Budgeting for Space

When you throw $3.6 trillion at the wall, some of it will inevitably stick to useful places. It appears that science, technology and education are treated fairly well in the FY2010 budget request. NASA receives an increase to $18.7 billion.

The NASA section of the White House budget document indicates that the Obama Administration is endorsing the Bush Administration policy of ending Space Shuttle operations in 2010 to concentrate on "development of systems to deliver people and cargo to the International Space Station and the Moon". (interestingly, the controversial Ares launch vehicle architecture currently under development is not specifically mentioned.) The budget statement also indicates an intention to "stimulate private-sector development and demonstration of vehicles that may support the Agency’s human crew and cargo space flight requirements".

There are two concerns with the NASA plans. For one, the Summary Tables (see p. 18) in the budget request indicate that, beyond this year's increase, the NASA budget is projected to be effectively flat for several years.

More immediately, there has been no appointment of a NASA administrator and senior leadership yet. The latest rumors point to Steve Isakowitz, an experienced and innovative individual in the space community. (I met him as part of a ProSpace delegation which met with him about ten years ago when he was Branch Chief of Science and Space Programs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).) But until he or someone else is appointed to lead NASA, important decisions regarding the exploration architecture will be delayed, possibly resulting in wasted tax payer dollars and delay in reaching our space exploration goals.

One additional note on NASA: Charles Miller, a long time friend, space entrepreneur and Advocate for the Space Frontier Foundation, has been appointed as "Senior Advisor for Commercial Space" in the Innovative Partnership Programs office. This is a hopeful sign that NASA may be ready to move toward more innovative, commercial friendly policies.