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

Hearing on NASA's FY 2015 Budget Request

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 27, 2014
Filed under ,

Hearing Charter
” … A year after the introduction of this [Asteroid Retrieval] mission, the Administration still has not provided a detailed mission profile or budget proposal. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 required NASA to provide additional details about the mission concept before Congress would commit long-term resources to the effort.”
Smith and Palazzo: NASA’s Priority Should Be Space Exploration
“The President’s budget again seeks to fund an Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM), a mission that experts and Congress have sharply criticized. Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) highlighted testimony before the Committee by NASA Advisory Council Chairman, Dr. Steve Squyres, who said “I see no obvious connection between [ARM] and any of the technologies or capabilities that are required for Martian exploration.”
Prepared Statement by Charles Bolden
“The Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) will enable NASA to test powerful Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) and integrated human/robotic vehicle operations in deep-space trajectories. Like the invaluable ISS, this mission will provide NASA with critical knowledge, experience and technologies for future human exploration missions deeper into space.”
Subcommittee Reviews the NASA Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2015
“During her questions to General Bolden later in the hearing, Ms. Edwards emphasized the need for the Subcommittee to obtain a roadmap for a human mission to the surface of Mars accompanied by the analysis of the options for potential interim destinations.”
Marc’s Update: You can watch the hearing again if you missed it as we now have an archived copy on SpaceRef.

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

21 responses to “Hearing on NASA's FY 2015 Budget Request”

  1. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    The hearing with Bolden as witness revolved around human spaceflight. SOFIA was discussed, not MER Opportunity. Palazzo stated at the very end to put on the record that a statement from the Planetary Society has been received. Bolden interjected that he would like a copy which Palazzo obliged. I imagine the Society did not appreciate the chuckles interjected by Bolden when he requested the statement.

    Commercial Crew was the torch Bolden carried into the hearing. He drove the message home forcefully that NASA needs the full funding request ($1B, 2 sources) in order to keep first flight on schedule for 2017. It is clear that the lead members of the subcommittee are not committed to providing all the funding even in light of the Ukraine conflict. Smith of TX drilled him about what we could do if Russia denied us flights. Bolden sidestepped the answer stating essentially that Russia cannot operate ISS because Houston controls the basic functions of power and communications management. Bolden and NASA are apparently confident that ISS will remain above and untouched by any foreseeable escalation. Overall, Bolden took no gruff from the subcommittee. My sense was that Smith was trying to lead up to an assertion that with or without Commercial Crew, first flight 3 years away, the United States is screwed if Russia denies flights. As if they could argue that whether its 3 years or longer due to a little less funding, what is the difference. Or Smith could have suddenly proclaimed that we need an emergency program to fill this launch gap but was not willing to stick his neck out (recall he’s from the ‘Shutdown’ party wanting less government) and say that, not without some statement from Bolden.

    The first questions directed to Administrator Bolden were regarding SLS and Orion. Why are their funding cut short $200M? Why is NASA still plugging for Asteroid ARM and why not the Mars mission flyby? The leading subcommittee members like the flyby mission. They previously asked NASA to undertake a study/analysis and asked if they did, and Bolden said there were reviews, did not answer directly that there was an analysis and referred to the concept as Inspiration Mars’ not NASA’s or the subcommittee’s. Bolden carried one chart for display and it emphasized the ARM. He emphasized relevance to __the goal__ – Mars.

    So the subcommittee was ready to talk about SLS and Orion and a mission, specifically the Mars flyby and Bolden would not go down that road. Bolden was there to make sure Commercial Crew received all requested funding. He emphasized that SLS and Orion have sufficient funds to stay on schedule. He defended NASA STEM as part of a broader program (states, 4H). The Science Mission Directorate side of the funding equation was hardly spoken of.

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      Palazzo stated at the very end to put on the record that a statement from the Planetary Society has been received. Bolden interjected that he would like a copy which Palazzo obliged. I imagine the Society did not appreciate the chuckles interjected by Bolden when he requested the statement.

      WTH is this? Wouldn’t it serve NASA well to have a strong Planetary Society? This goes back to the arguments in another thread that the splintering and bickering of the space community hurts overall goals. I wish we could consolidate support.

      Thanks for your summary of events 🙂

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        Well, it made me cringe. I am a member of Planetary Society. Pelllazo simply made a statement putting the presence of the Society’s document on the record. Bolden had just been drilled for two hours and what can I say. There was also a statement by Bolden that lit up the blogs and press. In the exchange with Smith, he stated that if we lost ISS due to the Russians withholding astronaut flights to ISS, then he would call for the cancellation of SLS and Orion. His point was that ISS is so important for developing the means for extended missions beyond Earth that without it, what’s the point of SLS and Orion. I suspect Bolden would like to clarify that statement further though.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          In my view it is not simply the means of conducting extended missions. ISS is the destination for commercial human spaceflight, for any new developments in reusable launch systems, for developing useful scientific sensors. It is not a footstep, it is a foothold. If we abandon ISS we will not be stuck in LEO. We will be stuck on the ground.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

          Ok, the part about being drilled for 2 hours makes it a little more understandable then. Something a little more friendly for a change from the Planetary Society I guess. So I imagine it wasn’t meant as condescension.

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            In Nasawatch’s latest budget blog post – http://nasawatch.com/archiv…, I contributed a pie chart breakdown of the 2015 requested budget. Percentage-wise, Planetary Science does the best of any NASA program. They are still short of their goal, i.e. Planetary Society’s goal of $1.5B but better at this point than with last year’s. While NASA is just short of funds, Bolden/Obama was kindest to Planetary, so with Bolden chuckling some, well, Planetary Society is unrelenting… which is a good thing.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            agreed

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Yes, it is curious how Bolden side-steps anything about missions using SLS/Orion. This tells me that he realizes -perhaps- a few things. First, that even if he could get congressional language, and many other forces aligned as well, all enthusiastic about some mission, that supportive language would not translate into more funding. Second, he knows that if he tried to go find the means to do the mission, the first movements of money out of anywhere, and to spaceflight, to the mission, would be met with the passionate uproar of those who would see thier funding drop. It could be a bloody mean fight, with little guarantee of success, especially without cover. Third, and this ones not as obvious, but perhaps tells the most, Bolden must have a sense from the programs that already own spaceflight, which could divert funds internally (that is be more efficient, but still getting the same top-lines) that adding more content, any mission, is a no-go.

      • Rocky J says:
        0
        0

        I agree with you and would add that I think Bolden and a significant few others inside NASA are conscientious and have chosen not to take the potential path of milking SLS/Orion for what its worth. They could jump on the Mars flyby concept and it could lead to significant increases in NASA funding to pull off a 2021 manned launch to Mars. It would be disruptive to the longer term goals of NASA and likely negatively impact funding to SMD.

  2. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    From article Dr. Steve Squyres, who said “I see no obvious connection between
    [ARM] and any of the technologies or capabilities that are required for
    Martian exploration.”

    Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) is likely to be used to take cargo to Mars. Cargo including buildings, manned rovers and food. A large SEP may be used to send people.

    People are not needed to retrieve rocks from the asteroid, so that part of the ARRM mission is a long range test of the Orion.

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      A member of the committee criticizes the HSF portion of the ARM mission..”it has no connection to a Mars”… but moments later, ignorantly, wants NASA to take the capsule on a Mars flyby…when it should parked and powered down at L2 during a Mars mission.

      The DSHabitat will house crew during the long trip to Mars, not the capsule. Hence, Squyres said he did not see the connection between the HSF portion of the ARM mission and those required for Mars.

      Orion’s capability is basically the same as Apollo, but unfortunately lacks a heat shield and parachutes to return from an asteroid or Mars, and further lacks adequate radiation shielding from GCR for long duration deep space missions. Yes, NASA could upgrade the heat shield and/or add this shielding for BEO deep space, but every study has found this approach adds unnecessary costs and risks and would compromise the ascent/reentry function.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        when it should parked and powered down at L2 during a Mars mission.

        Why?

        [Disposable or reusable CC capsule to LEO. Transfer to Mars-ship. Hab for Mars and back. Aerobrake crew into LEO while discarding the rest of the ship. Pickup in LEO by a fresh CC capsule. Aerobraking needs to shed about 5km/s. Well within the capability of LEO-capsule-class heat-shields.]

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

          Paul451 Your suggestion requires 3 off Commercial Crew capsules and complex flying where lots of things can go wrong. Cost needs to be compared with a single Orion.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Wow, you walked into that one.

            Looong post…

            F9/Dragon costs about $125m per launch. Call it $150m. So $300m for the launch and recovery pair.

            If we are comparing SLS/Orion based Inspiration Mars flyby mission, then Tito & co are presumably thinking of a single launch. So total payload equivalent to 70 tonnes to LEO. (Obvious less to MTO, this is just for comparison.)

            FH should launch over 50 tonnes to LEO, and is pre-selling at $125m, let’s say $150m again. And let’s add a 100% “Oberth tax” (actually closer to 30%, from memory). So we need about 140 tonnes to LEO to match the mission profile. Three FH launches, $450m. Add one more because we can: $600m, 200 tonnes.

            [You could probably get by with just two, but they’re so cheap let’s just add the extra two for reasons I’ll explain below.]

            So $900m for the FH launches and the two Dragon-crew.

            One of those FH launches carries a modified Dragon for the aerobrake return manoeuvre. ~$65m normally, but let’s assume aerocapture requires a major redesign (since you’d have no service trunk between aerobrake and docking with the return module, you’ll need to beef up the power/LSS.) Call it a $500m redesign, based on SpaceX’s past spending patterns, and $100m per unit (due to low volumes.)

            [There are other options. An inflatable heatshield around a hab-module. Etc. But I’m going for belt’n’braces. The cool thing is, without SLS/Orion, you could fund several options, then see which is actually better, rather than picking one now based on prior assumptions.]

            And we need the “ship”. Bigelow sells modules cheap. But we need a decent booster stage. Say $2b development cost all up. And $500m per mission. In reality, using the COTS model, you’ll spend less.

            Plus because because we added those extra FH launches, we have payload to spare, that reduces the severity of the engineering required to meet the payload budget, which reduces development and production costs.

            [You can trade off development cost against $150m/50t launch costs. If you drop the mission mass, saving one $150m launch, but increase your development difficulty, costing an extra $1b, you’re clearly going the wrong way. How much cheaper would JWST development be if they’d had 50 tonnes to play with instead of 20? Cheap 50 tonne launches fundamentally changes the rules of the game. You have to rethink every assumption.]

            Per mission hardware & launch cost: $1.5b
            Total development cost: $2.5b

            SLS/Orion will cost around $20b by 2021. So in theory, for the price of merely developing SLS/Orion, you could fly 11 “commercial” Mars flyby missions. Or fly just one by 2017, and free up $16 billion for other missions over the next 7 years. How about a lunar lander for an Apollo redux? How about a Venus flyby? How about a real asteroid mission? Or three?

            How about all of them? All for the development cost of SLS/Orion. And all before SLS/Orion launches its first crew.

            Seems like a no-brainer to me.

            There’s this weird thing that people do where they insist on comparing the capability of SLS/Orion without looking at the cost. “But SLS can carry more payload!” Yes, but FH is an order of magnitude cheaper. The real “comparison” is 70 tonnes versus 500 tonnes.

            “But Orion is a deep space BEO capsule!” Well, no, 21 days is not really BEO. And a Bigelow hab is an order of magnitude cheaper. The real “comparison” is a single medium-duration capsule verses 10 huge inflatable long-duration habitats.

            “But radiation!” Great, we’ll add water-walls as shielding, given the internal volume we have to play with thanks to Bigelow, and the enormous payload budget thanks to Falcon Heavy. Contrast that with the cost of developing a true long-duration deep-space version of Orion.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            the architecture for one trip to Mars is significantly different than multiple trips, especially if you assume 450 to 500mT per cargo/crew trip. The most obvious example is the EP cycler, where huge energy savings can be incorporated if it cycles from L2 to Mars (or venus), usually at the expense of duration (time).

            good points on lofting 450mT in one shot for “Bs” vs smaller chunks less than a billion, especially when Mars requires much tech development without funds. For example, its lighter to include a hybrid passive/active radiation shield rather than just passive water, and at 20 g/cm2, the 500 mT total may be wishful thinking.

            Quite a bit of exciting trades and developments ahead.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            For example, its lighter to include a hybrid passive/active radiation shield rather than just passive water,

            See, this is what I meant.

            Launch is around $150m for 50 tonnes. Say 10 tonnes to MTO.

            If it costs you more than $150m to save 10 tonnes, you’re doing it wrong.

            Water is cheap. Water walls are cheap. Launch is cheap. Fuel is cheap.

            Developing, testing, proving hybrid active shielding is expensive.

            Active shielding loses.

            People need to fundamentally change the way they look at missions. The rules have changed.

  3. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Bolden has been emboldened. Bill Nelson is sitting on the fence. The handwriting is on the wall. At the same time, there are many, many in NASA who have no idea SLS/Orion is in trouble or even why it cannot accomplish a useful mission. And there are those who are certain “new leadership” will reverse the policies of Mr. Obama and set NASA back on the course to American leadership of the world with SLS and Orion. Personally, I doubt Hillary will make any such changes.

    • John Kavanagh says:
      0
      0

      SLS inspires the next generation, who will be waiting another decade before it flies Orion with astronauts

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        I understand the sentiment, but I’ve seen a lot of people come to the Cape, and they seem to be inspired by people going into space. Where they are going makes little difference. Without the Congressional cuts in commercial crew, we would be seeing human launch this year. Even with Congress fighting it every step of the way, we will have human launches in two years. The purpose of NASA human spaceflight is not to inspire with stunts, it is to work as a partner with industry to make human spaceflight practical.

  4. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    I am glad Charlie finally decided to speak up. It was long overdue. As Bolden said, the only way out of our current reliance on Russians for getting humans into orbit is commercial crew. All efforts should be made to speed that activity along.The dollar amounts are relatively trivial.

    As far as people who have no idea SLS/Orion is in trouble or that it cannot accomplish a useful mission, my personal theory is that the NASA managers have known all about this-it is entirely because the vehicle is overweight; they have known about this from the start. Remember, they were counting from the start on mass reduction thanks to new technology in the heat shield and a mass reduction on landing thanks to a deployable heat shield. Those things never came to pass. They knew they screwed up but they have not said anything in the expectation that it would be cancelled soon enough. Typical government manager malfeasance and a complicit contractor. They are interested in continuing their “leadership”, and the contractor in continuing their receipts; they are more interested in covering-up than in coming clean and saving US taxpayer dollars.

  5. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    NASA ought to take the studies they have done on a Mars landing, stamp Mars Roadmap on it and send it to this committee. I guess they want a how we will do it rather than a how we can do it.
    Bolden said Crew might be speeded up by a year. Find funds for the optional milestones. SpaceX said they can do it. SpaceX crew next year and ready for NASA crew in ’16. This is where he probably got this. They are blacked out and that might mean that NASA does not want to fund them or that SpaceX does not want or can not do them.
    Shotwell said that crew Dragon is very different. The delay in the abort milestones may be because the Dragon they have shown is not the one we will get. A real big change is if they make it biconic. They could land like Dreamchaser. If the wind got too strong it may land backwards though. Could land at KSC or just about anywhere. The reusable people would be able use all of it again. Now they have to discard the trunk. No solar panels, but batteries and other equipment. Some might accuse them of copying Blue Origin however.
    Also with the extra room enough fuel could be carried to make a propulsive landing. If part could separate if fuel ran out and land. That would be a good enough back up. Or ejection seats.