The pork marches on, in the NASA budget. I discuss this in a blog post at the Washington Examiner today.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s more at the Taxpayer Protection Alliance:

it looks like at least two NASA earmarks have made their way into the continuing resolution. On pages 214-215 of H.R. 1473 (the continuing resolution) there is language that states, “Of the amounts appropriated by this division for ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Exploration’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the multipurpose crew vehicle to continue existing vehicle development activities to meet the requirements described in paragraph (a)(1) of section 303 of Public Law 111-267, and not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy lift launch vehicle system which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously.”

This is important because Congress made a pledge of no earmarks and these particular earmarks would be used to salvage the Constellation Program that the President has tried to cancel.

The President signed into law legislation cancelling major components (the Ares I Rocket) of the Constellation program in 2010. But, because of a provision in NASA’s fiscal year (FY) 2010 Appropriations Act, NASA will spend an estimated $500 million on the Ares I rocket. On January 2, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “in the last days of last Congress they funded five hundred million dollars for a rocket program at NASA that’s already been shut down. That can’t be too hard to undo.”

Apparently, it’s a lot harder than Congressman Issa thought.

[Update a while later]

Where did the 130 tons come from? It looks like Mike Griffin decided he hadn’t already done enough damage.

Thoughts on the anniversaries from Austin Bay. In one of these eras, it would be nice to move from space exploration to space development and settlement. I think we have a lot better shot at that now, though.

[Mid-morning update]

The meaning of human spaceflight — twenty essays over at The Atlantic. I haven’t had time to read them yet — I suspect I’ll agree with some and disagree with others. I hadn’t previously heard of many of the authors.

Jeff Foust has the numbers on the deal worked out late last week. This is depressing:

In exploration, the CR directs NASA to spend at least $1.2 billion on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $1.8 billion on the Space Launch System “which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously.”

So NASA is forced to waste almost fifteen percent of its budget on a jobs program that will likely result in another programmatic failure in terms of actually flying anything. It’s also frustrating that the technology request was unfunded, though NASA probably will be able to come up with the money for it somewhere else.

As Major Tom points out in comments:

Griffin gave Ares I/Orion a larger budget (~$3.5B in FY10 rising to $5.5B in FY11 versus $3 billion in FY11) and easier requirements (25-tons versus 130-tons to LEO, ISS servicing versus BEO missions). Yet after five years of trying, Ares I and Orion never got past the lower-stage suborbital test stage. There’s no reason to believe that SLS/MPCV, if constrained to the same technical base, contracts, and workforce, can get a 5x bigger LV and more complex capsule operational in the same time for less money.

But it’s the law!