The challenging budget environment for Artemis going forward...

[Flyaway]

I didn’t want to clutter the main Artemis thread with politics. The mods can kill this thread here if needs be.

The struggle over the Speakership and flaring intra-party tempers are important from a space policy perspective because of what it foreshadows for passing legislation in these next two years. Getting any legislation passed is a challenge, but all the more so when the Speaker and his supporters are at such odds with a group within their own party that it takes 15 votes to get elected. This was the first time since 1923 that it took more than one. It took nine that year. The record was 133 ballots in 1855-1856.

That’s on top of the sharp divide between Republicans and Democrats on many issues, especially government spending. Republicans want to increase defense spending while cutting non-defense spending (e.g. NASA and NOAA) to reduce the debt. Democrats insist that non-defense spending be funded commensurately with defense.

Washington Examiner reporter Susan Ferrechio reports that in order to win over detractors, he [McCarthy] vowed the House will pass a budget resolution capping discretionary spending at “FY2022 levels or lower,” reject negotiations with the Senate unless they comply with House direction, and refuse to increase the debt limit unless the growth of spending is reduced or capped.

NASA’s budget could drop from the $25.4 billion it just got for FY2023 to $24.0 billion if they held to FY2022 levels on an agency-by-agency basis.

Another concession McCarthy reportedly made was that each of the 12 appropriations bills must be passed individually instead of combined into a single omnibus bill, open to amendment on the floor, and on time. That sounds reasonable and Members from both parties on both sides of Capitol Hill routinely decry the use of Continuing Resolutions and omnibus bills, but they are commonplace because there’s no other way to reach agreement.

House Finally Ready for 118th Congress, Government Spending Cuts Top Priority

Posted: January 7, 2023 6:03 pm ET | Last Updated: January 7, 2023 6:16 pm ET | Kevin McCarthy was finally elected as Speaker of the House on January 7, 2023 after 15 rounds of voting. That's the most required since before the Civil War. Now the House is ready to get to work including on space...

spacepolicyonline.com

 

[publiusr]

The fiscal hawks can try…but Congress was still more hostile in the days of Dan Rostenkowski.

All the hate Shelby got should have been reserved for for the folks that killed Bush senior’s space plans.

 

[Archibald]

At NASAspaceflight we have a former NASA HQ manager that worked there in the 2000's. He was part of the COTS saga and helped make it happen successfully. He was also a witness to the VSE circa 2004-2008. So he knows his internal NASA HSF workings. Every single of his posts are quite enlightenening. Of course the ususal arrogant SpaceX fanboys show no respect when he pours some hefty dose of realism & pessimism on their daydreamings (the lack of respect by some assholes is sickening - but the mods are blind to it. I'm not, and since I have a very short temper, you guess bad things have happened to my NASAspaceflight forum account recently... )

This fellow https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=61014

Whatever, the man is not optimistic. Artemis II, III and IV will take until 2029 at least to happen. I kid you not. Apply that to Apollo and it becomes
- Apollo 8, 1968
- Apollo 9, 1971
- Apollo 10, 1974
- Apollo 11, 1978

NASA budget is desperately flat and, even if it was not, Boeing SLS production rate has been deliberately dimensioned for less than two rockets per years: more like 1.5 core per year. The SLS production rate at Michoud is one big bottleneck, and there are smaller ones everywhere.

The entire SLS-Orion part of Artemis is a big smoke / screen / mirror for Congress pork barrel. It is a matter of NASA flat budget vs Boeing & Congress dishonesty - that's the sticky point. The combination of the three is a disaster in the making, a train wreck. Down the line (for example) is one worrying question...

With one Artemis launch every two or three years, how to you keep the workforce trained and motivated, particularly on safety checks ? Even the shuttle was flying many times a year yet some rampant issues shot it down twice, despite all the workforce best efforts and safety checks.
Artemis is flying once every two years. How do you keep safety levels high enough, flying so little ?

Bottom line: one manned flight to the Moon every two years at a cost well past $2 billion ($3 billion, $4 billion...) is kind of foolish. I'm glad NASA returns to the Moon, but they are doing it the dinosaur way. Thanks Boeing, Lockheed, ATK and Congress for that.

 

[publiusr]

Better that than nothing.

It may be insane to ask for more SLS pads…still…SLS is a Union rocket..so Musk haters on one side might glom on to that out of spite. SLS is a Red State rocket…so it has bipartisan weight. If Starship blows apart…SLS will look even better.

Here is my scenario…space solar power might similarly be bipartisan if it can be a peacetime B-17 type drive that lifted the US out of the Depression. Musk hates SSP…and is distracted right now.

SLS is converted to launch a few with new pads maybe…it is a foot in the door. Musk finally gets Starship to work (we hope) and sees support for big payloads…which allows space an entry into the energy sector:

"Otherwise Brilliant People Can Make Funny Decisions” Featuring Joseph Sigelman, AG&P Group - Veriten

We are excited to share today's episode featuring Joseph Sigelman, Chairman and CEO of Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company (AG&P). Joe and his team focus on downstream LNG import and distribution, engineering and construction across Southeast Asia, stretching from India to the Philippines.

veriten.com

SLS will THEN become like Titan IV…a probe bird that fades. An egg tooth, if you will.

SLS as an egg tooth is the proper analogy here.

An egg tooth is expendable too…it makes a breakthrough.

The chick’s wings? Starship perhaps?

Case in point:

SLS got Clipper started with Culberson…but it will launch of the Falcon Heavy.

I think a similar changing of the guard is also possible.

I am looking at this in terms of sociology where people are more motivated by something/someone to be against than for the good of humanity.

So I might get Conservatives in the Deep South scared of Musk or lose SLS…and support it—and have Liberals encourage space solar power instead of looking like morons trying to ban gas stoves.

With the US Congress divided, it may be faster to get a consensus of support across parties as opposed to within them.

When there is no mandate…strange alliances can form more easily.

SLS was already an example of this…despite being attacked by EELV supporters, New Spacers, and planetary scientists who wanted no NASA spending on HLLVs.

Like F-35…it is a force all to itself.

I want you guys to listen to the political savvy of a contact of Mark Holderman of Nautilus X…Gene Meyers.

He was on THE SPACE SHOW recently …and listen how well he frames the argument about how Artemis can be sold not as just a step in the return to the Moon…but as something much more:

Broadcast 3801 Gene Meyers | The Space Show

www.thespaceshow.com