Бюджет NASA-2017

[che wi]

отдельный топик по насавскому бюджету-2017 неохота создавать, пусть будет здесь:

 Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  7 minutes ago

Here's a summary chart comparing the FY16 appropriations and FY17 request for NASA (in millions of $):

[triage]

наверное лучше еще сравнить что просили на FY16: FY16 Request $18,529.1

 http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_estimates.pdf

и на одной странице
 http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_nasa_agency_fact_sheet.pdf

[Apollo13]

Кажется пора заводить "Бюджет НАСА - 2017"

[napalm]

А почему расходы на СЛС и Орион сокращают?

[Apollo13]

http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_estimates.pdf

http://spacenews.com/white-house-proposes-19-billion-nasa-budget/

[triage]

napalm пишет:
А почему расходы на СЛС и Орион сокращают?

Смотря как смотреть: в прошлом году просили 2,862.9+399.2 = 3,262.1, в этом году просят  3,336.9

Apollo13 пишет:
http://spacenews.com/nasa-receives-19-3-billion-in-final-2016-spending-bill/

	FY16 Request	House Bil	Senate Bill	Omnibus
EXPLORATION	$4,505.9	$4,759.3	$3,831.2	$4,030.0
– Exploration Systems	$2,862.9	$3,409.3	$3,510.0	$3,680.0
...	..	..	..	..
– Exploration R&D	$399.2	$350.0	$321.2	$350.0

Amounts in millions of dollars.
* Commercial Crew funding was moved from Exploration Systems to Space Operations in the Senate and Omnibus bills.

[Apollo13]

http://spacenews.com/senate-bill-gives-nasa-19-3-billion-for-2017/

Senate bill gives NASA $19.3 billion for 2017

by Jeff Foust — April 19, 2016


A Senate appropriations bill would allocate $2.15 billion for NASA's Space Launch System, nearly a billion dollars more than what the agency requested. Credit: NASA

WASHINGTON — A fiscal year 2017 spending bill approved by a Senate appropriations subcommittee April 19 would give NASA $19.3 billion, nearly the same as 2016 but with a significant increase for the agency's Space Launch System program.
The overall NASA funding in the commerce, justice and science (CJS) bill is $21 million above what the agency received in 2016. It is also $275 million above the administration's overall request for NASA, which used a combination of discretionary and mandatory funds to get around spending caps, a maneuver this bill does not adopt.
"The bill before us funds NASA at $19.3 billion, preserving the funding Congress provided in 2016," said subcommittee chairman Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) at the brief, uncontentious markup session for the bill. "This level makes it possible for the agency to continue supporting ongoing science and exploration missions, especially the Space Launch System and Orion capsule development."
SLS is the big winner in the bill, according to a summary of its contents provided by the committee. The heavy-lift launch vehicle would get $2.15 billion, $150 million more than it received in 2016 and $840 million above the administration's request. The SLS funding includes $300 million directed for work on the Exploration Upper Stage with the goal of having it ready as soon as 2021, the earliest planned date for the first crewed SLS/Orion mission.
The bill also provides $1.3 billion for Orion, $30 million above 2016 and $180 million above the administration's request. It also directs Orion to be ready for its first crewed mission in 2021.
The bill provides $5.4 billion for science programs overall, $200 million below the request. The summary does not break out spending among the various science mission directorates. Commercial crew would get $1.18 billion, the amount requested by NASA, and space technology would get $687 million, the same as 2016 but $140 million less than requested.
"NASA can have a robust, balanced space program," Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), ranking member of both the CJS subcommittee and full appropriations committee. "Yes, human space exploration. Indeed, a reliable space transportation system. But we also looked out for space, planetary and Earth science and aeronautics."
Shelby, in his opening remarks, was particularly critical of the administration's proposal to cover part of the $19 billion request with mandatory funding, part of a broader effort to get around spending limits on discretionary agencies like NASA. $763 million of the request used mandatory funding, which led Shelby to claim that the White House was really only requesting less than $18.3 billion for NASA.
"The budget request that NASA presented to Congress includes, I believe, a disingenuous combination of discretionary spending and an unprecedented amount of funding disguised as mandatory spending," Shelby said, arguing that the request really cut NASA's budget by $1 billion. "These cuts, if enacted, would erode ongoing science missions, jeopardize core operations and delay exploration launches."
The full Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the bill April 21. House appropriators have yet to mark up their version of the CJS spending bill, but the chairman of that subcommittee was optimistic about what he would be able to provide for NASA.
"The NASA number is one that we're all going to be excited and proud of," said Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) in comments at an April 19 Space Transportation Association luncheon. He added that he expected some variations with the Senate's bill. "I expect it to be lower in some areas and higher in others."
Culberson also said that he expected an appropriations bill of some kind to pass, although the federal government will likely begin the 2017 fiscal year Oct. 1 on a short-term continuing resolution, as it has in most years in recent memory. "I am confident that we are going to a bill ultimately done," he said.

Сенат предлагает выделить на Senate Launch System    дополнительно 840 млн, включая 300 млн на EUS.

[Валерий Жилинский]

Apollo13 пишет:
Сенат предлагает выделить на Senate Launch System    дополнительно 840 млн, включая 300 млн на EUS.

Банкуют, как в последний раз - после намеченного на конец сентября выступления Маска, бесполезность этих расходов на морально и технологически устаревший проект станет очевидна.

[Apollo13]

Маск давно уже перестал критиковать SLS и Орион, чтобы не портить отношений с руководством НАСА. Наоборот он будет всячески поддерживать идею окололунной станции, чтобы получить какой-нибудь лунный CRS.

[Валерий Жилинский]

Apollo13 пишет: 
Маск давно уже перестал критиковать SLS и Орион, чтобы не портить отношений с руководством НАСА. Наоборот он будет всячески поддерживать идею окололунной станции, чтобы получить какой-нибудь лунный CRS.

Маск вообще не будет никого критиковать. Он просто представит альтернативу.
   
Но это лунный межпланетный транспортный комплекс (МТК) сложно использовать для полётов к Марсу, а вот Марсианский МТК для полётов к Луне годен без переделок - ему только другая ПН требуется.

Last April, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) introduced the Space Leadership Preservation Act (H.R. 2093) to try to bring some stability to NASA programs. According to his statement, $20 billion has been spent by NASA in the last 20 years on programs that have been canceled. The following is fr om the press release:

"The Space Leadership Preservation Act creates a 10-year term for the NASA Administrator to ensure decisions are made based on the best science available and to minimize the politics of changing administrations. It also establishes a Board of Directors similar to the National Science Board that governs the National Science Foundation. The board would consist of former astronauts and respected scientists appointed by Members of Congress who would help shape the agency's annual budget request. They would also create a candidate pool fr om which the President would sel ect the NASA Administrator."

The one thing I think is missing from this passage is that decisions on NASA's plans should not be purely based upon "the best science available." This ignores that it should also be based on the business case of what NASA's mission should be. If NASA's mission includes enabling a commercial infrastructure in its wake, that should be part of the decision-making process. I personally believe that if a commercial infrastructure can be a reasonable byproduct of NASA's missions, it should be.

One item that really needs to be cleared up before we beginning any major new undertakings is the future of the ISS. It is a truly magnificent piece of engineering. But what do we need it for? How long do we need it? Is there potential in privatizing it as Collins mentioned? Can its job be done better and more cost effectively by a new station, or stations, either NASA owned or commercially owned with NASA as a tenant? What missions beyond low earth orbit will it need to support? How does it fit in with other infrastructure that could be developed? What will be the role of international partners including commercial entities? Should China be invited to join in? Who should have input in answering these questions?

NASA is working at various stages of development on components that could be used to go to a variety of destinations beyond low earth orbit for a variety of reasons. Commercial entities like SpaceX, ULA, Bigelow Aerospace, Orbital ATK, Blue Origin, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Virgin Galactic, Masten Space Systems, and many others have ideas. I am a fan of the current and planned products of these companies. NASA, Congress, and the next President would be doing us a service if they considered what these companies have to offer as the next administration develops its spaceflight plans.

There are several potential areas wh ere I see commercial opportunities opening up that can help build up space infrastructure. A deep space habitat somewh ere in the vicinity of the Moon does not have to be only for NASA's use. If it is designed to be flexible and expandable, it could be have commercial modules accessible to anyone wanting to operate near or on the Moon, or to use it as a staging location for deep space missions. A communications network throughout cislunar space could easily be a commercial operation. It could be home to a fuel depot and a servicing and repair center, especially someone can close the business case for using fuel fr om lunar resources.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2948/1
  
Кстати, это вообще очень интересная статья.
   
И инфраструктура возле Луны и на её поверхности вовсе не обязана быть государственной, не зря  Бигелоу разговаривает, в том числе и с директором ЕКА, о его Лунной деревне...

[Apollo13]

http://spacenews.com/house-bill-offers-19-5-billion-for-nasa-in-2017/

House bill offers $19.5 billion for NASA in 2017

by Jeff Foust — May 17, 2016



A House spending bill would give NASA $260 million for work on a Europa mission, more than $200 million above the agency's request. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech



WASHINGTON — A House appropriations bill released May 17 would provide NASA with $19.5 billion in 2017, with significant increases in funding for the agency's Orion and Space Launch System programs and a planned mission to Jupiter's moon Europa.
The bill, released by the House Appropriations Committee in advance of a May 18 markup session by its Commerce, Justice and Science (CJS) subcommittee, provides NASA with nearly half a billion dollars more than the agency's request, which included a mix of discretionary and mandatory funds, and nearly $200 million above a bill approved by Senate appropriators last month.
The bill calls for spending $2 billion for the SLS program and $1.35 billion for Orion. Those levels are well above NASA's request of $1.31 billion for SLS and $1.12 billion for Orion, although the Senate's bill provides even more — $2.15 billion — for SLS.
The House bill also specified that, of the $5.6 billion allocated for NASA's science programs, $260 million go towards a mission to Europa. NASA requested less than $50 million for the Europa mission, while the Senate's bill did not specify an amount for that proposed mission.
The additional Europa funding is not surprising, as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the CJS subcommittee, has been a leading advocate for a Europa mission for several years, adding funding well above any NASA request for a spacecraft to help determine if the icy moon can support life.
The bill also provides a change in direction for that mission. The 2016 omnibus spending bill directed NASA to fly the mission by 2022, and include both an orbiter and a lander, rather than only an orbiter. However, the draft 2017 bill allows NASA to delay the launch of the lander to 2024 while keeping the orbiter's 2022 launch deadline.
Culberson devoted a March 3 hearing of his appropriations subcommittee to exploration of Europa. At that hearing, Charles Elachi, the outgoing director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said that the orbiter and lander would be developed separately, and if launched together on an SLS might not be able to reach Jupiter directly given their combined mass. He suggested that two could be launched separately, with the orbiter going first to scout sites for the lander.
The bill contained few additional details about funding for NASA, which will likely be included in a report the committee will release after the subcommittee marks up the bill. NASA's aeronautics, space technology and space operations accounts received cuts in the House bill compared to NASA's request, but the bill does not discuss changes to specific programs in those areas.
A separate House appropriations subcommittee is also scheduled to mark up a transportation and housing and urban development spending bill May 18. A draft of that bill, released May 17, includes $18.8 million for the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial Space Transportation. That amount is $1 million below both the FAA's budget request and the amount provided in the Senate's version of that bill.

[Georgij]

А где можно посмотреть бюджет наса на 2017, если уже он принят? На сайте наса не нашел

[Apollo13]

Georgij пишет:
А где можно посмотреть бюджет наса на 2017, если уже он принят? На сайте наса не нашел

Здесь что-то есть

http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

[LRV_75]

Валерий Жилинский пишет:

Apollo13 пишет:
Сенат предлагает выделить на Senate Launch System    дополнительно 840 млн, включая 300 млн на EUS.

Банкуют, как в последний раз - после намеченного на конец сентября выступления Маска, бесполезность этих расходов на морально и технологически устаревший проект станет очевидна.

Не стала

[Georgij]

Посмотрел запрос администрации а итоговый документ как называется? Конкретно интересует сколько на Европу дали

[Валерий Жилинский]

LRV_75 пишет:

Валерий Жилинский пишет:

Apollo13 пишет:
Сенат предлагает выделить на Senate Launch System    дополнительно 840 млн, включая 300 млн на EUS.

Банкуют, как в последний раз - после намеченного на конец сентября выступления Маска, бесполезность этих расходов на морально и технологически устаревший проект станет очевидна.

Не стала

Стала, и давно. Но смазано впечатление, не было бы аварии первого сентября - наверно Клинтон публично бы встречалась с Маском.

[triage]

Хотя это не бюджет
 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/442/
S.442 - National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017

03/09/2017

Senate

Presented to President.

[Liss]

28 апреля Конгресс проголосовал еще одну резолюцию о продлении финансирования правительства до 5 мая. За это время законодатели таки рассчитывают принять бюджет на текущий 2017 финансовый год, из которого истекло уже семь месяцев. Цирк :-(

[che wi]

NASA receives more than $19.6 billion in 2017 omnibus spending bill
http://spacenews.com/nasa-receives-more-than-19-6-billion-in-2017-omnibus-spending-bill/

[triage]

 http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-joins-house-in-approving-fy2017-approps-bill
Senate Joins House in Approving FY2017 Approps Bill - UPD ATE

Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 04-May-2017
Updated: 05-May-2017 04:22 PM

The Senate passed the FY2017 omnibus appropriations bill today.  President Trump is expected to sign it into law before midnight tomorrow.  Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) won praise from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for winning the increase in NASA's budget that will boost it to $19.653 billion.  Meanwhile, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) also took credit for the increase and vowed that it is just the beginning. [UPDATE, May 5:  President Trump has signed the bill into law.]
...

 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/244/text