This morning the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee will markup its proposed NASA authorization act. There’s the potential for debate as the bill proposed by the committee’s Republican leadership clashes with one introduced earlier this week by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), the ranking member of the space subcommittee. Both the updated “committee print” of the Republican-led bill and the Democratic alternative are available. One quick comparison is to look at the authorized spending levels for fiscal year 2014 in the two bills (amounts in millions of dollars):
| Account | House GOP | House Dem | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exploration | $4,007.4 | $4,220.8 | $213.40 |
| - SLS | $1,802.4 | $1,650.0 | -$152.40 |
| - Orion | $1,200.0 | $1,230.0 | $30.00 |
| - Exploration Ground Systems | $0.0 | $318.2 | $318.20 |
| - Exploration R&D | $305.0 | $322.6 | $17.60 |
| - Commercial Crew | $700.0 | $700.0 | $0.00 |
| Space Operations | $3,817.9 | $3,761.7 | -$56.20 |
| - ISS | $2,984.1 | $2,927.9 | -$56.20 |
| - Space and Flight Support | $833.8 | $833.8 | $0.00 |
| Science | $4,626.9 | $5,300.3 | $673.40 |
| - Earth Science | $1,200.0 | $1,846.1 | $646.10 |
| - Planetary Science | $1,500.0 | $1,500.0 | $0.00 |
| - Astrophysics | $642.3 | $642.3 | $0.00 |
| - JWST | $658.2 | $658.2 | $0.00 |
| - Heliophysics | $626.4 | $653.7 | $27.30 |
| Aeronautics | $565.7 | $569.4 | $3.70 |
| Space Technology | $500.0 | $615.0 | $115.00 |
| Education | $125.0 | $136.1 | $11.10 |
| Cross Agency Support | $2,600.0 | $2,850.3 | $250.30 |
| Construction | $587.0 | $609.4 | $22.40 |
| Inspector General | $35.3 | $37.0 | $1.70 |
| TOTAL | $16,865.2 | $18,100.0 | $1,234.80 |
As expected, the Democratic bill moves to restore Earth sciences funding, adding nearly $650 million to the program compared to the Republican version, while leaving the other science accounts largely unchanged. The Democratic bill also authorizes more funding for space technology, exploration, and cross agency support, while cutting ISS operations slightly. (One difference between the original “discussion draft” and the current version of the Republican-led bill is that that the updated version combined SLS and Exploration Ground Systems into the SLS line item; the earlier draft, as well as the Democratic bill, had them separately, but the House CJS appropriations bill combined them as well.)
While the Republican authorization bill supports less funding for NASA than the Democratic bill, it is still more generous than the proposed House appropriations bill, which would give NASA $267 million less than authorized levels. Appropriators actually provide more money in areas like science and space technology, but would give exploration nearly $400 million less than the authorized level and space operations nearly $150 million less.
The policy differences between the Republican and Democratic authorization bills are also significant. One of the more controversial provisions of the Republican bill, blocking funding of NASA’s Asteroid Redirect (née Retrieval) Mission, is missing from the Democratic bill, as are provisions that would establish a fixed term for the NASA administrator and create a board of directors-like advisory body.
The dems lack of commitment to SLS is an outrage! What is controversial about GOP opposition to the asteroid lasso mission? The idea was developed in secret by the administration without any consultation with congress.
“The dems lack of commitment to SLS is an outrage!”
Reread the post, dummy:
“(One difference between the original ‘discussion draft’ and the current version of the Republican-led bill is that that the updated version combined SLS and Exploration Ground Systems into the SLS line item; the earlier draft, as well as the Democratic bill, had them separately, but the House CJS appropriations bill combined them as well.)”
“The idea was developed in secret by the administration without any consultation with congress.”
It’s a dumb idea, but the “idea” was developed by the Keck Institute for Space Studies, not the “administration [sic]”:
http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/
It is worse than that. The House GOP SLS is $165.8M than the Dem (SLS + Ground) total.
$16.8B all around??? = NO COMMITTMENT !
GOP has no commitment to SLS beyond the campaign contributions they can garner from the big corporate guys. All that $$$, hoping for two flights in 10 years, hopefully before GOP itself cancels it as too expensive?
The cost of GOP tax breaks to the wealthy? NASA on the ground churning out bonuses, stock dividends, and campaign contributions from and for the wealthy. Wouldn’t even get the $16.8B out of GOP except for that.
I hope this destroys any delusions of a pro-NASA GOP
No. The GOP is pro-NASA, in certain areas. The GOP budget reflects the reality that NASA is in need of reform.
“pro NASA” and that means what? Just shovel money? “Pro” any agency in GOP speak is simply code for shovel money without much caring for results. You are a big government toady RGO
I must say that the Democratic bill is attractive in some ways that go beyond the additional money and fund distribution. At least on quick inspection. Now, while the primary goal of sending humans to Mars is admirable, it is also somewhat far-fetched, at least right now. But at least this bill makes some statements that reach for overriding goals and objectives which the GOP bill does not.
The Democratic bill begins with a Sense of Congress about the purpose of the agency in serving national needs, and a statement that establishes “human exploration of that planet as part of a broader national goal of human and robotic exploration of the solar system”. That is, the agency serves national goals in dong this. Sending humans to Mars is not just an agency goal, but a national goal, it is saying. That’s a very important statement to have in an Authorization Act that sets rationale and guides the agency for several years. It would have been nice to see more words like this.
The Dem view of ISS is also better defined, as having “two primary objectives: supporting achievement of the goal established in section 201 and pursuing a research program that advances knowledge and provides benefits to society.” Those are very general words, but someone has to say them. The GOP bill refers to ISS as an “ideal short-term testbed” refers to commercial access as “most expeditious” and insists that it “be utilized to the maximum extent practicable”. But it doesn’t make a clear statement about what ISS is actually for. Not clear that, to the GOP bill, the ISS has any “primary objectives”.
The Dem bill does micromanage somewhat, in that issues about radiation mitigation and variable gravity facilities are ones that the agency should be responsible for prioritizing, not Congress.
While this Dem bill won’t advance, let’s hope that the words that are used in it inspire some better authorization phraseology in the bill that does advance. I suspect that much of this language in the Dem bill would be wholly acceptable to the GOP. It’s just better written. It is clear, in perusing these bills, why the Dems decided to issue their own instead of just whacking the GOP bill. Their bill does more than just wordsmith the GOP bill and change the budget numbers.
Both bills call for a Mars roadmap, which is profoundly important. It would be interesting to compare the charters for this roadmap in some detail. I have not done that yet. There are a lot of other places where the emphasis is different, and these should be considered carefully. I do find it curious that the GOP bill puts NEO warning and mitigation squarely in the Planetary Science section, while the Dem bill more properly sets it apart as a separate provision. Assigning responsibility to SMD to save the Earth is not that smart. The technologies that would be required to do mitigation are not technologies that SMD has any particular purview on.
Its worth noting that the Democratic Bill is quite prescriptive when it comes to how Commercial Crew is to proceed. From the bill
Section 216 (d)
ACQUISITION APPROACH.—
(1) RESTRICTION-The Administrator shall not exercise any optional milestones beyond the base period of the Space Act Agreements established under the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability initiative.
(2) SOURCE SELECTION.—To cover all development, test, demonstration, and certification activities not included in the base period of the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability Space Act Agreements, the Administrator shall conduct a Federal Acquisition Regulation-based competitive source selection for a cost plus incentive fee contract for all activitiesrelated to the development, test, demonstration, and certification of one or more commercially provided crew transportation systems to transport NASA astronauts to and from the ISS and serve as an emergency crew rescue vehicle as soon as practicable under the authorized funding and while ensuring that all safety requirements are met. The number of systems selected shall be consistent with the funding levels authorized in this Act. The Administrator shall identify a methodology by which NASA will ensure that the Government is not charged for contractor costs incurred during development, testing, demonstration, and certification activities by an awardee of the Federal Acquisition Regulation-based contract for operational commercial crew transportation services.
This would have major implications, and potentially very bad implications to Commercial Crew. The rest of the section related to crew transportation to ISS is worth noting as well. In someways, its similar to the SAA section of the Republican Draft NASA Authorization
Yes the Dem’ bill is not great for getting the best deal out of Commercial Crew for taxpayers. Ommission of optional milestones is an obvious ‘fail’. These are real ‘value add’ items.
I might be reading things into this that aren’t there but this just has the taste of another pork arrangement coming. Hopefully I’m wrong.
Also very curious the way this reads in trying to get SAA outcomes from a FAR contract.
Assigning responsibility to SMD to save the Earth is not that smart.
Assigning it to NASA at all is not that smart.
Just curious. What exactly is covered under the ‘cross agency support.’ That seems to be almost 1/6 the budget, enough to pop off five SLS launches, an annual flagship class unmanned probe or 3 1/2 commercial crew programs.
So.
What does it comprise? Is that the baseline to pay for people at all the centers?
“Is that the baseline to pay for people at all the centers?”
Yes, it’s mostly the civil servant salaries, along with G&A and other types of overhead.
It’s red pencil time for Project Muddlethrough.
So, why shoukd we go to Mars vs Europa? Isn’t there enough evidence that there is no life there?
I posted yesterday’s House Space Subcommittee hearing on YouTube. It’s at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjQt602aGTw
I recommend hand sanitizer. A new low for this group. And that says a lot.
Mr. Brooks comments were pretty stunning. He berates his minority colleagues,”my friends across the aisle”, insisting that although their proposed budget bump-up is desirable, “the minority does not come up with a way to pay for it”. The way you pay for it, in fact, is for Appropriators to make some hard choices about how do distribute their budget allocation. The purpose of an Authorization effort is to establish what agency activities are deserving. The Appropriators role, on the other hand, is to decide what’s affordable. Brooks is essentially arguing that (as Ranking Member Edwards notes) the job losses that will be levied on his district are deserved.
NASA is less than 0.5% of the federal budget, and the increase proposed by the amendment was a tiny fraction of that. In that context, Brooks is just grandstanding about “welfare and giveaway programs” (which I have to assume, in his comments, is not referring to NASA aerospace contracts).
At least he admits that the financial responsibility in the last decade or two was by both parties.
His comments were really pretty ugly for a historically bipartisan committee, the final vote notwithstanding. As you say, a new low for this group.
Everyone has programs they view as worthless and wonders why the money can’t simply be transferred to programs they support with no increase in taxes. But in reality expenditure of tax dollars competes against the tax cuts that would result if it were cut. The only way you can pay for increasing the budget of a discretionary program like NASA is to convince the public it is worth the tax increase needed to pay for it.