AAS Public Policy Blog

AIP’s latest FYI breaks down the NASA budget numbers released last week. An excerpt:

• Science : Down 0.6 percent, or $26 million from $4.503 billion to $4.477 billion.
• Earth Science:Up 1.8 percent, or $25 million from $1.38 billion to $1.405 billion.
• Planetary Science:Up 1.5 percent, or $20 million from $1.326 billion to $1.346 billion.
• Astrophysics:Down 7 percent, or $85 million from $1.206 billion to $1.121 billion.
• Heliophysics:Up 2.3 percent, or $13.4 million from $591.6 million to $605 million
.

Update – In addition, the transcript (PDF link) from the Science conference call is online. Dr. Ed Weiler and several SMD associate administrators answer questions from the media in the transcript.

Update II The SMD budget out-years are summarized in this table:

Via Space Politics, there is a new CBO Report (PDF link) that games out several other options for Constellation / Space Shuttle / etc. This was a congressionally mandated report. The CBO expects NASA to experience cost growth, and thus lays out alternate scenarios from NASA’s official plans:

On the basis of the cost growth that has occurred in the past, CBO’s analysis indicates that the costs of NASA’s development programs could grow by 50 percent, on average. That analysis examined the performance of 72 of the agency’s past programs—65 per- cent of which experienced less than 50 percent cost growth and 35 percent of which experienced more (see Box 1). NASA’s budgetary plans include reserves in the agency’s development programs that would allow cost growth of about 25 percent to be accommodated. Because of the likelihood that NASA will not meets its planned schedules if funded at its current level, CBO considered four alternative scenarios.

The scary one for science would be this:

Scenario 4: Absorb Cost Growth to Achieve Constellation’s Schedule by Reducing Funding for Science and Aeronautics

which means taking money from science (as in, half of it) and using that to contain the cost-overruns.

The other alternative scenarios are:

• Scenario 1: Keep Funding Fixed and Allow Schedules to Slip
• Scenario 2: Execute NASA’s Current Plans and Extend Operation of the Shuttle and Space Station
• Scenario 3: Achieve the Constellation Program’s Schedule and Allow the Science Schedule to Slip

The full report lays all this out in a table, as well as the impacts these scenarios have on the timeline for the shuttle, space station, and number of science missions, etc. It’s worth a read.

The FY 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill passed the House quickly yesterday. The latest FYI describes the NASA spending.

Total NASA:

The FY 2008 enacted budget was $17,401.9 million.

The Bush Administration’s FY 2009 request was $17,614.2 million.

The omnibus bill recommends $17,782.4 million. This is an increase of $380.5 million or 2.2 percent over FY 2008.

Science: The FY 2008 budget was $4706.2 million.

The Bush Administration’s FY 2009 request was $4,441.5 million.

The omnibus bill recommends $4,503.0 million. This is a decline of $203.2 million or 4.3 percent.

I have broken down the science numbers (numbers in thousands)

Planetary Science

• FY 2008 – $1,247,500
• Bush FY 2009 Request – $1,334,200
• Omnibus – $1,326,866

Astrophysics

• FY 2008 – $1,337,500
• Bush FY 2009 Request -$1,162,500
• Omnibus – $1,201,104

Heliophysics

• FY 2008 – $840,900
• Bush FY 2009 Request $577,300
• Omnibus – $606,363

Earth Science

• FY 2008 – $1,280,300
• Bush FY 2009 Request – $1,367,500
• Omnibus – $1,439,584

Today is the final day for official comments on the appointments made to an NRC committee to study “The Role and Scope of Mission-Enabling Activities in NASA’s Space and Earth Science Missions,” through the Space Studies Board at the NRC.

You can read the full description of the committee’s purpose. An excerpt:

The study will identify the appropriate roles for mission-enabling activities and metrics for assessing their effectiveness. It also will evaluate how, from a strategic perspective, decisions should be made about balance between mission-related and mission-enabling elements of the overall program as well as balance between various elements within the mission-enabling component.

You may comment via the feedback button at the bottom of the this link

Specifically, the comments are for:

Viewers may communicate with the National Academies at any time over the project’s duration. In addition, formal comments on the provisional appointments to a committee of the National Academies are solicited during the 20-calendar day period following the posting of the membership and, as described below, these comments will be considered before committee membership is finalized. We welcome your comments (Use the Feedback link below).

Please note that the appointments made to this committee are provisional, and changes may be made. No appointment shall be considered final until we have evaluated relevant information bearing on the committee’s composition and balance. This information will include the confidential written disclosures to The National Academies by each member-designate concerning potential sources of bias and conflict of interest pertaining to his or her service on the committee; information from discussion of the committee’s composition and balance that is conducted in closed session at its first meeting and again whenever its membership changes; and any public comments that we have received on the membership during the 20-calendar day formal public comment period. If additional members are appointed to this committee, an additional 20-calendar day formal public comment period will be allowed. It is through this process that we determine whether the committee contains the requisite expertise to address its task and whether the points of views of individual members are adequately balanced such that the committee as a whole can address its charge objectively.