programs to be cut?

"Bush said he would ask Congress for $12 billion during the next five years
for the research and development program, with $11 billion of that coming from
reallocating money from current NASA programs. "

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't seen any
rumors about what gets the axe yet...


- Marshall

In article , Marshall Perrin wrote:
"Bush said he would ask Congress for $12 billion during the next five years
for the research and development program, with $11 billion of that coming from
reallocating money from current NASA programs. "

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't seen any
rumors about what gets the axe yet...

A lot of that (sheer majority) will come from the Shuttle retirement.

Beyond that for the remaining programs, I couldn't quite speculate.

-Dan

"Dan Foster" wrote in message
...
In article , Marshall Perrin
wrote:
"Bush said he would ask Congress for $12 billion during the next five
years
for the research and development program, with $11 billion of that
coming from
reallocating money from current NASA programs. "

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't seen
any
rumors about what gets the axe yet...

A lot of that (sheer majority) will come from the Shuttle retirement.

Beyond that for the remaining programs, I couldn't quite speculate.

-Dan

The space station funding will go too once its complete - $1 billion.

I personally don't have a problem with axeing a load of the current
science/research programs. Deep space manned exploration deserves the
highest priority, that a big robotic missions should be what NASA's about.
Leave the research to the small specialised institutes and LEO to private
companies.

Dan Foster wrote in
:

In article , Marshall Perrin
wrote:
"Bush said he would ask Congress for $12 billion during the next five
years for the research and development program, with $11 billion of
that coming from reallocating money from current NASA programs. "

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't seen
any rumors about what gets the axe yet...

A lot of that (sheer majority) will come from the Shuttle retirement.

No. The numbers above refer only to the next five years. Shuttle retirement
doesn't happen until 2010.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In article , Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't seen
any rumors about what gets the axe yet...

A lot of that (sheer majority) will come from the Shuttle retirement.

No. The numbers above refer only to the next five years. Shuttle retirement
doesn't happen until 2010.

Would it really take that long for Core Complete? Considering that prior to
107, there was apparently some managerial expectation of a significant
milestone to happen in February 2003 or around then from my recollection of
a CAIB report comment.

Although if that's indeed the case for 2010, and if one assumes the budget
pain would be roughly even for at least most of the next 6 years... $11B /
6 would be just under $2B/year to be diverted.

Considering NASA's total budget was about $15B in 2003, that's a net
reduction of about 13.3% on an annual basis... 80% (or somewhere around
there) of the overall NASA budget is used for human spaceflight IIRC. I
wonder which projects are going up on the chopping block.

-Dan

(Marshall Perrin) wrote in message ...
"Bush said he would ask Congress for $12 billion during the next five years
for the research and development program, with $11 billion of that coming from
reallocating money from current NASA programs. "

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't seen any
rumors about what gets the axe yet...


While not a significant portion of NASA's budget compared to the
shuttle and station programs, I think NASA's RLV programs, including
X-37, will be cut. That's really the one part of the plan I disagree
with. I think it would be a shame to abandon RLV development and
focus solely on expendable vehicles.

What I'd like to see is the development of a heavy lift capability
(perhaps along the lines of "Shuttle C"), along with the simultaneous
development of a small reusable "space plane" along the lines of the
X-37 concept, and a fully resuable launch system for that space plane.
I don't know what's more important right now - moving beyond low
earth orbit ASAP or developing reusable vehicles that lower the cost
and risk of reaching LEO. It's a shame we can't to both!

Dan Foster wrote in
:

In article , Jorge R. Frank
wrote:

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't
seen any rumors about what gets the axe yet...

A lot of that (sheer majority) will come from the Shuttle
retirement.

No. The numbers above refer only to the next five years. Shuttle
retirement doesn't happen until 2010.

Would it really take that long for Core Complete? Considering that
prior to 107, there was apparently some managerial expectation of a
significant milestone to happen in February 2003 or around then from
my recollection of a CAIB report comment.

That's US Core Complete. Yesterday's proposal would carry ISS assembly at
least through International Core Complete, requiring about 20 more flights
over 4 years.

Although if that's indeed the case for 2010, and if one assumes the
budget pain would be roughly even for at least most of the next 6
years... $11B / 6 would be just under $2B/year to be diverted.

It's more of a ramp function than divided evenly among each year, as shown
in:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_bu...rt_14jan04.pdf

Considering NASA's total budget was about $15B in 2003, that's a net
reduction of about 13.3% on an annual basis... 80% (or somewhere
around there) of the overall NASA budget is used for human spaceflight
IIRC. I wonder which projects are going up on the chopping block.

OSP is definitely one of them. The rest haven't been decided. Long-term
shuttle upgrades are one attractive target.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Hubble Space Telescope.

(Marshall Perrin) wrote in message ...
"Bush said he would ask Congress for $12 billion during the next five years
for the research and development program, with $11 billion of that coming from
reallocating money from current NASA programs. "

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't seen any
rumors about what gets the axe yet...


- Marshall

In article , Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Dan Foster wrote in
:

In article , Marshall Perrin
wrote:
"Bush said he would ask Congress for $12 billion during the next five
years for the research and development program, with $11 billion of
that coming from reallocating money from current NASA programs. "

Any idea what programs the $11B will be diverted from? I haven't seen
any rumors about what gets the axe yet...

A lot of that (sheer majority) will come from the Shuttle retirement.

No. The numbers above refer only to the next five years. Shuttle retirement
doesn't happen until 2010.

How much might come through winding-down Shuttle? I mean, ETs and SRBs
are long-lead items, so presumably production of those will cease ahead
of final flight... mind you, we're not clear when that will be yet, and
they presumably wish to keep some extras in case of accidents ("oops, we
dropped your ET"), reflights ("well, we had to cut STS-130 short"), or
opportunity flights (a la STS-107).

(That probably counts as an "ignore that question", I suppose...)

--
-Andrew Gray

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

OSP is definitely one of them. The rest haven't been decided. Long-term
shuttle upgrades are one attractive target.

Surely OSP is obsolete considering the plans for a CEV. It looks like
a CEV ought to be able to perform the OSP mission anyway. If you can
take a CEV to Mars and back, using it on ISS as a CRV and CTV ought to
be a "piece of cake".

Long term shuttle upgrades seem to be a "no brainer". You simply sort
these into upgrades that pay off before the shuttle is retired and
into upgrades that don't. The difficult part is how heavily you
weight the safety benefit of an upgrade versus the cost.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.