Recently in Congress Category

Obama's budget would cut Mars, solar system exploration, Washington Post

"The budget coming Monday from the Obama administration will send the NASA division that launches rovers to Mars and probes to Jupiter crashing back to Earth. Scientists briefed on the proposed budget said that the president's plan drops funding for planetary science at NASA from $1.5 billion this year to $1.2 billion next year, with further cuts continuing through 2017. It would eat at NASA's Mars exploration program, which, after two high-profile failures in 1999, has successfully sent three probes into Martian orbit and landed three more on the planet's surface."

Europe and Russia Plan Trips to Mars--But Maybe Without NASA, Science

"The European Space Agency (ESA) and its Russian counterpart, Roscosmos, are making plans to carry out the international ExoMars exploration program without help from one of the project's original partners: NASA. The U.S. space agency may have to pull out of the project if the Obama Administration's 2013 budget request to Congress, to be released on Monday, includes expected cuts in the agency's funding for Mars programs."

ExoMars cooperation between Nasa and Esa near collapse, BBC

"Nasa has told Esa it is now highly unlikely it will be able to contribute to the endeavours, which envision an orbiting satellite and a big roving robot being sent to the Red Planet. The US has yet to make a formal statement on the matter but budget woes are thought to lie behind its decision. Europe is now banking on a Russian partnership to keep the missions alive. A public announcement by Nasa of its withdrawal from the ExoMars programme, as it is known in Europe, will probably come once President Obama's 2013 Federal Budget Request is submitted."

NASA is too poor to help Europe go to Mars, io9.com

"But now, it looks as though NASA could be just days away from officially pulling out of the joint project, depriving the ESA of a major source of financial, technological, and experiential backing."

Has NASA Scuppered Europe-led Exomars Mission? , Discovery News

"It is now hoped Russia might be able to step in where NASA left off. Unfortunately, this decision will raise a few eyebrows considering Russia's recent bad luck with getting stuff into space and keeping it there. Also, Roscosmos' track record with getting stuff to Mars is abysmal."

Keith's note: Details of the FY 2013 NASA budget are starting to trickle out. One of the most prominent changes will be the substantial cut to planetary science at SMD - specifically its future Mars exploration program. Sources report cuts of 50-60% in this area. At the same time, the agency has to eat $1 billion in Webb telescope overruns - half of which will come out of SMD. Stay tuned. It isn't going to be pretty. This certainly promises to be a rather depressing event: Second International MEPAG (Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group) Meeting 27-28 Feb 2012.

Meanwhile the James Webb Space Telescope crowd is eerily quiet. They know that the cost being covered for their latest overrun grossly eclipses the cuts that are being made elswhere. Alas, the grossly over-budget and oft-delayed MSL is on its way to Mars...

50 years of doing this - and NASA still can't figure out what things will actually cost?

Commercial space industry welcomes FAA bill, The Hill

"By extending the learning period, we're opening the door for continued growth and job creation, while also helping keep America at the forefront of space travel and exploration. I look forward to seeing what comes next from this burgeoning industry," said House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)."

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Welcomes Passage of Legislation to Provide Regulatory Stability to Growing Industry

"The Commercial Spaceflight Federation welcomes Congress's passage today of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, which includes a key provision granting regulatory stability to the commercial spaceflight industry."

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Welcomes Passage of Legislation to Provide Regulatory Stability to Growing Industry

"The Commercial Spaceflight Federation welcomes Congress's passage today of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, which includes a key provision granting regulatory stability to the commercial spaceflight industry."

AIA Praises Congressional Passage of FAA Reauthorization

"The Aerospace Industries Association welcomes House and Senate passage of the conference report on H.R. 658, the "FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012." It is critical to FAA operations and offers stability and predictability to the aviation industry instead of the uncertainty fueled by one short-term extension after another."

Obama announces new, leaner military approach, Washington Post

"The downsizing of the Pentagon, prompted by the country's dire fiscal problems, means that the military will depend more on coalitions with allies and avoid the large-scale counterinsurgency and nation-building operations that have marked the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Boeing to close Wichita plant, cites defense cuts, Reuters

"Boeing Co said it would close a plant in Wichita by the end of 2013 that employs more than 2,160 workers maintaining and converting planes for the military, part of a move to cut costs as the U. S. defense budget tightens."

Keith's note: Get ready for the FY 2013 NASA budget, space fans.

Annus Horribilis: Space in 2011, Paul Spudis, Air & Space

"In other exciting developments, the agency announced their new "mission statement" - "To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind." Some noted the new statement says nothing about conducting missions and doesn't mention space. But it is stirring - a mission statement for an agency without a mission."

Cigar Smokers Resist Possible FDA Rules, Reuters

"Legislation sponsored by Republican Representative Bill Posey and Democratic Senator Bill Nelson would carve out from the 2009 law an exception for "traditional large and premium cigars." That would include those wrapped in leaf tobacco with no filter and weighing "at least six pounds per 1,000 count." The language is too imprecise for health advocates, who say it allows for candy-flavored cigars if they are large enough, for example."

Keith's note: The next time you stop to ponder whether Florida's congressional delegation is spending sufficient time focusing on things such as space, not raising your taxes, etc., just remember what Sen. Nelson, Rep. Posey think is worth their time: protecting the rights of "traditional large and premium" cigar smokers.

NASA Faces Further Cuts in Last-minute Spending Package, Space News

"NASA stands to lose an additional $325 million under the omnibus spending package headed to the U.S. Senate for a final vote. A disaster relief bill the House approved Dec. 16 along with the 2012 Final Consolidated Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2055) includes a 1.83 percent across-the-board cut for all nondefense related discretionary spending, including NASA .... "The rescission does apply to us," NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage said Dec. 16. "We estimate the cut would take us to around $17.4 billion."

Senate approves disaster relief without House pay-for, The Hill

"The pay-for resolution, H.Con.Res. 94, was defeated 43-56, and would have amended the emergency relief bill by making an across-the-board 1.83 percent cut to most discretionary spending accounts in 2012."

NASA Unaffected by Potential Government Shutdown

"You may have already heard talk of a potential government shutdown that could happen at the end of this week. Although government agencies are preparing for that possibility, NASA will not shut down because our fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill has been approved. Your work schedule and pay will generally continue as usual. While NASA's funding legislation has been approved, the debate continues on Capitol Hill on appropriation bills for many other Federal agencies as well as pending measures to extend the payroll tax cut and Unemployment Insurance benefits."

NASA cost, denial key to saving space program, Florida Today

"Perhaps the single biggest threat to the nation's space program in the next decade is the repeated, rampant multi-billion dollar cost overruns that plague big NASA projects. The senior leaders of NASA and its big contractors repeatedly deliver projects billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. And to add insult to taxpayers' injury, they revise history to obscure the truth. The James Webb Space Telescope, the scientifically important successor to Hubble Space Telescope, is going to somehow get support from Congress despite its explosive price tag, well documented mismanagement and half-decade launch delay."

Keith's note: "Rampant multi-billion dollar cost overruns"? Hmmm ... Sounds like Constellation to me - and what SLS risks becoming given the murkiness regarding NASA's support and inadequate budgetary resources. But wait - CxP and SLS = jobs for Florida Today readers. As such, only Webb Space Telescope is painted as a threat in this regard - not SLS.

- Large NASA Programs: Located In Florida = "Jobs", Out of State = "Boondoggle, Pork", earlier post
- Florida: No Space Pork Here - Only In Virginia, earlier post
- NASA Money Sponge Update, earlier post

Panel Discussion: U.S. Leadership in Astronomy: Space Telescopes Today, Tomorrow and Beyond

"Featuring: Eric Smith, NASA Headquarters, Dr. John Grunsfeld, Deputy Director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, Dr. Meg Urry, Yale University, and Pam Whitney, House Committee on Science & Technology (invited)."

House Science, Space & Tech Committee Hearing - Assessing the James Webb Space Telescope

"Witnesses:
- [Statement] Rick Howard, Program Manager, James Webb Space Telescope, NASA,
- [Statement] Roger Blandford, Professor of Physics, Stanford University,
- [Statement] Garth Illingworth, Professor & Astronomer, UCO/Lick Observatory, University of California, Santa Cruz,
- [Statement] Jeffrey D. Grant, Sector Vice President & General Manager, Space Systems Division, Northrup Grumman Aerospace Systems"

Keith's note: As the STA luncheon on Capitol Hill was starting up today, Ken Monroe, a staffer on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee sat next to me. His first words to me were "I really do not appreciate the way you attacked me - especially since we have never met before." I suggested that he "grow some thicker skin". I would not normally post an incident this, but you may recall that Ken Monroe is the person who referred to people at NASA (many of whom he has probably never met) as "idiots" on a Twitter post. Pot Kettle Black. Someone needs to develop thicker skin.

I guess that this earlier post "Congressional Staffer Ken Monroe Thinks That NASA Is "Run By Idiots"" is what Monroe considers to be an "attack" by me - wherein I take issue with his totally unprofessional comments about NASA management.

Statement by AIA President & CEO Marion C. Blakey on Today's Supercommittee Announcement

"The announcement this afternoon that the supercommittee cannot reach agreement to avoid sequestration is of grave concern. At stake are $1.2 trillion in across-the-board budget cuts hitting the Defense Department, NASA, FAA and other federal programs. The Defense Department will need to start applying cuts to the fiscal year 2013 budget immediately and job losses will increase as the Pentagon is forced to halt work. AIA will continue to make sure that the impacts to our nation, economy and industry are well understood by all Americans."

Super committee fails to agree on deficit-reduction plan, LA Times

"The committee faced a Wednesday deadline to vote on a proposal to slash the nation's deficits by $1.5 trillion over the decade. The panel that was brought into existence as a result of the summer debt ceiling fight spent three months in mostly secret negotiations. A deal needed to be posted by Monday evening to provide a 48-hour review. The failure of the committee now triggers mandatory spending cuts that slice equally across defense and discretionary accounts, to begin in January 2013."

OMB directs agencies to cut 2013 budgets, Government Executive

"The Obama administration is directing federal agencies to submit fiscal 2013 budget requests that are at least 10 percent below their current appropriation level."

OMB Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Guidance

"In light of the tight limits on discretionary spending starting in 2012, your 2013 budget submission to OMB should provide options to support the President's commitment to cut waste and reorder priorities to achieve deficit reduction while investing in those areas critical to job creation and economic growth. Unless your agency has been given explicit direction otherwise by OMB, your overall agency request for 2013 should be at least 5 percent below your 2011 enacted discretionary appropriation. As discussed at the recent Cabinet meetings, your 2013 budget submission should also identify additional discretionary funding reductions that would bring your request to a level that is at least 10 percent below your 2011 enacted discretionary appropriation."

NASA budget erratic, Florida Today

"The good news for Kennedy Space Center and Brevard is in the form of a major investment in a new super rocket and Orion crew spaceship, publicly run rather than privately developed, but destined to be prepared and launched from here. Funding for both projects is solidly in place and will help stabilize jobs at the spaceport now and create potentially thousands more in the coming half-decade. ..."

"... The boondoggle James Webb Space Telescope was kept alive -- and provided a multibillion-dollar taxpayer bailout -- as politicians gave up on empty threats to finally cancel the latest NASA project to blow its budget and schedule. The telescope, an important science mission worthy of completion, is devouring so much of the NASA budget that other good work is being delayed or canceled."

Florida: No Space Pork Here - Only In Virginia, earlier post

- Sen. Rockefeller (statement)

Witness Panel 1
- Charles Bolden(statement)

Witness Panel 2
- KSC Center Director Robert D. Cabana
- JSC Center Director Michael L. Coats
- MSFC Center Director Robert M. Lightfoot

Conference Report to Accompany HR 2112 -- NASA Excerpts

"... the formulation and development costs (with development cost as defined under 51 U.S.C. 30104) for the James Webb Space Telescope shall not exceed $8,000,000,000: Provided further, That should the individual identified under subparagraph (c)(2)(E) of section 30104 of title 51 as responsible for the James Webb Space Telescope determine that the development cost of the program is likely to exceed that limitation, the individual shall immediately notify the Administrator and the increase shall be treated as if it meets the 30 percent threshold described in subsection (f) of section 30104 of title 51."

"... $406,000,000 shall be for commercial spaceflight activities, and $304,800,000 shall be for exploration research and development: Provided further, That not to exceed $316,500,000 of funds provided for the heavy lift launch vehicle system may be used for ground operations: Provided further that $100,000,000 of the funds provided for commercial spaceflight activities shall only be available after the NASA Administrator certifies to the Committees on Appropriations, in writing, that NASA has published the required notifications of NASA contract actions implementing the acquisition strategy for the heavy lift launch vehicle system identified in section 302 of Public Law 111-267 and has begun to execute relevant contract actions in support of development of the heavy lift launch vehicle system."

Exploring Mars and Beyond: What's Next for U.S. Planetary Science?

"- Dr. Jim Green, Planetary Science Division Director, Science Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

- Dr. Steve Squyres, Chair, Committee on the Planetary Science Decadal Survey, National Academies of Science"

- Statement of Rep. Donna Edwards
- Statement of James Green
- Statement of Steven Squyres

Keith's note: Conferees filed their conference report for the first minibus appropriations bill Monday night. This is what they propose for NASA:

- NASA (whole agency):  $17.8 billion
- ISS:  $2.8 billion for ops, research, and cargo
- Commercial Crew: $406 million
- SLS:  $1.8 billion
- MPCV/Orion:  $1.2 billion
- Webb Space Telescope:  $529 million
- Technology: $575 million

Budget pressures squeeze the dreams of Mars explorers, Washington Post

"At a White House meeting during the last week of October, administration officials "were clearly not very keen on signing up" for unmanned Mars missions in 2016 and 2018, said Daniel Britt, who attended the meeting as head of the planetary science division of the American Astronomical Society. ... White House officials said no decision to kill the Mars program has been made. The administration is deliberating how to mete out NASA's uncertain budget, said Rick Weiss, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy."

NASA Funding Added to Must-pass Minibus, Space News

"NASA funding is among the differences House and Senate conferees must resolve before the two chambers can give final approval to the so-called minibus the week of Nov. 14. House appropriators voted this summer to fund NASA at $16.8 billion -- about $1.6 billion below this year's level -- and recommended canceling the overbudget James Webb Space Telescope. The Senate bill, in contrast, would fund NASA at $17.9 billion and include additional money for Webb."

NASA Still Studying Space-Based Fuel Depots, Aviation Week

"Michael Gazarik, NASA's space technology program director, says that CPST and the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket currently under development are complementary technologies. "To explore deep space we need a heavy-lift vehicle -- SLS -- and we need this technology. We need to be able to demonstrate how to handle cryogenic fluids in space." The CPST project is being led by NASA's Office of the Chief Technologist, which was set up by the Obama administration to develop technologies that will be needed regardless of the final exploration architectures the U.S. space community hammers out. The depot-demonstration mission will serve any of them, Gazarik says."

- Update on NASA's Hidden Fuel Depot Studies
- NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLS, earlier post
- Fuel Depots and Congress, earlier post
- In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Demonstration Mission Concept Studies, 2011, NASA GRC, earlier post
- Using Commercial Launchers and Fuel Depots Instead of HLVs, earlier post
- The HLV Cost Information NASA Decided Not To Give To Congress, earlier post

Propellant Depots Instead of Heavy Lift?, opinion, By Michael D. Griffin and Scott Pace, Space News

"The most reasonable claim made in support of fuel depots is that if they are employed to the exclusion of a heavy lifter, one saves the cost of building the heavy lifter. This is certainly true -- but then we do not have a heavy lifter!"

Keith's note: Hilarious. Griffin and Pace cannot see through their own tired, myopic, Apollo on Steroids rhetoric. If you save the cost of building a heavy lifter then you SAVE MONEY. Get it? you SAVE MONEY. You can can use that money that you were going to spend on monster rockets to buy EXISTING ROCKETS to create the fuel depot and other aspects of a cislunar infrastructure. You then utilize that same existing commercial launch capability to accomplish what you only thought possible with the heavy lift behemoths you seem so chronically addicted to. The only reason NASA is building SLS right now is because Congress i.e. the space states misses your Ares V and all the jobs it created/saved. They do not seem to care if there is no money provided for payloads to fly on these rockets. This is certainly not about efficiency.

Keith's note: As you can see from this screen shot from the hearing's webcast (shown only on NASA TV) as John Holdren and Charlie Bolden were testifying, that virtually no one other than Rep. Rohrabacher, ranking member Rep. Carnahan, and their staffs even bothered to show up for this hearing. A few selected tweets:

- Rohrabacher: DOJ says that WH can do whatever it wants in terms of diplomacy. My colleagues and I will fight this overreach.
- Rep. Carnahan: I have a different view on how we can engage with China and push ahead with reforms.
- Rep. Wolf "NASA wants to work with the PLA who is killing people for their organs"
- Rep. Wolf is now showing posters and shouting.
- It is now clear why Rep. Wolf needed his own panel - he is taking up the time that 3 witnesses would normally take
- Rep. Wolf is showing more posters and shouting about China blocking UN missions
- Bolden: my predecessor travelled to China to talk about space cooperation while GW Bush was president. I travelled there in 2010.
- Rohrabacher: this came to you from DOJ? Holdren: DOJ's opinion represents the Administration's opinion on this matter & it is binding on me
- Holdren: WH asked DOJ lawyer to be present - that request not granted by the committee - Rohrabacher said he would have granted had he known
- Most absurd aspect of the China/OSTP/NASA hearing: Committee staff refused to allow a DOJ rep to explain its decision for WH to follow

Hearing: Efforts to Transfer America's Leading Edge Science to China

- Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (subcommittee chair) - statement
- Rep. Carnahan (ranking minority member) - No prepared statement

Panel III (new)
- Rick Fisher, Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center - statement
- Adam Segal, Ph. D., Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations - statement

Office of Science and Technology Policy--Bilateral Activities with China, October 11, 2011

"Section 1340 prohibits OSTP from engaging in bilateral activities with the government of the People's Republic of China or Chinese-owned companies unless specifically authorized. Because OSTP was prohibited from using appropriated funds to participate in the Innovation Dialogue and the S&ED, OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act."

Wolf Asks Justice Department to Hold White House Science Adviser Accountable for Breaking Law

"Rep. Frank Wolf, chairman of the House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations subcommittee, today asked the Justice Department to hold the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) accountable for breaking the law for leading science policy discussions with China."

Fueling Stations vs. Monster Rocket, Dana Rohrabacher, Space News

"At the end of our July 12 House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing, "A Review of NASA's Space Launch System," I asked NASA Administrator Charles Bolden about the relative cost of using the technology of on-orbit propellant depots instead of relying on new large heavy-lift launch vehicles. He replied that he believed the studies had been done, and the fuel depot solution proved to be more expensive, and promised to get me the full answer. As of this writing, I am still waiting for that answer. It has been more than three months, and NASA has not provided any analysis, or any data at all, that shows why depots are not a good solution or why they are more expensive."

- Rohrabacher Demands Release of NASA's Recent On-Orbit Fuel Depot Analysis, earlier post - Update on NASA's Hidden Fuel Depot Studies - NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLS, earlier post

Full Committee Hearing: NASA's Commercial Crew Development Program: Accomplishments and Challenges

Panel One
- John Elbon, Boeing - statement
- Steve Lindsey, Sierra Nevada - statement
- Elon Musk, SpaceX - statement
- Charles Precourt, ATK - statement
- George Sowers, United Launch Alliance - statement

Panel Two
- Paul Martin, Inspector General, NASA - statement
- Bill Gerstenmaier, HEOMD, NASA - statement

- Rep. Hall: "Blue Origin declined to testify despite getting $14.9 million from NASA and will have to explain that to the rest of the committee."

- Hearing Charter
- Live webcast

Opening statements:

- Rep. Hall
- Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
- Rep. Jerry Costello

Hearing: Efforts to Transfer America's Leading Edge Science to China

"Panel I
- Rep. Frank Wolf
- Thomas Armstrong, Managing Associate General Counsel, GAO
- John Holdren, OSTP Director
- Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator

Panel II
- Rick Fisher, Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center
- Elizabeth Economy, Ph. D., Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations"

Office of Science and Technology Policy--Bilateral Activities with China, October 11, 2011

"Section 1340 prohibits OSTP from engaging in bilateral activities with the government of the People's Republic of China or Chinese-owned companies unless specifically authorized. Because OSTP was prohibited from using appropriated funds to participate in the Innovation Dialogue and the S&ED, OSTP violated the Antideficiency Act."

GAO: With China dialogues, WH violated, Washington Examiner

"Rick Weiss, an OSTP senior analyst and director of Strategic Communications for OSTP, said that White House OLC opinions take precedence over those of the GAO."

Keith's note: No doubt, amidst all of his arm waving, full-time, chronic China hater Frank Wolf will come within an inch of hinting that Bolden, Holdren et al are somehow traitors for implementing official Administration policy when in fact they were conducting the same sort of official diplomatic and trade activities that countless other U.S. representatives do on a daily basis in a broad variety of areas. The title of this hearing is quite revealing: "Efforts to Transfer America's Leading Edge Science to China". Wolf has already made up his mind - he just wants to point his finger at someone. Newsflash: Two iPads made in China will be flying to the ISS on a Russian Progress cargo freighter soon. There are already Chinese-manufactured Lenovo laptops up there - maybe Rep. Wolf should order a halt to this too and order that these tainted goods be banned as well.

- NASA Astronaut Andy Thomas is Still Bashing China On The Job, earlier post
- Video: China Uses "America The Beautiful" on Their Space Station Propaganda, earlier post
- Bolden is "Rooting" For Chinese Success in Space, earlier post
- Frank Wolf Doesn't Like China, earlier post
- White House Was Against Bolden's China Trip Before They Were For It, earlier post

More stories

NASA Is Considering Fuel Depots in the Skies, NY Times

"Although General Bolden promised to provide the information, [Rep. Dana] Rohrabacher said he had obtained the study about propellant depots only through unofficial channels. "I'm shocked that the leadership in NASA would try to keep a report as significant as this away from decision makers of the legislative branch," Mr. Rohrabacher said, adding that the study gave him "the ammunition to make a case" to revisit NASA's plans for human spaceflight."

Propellant depots: the fiscally responsible and feasible alternative to SLS, Space Review

"The information presented here proves that the propellant depot architecture is a viable alternative to the Space Launch System. Just as importantly, the propellant depot strategy fits within the country's need for programs that are in sound monetary policy. NASA needs a strategy that NASA leaders and employees can back in private, as well as in public."

In-orbit Fuel Depots vs. NASA's Heavy Lift Space Launch System (SLS) for Dummies, TMC.net

"In November, NASA engineers will meet in Washington to discuss how to leverage propellant depots to get further into space and enable "more ambitious missions" using the agency's heavy lift Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, according to an October 22, 2011 piece. But apparently NASA officials aren't interested in trying to convince/fight Congress about the time and cost savings a fuel depot architecture would offer deep space missions."

NASA May Create Refueling Stations In Space, MyFox, Houston

"This study highlights some interesting benefits of depots, but it is too singularly focused," NASA official William Gerstenmaier said in a statement. "NASA is actively studying depots and how they can be used with other proposed elements to provide the lowest cost, sustainable exploration plan."

- NASA Studies Show Cheaper Alternatives to SLS, earlier post
- Fuel Depots and Congress, earlier post
- In-Space Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer Demonstration Mission Concept Studies, 2011, NASA GRC, earlier post
- Using Commercial Launchers and Fuel Depots Instead of HLVs, earlier post
- The HLV Cost Information NASA Decided Not To Give To Congress, earlier post

Republicans Send Deficit Reduction Recommendations to Select Committee (NASA excerpts)

"We propose reductions of $177 million (based on the FY12 request) by taking the following actions:

* Reduce by 20% "Venture Class Missions" account within the Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions (received $32 million under the FY11 CR; $12.4 million savings in FY12; $144 million savings over five years). Venture Class Missions is a new activity for NASA, begun in response to a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences. It is, in essence, a new start. While we support the program's goals, we simply propose that growth in the spending profile be moderated."

Keith's note: Of course the Republican staffers on this authorizing committee could have picked any mission with a similar cost range to cut but they chose OCO-2 because its mission is directly related to global change issues. Alas, the National Academy of Sciences sees the replacement of OCO-1 as being important. I guess that just makes it a bigger target for climate change deniers. Why get data, eh? Take a look at the other cuts that are recommended. It is clear that there is an anti-Earth science bias running throughout. If you were to collect all of the input that the Super Committee as received from here and there you'd see all manner of proposed cuts - some obvious, some wacky, and many overtly partisan. Keep that in mind when you read this.

Republicans Send Deficit Reduction Recommendations to Select Committee (NASA excerpts)

"Cancellation of OCO-2 mission ... Reduce by 20% "Other Missions and Data Analysis" account within the Earth Systematic Missions ... Reduce by 20% "Venture Class Missions" account within the Earth System Science Pathfinder Missions ... "

Hearing: The International Space Station: Lessons from the Soyuz Rocket Failure and Return to Flight

- Statement of Lt. Gen Thomas P. Stafford
- Statement of VADM Joseph W. Dyer
- Statement of Steven M. Palazzo
- Statement of William H. Gerstenmaier
- Hearing Charter

Live Webcast 2:00 - 4:00 pm EDT

Editorial: Identify JWST's Bill Payers, editorial, Space News

"... the Space Launch System, which per the House and Senate spending bills is slated to receive nearly $2 billion next year, is an appropriate bill payer for JWST. Given that NASA has no established exploration destination requiring the heavy-lift rocket on the schedule mandated by Congress, stretching out its development to help fund an observatory of undeniable scientific merit -- its substantial problems notwithstanding -- is a fair trade."

JWST and SLS: Dueling Giant Money Sponges, earlier post

"So, we have one giant money sponge (JWST) already sucking up dollars with yet another money sponge (SLS) on the drawing board. Since the money simply is not there to do either project to begin with, trying to do both of them together will devour funds from smaller NASA programs. It will also pit these money sponges' ever-growing chronic need for dollars against the other's similar insatiable appetite. And all of this will happen while the Federal budget is almost certainly going to be constrained - regardless of who wins the 2012 election. So, will someone explain to me how NASA is going to build and launch both JWST and SLS and have money left over to do all of the other things that it is both chartered to do - and directed to do - by Congress?"

Rep. Lamar Smith Seeks Investigation on the Politicization of NASA

"Congressman Lamar Smith, the vice-chair of the Space & Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, today called for NASA's inspector general to investigate the politicization of the agency. This stems from a NASA-internal report showing that Obama Administration political appointees "focus on Democratic political goals, not national goals," creating a dysfunctional and hostile work environment for NASA's career civil servants."

Keith's note: Yawn. And when Republican political appointees at NASA where doing the exact same thing that has Lamar Smith all hot and bothered, he never uttered a peep. And who works on Smith's staff? Former NASA political appointee Chris Shank (R). Pot, Kettle, Black.

NASA OIG: Investigative Summary Regarding Allegations that NASA Suppressed Climate Change Science and Denied Media Access to Dr. James E. Hansen, earlier post

"...it is our conclusion that the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs' actions were inconsistent with the mandate and intent of NASA's controlling legislation--the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (Space Act) and NASA's implementing regulations--insomuch as they prevented "the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination" of information concerning NASA's activities and results. While we could not substantiate that Administration officials employed outside NASA approved or disapproved or edited specific news releases, we do, however, find by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims of inappropriate political interference made by the climate change scientists and career Public Affairs Officers were more persuasive than the arguments of the senior Public Affairs officials that their actions were due to the volume and poor quality of the draft news releases."

Internal NASA documents portray a dysfunctional, political agency, Houston Chronicle

"[Rep. Smith's] request was prompted by NASA internal documents that date to February, 2010. They come from briefings on Team Development Assessment Reports. Essentially center directors, non-technical leaders at NASA HQ and technical leaders at NASA HQ were surveyed at the time about the morale, and concerns about the agency. The briefing chart below reflects a summary of the survey results for center directors (such as Johnson Space Center's Mike Coats)"

Geological Society of America Planetary Geology Division: NASA Funding and James Webb Space Telescope

"... advocates such as the American Astronomical Society have identified JWST as their highest priority (it was the top major initiative for U.S. astrophysics in the 2001 & 2010 NRC Astrophysics Decadal Surveys). That prioritization is among activities only within astrophysics, not planetary science, Earth science or heliophysics. Because astronomers have been so strongly supportive of JWST for the current and future budgets, it is only appropriate that they be responsible for the consequences of such a choice. The biggest concern of planetary scientists, therefore, is that our own current and planned planetary missions, and supporting research and data analysis funding, will be severely reduced over the next decade to pay for the JWST overruns (JWST is now scheduled for a 2018 launch with a total cost approaching $8.7 billion)."

Letter from Rep. Frank Wolf to OMB Director Jacob Lew Regarding James Webb Space Telescope

"In the coming weeks, the House and Senate will sit down to negotiate final appropriations bills for fiscal year 2012, and the appropriate level of funding for JWST will be one of the most significant issues considered. For us to make a truly informed decision that takes into account both the value of JWST and the value of opportunities that may be precluded by the JWST replan, we must have the offset information. If such information is not provided by the time that conference negotiations begin, I will consider that to be an indication that JWST is no higher in priority than any other existing or planned NASA activity."

Rohrabacher Demands Release of NASA's Recent On-Orbit Fuel Depot Analysis

"Today, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) continued his criticism of NASA's new design for deep space exploration by sending a letter to former NASA's Administrator Dr. Michael D. Griffin asking him to join Rohrabacher's call for NASA to release their recent analysis and conclusions regarding on-orbit fuel depots. Dr. Griffin spoke about on-orbit technology during his testimony before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on September 22rd, 2011."I'm certain you are aware that on-orbit fuel depots were included in NASA's initial Human Exploration Framework...as presented on May 25, 2010," writes Rohrabacher. "Somewhere in the intervening time, depots were dropped from the plan. It is important for Congress and the American people to understand how and why that decision was made."

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee Democrats See Some Progress on JPSS, Urge Stable Funding

"The National Polar Orbiting Satellite System (NPOESS) was to be the United States' next-generation satellite system to monitor the Earth's weather, atmosphere, oceans, land and near-space environment, replacing the Department of Defense's (DOD's) and NOAA's polar orbiting satellites. However, the polar orbiting satellite acquisition program was neglected and mismanaged."

Troubled Weather Satellite's Future Uncertain, Witnesses Say

"The ability to do timely and accurate weather forecasting is not at question here, and should not be compromised," said E&E Chairman Andy Harris (R-MD). "However, given the number of problems this program has experienced, the time has come to talk about what is the best way for NOAA to obtain the necessary data to do these forecasts. And by best way, I mean the most efficient and cost effective way."

- Polar Satellites: Agencies Need to Address Potential Gaps in Weather and Climate Data Coverage, GAO
- Statement by Rep. Paul Broun
- Statement by Rep. Andy Harris
- Statement by Rep. Miller
- Statement by Rep. Donna Edwards
- Testimony by Kathryn Sullivan
- Testimony by Christopher Scolese
- Hearing Charter

NASA Statement on Today's House Hearing Featuring Testimony by Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan

According to a statement by NASA Associate Administrator for the Office of Communications, David Weaver: "We respect the contributions Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan have made in service to our country, and thank them for helping to pave the way for our exciting future forward. Just as their ambitious missions captivated the nation's attention nearly a half-century ago, today's American space explorers are leading the way to even farther destinations that will one day allow the first astronauts to set foot on Mars. ...

Adams Looks for Answers on NASA Human Spaceflight (with YouTube clip)

"- Questions directed to Dr. Griffin: When you were Administrator at NASA did you or your deputies ever ignore one of the authorization bills?
- Did you ever get subpoenaed by a House or Senate committee for outright ignoring their requests for information?
- Were you or your deputies ever accused by a Senator in your own party of sabotaging a NASA project just because you didn't agree with Congress?
- Did you ever decide to ignore the role or will of Congress when they asked for your plans to implement the next step in President Bush's vision for NASA?
- Can you think of any reason to slow roll a project that has been authorized and demanded by Congress in Federal law?
- Can you think of any reason why it would be acceptable for a NASA Administrator or his or her deputy to ignore Congress?"

Keith's note: It would seem that Rep. Adams and her staff see her as some sort of crusader on this issue. They have gleefully posted her 5 minutes of questions on YouTube. Alas, she doesn't seem to be willing or able to directly accuse the current NASA Administrator, his staff - or the White House - of sabotage, ignoring Congress, etc. Instead, she used this odd line of questioning - one that can only elicit an answer of "No" from Griffin (or anyone else). The implication (apparently) being that if he didn't do these things then perhaps someone else (not in the room) may have. Mike Griffin seemed to be caught off guard by this line of questioning and answered curtly "no" each time - as if he was being interrogated by some snarky TV lawyer.

I guess Rep. Adams was hoping that Griffin would use the opportunity to dump on Bolden and the White House - but he did not. Indeed, Griffin went on to note that the NASA Administrator serves the Executive branch and that the Executive branch directs the agency's direction and for a NASA Administrator not to do what he was directed to do would be "mutinous". In other words, Bolden is doing what his boss wants him to do.

In the future, it might be more efficient for Rep. Adams to just fire her accusations directly at the Obama Administration and not try to do the indirect insinuation by proxy TV lawyer thing and try to get a former NASA Administrator to say the things she is reluctant to say herself.

Committee Democrats Urge Sustained Support for Renewed Human Space Exploration Program

"Today the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing entitled, "NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and Future: Where Do We Go From Here?" The purpose of the hearing was to assess NASA's human space exploration goals, plans and capabilities, and examine related issues affecting the Nation's leadership in space and the state of the aerospace industrial base."

Apollo Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan Testify

"The witnesses agreed that a robust human spaceflight effort is vital to the strength of our nation now and in the future. Human spaceflight serves a number of important purposes, including building a strong economy, supporting a high-skilled workforce, ensuring our national security and inspiring the nation. A national commitment to this effort, led by the President and Congress, is essential, particularly in an era of budget austerity. The witnesses further agreed that NASA's recent announcement that it had selected a design for the Space Launch System (SLS) is an important step forward."

- Statement by Rep. Jerry Costello
- Statement by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson
- Testimony by Neil Armstrong
- Testimony by Eugene Cernan
- Testimony by Maria Zuber
- Testimony by Michael Griffin

FY2012 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee Mark - NASA Excerpt

* The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $17.9 billion, a reduction of $509 million or 2.8 percent from the FY2011 enacted level.

* The bill provides funds to enable a 2018 launch of the James Webb Space Telescope.

Webb telescope gets rescued in the Senate, Nature

"At the subcommittee meeting today, the Senator said the beleaguered mission would get $530 million in 2012 -- much more than the $374 million that had been asked for in the president's budget request. But the agency as a whole would get $17.9 billion -- half a billion less than it received in 2011.'"

Hope, With 'Stringent' Orders, for NASA's Webb Telescope

"In remarks delivered at the markup today, Mikulski noted that although her panel wanted to continue funding for the telescope, it also wanted NASA to be more accountable in executing the project. "We have added stringent language, limiting development costs" and insisted on "a report from NASA senior management, ensuring that the NASA has gotten its act together in managing the telescope," she said."

Keith's note: I have to wonder why yet another report from the same people who have botched JWST managment is going to be any more accurate or reliable than what they have reported or said thus far. Oh yes - adding $156 million to one project (JWST) while cutting NASA's top line by $500 million is just going to exacerbate trench warfare between NASA's space and planetary science community. Do the math: NASA overall gets $500 million less than 2011 and yet JWST gets more than the President asked for. NASA has to deal with that $500 million cut plus the additional $156 million that JWST has sucked up out of NASA's reduced budget i.e. NASA has $656 million less to work with - according to the Senate - so far. Stay tuned.

NASA Administrator Message: NASA Announce Design for New Deep Space Exploration System

"Today is a big day at NASA. The next chapter of America's space exploration story is being written, right here, right now. We've selected the design for a new space exploration system that will take humans far beyond Earth. This important decision will create high-quality jobs here at home and provide the cornerstone for America's future human space exploration efforts."

Senators, NASA To Hold Press Conference Today on NASA Announcement

"U.S. Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Bill Nelson, Chairman of Science and Space Subcommittee, along with Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator, and other members of Congress, will hold a press conference today to discuss the NASA announcement on the future of our space program.

WHO: NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Members of Congress, including U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Bill Nelson
WHEN:TODAY, Wednesday, Sept. 14, at 10 a.m.
WHERE: SDG-50 on the ground floor of the Senate Dirksen Building
NOTE: Press conference will be live webcast on the Senate Commerce Committee's website."

This will also be broadcast on NASA TV at http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

NASA Announces Major Decisions for Future Human Spaceflight

"At 12 p.m. NASA will hold a background media teleconference with William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA's Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate, Doug Cooke, deputy associate administrator for HEO, NASA Chief Financial Officer Beth Robinson and other senior managers."

NASA Unveils Giant New Rocket Design, AP

"The design for NASA's newest behemoth of a rocket harkens back to the giant workhorse liquid rockets that propelled men to the moon. But this time the destinations will be much farther and the rocket even more powerful. The Obama administration on Wednesday will unveil its much-delayed general plans for its rocket design, called the Space Launch System, which will cost about $35 billion, according to senior administration sources and information obtained by The Associated Press.."

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Supports Letter on NASA Space Technology Funding

"The letter states, "The Space Technology program is a critical investment in NASA's future, our nation's future in space, and America's technology leadership position in the world." The letter notes, "We write in support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Technology program for fiscal year (FY) 2012. We urge you to support the program at a level of at least $535 million plus costs to cover the NASA labor transition. ... As recognized by Congress in the America COMPETES Act, our nation's economic competitiveness and high standard of living are based on decades of investment in innovation, research, and technology. Through space technology, NASA will stimulate the economy and build America's global economic competitiveness through the creation of new products and services, new businesses and industries, and highquality, sustainable jobs across NASA Centers, universities, and both small and large businesses."

AAS Members Decadal Priorities and Fiscal Realities Informational Email 2011-10

"NASA and NSF receive input from many formal agency, interagency, and National Academies advisory committees about how to allocate their budgets and how to adjust to changing circumstances while trying to meet survey recommendations as best they can. The AAS does not support any one Division or astronomical discipline above others, or to the detriment of others. The decadal reports represent a community consensus of the most compelling questions, priorities, missions, projects, and activities in each discipline. It is not the purview of the AAS to second-guess the surveys or to re-order priorities or to select from among them. Our role is to support all of our disciplines. As we face the new economic climate, it might be worth recalling Abraham Lincoln's words: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

NASA Internal Briefing: ESD Integration: Budget Availability Scenarios, August 19, 2011

This document covers four budgetary and Congressional scenarios whereby NASA would build the Space Launch System (SLS).

NASA Sees Testing SLS In 2017 for $18B, Aviation Week

"Early cost estimates for the heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) that Congress has ordered NASA to build indicate the agency believes it can test an unmanned version of the "core" vehicle selected by Administrator Charles Bolden for about $18 billion by the end of 2017."

Rocket man: Richard Shelby pushes NASA funds, Politico

"Republican Sen. Richard Shelby has been one of Barack Obama's most persistent critics, accusing the president of putting the country on a road to financial ruin with deficits as far as the eye can see. But his demands to slash government programs tend to stop at the Alabama state line. Here in his home state, Shelby has been pressuring the Obama administration to spend billions to build what could become the world's biggest rocket at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville -- a government project that would affect thousands of jobs, benefit a network of powerful industry interests and fill a major void at the agency after the collapse of the Bush-era Constellation initiative and the end of the space shuttle program in July."

White House Experiences Sticker Shock Over NASA's Plans, WS Journal

"An Aug. 19 budget analysis prepared by NASA managers, a copy of which was obtained by The Wall Street Journal, illustrates the sticker shock associated with NASA's drive to push U.S. manned flights beyond the orbiting international space station. ... Based on priorities already adopted by Congress--then adjusting for projected inflation and accelerated development efforts--the document indicates it could cost as much as $57 billion to deploy and use the proposed systems through 2025. Upgrading launch facilities and building additional spacecraft to allow astronauts to land on the moon or an asteroid, the document indicates, could boost the total to $62.5 billion None of the scenarios envision manned flight on the new rocket before the end of 2017."

Keith's Note: Numbers like this are not supposed to get out - so the White House, NASA, and everyone else in that closed loop can't be happy about this. Now that Congress has to confront the public reality of what NASA says their SLS-based architecture will cost, food fights are certain to follow.

This is just Constellation on Steroids - without all that back to the Moon stuff. I wonder what the new (higher) number would be if the costs of actually developing payloads and then supporting them across a serious, multi-year program of exploration were included? I would imagine that the end costs would not be much different than Constellation (except higher, of course) - and that the money to support such a program would be as equally an unrealistic fantasy as were the promised funds for Constellation.

I wonder what it would cost if NASA just posted an exploration plan and had the private sector bid on implementing it? Do we really need to build a new mega-rocket when existing or evolvable commercial rockets could launch smaller chunks in cheaper launch vehicles?

Keith's additional Note: WSJ has an odd for-pay firewall. In order to read this article, go to Google and paste "White House Experiences Sticker Shock Over NASA's Plans" into the search window. You can read the article but the link that is generated won't work for anyone else.

Florida senators dispute Sen. Richard Shelby's criticism of spending at Kennedy Space Center, Huntsville Times

"Florida's senators share the frustration. So do Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and more than a few House representatives. They've all pressed NASA and the White House this year to get started on SLS. But the Shelby/Sessions letter went further and accused NASA of wrongly shifting some $341 million to Kennedy Space Center in Florida for improvements that they say should go to SLS. Those improvements at Kennedy are only "tangentially" related to the heavy-lift rocket project, according to the Alabama senators. Florida's senators sent their own letter to the White House 11 days later on Aug. 26 saying "there appears to be a misunderstanding." Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio say they wrote to "clarify the intent of the law." Spending for improvements at Kennedy was always part of SLS, the Florida senators said."

NASA's smaller programs could be at risk, Orlando Sentinel

"The trend has alarmed astronomers and others, who are concerned that less-visible projects -- such as robotic Mars missions and various space probes -- will be sacrificed. "So, we have one giant money sponge (JWST) already sucking up dollars with yet another money sponge (SLS) on the drawing board. Since the money simply is not there to do either project to begin with, trying to do both of them together will devour funds from smaller NASA programs," wrote Keith Cowing in a recent post on his influential blog NASA Watch."

JWST and SLS: Dueling Giant Money Sponges, earlier post

Rohrabacher Reacts to Russian Soyuz Launch Failure; Calls for Emergency Funding of Commercial Crew Systems

"I am calling on General Bolden, the NASA Administrator, to propose an emergency transfer of funding from unobligated balances in other programs, including the Space Launch System, to NASA's commercial crew initiative. Funding should be used to speed up the efforts of the four current industry partners to develop their systems and potentially expand the recent awards to include the best applicants for launch vehicle development. NASA could potentially transfer several hundred million dollars from this long term development concept, since the SLS project has not even started, to the more urgently needed systems that can launch astronauts to ISS, reliably and affordably. This transfer will boost the development of American controlled technology and greatly reduce our dependence on the Russians."

Keith's note: The House wants to cancel James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) outright. We haven't heard anything specific from the Senate - yet. Every time NASA mentions a cost for JWST it is higher than the previous cost. Now NASA wants to take human spaceflight funds to help pay for JWST which means less money available to build the Space Launch System (SLS). NASA's internal SLS report casts significant doubt on NASA's internal budget numbers and cost projections - which almost always means that NASA will need more money than it thinks it will need in order to build the SLS.

But NASA does not really want to build the SLS (nor does the White House) since it is simply a re-imagined variant of Ares V - a rocket that NASA already halted. The Senate is forcing the SLS down NASA's throat. Yet Congress has given no indication what level of funding it will guarantee for NASA so as to build and fly the SLS and has given no hint whatsoever of funding for the payloads that such a hugh rocket will be designed to carry. And, oh yes, OMB is telling agencies to come up with budgets for FY 2013 that include cuts of up to 10%.

So, we have one giant money sponge (JWST) already sucking up dollars with yet another money sponge (SLS) on the drawing board. Since the money simply is not there to do either project to begin with, trying to do both of them together will devour funds from smaller NASA programs. It will also pit these money sponges' ever-growing chronic need for dollars against the other's similar insatiable appetite. And all of this will happen while the Federal budget is almost certainly going to be constrained - regardless of who wins the 2012 election.

So, will someone explain to me how NASA is going to build and launch both JWST and SLS and have money left over to do all of the other things that it is both chartered to do - and directed to do - by Congress?