The House and Senate Appropriations Budgets for NASA

by Douglas Messier
Parabolic Arc Managing Editor

The Senate and House Appropriations Committees have put forth significantly different spending plans for NASA in FY 2014.  The Senate would fund NASA at $18 billion, a nearly $300 million increase over  President Barack Obama’s $17.7 billion request. The House would cut the request by $1.1 billion to just under $16.6 billion.

The two house of Congress have major disagreements over several funding priorities. The House significantly reduces the Administration’s request for the Commercial Crew Program and prohibits NASA from spending money on its proposed Asteroid Retrieval Mission until the space agency develops a more detailed plan. The House also makes a deep cut in the Earth Science budget.

The Senate makes a much smaller cut in commercial crew, and it is silent on the asteroid plan.  It also provides a small increase in the President’s request for Earth science.

Appropriators from both houses have boosted spending for the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft even as they fretted over NASA’s progress on developing its heavy-lift booster. They also increased funding for Planetary Science and rejected deep cuts in NASA’s Education budget.

Spending Plans Compared

The table below shows the Presidential budget request (PRB) and the amounts provided by the House and Senate Appropriations committees.

Space Exploration

The Senate adds just under $294 million to the President’s request for these programs while the House cuts the request by $303.5 million. The major disagreements involve retrieving an asteroid and how generously to fund the Commercial Crew Program.

Asteroid Retrieval Mission

Although the Senate bill is silent on the matter, the House budget nixes proposed spending on NASA’s Asteroid Retrieval Mission until the space agency can complete more detailed studies.

“The Committee believes that NASA should take the time to complete further concept studies, pursue the support of Congress through the authorization process and line up support from potential international partners before seeking new resources to carry out the mission. In the interim, the Committee’s recommendation does not include any of the requested increases associated with the asteroid retrieval proposal.”

Commercial Crew

The Senate provides $775 million out of a requested $821.4 million, while the House reduces the request by $321.4 million to $500 million.

According to the House measure, the lower level of funding should be sufficient to get the agency through the next fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, 2014.

“At the recommended level, NASA will be able to support all remaining costs for the CCiCap base period and the Certification Products Contracts; all annual program support costs; and a portion of the Commercial Crew Certification Contracts phase, which is not estimated to begin until the summer of 2014.”

The House instructs NASA that the goal of commercial crew is to restore America’s independent access to the International Space Station “as quickly and safely as possible” and urges the space agency to make “strategic decisions about the number of industry partners to retain in the certification phase.”

The Senate budget is more attuned than the House’s spending plan to NASA’s goal of having redundant and competing crewed vehicles for ISS access.

“Within the funds available, the Committee directs NASA to ensure that multiple competitors remain, but remain mindful that, faced with a stagnant future budget, NASA should not take on obligations to more companies than can be practically supported. It is vital that NASA wisely invest available funds in companies that agree to adhere to NASA’s safety guidelines.”

However, the Senate is concerned over the possibility that much of NASA’s investment could be wasted if the crew vehicles don’t enter service until 2017 but ISS is decommissioned in 2020 as currently scheduled. NASA officials are exploring extending station operations until 2028.

“The Committee directs NASA to clearly define and plan for the operational longevity of the ISS, if it is advisable based upon NASA’s comprehensive assessment of the ISS, in order to justify its investment in commercial crew, and provides language within the act limiting NASA’s access to funds for additional commercial crew activities until the NASA Administrator certifies that the program is cost beneficial based upon the expected life of ISS.

“The Administrator’s certification that the program is cost beneficial, meaning it will produce a net positive return on investment, must be accompanied by a plan that is: (1) based on a comprehensive assessment of the essential modules, operational systems and components, structural elements, and permanent scientific equipment on board the U.S. segment of the ISS; (2) identifies the systems and components, elements, and equipment that are required to ensure safe and effective functioning and full scientific utilization of ISS; and (3) contains a long-term financial and operational plan, including a plan for engaging international partners, to extend the life of the ISS for as long is as safe and scientifically beneficial.”

Despite their differences on commercial crew, the House and Senate both agree on several matters. They want future rounds of the program to be conducted with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contracts rather than the Space Act Agreements that are currently being used. NASA has agreed to this plan.

The House and Senate also want NASA to “incentivize” the commercial crew partners to take on a greater amount of the financial risk than they have to date. NASA has funded the majority of development, yet the companies will own and operate the vehicles that are produced. The Senate bill reads:

“The Committee directs NASA when evaluating commercial crew proposals to evaluate and weigh the amount of funding the company will contribute to vehicle development and which investment will result in the best value for the Government.”

SLS and Orion

Well, they don’t call it the Senate Launch System for nothing.

The Senate is most generous when supporting the Space Launch System, the mammoth heavy-lift vehicle designed to lift 130 metric tons of cargo into orbit. And even though spending on SLS and its Orion deep-space capsule dwarf the Commercial Crew budget,  members of Congress are still unhappy with NASA’s performance on these programs.

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers.

The House and the President are not too far apart on funding these programs, with the House allocating an additional $94.9 million out of a total of nearly $3 billion. SLS and Orion both get boosts while the Exploration Ground Systems budget is cut modestly under the House plan.

The Senate is much more generous, exceeding the President’s request by $388.3 million for a total of $3.2 billion. The SLS and Orion budgets are both boosted while other budgets are fully funded at the requested levels.

Despite the large amount being spent, both Houses have serious concerns about the progress of SLS, which is set to fly unmanned in an initial 70-metric ton configuration in 2017 and fly the vehicle again with crew four years later. According to the House budget:

 “NASA has laid out a development plan to evolve from a 70 metric ton capability to 130 metric tons, and the Committee has supported this plan on the condition that NASA would not allow its near-term efforts to crowd out investments in upper stage development and the advanced booster system needed to complete the full evolution. Unfortunately, NASA continues to defer or descope activities needed to advance substantially beyond the initial SLS configuration with the interim cryogenic propulsion stage. As a result, the program would likely reach a plateau with the achievement of the 70 metric ton capability.

“For this reason, the Committee continues to urge NASA to allocate additional funds to SLS elements like advanced booster risk reduction, J2–X engine development and/or upper stage development, all of which are required for the program to progress beyond the initial configuration.”

The House measure requires NASA to provide Congress with quarterly reports detailing spending by major program elements. Representatives also want the space agency to provide more detailed budget figures in the future that will allow them to better understand all the costs associated with SLS, Orion and related programs.

The Senate is also unhappy with the level of detail in NASA’s budget requests.

“Despite numerous directives to provide an updated cost assessment for the SLS, which supports the lower funding levels proposed, NASA has never provided the Committee any verifiable documentation supporting the amount reflected in the agency’s budget request. Such blatant disregard for the direction provided by the Committee and for NASA’s own independent cost assessment for the SLS is inappropriate and calls into question NASA’s ability to appropriately manage and oversee its ongoing projects. The Committee cannot support NASA’s position to undermine its own, independently verified, funding plans and has instead provided the full amount assumed in the independent cost assessment for fiscal year 2014 for SLS in order to maintain a launch date of 2017. In furtherance of that goal, NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate shall not tax SLS for engineering or other activities not directly related to SLS vehicle development. The Committee cautions NASA against relying on anything other than an actual independent cost assessment in its recommendation for fiscal year 2015.”

The House also wants a report from NASA on the possibility of using the 130-metric ton SLS configuration “for purposes beyond NASA’s own human exploration program, including human spaceflight commercial partnerships and the support of robotic scientific missions. This report shall be provided no later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act.”

SLS and Orion Construction of Facilities

The Senate provides full funding for the President’s $142.3 million request for the construction of Orion and SLS ground facilities while the House makes a small $200,000 reduction in this budget. This funding  comes out of the Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration budget, which is separate from the Space Exploration budget.

Major initiatives included in the President’s budget request include: $13.9 million for improvements to Pad 39-B, which is undergoing a six-year overhaul expected to cost $86.5 million; and $99.2 million for renovations to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), VAB Utility Annex Area and Launch Control Center, which is a six-year, $138.9 million project.

Space Technology

Both houses make significant cuts in the Administration’s $742.6 million request for the Space Technology Budget. The House provides $576 million, a cut of $166.6 million, while the Senate funds the budget at $670.1 million, a much smaller $72.5 million reduction.

Satellite Servicing

This artist’s concept shows a servicing spacecraft, left, approaching a client satellite. NASA is developing technology needed to bring a high-technology “gas pump, robotic mechanic and tow truck” to satellites in orbit. (Credit: NASA)

The Senate provides $125 million in the Space Technology and Space Operations budgets for the development of satellite servicing capabilities. The goal is to establish a public-private partnership focused on developing technologies primarily capable of serving geosynchronous satellites.

“Funds shall be used to establish Restore, which shall be conducted as a public-private partnership where a competitively selected commercial entity will provide the mission’s spacecraft and launch vehicle to complement NASA’s supply of the key instruments necessary to operationalize a robotic servicing system for refueling satellites on orbit. This is an extension of satellite servicing work this Committee has funded since fiscal year 2010. In addition, funds may be used to continue advanced technology development to refuel, repair, and reposition satellites on orbit and to test satellite servicing technologies aboard the ISS.

“Technologies developed from this effort should be focused primarily on the servicing of satellites in geosynchronous Earth orbits but may also benefit those assets in low-Earth orbits. Any effort shall include capability to service other Government satellites operated by NOAA, the Department of Defense, and other Government agencies. The program shall focus follow-on commercial satellite servicing capability to meet the needs of both the commercial and government sectors.”

Space Act Agreements

NASA astronaut climbs aboard a mock-up CST-100 spacecraft July 22 at The Boeing Company’s Houston Product Support Center. (Credit: NASA)

While the House Subcommittee on Space authored strict provisions that would severely limit NASA’s ability to use Space Act Agreements, the Appropriations Committee stripped out all but one of them: a requirement that NASA put together a publicly available database of all current Space Act Agreements.

House appropriators believe that there is insufficient oversight of these agreements, which have taken the place of traditional contracts and are being increasingly used by the space agency.

More information is needed by the Committee to assess whether NASA is consistently utilizing SAAs in an appropriate manner, including correctly justifying the selection of an SAA rather than a FAR-based contract, following clear conflict of interest policies and accurately valuing the agency’s contributions to unfunded SAAs to ensure a fair exchange of services.

The additional information legislators need is expected to come in a review of NASA’s Space Act Agreements that Congress order the space agency’s Office of Inspector General to conduct. With the results of that review still pending, appropriators apparently concluded they had no basis to include the subcommittee’s proposed restrictions in the budget.

Science

The House slashes $236.8 million from the President’s $5 billion request for the science budget while the Senate provides an increase of $136.4 million.

The majority of the House cut, $187.1 million, comes from the  Earth science budget. On the other hand, the Senate provides a tiny boost of $100,000 in the President’s $1.85 billion request.

House Republicans have argued that the Obama Administration has boosted funding for Earth Sciences significantly over the past four years, that other government agencies are also conducting this research, and that much of NASA’s budget studies a non-existent global warming problem.

The House makes smaller cuts in the requests for the James Webb Space Telescope ($74.2 million), Heliophysics ($52.7 million), and Astrophysics ($20.3 million). However, House appropriators boost spending on Planetary Science by $97.5 million.

The Senate provides a $100.1 million increase in Planetary Sciences as well as boosts to every other program except the James Webb Space Telescope, which it fully funds in accordance with the Administration’s request.

Education

Both the Senate and House would reverse the Administration’s deep cut in NASA’s education budget. The House would provide $122 million, which would be $27.8 million above the $94.2 million requested and $408,000 below the appropriations for FY 2013.  The Senate budget provides $116.6 million for education, a $22.4 million boost over the Administration’s request.

Other House Provisions

A number of proposed changes included in earlier drafts of legislation did not made the final cut for the House Appropriations bill. They include:

• a requirement that NASA develop detailed plans for sending humans back to the moon and Mars;
• a plan to appoint the NASA Administrator to a renewable six-year term and to form an 11-member board to oversee the space agency;
• provisi0ns designed to prevent a Presidential administration from canceling ISS, SLS and Orion without prior Congressional approval, and to free up hundreds of millions of dollars contractors are holding in reserve in the event of such cancellations; and,
• severe restrictions on NASA’s ability to use Space Act Agreements.

Please follow Parabolic Arc on Facebook and Twitter.