NASA Senate Bill Cuts Proposed R&D Effort, Funds Commercial Crew at Lower Rate
The Obama Administration’s effort to refocus NASA on technology development would take a major hit under a proposed budget being circulated in the Senate. The proposal slashes about $1 billion from a planned R&D budget while requiring NASA to begin immediate work on building a heavy-lift vehicle.
The Senate budget has mixed news for proponents of commercial space. It funds development of commercial rockets and spacecraft, although at a slower rate than the Obama Administration wants.The proposal also fully funds the Orion capsule.
On the plus side, it appears that NASA has won its argument to cancel the Ares I rocket, which would have carried astronauts to the International Space Station. So, it would appear that astronauts will be flying a commercial booster into orbit.
However, the Senate proposal also fully funds the Orion crew capsule. The Obama Administration originally canceled the program, preferring to obtain crew vehicles from commercial vendors. The Administration later brought back the vehicle as an ISS crew return vehicle. Commercial vendors see Orion as a government-funded competitor to their own crew capsules.
The Senate proposal slashes the roughly $1.2 billion that NASA had planned to spend in FY 2011 on technology demonstrations and heavy-lift rocket propulsion R&D to only $77 million. It also makes a cut in a separate Space Technology development budget from $572 million to $225 million.
Similar reductions are made in the budget for FY 2012:
- $437.3 million for Exploration Technology Development instead of the Administration $1.2 billion request;
- $450 million for Space Technology, a reduction from the President’s $1 billion proposal.
Instead, the Senate proposal would call for NASA to spend $1.9 billion in FY 2011 on developing a heavy-lift vehicle based on work done for the Ares program, which the President’s budget would cancel. The space agency would also spend $1.3 billion to build a full Orion capsule to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station. The Obama Administration had originally canceled the Orion program, but later brought it back as a stripped down crew return vehicle.
The agency’s commercial cargo and crew programs would remain in place, although they would be funded at reduced levels:
- Commercial cargo would be reduced from Obama’s $312 million request to $144 million for FY 2011;
- Commercial crew would be reduced from a $500 million request to $312 million in the Senate version in FY 2011;
- Commercial crew would be funded at $400 million for FY 2012, a reduction from the $.14 billion the Administration wants;
- Commercial crew funding would rise to $500 million in FY 2013, less than the $1.4 billion proposed for that year.
The Administration requested no funding for commercial cargo in FY 2012 or in future years.
The Senate budget also cuts NASA”s proposed robotic precursor studies and instruments program for FY 2011 from $125 million request to $44 million.
The draft legislation, which was spearheaded by Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, does keep for the Administration’s planned five-year, $1.9 billion facilities upgrade for Cape Canaveral on track. Funding for the initiative stays at the proposed $1.33 billion for FY 2011-13.
Senate Budget Proposal Details
FY 2011
Total Budget: $19 Billion
(Same as President’s Budget Proposal)
Exploration – $3.99 billion
- $1.3 billion for a multipurpose crew vehicle, and associated program and other necessary support; (full-scale Orion program)
- $1.9 billion for Space Launch System and associated program and other necessary support; (heavy-lift vehicle development – new program)
- $75 million for Exploration Technology Development;
- $215 million for Human Research;
- $144 million for Commercial Cargo;
- $312 million for Commercial Crew Development activities and studies related to commercial crew services; and
- $44 million for Robotic Precursor Studies and Instruments.
Aeronautics – $804 million
(Reduction from $1.15 billion request)
- $579.6 million for Aeronautics Research;
- $225 million for Space Technology (reduced from $572 million request)
Based on NASA’s original request, the major differences in Exploration and Aeronautics for FY 2011 are:
- An exploration technology development budget of only $75 million, cut from a roughly $1.2 billion request that included $652 million for technology demonstrations and $559 for heavy-lift and propulsion development;
- A new $1.9 billion program for a heavy lift vehicle development;
- $1.3 billion to continue to build a full Orion capsule, which was down-scaled to a crew rescue vehicle under Obama’s revised plan;
- $225 million for Space Technology development, less than half proposed $572 million proposed by the Administration;
- Commercial cargo reduced from Obama’s $312 million request to $144 million;
- Commercial crew reduced from a $500 million request to $312 million in the Senate version;
- Robotic precursor studies and instruments reduced from $125 million request to $44 million.
Space Operations – $5.5 billion
(Increase from $4.88 billion)
- $2.8 billion for the ISS program;
- $1.6 billion for Space Shuttle, to support Space Shuttle flight operations and related activities; and
- $1.1 billion for Space and Flight Services, of which $428.6 million shall be directed toward NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.
Science – $5 billion
(Same as President’s request)
- $1.8 billion for Earth Sciences;
- $1.5 billion for Planetary Science;
- $1 billion for Astrophysics; and
- $641.9 million for Heliophysics.
Education – $145.8 Million
(Same as President’s request)
- $25 million for Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research; and
- $45.6 million for the Space Grant program.
Cross-Agency Support Programs – $3.1 billion
(Same as President’s request)
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration – $394.3 million
(Reduction from $397.3 request)
Inspector General – $37 million
(Same as President’s request)
Senate Budget Proposal Details
FY 2012
Total Budget: $19.45 Billion
(Same as President’s Budget Proposal)
Exploration – $5,239,600,000
- $1.4 billion for a multipurpose crew vehicle and associated program and other necessary support, including mission and ground operations; (Orion crew capsule)
- $2.65 billion for Space Launch System and associated program and other necessary support; (heavy-lift vehicle)
- $437.3 million for Exploration Technology Development; ($1.2 billion requested)
- $215 million for Human Research;
- $400 million for commercial crew capabilities; ($1.4 billion requested)
- $100 million for Robotic Precursor Instruments and Low-Cost Missions ($506 million requested).
Aeronautics – $934.7 million
(Reduction from $1.6 billion request)
- $584.7 million for Aeronautics Research; (same as President’s request)
- $450 million for Space Technology (reduction from $1 billion request).
Space Operations – $4.23 billion
- $3 billion for the ISS operations and crew/cargo support; and
- $1.2 billion for Space and Flight Services, of which $500 million shall be directed toward the NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.
Science – $5,25 billion
- $1.95 billion for Earth Sciences;
- $1.55 billion for Planetary Science;
- $1.1 billion for Astrophysics; and
- $647.6 million for Heliophysics.
Education – $145.8 million
- $25 millon be for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research; and
- $45.6 million shall be for the Space Grant program.
Cross-Agency Support Programs – $3.2 billion
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration – $363.8 million
Inspector General – $38.7 million
3 responses to “NASA Senate Bill Cuts Proposed R&D Effort, Funds Commercial Crew at Lower Rate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Thanks for posting those budget proposals…But now I’m pretty discouraged. It seems to me that it reflects the wrong priorities on the part of both the Administration and Congress.
Averaging out the commercial portion, it seems like it is only about 2% of the overall NASA budget. But I see this part as being where the real opportunities lie. There is support for the commercial development of the LEO market but then apparently nothing commercial beyond LEO.
Further, so very much money is and will be spent on space operations. Considering how much money will be likely be spent on space operations to 2020 I can only imagine what could have been accomplished if that money had been spent incentivizing commercial companies to develop beyond LEO technology such as fuel depots, space tugs, medium-launched EDS, small lunar landers, demonstrating lunar ice extraction return to LEO.
From what I can tell, a heavy lift launcher is unnecessary until we go to Mars. To achieve this we should pursue a low payload, telerobotic approach to the development of lunar resources. We need to first focus on getting cheap fuel to LEO in the form of LEO depots provided by either cheap launches from the Earth’s surface or from lunar resources.
Man, what’s it going to take to change the priorities and understand how much commercial development of cis-lunar space can give?
In today’s press conference, Senators Nelson and Hutchison made it pretty clear that the HLV is for both LEO and BEO and will serve as a back-up for ISS missions should the commercial guys falter. It was interesting that Nelson seemed to highlight Lockheed and Boeing as commercial suppliers for ISS crewed missions. My guess would be that the Delta IV HL will be the odd-on favorite. ULA CEO Mike Gass’s testified in March before Nelson’s Committee that ULA would be glad to sell rockets to NASA but would not become a commercial crewed launcher. Probably because ULA’s Boeing and Lockheed Martin rocket subsidiaries almost went out of business trying to make a go at commercial satellite launching. Now, since NASA buying the rockets, I hope ULA will try to win the ISS crewed contracts. Because no other company has launchers ready at the masses that ULA does.
Ah, OK. It wasn’t clear to me a couple of days ago. That makes sense.
We would use use a shuttle-derived 75-ton-to-LEO HLV just to get an Orion capsule into orbit? Yikes. Sounds very expensive, which is probably the point: it keeps a small army of people employed.
What exactly do we have to launch beyond LEO that requires an immediate HLV? I guess we could send an Orion around the moon. Surface operations are another magnitude beyond that, and all the money is used up building and operating the HLV.