Senate Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee appropriators had a surprise for everyone when they marked up the FY2013 appropriations bill today.  They want to transfer NOAA’s satellite activities other than operations to NASA, increasing NASA’s budget accordingly.   NASA would get $19.4 billion for FY2013 compared to the $17.7 billion request.  NOAA would get $3.4 billion for FY2013, compared to the $5.1 billion requested.

CJS subcommittee chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) complained that they had told NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, “time and time and time again” that they need to “get their act together.”   The subcommittee is weary of cost overruns on NOAA satellite programs.  She particularly mentioned that the projected life-cycle cost for the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) went up $1 billion in the last year, from $11.9 billion to $12.9 billion.

Mary Kicza, head of NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) said at a FY2013 budget briefing in February that the $1 billion increase was due to lengthening by four years (from 2024 to 2028) the operational time frame for the system. 

Mikulski invoked what she called the Marine rule — be best at what you do best.  She and other subcommittee members clearly believe that NASA is better at building and launching satellites than NOAA.   In fact, NASA is already NOAA’s procurement agent for satellites.  NOAA sets the requirements and reimburses NASA for procuring and launching them.  NOAA then operates the satellites once they are in orbit.

If the subcommittee’s recommendation becomes law, NOAA would still operate the satellites, but NASA would in charge of everything else and the money would be in NASA’s budget.  Mikulski estimated that the government would save $100 million per year by having NASA manage the programs directly instead of through the current reimburseable arrangement.

As for NASA’s other programs, a summary provided by the committee and statements by Mikulski and ranking member Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) asserted that NASA is fully funded to pursue the balanced program laid out in the 2010 NASA authorization act.   Funds are provided for science, the Orion and Space Launch System programs for human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit, and for a commercial crew capability to exist by 2017 to take crews to and from the International Space Station (ISS).   The following paragraph and bullet points are from the committee’s summary:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $19.4 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The large increase results from a reorganization of operational weather satellite procurement from NOAA into NASA. Without the funds for weather satellite procurement, this level represents a $41.5 million cut from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

• The bill preserves a NASA portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments.
• Funding for the development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle is $1.2 billion, the same as fiscal year 2012. Heavy lift Space Launch System (SLS) development is funded at $1.5 billion, $21 million less than fiscal year 2012. The bill also provides $244 million for construction needed to build, test, and operate Orion and SLS. Commercial crew development is provided $525 million, an increase of $119 million above fiscal year 2012.
• The bill provides $5 bilion for Science which is $69 billion less than fiscal year 2012.  Within Science, the bill restores $100 million of a proposed cut to robotic Mars science programs, resulting in a total of $461 million for Mars robotic science.

At the beginning of the markup, Miksulski asked her colleagues to refrain from introducing amendments because they will be considered during full committee markup, which she said would be on Thursday.  The time and location are not yet posted on the committee’s website. 

One place where Mikulski and Hutchison publicly disagreed was whether the funding for commercial crew supports only two competitors or more.   Hutchison said “our priority for NASA is to select two competitors” so the commercial crew program can be “robust” but also saves taypayers from funding more companies than necessary.  Mikulski rejoined that that was Hutchison’s view, not the subcommittee’s.   Mikulski said she did not know how many companies would be funded, maybe four (the number NASA is currently funding), but that she and Hutchison were in agreement that NASA needs a balanced program including Orion/SLS, commercial crew, and science.

Hutchison is retiring from the Senate this year and several Senators lauded her work over many years and noted this was her last subcommittee markup.  She will, however, remain a powerful presence in the Senate on NASA programs for the rest of this year.

The big news out of the Senate Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee today — the decision to transfer NOAA’s satellite programs to NASA (except for operations) — overshadowed other key recommendations.   Among them are an addition of $100 million for robotic Mars exploration and a cut of $305 million from commercial crew compared to the President’s request for FY2013.

The Obama Administration’s proposed 21 percent cut to NASA’s planetary exploration program, of which Mars exploration is part, has provoked outrage in the planetary science community and among its supporters.  Funding for planetary exploration would decrease from $1.5 billion in FY2012 to $1.2 billion in FY2013 with additional decreases in subsequent years.   Consequently, NASA had to withdraw from planned cooperation with the European Space Agency (ESA) on two Mars missions in 2016 and 2018.  It is now planning to launch a smaller mission in 2018 that is yet to be defined.  The $100 million added by the subcommittee presumably would be targeted to the new mission.  ESA has moved on to partner with Russia instead of the United States for the 2016 mission.

Separately, Congress and the Obama Administration have been sparring for the past three years over the President’s desire to use government funds to help companies develop crew space transportation systems to take people to and from low Earth orbit (LEO) instead of NASA building such a system.  Congress wants NASA to build a new big rocket (the Space Launch System) and a spacecraft (Orion) to go beyond LEO.  The compromise in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was to do both, but Congress favors SLS/Orion while the Administration favors commercial crew.   Today, the United States cannot launch anyone into space.  NASA relies on Russia to take astronauts to and from the International Space Station.  The agency is facilitating companies like SpaceX to develop U.S. commercial crew transportation systems with the goal of purchasing services from them instead of Russia beginning in 2017.   Congress has allowed the Obama Administration to proceed with commercial crew, but with less funding than requested.  For FY2013, NASA is asking for $830 million and insists that much is needed to meet the 2017 date. 

The Senate subcommittee, however, is recommending $525 million.   Although it is $305 million less than the request, it is $25 million more than Congress provided in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, which covers FY2011-2013.   From a congressional viewpoint, therefore, it is an increase even though it is a substantial decrease from what NASA says it needs.

A summary of the subcommittee’s action is posted on the committee’s website.   The decision to move NOAA’s satellite programs into NASA, along with the money for them, raises the total for NASA to $19.4 billion, a significant increase from the $17.71 billion requested.    The summary says that if the NOAA money was not transferred to NASA, the budget for NASA would be $41.5 million less than what was appropriated for FY2012.  NASA received $17.77 billion in FY2012 after an across-the-board cut is taken into account, so that would make the NASA total $17.73 billion.

The Senate subcommittee’s action is just the first step in the lengthy congressional process of providing funding for government agencies.   Senator Mikulski, chair of the Senate CJS subcommittee, said today that the full Senate Appropriations Committee would markup the bill on Thursday, but it has not yet been announced on the committee’s website.   The House CJS appropriations subcommittee will markup its version of the bill on Thursday morning at 9:30 am.

UPDATE:  Bob Jacobs at NASA tweets that the press conference will be held about 3:30 pm ET.

NASA’s Flight Readiness Review (FRR) for the upcoming SpaceX mission to the International Space Station is now underway.  You can follow the action via NASA’s Twitter account using the hashtag #FRR.

NASA plans a press conference this afternoon after the FRR is completed.   The time is TBD, depending on when the FRR concludes.   Follow NASA on Twitter to keep track of what time it will take place.  It will be aired on NASA TV.

Dampening expectations for a complete success was a major theme of today’s NASA press conference following the Flight Readiness Review (FRR) for the SpaceX demonstration flight to the International Space Station (ISS).  The launch date for the mission remains targeted for April 30.

NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Bill Gerstenmaier cautioned, however, that some tests remain to be be completed before a final decision is made and the mission is very challenging.

SpaceX will be conducting those tests, primarily related to software, and reporting back to NASA by April 23.  NASA does not expect to perform another FRR at that time, but will consider the results before formally committing to the launch date.   If it does not go on April 30, May 3 would be the next opportunity.

SpaceX succeeded in convincing NASA to combine the last two of its ISS demonstration flights, so this mission, dubbed C2+, is especially difficult.  The company launched its first demonstration flight, C1, of the Falcon 9 rocket coupled with the Dragon spacecraft in December 2010.  It was supposed to launch two more test flights, C2 and C3, but this flight combines the objectives of both, hence the C2+ designation.  It will be only the third flight of Falcon 9 and the second flight of Dragon.   SpaceX founder Elon Musk sounded optimistic about the performance of those two components of his space transportation system, but stressed that other aspects of the mission are firsts — such as rendezvous and berthing with the ISS, and the solar arrays for Dragon.    “We’ve got a pretty good shot,” he said, “but there’s a lot that can go wrong on a mission like this.”

Musk noted that SpaceX hopes to launch two more missions to the ISS this year and if berthing is not successful this time it will try again.   Gerstenmaier made clear that these commercial cargo missions are “critical” for ISS operations.  Dragon, in particular, is the only cargo spacecraft capable of returning materials to Earth.   Russia’s Progress, Europe’s ATV and Japan’s HTV spacecraft are not designed to survive reentry and burn up in the atmosphere.   Dragon is designed for a survivable water landing, which was demonstrated during the December 2010 mission.

These cargo flights do not carry anyone aboard, but SpaceX hopes to evolve Dragon into a vehicle capable of carrying crew.   When pressed today, Musk ventured that a flight with a crew might be possible in about three years if this demonstration flight succeeds. 

Following the termination of the space shuttle program last year, NASA has no way to launch cargo or crew to the ISS.  It is completely dependent on Russia to take people to and from the ISS, and Russia, Europe and Japan for cargo transport.

This mission will take 521 kilograms of cargo to the ISS, primarily crew provisions including food, as well as one Nanorack with student experiments, and some replacement parts.   It will return 660 kilograms of material to Earth, landing in the ocean off the California coast after 18 days berthed with the ISS.   Decisions are not final on what will be returned.

Musk said he did not know how much SpaceX has spent on this commercial cargo vehicle specifically, but said the company has spent a total of about $1 billion over the course of its history.   NASA provided $381 million of that, while Musk and other investors provided the rest.  NASA said it owes SpaceX another $15 million when it achieves the remaining three milestones under the Space Act Agreement through which NASA is facilitating SpaceX’s development of the transportation system.   Alan Lindenmoyer, NASA’s manager of commercial crew and cargo at Johnson Space Center, replied to a question by saying that studies have concluded that it would have cost NASA four to ten times more to develop this capability under conventional contracting methods.

Between now and April 23, the company will continue tests to make certain that its hardware and software interact correctly under various circumstances.   Musk stressed that Dragon is autonomous — no one is aboard with a joystick to make decisions.   It is all done by software.  “Dragon is making a lot of decisions all the time,” he said.   In the past month, he continued, the biggest problem is “false aborts” when Dragon gets “worried” about something and aborts the mission when it is not necessary.