NASA Budget Gaming

[JimMcDade]

Most people are aware that I have accused the Obama administration of "playing the numbers" in order to to channel the Augustine panel to a predetermined "conclusions" I hope that you will find something helpful here as we all continue to grasp the big picture.

What you are about to see should make you angry, no matter what position you held on the future of NASA. If you were a Jupiter Direct supporter, an EELV supporter, or an Ares I supporter, these budget machinations do indicate that the Augustine commission was not about what you thought it was about.

Please check with me prior to specifically citing any of this in your blogs, web discussions, etc., as I am working on an article. General references to these facts and numbers in your discussions are fine. Attribution is always appreciated.

It is not easy for most people to look at the lines and items in a federal budget and figure out what you are actually looking at. We have all seen pictures of gigantic budget bills that are printed on thousands of pages. Most government budget documents are intentionally arcane, since our politicians want a running head start before anybody figures out what they are up to.

It is amazing how many billions of dollars can instantaneously disappear or disappear in even a moderately-sized budget planning document like NASA's, when somebody decides to make the slightest of adjustments to the projected rate of inflation.

Attached are some background budget charts, complete with the comments below courtesy of Scott Pace.

Basically, the top level NASA budget proposed by the Obama Administration for FY2011 is consistent with what the Bush Administration proposed in FY2005 and remaining stable in constant dollar terms.

The Obama FY2010 proposed a major cut in exploration funding ($3B within 5 years and lower projected rates of inflationary growth) with the argument that funds might be revisited after completion of the Augustine Committee review. Bush Administration reductions stressed the Constellation program and caused the schedule slip of Ares 1/Orion first launch to 2015. However, it was the Obama FY2010 budget that caused the Augustine Committee to concluded, quite rightly, that the Constellation program was unsustainable.

The Obama budget of FY2011 increased the NASA top line in large part by restoring past cuts, but the restored funds are largely for science and technology, not creating government launch vehicles to replace the Shuttle. Rather, funds are used to support potential commercial launch service providers.

[Me2]

. ......If you were a Jupiter Direct supporter, an EELV supporter, .............. Rather, funds are used to support potential commercial launch service providers.

Just shows how clueless, uninformed and bias McDade is, EELV's are operated bycommercial launch service providers

[klydemorris]

Just shows how clueless, uninformed and bias McDade is, EELV's are operated bycommercial launch service providers

Errrr... so?

What's your point Me2?

Or can't you explain it in depth on a Blackberry or while involved posting a bazillion "you're wrong" quips on web site forums?

Frankly this taking a few select words, removing them from the original context and then pre-fixing them with a personal attack of "clueless, uninformed and bias" may have worked for ya' Me2 the first few times you used it, but to be honest- now it makes you look... well... clueless, uninformed and biased. For someone who expects everyone in the cyber world to believe that he knows it all, those feet of clay of yours are beginning to show through yer' flip-flops... perhaps you should buy some sneakers.

[JimMcDade]

Me2, if you knew how to read with comprehension, you would realize that you are questioning the words of Scott Pace, not mine. Pace is the director of the Space Policy Institute and a professor at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs.

I am impressed that you think that you are more informed than he is.

Besides, the "commercial launch service providers" targeted in the budget are not your EELV pals.

The Obama plan is to put human spaceflight on the shelf for several years and refocus NASA spending on earth science and technology research. The President doesn't care about EELVs any more than he cared for Ares I and Ares V or DIRECT. Why are you the only person in the world who still does not realize this fact?

Obama will be perfectly happy if no post-Shuttle US astronauts ride on US rockets for the remainder of his presidency.

[Me2]

Besides, the "commercial launch service providers" targeted in the budget are not your EELV pals.

That is exactly where you are wrong, clueless, and uninformed. Delta and Atlas are the main targets along with OSC, Boeing and LM.

[klydemorris]

Funny... I haven't heard a peep out of the administration about those major operators- it's all been SpaceX (who I believe may be scheduled to blow up on next Wednesday... unless, of course they slip again).

Can you provide some documentation? Or is this just your standard, unsupported opinion?

[Me2]

1. it's all been SpaceX (who I believe may be scheduled to blow up on next Wednesday... unless, of course they slip again).

2. Can you provide some documentation?

3. Or is this just your standard, unsupported opinion?

1. That comment shows you are two faced. You are doing the same thing you accused Ares I-X non supporters of doing, wishing ill will on a launch.

Why do you hold Spacex in disdain? The ISS is SOL without them. They were part of the POR with CRS. It just happens that CRS was continued with the new plan.

2. I don't see Spacex anywhere on this

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CCDev_Awards.html

ULA gets an award.
Boeing and Bigelow's plan is for EELV launched spacecraft.
Sierra Nevada Corp's team includes Boeing and ULA.

I see EELV (i.e. ULA ) in three of the 5 awards.

3. Never been opinion, I only have said facts.

[Rick]

The ISS is shit out of luck without the Russians with the Obama proposal.

Let's get real here

[Me2]

The ISS is shit out of luck without the Russians with the Obama proposal.

Let's get real here

Yes, let's real and talk facts. The Russians were needed before even Obama announce he was going to run for president. Orion wasn't going to be ready to support ISS until 2017/2018 and so, the POR depended on the Russians even more than the Obama proposal.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007...Roscosmos.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009...z_Con_Mod.html

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010...Extension.html

[Rick]

The point I was trying to make, is we will now be hitching a ride with the Russians for 10 years. How did I do that math? A design for an HLV is to be determined by 2015, per Obama's own statements. Only then would the commercial sector try and build it. That added a few years on to an already widening gap. Funding anyone?

The Russians have nearly doubled the price per seat on a Soyuz. Wonder why? Because we're screwing around and dumbing down HSF.

[klydemorris]

1. That comment shows you are two faced. You are doing the same thing you accused Ares I-X non supporters of doing, wishing ill will on a launch.

Why do you hold Spacex in disdain? The ISS is SOL without them. They were part of the POR with CRS. It just happens that CRS was continued with the new plan.

2. I don't see Spacex anywhere on this

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/CCDev_Awards.html

ULA gets an award.
Boeing and Bigelow's plan is for EELV launched spacecraft.
Sierra Nevada Corp's team includes Boeing and ULA.

I see EELV (i.e. ULA ) in three of the 5 awards.

3. Never been opinion, .

Whoa! Me2- I'm stunned at the number of words here- what... did yer' Blackberry battery die?

Point 1... you are right, it did sound as if I was wishing ill on SpaceX just the way people wished ill upon Ares I-X... HOW DO YOU LIKE IT. In fact, I think that SpaceX will likely prove to demonstrate a number of things with the Falcon 9 (such as what happens when a rich brat tries to play space program) once they actually get around to launching.

Point 2... you have finally provided something of substance- thank you. Did it hurt? Was it painful? I picture you much the same as I was last month when I had a kidney stone- only you were actually trying to pass something useful.

Oh... BTW- those "awards" were made prior to the Obama FY2011 NASA budget- they were simply announced on Feb. 1

Point 3... "I only have said facts" Happy to see you have turned over a new leaf. As I said earlier...Did it hurt? Was it painful?

[Me2]

Point 1... you are right, it did sound as if I was wishing ill on SpaceX just the way people wished ill upon Ares I-X... HOW DO YOU LIKE IT.

I never wished ill will on the Ares I-X launch.

[klydemorris]

I never wished ill will on the Ares I-X launch.

Oh really... was it not you who called it a fraud?

[Me2]

Oh really... was it not you who called it a fraud?

It was a fraud and just a PR stunt. It was a huge waste of money for the little data it provided, but I didn't wish for it to fail.

[Rick]

When Bolden visited KSC he said that although NASA's new direction was going to kill Constellation with the new administrations proposal, they flew Ares I-X anyway to gather data for future endeavors.

That does not sound fraudulent or a PR stunt to me, and evidently not to NASA either.

[Me2]

When Bolden visited KSC he said that although NASA's new direction was going to kill Constellation with the new administrations proposal, they flew Ares I-X anyway to gather data for future endeavors.

That does not sound fraudulent or a PR stunt to me, and evidently not to NASA either.

Nothing but PR spin. What else were they going to do with it?

It was a PR stunt from its inception.

[Rick]

So adapting your theory, Charlie Bolden lied to us when he was at KSC?

[klydemorris]

What the Ares I-X did was provide, aside form needed data, a lot of egg for the Ares I critics to wear upon their faces. It made every single data point, it showed none of that "deadly TO" that the Ares I phobics are still trying to use against it. But even more important, it provided big fire and smoke for the politicians here in DC. THEY saw it as a very successful test of actual Constellation hardware. It doesent matter one single sliver what Me2 says from his cube somewhere in cyberland- NO ONE who actually counts is listening to him or his kind. What matters is what the members of Congress think and then fund.

I have a very good feeling that the United States Congress is poised to shove one or two more Ares I-X's right up your Me2... and I hope you don't like it A LOT. You see, lots of honest, hard working folks across the country brought home pay checks, fed their kids paid to live an honest life because of that vehicle that Me2 so arrogantly calls a "fraud." The fact probably is, the only fraud here is Me2. You see, the Ares I-X was real- it came out into the light, stood proudly on the pad and then punched a nice hole in the sky. We knew exactly who it was, where it was and what it did- you Me2 are simply a quipping blowhard who hides behind a moniker and snipes at other people's, honest, hard work. And to deminish your stature farther, the Ares I-X actually influenced what will be done in the Congress- I doubt you have the same status.

And- BTW, this is a personal attack- I take it very personally when hard working, honest folks and their efforts are smeard by internet blowhards.