Topic: Congress to NASA: Drop Dead

[rickl]

As I wrote on November 15, Congress has chosen to defund NASA's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program.

NASA officials and the CCDev participants warned Congress that failure to fully fund the program — $850 million was requested by the Obama administration — would only prolong the monopoly Russia will have on launching astronauts to the International Space Station.

The House of Representatives voted to give CCDev only $312 million, nearly two-thirds less than requested. The Senate voted $500 million, about forty percent less than requested, and impounded about $100 million of that until the NASA administrator assures in writing that certain Space Launch System (SLS) milestones are achieved.

As reported by Space Politics on November 15, the two Houses compromised by splitting the difference. CCDev will receive only $406 million, and the SLS language will remain.

The compromise, which is part of a much larger bill including many other federal agencies, will now go to both houses for a final vote, and then to the White House for signature. The 2012 fiscal year began October 1, so the appropriation is already six weeks late. It's unlikely either house will reject it over the CCDev line item, nor would the President veto it over one program. These agencies would have uncertain funding for the future, and might even be forced to shut down.

The CCDev language is a clear win for entrenched interests trying to protect the status quo.

As I wrote on September 20, the SLS system was dictated in 2010 by Congress and designed by members of the Senate's space subcommittee to protect jobs in their districts. SLS, dubbed the "Senate Launch System" by critics, has no mission or destination. It exists to create or protect jobs in certain states.

Link

As Rand Simberg put it:

NASA officials say the reduced funding for the commercial partnership to replace the space shuttle will delay the program two years and maybe longer.

So, at $450M per year to the Russians, the geniuses on the Hill have just increased out-year expenditures by almost a billion dollars to save half a billion next year. This is why the budget is a mess.

Are the Congresscritters who voted for this getting kickbacks from the Russians?  Because that's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

[IronDioPriest]

I would be open to an argument that goes like this: "We can't afford to fund exploration of space with tax dollars when our earthly concerns cannot be paid for without debt." That is, I WOULD be open to such an argument if the same logic was applied across the board...

"We cannot afford to fund the United nations when our national concerns cannot be paid for without debt."
"We cannot afford to fund the National Endowment for the "Arts" when our national concerns cannot be paid for without debt."
"We cannot afford to fund ACORN when our national concerns cannot be paid for without debt."

To be clear, I am not claiming that NASA funding should be cut or not. Only that justification for the cut follows no logic whatsoever.