Mikulski Amendment Rejected – No Relief for NASA in Senate Appropriations Markup
“The amendment was defeated by a 14-16 party line vote. CJS subcommittee chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) opposed the amendment, but said that if a new budget deal is indeed negotiated, he will work with Mikulski on how to allocate any additional funding.”
CSF Applauds Mikulski Amendment to Avoid Extending U.S. Reliance on the Russians
“Today the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the FY 2016 Commerce, Justice and Science (CJS) Appropriations Bill. The bill increases NASA’s budget by $279 million above its FY 2015 budget, but underfunds NASA’s Commercial Crew program by more than $300 million. Failing to fully fund the Commercial Crew program in FY 2016 would result in the United States human spaceflight gap being extended, again, and ensuring further payments to the Russians for launches of American astronauts to the ISS beyond 2017. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Vice-Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, offered an amendment that would have restored the $300 million to the Commercial Crew program, avoiding a further gap and reliance on the Russians. The Committee failed to adopt the amendment.”
Coalition for Space Exploration Statement on CJS Appropriations Bill
“The Coalition for Space Exploration is grateful for the strong bipartisan leadership demonstrated by Chairman Shelby and Vice-Chairwoman Mikulski in support of our nation’s space exploration program in the FY 2016 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill advanced by the committee today.”

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...

88 replies on “Mikulski Tries Unsuccessfully To Prevent Commercial Crew Funding Decrease”

    1. You have made your point – multiple times. You are NOT going to be trolling on NASAWatch. Got that?

  2. So here we have a party-line vote with the democrats supporting what is in fact a privatization scheme (an entirely rational and defensible one in this case) while the republicans try to sabotage it and funnel even more money towards a centralized government program. I am shocked, shocked that their policy positions are so disconnected with their espoused ideologies. Fortunately, we can rely on the media to highlight these incongruities and challenge the increasingly sloppy narrative by which our political system is conventionally explained, right?

    1. their policy positions are so disconnected with their espoused ideologies.

      While the Republicans screech about “small government” and “competition” and “free markets”, that doesn’t mean that the Dems actual “espoused ideologies” must be the opposite. There’s nothing inconsistent with Dems supporting commercial crew, even if there is irony in the Republicans supporting the Big Socialist program.

      1. Agreed. Democrats have been the sometimes-opponents of privatization, but their espoused ideology in this matter is much more pragmatic. Both parties are capable of appalling hypocrisy, but there’s no doubt in this case where the balance of it lies.

    2. NASA is paying for it. How in the world do you get the notion that it is a privatization scheme? This is nothing more than a typical squabble between congressional districts and their representative government contractors. There is no ideological struggle here other than the ideology of lobbyists.

      1. Which of course is the point: ideology is only useful as a talking point if it is congruent with your own sensibilities.

        I give you as an example the chest-thumping of the right regarding the government in our lives vs the insistence to deny private bedroom predilections. Or marriage equality, for that matter.

        It’s not just space.

      2. There is a very great difference between the contracting to build NASA’s designed and owned SLS, vs contracts to assist in the creation and also paying the fare for the first trips of a privately designed and privately owned taxi which can be ridden by anyone with the fare.

  3. Something needs to be done with these Republican Traitors. Ted Cruz and Richard Shelby need to be stopped from harming NASA permanently.

    1. Um, would you care to elaborate how Ted Cruz and Richard Shelby are to be “permanently” stopped for being “traitors”?

      1. Either vote them out (unlikely) or have the senate makeup shift (rather likely). Not permanent but at least open-ended.

        1. That’s unlikely to happen given the level and kind of gerrymandering we’ve seen over the last 10 years. It’s to the point where it’s virtually impossible for some representatives to voted out. That aside, given the lack of interest in space shown by the public, space issues will not decide any election.

          1. That’s why I said it is unlikely to vote them out, but as i pointed out, it is very possible to put them in the minority in 2016. The technical structure of the electoral map in 2016 puts the Republicans at a severe disadvantage. but, of course anything can happen.

          2. I find myself in agreement with you much of the time, Yale, but truly if you see a way to deny Republican majorities in the next ten years I sure can’t follow your logic.

            The House will remain locked up for at least 20 more years. The Senate, perhaps12, certainly 8.

            Barring some tumultuous event in American public life, that is.

          3. It is structural issues. Essentially which specific senator in which specific state that is up for election and how and why they were elected in the 2010 midterm. For instance look at endangered republican mark kirk in illinois who will likely run against tammy duckworth. Rubio’s open seat in fl is definitely in play.
            An excellent essay and starting point is from a lifetime gop activist:

            http://blog.chron.com/gopli…

            Contrariwise you have the very astute nate silver:
            http://blog.chron.com/gopli…

            Now silver was arguing the presidential race and i am talking senate.

          6. Psi, I agree with you about gerrymandering, but in this case in doesn’t apply quite as much since we are talking about the Senate. Now, if you replaced “gerrymandering” with “term limits”, well…. 😉

          7. In the case of senators, since they are statewide offices, it is more voter suppression then gerrymandering. In this particular case it does not matter much as they are safe seats. But to clarify, I think their teeth are going to be pulled in 2016 when they likely go into the minority.

          8. My gerrymandering comment was about the House. My point, unstated as it was, was that we’ll unlikely see any bill pass with increased commercial crew funding in the near future given the virtually locked-in status of representatives. Without a change in the House, any change in the Senate isn’t likely to improve the odds of such funding increase ever making it to the President’s desk.

            The House is really the primary source of governmental deadlock right now. Fixing that is going to require many states changing how they draw their districts, something which also not likely to happen.

          9. I would conjecture that with a Dem executive branch and a Dem senate and a weakened houe majority that there might be some wiggle room. The conflicting bills go to conference, then the magic happens. At that point the Ace is played where the GOP gets the soft on the Ruskies label. With pressure from the left and the right, the magic compromise could happen. Unfortunately, all this cannot happen before 2017. Now this may be delusion, but at least its a happy delusion.

          10. Senatorial elections, at least, cannot be gerrymandered. As for Representatives, work to create non-partisan electoral commissions in your state.

          11. An ideal solution in many ways but troubling in others. As much as I would like to see the completion of the House (and my own state House/Senate change), I do think that apportionment is the voice of the people, at least in some ideal sense. The fact is that my fellow citizens with whom I disagree won the election, and I’m wary of denying them the majority.

            On the other hand, the case that apportionment is being abused in easy to make. Here in Florida, I live on the southwest coast. My federal district reaches across the Everglades to Miami-County, linking my conservative area with pockets of Republican support on the east coast to make safe districts.

            It is clearly the case that apportionment is a problem. But on the other hand, so is giving Delaware two Senators.

          12. We actually passed a constitutional amendment against gerrymandering in Florida. The State Legislature simply ignored it, with the permission of the State Supreme Court.

      2. I can’t really approve of calling anyone a traitor, though serious blindness to the real interests of the country is so rampant (on both sides of the aisle) it certainly looks that way. Just goes to show how good people are at twisting their thinking to align with their personal interests. But it is a critical problem in our democracy, threatening to become a fatal defect.

        The only way to fix it (it seems to me) is to severely limit the influence of money over politics. That probably means reversing Citizens United, and that means changing the Supreme Court. Which means changing the Senate and keeping the presidency in (relatively) progressive hands.

        So, rocket science begins at a blackboard, and ends in politics.

    3. It’s hard to take any statement seriously that starts with the flinging around of the word “traitors.” Exaggeration does not a point make.

    4. Instead of being traitors, i would say they are guilty of nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance.

  4. Let’s assume these guys are acting rationally. What do they gain by this action? Because it looks irrational, to me.

    1. I’m not sure that this is a reasonable assumption upon which to base a debate.

    2. I think they are assuming a zero sum game. Whatever is pulled from the commercial crew goes to the PorkLifter/Orion where the real pork is, $3bill per year forever.

      1. Precisely…it IS zero-sum. Worse, many Congressmen want to make the pie even smaller.

  5. It would be pretty convenient if the funding shortfall left NASA having to down-select to one company, putting reliability and pedigree first – meaning Boeing. Just saying.

  6. Playing with OpenSecrets, Mikulski gets more funding from LM and ATK than from Boeing, and I can’t see anything from SpaceX. Interesting stand for her to take.

    1. This is her last term, she’s not running for re-election in 2017 so the usual heuristics may not apply.

  7. How about this line?

    It’s pretty obvious the intent of Congress is to force NASA to down select to one commercial crew provider, yet, they are still providing the funds to fully fund one provider and partially fund another.

    So, why not fully fund SpaceX and partially fund Boeing? After all, NASA is being fiscally responsible by opting for the less expensive vehicle, and, all things being equal, the two are very similar in terms of NASA’s commercial crew selection scoring.

    1. I hadn’t read down to this post before I made a similar one. I agree with you. Paying SpX and Boeing the same amount for the same service sounds about right to me and makes the delay disappear.

    1. It’s stomach-churning to watch this play out at the same time as republicans fight to provide arms to Ukraine. How can they support both of these policies at the same time? What possible logic would justify both of these decisions? Oh right, they both give money to defense contractors.

      1. Congress doesn’t want Astronauts launched on Russian engines. Unless they are launched on Russian rockets. Then it’s OK.

  9. If the request uses the payouts for milestones from the contracts this may not be a problem. SpaceX flights have slipped until FY ’17, from what the contracts say. The first uncrewed flight was to be next March, but Shotwell says Dec. There will be several flights in that year. That is when a large increase in funding will be needed. I read that the requests are based on the milestone payments. No idea if it came from the contracts or what SpaceX says they will finish. If it is this hard to get this much increase for next year, it will be really hard to get the huge increase needed for the following year. Someone should check NASA on this. I have not checked, but I would think the flights will be more costly than any other milestone. I think they still pay by work completed, not by draws, no matter what is done.

    1. The big increase is really needed now, so Boeing / SpaceX can actually start building their spacecraft. An analogous situation from the Apollo program, the Apollo budget peaked in 1966, the year before test flights began.

      1. I don’t think SpaceX needs that much money to build Dragon 2. Once they fly Dragon 2 to ISS as cargo ship will they still fly cargo Dragon 1s or does ISS cargo pay partially for Dragon 2?

        What the difference in the cost of building a dragon 1 compared to a dragon2 ?

        1. Well, a few hundred million dollars isn’t “that much money” on the scale of dollar amounts we are talking about, I suppose.

          The Cargo Dragon will still fly for their 8 remaining CRS flights, whether or not SpaceX is going to propose a cargo version of the Dragon V2 for CRS2 is yet to be seen, but IIRC they have said that is their long term plan.

          The Cargo Dragon is much simpler than the Dragon V2 (it has no docking ring, life support systems, etc.), so it would be considerably cheaper to build them. I will make a WAG at $30-50 million for a Cargo Dragon and $120-150 million for a Dragon V2. The per-unit cost is probably closer to the lower end of that guess, but I’m not sure.

          1. Isn’t NASA demanding a new dragon for each launch? If this is still the case, it would seem difficult to square your WAG with the ~$133M per-flight incremental cost under the contract.

          2. They asked for a new capsule for each Cargo launch, but the commercial Crew contracts allow for capsule re-use. Since both both CST-100 and the Dragon V2 are intended to touch down on land, this should be easier than reuse after saltwater immersion.

          3. Thanks for the clarification. However I am also under the impression that NASA was requesting parachute landing. You might think that the V2 would be able to use its superdracos similar to the Soyuz landing rockets, but the dragon dangles at an angle, so I thought that parachute landing was meant for water only.

          4. NASA does want them to start with parachute to splashdown. I expect we will see that at least on the first manned test flight. I understand that SpaceX is likely to swiftly transition away from splashdowns to propulsive land landings. Each SuperDraco can be throttled independently, so it should be a relatively trivial matter to level out the capsule prior to touchdown.

            Whether or not they develop propulsive landing incrementally like this, these options are available:

            Parachute – splashdown
            Parachute – Soyuz-style retro-rocket blast – soft-splashdown
            Fully propulsive – soft-splashdown
            Parachute – Soyuz-style retro-rocket blast – touchdown on land
            Fully propulsive – touchdown on land

            I anticipate that SpaceX will do all of these in their propulsive landing tests, whether or not they do them all on operational flights, and how quickly they will transition away from splashdowns, I guess we will see.

          5. Hopefully SpaceX will be able to stick to a simpler recovery scheme than Orion for offshore recovery; things could get expensive fast.

          6. SpaceX’s in-water recovery will probably be a lot like Apollo. Drop a basket from a helicopter for the crew and pick up the capsule with a ship-board crane.

          7. The recovery of the cargo Dragon uses a crane mounted on a barge, and a tugboat. This might well be satisfacotry for a crewed vehicle as well, but for Orion (with the same size crew) the requirements include an assault aircraft carrier and a complement of helecopters, as did the Apollo recoveries.

            It’s not particularly safe for the crew to get out of a capsule in the water without assistance.

          8. Yeah, SpaceX will also likely use a helicopter to recover the crew.

          10. Well, for Mars it would most likely be:
            Parachute – propulsive deceleration – powered touchdown on land

            Which is also an option for Earth, now that I think about it.

          11. Reused modified dragon does lake landing on Titan.

            Once SLS eats NASAs big planet mission budget SpaceX will take that over too.

          12. Unlikely, to say the least. A Dragon would need very extensive modifications to fly to and land on Titan.

            I’ll believe that will happen when I see the proposals for a mission plan.

            Nevermind that SpaceX hasn’t expressed the slightest interest in interplanetary exploration, other than being willing to launch missions anywhere a customer wants to pay for. Elon Musk wants to go to Mars, so that’s their ultimate end game. And they won’t do that if they’re turning themselves into NASA.

          14. Sample return without breaking the bank!
            Blasphemy!
            These links should be destroyed to protect the church

          15. Good points. Add Super Dracos to the cost and then an F9. Shotwell said they would charge cargo prices for crew. I don’t see how with the increase in cost of V2.

          16. You’re right, it definitely won’t be the same price per launch as cargo.

  10. There was a huge disparity between when commercial crew was going to launch and when the SLS/Orion were going to launch.
    How much closer will these launches be now and is congress trying to delay commercial crew so SLS/Orion doesn’t look to be so far behind?

    1. There’s an interesting idea. The first test launch of SLS is supposed to be Nov. 2018, but NASA has said that date is likely to slip to later, no matter how much funding it gets. First flight of Orion on SLS is supposed to be NET 2021.

      1. So if this delays it to 2019 (Nelson’s speech on the floor said four years) to 2021 …
        WOW .. the republicans have CLOSED THE GAP
        oops .. wrong gap, was supposed to the russian one

  11. A Modest Proposal…

    The funding shortfall is essentially the same as the difference in awards to Crew Dragon and CST100 to do the same job.
    So.. pay the same and the problem goes away.

    1. That’s a bit like expecting to pay the same amount to two different companies who have designed a bridge to go over a river. Let’s say one company has designed a suspension bridge, the other has designed a truss-arch bridge. Sure, they’re both doing the “same job,” but each company has made a different design. Each company has to do different ground work to prepare to build their bridges. Each company is using different materials to build the bridge. Each company has different management styles. Each company has different overhead costs and labor costs, and so on.

      1. I was being snarky. but… if they actually did the same job, i am not particularly sympathetic to what may be a poor approach. If one built a railroad bridge and and another a car bridge, fine. Orherwise, tuff noogies.

        1. I figured it was snark, but similar things are said by people who really haven’t though it through.

          1. But as to my points beyond the snark, I still believe. Boeing is getting a billion and a half $ more for the same job and they won’t even do an in-flight abort test. I don’t give a hoot for rewarding an inefficient, poorly managed, gold-plated operation for being an inefficient, poorly managed, gold-plated operation.

          2. Do you expect Hyundai and Chrysler (or any other two car companies) to have the same prices for their vehicles? They do the same job, get you from point A to point B, have a reasonable expectation of reliability and safety, 4 wheels, 4 doors, V6 engine, etc.

          3. If I were paying for the essentially same service, then yes, I will only pay the same.
            The purpose of the competition is to create a taxi SERVICE with the same general specs. If a company that is microscopic compared to Boeing can do it, then that is what it costs.

            http://www.nationalreview.c…

          4. Actually, SpaceX and Boeing’s aerospace division are of a comparable size.

            The article you linked to is 8 months old, is misinformed and can be written off without any further consideration.

            “a “Critical Design Review” could count as a milestone, but all it is, really, is a meeting with Powerpoint presentations indicating the status of the project.”

            No, it’s not. Ask an engineer who has been through a CDR what hell it is. You have to show where you are in the project, yes, but you also have to prove that the design not only meets specifications, but that it can be made as designed, demonstrate how you’re going to make it, that you have the supply chain to make it, what problems you have and haven’t anticipated to come up when making it, how to address those problems, etc. It’s no simple task. Goes downhill from there. Boeing has several test articles and has major subsystems that are complete and have been undergoing testing. Article ignores those completely. It at best is misinformed and misrepresents the progress of Boeing.

            I rather thought you were better informed than this, yales.

      2. One other thing to keep in mind (and totally mix this thread into another current thread) is the expense of the LV, and the fact that CST-100 is supposed to use a launch vehicle using Russian engines. A mind that comes up with shenanigans could see a way that some of that extra fundage is to a CYA maneuver to keep CST-100 on track while waiting for an American LV to be man-rated that is not SpaceX.

        1. That certainly is a factor in the price difference. Also CST-100 will be transferring to the Vulcan rocket when that rolls off the factory floor, though since it will be using the same upper stage the transition should be relatively seamless, at least for that mode of operations.

  13. Simple solution – down select to a single vendor now. There is no realistic scenario which has a sufficient frequency or longevity of missions to realize a net savings by continuing to carry multiple contractors and there is no realistic sign of a non-NASA market materializing to expand the number of potential missions beyond NASA anyway. Congress controls the money and they have made it clear they are tired of wasting money supporting more vendors than the need justifies. Nor is it realistic to think that the administration in place in 2017 will be interested in supporting multiple contractors. NASA can still hold their 2017 schedule for replacing Soyuz just as easily with this budget as with their full request – Bolden just has to be willing to back down on his subbornness against down selecting.
    (For the record, I don’t personally care which one.)

    1. I assume that the lack of missions you refer to it the sls. Bigelow aerospace is estimating dozens of private launches.

      1. There is no evidence that Bigelow has a credible business case for commercially sustainable long term operations. This point has been discussed here before and nobody has been able to offer a viable business model for sustained LEO operations at currently projected best-case-scenario costs other than relying government funding. Barring a technology break through, Bigelow’s operations will not out last Mr. Bigelow’s personal desire to spend his own money on it, or alternatively, their ability to attract government contracts. The projected cost models of the two current bidders on the NASA human LEO mission contract are no where near low enough to support a commercially sustainable LEO tourism market. As such, the only addressable market for the current contractors is the NASA ISS market itself, which as discussed above will be scarcely more than a dozen missions at best.

        The only way to break the endless NASA / contractor cycle is to spend NASA money directly on technology development focused specifically on order-of-magnitude scale reduction of LEO transportation costs. The current CCDev contract process completely fails to do so and at best can offer only a short term stop-gap alternative to NASA exporting its money to Russia, but nothing else in the way of real progress to a commercially sustainable human space flight industry.

    2. There are only two contractors, both appear capable,and eliminating either one would be counterproductive. The element of competition will act to substantially lower costs. Evolution to a strategy of developing infrastructure in LEO for assembling and fueling BEO missions will allow even human flights to the Moon and Mars to be accomplished with commercial launch vehicles at an affordable price.

      1. If that was NASA’s strategy, maybe maintaining multiple contractors would make sense. But it isn’t. NASA’s strategy right now is to exit LEO human space flight after 2024 and to operate roughly two human LEO launches per year from 2017 at the earliest until 2024. That is a maximum of 16 launches total (at best), which is grossly insufficient to realize a net savings from competition versus the cost of maintaining duplicate contractors.
        If you are saying that NASA’s strategy is junk and needs fundamental replacement, then I would agree with you and then maybe there would be good reason for maintaining multiple vendors for the human LEO mission, but in the context of the overall strategy NASA is requesting Congress to fund, it is idiotic to maintain duplicate vendors for what NASA is defining as a limited mission and Congress is only being logical in pressuring NASA to down select to a single vendor when prioritizing their expenditures. If NASA does change its strategy to rely on ongoing, open ended human LEO operations, then they certainly need to do a better job than the two present competitors, both of whom are proposing (even at this early phase) total costs that work out on a per person and per pound delivered to LEO basis as more expensive than continued operation of the shuttle they were supposed to replace. In which case, NASA is still left with the situation where it makes sense to down select the current competition now to a single LEO vendor (at most) as a temporary stop gap measure to get past bleeding money on Soyuz now and direct the remaining development money to development of long term solutions that have plausible prospects for meaningful cost savings for open ended LEO operations.

  14. The planet robots guys better worry. SLS will eat you next.

    SLS is/will destroy NASA as we know it.

  15. Senator Shelby sends NASA dollars to Putin rather than to Boeing or SpaceX. A GOP Congress, both houses, recommend we fund a hostile power via NASA dollars. The price of your pork….

  16. “The sequester made me do it!” “It” being vacuuming money from useful efforts into a one-US-Senator-designed mission to nowhere. Good going, Sen. Shelby! And you can imagine, even if something replaces the sequester agreement, exactly how much will ever find its way back into commercial crew effort as long as he’s chairman.

Comments are closed.