Augustine Committee Releases Final Report; Clarifies Budget Impact

The final report of the Augustine committee on the future of the U.S. human space flight program was released at a press conference today. Mr. Augustine said there would be no surprises in the final report, but there is at least one clarification that was made during his remarks concerning the budget implications of the committee’s findings.

Considerable confusion has been evident about whether the committee concluded that NASA needs $3 billion per year more between now and FY2014 for its human space flight program, or if it is a gradual ramp up over those years so that by FY2014 the NASA budget is $3 billion more than currently projected. Not in dispute is the committee’s conclusion that the budget should rise with inflation after FY2014 at a rate of 2.4%, but another question was whether those figures include the additional costs for the space shuttle in FY2011 if launches slip into the first half of that year, and the additional costs for extending the International Space Station to 2020.

At the press conference, Mr. Augustine clearly stated that the human space flight budget needs to “gradually ramp up until FY2014, until you’ve added $3 billion to the current budget projections” and then preserve that level, protecting against inflation. In a side discussion after the press conference, committee member Ed Crawley added that those funds include the additional shuttle and space station costs as well.

A chart and accompanying text on p. 81 of the final report shows the “less constrained” budget profile the committee developed and states that it rises “from the FY2010 budget number to a sum $3 billion higher in 2014” and then rises at 2.4% thereafter.

The confusion originates with the committee’s summary report, which states in two places that it is an “annual” or “per year” increase between now and FY2014.

“The Committee further finds that it is possible to conduct a viable exploration program with a budget rising to about $3 billion annually above the FY 2010 budget profile.” (bottom of p. 10) Emphasis added.

“Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less constrained budget, ramping to approximately $3 billion per year above the FY 2010 guidance in total resources.” (p. 12) Emphasis added.

However, on the top of p. 10 of the summary report, the committee said:

“This budget increases to $3 billion above the FY 2010 guidance by FY 2014…” Emphasis added

Adding to the confusion are comments made by committee member Lester Lyles on Tuesday at a Women in Aerospace/Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon, quoted this way by spacepolitics.com.

Lyles was also asked about the $3-billion-a-year NASA budget increase mentioned in the committee’s report, since there was some confusion about whether that increased[sic] would be gradually phased in over several years or added all at once. Lyles believed it to be the latter. “I will tell you going in, in our final session, we were talking about not a ramp up, we were talking about $3 billion a year” added immediately, a “step increase”.

SpaceNews.com quoted General Lyles similarly:

I’m not sure what has changed in our final deliberations. I will tell you going in, in our final session, we were talking not a ramp up, we were talking about $3 billion a year,” he said. “We thought at least that was necessary, not to get us back to where we should have been if the budget hadn’t been constrained since 2004, that would take probably significantly more dollars if you will, but we certainly weren’t talking about a ramp up, we were talking about a step increase, if you will.”

Lyles said that $3 billion annual increase would not include additional funding to keep the station going beyond 2016, an expense not included in NASA’s current budget plan.

“As I recall, we were talking about $3 billion not including whatever extension was necessary to the shuttle, and not including either funds for the international space station to extend it, or God forbid, that there weren’t even funds in the budget to de-orbit the station,” he said, referring to the panel’s recommendation to safely fly out the space shuttle manifest in 2011, rather than retiring the orbiter in 2010 as planned. The panel also urged the administration to consider extending the space station to 2020 or 2025, years beyond NASA’s planned de-orbiting date of 2016.

The committee’s final report also leaves room for interpretation. In the executive summary, the statements that were at the bottom of page 10 and on page 12 of the summary report are modified, but still refer to annual increases.

“The Committee further finds that it is possible to conduct a viable exploration program with a budget rising to about $3 billion annually in real purchasing power above the FY2010 budget profile.” (page 16 of final report)

“Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less-constrained budget, increasing annual expenditures by approximately $3 billion in real purchasing power above the FY2010 guidance.” (page 17 of final report)

As noted, however, page 81 of the final report has a chart and text describing the committee’s proposed budget this way:

“For planning and evaluation purposes, the Committee created a second budget profile that rose from the FY 2010 budget number to a sum $3 billion higher in 2014, and then rose at an expected inflation rate of 2.4 percent thereafter (Figure 6.2.3-1).”

Adding the comments of Mr. Augustine and Dr. Crawley today, it would seem that this is the correct one. Note that the chart shows funding only for the human space flight portion of the NASA budget, not the entire NASA budget.