NASA 2006 Budget

SpaceNut · 2005-10-24 07:00:16

As indicated in the right sizing the shuttle army, job layoffs have begun due to funding for certain facilities nit quite being what they need to keep all of there personel.
Now NASA plans for tight budget If $5B request isn't met, agency may cut shifts or its work force

The space agency has asked the White House for up to $5 billion more for its budget between now and 2010. If approved, the agency would be able to fly 18 shuttle missions to the space station and one repair flight to the Hubble Space Telescope

I guess we know where the money for the CEV will becoming from whether it is approved or not.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-31 06:57:12

This is a must read...

NASA Internal Memo: NASA Realigns Research and Technology to Accelerate CEV/CLV

In the FY 2006 Budget Amendment, $292 million was identified as moving from R&T activities into Constellation for CEV and CLV acceleration. Following the results of the ESAS, as described above, an additional $493 million is identified from the R&T activities for acceleration of CEV and CLV. This yields a total shift from R&T to Constellation for acceleration in FY 2006 of $785 million, relative to original plans for FY 2006.

Yup you guessed it sacrificing science of the future to pay for the needs of the present. Fairly long laundry list of cancellations or delays to ongoing projects and research.

NASA is focusing Human System Research and Technology (HSR&T) funding on program elements that mature technologies needed to support lunar sortie missions and ISS access, while reducing program elements targeting longer-term or lower priority needs. As NASA concentrates the use of the Shuttle on ISS assembly, some ISS utilization will be deferred. As a result, transitional action is being taken now to reduce and/or discontinue approximately 34 contracts and activities previously planned at $344 million in FY 2006. After termination costs and buyouts, these actions will yield $243 million in FY 2006 that will be applied toward accelerating the CEV and CLV.

Here is just one of the example cuts and why.

Prometheus Nuclear Systems and Technology
Prior to the completion of the ESAS study, NASA was planning to restructure the Prometheus Nuclear Systems and Technology (PNS&T) program to prioritize NASA's nuclear technology development efforts to provide power on the surface of the Moon for a lunar outpost. ESAS results indicate that, given resource constraints, surface nuclear power systems to support potential long-duration stays on the Moon will not be required until after 2018.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-31 07:14:21

More of the proposed cuts another must read...

Further Details Emerge Regarding NASA's Cancellation of Human and Robotic Technology (H&RT) Research Projects

Cancelled list:
"Inflatable Aeroshell and Thermal Protection System Development"

Would have been usefull for mars and possible Earth orbit bailout pods..

"Advanced Materials and Structures for the Modular Assembly of Large Space Platforms"

Probably as follow on to the ISS but done right.

"Spacecraft Electrostatic Shielding-Radiation Protection, Propulsion, Energy Delivery"

Some of these cancellations just do not make all that much sense....

Palomar · 2005-10-31 08:44:37

More of the proposed cuts another must read...
Further Details Emerge Regarding NASA's Cancellation of Human and Robotic Technology (H&RT) Research Projects

*Yeah, am just now seeing this at spaceref.com. Search yielded up this thread.

Oh geez... ::sigh::

Damn, that is a lot of stuff cancelled. I think I know why (starts with an "I" and ends with a "q") but don't want to go off topic.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-31 10:08:00

Its not as bad as it looks... alot of these are far-off projects or projects that won't yeild that much bennefit. Why develop Lidar if plain old Radar works? Six million dollars for "human centerd design?" Seven million for "NASA Exploration Design Team?" Electrostatic shielding that we don't have a power supply for? And who needs a fabric heat shield reentry capsule when we've got CEV? A Mars ship will likly use a rigid bullet-type heat shield too. Why optical control linkages, whats wrong with copper wire? Eighteen million for a microsat to inspect spacecraft exteriors when a suited astronaut and cameras are available? Seven million for automated design of spacecraft systems?

Some of these I am not happy with, like Lunar heat radiators, cryogen tankage, and space suit materials, but of these projects we could do without.

publiusr · 2005-11-02 16:51:38

The senate approved 20 billion in foreign aid. That whole budget should go to NASA for one yr.

John Creighton · 2005-11-02 16:56:28

The senate approved 20 billion in foreign aid. That whole budget should go to NASA for one yr.

I'm not saying whether it should or not but that money would mean that the VSE could be acomplished twice as fast. Bush seems to be spending billions like water. I recall recently he anounced billions to prapare for the next pandemic.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-11-02 18:33:46

I personally think we should pull every penny in aid we are giving to Africa and put it towards VSE.

Dook · 2005-11-02 19:16:09

I disagree. Compared to our total budget the amount the US gives in foreign aid is tiny. Also that aid money must be spent on US products so it comes back to help our economy.

It also helps our image around the world to some degree although the main export of some countries (Egypt) seems to be terrorists even though we give them billions each year.

The more important reason is to help those who need and depend on it.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-02 22:08:52

In year 2000 I said congress should cut the US military budget by 10%, give half to NASA and use the other half for tax cuts. After all, the cold war is over. That would have doubled NASA's budget. Then George W. decided to create a ballistic missile defence system, wasting $80 billion, but the real kicker was 9/11.

I recently saw a PBS documentary (NOVA) about 9/11. It included details of exactly what happened on that day. George W. was on a political junket so had reporters on Air Force One. The reporters were stuck there while Air Force One was redirected to an Air Force base in Nevada. NOVA reported that President Bush was informed Al Qaeda was responsible just 10 hours after the attack. He didn't announce that he knew who was responsible for another 3 months. Again I have to compare this to the FLQ crisis in Canada. The crisis was over and all terrorists in jail 85 days after the attack. Some terrorists were permitted to leave for Cuba, effectively deporting themselves, in exchange for the safe return of the UK ambassador, but no one involved with the murder of the Quebec minister was permitted to leave. The RCMP (Canadian federal police) kept a record of who left for Cuba, if they ever set foot on Canadian land they'll be instantly arrested. But in the US, 90 days after 9/11 George W. was just barely admitting he knew who was responsible. Today it's more than 4 years later and Osama bin Laden and the bulk of Al Qaeda is still at large, and those few who were arrested still haven't faced trial. It appears those incarcerated in Guantánamo never will face trial. Mean while the military is still bogged down in Iraq, and Washington is threatening to invade Syria. Syria has done everything it can to cooperate and close its border with Iraq, but they report random raids of Syrian villages by US military. There isn't much news of Iran since Europe is now taking the lead with ensuring Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, but Washington hasn't stated it won't invade. North Korea has stated they will build a nuclear power plant. They're willing to dismantle the one that Washington objects to if the US builds and pays for a nuclear power plant in North Korea. Of course Washington said no, but they still don't understand this is for power, not weapons. After the threats to invade, North Korea is deliberately leading Washington to believe it is looking at nuclear weapons; and the guys in Washington are stupid enough to fall for it. So the US will go ahead with a multi-billion dollar program to build a ballistic missile defence system that has no purpose other than stopping a ballistic missile from North Korea. A program that costs more than a manned mission to Mars. Don't the politicians in Washington get it? Don't they understand that the extreme cost of the missile defence system means North Korea has already won?

All this military thrashing about is costing much more money than a descent space program. Most importantly, the terrorists should have all been in jail just 85 days (or there about) after the attack. Why the hell is this stupid paranoia dragging on 4 years later!?

John Creighton · 2005-11-02 22:37:18

I disagree. Compared to our total budget the amount the US gives in foreign aid is tiny. Also that aid money must be spent on US products so it comes back to help our economy.
It also helps our image around the world to some degree although the main export of some countries (Egypt) seems to be terrorists even though we give them billions each year.
The more important reason is to help those who need and depend on it.

I am not against giving aid to other countries but the way George Bush is spending money with out collecting the necessary taxes everything needs to be scrutinized. 20 billion dollars may be a small amount of money relative to the budget but the budget is way to big. That 20 billion is about as much as NASA gets and twice what the NSF gets. So if that much money is going for aid if I was an American I would want to know where the money is going and what it is accomplishing.

noosfractal · 2005-11-02 22:55:13

Here is the breakout for FY2005 ...

http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules. … le&sid=792
_

John Creighton · 2005-11-02 23:23:44

Here is the breakout for FY2005 ...
http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules. … le&sid=792
_

If I was president I would probably slash most things that aren’t geared towards development or disaster relief from the foreign aid budget. I really think spending is out of control in the united states.

noosfractal · 2005-11-02 23:47:48

I really think spending is out of control in the united states.

I think a lot of people agree with you ...

Mission unthinkable: Disbanding NASA
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opi … 5.900.html
_

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-03 06:37:36

Disband NASA? Yeah great, and trust in the thus-far pathetic AltSpace rocket scientist wannabes? Or maybe we ought to just pay Russia to make our entire space program?

*snorts*

Grypd · 2005-11-03 10:01:54

I think it is a realisation that NASA and the new programme are great goals but there is to much money going out across the spectrum. The leaders of the USA have to be asking where is the money to come from to continue to pay for Iraq and the rebuilding of a whole state and the city of New Orleans.

The estimate of this is $200 Bn and the price keeps going up and up add to that the calls to fix the levy system so it wont happen to other threatened states and cities and you have a money drain. Lots going in but not enough to fill the hole epecially for a country in such a deficit.

I do support the VSE but I can see what must be going through the heads of the leaders of the USA we just cannot raise taxes and we have to find the money. Iraq and the costs there will not be cut so other places have to be and im sorry but the VSE and NASA is becoming more and more a likehood of major cuts. Even offseting by spacing out the programme will likely damn it as it comes down to what do people really care about. And space programmes will not happen if the people are told taxes have to be raised to finance it.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-03 10:42:02

There is a difference though, that the ~$10Bn NASA needs to run VSE is life-or-death for NASA, without VSE then NASA simply won't be in the manned flight business once the ISS is gone. In fact, it might not even take that long if the basic LEO CEV capsule isn't built. If Shuttle is retired but the big heavy lifter not developed, then the chance we'll build a new station following the ISS is nil and the Moon will be out of NASA's minimal fiscal reach. The political fallout from getting rid of NASA, and all the money flowing into states with NASA centers, would be pretty major.

publiusr · 2005-11-03 10:49:26

I personally think we should pull every penny in aid we are giving to Africa and put it towards VSE.

I agree with that 100%

And after that I would have future aid go to Russia, but only if they let us help develop Siberian oil reserves across some Bering Strait Tunnel pipeline, and let the Saudis keep their oil.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-03 10:49:31

That is where workfare programs rather than free handouts come in. Getting an unemployment check for doing nothing is not what should be done to make the US economy grow. Usually unemployment pays less that 2/3 of ones earned wage. Most would rather have the whole thing to work with since that is what is required to live happily. For those on the unemployment side you go into restricted cash flow for paying of bills, getting only what is a neccesity and cutting out all forms of wish list stuff. Usually after only a short while most are forced to rely on savings just to meet current expenses.

As for disbanding Nasa maybe it is time to break it into categories of manned flight, unmanned robotic missions each getting there own budget. I bet that would stimulate rocket prices to come down.

From Nasawatch:

Griffin Testifies Before Congress
Griffin to Testify on Status of NASA programs
House Science Committee: Status of NASA's Programs - Hearing Charter
"If NASA does not receive a significant increase in its projected budgets over the next five years, it will either have to drop its plans to accelerate the development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) or it will have to significantly cut science and/or aeronautics. NASA has already proposed significant cuts in some areas of its exploration budget and in Space Station research to accelerate development of the CEV."

Editor's note: At the start of his opening statement, Rep. Bart Gordon complained that NASA did not provide Griffin's prepared testimony until 4 pm yesterday - for a 10 AM hearing today. Gordon warned that if this happens again that he will have to recommend that the practice be followed as it was under Rep. Sensenbrenner - and cancel the hearing.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-03 11:08:10

As noted there are many nagging questions that Griffin must give congress some answers to.

The questions can be found in the [url=http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/space05/nov3/CHARTER.pdf]COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
Status of NASA’s Programs[/url] document.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-04 09:52:41

The agency has adopted a "go-as-you-can-pay" approach in light of the way the vision was presented. In light of this, the prometheus program which is designed to provide power to an outpost planned for the surface of the moonis to be needed not until or after 2018, so the work is currently being deferred.

NASA is also seeking $1.9 billion for the CEV for 2006, $785 million more than it had been seeking when it sent Congress its budget request in February.

With a projected short fall of 4 to 6 billion between now and 2010.

Gee we have paid for the last few years more than that for shuttle flights that have not occured so I would say someone needs to ask for some wages that were not earned back or at least barter to get some work of the future for this...

Of course in an effort Nasa will need another round of belt-tightening to absorb the higher-than-expected costs in operating the space shuttle. 950 civil servants nationwide who must either leave the agency or be reassigned to jobs that meet the agency's new mission does not sound like much of a belt tightening as far as I can see.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp … cal-final]
NASA warns of possible layoffs
Space shuttle costs could force cuts, the agency says, which may impact Langley.

Many of the cost savings anticipated as the shuttle nears retirement have failed to materialize because of the program's high fixed costs, a House committee report concluded.

Gee costs overrun....?

SpaceNut · 2005-11-04 13:23:56

Well I just got done viewing the webcast that is achrived, link available on Nasawatch.

Here are a few of the things that I made note of while viewing.

Sticking point was with CEV and CLV developement for use of first flight in 2012. But since the shuttle ends in 2010 and it will be at least a 2 years cycle to build the rocket for first manned use with at least one preflight unmanned flight means a very short turn time for improvements to be made. The selected contractor I hope would be doing demonstrator flights by at least 2008 so as to keep the time frame of implementation as close as possible.

Concern for the hubble missions status was a question for a technical side as to whether it can be done. He feels a need for at least 2 flights in the return to flight process before making a firm decision yea or nay on using the shuttle for this mission.

Cargo privitization use for delivery of goods to the ISS was pointed at how we would transition from the Russian soyuz use with industy developing this capability in about the same time frame as the CEV which is 4 or 5 years is of a valid concern as well.

Science programs from the universities have been recieving termination notices of which somew are felt to be of need for the future. But here in lies the problem is how close is to the need for it or when is it needed. Which was countered by if we are not there continually then why worry about do the science now.

The INA legislation was also put forth as a question of continued cooperation and that continued cooperation with the partners and where do we stand with china. As a security issue should we be careful of Russian involment with other cold war enimies... and why we should not expect to us only russian hardware with out doing our own process and equipment.

The question of cancelling flights of the shuttle to deliver modules specifically the cetrifuge that are from our partners and of getting them to go with us to the moon if we will continue to break our agreements.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-09 09:26:44

Buried in the Conference Report on H.R. 2862
Science and Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 document. For legislative approval for Nasa's coming year.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration is funded at requested level of $16.5 billion, $260 million above FY05. Funds the President’s vision for space exploration at $3.1 billion; restores the aeronautics research program to $912 million. Provides full request for the Space Shuttle program and bill language is included directing the President to develop a national aeronautics policy.

publiusr · 2005-11-10 14:42:26

Better news.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-17 07:15:30

Senate passes NASA budget

NASA will get $16.5 billion to cover its moon mission, shuttle flights, a repair mission on the Hubble telescope and other costs, under a budget bill the Senate passed today by a 94-5 vote.
The budget is $260.3 million above what NASA got for the last fiscal year, and it is $1 million more than President Bush's request.
Bush wants astronauts back on the moon by 2018 and possible exploration of Mars after the return to the moon got $3.1 billion of the budget.
Congress threw its weight - and money - behind a repair mission for the Hubble space telescope.
Under the budget bill, Hubble will get an extra $50 million for the repair mission for a total of $271 million for the space telescope.

hm is there really 3 billion extra in this budget?

From another up date of this news:

The bill also includes $4.5 billion for the shuttle, $1.8 billion for the space station and $912 million for aeronautics, restoring some cuts Bush had proposed but lawmakers opposed. Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense said Congress also added $276 million in pet projects NASA did not request.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-10-24 07:00:16

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#77 2005-10-31 06:57:12

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#78 2005-10-31 07:14:21

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#79 2005-10-31 08:44:37

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#80 2005-10-31 10:08:00

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#81 2005-11-02 16:51:38

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#82 2005-11-02 16:56:28

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#83 2005-11-02 18:33:46

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#84 2005-11-02 19:16:09

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#85 2005-11-02 22:08:52

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#86 2005-11-02 22:37:18

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#87 2005-11-02 22:55:13

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#88 2005-11-02 23:23:44

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#89 2005-11-02 23:47:48

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#90 2005-11-03 06:37:36

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#91 2005-11-03 10:01:54

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#92 2005-11-03 10:42:02

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#93 2005-11-03 10:49:26

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#94 2005-11-03 10:49:31

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#95 2005-11-03 11:08:10

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#96 2005-11-04 09:52:41

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#97 2005-11-04 13:23:56

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#98 2005-11-09 09:26:44

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#99 2005-11-10 14:42:26

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#100 2005-11-17 07:15:30

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

Board footer