OMB Pushes Back On Senate Space Appropriations Thinking
Letter from OMB to Sen. Shelby regarding Senate versions of appropriations bills (NASA/Space excerpts)(PDF)
“The bill includes funding that the Administration believes is not in line with the overall effort to control non-defense spending reflected in the FY 2020 Budget request or underfunds key investments in critical areas supported in the FY 2020 Budget request, including:
– National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The Administration appreciates the Committee’s continued support for space exploration, reflected in the $22.8 billion provided in the bill for NASA, which includes an increase of $680 million for lunar-focused exploration programs. However, the $1.6 billion provided for exploration research and development (R&D) is insufficient to fully fund the lander system that astronauts would use to return to the Moon in 2024. Funding exploration R&D at the $2.3 billion level requested in the FY 2020 Budget is needed to support the Administration’s goal of returning to the Moon by 2024.
The Administration would also like to take this opportunity to share its views regarding language provisions in the bill including:
– NASA Europa Mission. The bill requires that NASA use the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket to launch the Europa Clipper mission. The Administration is deeply concerned that this mandate would slow the lunar exploration program, which requires every SLS rocket available. Unlike the human exploration program, which requires use of the SLS, the Europa mission could be launched by a commercial rocket. At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings. The Administration urges the Congress to provide NASA the flexibility called for by the NASA Inspector General and consistent with the FY 2020 Budget request.
– NASA financial systems report language. The Committee report includes directive language for NASA that would hinder the Administration’s efforts to help the agency make necessary corrections to its financial systems. These changes are needed to eliminate current deficiencies and improve NASA’s ability to efficiently comply with the Antideficiency Act.
– Satellite Instrumentation Report Language. The Committee report includes language that would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to study the impacts that instruments operating in the 23.6 to 24 gigahertz bands have on weather satellites. Such a study would be directly duplicative of past Agency studies on this subject, which were fully considered by the Administration in a lengthy interagency process earlier this year, leading to a carefully-wrought compromise that balances the spectrum needs of government and private enterprise. The Administration believes that further study is unnecessary, and asks that the language be removed.
The Administration appreciates that the bill includes funding for critical priorities, including:
– Space Force. The Administration greatly appreciates that the Committee establishes an “Operations and Maintenance, Space Force” appropriation within the Department of Defense (DOD) for the first time and has provided the requested funding for the initial operations of the United States Space Force. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to complement the Committee’s work by modifying Title 10 of the United States Code to establish the Space Force as the sixth branch of the Armed Forces in FY 2020.”
Umm…didn’t we just finish saying about half of that here? Maybe Congress should read this forum. 😉
” At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings.”
My, that should (but likely won’t) get some attention. One might even note that $1.5 billion would buy some significant amount of payload to launch on top on the rocket.
NASA could save 75% on the launch, and use the 1.5 billion saved for more political propaganda. That’s a win-win!
Three Discovery missions, or one New Frontiers and change. Maybe a light Neptune or Uranus orbiter. The phrase you’re looking for is “opportunity costs.”
Edit: And, while I’m at it, my take-home pay from now until continental drift takes San Francisco up to the same latitude as Vancouver (not adjusted for inflation…)
Congress: Doubles down on SLS and EUS. Doesn’t provide enough money to actually build a lander for a lunar surface mission. Sounds about right.
Every space junkie on the forums and blogs have been saying 2+ billion per launch .. for . .ever .. add in the Orion at 1.1 billion and the service module .. and the development costs .. which is always considered a gift from the tooth fairy .. and this is closer to 10 billion each for the first four launches.
It makes Titan/Gemini or Apollo/Saturn 1B look pretty good, doesn’t it?
My guess is that the recent contract movement for additional SLS cores will sufficiently appease Shelby and the SLS cohorts, and the Europa Clipper will be freed from the SLS as a bargaining chip during the House/Senate conference negotiations (Edit: Or at some other point in the budget process, when OMB’s concerns can be mollified in part by tossing in this bone). I hope, I hope. SLS HAS won in the short term, and there is no longer any need to shackle Europa Clipper to it from the POV of the SLS lobby and their purchased supporters. It will be a few more years, I think, before SLS becomes truly untenable in the upside-down logic of NASA program funding.
In a few years, Shelby may be out of the Senate. It doesn’t sound like he is doing much fundraising to run again.
Didn’t know that, SG. Thanks.
That last word in the title … I’m not at all sure it applies here.
Why are they so doggedly trying to prevent study of the critical issue of interference with microwave sounders on weather sats? Again and again the subject is pressed by various agencies, but OMB digs in their heels and says that they “compromised”.
This is a study by the USN regarding how catastrophic interference in the collection of this data would be to national defense:
https://www.wyden.senate.go…
How we deploy 5G is a very big deal, one that would not be easy to reverse and redeploy if we make a mistake as big as blinding our space moisture sensors.
I’m not sure I understand your objection. This issue has been studied. Are you saying the study is inadequate? Or are you saying you disagree with the decision about what to do about the issue? If you have a problem with the decision but not the study which informed it, how would further studies help? In that case, I’d think the sensible thing to do would be revisiting the decision not study.
The previous studies were generaly discounted in the conclusion reached by the FCC. As per the stated intention of the current administration to reduce regulations that interfere with MAGA, the Federal Communications Commission disregarded the objections of several cabinet officials, the aformentioned DOD and the geoscience community The potential iImpact of the adjacent frequencies being utilized by a constantly changing array of 5G installations (as well as the wild cards of mobile and airborne nodes) threatens the NOAA’s ability to accurately forcast the weather.
Now, am I advocating against the decision, or that further studies are warranted?
Yes and yes.
If that’s correct, then I still don’t see the value of another study. It would reach the same conclusions and those conclusions would be ignored by the same decision makers. A more direct solution would be getting it on the agenda for a congressional hearing and perhaps getting something written into the FCC’s authorization act. (I can’t believe I just said something positive about those processes.) I know repeating the same study is sometimes used pressure agencies into changing their decisions, but I just don’t see that as a very productive approach.
You are arguing that the studies have already been done.
Yes, individual agencies did study the issue, as it involves tens of billions
of dollars of our investment in the accurate forecasting of weather over the
decades. Their conclusions were scary. Back in May or June the FCC rejected the
Commerce Dept. and NOAA’s urgent request to delay the 5G spectrum auction while
the interagency discussion (which was ongoing) continued towards its
conclusion. There was no flippin’ deadline for this auction; the bidders were
busy lobbying, though. There is a LOT of money behind the spawn of Ma Bell. Do
you remember when the CEO of TMobile camped out in the lobby of the Trump hotel
ambushing influencers? That was about the Sprint/TMobile merger, but that
merger is all about 5G.
What did the FCC say when Commerce and NOAA made their plea
to delay the auction? It said that it had already “engaged extensively” with
Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, and
that matters had been settled by the State Department, the appointed “arbiter.”
Hmm. State Department is the arbiter? Putting aside the
chaos in the Dept. of State right now, there is the thorny issue of
international standards that we need to meet. The International
Telecommunications Union will make their decision on the spectrum issue soon.
The Senate Ways and Means committee has asked the FCC to reconsider what this
‘full speed ahead screw that iceberg’ philosophy will result in if we become an
outlier, on our illusory island, screwing up things for everybody.
This is not the time for letters and working within the
system; the system is failing because of sabotage. This is the time for a
full-court press against the FCC.