NASA 2008 Budget

cIclops · 2007-10-05 14:24:56

Fascinating discussion guys but let's get back onto the topic of the NASA 2008 budget.

Even if the House agrees the extra funding proposed by the Senate, it looks likely that Bush will veto the bill that contains it. It's critical that NASA gets more money otherwise VSE will be set even further back.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-10-05 17:44:23

U.S. Senate Votes to Add $1 Billion to NASA Budget
http://www.planetary.org/programs/proje … 71004.html

The final bill will then be sent to the President for signature. President Bush has already stated that he will veto the CJS Bill as passed,

“Senate approves $1B for NASA, but Bush will likely veto”

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007 … kely-veto/
Sigh.
NASA has an impossible task: continue the Shuttle, finish the space station, start designing and building an entirely new class of rocket, and get us to the Moon.
And oh– they can’t spend any extra money doing all this. The budget is flat.

More on the appropriations veto threat

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/10/05 … to-threat/
In a Statement of Administration Policy document released by OMB on Thursday, the administration accused Congress of including ” an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and… other objectionable provisions” to the funding bill. “[I]f S. 1745 were presented to the President” in its current form, the statement warned, “he would veto the bill.”

next step : outsourcing NASA to India ?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-06 15:03:42

Fascinating discussion guys but let's get back onto the topic of the NASA 2008 budget.
Even if the House agrees the extra funding proposed by the Senate, it looks likely that Bush will veto the bill that contains it. It's critical that NASA gets more money otherwise VSE will be set even further back.

Well that depends, it was his idea after all. If Congress decides to attach a rider demanding that troops pull out of Iraq by June 2008, then he might veto it. The best chance its got is if Congress passes it alone, without any riders or pork, and let the bill justify itself. It was Bush's idea to head for the Moon and Mars. It seems reasonable to me to get this accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. Now is George Bush going to veto his own program? Personally I think making it into a contest between private space companies might allow for private funding sooner, while we are still building the Space Station, and then having NASA compensate the winner of the contest with the prize money. At least it looks good on paper. The alternative would be something like we spend $2 billion for 2011, $2 billion for 2012, its hard to do exactly $2 billion worth of work and no more no less for a given year. The physical demands of the project might require that we spend $3 billion in 2011 and $2.5 billion in 2012, simply because you may have to complete part A which costs $3 billion and doing only $2 billion of it for 2011 and $1 billion more of it in 2012 may be less efficient and may even waste total money spend, because often a number of things would best be done all at once. Also we'd waste 2008, 2009, and 2010 as potential years to get things started because of government fiscal accounting. Getting a pool of investors to invest their funds and a manager whose eye is on the bottom line might get better results for the money spend. I think we must harness capitalism and the market place to drive down the costs of space travel.

cIclops · 2007-10-06 15:18:59

As long as Space remains a low priority it will be a political small potato. Once upon a time NASA knew how to think BIG. Perhaps it is time for a major effort to put space where it belongs --- at the forefront of science and technology. Instead of tweaking the budget with a billion here and a few hundred million there, now is the time to go for a MASSIVE new program. With an extra $10 billion a year everything on NASA's plate can be done ... Moon, Mars, NEO missions, 15m space telescopes, Europa landers, Uranus and Neptune orbiters, Solar and Interstellar probes, everything on the NSF and NAS's wish list including all the Earth monitoring satellites they want. Even Shuttle can be kept operational until Orion is flying! While the environmentalists futz over the Earth the rest of us can get on with exploring the fracking universe!

Such a new program will energize science, technology, education, the economy and the public, hey they might even get to like Bush.

So how about it NASA, is $27 billion a year enough for everything? Put it to Congress as the way forward!! Go SPACE.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-06 16:03:47

I kind of suspect that Congress doesn't want to pass anything that the President won't veto. If it looks like the President isn't going to veto it, the Congress will attach riders to it such as legalizing same-sex marriage, and a call to bring home troops from Iraq now, until Bush vetos it. The point is who wins the White House in 2008, and they don't want to make George Bush look good and get some credit for it. Congress wants to play their political board game about who gets to warm which seats, and who gets the perks power and privaleges of office, so it is basically a civil war going on between the two branches of government and the media.

cIclops · 2007-10-07 00:32:30

You are probably right, except for defense Congress is almost deadlocked right now.

All the main goals would be achievable if NASA got a massive funding increase. Instead of finely balancing science, human spaceflight, research and operations to fit in a budget that is too small, it is time to move all parts of the program forward together.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-10-08 01:54:43

U.S. Senate Votes to Add $1 Billion to NASA Budget
http://www.planetary.org/programs/proje … 71004.html
The final bill will then be sent to the President for signature. President Bush has already stated that he will veto the CJS Bill as passed,
“Senate approves $1B for NASA, but Bush will likely veto”
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007 … kely-veto/
Sigh.
NASA has an impossible task: continue the Shuttle, finish the space station, start designing and building an entirely new class of rocket, and get us to the Moon.
And oh– they can’t spend any extra money doing all this. The budget is flat.
More on the appropriations veto threat
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/10/05 … to-threat/
In a Statement of Administration Policy document released by OMB on Thursday, the administration accused Congress of including ” an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and… other objectionable provisions” to the funding bill. “[I]f S. 1745 were presented to the President” in its current form, the statement warned, “he would veto the bill.”

next step : outsourcing NASA to India ?

From Space Ref

The President has proposed a responsible plan for a balanced budget by 2012

The Administration strongly opposes S. 1745 because, in combination with the other FY 2008 appropriations bills, it includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and includes other objectionable provisions.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-08 10:41:22

You are probably right, except for defense Congress is almost deadlocked right now.
All the main goals would be achievable if NASA got a massive funding increase. Instead of finely balancing science, human spaceflight, research and operations to fit in a budget that is too small, it is time to move all parts of the program forward together.

Well in less than two years, we'll have a different Congress and Congress right now is even less popular than the President, and it appears they are quite corrupt and self-serving besides, and the Democratic Presidential candidates are no better. I think in 2008 we'll have a turn. I think someone like Guliani will win the Presidency with perhaps Fred Thompson as vice President, and the Republicans will take the political middle ground that the Democrats have abandoned for all their leftist causes. There is a core consituency in the USA that is still very patriotic and loves to win rather than lose, The Democrats have abandoned them because the vocal leftists scream all the louder. But moderates do vote in general elections more, especially Presidential ones. I'm optimistic that by 2009, we'll have a President and a Congress of the same party that are willing to move forwards in manned space exploration, we'll lose two years, but still we can beat the Chinese if we don't lose heart.

cIclops · 2007-10-11 02:23:51

Congress should give NASA what it needs as the space race heats up.

Orlando Sentinel Ediorial
October 10, 2007
Fifty years ago, the Soviets' launch of the world's first satellite, Sputnik, galvanized the United States to seize leadership in space exploration. Now, with other nations set to challenge that leadership, senators have taken an important step toward maintaining it.
Last week the Senate voted to add $1 billion to next year's budget for NASA, which would raise its overall funding to $18.5 billion. The additional money would replenish, belatedly, accounts the agency had to tap in the costly process of rehabilitating the space-shuttle program after the Columbia disaster in 2003. Co-sponsors of the bipartisan bid to reimburse NASA included Florida's two senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Mel Martinez.
More dollars for NASA would narrow the gap between the shuttles' retirement in 2010 and the launch of the agency's next manned space vehicle. Inadequate funding in recent years for NASA and its additional costs after Columbia have stretched the gap to five years -- much too long for the U.S. manned space program to be grounded.
In the meantime, U.S. astronauts will be forced to rely on Russian space vehicles to taxi them to the international space station. And the longer the gap, the more experience and talent NASA risks losing from its skilled workforce. That's what happened during the 1975-81 break between the Apollo and shuttle programs.
While NASA has been battling budget problems, other nations -- including China, India and Japan -- have been rocketing forward with their own space programs. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin recently predicted China would get its first manned mission to the moon before U.S. astronauts are scheduled to return there in 2020.
Supremacy in space exploration isn't just a question of bragging rights. The space program has driven scientific and technological advances in the United States. And as Mr. Griffin has argued, leading countries in science and technology are more likely to attract the private investments that spur more innovations and economic growth.
Advocates of the $1 billion boost for NASA will need first to persuade the House to go along, but the increase faces a veto threat from President George W. Bush. He has finally decided to hold the line on spending now that Democrats are in charge in Congress.
Mr. Bush reportedly objects to the boost for the space agency as well as the overall cost of the measure in which it's included, which also has money for the Justice and Commerce departments. Congress could blunt that threat and be more fiscally responsible by cutting spending on lower-priority programs to cover the NASA increase, or by raising the additional funds by eliminating tax loopholes.
Keeping the United States ahead in space exploration is a smart investment in science, technology and economic growth.

cIclops · 2007-10-22 06:09:20

(from Mars_B4_Moon)

WELDON RALLIES REPS FOR $1BN FOR NASA
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_s … lies-.html

Congressman Dave Weldon from Melbourne dashed out a letter this week to his House colleagues who hold the purse strings for NASA, imploring them to support a $1 billion emergency funding amendment for the space agency. The amendment, which was recently passed in the Senate with the support of Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), is meant to reimburse NASA for money spent to get the shuttle program up and running after the Columbia disaster. The real aim of cash now, Mr. Weldon points out, is to help close the gap between the retirement of the shuttle program in 2010 and the launch of the manned Orion spacecraft in 2015. While it is unclear if the funds are sufficient to roll back the launch of Orion to 2013, as many hope, one NASA insider said that the money will at least "keep alive the hope" the gap can be shortened. Many NASA backers on the Hill say they expect the real battle will not be with their colleagues in Congress but with the President, who has already said he will veto the entire Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. His reasoning: "it includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending and ... other objectionable provisions." Most of his complaints center on issues with Justice Department program funding, but a few NASA budget lines also came in for criticism. The real fight is going to come after the veto. And no one is making any guesses which way that one will go.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-22 08:29:51

The solution is to make the NASA Appropriation a stand alone seperate bill, instead of bundling it together with a whole bunch of unrelated stuff the President doesn't like. This is similar to attempts to bundle the funding the Iraq War with a mandate to pull out by a given date. Let the NASA appropriation sink or swim on its own merrit, not because of what is attached to it. Its only a billion dollars, by holding it hostage to something, they are jeapardizing the program. What if they bundle it with federal funding for Abortion for instance, or legalizing of gay marriage, and then if the President vetos it, the author of the bill says its the President's fault for not signing the bill. I wonder if any tricks like that are being pulled.

cIclops · 2007-10-22 09:01:51

A good logical solution so there must be reason why it's not done this way ... something to do with politics perhaps?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-22 09:34:48

$1,000,000,000 might be funded by the states. If each one appropriates $20,000,000, then that will add up to $1,000,000,000. Each state can pay the NASA contractors directly to accelerate their work on Orion and Ares. I mean if California can fund stem cell research, I don't see why we can't lobby the state legislatures to appropriate the extra $1,000,000,000 for NASA. The President of the United States can't veto State legislatures, only the Governors can do that, the whole thing is within reach of a multi-state lottery for instance.

cIclops · 2007-11-16 09:47:15

NASA seeks $2B to hasten shuttle successor

Mark K. Matthews | Washington Bureau
November 16, 2007
WASHINGTON - To close the five-year gap between retirement of the space shuttle and the first launch of its successor, NASA needs $2 billion more during the next three years, agency officials said Thursday.
The money would allow NASA to advance the launch of the first Constellation mission to September 2013, rather than the current March 2015 projection. But it's uncertain whether NASA allies can find the necessary dollars on Capitol Hill.
And even if Congress approves the money, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin acknowledged, it might not prevent the loss of as many as 5,000 workers at Kennedy Space Center after the space shuttle stops flying in 2010.
Thousands of layoffs "hits me like a bolt of lightning and would hit the Kennedy Space Center likewise," said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who called Griffin before his Space, Aeronautics and Related Sciences subcommittee.
Supporters have pushed to bolster NASA's $17.3 billion budget request with an extra $1 billion next year. But budget negotiators aren't keen on the extra funding, said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.
"It doesn't appear [it will] be successful," she said. The money was approved by the Senate to help fund Constellation and to reimburse NASA for costs incurred after the Columbia accident in 2003. But House negotiators are trying to trim the overall spending bill to avoid a veto from President Bush, who has complained about its size.
The money -- more would be needed in the 2009 and 2010 budgets -- would be used to accelerate the Constellation project, a new rocket and capsule intended to take astronauts to the moon by 2020. The space shuttle is being retired in 2010, in part to free up funding for the project.
"The earliest date we could possibly do it is September 2013," said Griffin, who added that technical limitations would prevent Constellation from launching earlier.

SpaceNut · 2007-11-16 11:28:49

To close the five-year gap between retirement of the space shuttle and the first launch of its successor, NASA needs $2 billion more during the next three years

Now I knew we had some delay from the original 2012 but a slip to 2015 and with just a few billion we are only going to catch up by only 2 years time.

So exactly when are we retiring the shuttle? was a very important question that seems to be un answered as far a congress goes.
Senate subcommittee hearing was held in response to the amount of those that will not have jobs after the 2010 date as well.

Griffin’s opening statement

International Space Station: Post-Assembly Transportation Requirements Once ISS assembly is completed and the Space Shuttle fleet is retired in 2010, transportation requirements decline from the approximately 50 – 60 Mt per year associated with assembly to approximately 10 – 20 Mt per year needed to sustain the system and utilize the internal laboratories and external platforms.
NASA is continuously evaluating these space transportation requirements to ensure that maximum operating efficiencies are gained and minimum maintenance and utilization needs are met. Cargo re-supply requirements fall into two broad categories: (1) items necessary to meet internal demands, such as consumable liquids and gases (e.g., water, oxygen, and nitrogen), internal system spares, crew provisions, and internal scientific payloads; and, (2) items such as external system spares, ammonia tanks, and external scientific payloads. NASA’s analysis of post-assembly logistics demand and supply considers first the transportation assets available through the baseline ISS program.
Initial analysis indicates that there remains a significant shortfall between the logistics demand to sustain and utilize the ISS and the logistics supply available through international agreements, contracts, and services owed. This shortfall corresponds to approximately 10 Mt per year after Space Shuttle retirement, or over 50 Mt through 2015. When one takes into consideration the packaging structure and carriers necessary
to transport a net usable cargo of 50 Mt, the gross requirement approaches 80 Mt through 2015.

While COT is a program attempting to fill the resupply role, I think a question is can they lift the required mass as indicated to the station and make money to stay in business.

Also note that the partners are planning on more modules and since gyro's have only one way up, it does make one wonder if we can do away with the shuttle all together.

cIclops · 2007-11-16 14:26:02

Because if the Shuttle is not retired NASA can not afford to build a replacement.

cIclops · 2007-12-27 14:29:29

Finally according to Space Politics the 2008 budget has been signed into Law!

Below is a summary of the final appropriations bill as compared to the administration proposed back in February (all values in millions of dollars):
Program.....................................Request.........Final
Science.......................................5,516.1.....5,577.3
Exploration Systems.....................3,923.8.....3,842.0
Aeronautics....................................554.0........625.3
Cross-Agency Support Programs......489.2........556.4
Shuttle........................................4,007.5.....4,000.0
ISS.............................................2,238.6.....2,220.0
Space and Flight Support.................545.7........545.7
Inspector General.............................34.6..........32.6
Reductions.......................................n/a..........-89.9
TOTAL.....................................17,309.4....17,309.4

So some good news, now onto the 2009 Budget!

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2008-01-09 21:00:20

Griffin advises astronomers to avoid the kids’ table

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/01/09 … ids-table/

SpaceNut · 2016-02-13 23:21:57

Bump same as the 2007 topic nothing to fix

More of the previous years changing direction and misdirection...

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-28 08:12:32

SpaceNut wrote:

Bump same as the 2007 topic nothing to fix
More of the previous years changing direction and misdirection...

I guess the Orion Space Capsule was the only vehicle created by continuing resolution.

SpaceNut · 2016-03-28 16:36:48

We did get funding for COT's launch vehicles and Cargo since that years budget in the following on years but ya everything else is related to NASA's Big Dumb Rocket.... SLS as it stands now....
I sure wish that nasa would stop draging there heels and get it built and then hand it over to a COT's manufacturer to control costs.....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2007-10-05 14:24:56

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#77 2007-10-05 17:44:23

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#78 2007-10-06 15:03:42

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#79 2007-10-06 15:18:59

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#80 2007-10-06 16:03:47

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#81 2007-10-07 00:32:30

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#82 2007-10-08 01:54:43

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#83 2007-10-08 10:41:22

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#84 2007-10-11 02:23:51

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#85 2007-10-22 06:09:20

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#86 2007-10-22 08:29:51

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#87 2007-10-22 09:01:51

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#88 2007-10-22 09:34:48

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#89 2007-11-16 09:47:15

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#90 2007-11-16 11:28:49

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#91 2007-11-16 14:26:02

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#92 2007-12-27 14:29:29

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#93 2008-01-09 21:00:20

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#94 2016-02-13 23:21:57

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#95 2016-03-28 08:12:32

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

#96 2016-03-28 16:36:48

Re: NASA 2008 Budget

Board footer