NASA will be fully funded at $16.2 billion!

[wvbraun]

It now looks like NASA will get $15.9 billion next year. That's still short of the requested 16.2 billion but much better than what the House and the Senate originally had in store for NASA: 15.1 billion and 15.6 billion, respectively. Apparently President Bush made it clear (again) that he would veto any bill that failed to adequately fund NASA.<br /><br /><br /><i> "As negotiations continue on a massive budget bill for fiscal 2005, the White House sent a letter Wednesday to Capitol Hill, threatening to veto any bill that gives too little, or too much, to NASA.<br /><br />Listing the space agency's budget among President Bush's top priorities, White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten told Senate and House budget writers that Bush would reject anything close to the House's version of the NASA budget."</i><br /><br /><br />White House draws line on NASA's 2005 budget<br /><br /><br />From spacetoday.net:<br /><br /><i>NASA will get $15.9 billion in fiscal year 2005, $300 million less than originally requested, according to a deal reportedly reached by House and Senate negotiators. Space News reported late Wednesday that Congressional negotiators, hammering out an omnibus 2005 budget bill this week, have agreed to give NASA $15.9 billion in FY2005, which started October 1. That amount is less than what President Bush requested, although significantly more than the $15.1 billion the House Appropriations Committee approved in July. Details about how that money will be distributed among NASA's programs was not released, although the article noted that exploration programs will suffer some cuts to help pay for work to return the space shuttle to flight as well as initiate a robotic repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. NASA and many other federal agencies have been operating under a temporary "continuing resolution" that provides funding only through November 20; Congress is in a brief lame-duck session this</i>

 

[rogers_buck]

I would expect some short term success. Budget woes and deficits will be a severe problem in subsequent years. Right no inflation is on the rise and deficits are continuing on the same trend. The feds will be short on money before long and the deficit hawks will start asserting themselves.<br /><br />In the meantime, programs like the X-43C have been sceapped in favor of the initiative's old fashioned technologies. A treade-off of future cheaper space vs. building on existing technology to recapture the past.<br />

 

[wvbraun]

Hey rogers, whenever I read your negative, pessimistic posts I want to puke.<br /><br /><br />"In the meantime, programs like the X-43C have been sceapped in favor of the initiative's old fashioned technologies. A treade-off of future cheaper space vs. building on existing technology to recapture the past."<br /><br />LOL. You think scramjets would have given us CATS? Dream on, NASA tried that already (NASP). BTW: The military will continue funding these toys...<br />The technologies that will be used for the new space initiative are technolgies that have been proven to work and that's a good thing. We don't need another X-33-style disaster.

 

[thecolonel]

LOL... <br /><br />wvbraun... when are you going to come over here to america and put your enthusiasm to work for the space program? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[rogers_buck]

Just being practical. Money has to come from somewhere. The Russians can tell you what happens when the govt is broke.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

What exactly do you think they are testing with the X-43A? They are testing their mathematical models and simulation systems. Those will all be locked up now behind the grossly inefficient black budget black holes. When they finally do emerge in some practical application it will be for something usefull like a small kill vehicle. I don't consider this good news, but at least it is better than oblivian.<br />

 

[halman]

wvbraun,<br /><br />This means that there will be about 5 billion for manned space exploration this coming fiscal year. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[blacknebula]

My question is whether or not Bush will veto the $15.9 billion dollar proposal.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I would expect some short term success.</font>/i><br /><br />Do you mean success with respect to funding, technical advancement, operational advancement, or what?<br /><br />I agree with you that NASA's budget will be highly constrained going forward, but given that it is a non-DOD government group (conspiracy theories not withstanding) that is not getting cut, this is pretty good. Also, given the fact that the President provided some/any encouragement is good.<br /><br />I also complain about long-term legacy efforts creating a funding barrier to new ideas (the shuttle eating its young), but NASA is still a political organization, so there will always be a certain amount of baggage that comes along with that (e.g., pork barrel).<br /><br />On the bright side, in approximately six years things will probably look substantially different than they do today. ISS will be essentially completed and the shuttle efforts winding down, so money will start shifting to new efforts. And Private efforts such as Virgin Galactic should be well under way, and efforts such as SpaceX and Bigelow will have been decided (for success or failure).<br /><br />Six years may seem like a long ways away, but it will go remarkably quickly.</i>

 

[rogers_buck]

I mean with respect to funding. <br /><br />I think your analysis is spot on. I'm not so sure the shuttle will be done in 6 years though. Too many things have to happen on an optomistic schedule for that to happen.<br /><br />The demise of the democrats is by no means the end of factions that will stand in the way of an adaquate NASA budget. Bush won't be running again and there will be divisions within the republican party as deficit hawks reassert themselves and the "next generation" leadership looks to distance itself from the excesses of this administration. Republicans haven't exactly historically been good for the space program.<br /><br />verner's optomism seems a little naive of the nations economic problems. It will be nice if he is right and I look forward to appologizing if Bush keeps NASA in the dosh. That will be a nice problem for me to have.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[wvbraun]

Update:<br /><br /><i>The AP reports that final negotiations over the FY2005 budget may have resulted in some extra money for NASA. According to the report, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay won an extra $300 million for the space agency—part of an increase in the across-the-board cuts on other non-defense and non-homeland security programs from 0.75 to 0.83 percent—<b>bringing its budget to around $16.2 billion for FY05. This is the same amount that President Bush originally requested</b>, although presumably the new budget includes extra funding for shuttle RTF and Hubble repair work not in the original budget. Still, that $300 million could make a significant difference in supporting programs linked to the Vision for Space Exploration in the coming year.</i><br /><br />That's fantastic. The VSE is off to a good start. I think it was very important to get close to the original budget request in this first year, not only to start work on actual projects but to make it clear that this initiative is here to stay.

 

[wvbraun]

Update from Frank Sietzen:<br /><br /><i>"In the pre-dawn hours Saturday morning, a House-Senate conference committee reversed itself and agreed to fully fund $16.2 billion for NASA's FY05 budget. The conferees had been moving towards a $15.9 billion appropriations for the space agency. The final amount is exactly what President Bush had requested for NASA, and fully funds the space shuttle, space station resupply, and initial spending for the president's space exploration vision.<br /><br /><b>The action is a stunning victory for NASA chief Sean O'Keefe's legislative strategy, as detailed in my UPI stories throughout the summer. Furious last-minute maneuvering during the week, and the intercession of the Bush White House Office of Management and Budget as well as House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) helped push the budget talks over the top for NASA.</b><br /><br />NASA sources tell me this morning that, as a result, it will be "full speed ahead" for the space plan, and the first RFP to build the new Constellation moonships will be released just after the Inauguration in late January."</i><br /><br /><br />Four more years and full funding for the VSE! This is almost too good to be true. Now it's up to NASA to prove they still have the right stuff.

 

[grooble]

Excellent.

 

[rogers_buck]

One down, three to go. The next three will be tough at best.

 

[wvbraun]

"...will be tough at best."<br /><br />You said the same about next year's budget. <br />Pessimism (please don't give me that "I'm only being realistic" crap) will get us nowhere.<br />All the people who ever changed something for the better were optimists and believed in the future. Why don't you try that for a change?

 

[wvbraun]

NASA budget chart (1993-2005)

 

[grooble]

Just hope the extra $'s = Results.

 

[arobie]

Awesome! Off to a great start. <br /><br />Man, anything dealing with space has just got better and better this past year. Both private industry and NASA has everything going great. Both are getting money pumped into them, and both are building new ships. I love this! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Excuse my ignorance, but what does RFP stand for?

 

[omegamogo]

Yippie! Finally some good news regarding NASA's budget (Although I still think NASA is underpayed).

 

[lunatic133]

Great news! Isn't 16.2 even more than was originally requested? It's such a relief that the budget cuts didn't get through. Now we just have to get the momentum started so we can get the next few years funded ... looks like Dear Old Georgie came through for us after all <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

Nice chart wvb, showing 6 years of steady growth. But are they constant $$$?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

You must be sniffing some of your rocket fuel to be so optomistic in the face of such discouraging economic indicators. Record budget deficits, record trade deficits, inflation, high-paying job loss, and tax cuts. I guess you are the ideal Enron investor.<br /><br />My glib forecast is simply based on basic economics. If A+B = C and C is large, and A is earned then B must be borrowed. Since A is going down and C is going up B is getting bigger and bigger. Eventually, the pressure to decrease B is impossible to withstand. <br /><br />I am also not ignorant of the fact that reducing B is a big issue for the republican party. If it plans on having a future it will go for reducing B eventually. <br /><br />Those who would replace Bush on the republican ticket will be the biggest promoters of reducing B to distinguish themselves and (quite probably) put distance between their prospects and the failed policies of the current administration. Whereupon Nasa will be a victim of B reduction.<br /><br />In the meantime, I am concerned about programs that Nasa will not be pursuing in leu of its perceived long term new mission. Some of these programs will no doubt be missed. Apart from the X-43C, I am not currently aware of any others and look forward to reading others comments on that topic.<br />

 

[yree]

ongress Fully Funds NASA - $16.2 Billion Funds Shuttle, ISS & Clears Way for Vision to Start<br /><br />(Washington, D.C.) - U.S. Representative Dave Weldon (R-FL) voted in favor of the final FY 2005 federal spending bill, which cleared the House today. Included in the measure was legislation that will fund NASA. In January, President Bush requested NASA be funded at $16.2 billion. This includes Florida-specific programs like Space Shuttle, International Space Station (ISS) and will enable NASA and industry to begin work on the Constellation Crew Exploration Vehicles, which will be integrated and launched from Florida.<br /><br />"Today the Congress puts its stamp of approval on the President's Vision by fully funding NASA. I am proud that Congress also states that Space Shuttle Return to Flight is NASA's top priority and the essential first step for the Vision," said U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D.<br /><br />In addition to proving funding, the legislation calls on NASA to provide near term and detailed reports on the future direction on Shuttle, ISS, future launch needs and the eventual transition to new human-rated space vehicles.<br /><br />FY 2005 is the fourth budget presented by President Bush and shows a clear upward trend in terms of funding for NASA.<br /><br />Weldon concluded, "I want to thank Chairman Young, Leader DeLay and President Bush for working hard and showing leadership on making sure NASA was priority this year. It is clear that a Republican Congress and a Republican Administration view space as a priority, reversing the downward funding trend of the last Administration. This is great news for the agency and to all the people working at KSC."<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15543

 

[yree]

US Senate <br />The NASA space agency, a priority of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, found a last minute boost to $16.2 billion, an increase of $822 million over last year's levels.<br />http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=953116&tw=wn_wire_story

 

[grooble]

I'm glad about this, i think we're looking at 4 Solid years of VSE funding, and these first years are the hardest and most crucial, to get the program on a roll and real. <br /><br />