The FY2014 appropriations bill that funds NASA and NOAA will get more action next week in both the House and the Senate.

On Tuesday morning, the Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee will mark up its version of the bill.   The next day, the full House Appropriations Committee will vote on the recommendations that were made by its CJS subcommittee on Wednesday.

The Senate CJS subcommittee markup is at 10:00 am ET on Tuesday, July 16, in 192 Dirksen Senate Office Building.    Expectations are that it will be more generous than its House counterpart since the Senate Budget Resolution — which sets the total amount of money the appropriations committee is allowed to spend — took a very different approach to deficit reduction than the House.

The House CJS subcommittee recommended a deep cut to NASA’s budget and a more modest cut to NOAA.  NASA’s FY2014 budget request is $17.7 billion.  The House CJS subcommittee approved $16.6 billion instead.  NOAA’s FY2014 budget request is $5.5 billion.  The House CJS subcommittee approved $4.9 billion, but fully funded the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R programs, NOAA’s two major satellite programs.  The full committee will meet on Wednesday, July 17, at 10:00 am ET in 2359 Rayburn to debate and vote on the subcommittee’s recommendations.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee, and Charlie Bolden, NASA Administrator, squared off in dueling op-ed pieces in The Hill newspaper over the Obama Administration’s proposed Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM).

Smith’s argument is that ARM is too costly even at the $2.6 billion level estimated by the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS) and misses the mark as an inspiring mission: “It’s time the administration put forward an inspirational goal worthy of a great space-faring nation.  And the asteroid retrieval mission is not it.”

Not surprisingly, Bolden sees it differently.  In his op-ed the same day, he invoked the themes of planetary defense, potential resource utilization, technology development and moving closer to the goal of sending people to Mars as justifying the program:  “That is why we choose to go.”

The op-eds were published on Tuesday, a day before the House SS&T Space Subcommittee marked up the 2013 NASA authorization act.   The Republican version of the bill, which passed the subcommittee and was reported to the full committee on a party-line vote, prohibits spending any money on ARM.   A Democratic alternative proposed by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) was defeated on a party-line vote.  That bill, H.R. 2616, does not mention the ARM.   She wants a goal of landing people on Mars by 2030 and would leave the details on how to accomplish that to NASA (with the participation of the International Space Station partnership to the maximum extent praticable).    Near earth asteroids are simply one of a list of potential intermediate destinations that also includes the Moon, cis-lunar space, Lagrange points and the moons of Mars that may be pursued for human exploration as long as they “make significant contributions” to the goal of landing humans on Mars.  The Edwards bill also requires a study by the National Academies on the planetary protection ramifications of human missions to the poles of the Moon, near-earth asteroids, the moons of Mars, and the surface of Mars.

 

The Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee has released the FY2014 CJS funding bill it will mark up at 11:00 am this morning.   NASA would receive a substantial cut, while NOAA would be cut more modestly.

Under the bill, NASA would receive $16.6 billion, which is $928 million less than the enacted FY2013 budget level and $1.1 billion less than the $17.7 billion Administration request.   Exploration would be funded at $3.6 billion, a cut of $202 million from the enacted FY2013 budget level, yet keep the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion spacecraft on schedule.   The science budget would be funded at $4.8 billion, a cut of $266 million from the enacted FY2013 budget level, and funds planetary science above the President’s request.

NOAA would receive $4.9 billion, $89 million less than the enacted FY2013 budget level and fully funds the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R programs at $824 million and $955 million respectively.

The House appropriations committee is working under funding figures dictated by the House Budget Resolution, which protects defense spending by cutting non-defense spending like NASA and NOAA.   The markup today is just one step towards whatever NASA and NOAA ultimately will receive for FY2014.   The Senate Budget Resolution is more generous, for example, so the Senate appropriations committee is expected to recommend higher funding levels.  

The Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee is marking up the 2013 NASA authorization bill this morning as well.  That markup is at 10:00 am ET.  The Republican version of the bill would provide NASA with $16.9 billion for FY2014, while a Democratic version would provide $18.1 billion.

The House Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee approved its FY2014 funding bill that includes NASA and NOAA today, while its counterpart authorization subcommittee approved a Republican version of a 2013 NASA authorization act on a party-line vote.

The FY2014 CJS appropriations bill calls for a significant cut to NASA and a more modest cut to NOAA.  It was approved by the subcommittee by voice vote. 

The 2013 NASA authorization bill drafted by Republicans was approved by the Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee after defeating an amendment by ranking member Donna Edwards (D-MD) who offered her own version of the bill as a replacement.   Her amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, and the bill was approved for forwarding to the full committee also on a party-line vote.  Committee Democrats slammed the Republican bill saying that it “harms NASA” by cutting the amount of funding for the agency while imposing new requirements. 

These are just the first steps in the legislative process.  The bills now must be marked up at the respective full committee levels, pass the House, and compromise must be reached with the Senate before bills are presented to the President for signature. 

As promised, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) introduced a Democratic version of a 2013 NASA authorization bill today.  The bill would authorize NASA funding at $18.1 billion, higher than President Obama’s FY2014 request of $17.7 billion and much higher than the $16.9 billion in the Republican version of the bill.

Edwards announced this morning that she would introduce a bold and audacious bill that clearly sets the vision for NASA as landing humans on the surface of Mars in 2030.  Highlights of the bill, H.R. 2616, as listed in an emailed Democratic committee press release, include the following:

·     Preserving NASA’s purchasing power relative to FY2012 enacted levels by authorizing $18.1 billion;

·     Providing a clear goal of a crewed mission to the surface of Mars and requiring a roadmap that identifies intermediate destinations and activities which contribute to enabling achievement of that goal;

·     Recognizing the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle as the highest priorities for carrying out the Mars goal;

·     Providing robust funding for commercial crew system development of $700 million per year;

·     Maintaining U.S. commitment to International Space Station (ISS) operations through 2020 and initiating a process for determining if and how long ISS should operate beyond 2020;

·     Restoring Planetary Science to $1.5 billion in annual funding following recent cuts to the program;

·     Maintaining a sound Earth Science program that ensures observing systems development, and advances research, knowledge, and applied data uses that benefit society;

·     Sustaining a stable aeronautics research program, consistent with FY 2012 enacted levels, that supports research priorities, strategic initiatives, and flight demonstrations;

·     Investing in space technology to enable future missions, spur innovation, and contribute to economic growth and job-creation; and

·     Sustaining NASA’s STEM education activities and continuing agency education and outreach activities supported by scientists and engineers.

The Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee is scheduled to markup a Republican-drafted version of the 2013 NASA authorization bill on Wednesday at 10:00 am in 2318 Rayburn.

 

 

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) said this morning that she will release her own version of a 2013 NASA authorization bill this afternoon.   A Republican draft is already scheduled for markup by the Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Wednesday.  Edwards is the top Democrat on that subcommittee.

Speaking to an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC, Edwards described her bill as “bold” and “audacious.”   The thrust of her speech is that everyone — including the White House, Congress, industry, and academia — needs to unite behind a single compelling vision and that vision is a human trip to Mars in 2030.  She stressed that Congress should not dictate how to achieve that goal, but leave the details to NASA and industry experts, likening Congress’s role to a Board of Directors.

She said the bill also stresses the multi-mission focus of NASA, emphasizing that NASA is not only about human spaceflight, but science.   She called for a balanced, adequately funded NASA portfolio, with achievable timelines and safety as a priority.  She said the current version of the bill, drafted by Republicans, is constrained by today’s budget situation and instead she wants a “21st Century space innovation agenda.” 

“It is time now that we commit, I mean really commit, to a manned Mars mission,” she exclaimed, using an anachronistic term for human spaceflight.  She acknowledged there are safety and funding issues in such an undertaking, but argued that if President John F. Kennedy had worried about funding, he would never have committed to the Apollo program.  In her view, therefore, it is timely to make a commitment to Mars now despite the current budget outloook.  She said that when investing in science, one must think “aspirationally” and her bill lays out a 15-year funding profile that will spur “development at a pace and on a timeline that’s responsible.”

As recounted in detail in John Logsdon’s book “JFK and the Race to the Moon,” President Kennedy did indeed worry about the costs of achieving his lunar landing goal.  While publicly supportive of it until his death, behind the scenes he questioned the magnitude of the investment and on two occasions approached Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev about the possibility of a joint mission.

Edwards did highlight the potential of international cooperation in achieving her Mars goal, but also stressed the need for the United States to be the leader.

Many advocates of sending humans beyond low Earth orbit already accept that Mars is the eventual destination.   The intense debate over the past several years has been over the intermediate steps.   President George W. Bush wanted to return humans to the Moon first.  In 2010,  President Obama decided there was no need to return to the Moon and an asteroid should be the next step, setting off the controversy that continues to this day.

When asked if having competing Republican and Democratic versions of the bill would make the debate over NASA more partisan than usual, she replied that “sadly” the debate has been quite partisan for the past several years.  She said that Congress needs to do the right thing for the space program for the next generation and “that doesn’t have a D or an R written behind it, it has an S, for science.”

The Environment Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee plans to markup the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act on Tuesday.

The bill is broadly concerned with restoring U.S. leadership in weather forecasting and is not particularly focused on weather satellites.  It does, however, clarify that existing law that prohibits privatizing or commercializing the government’s weather satellites does not prevent the government from buying commercial weather data or placing weather satellite instruments on co-hosted government or private payloads.  It also calls for a report from NOAA assessing the range of commercial opportunities for obtaining space-based weather observations and their cost-effectiveness.   NOAA already obtains some weather data from commercial sources and, in a 2010 congressionally-requested report, said that it plans to continue doing so.

If passed, the bill would also require NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) to conduct Observing System Simulation Experiments (OSSEs) to quantitatively assess the relative value and benefits of observing capabilities and systems, including satellites, prior to their acquisition.

The subcommittee held two hearings on the bill, on May 23  and June 26.   Subcommittee Democrats expressed concern at the June 26 hearing that the bill is too heavily focused on research at OAR rather than forecasters’ needs at the National Weather Service, and sets up unnecessary conflict between OAR’s weather researchers versus its climate and ocean researchers.  Ranking member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said too much emphasis is made on differentiating between “weather” and “climate.”