The House NASA Authorization Bill

It was just released, and at first glance, it appears to be a disaster. More anon.

[Saturday-morning update]

No moon in 2024, must use SLS to get to the moon, not allowed to do anything on the moon that would help with Mars, not allowed to purchase commercial landing services, not allowed to do any exploration at the South Pole for ice.

Saturday-afternoon update]

Here‘s Jeff’s story.

[Monday-morning update]

It’s the greatest hits of terrible space policy.

[Bumped]

[Update a while later]

Eric Berger’s take.

[Late-morning update]

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation has weighed in.

The Planetary Society isn’t happy, either.

58 thoughts on “The House NASA Authorization Bill”

  1. There’s only one pleasant surprise I’ve found so far: The House text actually reopens the question of Europa Clipper’s launcher, directing NASA to examine all alternatives, including cost of launch. (See Sec. 334.)

    Maybe that was a token that got thrown in as some kind of small compromise to get the bill through. Perhaps Bridenstine went to the mat to plea for it.

    Otherwise, everything else related to HSF might as well have been written by Doug Cooke.

  2. P.S. LOL at Jonathan Goff’s tweet: “For sake of truth in advertising, should the House Science Committee be required to put a Boeing Corporation logo on their latest NASA Authorization Bill?”

  3. Subtitled, The Fund Boeing SLS Development Forever And To H*** With Any Actual Exploration Bill.

    Well, if truth in advertising applied to Congress it would be.

    1. Yeah, but the ranking Republicans of the science committee and the space subcommittee also sponsored this.

      The swamp is bipartisan.

  4. What a disaster

    Our only hope for a space-based economy is Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos succeeding DESPITE Congress/NASA. It’s so sad, because those billions being spent every year could be used in so many better ways, like establishing a market for lunar water or propellant depots or any number of ideas for kickstarting a space based economy.

  5. I haven’t read the bill but the excerpts just say activities not related to the SLS track wont get funding from the Moon to Mars program.

    It has been a dual track approach for some time now. What does the authorization bill say about the activities not related to SLS? BTB was reporting several lunar missions where landers weren’t owned by NASA and that there would be many more such missions.

    Might it be better that everything isn’t attached to SLS? Also, no use for Gateway now?

  6. If NASA disappeared tomorrow would it make any difference to Musk and Bezos?
    I rated the chances of a NASA Moon landing in 2024 as zero anyway.

    1. SpaceX could survive now without NASA, but it would definitely feel the loss NASA revenue.

      This year they will have a minimum of 3 cargo flights and one crewed flight to ISS, and all that has to be worth at least half a billion in revenue.

      1. The Congress wants to keep ISS, so SpaceX’s piece of that particular action looks safe. Ted Cruz is ISS’s bestie.

        And the TX delegation has been warming to SpaceX ever since the original Boca Chica plans were broached, though the support of the remaining Democrat members of said delegation is iffy. Will Eddie Bernice & Co. be content to just aid the AL Mafia in its SLS-Orion porkapalooza as a way of denying Trump a 2024 Moon landing by NASA or go entirely over to the dark side if it looks like Elon is going to give Trump his bragging rights without reference to NASA?

        Now that SpaceX’s Boca Chica plans have been vastly amplified, I don’t see the Republican caucus of the TX Mafia being at all happy if its Democrat caucus moves to aid the AL Mafia in doing anything to explicitly jam up SpaceX once it’s actually able to start doing Moon stuff on its own dime. If the TX Dems throw in with Darth Shelby anyway on such efforts, it’s going to be open civil war in TX. I don’t like the Dems chances much if that happens.

        But the dog-in-the-mangering will continue to be fierce where SLS-Orion is concerned.

        How successful that will be, long-term, looks very problematical. The battle lines now seem to be pretty clearly drawn. It’s The Swamp vs. Trump, Bridenstine and SpaceX – in that order.

        2020 is the year Starlink becomes real and generates its initial revenue. There’s also a very decent chance that SHS makes, and returns from, orbit for the first time. If not, then 2021 for sure. I think the probability of SLS being launched this year is zero. The probability of it being launched in 2021 is well short of unity and decreasing by the day.

        If SpaceX makes it to the Moon by 2024 or even earlier, which looks quite likely, then Mars will be next and PDQ. Once even the first unmanned cargo prepositioning mission makes TMI, the entire rationale for the SLS-Orion program will waft into vapor, assuming it hasn’t been killed already.

        Gonna be a real interesting next four or five years.

  7. As pointed out above, this abomination is a bipartisan abomination, but it’s also worth noting who is on the majority on this committee.

    I’m unsure what the worst part of this is, but avoiding the lunar poles has got to be high on that shameful list.

    The only silver lining I see is that this appears, sort of, to kill Gateway.

    Another effect I see is that this takes the pressure schedule off SLS, so expect more slips (that were going to happen anyway) to EM-1, and maybe the Green Run too. I think Starship will take longer to develop than the current optimistic forecasts, but given this bill I now fully expect that Starship will see orbit before SLS, and might even make a one-way lunar landing with cargo before SLS ever flies. (Caveat: if SLS explodes during the Green Run, parts of it may actually fly sooner than I predict.).

    And… so they say they need to go to SLS 1B before a manned lunar landing. That would require a redesign of the core plus the SRBs, and for the landing (due to the need to get to and from LLO) they will need a more capable service module (plus, a lander would be kinda nice to have for a landing…). So, of the current SLS/Orion stack planned for EM-1 the only commonality would be… Orion? Everything else is basically starting from scratch?

      1. Well for the first eight SLS flights. After that, they’ll need to have the advanced boosters, as the stock of SLS boosters is limited by the number of casings left over from the Shuttle program.

      2. How do they use the same SRBs? 1b has a core stretch, adding significant prop mass, so wouldn’t that need increased performance from either the SRBs or the RS-25s?

        Caveat: I may be full of baloney on this, as I’m basing my different-SRBs guess on the appallingly thin basis of different-looking SRBs in some charts, plus that the thrust change has to come from somewhere).

        How can the new upper stage do LOI? The 3-day in-space duration issue would be problematic on the baselined exploration upper stage.

      1. Given the SLS schedule history, SpaceX will serve them beer brewed with lunar grown barely and hops.

  8. I have advocated that the Moon and Mars should be two separate transportation systems. Mars needs a SHLV but the Moon could require only a FH-XEUS level transportation system. In particular, the Moon needs an end-to-end commercial transportation system that doesn’t require a government Gateway. Rather, they should substitute rendezvous and transfer of cargo, crew, or propellant modules at a cislunar point without having to go through a Gateway middleman that never will become commercialized. I estimate that it would only take about 7% of NASA’s budget to achieve this using a Lunar COTS approach.

    DevelopSpace.info

    1. If all you have in mind is getting to the Moon and maintaining a dinky and sporadic presence there, an FH-based architecture could do the job. But I see no SpaceX interest in such a course. And this latest NASA authorization bill pretty clearly indicates Congress – at least as presently constituted – wouldn’t put a single dime toward such.

      SHS is going to be a thing soon and has the requisite economics to support a vastly larger-scale, swifter and permanently-staffed presence on the Moon, whose first priority would be making the place pay off rather than just doing a bit of academic research.

      We can now clearly see that there will be nothing remotely resembling COTS in prospect anent either the Moon or Mars until SLS-Orion lies mouldering in its grave. It’s SpaceX and SHS or punt.

  9. Since the Democrats control the House and all the committees, is it any surprise that the new NASA budget is so anti-capitalist? Technological treason. Everybody should pray an hope that the first SLS launch is a total failure. Maybe we need some industrial espionage, too.

  10. Do you think that Space X’s successful launch abort test spooked the swamp creatures into action?

    1. I doubt it. You could already see the outlines of this bill emerging from the comments made by Horn, Babbin et al at the House space subcommittee hearing in November, really. This turkey has been cooking in the oven for some time now.

      1. True dat.

        The space pirates have now struck the Stars and Stripes and run up the Jolly Roger. As Dennis Prager likes to say, I prefer clarity. Now we’ve got it.

  11. NextSpaceflight.com is showing CFT and DM-2 both scheduled for April. If true, the Boeing is being allowed to skate. Meanwhile, SpaceX gets to do two more parachute tests to prove new chutes work just as well as used ones!

    So what happens if CFT fails for some reason? My guess is, former Democrat Shelby will call for SpaceX to be investigated.

    1. Well, um, if Boeing’s Starliner does fail, and after failing so many times, surely that does warrant an investigation of SpaceX? Such things must have consequences, after all.

    2. I wouldn’t read anything into any launch date out there right now for CFT until the investigations into the OFT anomalies are completed and released.

      Spaceflightnow.com’s schedulepage simply puts it as “mid-2020,” which probably the most we can say at this point. Honestly, I’ll be shocked if it can fly in the 2Q, not least because of ULA’s jam-packed launch schedule this spring and summer.

      1. I don’t read anything into published launch dates, other than that source info is coming from somewhere, and the politcal bias of the site proprietor determines what they publish or don’t. NASA actually needs a flight by the end of April. SpaceX says it can be ready, but Boeing probably not before the end of June, regardless of any skating allowed. Some other websites show both launches scheduled for June, for instance. Others show Q2 for both (April and June both being in Q2). What’s the reality? Only Boeing knows, and maybe not them. I’m cynical enough to suspect its “Boeing goes first, no matter what.” I hope I’m wrong. I did notice however many crew are on a Boeing flight, the equivalent SpaceX flight is one less. Probably just a coincidence…

  12. It’s appropriation bills such as this that are radicalizing my position on NASA. That it should be shut down and it’s operations largely folded into the NOAA and the FAA. The NSF can provide the funding to JPL and the NGO universities to provide robotic planetary explorers.

  13. Now that we are within a budget cycle or two of commercial companies going to the moon, and for considerably less than the billions NASA wanted, we must now focus on a further, less attainable horizon on which to justify our billions of space dollars. Somewhat on the periphery is the gradual admission of the true capability of SLS. First it would go to the moon or mars. Then it was admitted it could not get to either and instead would launch a gateway into lunar orbit. Now the mission has been limited further to ‘somewhere in cis-lunar space.’ A short study in the ISS orbital variations each time the shuttle flew will help explain why. This budget is no surprise. NASA must stay out of the way, while still trying to appear vital to our space ambitions. Otherwise, why waste billions on a bunch of shiny-bottomed pencil-pushers.

  14. We need Elon to mount a flags and footprints mission to Mars ASAP to get the federal government to stop wasting our tax dollars on pointless pork barrel space myths. Once humans have been to Mars one of two things will happen. Either the tax money wasted on human space exploration will be eliminated altogether or it will be redirected to government//private sector co-operative arrangements perhaps leading to a colonization breakout.

    It is certain tax money being wasted on unworkable transport plans may end up killing a public sector space program. Hurting private sector efforts along the way.

    1. It is certain tax money being wasted on unworkable transport plans may will end up killing a public sector space program. Hurting private sector efforts along the way.

  15. “So you want a permanent lunar base? Or mine ice from the south pole of the Moon. No, sorry, the bill says.”

    Sounds good to me.
    We have first know if there is mineable lunar water. And then, NASA should not mine it. If Moon has mineable water, then someone will get investment dollars to mine it.
    If that starts to occur, then space agencies {including NASA} will probably want a lunar base. And probably want to lunar bases or bases near where lunar water is mined.
    But when and if lunar water is mined may not be right away and NASA should not for lunar rocket fuel to be made before exploring Mars. And making lunar rocket fuel may not do much to lower Mars exploration costs {or it’s not needed to explore Mars}. And the exploration of Mars might “cause” lunar water to be mineable.
    And other exploring the Moon to determine if and where there could be mineable lunar water. there could many potential “events” or “factors” which start commercial lunar water mining.
    The thing is true of Mars settlements- exploration of Mars may not lead to immediate efforts to start settlements on Mars. But lunar commercial water mining may “cause” Mars settlements to start. Or again, any number of other factors may be involved.

    1. There is no scenario where NASA should mine lunar water- if it’s “easy” to mine lunar water, NASA should not mine it. If it’s “hard” to mine lunar water, likewise NASA should not mine lunar water.

      I think it will be hard to mine lunar water, and hardest part is creating enough market for Lunar rocket fuel {and NASA can’t do this}.
      Likewise NASA can’t create settlements on Mars. And Congress is against the idea {and for good reasons}. But Congress could pass laws that make Mars settlement more likely. But NASA should explore Mars first, so congress can decide whether it might pass such laws or not.

      1. But NASA should explore Mars first, so congress can decide whether it might pass such laws or not.

        See my comment above. I’ve changed my thinking on this. Instead of the gradual Zubrin type approach that would have given us almost permanent Mars colonies from the get-go, I’m now in favor of getting us to Mars and back in as short an amount of time as possible, assuming SpaceX can pull it off. Once humans (read USA crew) reaches Mars this insane pork barrel wasted spending on unnecessary rocketry will end and hopefully the money put to better use. Once the government is no longer wasting tax dollars on the unnecessary maybe we can get it directed to where it needs to go instead. So immediately, a SpaceX flags and footprints program. A 1.5 year mission to Mars and back as quickly as we can. Can we pre-position enough Starship tankers on Mars w/o having to do ISRU so that we can stay say one/two weeks and then return? The billions saved in the following decades or redirected to colonization efforts of either Moon or Mars would make an otherwise worthless mission worth it.

        1. Once humans (read USA crew) reaches Mars this insane pork barrel wasted spending on unnecessary rocketry will end and hopefully the money put to better use.

          Have you no faith in our government’s ability to squander money?

          It would take a lot of launches for SpaceX to send a Starship to Mars and back and it will be some time before the company is ready for that trip. In all likelihood, such a mission would be cheaper than what NASA could do with SLS but it also wouldn’t be cheap. What would SpaceX get out of this? If Apollo flags and brags were counterproductive with developing the industry, why should SpaceX potentially make the same mistake?

          Whether it is the Moon, Mars, or cislunar space, it is less important how fast we get there than what we do while we are there. Too much commentary focuses on how slow NASA is in getting to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else. How fast we can land people on the Moon is one of the least important things.

          1. What is the justification for SLS once US astronauts have tread upon Mars? Europa Clipper?

            I think we’d be at a bellwether.

            Yes it’s a stupid mission. I think Starlink could bankroll it. I think it would drive a stake through the heart of SLS we so desperately need.

  16. I’d give odds the anti-lunar ISRU component of this is because some under-informed Congressional aide thinks lunar ISRU is necessary for Starship to land on the Moon and return to Earth. The space-interested Congressional aides I have met seemed to be the root cause of the stalled US space program of the past 50 years.

  17. So you want a permanent lunar base? Or mine ice from the south pole of the Moon. No, sorry, the bill says.

    Who is you? Is you an individual person, a company, or the government? The bill does not say these activities can not take place, only that if they do, they will not be funded out of the Moon to Mars program. The bill lays out the direction NASA will take, which has never been (with SLS) ice mines on the Moon or a permanent lunar base. The bill just emphasizes the status quo of using SLS/Orion. A truly shocking revelation that everyone should get worked up about right now as if everyone didn’t know this was the case for the past decade.

    A couple notes: The bill is status quo on SLS/Orion and protects that track of development. Gateway might get moved to a lagrange point, something a lot of people wanted. The bill makes no mention of Artemis directly. The bill sustains the second track of commercial partnerships for cislunar activities, including on the lunar surface and to Gateway.

    My take away is that people are freaking out over nothing and that the space nerd media is just as bad as the rest of media. It would be useful to know more about what is going on but we are unlikely to get good information because of the biases of those who do the reporting. It really feels like people in the media are making demands that will lead to failure, because they want failure.

    We shouldn’t expect everything to be laid out in excruciating detail when delays, changes, and employing new technologies are so common to the industry. This is especially true when considering that whatever is learned on the precursor missions will influence what comes next and we can’t perfectly predict what is not known. Because of this, it is important to focus on the near term projects that will be happening over the next year or two, specifically the precursor lunar missions. Around $2.7 billion will go to planetary science, about as much as SLS gets.

    Also, it is nice to see NASA tasked with doing something with nuclear propulsion and surface power.

    From page 20,

    (d) LOGISTICS SUPPORT.—To the maximum extent
    4 possible, logistics support to the Gateway to Mars and the
    5 lunar surface shall be provided by commercial services,
    6 provided that the availability of those services does not
    7 becoming the limiting critical path factor in NASA’s abil
    8 ity to complete its Gateway to Mars and Lunar Precursor
    9 initiatives as scheduled. The Administrator shall develop
    10 contingency plans for the delivery of the minimum set of
    11 needed logistics in the event commercial services are not
    12 available when needed.

    From page 22,

    (a) LUNAR OUTPOST.—Any establishment of a con
    5 tinuously crewed lunar outpost or research station shall
    6 not be considered an element of the Moon to Mars Pro
    7 gram and shall be budgeted separately from the Moon to
    8 Mars program.

    9 (b) OTHER CREWED ACTIVITIES.—Crewed activities
    10 on or around the surface of the Moon that do not con
    11 tribute to the goal of landing humans on Mars in as sus
    12 tainable manner as practical shall not be included in the
    13 Moon to Mars Program and shall be budgeted separately
    14 from the Moon to Mars Program.

    15 (c) LUNAR IN-SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION.—
    16 Lunar in-situ resource utilization shall not be considered
    17 as risk reduction for the initial crewed missions to orbit
    18 and land on Mars. Any lunar in-situ resource utilization
    19 activities and shall not be included in the Moon to Mars
    20 Program and shall be budgeted separately from the Moon
    21 to Mars Program.

    From page 54,

    (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may establish
    6 a Commercial Lunar Payload Services program for the
    7 purposes of transporting and landing science instruments
    8 and payloads on the lunar surface or to cislunar space.
    9 (b) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER MISSION DIREC
    10 TORATES.—Any lander demonstrations, services, instru
    11 ments, or payloads, and the commercial lunar payload
    12 services required to deliver those payloads or instruments
    13 to the lunar surface or lunar vicinity, that are not carried
    14 out for the purposes established in subsection (a) or that
    15 are carried out for the Human Exploration and Oper
    16 ations Mission Directorate or the Space Technology Mis
    17 sion Directorate shall be funded from the Mission Direc
    18 torate sponsoring the use of the program established in
    19 subsection (a).

  18. Let me play devil’s advocate:

    Does the plan say YOU can’t do those things…or just that NASA won’t?

    For example, does the bill outlaw ISRU by organizations other than NASA?

    I’ve maintained for quite some time now that what NASA does or does not do is now entirely irrelevant to progress in space travel.

    1. I’m just trying to shift the dollars NASA is wasting on SLS to more productive ends. If a SpaceX flags and footprints mission to Mars gets us there, I’m all in.

      1. I ignore the dollars. Not even serious money. What’s NASA’s entire budget – $22.6 billion? The government wastes more than that every day.

        It doesn’t matter what NASA or Congress does or does not do…..so long as Congress doesn’t pass a law forbidding private enterprise to do these things.

        So I look upon the NASA budget as NASA surrendering to the “jobs program” that is the Federal space “program”.

        Fine.

        The sooner one stops hoping NASA does the right thing, the sooner one can be happy and avoid disappointment after disappointment.

        1. –Gregg
          January 28, 2020 At 8:35 AM
          I ignore the dollars. Not even serious money. What’s NASA’s entire budget – $22.6 billion? The government wastes more than that every day.–

          Depends on what you call waste.
          Considering we are living in an Ice Age, and have been living in Ice Age or millions of years. And considering school textbooks said Humans evolved during a period of increasing grassland in Africa {caused by Ice Age}. And generally it is no secret we are living in Ice Age or also called a Icehouse global climate. Which is defined as cold oceans and Earth having polar ice caps {which we have}.
          It seems fairly obvious that to spend money because of fear of global warming, is a waste of tax dollars.
          And you could all money spent on the general issue- such make people pay higher electrical bill to support global warming devices of wind and solar energy, than US government is spending about $22.6 billion per day and it’s complete waste of money. Though I believe Germany with smaller GDP and spend more per captia than US does.
          German could fund star travel with amount they wasting on global warming {and it’s not warm in Germany- or Germans flee Germany to go places much warmer}

          1. It’s also claimed the global warming market is globally about 1.5 trillion dollar which is about 5 times the global satellite market.
            It would be nice if “space market”- including satellite market was a 1 trillion dollar market.
            Of course the global satellite market is actually quite important. My theory is without the global satellite market, NASA would have been defunded a long time ago.
            And rather than being a parasite, NASA should do something to add to global satellite market, and that would be to explore the Moon, to determine if we can get a lunar rocket fuel market. Which would begin by adding a few billion dollars to the global satellite industry in first few years, but in decade could adding tens of billions per year.

        2. Yes, SLS/Orion are just a drop in the bucket. Their existence might be worth the cost if the other track NASA is taking is allowed to survive. Even though the term Artemis wasn’t used in the bill, its activities live on. It could be better that everyone is ignoring it because the might give it a better chance of survival.

        3. The sooner one stops hoping NASA does the right thing, the sooner one can be happy and avoid disappointment after disappointment.

          Point taken. I can still daydream tho.

    2. The bill doesn’t even say that NASA wont do those things, only that they wont be part of the Moon to Mars program.

      Not sure why people would expect a funding bill for ISRU and permanent lunar bases when almost none of the preliminary work for them is done. Why would something get funding now when it wont even have someplace to go for a decade? People don’t like SLS but then support just lighting stacks of cash on fire year after year.

      Are people upset there isn’t an inspirational message about what will happen in the distant future? An over arching strategy is important but where your next footstep is going shouldn’t be ignored.

  19. And now, for your edification, the Axiom [but Mostly Boeing] Space Station…

    Remember that TV show about the drunken dad called “Shameless?” I have a new plot for them…

    1. Why all the hate on Boeing? Essentially turning NASA into a Boeing division seems like a good way of achieving airliner-like quality and performance. You know, like the 737 MAX…

      What could possibly go wrong?

  20. Just got this in email…perhaps it will calm some worry warts. I direct your particular attention to Topic #6:
    ——————————————————————————
    Release of the NASA Space Technology “Announcement of Collaboration Opportunity (ACO), 80HQTR20SOA01”

    NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) announces a funding opportunity for public-private partnerships to achieve NASA’s goals of expanding capabilities and opportunities in space. Through the solicitation titled “Announcement of Collaboration Opportunity (ACO), 80HQTR20SOA01,” released on January 29, NASA seeks partnerships with U.S. companies focused on advancing technologies that can benefit both the commercial and government use of space. NASA is seeking to provide technical expertise, facilities, hardware, and software to accelerate the development and availability of these technologies.

    For this ACO, STMD is inviting proposals for developing commercial capabilities in these Topics.

    Topic 1: Cryogenic Fluid Management and Propulsion
    Topic 2: Advanced Propulsion
    Topic 3: Operate in Extreme Environments
    Topic 4: Extreme Access
    Topic 5: Sustainable Power
    Topic 6: In-situ Propellant and Consumable Production
    Topic 7: Intelligent/Resilient Systems and Advanced Robotics
    Topic 8: Advanced Materials and Structures
    Topic 9: Entry, Descent and Landing
    Topic 10: Small Spacecraft Technologies

    Proposals submitted under this ACO must be led (and submitted) by a United States of America (U.S.) for-profit entity and must include one or more NASA Centers as a team member(s). A “U.S. for-profit entity” is a commercial firm or business incorporated and operating in the United States of America. See section 3.0 of the Announcement for full list of eligibility requirements/restrictions.

    Award Type: Unfunded Space Act Agreements (SAA)

    Key Dates:
    Release Date:

    January 29, 2020

    Virtual Industry Forum:

    February 19, 2020

    MPP Questions Due:

    March 11, 2020

    MPPs Due:

    March 16, 2020 (5:00 p.m. Eastern)

    Notification Letters Provided:

    May 11, 2020 (target)

    Final Proposal Questions Due:

    June 18, 2020

    Final Proposals Due:

    June 25, 2020 (5:00 p.m. Eastern) (target)

    Selection Announcement:

    August 31, 2020 (target)

    Project Start Date:

    October 1, 2020 (target)

    The complete solicitation may be found online at the NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES): https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary.do?solId={74267B46-BF77-E243-E2B0-3A370BD599EE}&path=&method=init

    Questions and comments about this solicitation should be submitted via email to: HQ-STMD-ACO@nasaprs.com

Comments are closed.