While some lawmakers and other critics say President Obama’s budget plan leaves NASA underfunded, his proposal may be far better than what the space agency ultimately will receive from Congress.
The House Appropriations Committee commerce, justice, science and related agencies subcommittee wrote a NASA budget bill for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, that would cut space exploration funding to less than the amount being spent in the current fiscal 2009. Exploration includes Constellation Program work developing and building the next- generation U.S. spacecraft, the Orion space capsule and the Ares I rocket to lift Orion to orbit.
In contrast, Obama had proposed an overall increase to exploration funding.
However, the subcommittee could be open to revising those funding levels upward, depending on results of an ongoing study.
Here are the numbers:
In the current year, Congress gave NASA $3.505 billion for exploration. Obama proposed raising that to $3.963 billion, a 13.1 percent increase. But the subcommittee would cut that to $3.293 billion, a 6.1 percent drop.
Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), chairman of the subcommittee, said that cut is merely for the time being, awaiting results of the review of the NASA exploration program being conducted at Obama’s request, a review conducted by a panel headed by Norm Augustine, retired chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp. [LMT].
One key issue is whether to continue developing the Ares I rocket, or to switch to a cheaper existing military rocket, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV).
Over several years, the Ares I has been in development, at a cost of billions of dollars. Several companies separately are designing and developing different portions of the Ares I: The Boeing Co. [BA], Alliant Techsystems Inc. [ATK], and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, a unit of United Technologies Corp. [UTX].
(Lockheed is developing the Orion space capsule, called the crew exploration vehicle.)
Meanwhile, the EELV is offered in two versions by United Launch Alliance, a joint Lockheed-Boeing venture: the Atlas V (Lockheed design) and the Delta IV (Boeing design).
Proponents of the EELV say it already exists, and would be cheaper than completing the Ares I development and production.
Proponents of Ares I say that the EELV couldn’t do as much in getting astronauts back to the moon, and that the EELV isn’t human-rated. Further, abandoning Ares I now would mean billions of dollars spent thus far would be wasted.
Augustine has said his committee won’t consider funds already spent on Ares I as a factor, but that the panel will consider the potential for future savings. (Please see Space & Missile Defense Report, Monday, May 11, 2009.)
Mollohan said the subcommittee doesn’t want to move ahead with full funding for exploration programs now, because the Augustine committee hasn’t completed its work, and won’t provide a report until August.
At the same time, he said the cuts in the subcommittee measure might be reversed later, depending upon results of the Augustine committee recommendations.
“For NASA, the bill provides a total of $18.2 billion, an increase of $421 million over last year’s level,” Mollohan noted. The NASA budget includes many items, ranging from funding for space shuttles and the International Space Station, to science programs, to aeronautics. “The recommendation … acknowledges that the [Obama administration] has established a blue ribbon panel, led by Dr. Norm Augustine, to review the current vision for human space flight.
“Funds are provided in the bill to continue investments in human space flight at the same level as provided in fiscal year 2009. Reductions from the budget request should not be viewed as a diminution of my support or that of the subcommittee in NASA’s human space flight activities. Rather, the deferral is taken without prejudice; it is a pause, a time-out, to allow the president to establish his vision for human space exploration and to commit to realistic future funding levels to realize this vision.”
In other words, Obama might wish later to request more funds than the subcommittee currently envisions for space exploration.
“The subcommittee looks forward to receiving the findings of Dr. Augustine’s panel and the recommendation of the Administration on the way forward,” Mollohan continued. “I do believe, however, in order to avoid continuing cost increases and further delays in the initial operating capability of our nation’s next generation of human space flight architecture to follow the [space] shuttle’s successful and impressive run, it is imperative that the administration and Congress provide the necessary resources to meet that policy directive — in the annual President’s budget and the annual Congressional budget process.”
Despite the cuts, Mollohan said that NASA should be fully funded.
“When President Kennedy said we would put a man on the moon, the nation followed — in spirit and with the resources to get the job done,” Mollohan noted. “We collectively should do no differently today.”
He previously has said that NASA shouldn’t be short-changed. For example, less than a week before he unveiled the subcommittee cuts to the NASA space exploration budget plan, Mollohan said that the space agency is underfunded, and that more money should be provided, or Congress should be honest and abolish some NASA programs.
“However difficult it is, the appropriate choice is one of two things — to put more money on the selected missions, or to select and fund fewer missions within a constrained budget,” Mollohan said on April 29. “We can’t have our cake and eat it too with NASA. Let me be clear — I’m all for putting more money on missions. I would hope that the [Obama administration and the new NASA administrator, Charles Bolden, would] share my view.”
Overall, in total NASA budget numbers, the agency is receiving $17.782 billion in the current fiscal 2009. Obama requested $18.686 billion for fiscal 2010. The subcommittee proposes a total $18.203 billion.
To read Mollohan’s statement in full, please go to http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/CJS-FY10-06-04-09.pdf on the Web.