I’ve been predicting for weeks that there will be a continuing resolution on the budget, which means that NASA won’t know what their budget for new initiatives is for many months (and long after the start of the fiscal year at the beginning of October. Now AvLeak is reporting that this is looking quite likely, which means the policy chaos will continue into next year, at which point it’s also quite likely that the Republicans (so far no fans of the new plan in the Congress, other than Rohrabacher) will write the new budget at least in the House. What a mess.
28 thoughts on “No NASA Budget This Year?”
Comments are closed.
The mess is because the people in charge at the moment do not want to face the fiscal fallout of what they have done before they face the voters in November.
I agree with Chris for the reason he cited…I doubt that ANY budget will be proposed this year, not just NASA but the entire federal budget.
Sausage Rand, Sausage.
I would not mind commercial crew with a bit of a Direct style bare bones SDLV sausage but please don’t put any zombie Ares I meat in it. For the love of all that makes sense, shoot it in the head.
I doubt that ANY budget will be proposed this year, not just NASA but the entire federal budget.
Yes, that’s why I’ve been predicting a CR (I’m pretty sure I predicted it at Space Access, at least in hallway discussion if not on a panel). It has nothing to do with space.
I am amazed the Donks aren’t pushing a budget. It is likely the last one they get to write for a loooong time.
There is now a sign looming in the distance, it says: “The Buffet is now closed.”
This is an amazingly (hell incompetence does not begin to describe it) bad thing, not just for NASA, but for the nation. If the republicans regain control there will be an amazing fight over NASA funding that will do nothing but make things worse in the agency.
If the republicans regain control there will be an amazing fight over NASA funding that will do nothing but make things worse in the agency.
Yes, it will be a big improvement for the country in general, but a disaster for space policy, unless we can educate them in the interim.
One focus of the education effort should be to remind Congress that in the wisdom of the founding fathers the President is only allowed to propose changes in policy or projects. Congress has the ultimate power by virtue of the purse strings 🙂
It would be interesting to see a 100 year trend towards an Imperial Presidency overturned with the next Congress. And this might be one issue it could happen with…
Dennis,
If the republicans regain control there will be an amazing fight over NASA funding that will do nothing but make things worse in the agency.
As the agency is about to go out of the human spaceflight business, how could this “make things worse”?
So instead of a tiny cabal of clueless ideologues discarding a carefully thought out strategic path for a half-baked, go-nowhere national space “policy,” we’ll actually have the whole issue on the table, in the glaring light of the public arena, for a real debate.
Yeah — that’s a disaster, all right.
the agency is about to go out of the human spaceflight business.. you mean, as has been the plan for the last 7 years? As was the plan under the previous administration?
I am glad that you managed to post something without the word “Moon” in it, but still not saying anything new (or accurate).
Every month that there is no decision makes it more unlikely that the shuttle or SDLV gets revived. Atlas and Delta on the other hand will be ready as ever when the decision finally gets made. Also, spacex and orbital have some more time to prove their systems.
As usual, government inaction is much less severe than too much government action. It’s a pity about the additional billions that get wasted on constellation, but that’s what governments do.
Paul,
As the agency is about to go out of the human spaceflight business, how could this “make things worse”?
So if the US doesn’t have a national airline (i.e. a “flag carrier”), instead we have 4 to 5 commercial airlines, why do we need a national spaceline (i.e. NASA) to get us to low-earth-orbit.
So instead of a tiny cabal of clueless ideologues discarding a carefully thought out strategic path for a half-baked, go-nowhere national space “policy,”. . .
Are you talking about Constellation? The half-baked, unaffordable, spam-in-a-can-on-steroids? Or are you just looking for a new five year plan or great leap forward, comrade?
Let NASA focus on what it NEEDS to do . . .
(1) New Technology development
(2) Trailblazing, i.e. EXPLORATION.
“So instead of a tiny cabal of clueless ideologues”
The Augustine Committee, including three former and current aeronautics industry CEOs, two former astronauts, a former Air Force commander, and heads of three leading university programs in ocean exploration, aerospace engineering, and S&T policy (among other representatives), was a “tiny cabal of clueless ideologues”?
Really?
The IFTPE, AIAA, AIA, Commercial Spaceflight Federation, NSS, Planetary Society, OSC, Aerojet, ITT, Harris, Georgia Tech, Embry-Riddle, NY Times, Economist, Nature, and Boston Globe are a “tiny cabal of clueless ideologues”?
Really?
Rep. Mollahan, Sen. Voinovich, Sen. Cochran, Sen. Rockefeller, Sen. Udall, and Rep. Rohrbacher are a “tiny cabal of clueless ideologues”?
Really?
“discarding a carefully thought out strategic path”
A 90-day study that produces an architecture with engine assumptions that are revamped inside a year, goes tens of billions of dollars over budget, and won’t produce any exploration capability until the mid-2030s at the earliest is a “carefully thought out strategic path”?
Really?
“go-nowhere national space “policy,”
NEOs and Mars are “nowhere”?
A budget that for the first time in the agency’s history invests in the precursor missions and technology demonstrations necessary to prove out the lunar ISRU concepts that are the only important note in your limited civil space policy and planning repertoire goes “nowhere” for you?
Really?
“we’ll actually have the whole issue on the table, in the glaring light of the public arena, for a real debate.”
Seven multi-hour public meetings with Federal Register notices and full transcripts, 14 statements from members of Congress, and hundreds of public document submissions didn’t put “the whole issue on the table, in the glaring light of the public arena, for a real debate”?
Really?
Please get a grip on reality before someone takes your Air & Space column away.
Lawdy…
None of this really matters. Regardless of the path taken, NASA is a dead agency walking. HSF will be up against the wall when the fiscal manure hits the fan and entitlements have to be slashed.
Sorry about your career, Mr. Spudis. You chose a bad time to go against the forces of history.
Short term NASA support may be good for private launch providers. Long term it may be better if they avoid dependence of government money.
As the agency is about to go out of the human spaceflight business, how could this “make things worse”?
Sigh. Continuing and expanding ISS is not “going out of the human spaceflight business,” Paul, no matter how violently you try to spin the facts. Neither is sending NASA astronauts to the asteroids or Mars, or enabling thousands of people to visit and live in Low Earth Orbit.
If you object to the United States ever attempting anything more ambitious than a warmed-over Apollo program, fine, say so. Argue for it honestly. Don’t misrepresent your opponents.
If you really want an example of how to “make things worse,” you need look no further than the plans of the recent past. Apollo II would have reduced NASA’s human flight rate by 50%, and the Aldridge Commission declared that human spaceflight would “remain the providence [sic] of government” for the foreseeable future.
If you believe spending more money to send fewer NASA astronauts into space (and limiting human spaceflight to NASA) is a good thing, please explain why.
Just a nit but neiather dems or reps in congress or senate like the Obama proposal?
> Edward Wright Says:
> Sigh. Continuing and expanding ISS is not “going out of
> the human spaceflight business,” ==
Never heard any proposal to expand the ISS, but certainly elimnating everything but ISS servicing, something like 80% of the astrounaut core, flight planing, training, droping all plans beyong ISS, and having to hire Russia or Boeing to fly you to the ISS so you can service it for the internationals — yeah thats not completly out of the maned spaceflight busness — but few in the US and world would characterize it otherwise.
>== Neither is sending NASA astronauts to the asteroids
> or Mars, or enabling thousands of people to visit and
> live in Low Earth Orbit.
None of which are in NASA schedules, budgets, or other efforts the agency or white house is going to do
> == If you object to the United States ever attempting
> anything more ambitious than a warmed-over Apollo
> program, ==
No one would object to NASA or the US doing MORE then a warmed over Apollo program. The problem is we abandoned even doing that and are planing to do dramatically LESS then a warmed over Apollo program.
>== Apollo II would have reduced NASA’s human flight rate
> by 50%, ==
So is the Obama plan – they are just doing that low flight rate no other peoples ships for the next decade.
> If you believe spending more money to send fewer NASA
> astronauts into space (and limiting human spaceflight to
> NASA) is a good thing, please explain why.
Obviously NASA still is planing to spend more (bigger budget for the agency) and fly fewer people. But how you can see Apollo on steroids as blocking commercial maned space in any particular way, or Obama plan as facilitating it in any particular way, boggles me.
> Paul D. Says:
> May 4th, 2010 at 7:36 am
> None of this really matters. Regardless of the path taken,
> NASA is a dead agency walking. HSF will be up against the
> wall when the fiscal manure hits the fan and entitlements
> have to be slashed.
Possibly. Its so cheap its not a factor – but its very high profile. Course now a maned space flight agency (which really is the voters view of NASA ) thats shutting down its maned space projects anyway — you might as well be putting your head no the chopping block.
So instead of a tiny cabal of clueless ideologues discarding a carefully thought out strategic path for a half-baked, go-nowhere national space “policy,” we’ll actually have the whole issue on the table, in the glaring light of the public arena, for a real debate.
This cycle wrapped up last year. The Ares I program, which usually goes by “Constellation”, the half-baked, go-nowhere national space “policy” was found wanting. I don’t consider the current approach all that great, but it is better than what’s passed for a NASA plan for the past few decades.
I don’t know why you choose to ignore the blatant failures of the Ares I rocket, including the highly biased process by which it was selected (using dubious safety estimates to rule out working, real world rockets), the schedule slippage, vast cost overruns, or how the rocket’s limitations drives failures in multiple areas in the Constellation program (why I termed Constellation the “Ares I” program).
On the last point, the failings of the Constellation design process have resulted in numerous redesigns of the Orion spacecraft (I’ve heard eight so far). This includes significant redundancy trimming from the lunar capsule, which I view as an unwise transfer of risk from the relatively safe launch to riskier parts of the mission. The launch abort system has had to be beefier to escape solid motor destruction.
For me though the deal killer was designing the Constellation plan to require on-paper performance just out of reach of the commercial EELVs. That performance edge of the Ares I has since evaporated as paper rocket meets reality, meaning we could have chosen the Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V Heavy in the first place and be considerably ahead of where we are now.
My view is that the US commercial launch vehicles are the future of the US’s space activities in space not NASA. Ares I was a highly subsidized rocket that competes directly with them and threatens our future in space.
I don’t consider the current approach all that great, but it is better than what’s passed for a NASA plan for the past few decades.
I’ll elaborate on what I mean here. There are two novel things in the current plan that set it apart from the rest of the post-Saturn era. First, it finally uses commercial launch vehicles for human spaceflight. Second, it has plans for manned activities beyond Earth orbit that can be accomplished without developing expensive new launch vehicles.
> Karl Hallowell Says:
> May 7th, 2010 at 9:34 am
>== First, it finally uses commercial launch vehicles for
> human spaceflight. ==
That might be pushnig it since the EELVs (considered ti be virtually assured to get the busness) were developed pretty much for the military – asnd the companies will need to develop a capsule for them just for this mission.
> Second, it has plans for manned activities beyond Earth
> orbit that can be accomplished without developing
> expensive new launch vehicles.
Such as?
Certainly they have been xelpicit that maned missions beyonf LEO will require a new HLV they will decide on ni 2015.
That might be pushnig it since the EELVs (considered ti be virtually assured to get the busness) were developed pretty much for the military
Developed for the military, used already for NASA and commercial customers. There is no obstacle there.
– asnd the companies will need to develop a capsule for them just for this mission.
There’s already a few out there, Orion, Soyuz, and Dragon.
Such as?
Certainly they have been xelpicit that maned missions beyonf LEO will require a new HLV they will decide on ni 2015.
With propellant depots, you don’t need HLV for early lunar missions (for example, Apollo-style missions).
> Karl Hallowell Says:
> May 8th, 2010 at 6:32 am
>>That might be pushnig it since the EELVs (considered to be virtually
>>assured to get the busness) were developed pretty much for the military
> Developed for the military, used already for NASA and commercial
> customers. There is no obstacle there.
But considering it a new move to “commercial launchers” vers the commercially operated shuttle (built and operated by the same companies) its exactly revolutionary.
>>- and the companies will need to develop a capsule for them just for this mission.
> There’s already a few out there, Orion, Soyuz, and Dragon.
Orions not developed (and low quality last time I was working on it) Soyuz and Dragon likely won’t be considered, if for no other reasons political concerns — but Boeing and Biggelow were working on one last year — Dream chaser and L/M have been working together to integrate adn offer it for launch on the Atlas-V and L/M has mentioned their own capsule (not Orion) that they have been advertising for a while.
>> Such as?
>>
>> Certainly they have been exlpicit that maned missions beyond LEO will
>> require a new HLV they will decide on ni 2015.
> With propellant depots, you don’t need HLV for early lunar missions
> (for example, Apollo-style missions).
Obviously, but NASA explicitly said it won’t be considered. That’s one of several nonsensical statements whirling around them – but its there.
Obviously, but NASA explicitly said it won’t be considered.
NASA is no more capable of predicting the future than anyone else. It doesn’t matter what NASA says this year. Next year is always another year.
>> Obviously, but NASA explicitly said it won’t be considered.
> NASA is no more capable of predicting the future than anyone else.
Its not a prediction – its a policy statment.
So? Do you think that policy statements are unchangeable?
No, but this policy will likely at least last as long as Obama is in Office. And NASA will design to it.
Course really in a few years they, and the US, won’t really have much ability to do anything past LEO with any gear.