Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) said she is “deeply troubled” by President Obama’s FY2015 budget request for NASA because it is $186 million less than the current year and some of the cuts will affect programs at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in her home state.  Meanwhile, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden told Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) that it would be “unrealistic” to fund the Space Launch System (SLS) at the 70 percent confidence level required for other NASA projects and hinted that the launch date for the first SLS may slip to 2018.

The one-hour hearing before the Senate Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) subcommittee today (May 1, 2014) covered mostly familiar ground, though Shelby’s colloquy with Bolden about the SLS confidence level and questions by both Senators about U.S.-Russian relationships were interesting.

Shelby said he is concerned that the budget request for SLS in insufficient to comply with NASA’s policy that programs be funded to meet a 70 percent schedule and cost confidence level.  Shelby says he thinks the funding for SLS will be only enough to meet a 50 percent confidence level.

NASA imposed the 70 percent policy (NPD 1000.5) in response to decades of significant cost overruns on its programs.   Each program is required to go through a Joint Confidence Level (JCL) assessment to determine the probability that cost and schedule will be equal to or less than set  targets.  Programs are supposed to be budgeted such that there is a 70 percent probability of achieving the stated cost and schedule.  However, the policy also allows that a different probability can be approved by the decision authority, saying at a minimum a 50 percent confidence level should be used, but even then offers the caveat “or as approved by the applicable decision authority.”   So there is some flexibility, but NASA has been using the 70 percent confidence level for its recent new programs.   The consequence is that more money must be provided early in a program’s life cycle in order to meet the higher confidence level that overruns will be avoided in the long run.  That can be a problem when budgets are tight.

Bolden replied that he is “comfortable” with SLS using a less than 70 percent confidence level because the systems being used for the rocket are mature.  But he added that it would not be realistic budgetarily anyway.  “You can’t fund enough to get SLS to a 70 percent JCL and I don’t want you to do that, I’m not asking for that, that would be unrealistic” Bolden told Shelby, but “I will have the same assurance at a lower [JCL] for SLS that I have for other projects that are much less mature at a [JCL] of 70 percent.” 

Bolden said he was getting enough money to hold the SLS schedule.  However, NASA has been saying for years that the first launch would be in 2017.  Today Bolden hedged and said it was looking like the launch would be “in fiscal year 2018,” which is October 1, 2017-September 30, 2018.   Shelby pressed Bolden on the issue and Bolden said he would know within a month exactly what launch date the agency is planning toward and the program’s cost estimate after the results of the Key Decision Point C (KDP-C) review are released.  That review was supposed to be completed in April. SLS is being built at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL in Shelby’s home state.

Mikulski arrived at the hearing late, about a half hour after it started with Republican Shelby in charge, because it took her 2.5 hours to make the trip from her home in Baltimore to Capitol Hill because of flooding and other effects from yesterday’s storm.  She thanked Shelby and said the arrangement was a tribute to the bipartisanship and trust between them.  In addition to serving as chairwoman and ranking member of this subcommittee, they also are the chairwoman and ranking member of the full Senate Appropriations Committee (in fact, Shelby is “vice chairman” of the full committee).

She said she is “deeply troubled” that the President’s budget request for NASA is $186 million less than FY2014 and honed in on cuts that would affect Goddard.  She said Goddard would be cut $200 million and especially decried cuts to the Hubble Space Telescope of $23 million and the James Webb Space Telescope of $13 million. JWST is following a budget profile agreed to between NASA and Congress several years ago after steep overruns in the program.  The $13 million reduction is part of the profile.  Nevertheless, Mikulski argued that JWST margins are “thin.”   She noted that she had been told the Hubble reduction was due to an accounting adjustment and it would be remedied in the FY2016 budget, but she said she was concerned about today, not the future.  She also criticized a $56 million cut to Earth science programs (many of which are managed by Goddard). 

“I don’t want science to be a bank account for other projects that might or might not happen in the future,” she
exclaimed.  Bolden assured her that he is not doing that and Goddard’s future does not appear as robust as she would like in FY2015 budget documents because future projects, like the Wide-Field Infrared Space Telescope (WFIRST), are not yet included.  Mikulski was not mollified, saying “We strongly disagree on this.” 

Separately, Bolden declined to answer a question from Shelby about the impact on NASA of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims injunction against United Launch Alliance or the Air Force from buying RD-180 engines from Russia because it is a matter in litigation.  ULA builds its rockets in Decatur, AL.  

He reassured Shelby and Mikulski that relationships between NASA and Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, are “solid.”   Mikulski said “it’s all OK and you’re doing Kumbaya now” but what about the future if relationships deteriorate.  Bolden demurred, saying that he did not want to delve into diplomatic matters.  He did say at another point in the hearing that if either the United States or Russia pulls out of the
ISS partnership then “the International Space Station as we know it no
longer exists.”

Shelby, a strong critic of NASA’s commercial crew program, which is developing U.S. systems to take astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) to end U.S. reliance on Russian Soyuz launch vehicles and spacecraft, nonetheless asked what it would take to accelerate those systems in case the United States and Russia cut ties.   Bolden said that some of the companies competing for NASA’s commercial crew contract plan to begin flying their systems in 2015, but that does not mean they would be human-rated by then, so NASA is sticking with 2017 for its planning purposes.   He declined to say how many companies would be selected for the commercial crew contract, a decision expected in late summer, but said any selected vehicles would be safe and available to NASA by 2017.

Mikulski ended the hearing by cautioning Bolden that “Though we agree on the goals, I’m not so sure we agree on some of the priorities” in the budget request.

Bolden was the only witness at the hearing.  NASA Inspector General Paul Martin also was supposed to appear, but Mikulski said that the committee schedule had been impacted by upcoming votes in the Senate and it was not possible.   Martin’s written statement is posted on the NASA OIG website.

The House Appropriations Committee released a draft of the FY2015 Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) bill that will be marked up by the CJS subcommittee tomorrow (April 30).   It proposes a substantial increase for NASA compared to the President’s request and funding for a robotic mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa would be one beneficiary of the increased spending.

The subcommittee draft recommendation for NASA is $17,896 million, $435 million above the President’s request of $17,461 million.  It is about $250 million more than NASA’s current (FY2014) appropriated level of $17,647 million.

The draft bill provides little detail of the changes the subcommittee wants, but it has a few specifics, including increases compared to the President’s request for the Europa mission, aeronautics, Orion, and the Space Launch System (SLS), and decreases compared to the request for space technology, exploration ground systems, and space operations.

The bill does not specify how much money would be allocated to
commercial crew, one of the more controversial aspects of NASA’s budget
request, or for the International Space Station.

More information on how the subcommittee wants NASA to spend the money typically is contained in the report to accompany the bill, which usually is not publicly released until after the full committee marks up the bill.   Tomorrow’s action is markup at the subcommittee level; the date for full committee markup has not been announced.

The draft bill continues the cap on development funding for the James Webb Space Telescope at $8 billion as well as the prohibition on NASA or the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from spending funds related to space cooperation with China unless certain conditions are met.

The draft is just that, a draft.  It is a first step towards providing FY2015 funding for NASA and other agencies (including NOAA) covered by the bill.  Subcommittee markup must be followed by full committee markup and then passage by the House.  The Senate will produce its own version of the bill using a similar process.  Eventually the two sides of Capitol Hill must agree and the President must sign it.  Whether they complete the process by the beginning of FY2015 on October 1, 2014 is always chancy.

The funding figures in the House CJS subcommittee draft bill are as follows

• Science:   $5,193 million.  That is $221 million more than the President requested, and $42 million more than the FY2014 amount.  Of the $5,193 million, $100 million is for the Europa mission.  The President requested $15 million for FY2015.   The President requested zero for Europa in FY2013 and FY2014, but Congress appropriated $75 million in FY2013 (subject to rescissions and the sequester, which left about $69 million) and $80 million in FY2014.
• Aeronautics:  $666 million.  That is $115 million more than the President requested, and $100 million more than the FY2014 amount.
• Space Technology:  $620 million.  That is $85.5 million less than the President requested, but $44 million more than the FY2014 amount.
• Exploration:  $4,167 million.  That is $191 million more than the President requested, and $54 million more than the FY2014 amount.  Of the $4,167 million — 
  • $1,140 million is for Orion, which is $87 million more than the President requested, but $57 million less than the FY2014 amount.
  • $1,600 for development of the Space Launch System (SLS), which is $220 million more than the President requested, and the same as the FY2014 amount.
  • $315 million for Exploration Ground Systems, which is $36 million less than the President requested, and $3 million less than the FY2014 amount.
• Specific amounts are not provided for commercial crew and exploration R&D, the other two components of this budget category.
  • The President requested $848.3 million for commercial
    crew and $343.4 million for exploration R&D, a total of $1,191.7
    million. 
  • Designated funding for Orion, SLS and exploration ground
    systems in the draft bill totals $3,055 million, leaving $1,112 million
    for commercial crew and exploration R&D.  How they plan to split
    that funding may become clearer tomorrow during subcommittee markup.
• Space Operations:  $3,885 million.  That is $20 million less than the President requested, but $107 million more than the FY2014 amount.  The figure is not broken down to show how much is for the International Space Station and how much for Space and Flight Support.
• Education:  $106 million, which is $17 million more than the President requested, but $10.6 million less than the FY2014 amount.  The bill specifies that of the $106 million, $9 million is for EPSCoR and $30 million is for Space Grant.
• Safety, Security and Mission Services:  $2,779 million. This is a new name for a budget category labeled Cross Agency Support in the NASA budget request; it more accurately describes what activities the money supports.   The draft bill proposes the same amount as the President’s request, which is $14 million less than the FY2014 amount.
• Construction, Environmental Compliance and Restoration (CECR):  $446 million.   That is the same as the President’s request, and $69 million less than the FY2014 amount.
• Inspector General:  $34 million. That is $3 million less than the President’s request, and $3.5 million less than the FY2014 amount.

Since these are draft numbers, we are not yet updating our fact sheet on NASA’s FY2015 budget request, but will do so when the bill completes full committee markup.

Note:  An earlier version of this article mistakenly compared the amount recommended by the subcommittee for Exploration Ground Systems to the FY2014 appropriated amount.  The subcommittee’s recommendation of $315 million is $3 million less than the $318 million appropriated.