By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 22 at 6:15 am ET On Monday, the co-chairs of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, aka the “supercommittee”, formally admitted defeat in their bid to develop a deficit reduction plan before a Wednesday deadline. The Budget Control Act passed in August established the supercommittee and required that it come up with at least $1.2 trillion in reductions, through any combination of spending cuts and revenue increases, by Wednesday; if it had, Congress would have had a month to vote on the plan.
The failure of the supercommittee means that automatic cuts, called sequestration, will take effect starting in fiscal year 2013. But as I note in an article Monday in The Space Review that covers nearer-term budget issues as well, the effect of this sequestration on NASA and other federal agencies is still uncertain. The required cuts in non-defense discretionary spending for FY13 amount to $54.7 billion, although the exact impact on each agency is uncertain (defense spending would also get an across-the-board $54.7-billion cut in FY13). It’s also possible the cuts will be modified by Congress in the months to come, as some have already proposed.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 18 at 6:43 am ET Yesterday the House and Senate passed the “minibus” appropriations bill that includes the $17.8 billion for NASA in FY12 reported here earlier this week. With the President to sign the bill into law today, it marks the end of the FY12 appropriations process, far sooner than FY11, which dragged into April of this year, and, as POLITICO put it, is a “rare return to some semblance of regular order for the tattered appropriations process.”
Some members use the final passage of the bill to hail its NASA-related provisions. In a statement, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) noted it includes “critical investments” in the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which at one point in the appropriations process was threatened with cancellation when House appropriators included no funding for it in its version of the bill. “The James Webb Space Telescope will keep America in the lead for science and technology and inspire students to learn science, technology, engineering and math to become the scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs of tomorrow,” she said. However, she added that her support for JWST “is not unconditional”, citing the programs major cost overruns. The bill caps the development cost of the telescope at NASA’s current estimate of $8 billion and requires the GAO to provide regular reports on the telescope’s development status and cost.
Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) used a statement to bring attention to a more obscure provision of the bill. NASA is required to provide Congress with quarterly reports on the status of the transfer of the shuttle orbiters to the museums to which they were awarded in April. This includes a notification if any recipient “has failed to meet a financial or physical milestone to which it had committed” and that the plans is to address that problem. This has been a sore point, of course, for Houston and Dayton, who thought they were slighted when NASA awarded Enterprise to New York City’s Intrepid museum, which is now seeking to develop a larger, more expensive site for displaying then orbiter than what it originally proposed. “In the wake of recent reports on alternate plans for displaying Enterprise in New York City, taxpayers deserve to know that the cities scheduled to receive orbiters can and will fully meet their obligations,” Olson said. A NASA Office of the Inspector General report in August largely cleared the shuttle site selection process, other than a “cut-and-paste” error that did not affect the final decision made by NASA administrator Charles Bolden.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 17 at 6:13 am ET Yesterday members of Congress were honoring the past of space exploration. Today, they’ll be looking at the future. The space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee will be holding a hearing at 10 am EST today on “NASA’s Human Space Exploration: Direction, Strategy, and Progress”. NASA administrator Charles Bolden will be testifying at the hearing, followed in a separate panel by three center directors: Robert Cabana of KSC, Michael Coats of JSC, and Robert Lightfoot of MSFC. The hearing will examine NASA’s plans for the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket, Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, and associated programs, according to the hearing announcement. The hearing will be webcast on the committee’s site as well as broadcast on NASA TV.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 16 at 6:34 am ET At 11 am EST today, Congress will host a ceremony awarding Congressional Gold Medals to Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, as well as John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth. The ceremony, in the Capitol rotunda, will be webcast by the Senate Commerce Committee; C-SPAN will be carrying it as well.
The medals were authorized in legislation passed by Congress back in 2009. As the Orlando Sentinel noted last month, it’s not clear why it took Congress two years to get around to actually awarding the medals.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 16 at 6:11 am ET It’s not uncommon for NASA to be on the hot seat in Congressional hearings, criticized by members of Congress for what the agency is or is not doing. Yesterday, though, at a hearing of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee on the future of NASA’s planetary exploration programs, NASA was treated like a victim of decisions being made, or pending, by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
“On the one hand, NASA is actively seeking international partners to collaborate on future missions,” said subcommittee chairman Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) in his opening statement. “On the other, the administration appears to be interfering with the agency’s efforts to reach out and engage foreign governments in future flagship missions.”
That alleged interference is a reference to the current state of limbo that NASA’s cooperation with ESA on 2016 and 2018 Mars missions is in, after NASA had to back out of an agreement to launch ESA’s 2016 Mars orbiter. The concern of committee members, and the planetary science community, is that OMB may treat those missions, and other large “flagship” planetary missions, as a lower priority and not seek funding for them in future budgets. An OMB official, Sally Ericsson, program associate director for natural resources, energy, and science, was invited to testify but declined, Palazzo said. (Her name was added to the public list of witnesses for the hearing only about an hour before it started.) “I am not surprised but I find it regrettable,” Palazzo said of OMB’s decision not to appear.
Steve Squyres, the Cornell University planetary scientist who chaired the most recent planetary decadal survey, one that found that a Mars rover to cache samples for later return to Earth to be its highest-priority flagship mission, said he was confused by the current situation regarding support for that mission. “I’m perplexed, sir,” he said with a sigh when asked about it by Palazzo. “I sense within the agency a strong desire to do flagship missions,” he said, citing work being done to lower the cost of the 2018 Mars rover mission. “And yet, there’s no commitment being made. I’m perplexed.”
Sqyures said later he has talked with OMB officials about the future Mars missions and making a commitment to cooperate closely with ESA. “In those conversations I have been told the administration, at this current time, is not ready to make such a commitment,” he said.
Caught in the middle of this debate was the other hearing witness, Jim Green, the director of the planetary science division of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. He described his role as the “advocate for planetary science” within NASA and the federal government, but acknowledged that his office and his agency have to work within “a difficult budget situation” that will require compromises. “Currently, OMB has not officially notified NASA of canceling Mars ’16 or ’18,” he said, adding that NASA meets with OMB “on a regular basis” on those missions and other issues. He later said that NASA is continuing to work with ESA on those missions based on the 2009 agreement between the two space agencies, and not because of any explicit approval from OMB.
On a separate subject, though, Green did offer a little bit of good news. Asked about efforts to restart production of plutonium-238, the isotope used in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) that power some planetary missions, Green said NASA was moving forward with the Department of Energy on those plans. “We’re on the path to do that,” he said, citing funding provided to NASA (but not DOE) in draft FY12 spending bills and cooperation between the two agencies. “Production could begin within the next couple of years.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 15 at 1:37 pm ET Here’s the breakdown of the final conference report funding for NASA compared to the President’s original budget request (PBR) and the versions of the budget passed by the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) and Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC):
|
PBR |
HAC |
SAC |
Final |
| Science |
$5,016.80 |
$4,504.00 |
$5,100.00 |
$5,090.00 |
| Aeronautics |
$569.40 |
$569.93 |
$501.00 |
$569.90 |
| Space Technology |
$1,024.20 |
$375.00 |
$637.00 |
$575.00 |
| Exploration |
$3,948.70 |
$3,649.00 |
$3,775.00 |
$3,770.80 |
| Space Operations |
$4,346.90 |
$4,064.00 |
$4,285.00 |
$4,233.60 |
| Education |
$138.40 |
$138.00 |
$138.40 |
$138.40 |
| Cross-Agency Support |
$3,192.00 |
$3,050.00 |
$3,043.00 |
$2,995.00 |
| Construction |
$450.40 |
$424.00 |
$422.00 |
$390.00 |
| Inspector General |
$37.50 |
$36.30 |
$37.30 |
$37.30 |
| TOTAL |
$18,724.30 |
$16,810.23 |
$17,938.70 |
$17,800.00 |
A few brief highlights from the report language, passed along from a reader:
- The final bill puts a cost cap of $8 billion on the development of the James Webb Space Telescope, stating that any increase above that will “be treated according to procedures established for projects in 30 percent breach of their lifecycle cost estimates.” It directs GAO to “continually assess the program”, reporting to House and Senate appropriators on adherence to that cap and the program’s technical status.
- The $575 million provided for Space Technology should be “prioritized toward the continuation of ongoing programs and activities”, with no less than $25 million for satellite servicing in particular (which will be managed by the HEO mission directorate, which gets a separate $50 million for this).
- The bill, citing a need to “to better articulate a set of specific, scientifically meritorious exploration goals”, directs NASA to develop “a set of science-based exploration goals” for its human space exploration program, including identification of a “target destination or destinations” and the role of international collaboration. The report on this topic is due 180 days after enactment.
- Commercial crew, as previously noted here, gets $406 million in the bill, $100 million of which is set aside until certain acquisition milestones for the human exploration program are achieved. The report notes that NASA’s plans for the program have assumed much higher funding levels than what Congress is provided, and thus “NASA is directed to work expeditiously to alter its management and acquisition strategy for the program as necessary to make the best use of available resources”. This approach, the report adds, could include “an accelerated down-select process that would concentrate and maximize the impact of each appropriated dollar.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 15 at 7:10 am ET The space subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee is holding a hearing today on “Exploring Mars and Beyond: What’s Next for U.S. Planetary Science?”. Appearing before the committee are Jim Green, the director of NASA’s planetary science division, and Steve Squyres, the chair of the most recent planetary science decadal survey (and new chairman of the NASA Advisory Council). The hearing announcement mentions “Additional Witnesses TBA”, but with just a few hours before the 10 am hearing, that appears increasingly unlikely. (Or not: this morning they added another witness, Sally Ericsson, Program Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science at OMB, listing her as “invited”.)
The focus of the hearing appears to be on the uncertain long-term plans for NASA’s planetary exploration efforts, particularly when it comes to Mars. The hearing charter brings up several recent issues, including NASA’s decision not to launch a European Mars orbiter in 2016 (contrary to a previous agreement between NASA and ESA to do so, as part of broader Mars exploration cooperation) and potential changes to a planned 2018 Mars mission that is intended to be the first step for a Mars sample return effort. Other potential “flagship” missions, like a mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa, will also be the subject of discussion.
In Monday’s issue of The Space Review, I discuss some of those recent concerns, including the NASA decision not to launch ESA 2016 Mars mission and concerns—some realistic, some more hyperbolic—about the long-term future of NASA’s planetary exploration work. At a panel session earlier this month on Capitol Hill organized by The Mars Society and The Planetary Society, speakers discussed the importance of Mars and other planetary and astronomy missions (including the James Webb Space Telescope), but admitted that finding the funding for all of those missions would be difficult in the current fiscal environment, where an overall increase in NASA’s budget appears unlikely.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 15 at 6:48 am ET The House Appropriations Committee announced Monday night that House and Senate negotiators had reached agreement on a conference report on the so-called “minibus” appropriations bill that combines three separate bills, including the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) bill. The full conference report has not be published yet, but the committee did provide a “detailed summary” of the report.
For NASA, conferees agreed to a $17.8 billion budget for NASA, down from the $18.7 requested by the administration from 2012 and the $18.5 billion provided in 2011. That amount, though, is much closer to the Senate version, which provided $17.9 billion, compared to the House version’s $16.8 billion. Highlights from the conference report summary:
- $3.8 billion for Space Exploration, which is $30 million below last year. This includes funding above the request for NASA to meet Congressionally mandated program deadlines for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System.
- $4.2 billion for Space Operations, which is $1.3 billion below last year’s level. The agreement continues the closeout of the Space Shuttle program for a savings of more than $1 billion.
- $5.1 billion for NASA Science programs, which is $155 million above last year’s level. The agreement accommodates cost growth in the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) by making commensurate reductions in other programs, and institutes several new oversight measures for JWST’s continuing development.
- Language prohibiting NASA or the Office of Science and Technology Policy from engaging in bilateral activities with China unless authorized by Congress.
The summary doesn’t specify how much funding JWST gets, but any funding would be a victory over the House version, which provided no money for the space telescope program that has experienced serious cost overruns and schedule delays. The document is also silent on commercial crew (the Senate offered $500 million and the House $312 million, both below the administration’s request of $850 million) and space technology (both the Senate and House significantly cut the requested $1.02 billion).
(Update: according to one source, the House and Senate split the difference on commercial crew, giving it $406 million. If true, this could have implications for the future of the program, since NASA officials had warned that not fully funding the program would lead to delays and possibly revisiting their procurement plans for the next phase of the program.)
Separately, the conference report provides $924 million for NOAA’s Joint Polar Satellite System, the weather satellite program that is the successor to the cancelled NPOESS. The administration had requested $1.07 billion for the program and warned last month that without “sufficient” funding the nation “faces a significant risk of a gap in satellite coverage that will result in degraded weather forecasts”.
The conference report also includes funding for the FAA, but the summary does not discuss funding for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Both the House and Senate had significantly cut the administration’s request of $25 million for the office in FY12.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 12 at 2:30 pm ET Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, on the campaign trail in Georgia Saturday, again mentioned space policy, putting the blame for the current state of the nation’s civil space program squarely on the Obama Administration. The AP reports that Cain, addressing young Republicans in Atlanta, contrasted President Kennedy with Obama, calling Kennedy a “great leader” for pushing to send humans to the Moon while criticizing Obama for “canceling a major part of our space program.”
Cain also criticized the administration for forcing the US to rely on Russians to access the ISS for at least the next several years. “I can tell you that as president of the United States, we are not going to bum a ride to outer space with Russia,” the AP quotes Cain as saying. “We’re going to regain our rightful place in terms of technology, space technology.”
The AP article does some factchecking, noting that the decision to retire the Space Shuttle dates back to 2004 and President George W. Bush. However, it’s not clear that Cain was referring to the decision to retire the shuttle, as the quotes in the article don’t explicitly mention the shuttle, only that President Obama had canceled “a major part of our space program.” While Obama did not cancel the shuttle, he did announce plans to cancel Constellation in February 2010, a decision affirmed by Congress in the NASA authorization act of 2010. Cain also did not discuss what he would do differently if elected president: “Cain did not explain how he thinks the United States should explore outer space and did not take questions from reporters afterward,” the AP article noted.
This is not the first time Cain has made such comments. Speaking in Alabama a couple weeks ago, Cain also blamed President Obama for having to “bum a ride with the Russians”. Last month he also vowed that he would “relaunch our space program” to eliminate reliance on Russia, but in neither case discussed any details about how he would do that.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 November 11 at 7:23 am ET If you’re looking, in this era of reduced budgets, cost overruns, and battles over various program, for someone with an optimistic view of America’s space ambitions, well, Mark Albrecht probably isn’t the person for you.
“The civil space program, in my opinion, is broken,” Albrecht, who had been executive secretary of the National Space Council during most of the George H.W. Bush Administration, said Wednesday evening at an event at George Washington University about his recent book, Falling Back to Earth (reviewed here). “And, quite frankly, I think the national security space program is not far behind.”
He cited several examples to support that assessment, from the current gap in US human spaceflight access to the cost overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope to the expense and “marginal scientific utility” of the ISS. He was also skeptical about the future of the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket, likening it to a “bridge to nowhere” foisted on NASA by members of Congress “who kludged together pieces of the Space Shuttle infrastructure and without a compelling mission rationale,” he said. “It will likely be another contested, overrun, late, and ultimately cancelled program.”
Albrecht sees NASA as an organization slowed by bureaucracy, becoming a “risk-averse feudal empire” where the power lies at the center level. “We’re spending more and more and getting less and less,” he said. That is not a recent transition: much of his book talks about how he and others at the White House during the Bush 41 administration tried to reinvigorate the agency with the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), only to run into opposition from NASA itself. “We were naive,” he recalled. “We believed that offering a floundering agency, NASA, a lifeline of support, and vision, and resources, would be met with an enthusiastic response. We were wrong.”
So what prescription for reform and reinvigoration would Albrecht offer NASA today? He touches on that briefly at the end of his book as well as in Wednesday’s talk. The future of NASA requires seeking to solve a “worthy and compelling” program that requires a multidisciplinary approach and one that can’t be compromised: “you can’t go halfway to the Moon.” NASA itself must also be restructured, he said, eliminating redundant programs as well as those not part of its core mission, citing as one example the nearly $150 million it spends per year on education programs. The agency, he argued, needs to be both raised and razed: “it needs to be raised in terms of its performance and much of it needs to be flattened.” Albecht said that Congress also has a role to play in rebuilding NASA, as it needs to “lay off the micromanagement and pork barrel spending.”
Once difference between the current situation and the failed SEI effort two decades ago is that there is a more vibrant commercial space industry today, with a number of ventures seeking to take over roles, including crew transportation to LEO, previously within the government’s domain. Albrecht, who served as president of International Launch Services, a Russo-American commercial launch venture, after leaving the White House, said he wasn’t sure if commercial ventures were ready to take over those responsibilities, but it was time to find out. “We’re in a gray period right now,” he said. “It’s time to at least try it… It’s the right thing to do because it’s eventually going to happen.”
Another difference from two decades ago was the existence then of the National Space Council. The council hasn’t been in service since the end of the Bush 41 administration; in his 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama proposed reestablishing it, but has not done so since taking office. Albrecht, though, didn’t say that the council was absolutely needed. “It’s not always the right answer,” he said, adding it was the right answer during the Bush administration, when there was a desire to view space as a “national enterprise” and not just a NASA or DOD program. “It depends on the time and it depends on the leadership.”
|
|
