This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

Getting Ready For More Sequester Cuts at NASA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 30, 2013
Filed under , , ,

Another year of sequestration would delay NASA missions, USA Today
“NASA spokesman Allard Beutel said Thursday that the agency was still assessing the impact of another year of sequestration and its “stifling constraints.” Even holding at fiscal 2013 levels would be problematic because it’s about $850 million less than the president’s request. That would mean deep cuts in space technology, “the seed corn that allows the nation to conduct ever more capable and affordable space missions,” Beutel said. It also would impede NASA’s Commercial Crew Program to use private companies to carry astronauts to the International Space Station by 2017.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

2 responses to “Getting Ready For More Sequester Cuts at NASA”

  1. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    No mention of cutting SLS and Orion. The reason, correct me if I’m wrong, is that the mandates set by Nelson-Shelby-Richardson to develop SLS and Orion specified a fixed funding level. Furthermore, the contracts in place for those programs are harder to cut back on than continuance of the support provided the businesses of Commercial Crew.

    Commercial Crew is the only means to return flights to ISS to American soil, and end the dependence on Russian launches. SLS, while it is a manned rated design, is too large a launch vehicle to be used just to send astronauts to ISS (low earth orbit). It is meant as a backup but SLS, if it ever flies, is unlikely to reach an operational phase before 2020.

    The first flight of SLS & Orion is December 17, 2017. There will be delays. This date will fall into 2018 but based on past experience, expect it to be 2019. And this is just the first flight.

    First flight is designated as a trip to the Moon. It is highly unlikely that the Orion, European Service Module and SLS upper stage will be checked out – its first flight, during a lunar flyby.

    NASA has never been able to afford more than a single source for their largest payload lift capabilities – Saturn, Space Shuttle. With a launch frequency of only once per year or even once per two years, the more reasonable choice has become Falcon Heavy and XX. Maintaining ISS is not at risk. Rather than turn to Lockheed-Martin or Boeing, we now have a new provider, SpaceX that can provide the heavy lift capability and at a cost of 1/4th what American taxpayers will pay for each SLS launch.

    To return to the main topic – sequestration, NASA is hand-cuffed. It is stuck with funding SLS and Orion without cuts, so it must apply sequestration cuts elsewhere. These two programs will amplify the damage to NASA by sequestration. Choosing to build SLS for heavy lift capability has become non sequitur – that despite the loss of work completed to this point, choosing Falcon Heavy and XX is a more logical choice. Bolden stated that he (NASA) is not ready to depend on the private sector for heavy lift capability. Without a real mission plan for SLS and Orion, with the delays and cost over-runs that can be expected, NASA can afford to terminate SLS and turn to the Falcon series for heavy lift. Wind down the SLS program to soften the impact to those employed by it and NASA will still have sufficient funds to actually increase support for Commercial Crew and call for a private sector heavy launcher.

    If they must compete a contract for a private sector heavy lifter rather than point directly to SpaceX, requirements such as a delivery date and cost per pound would be sufficient to narrow the choices to one.

  2. Spacetech says:
    0
    0

    Tick, tick, tick………..sooner or later NASA will have to close one or more field centers. How can NASA justify having 10+ centers (depending how you count’em) and all of the overhead that goes with them.

    Shuttering duplicate facilities would barely make a budget dent. NASA may have to look to a BRAC type of scenario or turn over use and management of some facilities to the military.

    Apollo or Space Shuttle like programs are history and not likely to return and NASA may have to moth ball some facilities as soon as they come online or shortly after.