posted 02-10-2012 10:25 AM               

NASA Officials to Discuss Fiscal Year 2013 Budget

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will brief reporters about the agency's fiscal year 2013 budget at 2 p.m. EST (1900 GMT) on Monday, Feb. 13. The news conference will take place in the James E. Webb Memorial Auditorium at NASA Headquarters.

NASA Chief Financial Officer Elizabeth Robinson will join Bolden. The news conference will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency's website.

For the first time, NASA has invited 20 of its Twitter followers to join reporters for the budget news conference.

During the news conference, NASA also will take as many questions as possible submitted via Twitter using the hashtag #askNASA.

The NASA budget and supporting information will be available online at 1 p.m., Feb. 13.

After the overview briefing on NASA's fiscal year 2013 budget, the associate administrators of the mission directorates and NASA's chief technologist will hold teleconferences to discuss the budget's impact on their specific areas.

• 3:30 p.m. - Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate
  
• 4:30 p.m. - Science Mission Directorate
  
• 5:15 p.m. - Office of the Chief Technologist and the Space Technology Program
  
• 6 p.m. - Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate

Each teleconference is scheduled to last 30 minutes. Live audio of the budget teleconferences will stream online.

posted 02-10-2012 10:31 AM               

Two scientists who were briefed on the 2013 NASA budget that will be released next week said the space agency is eliminating two proposed joint missions with Europeans to explore Mars in 2016 and 2018. NASA had agreed to pay $1.4 billion for those missions. Some Mars missions will continue, but the fate of future flights is unclear, including the much-sought flight to return rocks from the red planet.

The two scientists, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the budget, said the cuts to the Mars missions are part of a proposed reduction of about $300 million in NASA's $1.5 billion planetary science budget. More than $200 million in those cuts are in the Mars program, they said. The current Mars budget is $581.7 million.

"To me, it's totally irrational and unjustified," said Edward Weiler, who until September was NASA's associate administrator for science. "We are the only country on this planet that has the demonstrated ability to land on another planet, namely Mars. It is a national prestige issue."

posted 02-10-2012 01:11 PM               

Human-spaceflight budgeting continues pretty much as expected, with an $830 million request for commercial crew development (CCDev) work and only a slight drop in the $2.8 billion NASA is spending this year on its heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion multipurpose crew vehicle.

The SLS would get another $1.8 billion under the new request, which must clear an election-year Congress focused on deficit reduction. The exploration-vehicle figures track with last year's budget runout for fiscal 2013, with the Orion budget tweaked downward to keep it in pace with launch vehicle work.

NASA is "metering" spending on the congressionally mandated deep-space human vehicles to stay within the flat budget, and apparently has decided not to try to recover the deep congressional cut in CCDev work this year. For fiscal 2012, the agency sought $850 million and got $406 million, which set back its target for operational commercial crew flights to the International Space Station (ISS) from 2016 until 2017...

The budget cuts $300 million from planetary science, and kills the joint effort with the European Space Agency to explore Mars robotically in preparation for a sample-return mission. Europe has already prepared a bilateral Mars-exploration plan with the Russian space agency Roscosmos, after NASA withdrew from three-way talks in December.

posted 02-11-2012 08:35 PM              

There aren't any short-run solutions except to lobby your politicians to increase space spending across the board. That's an uphill battle to say the least, but you can make a legitimate argument that to the extent there is a budget problem, it's a long-term spending problem - not fundamentally a short-term discretionary spending issue.

posted 02-13-2012 10:22 AM               

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The President's 2013 Budget provides $17.7 billion to support the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in its mission to drive advances in science, technology, and exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the Earth. Key investments are made in programs that will ensure American leadership in space science and exploration, support the development of new space capabilities, make air travel safer and more affordable, and answer important scientific questions about the Earth, the solar system, and the universe.

Funding highlights:

• Provides $17.7 billion, a decrease of 0.3 percent, or $59 million, below the 2012 enacted level. While making difficult choices, the Budget builds on our existing space infrastructure, contin- ues efforts to streamline agency operations, and preserves innovative capabilities and tech- nologies to sustain American leadership in space.

• Implements a lower cost program of robotic exploration of Mars that will advance science and will also help lay the foundation for future human exploration.

• Invests in new space technologies, such as laser communications and zero-gravity propellant transfer, which can improve America's ability to access and operate in space and enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. space industry.

• Leverages a Federal investment of $830 million and private sector investment and ingenuity to develop a U.S. capability to transport crews into space, thereby eliminating our dependence on foreign capabilities in this area.

• Provides continued robust funding for the development of a new heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule that will take America deeper into space than ever before, create American jobs, ensure continued U.S. leadership in space exploration, and inspire people around the world.

• Provides $1.8 billion for research and a robust fleet of Earth observation spacecraft to strengthen U.S. leadership in the field, better understand climate change, improve future disaster predictions, and provide vital environmental data to Federal, State, and local policymakers.

• Funds the highest priority astronomical observatories and robotic solar system explorers, including a successor to the Hubble telescope and a mission to return samples from an asteroid, while delaying unaffordable new missions.

• Continues the effort to turn NASA's former Space Shuttle launch facilities at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida into a 21st Century launch complex so that they can efficiently support programs like the Space Launch System and commercial operators.

• Streamlines agency operations, resulting in over $200 million in savings.

posted 02-13-2012 12:06 PM               

• FY 2013 Complete Budget Estimates (15.1 MB PDF)
  
• FY 2013 Budget Presentation (6.2 MB PDF)

posted 02-13-2012 09:18 PM               

It amazes me that in a $3.8 trillion budget the OMB can't find $300 million to maintain U.S. participation in the joint Mars program with ESA.

posted 02-14-2012 09:34 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
...absence of any future planetary probes.

---

posted 02-15-2012 08:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The budget includes funding for the OSIRIS-Rex asteroid sample return mission, the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission (MAVEN) and the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE)

---

If one wants to switch back to the topic of manned flight, I have noticed that some NASA releases now put "commercial crew" availability at 2017, rather than 2015 used in the not too distant past. Oh, let us not forget that there is no money to build the service module that Orion would require to fly. The US Space program is in such great shape that the US may end up "begging" (my choice of words) Europe to build it for us.

posted 02-15-2012 09:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
There is no money to restart production...

---

quote:

---

If one wants to switch back to the topic of manned flight, I have noticed that some NASA releases now put "commercial crew" availability at 2017, rather than 2015 used in the not too distant past.

---

quote:

---

The US Space program is in such great shape that the US may end up "begging" (my choice of words) Europe to build it for us.

---

posted 02-16-2012 06:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
This administration has chosen to continue the gradual loss of US leadership in the aeronautics field by not restoring any of the needed aeronautics funding.

---

posted 02-16-2012 08:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceKSCBlog:
I haven't seen any planes falling out of the sky lately.

---

(Unfortunately this forum, while an excellent one, does not allow the space or time to provide a list of the negative impacts to the short and long term prospects of the US aviation industry brought about by the budget changes referred. I ask that you please go out and read the available literature.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
ESA has a vested interest in being part of the United States' exploration efforts and frankly, adapting the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) for use as a service module for the Orion MPCV isn't a horrible idea.

---

As an example: a lot of the work for a craft, such as the service module for Orion, or aeronautic research under NASA's aeronautics budget, is done by graduate students at major universities. The students are employed as "research assistants" and work under the direction of faculty and government contract monitors.

Graduate students are cheap labor (and if you are one of these engineering graduate students, you might use the term "slave labor".) The work gets done, the technical ability of US industry is advanced allowing it to compete, the students are trained, the work pays for the student's education, and an aerospace engineer is born, one who may be a part of the design and building of the next plane you fly for that winter trip to the Caribbean or they will probably eventually be designing the bridge you drive across every day as you go to work.

That work is going away or gone... not a good thing for a country that claims it needs more engineers. Obviously this lack of work also affects the industrial base of the US.

Furthermore, it is not just engineering that is affected. I know of several teachers at the secondary level who worked at NASA centers during the summer in "intern" like programs... they took this knowledge back to their classrooms. The work they did over the summer was real research work (the teachers had to have advanced degrees in a science field), which advanced the state of the art in and for the US. (They did not build model rockets to take back to their students.)

posted 02-16-2012 08:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Though one could reasonably argue its time for aeronautics to be divested from NASA's portfolio so it can focus exclusively on space.

---

posted 02-16-2012 01:05 PM               

To cut one to benefit the other is just plain stupid to consider. One of the things that has at least kept NASA around for this long has been its diverse programs. So even in the lean years of manned spaceflight in the 1970s, it was still doing other things and producing benefits.

Plus, if NASA isn't doing such research, then the companies are and their findings become proprietary. I admit some technologies are probably best left to private industry to flesh out better anyway and I was not in favor of the FY 2010 budget proposal that favored killing Constellation, while adding funding to NASA to produce green technologies. But there are still some cutting edge research projects that NASA has been involved in which we don't think about that are beneficial in ways we never considered.

posted 02-16-2012 02:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
You can't just get rid of the Aeronautic side as there are so many things that cross benefit.

---

posted 02-17-2012 08:59 AM               

The European Space Agency was first to propose use of its Automated Transfer Vehicle as a service module for a U.S. built crew exploration vehicle and NASA is assessing that option but has made no decisions.

Project management for the service module is assigned to Johnson Space Center with support from Ames, Glenn and Langley research centers. From the FY2013 budget summary:

The service module supports the crew module from launch through separation prior to reentry. It provides in-space propulsion capability for orbital transfer, attitude control, and high altitude ascent aborts. When mated with the crew module, it provides the water, oxygen and nitrogen needed for a habitable environment; generates and stores electrical power while on-orbit; and maintains the temperature of the vehicle's systems and components. This module can also transport unpressurized cargo and scientific payloads.

posted 02-17-2012 09:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
...so almost all wind turbines built are from European companies today.

---

Perhaps the Obama administration has seen this and cut funding accordingly.

Though a side issue, it does highlight the serious question that has to be asked when debating the NASA budget. With the shortage of funds available in the general economy is it not a question of affording not what one wishes for but what is absolutely necessary?

posted 02-18-2012 09:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
With the shortage of funds available in the general economy...

---

posted 02-18-2012 10:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
I just think it is interestingly ironic that the proponents of unmanned exploration are now crying foul now that there is no manned program like shuttle for them to blame for sucking up all the funds.

---

posted 02-18-2012 05:12 PM               

Coming from a remote sensing background, I am surprised how many people here have forgotten a little part of the US budget called the military. Let's not forget that during the 1960's the US spent roughly the equivalent of the Apollo budget on reconnaissance technology. Obviously I'd prefer if our cutting edge technology was driven by civilian needs, but the simple fact of the matter is that military technology and military systems eventually find their way into the civilian sector.

Now unquestionably the military budget will also be getting cut in the upcoming decade, but military space systems (in general) tend to do well in budget cuts. I don't know what the current US military budget is on space systems (and much of these system's budgets are "black"), but I would be quite surprised if it isn't significantly more than the NASA budget.

posted 02-18-2012 05:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
Now unquestionably the military budget will also be getting cut in the upcoming decade, but military space systems (in general) tend to do well in budget cuts.

---

The Pentagon attributed the proposed funding decline to reduced procurement plans for satellites and launch vehicles, along with the cancellation of the Defense Weather Satellite System (DWSS), which was done at the behest of Congress. The U.S. Air Force halted work on DWSS program Jan. 17.

Noticeably absent from the 2013 request is funding for a DWSS follow-on system, for which Congress appropriated $125 million in 2012. Also absent from budget documents released Feb. 13 is a funding line for a second Space-Based Space Surveillance satellite, designed to keep tabs on activity in Earth orbit...

The biggest single line item in the Pentagon’s space budget request is the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, used to launch most of the Pentagon’s operational satellites. The service is requesting $1.68 billion for the program next year, a sum that covers the procurement of four new rockets and associated services and activities but does not include launches to be procured on behalf of the U.S. Navy or National Reconnaissance Office, budget documents said.

In a bid to curb its rising launch costs, the Air Force is pursuing a block buy strategy under which it intends to procure six to 10 rockets annually from contractor United Launch Alliance over a period of three to five years. That plan has been criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and has detractors in Congress as well.

posted 02-18-2012 11:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Returned results from Mars Science Laboratory may recalibrate NASA funding priorities.

---

posted 03-13-2012 11:16 AM               

I see why the Air Force wants to go this route, so they can lock in a price early and more rockets built means the price per unit potentially goes down. So I don't necessarily see why the GAO wants to raise a big stink about it, except perhaps that it means spending money NOW instead of three to five years from now.

Of course, I have a feeling if the Air Force got their boosters, they would find payloads to fly on them sooner (using up their supply) than later unless the contract stipulated that some of the boosters couldn't be finished right away (which the contractors might like as it would keep the factory workers employed for a longer period).