Senate Rejects Obama's Space Plan

Add in a looming CR, and America's human spaceflight program is about to go into a year of stasis and confusion.

Another year of stasis and confusion. But at the same time: another year in which Obama can probably continue Griffin's scorched earth policy, which might still stop SDLV. Also another year in which SpaceX can demonstrate cargo delivery and even cargo or at least trash return.

The administration has no one to blame but itself.

Now Ameerica will pay dearly with delay and loss of expertise that will have a ripple effect for years.

Is this how to inspire children President Obama?

I seriously doubt we will hear another word from POTUS lips again invoking Apollo and landing on the moon as an inspirational touchstone.

Yet another twist: On third thought:

This "compromise" as Kieth describes it would be a
total non starter as far as the administration goes. The
Sentinel is quite right in pointing out that the administration
Is more interested in changing the game than any particular
activity. The description of a choice between the old GM
model and silicon valley model is a good one.

So now we get a CR and chaos until FY2012 when the
administration will send a NASA budget request cutting all
funds for manned space other than the Soyuz/ISS. sitting
the need to cut the budget. Congress will then have a
choice of compromise with the administration or getting
nothing. It is highly unlikely that that congress will
spend more money than the administration requests.

Nelson is clearly in the pay of someone other than the
people of the State of Florida. Florida was set to do
very well out of the administration program.

Some compromise. What on Earth has the Senate been thinking? If this is what the Dems can come up with, the Republicans must be laughing their asses off...

"The Senate bill, which if passed would lay out the direction of the space program for the next three years ..."

Says it all.

What page of Augustine is this from?

What experts have told the Senate subcommittee to cut funding to close the gap?

I have to say that this doesn't surprise me. There are two facts to keep in mind here:

1) The main priority of the House and Senate appears to have been to maintain as many jobs as possible;

2) None of them seem to believe that commercial crew would be available soon or be safe enough for NASA's use.

When you consider these two elements, defunding of commercial and a huge booster building project is not only the intuitative outcome, it is actually inevitable.

As Keith says, the question is now whether the President will veto it, either directly or just simply by not signing it and leaving it at the bottom of his pile of things to look at. I suspect that he will do so. Furthermore, with elections coming up soon all the personalities are going to be busy with far more immediate priorities.

Really, the only hope that this bill will pass will be if someone tones it down slightly and allows a bit more funding to go towards commercial crew. A middle path between the extremes might not be loved, but it won't be hated enough to be blocked by any side.

> 2) None of them seem to believe that commercial crew would be available soon or be safe enough for NASA's use.

Is that what they believe? I thought NASA's budget was fixed and a dollar spent on commercial crew is a dollar taken away from the workforce they're trying to protect, and that is reason enough to scuttle commercial crew

Will he sign it?

Will it even be passed by the Senate?

"If this is what the Dems can come up with, the Republicans must be laughing their asses off..."

Right. A Republican led plan would have been substantially different...how?

I really hope either 1)the sources are getting fed the wrong information (unlikely, but still possible), or 2) someone else on the committee manages to reverse this.

Because, from what has been stated here, this is probably the worst possible combination of the two plans. It strips FY2011 of all the positives it had (advanced R&D, commercial crew), but doesn't fund CxP enough for it to be able to do anything worthwhile in the near future (heck, from the sounds of it, they want to start on *another* rocket- which certainly can't help the gap).

The Administration may be to blame, as CessnaDriver maintains, but this sure isn't helping, either.

Ouch. From the overview, this one sounds like the worst of both worlds. It doesn't seem to fund the Ares (which the Augustine committee pointed out would need a funding increase to fly, not a funding decrease)-- but it also deletes funding for commercial alternatives to human flight, and even cuts funding for research, which has already been starved pretty much to death at NASA in the last few years.
The only way I can think of that this might make sense, with a budget that is apparently funding the Orion crew vehicle but not the Ares-1 to fly it, is if they are setting up a plan where NASA builds the capsule, but buys expendibles boosters to launch it.
The New York Times article is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/science/space/09nasa.html

Ben,

Fortunately, most authorization bills can't proceed in the Senate without unanimous consent. Which means one Senator can stop this monstrosity.

- Jim

I don't think these guys get it. HUGE budget cuts are coming within a year or two. There is no way NASA is going to be able to support Ares/Orion (and it's $1billion +) cost per launch when those cuts happen.

The best way to create a sustainable program is provide LEO access through commercial entities. Failing that, we should at least get rid of Ares and put put Orion on a man rated EELV.

You can forget about the Moon or Mars for now. When those budget cuts come (and they will come) we'll be lucky if we're able to leave American's on ISS. There are many credible arguments to be made against Obama's proposed space policy but manned LEO access through commercial entities (whether it is SpaceX, Boeing, or LM) is not one of them.

@ RC,

I'm basing my comments on the various statements made by senators and representatives since FY2011 was rolled out. The 'usual suspects' (those who have a lot of say about space funding) have all seemed to be of the opinion that commercial crew isn't likely, safe or even desirable in the immediate future.

As you accurately point out, a dollar spent on, say, Orion riding on an HLV, has to come from somewhere. As they believe that commercial crew is a non-starter in the immediate term, why not take the funding from there? It must seem obvious to Nelson, Shelby, Hutchinson et al.

@ Geoffrey,

My understanding is that Senator Nelson wants Orion to fly on an LEO-only down-rated version of the HLV.

There are many permutations of how to achieve this. The most common is to take a D-SDLV in-line, remove the upper stage and one core engine and you have a 70t IMLEO launch vehicle. JSC have stated that this is a logical LEO version of the in-line design. You can remove a second core engine (reducing it to two SSMEs) and you have an EELV-Heavy/ACES-class launch vehicle, suitable for Orion-only crew launch to the ISS. I don't know if this is what Nelson and his collaborators are thinking of, but it is a long-proposed option.

The problem is, of course, that it appears to starve the other options of funding, which isn't really desirable as they will be needed to maintain ISS if a BEO human exploration program becomes a reality. Some savings are possible by abandoning the five-segment SRM in favour of the RSRM and the J-2X in favour of a human-rated RL-10B-2. Nonetheless, if the funding is that tight, I'd prefer to put Orion on the EELVs and fund the ACES common upper stage/fuel depot system.

Nelson has as much concern for his constituents as the rest of the soon to be lame ducks in congress. Interesting times ahead for us as our fellow Arab planet dwellers have said.

NASA is just trading in the station wagon for the new flying car we've been hearing about for so long.

"But Dad!, I need to get to school tomorrow!!"

Also, check out this link :

http://download.esa.int/qt/Lutetia_FlyBy_1280x720p_qthigh.mov

for a look into the future. This is what your going to get for investing all that money for the next decade plus. Exciting! Inspirational!

Leave it to politics to further slow HSF to a crawl.

Damn the politics!

If commercial is to be truly a commercial service why would the government be funding development anyway?

"Fortunately, most authorization bills can't proceed in the Senate without unanimous consent. Which means one Senator can stop this monstrosity."

The same procedure can be used to stop the monstrosity of Obama Space. Therefore a compromise is ultimately likely. It may be something like Sen. Nelson's bill but with a bit more money for commercial space.

Keith,

Do you know how the draft bill defines "commercial activities"? Just crew, cargo and crew, cargo and crew and other(?) commercial initiatives?
Thanks.

I feel sorry for the NASA opponents and Cx haters who got their hopes up thinking NASA and its good people were going away. Common sense is slowly returning to the US space program and Congress will likely compromise about as much as the White House has compromised so far - if I had to guess. I'm not sure who will win this one but right now it appears that the Senate has the ball and is moving toward a touchdown.

@MrEarl
Oh dear, another "inteligent" that thinks if goverment buys one of three lolipops from Mom&Dad stand, this company ceases to be private in at least 33%...

No, it means the government should not have to pay Mom & Dad to develop the lolipop recipe, make the lolipops, build the lolipop stand, or market the lolipops. Mom & Pop are responsible for the funds and the government will buy the lolipops once proven that they won't kill anyone when eaten.

The big question is, what is going on here? I can think of a few possibilities.

1. The Senate is playing hard ball by choosing a plan they know Obama won't accept, they feel he will now have to come to them and offer a compromise. The Senate feels that they have the upper hand.

If this is what the Senate thinks this, then I think they are wrong. Even if Obama felt like compromising, a compromise of this proportion would be an embarrassment to him. I sure he will veto or pocket veto this plan, if it makes it to him.

Obama can let NASA's budget become a CR and then he has a whole year to gut the programs he doesn't want. By FY 2112, there won't be any programs for the Senate to save.

2. Certain Senator's are so much in some big areo-space company pockets, that they are no longer working for what's best for America.

The reason my Republican friends might well be laughing is that the Dems have done the heavy lifting for them-gutting the WH proposals. Anything they'd likely come up with would be just as bad and just as negative related to the President's request. I thought the Dems are supposed to support Obama policies, not tear them up?

I want to see commercial space become real "commercial". Stop all the gov't subsidies, whether they come from NASA or the DOD. Let's see the commercial folks try to do any of this without their paymasters in Washington paying for all of it. Where there is no profit, there is not "commercial" business.

This is why our country can't make any headway in HSF - no consensus on pathway/vision & short sighted decisions for political expediency - goes for both sides of the aisle.

Frank Sietzen: I thought the Dems are supposed to support Obama policies, not tear them up?

We don't need a rubber stamp congress, which is what it has been. It's good to see them finally listening to their constituents for once. FYI, THAT is what they are supposed to do.

iceage: Even if Obama felt like compromising, a compromise of this proportion would be an embarrassment to him.

So far a change in direction of the magnitude Obama proposed has already been an embarrassment to him. The Senate finally pointed out that the Emperor has no clothes.

Thank You Hogan, that's exactly what I meant. Of coarse those costs will go into the pricing of any services provided by the winning companies but why should we finance the costs of the losing companies too?

> I want to see commercial space become real "commercial". Stop all the gov't subsidies, whether they come from NASA or the DOD. Let's see the commercial folks try to do any of this without their paymasters in Washington paying for all of it. Where there is no profit, there is not "commercial" business.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf

"The term “commercial,” for the purposes of this policy, refers to space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers."

So where does this leave the ISS?

This political dark comedy is so funny, you couldn't write this stuff. Hey, lets decide NASA's future by dueling banjos at 5 paces, winner gets a new banjo and more time to play. LOL...

" A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach."

So private industry would get $1 billion a year over 6 years instead of $1.2 billion a year over 5 years. So how is Nelson's plan gutting the development of private crew taxis?

The screams and hollers about a tiny modification of tax payer funding for private space industry clearly illustrates just how dangerous it would be for NASA to be-- totally dependent-- on private industry for access to to space! Because every time we try to cut or to modify a government program, these private space companies are going to start screaming and hollering that they're not getting enough tax payer money and their lobbying for more tax payer funds will start!

Nelson is right, we need to preserve the public option for manned access to space. I applaud the Nelson compromise.

Marcel F. Williams

Fortunately for those of us who support the reforms of "ObamaSpace", an appropriation cannot be blocked by one Senator.

>Mom & Pop are responsible for the funds and the government will buy the lolipops once proven that they won't kill anyone when eaten.

And that's the part where successful, commercial space including musk becomes just as expensive as lockheed martin or boeing. orbital is already familiar with this sort of systems rigor so it's a smaller hurdle for them... then it will come down to a question of can a low performance launcher like Falcon compete with something of average to high performance for a competitive price.

Ya know, I'm not too sure as to the non-signing issue.

Perhaps, yes, perhaps, Obama and his officials have learnt something in the intervening period, and the public outcry has pierced ears there -- let's hope so.

MOJ...Not an American (Irish), and wishing for a Moon-return (with Mars also in corner of eye).

This is a compromise in the sense that the current Administration employs 'compromise'...it just happens to come down on the other side from the WH's preference.

And as someone suggested above, if we're serious about 'commercial' operations, then here's the opportunity for the contenders to prove themselves as real (vs govt contract) commercial competitors: come up with your OWN funds the way normal commercial start-ups do, without complete govt financial bracing.

Those on this post who think that commercial providers of launch services are NOT pursuing (and obtaining) financing the way "normal" start-ups do need only take a look at SpaceX's posted launch manifest for the next several years. It contains a healthy mix of flights under government contract (COTS and other -- government contracting being a time-honored means for innovative start-ups to obtain needed funds and needed legitimacy in the eyes of traditional private investors), as well as launches for a mix of international and domestic customers (Argentina, Isreal, ESA, Orbcomm, Bigelow and the Iridium replacement launches valued at approx. $450 million - reportedly the largest satellite deal ever. A look at published cost estimates for the entire SpaceX infrastructure since the company's founding in 2002 (not to mention pagyroll for the now 1,000+ employees,(three launch complexes - at Vandenburg, Omelek and Canaveral - , the test facilities in MacGregor, Texas and the plant in Hawthorne - , run to approx. $500-600 M. Less than half of that has come from COTS funding: the rest is from Musk's personal investment, other private investment, and operating income. Why SHOULDN'T the taxpayer welcome a plan for NASA to encourage a few more like that?

You forgot the third possibility.

3. Both of the above.

You forgot the primary reason the administration has the
upper hand. They just don't care as much. It's fine
with them if this process goes into the FY2013, FY2014,
or FY2015 budget. Better even. That way they don't have
to spend the money. Their pro space on there terms and
on no other. They will compromise if they feel like it.

Nelson possible thinks he is posturing for the voters or
for his hard line Senate colleges. I doubt he thinks this
is going to work out for him.

Excellent third possibility. Probably it is a combination of all three possibilities stated.

The Democrats have backed up the President ... when he's had good policies.