
NASA / Kim Shiflett
The Space Exploration Technologies, or SpaceX, Dragon spacecraft with solar array fairings attached, stands inside a processing hangar at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. Sequestration could put SpaceX launches at risk.
By Dan Leone
Space.com
WASHINGTON — To deal with the nearly $900 million budget hit NASA will absorb if automatic spending cuts known as sequestration are allowed to take effect March 1, the U.S. space agency would slow development work on commercially operated astronaut taxis, delay or cancel space technology programs and postpone the launch of some small science missions.
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden outlined the space agency’s sequestration plans in a Feb. 5 letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who released it following a Feb. 14 hearing.
NASA’s overall budget would drop to $16.9 billion, down from the $17.8 billion Congress approved last year.
Spending on the commercial crew program NASA is using to subsidize development by Boeing, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Sierra Nevada of competing human spaceflight systems would be reduced to $388 million — $18 million less than it is currently spending and $441.6 million less than the agency had been planning to spend in 2013. [What NASA's 2013 Budget Pays For (Video)]
NASA, like all federal agencies, has had its funding frozen at 2012 levels under a stopgap spending measure known as a continuing resolution that expires March 28. NASA’s sequestration plan assumes that the continuing resolution will be extended through Sept. 30, the end of the U.S. government’s 2013 fiscal year.
Bolden said NASA’s commercial crew partners would feel a funding pinch as soon as July.
Among the commercial crew activities planned for later this year that NASA would not be able to fund after sequestration are:
- A July test of Boeing’s CST-100 orbital maneuvering and attitude control engine.
- A September review of an in-flight abort test SpaceX plans to conduct in April 2014.
- An October integrated system and safety analysis review of Sierra Nevada’s DreamChaser space plane.
"Overall availability of commercial crew transportation services would be significantly delayed, thereby extending our reliance on foreign providers for crew transportation to the International Space Station," Bolden wrote.
Meanwhile, a sequester would also put the screws to NASA’s Space Technology Program, a White House priority under President Barack Obama. Instead of getting the $699 million sought for the program, NASA would cut its budget back to $550 million, or about $24 million less than it has now.
To absorb the cut, NASA would consider canceling programs now in the development stage, including a highly publicized demonstration of a deep-space atomic clock, which was set to fly as a hosted payload on an Iridium Next satellite scheduled for launch in 2015. Four other space technology programs could also wind up on the chopping block, Bolden warned, and nine others might be delayed.
Small astrophysics and Earth science missions would also suffer under NASA’s plan to reduce the Science Mission Directorate’s budget to $4.86 billion. While that is only $51.1 million less than Science would have received under the agency's 2013 budget request, it is $200 million less than the mission directorate has today.
To absorb the cut, NASA intends to award 5 percent fewer research grants this year and reduce funding for new Explorer- and Earth Venture-class missions by 10 to 15 percent. Bolden said this would result “in lower funding levels for new activities and causing minor launch delays.”
The next missions scheduled for launch in NASA’s Explorer line of small astrophysics missions are the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph, an ultraviolet observatory slated for an April launch, and Astro-H, an X-ray observatory scheduled to launch in February 2014.
The next Earth Venture launch on NASA’s calendar is the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, which is supposed to lift off in July 2014.
This story was provided by Space News, dedicated to covering all aspects of the space industry.
- Now Boarding: The Top 10 Private Spaceships
- American Space Program Revitalized By Private Firms? | Video
- More Spaceflight Industry Coverage by Space News
Copyright 2013 Space.com, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Who cares about space, the bullies are gonna get their cuts.
I like cake anyway.
"if automatic spending cuts known as sequestration are allowed to take effect March 1, the U.S. space agency would slow development work on commercially operated astronaut taxis, delay or cancel space technology programs and postpone the launch of some small science missions."
wait...what? NASA is building commercial astronaut taxis?
Yeah, turning astronaut and cargo launching over to commercial firms was supposed to get government out of the business of space launches. It was supposed to save money. It was supposed to lower the cost to orbit. None of those things have happened. Instead it is business as usual, with NASA paying contractors fat subsidies to develop and operate spacecraft which have a higher cost per pound to orbit than the 50 year old launchers they duplicate.
Well that judgement on cost to orbit is (i) a bit premature and (ii) requires proof. In any commercial launch system, cost savings are usually dependent on having a good rate of launch, a high volume of traffic. Particularly with this "village idiot's delight" path of sequestration, the experience of a usefully high launch rate is going to be deferred.
The search for near earth objects will also be cut. Anyone with half a mind or more now knows that they should be spending much more on NEOs. Or does the attention span of congress not last even 2 weeks. The Feb 15th asteroid could have, just as easily, exploded over New York, and it could have been much bigger.
This is all lies by the President. This is a 2% cut. Dam you people are stupid.
It is a 5.06% cut. Perhaps math is not your thing.
It's a decrease in the amount of new spending, not actual cuts compared to past expenditures!
Then why are all these listed budget elements in the article less than the budget amount the various activities have today? Your logic is hokey.
NASA
Nothing of Any Signifigance to Anyone.
Just for a point of comparison, may I ask what you are which is of any significance to anyone?
The Integral....you may want to read this ONE article that says your wrong in your assumption.
P.S. There are THOUSANDS more just like it! Learn to do simple research and you might lose the "open mouth insert foot" disease you have.
these guys at nasa need to start selling off 40 % in shares -let private companies invest and work together
also if you actually billed projects as the search for god the church would get involved
it really is a search for god in away because it is understanding the framework of the universe which apparently he created so science really is the search for how the universe is created-no one says you have to believe
anyway to have someone who knows ancient texts and languages like those guys do-they know Latin and other forgotten languages
maybe it would be wise to get proper translations of texts from history-maybe there are clues
especially if we have been visited because they would have to construct a language simple enough to communicate much like the icons and pictures on the pyramids in eygpt and s.america
why not buy Kennedy and lease it to private companies as a launch sight -works into ways -we get to share the science of other scientists and they get to launch a space ship
seems like a good trade to me
lets lead the way in exploration and limitless possibilities
the wont complain if
NASA SAVES THE ICE CAP
ok if this would work I would like to be in on it and get paid in money and a job with you and I can't get fired!!!!!
so I don't think it would be to hard for you guys to place 5-6 satellites between the sun and the arctic
you could use fan shaped sails that act like a polarized lens to block excess heat and uv coming through
using a formation we could cast a shadow over the arctic letting in the correct lighting
the optimum lighting would be grey and overcast so not much of a darkness-just enough to cool it so it freezes together in a natural way that color would also be the best for sunglasses on the eyes
we need more reflective surfaces to attach some to the Russian space station
YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM ALL THE PROGRESS YOU GUYS HAVE MADE_LOOK AT THE SCIENCE PAGES IN THE HUFFINGTON POST_IT"S AMAZING
but no one gets to hear about it because of the chaos in the government and the nation who worries about paying the bills
so them the incredible findings
blow it up -just show them and you'll get the money you need
wouldn't help saving the planet though-that would ensure the history books
Black Ops won't take a cut. They never have. They have been operating since the '50s with our taxpayer money outside the legal confines of Congress and the Constitution.
Just cut the loon James Hansen and his entire gorebull warming program program and it would be of GREAT benefit to the USA!
Citizens,
Personally I would double NASA's Budget, as the song goes "twice nothing is nothing". Every tax payer would need to buy the equivalent of two family (each 2 adults two children) movie tickets to double the NASA budget.
The fiscal cliff resolution applies a higher 39.6% commoner rate accommodating a 20% capital gains gentile rate, and does not balance the budget. This mandate sets rates at less than 2011 Federal Income Single Standard deduction, a $40k tax threshole for married, and covers Obama-Care, Medicaid, Social Security, eliminating all other Federal taxes. It eliminates the deficit and sequestration, a $3.8 Trillion federal revenue. In My Humble Opinion based on 2011 national income data, and will only require House of Representative action.
Email this to your Representative and Senators.
-
Honorable Senator/Representative/POTUS,
Stop Sequestration.
This is a mandate for a Federal income tax system that funds Federal, Health (Obama-Care and Medicare) and Social security. One Margin level will yield the $3.8T revenue: %0-$20k 0% tax rate, $20k upwards 35% flat rate, income bundled and taxed in summation form, couples freely share, no business tax and no exemptions. The rate is less than 2011 single standard at under $200K. The Federal Reserve sets the rates, mandated to maintaining monetary value and supply.
Thank you for your immediate attention,
Your constituent [Zip Code]
-
This proposal would require a National Level of politics that reaches amendment level approval. This would require a national constituency letter writing outcry, that which has not been seen.
No thanks. The only thing I will be happy with is if the federal government makes serious cuts. We aren't going to tax our way out of this mess.
fool, we raised revenues before to balance the budget. we can, and at this time now should, do more of it again to balance these insanely stupid, counterproductive meat axe budget cuts!
Morbas, I'd rather see the government cut down to where a ten percent tax does the job.
The sky is falling the sky is falling. I'm sick of the scare tactics that the ol govt. is trying to pull on the American public. The federal budget has gone up 20% in the last 4 years. My pay, well, 2% and it's down 45% from the most I've made. BFD, I deal with it and so can the government. I'm low middle class in earning now. The government needs to learn to cut like most of the rest in the U.S. have done and quit looking for more to spend!
@ when will it end-2085868,
The data says that relative to GNP, the budget is a declining share. Please show your references, as I question your assertions of the last 4 years.
Spending was 5.34 Trillion in 2008. It was 6.28 Trillion in 2012 and GNP . GNP in 2008 was 14.4 Trillion. GNP in 2012 was 16.05. Percentage of federal spending/GNP has gone from 37% to 39%. You can look it up. It isn't hard to find.
Crickets...........
show me your references, I'm not buying that spin.
reterry, how lazy are you? Look it up.....and feel free to send in your surplus income to the feds to fix their spending problem. You are the ignorant fool and I feel sorry for you...
you made the claim, you prove it!
If you're too lazy to look up federal spending and GNP for 2008 and 2012 I'm not doing the foot work for you. Christ, basically you're telling me your either too dumb or lazy to be informed.
no, I telling you that I need to see the character and quality of your sources for those dubious quantitative statements!
@when will it end-2085868, I double that bet, show your references.
Wiki/2012_United_States_Federal_Budget $3.795547Trillion. (3.80T)
Wiki/2011_United_States_Federal_Budget $3.630Trillion. (3.63T
-----
2011 GNP $15.6T
2012 GNP $16.1T
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GNP.txt
---
2011 Budget/GNP = 0.244
2012 Budget/GNP = 0.225
when will it end-2085868, As a christian, iI must forgive you for being utterly wrong.
2012 GNP $16.1T, Budget $3.795547T: Budget/GNP=3.80/16.1 = 0.236 .
2011 GNP $15.6T, Budget $3.630T: Budget/GNP= 3.63/15.6 = 0.233 .
2010 GNP $14.948T, Budget $3.752T: Budget/GNP=3.75/15.0 = 0.25 .
2009 GNP $14.310T, Budget $3.51T: Budget/GNP= 3.5/14.3 = 0.25 .
Obama Economics shows a GNP growth and a reduction of budget/GNP ratio.
2008 was the result of a Bush-Republican economic Catastrophy.
@J.Clarke,
Deficit is an imbalance between revenue and expendature(s). Expendature(s) are defined by a Nation's needs. The top 16 federal expendatures were poled, and in every category the people poled did not target cuts (msnbc), and could be spun as increases. The federal budget is $3.8 trillion. Federal plus state plus municipality is greater than $8.06 trillion. The sum total of all personal income is $12.98 trillion. Thus, the governments are operating at 62 percent of total personal income (based on 2011 datum). The three governments of America provide the necessary infrastructure levels.
Now I know your point, I started this investigation thinking the same level. But, after investigation 10% does not even minimally sustain infrastructure let alone meet future needs.
Sorry Morbas, the government is spending too much! Cuts, cuts and more cuts!
@when will it end-2085868, guessing sequestration is your bag of tea. Do you feel the tax structure is fair at this time?
I think the bloated federal government is spending too much money, PERIOD. Tax structure, that another story, no I don't think it's fair but spending is the biggest problem. If the government isn't willing to make cuts like the general population has to I for damn sure don't want to give them more money.. Yes, I'm all for the sequestration to begin. I wish the mandatory cuts were more.
The sequestration was and remains a bad idea, forged to try and motivate better ideas, but now grabbed in a fit of anal frenzy by the Grand Obstructionist Poopies to provide some theater to their pridefully ignorant base of voters, all sucked in by the WISH Economics of the Laffer Curve and other trickle down fantasies.
Our spending of research and development in technology and the physical sciences, as a fraction of GDP, has been declining for forty years! If you want to provide the tax base to really solve the fiscal imbalance generally, then the absolute last thing you want to do is to strangle cutting edge R&D that can (and has) paid back 10-to-1 in terms of future, cumulative economic value. We are already paying a heavy price for such dismal science funding, the sequester is just one more troglodyte level exercise in hooting ignorance!
Fricken special interest groups. Cut spending but don't cut my pet sh!t. reterry, people like you are 1/2 the problem...
so are you Red State boys ready to cut your pet sh!t? like oil subsidies, farm subsidies, corporate jet subsidies, subsidies for exported jobs overseas, etc, etc,
NONE of those direct or implicit subsidies provide for new economic growth and jobs, they just keep the fat cats fat and Teapot GOP paid for in office.