$16.6 Billion NASA Budget Clears House Panel

WASHINGTON — A House panel approved appropriations legislation Wednesday (July 10) that would give NASA $16.6 billion for 2014, cutting agency spending back to levels not seen since 2007.

As expected, the bill from the House Appropriations commerce, justice, science subcommittee assumes that across-the-board sequestration cuts set in motion by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will continue at least through next year, and that NASA won’t be spared. The proposal, unveiled late Tuesday (July 9), passed the subcommittee by a voice vote, setting the stage for the full Appropriations Committee to consider the bill the week of July 15.

The House panel’s proposed 2014 appropriation is about $300 million less than what NASA ended up with for 2013, roughly $1.2 billion below the agency’s 2012 budget and about $1.1 billion less than what the White House requested for the 2014 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. [Planetary Science Takes Budget Hit in 2013 (Infographic)]

Senate appropriators have yet to introduce their own Commerce, Justice, Science spending bill, so it remains to be seen whether the upper chamber will be able to find more money for NASA. Senate leaders have approved a $52.3 billion allocation for Commerce, Justice and Science agencies in 2014 — only about $1 billion more than House leaders did.

The House subcommittee’s bill, which is due to be marked up July 10, shields the Space Launch System(SLS) heavy-lift rocket NASA is building for missions beyond Earth orbit from the worst of the cuts. Including rocket development at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., launchpad and ground facilities at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and program support from other NASA centers, SLS would get $1.77 billion — about $30 million more than what the program would get under the operating plan NASA sent its congressional overseers in May, and roughly $30 million less than the White House’s 2014 request.

SLS’ companion crew capsule, Orion, would get $1.05 billion for 2014, roughly $60 million less than what NASA planned to spend in 2013, but about $25 million more than the White House asked for in an April budget request that ignored sequestration.

House appropriators applied no special provisions in their bill to the Commercial Crew Program, a NASA-subsidized partnership with industry aimed at getting at least one of three privately designed crewed spacecraft ready to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station before the end of 2017.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the House Science space subcommittee, which is marking up a policy-setting authorization bill for NASA July 10, agree that the Commercial Crew Program should get up to $700 million a year — less than the White House wants, but more than Congress has appropriated to date.

More detailed information about specific programs, including Commercial Crew and the various NASA Science disciplines, typically shows up in a document known as a bill report. Reports do not usually appear until after a bill has been marked up at the subcommittee or committee level.

The bill itself proposes the following funding levels for NASA’s major budget accounts:

Science: $4.78 billion, about even with what NASA planned to spend in 2013, according to its May operating plan, and roughly $230 million below the 2014 request. The House bill also mandates that $80 million of NASA’s 2014 science budget go toward early planning for a robotic mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa.

  • Exploration: $3.61 billion, nearly $70 million less than what was in the 2013 operating plan, and about $300 million less than the request.
  • Space operations: $3.67 billion, most of which will go toward the International Space Station. That is $50 million below the May operating plan, and roughly $210 million below the request.
  • Space Technology: $576 million, $64 million below the May operating plan and about $165 million less than requested.
  • Aeronautics: $566 million, about $35 million more than the 2013 operating plan and about flat compared with the 2014 request.
  • Cross Agency Support: $2.71 billion, even with the 2013 operating plan from May, but almost $140 million below the request.
  • Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration: $525 million, about $120 million below the operating plan and nearly $85 million below the request.
  • Education: $122 million, $6 million above the operating plan for 2013, and close to $30 million above the request. The Obama administration proposed a restructuring of federal education dollars for the 2014 spending year that, at least among NASA’s congressional overseers, has proven unpopular.
  • Inspector General: $35.3 million, even with the 2013 operating plan level and roughly $2 million below the request.

    [Source]

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “$16.6 Billion NASA Budget Clears House Panel

  1. I think we need to put money into the space program, but we need to spend it responsibility. What is the point of wasting money? Hopefully, we can continue to expand our knowledge on space though. Very interesting blog! I write about similar ideas on my blog as well.

    • The point to spending on the space program, for example, is shown by the timeline of spinoff technologies [1]. I’m preparing the fiscal numbers using the information posted on this blog to look into asking, “What is the financial effect of science and technology funding?”, so the Apollo program is a perfect example for looking into this question. As discussed in the timeline, Apollo led to “cool suits alleviate dangers from high-heat environments and medical conditions, Kidney dialysis machines remove toxic waste from used dialysis fluid, A machine aids physical therapy and athletic development, A stress-free ‘blow molding’ process manufactures athletic shoes, Communities benefit from water purification technology, Manufacturers preserve food through freeze-drying, and Sensors detect hazardous gasses.”

      In today’s money, the $20.4 billion spent on the Apollo program is equivalent to $109 billion [2]. If we look at the markets that exist now because of these technologies (attempt to estimate the revenue gained if the technology did not now exist), then the dialysis market brings in $16 billion A YEAR (+, more than that due to secondary effects from increased quality of life) [3], the sports coaching market (which would benefit from a “machine aids athletic development”) brings in $6 billion a year (-, less because an athletic development machine would only lead to changes in part of the market) [4], the physical therapy market brings in $30 billion a year (-, less is attributable to the technology) [5], the athletic shoe market brings in $75 billion a year (-, less) [6], the water purification market brings in $20 billion a year (+, more from secondary effects) [7], and the hazardous gas detection market is $2 billion a year (+, more) [8]. Note that I have not been able to assemble fiscal numbers on all of the technologies listed above because of time constraints to do all the research. Also, the spinoff timeline did not mention that the Apollo program led to the development of the expendable launch vehicle market which is $53 billion over the next 10 years [9].

      So finally, we can get our hands on a comparison. $20.4 billion spent in 1970 on the space program translates to somewhere around $154.3 billion dollars _A YEAR_ in technology-based markets. What this roughly indicates is that the cuts in NASA funding is the farming equivalent to eating your seed corn.

      [1] http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/pdf/timeline_08.pdf
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
      [3] http://www.firstresearch.com/Industry-Research/Kidney-Dialysis-Centers.html
      [4] http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1542
      [5] http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=1562
      [6] http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/6/prweb10808367.htm
      [7] http://www.hkc22.com/waterpurification.html
      [8] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-gas-sensors-detectors-and-analyzers-markets-190181871.html
      [9] http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2011/10/expendable-launch.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s