are suggesting an architecture at least similar to that proposed in the NASA OASIS Study from the 1990’s (except that study assumed Earth Surface to LEO support from the Shuttle and a SDHLV, which I assume you would have opposed). However, there is nothing of any significance in any of the Obama Administration Budget proposals since 2010 that support such an architecture. In the original roll out they talked about all sorts of things from orbital propellant depots to solar electric propulsion systems, but they put them all in a wish list that that began by stating “may include” which in fact means nothing. While some small technology demonstrators may have been pursued in some of those areas, no coherent program was proposed and no actual hardware development has been proposed after three years.

              If you want to argue that the Obama Administrations budget is superior to that of the GOP House budget version because it allocates more money to not even try to do anything that is your privilege. But, if you are going to do that you should relinquish your privilege to call anything you simply so not like “pork”.

              • Coastal Ron

                Joe said:

                Like I said I am not going to get into another drawn out “debate” on architectures.

                You’re the one talking about architectures – I never mentioned any. The only related thing I said is that NASA would not own any part of the transportation system I proposed. Whether that means canceling existing government transportation programs or transferring them to the private sector, it doesn’t matter to me.

                You are suggesting an architecture at least similar to that proposed in the NASA OASIS Study from the 1990’s

                I never claimed my idea was original, only that it was what I think the U.S. Government should commit to.

                However, there is nothing of any significance in any of the Obama Administration Budget proposals since 2010 that support such an architecture.

                Yes… and I never claimed that my idea had been proposed by the Administration or anyone in Congress.

                If you want to argue that the Obama Administrations budget is superior to that of the GOP House budget version because it allocates more money to not even try to do anything that is your privilege.

                It is my privilege, but that’s not what I posted. My point was in regards to other posters that have said in the past that Obama is defunding NASA, or in some other way didn’t like NASA. Comparing the two proposals, regardless the merits of what they want to do, shows that the Republicans in the House are not the type of NASA supporters that Obama detractors say they are.

                Personally I don’t think “space” is a priority for anyone in Government right now, so my comment was my way of “tweaking” Obama detractors.

                But, if you are going to do that you should relinquish your privilege to call anything you simply so not like “pork”.

                Looks like my ability to use the “pork” label is intact… ;-)

  • Gregori

    Just because human spaceflight is confined to the ISS for the time being doesn’t mean its not a real program. NASA is not just Human Spaceflight afterall, which has become something of a joke to be honest. Earth Sciences and heliophysics might not sound exciting and involve Bruce Willis but they are very important.

    • Dave Klingler

      There’s nothing wrong with what’s happening in LEO, either. If you actually pay attention to what we’ve learned and learned how to do at Station, the past twenty years actually seems like pretty good progress.

  • Ralph Thompson

    Obviously he likes them $1.1 Billion better, that ain’t chicken feed!

  • Joe

    Coastal Ron July 10, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    “You’re the one talking about architectures – I never mentioned any.”

    No Ron. My original post noted that the Obama non-plan had no objectives. You then wanted me to state what I thought those objectives should be, when I refused and suggested that you present your goals instead you replied with a set architectural technologies to be developed with no actual goals specified. So your statement is counter factual.

    This kind of disingenuous obfuscation is exactly what I mentioned is the problem with pretending anything can be discussed seriously with you.

    With that good night.

    • Coastal Ron

      Joe said:

      …when I refused and suggested that you present your goals instead you replied with a set architectural technologies to be developed with no actual goals specified.

      In response to what I said:

      I think the President and the Congress should state that the next goal for the U.S. in space is to be a spacefaring nation. And the initial phase of that would be to create a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon (EM-L, LLO, etc.).

      So I did state a goal (i.e. “a reusable transportation system”) and I even stated an initial destination (i.e. the region of the Moon), but I didn’t state what the architecture was other than it should be reusable. Hard to see how much more architecture neutral I can be when the whole point of doing things in space involves some sort of transportation.

      This kind of disingenuous obfuscation is exactly what I mentioned is the problem with pretending anything can be discussed seriously with you.

      You do realize that there is an audience beyond those of us that write something, right? I offered you an opportunity to convince those that may not remember every word you write, and you passed. That’s OK.

      As to what you said about me? You write more about what you’re not going to say than anything you have ever said of any real content (i.e. facts, opinion, etc.), so I just view you as ducking any form of real contribution to the subject that you pretend to be concerned about (i.e. what we’re doing in space). In other words, your real goal here is to argue, so why would I care what you think of me?

      With that good night.

      Sure, whatever…

      • Fred Willett

        I like your goal Ron, it’s just what we need. Something reusable that will take us not just to one destination, but to any and all destinations we want. Then gradually expand the transport system into all corners of the solar system.
        But why doesn’t it happen?
        Why doesn’t congress buy into this?
        The obvious reason is because space doesn’t actually fall into anyone’s electorate. Supporting a weather sat that will help the farmers in your district or a rocket factory employing your voters is one thing, but a space transport system is way outside anybody’s electorate.
        And while we may all support the ideal of settling on Mars the only thing for sure is that those settlers and not going to be in anybody on Earth’s electorate, so why should the average politician (and so many of them are average) give a toss?

        • Coastal Ron

          Fred Willett said:

          The obvious reason is because space doesn’t actually fall into anyone’s electorate.

          No doubt that plays a part. If we don’t go back to the Moon, no one particular political district is hurt, so no one particular politician is going to stand up on the floor of Congress and make a fuss.

          And while we may all support the ideal of settling on Mars the only thing for sure is that those settlers and not going to be in anybody on Earth’s electorate, so why should the average politician (and so many of them are average) give a toss?

          And I’m sure the politicians understand that once people get outside of Earth’s sphere of political influence, there won’t be much of a need for Congressional oversight. So why would politicians spend taxpayer money for people that they don’t represent or control?

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>