Congress, NASA

Senate appropriations for NASA closely tracks the House

In a brief markup session Tuesday morning, a Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee approved a funding bill that would give NASA $17.9 billion in fiscal year 2015, including boosting funding for science and the Space Launch System.

“We were very disappointed in the President’s request,” Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chairwoman of both the full appropriations committee and the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) subcommittee, in her opening statement about the bill. She and the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), worked together “to make sure that we maintained the balanced space program of human spaceflight, science, and discovery, and at the same time promote aeronautics.”

The text of the bill itself has not been released, but the hearing offered a few clues to its contents. Mikulski said she “listened to Sen. Shelby when he said we needed more money for the SLS rocket,” providing $1.7 billion for the Space Launch System. The administration had requested $1.38 billion for SLS, while the House bill offered $1.6 billion; both also included over $300 million for ground systems.

The markup provided a few other data points for the NASA budget, including $5.2 billion for science (the House bill provides $5.19 billion, while the administration requested $4.97 billion.) The bill provides $3 billion for International Space Station operations, comparable to both the original request and the House bill. For commercial crew, the Senate bill offers $805 million, less than the $848 million requested but slightly more than the $785 million in the House.

However, the bill includes a provision requested by Sen. Shelby regarding “transparency” in the commercial cargo and crew programs. That language, he said, “provides greater accountability and budgetary transparency in the commercial crew program and future commercial cargo missions,” he said. “I believe we must ensure that the taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar, and I believe the language here will help make that happen.” According to a statement from Shelby’s office, the bill would require “certified cost and pricing data (consistent with FAR requirements)” for those programs.

The bill goes on to the full appropriations committee for consideration at 10am Thursday.

20 comments to Senate appropriations for NASA closely tracks the House

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “She and the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), worked together ‘to make sure that we maintained the balanced space program of human spaceflight, science, and discovery, and at the same time promote aeronautics.’… Mikulski said she ‘listened to Sen. Shelby when he said we needed more money for the SLS rocket,’ providing $1.7 billion for the Space Launch System.”

    Well, there’s Mikulski’s mistake right there. How does flushing hundreds of millions of dollars more down the toilet of the largest project in the agency “maintain balance”? By slipping KDP-C for SLS another six months to maintain the fiction that it’s an executable project?

    “the bill includes a provision requested by Sen. Shelby regarding ‘transparency’ in the commercial cargo and crew programs. That language, he said, ‘provides greater accountability and budgetary transparency in the commercial crew program and future commercial cargo missions,’ he said.”

    Yeah, because those projects don’t waste enough money producing reports documenting and re-documenting their success:

    http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf

    “According to a statement from Shelby’s office, the bill would require ‘certified cost and pricing data (consistent with FAR requirements)’ for those programs.”

    We know exactly how much each commercial milestone and launch costs. How much will SLS development cost? How much will each SLS launch cost? Heck, where are the definitized contracts for SLS that GAO has asked for two years running? We don’t even know what the deliverables on SLS are, nevertheless how much they’ll cost.

    What an ass-backwards piece of legislation.

  • I for one would like a full accounting of commercial crew. I’d also like to know why we are still funding three entrants. They were supposed to be fast. Ares I-X flew way back in 2009. It could have been operational for years by now.

    • Reality Bits

      and the full account for SLS is where? NASA can’t seem to find it for the GAO.

    • Andrew Swallow

      Ares 1-X was not meant to go into operation. Ares-1 was a different rocket being developed by a different team.

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “I for one would like a full accounting of commercial crew.”

      You can read it here:

      http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html

      Here’s the contents:

      Commercial Space Transportation Document Library

      Newsletters and Milestone Charts

      04.23.14
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 15 (PDF)
      Fifteenth issue, with articles on progress and milestones completed by the Commercial Crew Program partners, alternative requirements and standards, and Q&A about Collaborations for Commercial Space Capabilities efforts.

      02.25.14
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 14 (PDF)
      Fourteenth issue, with articles on progress and milestones completed by the CCiCap partners, a feature on cooperation between NASA and the FAA for the future of commercial spaceflight, and a feature on the CCiCap milestone change process.

      12.20.13
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 13 (PDF)
      Thirteenth issue, with articles on progress and milestones completed by the CCiCap partners, a feature on the Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Dream Chaser free-flight test, and a feature on the successful conclusion of the Commercial Cargo Program.

      05.31.13
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 12 (PDF)
      Twelfth issue, with articles on progress and milestones completed by the CCiCap partners, a feature on the importance of Orbital’s recent successful demo flight and having multiple commercial providers.
      › Phil McAlister’s Presentation to the NASA Advisory Council’s Exploration Committee

      02.25.13
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 11 (PDF)
      Eleventh issue, with articles on progress and milestones completed by the CCiCap partners, a feature on quick response planning for Commercial Crew Phase I Certification Deliverables, and a feature on Orbital Sciences multi-national effort.
      › Watch: Accelerating an American Ride to Low-Earth Orbit

      12.13.12
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 10 (PDF)
      Tenth issue, with articles on progress and milestone completed by the CCiCap partners, a feature on Blue Origin’s recent pad escape test, and a feature on CCiCap partners’ innovative approaches to launch abort systems.
      › Presentation for NASA Advisory Council’s Human Exploration and Operations Committee, November 15, 2012 (PDF)
      › The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012

      10.18.12
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 9 (PDF)
      Ninth issue, with articles on progress and milestones completed by the CCiCap partners and a feature on the CCiCap partners’ reusable spacecraft, which will make crew transportation more affordable.
      › Commercial Spaceflight Status Briefing, September 2012 (PDF)
      › Commercial Crew Program Status, NAC Commercial Space Committee, September 18, 2012 (PDF)
      › New Commercial Crew Program Partners poster (PDF, 9 MB)

      08.22.12
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 8 (PDF)
      › CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF – 8/15/12)
      Eighth issue, with articles on the CCiCap partners announcement, the near-completion of all CCDev2 milestones, Orbital’s progress toward the Antares test flight for the COTS program, and the announcement of the Certification Products Contract (CPC).

      06.19.12
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 7 (PDF)
      › CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF – 6/13/12)
      Seventh issue, covering the successful SpaceX COTS demonstration mission, progress by NASA’s commercial partners on CCDev2 milestones, and the role of commercial space programs in enabling NASA’s longer term deep space exploration goals.

      04.17.12
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 6 (PDF)
      › CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF – 4/17/12)
      Sixth issue, with articles on the progress of industry partners on CCDev2 milestones, roles and responsibilities for the government and commercial partners with respect to mishaps that may occur during test flights, and the key role of NASA’s human spaceflight knowledge and experience in the development of crew transportation systems.

      02.16.12
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 5 (PDF)
      › CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF – 2/16/12)
      Fifth issue of the bi-monthly newsletter with information on the CCiCap announcement, eight more SAA milestones completed by industry partners, and the value of technical interchange meetings (TIMs) between NASA and commercial partners.

      12.14.11
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 4 (PDF)
      › CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF – 12/9/11)
      Fourth issue of the bi-monthly newsletter with information on COTS partner launch schedules, an update on milestones met by CCDev2 partners, and the new agreement between NASA and Excalibur Almaz, Inc.

      10.21.11
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 3 (PDF)
      › CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF – 10/18/11)
      Third issue of the bi-monthly newsletter with updates on the progress of Commercial Crew industry partners, Boeing’s successful air bag drop test, NASA’s new partnership with ATK, and information on NASA astronauts assigned to work with commercial partners.

      08.18.11
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 2 (PDF)
      › CCDev2 Milestone Schedule (PDF – 8/18/11)
      Second issue of the bi-monthly newsletter, with updates on SpaceX, CCDev2, commercial partners and NASA’s new ULA partnership.

      06.28.11
      › Commercial Spaceflight – 60 Day Report, Issue 1 (PDF)
      First issue of the bi-monthly newsletter detailing accomplishments, progress and happenings in NASA’s commercial spaceflight development programs.

      ———-

      Documents

      09.18.13
      Orbital Sciences Demonstration Mission
      › NASA Television Coverage for Cygnus Capture and Berthing
      › NASA Television Coverage for Demonstration Mission
      › Media Schedule of Events
      › Orbital Sciences Briefing Graphics
      › Orbital Sciences Briefing Video
      › Demonstration Mission Animation
      › Demonstration Mission Highlights

      06.18.12
      › NASA-FAA Memorandum of Understanding (PDF, 1.9 MB)

      05.22.12
      SpaceX Demonstration Flight:
      › Complete launch coverage
      › SpaceX Demo Mission Press Kit (PDF)
      › SpaceX Launch Weather Criteria (PDF)
      › NASA Cargo Manifest (PDF, 61 kb)
      › Mission Objectives (PDF 96 Kb)
      › Mission Overview (PDF 97 Kb)
      › Preflight Briefing Audio: 04.16.12
      › Preflight Briefing Graphics: 04.16.12

      04.27.11
      › Commercial Crew Market Assessment Final Report (PDF)
      NASA prepared this commercial market assessment in response to direction in Section 301b of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267)

      12.10.10
      › Commercial Crew Transportation System Requirements for NASA LEO Missions (PDF)
      In May 2010, NASA released to industry the first version of our commercial human rating requirements in a document entitled, Commercial Human Rating Plan (CHRP). We received extensive and valuable feedback on that document from industry, and we incorporated that feedback, along with refined NASA understanding and planning, into the next version of the document.
      › Read More

      10.13.10
      › Speech from the Commercial Human Spaceflight Symposium by Phil McAlister (PDF)

      08.09.10
      Commercial Crew Planning Status Forum
      The Commercial Crew Initiative RFI, accompanied by the Commercial Human Rating Plan (CHRP), was published on May 21, 2010. Companies in the aerospace industry submitted responses to that RFI and several common themes emerged. On Aug. 9, 2010, NASA hosted a Commercial Crew Planning Status Forum to provide industry with general feedback and status.
      › Commercial Crew Planning Status Forum Briefings (PDF)
      › NASA’s responses to questions and comments from the forum

      03.10.10
      › Commercial Crew Transportation: Government Insight/Oversight (PDF)
      To assist with the planning for the commercial crew initiative, a document was written to define and describe the government’s approach to insight/oversight for the development of commercial crew vehicles and spacecraft. This document is for informational purposes only. NASA is not requesting formal feedback at this time. The approach described in this white paper is the current “point of departure” plan for government insight/oversight for commercial crew transportation. The KSC Commercial Crew Planning Office is in the process of defining the next level of detail on NASA’s approach. This more detailed planning may (or may not) result in changes to some aspects of the model described in the white paper.

      ———-

      Agreements
      Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) Documents and Space Act Agreements

      •The Boeing Company
      •Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX)
      •Sierra Nevada Corporation
      CCDev2 Announcement: NASA Awards Next Set Of Commercial Crew Development Agreements

      •Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Systems
      •The Boeing Company
      •Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX)
      •Blue Origin
      •› United Launch Alliance
      •› Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK)
      •› Excalibur Almaz Inc.
      Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) Space Act Agreements

      •Blue Origin (NNJ10TA02S)
      •Paragon Space Development Corporation (NNJ10TA03S)
      •Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Systems
      •The Boeing Company
      •United Launch Alliance (NNJ10TA06S)
      Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstration (COTS)

      •Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (NNJ06TA26S)
      •Orbital Corporation
      •Kistler Aerospace Corporation and Rocketplane Limited, Inc. (NNJ06TA27S)
      Commercial Space Transportation Capabilities Agreements

      •Planetspace
      •tSpace
      •Spacehab
      •SpaceDev
      •CSI

      “I’d also like to know why we are still funding three entrants.”

      Because competition worked in the commercial cargo program, and the lack of competition is failing in the SLS/MPCV projects.

      “They were supposed to be fast. Ares I-X flew way back in 2009.”

      The commercial crew program wasn’t started until 2009.

      And Ares I-X was a stunt with no hardware relevance to Ares I.

      “It could have been operational for years by now.”

      Ares I/Orion wouldn’t have been operational until 2017-19, and then only with an infusion of $3 billion per year into NASA’s budget.

    • Henry Vanderbilt

      Ares 1, operational? Yeah, an operational Astronaut Processor.

      “Confirm vehicle set to puree?”

      “Vehicle set to puree confirmed.”

      “3, 2, 1, ignition, launch.”

      “The astronaut masher has cleared the tower. Good job, everyone.”

      Except for the days it’d convert to parachute crisper if they needed to separate the capsule and range-safety the solid booster.

  • Egad

    By slipping KDP-C for SLS another six months to maintain the fiction that it’s an executable project?

    I’m beginning to wonder whether KDP-C has much actual significance. If you read the language describing NASA’s development process, KDP-C marks the transition from the “formulation” to the “implementation” phase. That sounds like it should be a big deal, but, in fact, are there activities being held up until KDP-C makes an appearance?

  • zanderdad

    This industry and the behaviour of the Senators/Congressmen sure is ripe for a documentary expose. The people who put together The Corporation would do a fine job. It’s time a light was shone on this Kafka-esque labyrinth of bureaucracy, feather-bedding and profiteering at the expense of the tax payer. It’s amazing Shelby continues to get away with it.

  • Shelby’s action show who owns him.

    Throw a roadblock in one of NASA’s most cost effective programs with bureaucrap “I believe we must ensure that the taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar,…” and then dumps $1.7 B in SLS.

    Still worse critters than he out there….

  • Andrew Swallow

    However, the bill includes a provision requested by Sen. Shelby regarding “transparency” in the commercial cargo and crew programs. That language, he said, “provides greater accountability and budgetary transparency in the commercial crew program and future commercial cargo missions,” he said. “I believe we must ensure that the taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar, and I believe the language here will help make that happen.”

    That is industrial espionage. Since Congress cannot use the information who are these trade secrets being revealed to? The Russians? The Chinese? Boeing?

  • josh

    Shelby is trying hard to sabotage commercial crew with far requirements. He’s trying to drive up the cost so sls doesn’t look so bad in comparison. So transparent.

    @windy: still lying about ares 1 I see. It might have flown in 2019, and only with additional funding. So stop your incessant bullshitting, it’s not working.

  • Henry Vanderbilt

    Note subsections (3) and (5). From the FARs, section 15.403-1, “Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data”, section (b):

    (b) Exceptions to certified cost or pricing data requirements. The contracting officer shall not require certified cost or pricing data to support any action (contracts, subcontracts, or modifications) (but may require data other than certified cost or pricing data as defined in FAR 2.101 to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price or cost realism)—

    (1) When the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on adequate price competition (see standards in paragraph (c)(1) of this subsection);

    (2) When the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on prices set by law or regulation (see standards in paragraph (c)(2) of this subsection);

    (3) When a commercial item is being acquired (see standards in paragraph (c)(3) of this subsection);

    (4) When a waiver has been granted (see standards in paragraph (c)(4) of this subsection); or

    (5) When modifying a contract or subcontract for commercial items (see standards in paragraph (c)(3) of this subsection).

  • Egad

    Lee Roop seems to have acquired a copy of the language accompanying the markup.

    http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/06/senate_joins_house_as_disappoi.html

    Senate joins House as ‘disappointed’ at White House commitment to NASA’s Space Launch System

    By Lee Roop | lroop@al.com
    on June 04, 2014 at 8:46 AM, updated June 04, 2014 at 8:58 AM

    (excerpts)

    WASHINGTON – Senate appropriators are “disappointed” in the White House commitment to NASA’s Space Launch System, and they are taking steps to strengthen the administration’s resolve.

    A NASA budget passed by an Appropriations Committee subcommittee Tuesday takes NASA to task for budgets that repeatedly “fall far short of requirements by providing unreliable and unsubstantiated cost estimates.”

    “The committee remains disappointed that the funding requested by NASA for SLS and the Orion (crew vehicle) once again bears little relation to either funding levels provided in previous years or NASA’s own cost estimates and policies,” appropriators said in the language accompanying their appropriations bill. “NASA has yet to provide independent cost and schedule assessments for SLS and Orion, which the committee has requested since the programs began. To preserve the current schedule and maintain proper funding for planned work and reserve levels, the committee must rectify NASA’s planned budget shortfall for SLS and Orion.”

    Senate appropriators said in their official report accompanying the budget that they are concerned “insufficient funding for SLS will lead to cost escalation and unnecessary schedule delays that will have to be addressed in future budget years.”

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “NASA has yet to provide independent cost and schedule assessments for SLS and Orion, which the committee has requested since the programs began. To preserve the current schedule and maintain proper funding for planned work and reserve levels, the committee must rectify NASA’s planned budget shortfall for SLS and Orion.”

      Bizarro-world logic. If an agency can’t develop a cost estimate for a project after years of work, then it makes no sense to flush hundreds of millions of more dollars down that toilet. You have no idea if those extra taxpayer funds will have any effect at all. Talk about throwing good money after bad. Cripes.

    • Egad

      “To preserve the current schedule and maintain proper funding for planned work and reserve levels, the committee must rectify NASA’s planned budget shortfall for SLS and Orion.”

      This seems to imply that the committee has some way of knowing what the proper funding is, does it not? Where does the committee get that information? Or is “proper funding” just an euphemism for “Minimum Acceptable Amount of Pork”? (Dibs on MAAP as a new acronym.)

  • Henry Vanderbilt

    The CRS contracts are commercial fixed-price contracts, and as such FARs-type “certified cost and pricing data” is none of the government’s business. By law, and for good reason, the government isn’t allowed to ask for that in such contracts.

    Further, if there is to be any hope for Commercial Crew to turn out as efficient and affordable as Commercial Cargo has, it too must continue on a commercial basis.

    FARs-type cost accounting requirements impose significant additional burden on commercial operators, by some estimates as much as doubling overall costs. It also potentially reveals to both domestic and international rivals a great deal of competition-sensitive confidential commercial information.

    Senator Shelby looks here to be engaging in straightforward sabotage against rivals of his massively wasteful home-town government rocket project. This cannot be allowed to stand.

    The full Senate Appropriations Comittee marks this bill at 10 am tomorrow. The time to contact your Senator (if any) on the Committee and raise (polite) hell is today.

    Committee Members

    Mikulski, Barbara A. (MD) , Chairman
    Leahy, Patrick J. (VT)
    Harkin, Tom (IA)
    Murray, Patty (WA)
    Feinstein, Dianne (CA)
    Durbin, Richard J. (IL)
    Johnson, Tim (SD)
    Landrieu, Mary L. (LA)
    Reed, Jack (RI)
    Pryor, Mark L. (AR)
    Tester, Jon (MT)
    Udall, Tom (NM)
    Shaheen, Jeanne (NH)
    Merkley, Jeff (OR)
    Begich, Mark (AK)
    Coons, Christopher A. (DE)

    Shelby, Richard C. (AL), Ranking Member
    Cochran, Thad (MS)
    McConnell, Mitch (KY)
    Alexander, Lamar (TN)
    Collins, Susan M. (ME)
    Murkowski, Lisa (AK)
    Graham, Lindsey (SC)
    Kirk, Mark (IL)
    Coats, Daniel (IN)
    Blunt, Roy (MO)
    Moran, Jerry (KS)
    Hoeven, John (ND)
    Johanns, Mike (NE)
    Boozman, John (AR)

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>