Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
A Closer Look at NASA’s FY 2015 Budget Prospects
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/16/nasa-budget-proposals-comparison/
A Closer Look at NASAs FY 2015 Budget Prospects
Posted by Doug Messier on June 16, 2014
After years of flat and declining budgets, it looks like NASA will get a funding boost this year from an unexpected source Congress.
<snip>
The table below shows funding under the Obama Administrations request and amounts set by the Senate and House Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations committees.
<snip>
Despite sharply deteriorating relations with Russia, neither the House nor the Senate was willing provide the full $843.3 million the Administration requested for commercial crew, which is designed to eliminate U.S. dependence on Russian Soyuz vehicles for rides to the International Space Station.
The Senate measure comes closest to the request at $805 million, while the House provides $785 million. Whether either of those amounts would allow NASA to fly astronauts to ISS on a commercial basis by the end of 2017 remains to be seen.
<snip>
A Closer Look at NASAs FY 2015 Budget Prospects
Posted by Doug Messier on June 16, 2014
After years of flat and declining budgets, it looks like NASA will get a funding boost this year from an unexpected source Congress.
<snip>
The table below shows funding under the Obama Administrations request and amounts set by the Senate and House Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations committees.
<snip>
Despite sharply deteriorating relations with Russia, neither the House nor the Senate was willing provide the full $843.3 million the Administration requested for commercial crew, which is designed to eliminate U.S. dependence on Russian Soyuz vehicles for rides to the International Space Station.
The Senate measure comes closest to the request at $805 million, while the House provides $785 million. Whether either of those amounts would allow NASA to fly astronauts to ISS on a commercial basis by the end of 2017 remains to be seen.
<snip>
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1238 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A Closer Look at NASA’s FY 2015 Budget Prospects (Original Post)
bananas
Jun 2014
OP
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)1. The problem is GOP senators with ties to SLS contractors
From Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy blog: NASA Funding: New Senate Funding Bill Will Delay Sending Americans in Space for Years:
What I want to point outagainis how the Space Launch System is gumming up the works. SLS is supposed to be a heavy-lift rocket designed by NASA to replace the shuttles. I say supposed to be because I have been saying for quite some time that it is very likely to get bloated, over budget, and behind schedule. Thats a common circumstance for really big NASA projects (like the Space Station, the shuttle, Hubble, JWST, and others). NASAs bureaucracy gets in the way, and as the dollar signs increase, Congress-critters start getting their own states and districts involved, muddying the situation further.
Thats apparently whats happening here. As has been reported by several sources, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) has put his thumb on the scale. He has added language to the Senate bill that will make it a lot harder for commercial space companieslike, say SpaceXto launch humans into space. Hes basically adding a layer of government to the requirements for commercial companies, making them account for costs and pricing.
Oddly, this sort of accounting is already in place with contractors like Boeingwhich, shockingly, is a big player with SLS, and which has a large plant in Alabama, Shelbys home statebut is not in place in companies like SpaceX and Sierra Nevada. This means that the newer startup companies will be put at a disadvantage against the older government contractors.
Bottom line: Shelbys addition makes it easier for SLS to get built, and harder for commercial companies to build their own vehicles to send humans into space (and, importantly, can do it far, far cheaper than SLS can). That means well have to rely on the Russians more for the time being. Thats something we really, really need to stop doing. Theyre gouging us for rides to space, and their political situation isnt exactly the most conducive for us right now.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)2. More from Phil Plait......and I agree heartily!
And worst of all, we still dont have a clear and sustained purpose for SLS. Our government wants to spend billions upon billions of dollars on a rocket for no defined reason. Its maddening.
This is getting so ridiculous that Im starting to lean more and more toward an outright cancellation of SLS. Its just too big and tempting a target for Congress members to avoid. President Obama canceled its predecessor, Constellation, because of cost overruns and scheduling slips. I still think it was the right thing to do; wed have thrown billions at a rocket that we still wouldnt have. SLS is seriously starting to feel like its slipping into that same groove. Im not the only person to think so, either.
Weve been facing this type of nonsense now for far too long. NASA needs to be exploring, but instead we have to rely on another country just to get people into low Earth orbit
and this is four decades after we sent humans to the Moon!
I agree entirely! Send SLS to the shitcan! If you want heavy lift capability, Elon Musk will be ready in a few years.
Alex P Notkeaton
(309 posts)3. Soviet Socialist Republicans!
What other reason could they have for keeping us dependant on Russia?
Uncle Joe
(58,107 posts)4. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, bananas.