Annual State of NASA Address, Media Budget Briefing Set for March 28
WASHINGTON (NASA PR) — NASA Administrator Bill Nelson will give the 2022 State of NASA address at 2 p.m. EDT on Monday, March 28, from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The event will air live on NASA Television, the NASA app, and the agency’s website.
Nelson will highlight NASA’s plans to explore the Moon and Mars, address climate change, promote racial and economic equity, and drive economic growth while sustaining U.S. leadership in aviation and aerospace innovation.
Following the State of NASA, Associate Administrator Bob Cabana and Chief Financial Officer Margaret Vo Schaus will host a virtual media teleconference at 4:30 p.m. to discuss the Biden-Harris Administration’s fiscal year 2023 funding request for the agency. Joining them for questions and answers are senior leaders from each of NASA’s mission directorates.
Audio from the budget briefing will stream live on NASA’s website.
Timing of these activities are based on the President’s budget release on Monday and are subject to change. Budget proposal for NASA and supporting information will post online March 28 as soon as possible at:
22 responses to “Annual State of NASA Address, Media Budget Briefing Set for March 28”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“-to explore the Moon and Mars, address climate change,-“
Well, two out of three ain’t bad…Mars, like LEO, is a dead end.
The Moon should be the focus of the space agency, as a way to solve climate change by using lunar resources to enable space solar power. A significant percentage of the DOD budget, at least 10 percent (70 billion dollars) should be directed at a program of monthly launches of 150 ton+ payload SHLV’s. The primary goal of the space agency should be to industrialize the Moon and accomplish energy delivery to Earth allowing a western standard of living for 10 billion by the end of the century.
The 100 billion minimum budget should be matched by international contributions and another 50 billion by industry. In fact, by making industrial concerns aware of future restrictions on the use of fossil fuel energy, they will likely, with very little enticement, contribute more than that. With a quarter of a trillion dollar annual budget, just for starters, the solution to climate change will finally be “addressed.”
if LEO is a dead end, then we are going no where in space as humans. our machines can roam the solar system but people wont go anywhere.
there is no resource on the Moon right now that has aany intrinsic value to earth at the cost it would take to retrieve it. and unless there is a product in micro gee that sustains LEO development (or say the national commitement to solar power) we will never mine the moon
That “national commitment to solar power” is of course the key. That is the “product.” That is what is going to expand humankind into the solar system and beyond. There is really nothing else except some vague snake oil pitch to make humans a “multi-planet species.” Except, Earth is the only planet suitable for colonization. We will have to manufacture artificial worlds to colonize space. Only Climate Change makes Space, by way of Space Solar Power, an urgent project.
I should have specified: LEO is a dead end for Human Space Flight. Comparing LEO as a duck pond and Deep Space as the North Atlantic is appropriate. I see our present situation as trying to negotiate an ocean with a canoe. We have not even figured out how to make a kayak yet really. What is required to travel in space, even across the small local cislunar sea to the Moon, is a Near Sea Level Radiation 1 Gravity environment (NSLR1G). The lunar resource of intrinsic value is water derived from ice that can be lifted into space to fill cosmic ray water shields using 20 to 25 times less energy than from Earth.
Ah yes, NASA focusing on the really really important things: like racial equity and global-climate catastrophism!
Ugh.
The Crypt-Keeper and his pet Orange Rocket to Nowhere. A $24 billion(!) NASA budget, but what does it produce for that enormous expediture? Certainly ungodly profits for Boeing, and favors of pork aplenty sprinkled to just the right Congressional districts.
Ugh.
The world is in the middle of a revolution in spaceflight technology/industrial advancement, but NASA is still mired in 1994-era policy preferences. A wooden-ship NASA in an ironclad world.
$L$ delenda est
not valid historical analogies. Musk might maybe have invented the fast sailing ships. he clearly has not made the transition to steam …
this is more hat than cattle
Falcon Heavy is ten times cheaper than SLS, in cost per kg of payload. Seems like a lot of cattle to me!
one would have to run the analysis. its unclear that FH can put a vehicle into lunar orbit, then leave lunar orbit and return to earth… that can carry people
6:00 to 7:12, Bridenstine himself said Falcon Heavy could do the job. He said that almost three years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
$L$ delenda est
When Jimbo said that I was entertained and did just some back of the envelope numbers. No one knows what a Dragon that was massed for four people with long term operation outside LEO would look like. If you just put together the MASS of Orion/service Module and assume that a Dragon with a service module would look like this mass wise. FH at least in some recoverable form can just barely do it. I assume that Jimbo or someone ran the numbers and looked at it…so I will tip my hat to that.
But a lunar effort with FH’s is not going to be cheap either. OK it would probably be less than one with Starship and SLS but its not cheap (BTW in print I have supported a lunar effort with FH) RGO
The ICPS stage is absurdly expensive. Of course it is, since it comes from Boeing. Each ICPS costs more than what SpaceX charges for an expendable Falcon Heavy launch! The Orion spacecraft program spends about $1 billion per year. The European Service Module is an absurd $300 million per unit, double the cost of a Falcon Heavy.
So yeah, a Falcon Heavy launching the ICPS plus Orion plus ESM, as a direct substitute for SLS block 1 launch of Orion/ESM, would not be cost ideal. But even so Falcon Heavy would still probably save at least $2.6 billion per Project Artemis mission, with a launch frequency of once per year. That kind of economy could fully fund two different lunar landers for NASA.
$L$ delenda est
Apples with oranges. the European service module comes from Europe. they are using some shuttle parts, but it comes from Europe.
Expensive is a throw down term…but I would suggest to you that it is associated in projects like these with risk. now you (and probably I) might disagree with how those risk are assessed.
But the entire “effort” behind Artemus is 1) a low flight effort so risk has to be reduced to keep development on track 2) a low support effort so risk has to be reduced to keep popular support and 3) a sort of long lived effort
you wont get me into a position defending SLS since I have been against it from the word go…but without the political buy in based on pork spending, there is no lunar program.
there simply is not political interest to do the lunar program if it doesnt have the correct alloted pork.
That’s true so long as the U.S. government – or any other government – is in the driver’s seat. But, anent Starship, Elon Musk is in the drivers seat. He’s perfectly happy to carry the U.S. gov’t. along in return for some gas money, but he’s not going to put up with a lot of backseat driving.
the problem with that, is that the economics that are driving Elon have nothing to do with human spaceflight. they have everything to do with starlink and deploying it…and there is no hint that Musk himself is willing to spend much money outside what he can get from Uncle on human spaceflight.
when government builds things there are two measures of objective. its part and parcel of goal and politics. the politics drove SLS and they invented goals to go along with it
private companies are bound by economics…ie the need to return profit on capital. I was reminded of that last night when we took my 12 year old out to Longhorn steak house to celebrate her birthday.
Normally they dont do reservations but well we needed to make sure that 16 people would have the best steak in Houston. and for the company that provides their beef, the table was all ready
(good news is the resturant business was booming so is mine) 🙂
Actually, ICPS comes from ULA.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/70…
https://www.nasa.gov/explor…
Boeing is the prime contractor for ICPS.
An FH-based lunar logistics architecture would easily be at least an order of magnitude cheaper than one based on SLS. But that is insufficiently cheap to meet Elon’s needs and, thus, Starship.
Starship has the potential to be 1000 times cheaper than SLS.
If anything, the wooden ships vs ironclads comparison is understated!
$L$ delenda est
Better comparison. Wooden sailing ships vs steam powered ironships with propellers.
HMS Victory vs. HMS Dreadnought. The USS Constitution vs. the USS Texas.
see what happens. it also has the potential to be just a modest improvement over Falcon it wont be 1000 times cheaper than SLS not with all those tanker flights required
Sure it will, on a payload-adjusted basis. To take merely to NRHO a payload mass equal to what HLS Starship can put down on the surface of the Moon would require at least three SLSes – probably more.