Hearing Notes: Charles Bolden Testifies on NASA’s FY 2013 Budget
“Bolden made frequent attempts to defend the Administration’s cuts to planetary science – at one point saying that part of the justification included an assessment that the Mars program was doing well. In essence Bolden said that not doing missions better positioned NASA to do these missions. He also said that NASA had never signed on to do ExoMars and that no sample return mission was ever on the books. Rep. Schiff was totally angered by this and accused Bolden of using “Orwellian language” saying “canceling flagships does not mean you are pushing ahead with the Mars program. It is exactly the opposite”. Schiff also admitted to being perplexed by Bolden’s statement that “the Mars Program was in the best shape” as part of the rationale for cutting that same program.”
Rep. Schiff and Appropriations Members Take Issue with NASA Administrator Over Mars Budget Cuts
“Culberson called the proposed cuts to planetary sciences “”unacceptable,” and stated that NASA’s vision for future robotic exploration is “not consistent with reality.” He continued: “I grieve for my country – I grieve for NASA. There’s no way you can say the planetary program can survive a cut of 21 percent.”

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

8 replies on “House Appropriations Hearing on NASA Budget”

  2. It isn’t Mars vs Commercial Crew. It isn’t Mars vs JWST, or Commercial vs JWST. The real elephant at the dinner table is SLS/Orion. The real dispute is SLS/Orion versus everything else. All these other programs advance science, or technology, or geopolitics. SLS/Orion does not. It is the program that should be dropped, and it is so huge that everything else would benefit.

    1. President Obama inherited a beyond LEO program from Bush that was spending more than $3.4 billion a year on manned beyond LEO development. The 2013 budget proposal by the Obama administration has less than $3 billion a year spent on the SLS/MPV. So you certainly can’t blame beyond LEO spending– which has actually been reduced– for lack funding elsewhere in NASA.

      Marcel F. Williams

  3. With the retirement of the Delta II launch vehicles the planetary science probes will probably be launched using the vehicles being developed under COTS and CCDev.

    1. Yes.If the scientists can not design a super Mars return mission on a Falcon heavy at 50 tons and 100 million,they deserve to be cut.If they could get NASA to build a launcher for them,they could save a lot more money.I suggest they ask NASA to name NASA launch system Goddard.He was a scientist.
      If anyone feels like it,please tell me how a F-9 can lift 23,000lbs. but a Falcon heavy with 3 F-9s can lift 117,000lbs.3x 23,000=69,000.Is it the cross feeding?I have forgotten what the explanation was.Delta with a bigger core does not do that in their heavy.No cross feed,I guess.Thanks.
      I seem to remember bigger engines.But they are heavier and require bigger tanks and a lot more fuel.SpaceX web site says 3 million pounds.They are just multiplying the weight of F-9.No second stage on the side engines,but I think a F-9 might be needed for a second stage at 1 million pounds.A Saturn V at 6,699,000 puts up 262,000.So if you scale,it would be 5 million lbs?Maybe the specs are not correct or I am missing something.
      What I was missing is that the side boosters separate before the center.The center continues on with full fuel making it the second stage.A regular F9 second stage could be used or not for the 3rd. to get the 117,000lbs.No 3rd. stage could be used for less payload.Shorter.A single engine might be used for restarts to circularize orbits.Much more thrust than the Centaur used on Delta-4. Whoops.Or whoopee!Sneeky way to keep cost down.
      In fact Delta 4 has a smaller core than F-9.3/4 million lbs. of thrust from a single engine.Lift is 18,000lbs.Cross feeding might give Delta -4 Heavy a bigger lift.NASA procurement says that Delta-2 and F-9 are the only ones they would consider.How about Delta -4,is it too expensive?It is certified.

      1. FWIW, Even with Falcon Heavy we’re looking optimistically at less than 5t to Mars Surface, so it would still be something of an engineering challenge.  I doubt it would be able to return much more than the old Soviet LSRs – one scoop or core sample.  Martian ISRU would still seem to be the key to really big MSR missions.

        1.  Two 5 tonne Mars landers then.  The first contains the ISRU equipment – solar arrays, CO2 -> CO + O2 splitter and storage tanks.  The second does the return flight and the scooping.

Comments are closed.