White House Concerns About House Budget Cuts

Here is the "ground truth" between the rhetoric of the space subcommittees and the reality of what the Congressional leadership believes to be a priority. If the President can't get his own requests for NASA approved, how likely is it that an additional $3 billion per year would sail through Congress, even if the President added it to his budget request? It exposes the fallacy of Reps. Bart Gordon and subcommittee chair Giffords in being "shocked" that NASA needs more money to execute its exploration programs. Last month's hearings were filled with cries for support for NASA and Constellation-and here is the leadership's response: drop dead! The science and space committees have little sway in the "Cardinals" metering out of funding. I predict these cuts are only the beginning of the hard times ahead for civil space. Will Centennial Challenges and prizes be the next up on the cutting block? COTS? Heavy lift booster development?

I think Frank Sietzen is right on the money in his comment. If the appropriators are not listening to Gorton and his committee, then that ends additional NASA funding before it can even start. No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Talking to Gorton, et. al. about why they should support Space is preaching to the choir. Instead, the cardinals must be the targets of any public outreach effort. Thanks Frank for such sobering clarity.

+$3B is a 17% increase over current current allocation. I would like to see how NASA would handle three budget scenarios:

• 1. +17% budget
• 2. No change in budget
• 3. -17% budget

Does anyone know if a "significant budget reduction" scenario has been scoped out?

Obviously less money leans they'd have to find an alternative way to do business... or do less business with the same problems.

The thing I see with NASA is they don't want to change how they select their launch systems or how projects are overseen. So even with less cash you have the same problems with less of a program in the end.

If the solution is a change in process then why pussyfoot around with the budget?
Hammer out a policy already.

I could not agree more. The reason we have been stuck in low earth orbit for decades is entirely NASA's fault. They never came up with a dynamic plan and seem to have thought pleasing the president (democrat or republican) on budget cuts in exchange for vague promises of future spending which never materialized was their most important mission. It is time to try something different - privatization, international cooperation, anything!
When I was in tenth grade we landed a man on the moon. I am now 56 and - with some notable exceptions - we have very little to show for the years since then.

Take a look at any new large-scale program that pushes the technological envelope, such as the F-35 Lightning II, which began in 1996 and will cost more than $40B to develop, a program that has benefited from steady Congressional political and financial support from day one. Why does anyone expect NASA to develop systems more complicated than an F-35 in less time and money? Because NASA of old, which had large amounts of consistent up-front funding from day one, accomplished in short order what takes NASA twice as long to do today? That's an improper analysis from any viewpoint that ignores today's lack of political leadership when it comes to funding space activities.

It isn't NASA's fault that the appropriators don't care to provide funds sufficient for NASA to finish Constellation. The Cardinals know what NASA needs, they simply have other priorities. And let's face, considering what we spend on DoD and other funding, $3B is almost a rounding error to these guys.

The only way NASA will get the money it needs is if its one real constituent, the President directs his OMB to get that money. Bush, after prodding from Tom Delay, did it in 2005 but then dropped the ball. What will and can Obama do is the real question?

Jim is absolutely correct that there is but a constituency of one as regards more NASA funding-the President, but the process only begins with his requesting the added money. Right now, many in Congress believe this young man is weak and can be rolled. That, plus their lack of support overall for expanding the civil space budget makes sustained funding increases problematical. Unless funds can be directed from the various stimulus bills-like the whopping $5b directed to NIH last week-running the traditional gauntlet on the Hill doesn not look good.

Frank, that's a pretty depressing assessment. But I'm sure it's an accurate one.

I did not work to see Obama become President, but he is our President now. And he needs to find his inner-Lyndon, as in Johnson. It won't be just Space that will be adversely affected if Obama doesn't toughen-up. We don't need another Carter.

Too true Jim!
Somebody close to him-personally close not politically close-has got to make the case for space directly. Lifting it out of the budget noise. Frankly, I don't know of anyone that fits that description.