Jump to content

US Space Budget: Hell-Has-Frozen-Over Edition

Streetwind

By Streetwind
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Streetwind

Streetwind

Posted
Posted (edited)

We all know the drill: NASA feels chronically underfunded (despite receiving more money than all other civilian space programs on the planet combined). And what money there is is generally funelled into jobs-maintaining pork projects that show little to no results. Meanwhile, active science missions with existing, healthy spacecraft are getting the cancellation stamp, interesting new projects that shake up the old rut have their funding cut with a butcher's cleaver, and politics aims to prescribe commercial entities how to conduct their business. Earlier this year, both House and Senate continued doing just that in their initial proposals, butchering up science and commercial crew budgets by the hundreds of millions to fuel SLS, and so on and so forth.

Let's not discuss the boring and ugly little details though, because something happened today. Something so glorious we an all take a moment to stop arguing about politics and simply agree that it is good. Even for those of us, like, me, who aren't even US citizens.

A bill was finalized today (with a vote being imminent) that puts NASA's fiscal year 2016 budget at 19.3 billion. Wait what, nineteen? NASA only requested eighteen! Indeed, this bill awards over 750 million more than NASA requested. And then you look at the details, and you see: commercial crew program, 100% funded, for the first time in the project's entire history! Planetary Sciences, 270 million extra - including 175 million set aside for an Europa mission with orbiter and lander, where NASA asked for 30 million for a flyby probe! Heck yeah!

(Source) (And another)

And then, for good measure because Hell hadn't completely frozen over just yet, the bill goes on to state that the Air Force can award a launch contract to any certified company “regardless of the country of origin of the rocket engine that will be used on its launch vehicle, in order to ensure robust competition and continued assured access to space." Do you hear that booming noise? That's the RD-180 ban going supersonic as it flies out the window. What the what? :D

(Source)

 

Now, is this thread going to devolve into bitter internet arguing despite bearing a positive message? Probably. This is the science forums, after all :P But I don't care, I'm grinning in pure amusement right now, just from wondering if someone spiked the punch at the government christmas party or something. Seriously, I don't understand how this could possibly have happened otherwise. But it's probably one of the best possible outcomes for spaceflight in general. We're getting an Europa lander, woo hoo...!

Edited by Streetwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aethon

Aethon

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think (hope) the US is beginning to realize that China is serious about space exploration/exploitation.  The last thing our govt. wants is to lose it's technological/military advantage over all other nations.

Edited by Aethon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

4 hours ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

We really need more threads like this IMO. 

Side note: SpaceX return to flight is aiming to launch this Saturday. Am I the only one who is underwhelmed by the amount of hype?

I don't really care too much to be honest. The pause in flights was really a few-month delay companies like ULA will often experience in a usually otherwise routine schedule. 

Maybe the budget cuts from Rocosmos magically reinfested itself into NASA?:P:P:P

Edited by Vanamonde
Watch the language, please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbonautInTraining

KerbonautInTraining

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, fredinno said:

 

I don't really care too much to be honest. The pause in flights was really a few-month delay companies like ULA will often experience in a usually otherwise routine schedule. 

:P:P:P (I can't delete these for some reason)

I'm 95% sure they're going to attempt a stage recovery. Also first flight of the F9 v1.1.

 

Edit: Not only are they gonna attempt recovery, say goodbye to the barge! They have permission to land on solid ground now. 

Edited by KerbonautInTraining
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Streetwind said:

We all know the drill: NASA feels chronically underfunded (despite receiving more money than all other civilian space programs on the planet combined). And what money there is is generally funelled into jobs-maintaining pork projects that show little to no results. Meanwhile, active science missions with existing, healthy spacecraft are getting the cancellation stamp, interesting new projects that shake up the old rut have their funding cut with a butcher's cleaver, and politics aims to prescribe commercial entities how to conduct their business. Earlier this year, both House and Senate continued doing just that in their initial proposals, butchering up science and commercial crew budgets by the hundreds of millions to fuel SLS, and so on and so forth.

Let's not discuss the boring and ugly little details though, because something happened today. Something so glorious we an all take a moment to stop arguing about politics and simply agree that it is good. Even for those of us, like, me, who aren't even US citizens.

A bill was finalized today (with a vote being imminent) that puts NASA's fiscal year 2016 budget at 19.3 billion. Wait what, nineteen? NASA only requested eighteen! Indeed, this bill awards over 750 million more than NASA requested. And then you look at the details, and you see: commercial crew program, 100% funded, for the first time in the project's entire history! Planetary Sciences, 270 million extra - including 175 million set aside for an Europa mission with orbiter and lander, where NASA asked for 30 million for a flyby probe! Heck yeah!

(Source) (And another)

And then, for good measure because Hell hadn't completely frozen over just yet, the bill goes on to state that the Air Force can award a launch contract to any certified company “regardless of the country of origin of the rocket engine that will be used on its launch vehicle, in order to ensure robust competition and continued assured access to space." Do you hear that booming noise? That's the RD-180 ban going supersonic as it flies out the window. What the what? :D

(Source)

 

Now, is this thread going to devolve into bitter internet arguing despite bearing a positive message? Probably. This is the science forums, after all :P But I don't care, I'm grinning in pure amusement right now, just from wondering if someone spiked the punch at the government christmas party or something. Seriously, I don't understand how this could possibly have happened otherwise. But it's probably one of the best possible outcomes for spaceflight in general. We're getting an Europa lander, woo hoo...!

I remember reading a article on the planetary society that things like CCDev would be fully funded for only a relatively small amount of money, compared to the rest of NASA's budget. 

 

I'm surprised CCDev is fully funded (to end reliance on Russia) while ULA is allowed to use Atlas V as much as it wants. Maybe this is just for political pork- however, ULA still needs to make Vulcan, as the ULA contract for its ability to import and use RD-180 rocket engines ends sometime in 2023 (Not to mention SpaceX competition, as Vulcan is supposed to be much just cheaper than Atlas).

 

It does, however, delay Vulcan significantly (possibly for the better, as it is largely a new launch vehicle ULA needs to develop relatively quickly, with lots of the company's profits going to developing it.) This also allows AR-1/Atlas VI (AKA Vulcan being Atlas with engine replacement and other modifications, like reuability, to reduce costs) to be a viable solution for Vulcan.

 

It also looks like Flagship (Mars 2020, Europa Clipper, possibly eventually Uranus Orbiter and Mars Sample Return) New Frontiers (previously on hold, now once again active), Discovery, and Explorer Programs can be fully funded. 

 

Most particularly, hopefully the Discovery Program will go into full steam and allow it to return to its glory days of selecting once every 2-3 years, with 2 missions per selection process. :wink:. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Spaceception said:

"All these worlds are yours except Europa, attempt no landing there" Yeah right, Europa, prepare to get a taste of Democracy, Nexter style!!!

A lander on Europa will likely be an impactor that can survive Europa impact- the ice from the impact crater protects the spacecraft, and it can also be used to study Europa's interior better, and understand impacts- bonus!

 

They told us not to land, but nothing was said about impacting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisSpace

ChrisSpace

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Streetwind said:

A bill was finalized today (with a vote being imminent) that puts NASA's fiscal year 2016 budget at 19.3 billion. Wait what, nineteen? NASA only requested eighteen! Indeed, this bill awards over 750 million more than NASA requested. And then you look at the details, and you see: commercial crew program, 100% funded, for the first time in the project's entire history! Planetary Sciences, 270 million extra - including 175 million set aside for an Europa mission with orbiter and lander, where NASA asked for 30 million for a flyby probe! Heck yeah!

I'll believe it when I see it. Until I actually see things like the Europa probe going up and the commercial crew program, I'm remaining skeptical.

6 hours ago, Aethon said:

I think (hope) the US is beginning to realize that China is serious about space exploration/exploitation.  The last thing our govt. wants is to lose it's technological/military advantage over all other nations.

Well, if it continues doing what its doing then inevitably someone will beat them into deep space. Who that is, I'm not sure.

6 hours ago, fredinno said:

Maybe the budget cuts from Rocosmos magically reinfested itself into NASA?

I still feel sorry for Rocosmos after what happened to their budget. Perhaps China and SpaceX are our only hopes now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fredinno

fredinno

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, ChrisSpace said:

I'll believe it when I see it. Until I actually see things like the Europa probe going up and the commercial crew program, I'm remaining skeptical.

Well, if it continues doing what its doing then inevitably someone will beat them into deep space. Who that is, I'm not sure.

I still feel sorry for Rocosmos after what happened to their budget. Perhaps China and SpaceX are our only hopes now.

Even China is severely underfunding their space agency, in relation to their economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerbonautInTraining

KerbonautInTraining

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

Source? Not that I don't believe you. :D

Well, I heard a bunch of people talking about it in the re-usability thread. There's quite a few articles (most of which are weeks old) that say it's still pending.

 

Seriously, what on Earth is it about this launch? I didn't even know it was happening in 2015 until I looked it up earlier this month, and even then it took many tries to find anything useful. (For comparison, I heard about CRS-7 without looking for it months in advance) It's like they're keeping quiet about it just in case something goes wrong... Chances are it WILL launch this Saturday so I'm not gonna be complaining for long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Streetwind

Streetwind

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 hours ago, KerbonautInTraining said:

Seriously, what on Earth is it about this launch? I didn't even know it was happening in 2015 until I looked it up earlier this month, and even then it took many tries to find anything useful. (For comparison, I heard about CRS-7 without looking for it months in advance) It's like they're keeping quiet about it just in case something goes wrong... Chances are it WILL launch this Saturday so I'm not gonna be complaining for long.

That's because SpaceX didn't give a date until earlier this month. Until that point it was all "we hope", "eventually", "soon(tm)", "maybe December" - there was literally nothing to know that you could have known.

The reason for the short notice is that it is a return to flight mission - and even SpaceX won't know that they're ready until they're ready. They've been going through a very aggressive schedule to make it happen, and it's possible that they'll miss their December 19th date or scrub. For example, the static fire test attempt yesterday was aborted, which may delay launch processing.

But that's really a topic for the SpaceX thread, not for this one. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rune

Rune

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, it appears NASA got a break for a change, maybe the space hype is finally reaching the hears of even legislators... I'm cautiously happy about this, because it sounds too good to be true. But hey, here's hoping it holds and it's not a fluke... A NASA funded at the ~20 billion level is way better than a NASA funded at the ~15 billion level. Way better than 25% more.

Also, Congress seems really set on flying the SLS, apparently. I wonder how long. Here's hoping they remember to fund its payloads when the time comes!

 

Rune. That would really make me reconsider my opinion of the US politicians... slightly.

Edited by Rune
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Streetwind

Streetwind

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Rune said:

Also, Congress seems really set on flying the SLS, apparently. I wonder how long. Here's hoping they remember to fund its payloads when the time comes!

Well, the SLS is the big jobs program. Of course it'll get pushed, as usual.

But! That's basically what the Europa mission budget is about. NASA asked for for 30m to start planning a flyby mission, and they got 175m for an orbiter/lander pair instead... with one caveat: it must launch on the SLS. Which is not all that bad an idea anyway, since an orbiter/lander pair requires more spacecraft mass than a flyby probe.

It's also a boon for us, since that gives Congress a real reason to commit to keeping the mission funded in the years to come. SLS needs a payload, and here's one; better not cancel it! :P

 

Edited by Streetwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...