NASA budget is zero-sum—Constellation proves Homans 10 (Charles, editor, Washington Monthly, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1005.homans.html, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
Searching for funding within the zero-sum confines of the NASA budget, Griffin began dipping into other projects’ accounts. Soon Constellation was not only behind schedule, but forcing the cancellation of more useful NASA research and technology development programs. By 2009 Ares’s first flight was optimistically projected for 2015 and realistically years after that, and the estimated cost of building the rockets had grown from $14.4 billion to $35 billion. The moon base, to say nothing of Mars, receded into the distant future. What had begun as an audacious bid for NASA’s past glory was quickly becoming a very expensive means of continuing the dull obligations of the present, the perfunctory trips to and from the International Space Station—something Griffin had long scoffed at as a waste of time and resources. And even that wouldn’t be possible until years after the space shuttle was scheduled to be retired, meaning that American astronauts who wanted to get to the station would be reduced to paying to hitch rides with the Russians, whose Soyuz rocket and capsule would be the only means of getting into orbit.
NASA projects trade off Handberg 10 (Roger, author of Space, The Dormant Review, The Space Review, 3/1, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1576/1, accesed 7-1-11, CH)
In addition, within the space community, there exist severe splits between those who support unmanned or robotic missions as opposed to human spaceflight programs. These distinct clusters of space exploration supporters, especially the former, see the competition for scarce resources as essentially zero-sum; that is, if one wins, the other loses. Strategies to overcome this problem can take several forms, usually with bad results. One strategy taken by NASA when the space station program was originally set up after President Reagan’s approval of the program, over the objections of his science and political advisors, was to incorporate all the major NASA centers and other players into the program. The space station office originally was not located at any center in order to make the point that everyone had a piece of the pie, as it were. The result was a program out of control and incapable of disciplining itself to stay on schedule and within budget parameters. The result was a near-death experience in 1993 when the House of Representatives came within one vote of cancelling the program. That same summer, the Superconducting Super Collider program was cancelled due to a House vote. In addition, the cost overruns from the space station and the space shuttle forced the science community, including space sciences, to come out in public opposition to the station’s continuation since they saw its completion coming only at the cost of the space science community’s decimation. Given their previous history during shuttle development, they saw no alternative to becoming publicly critical of the space station. This was highly unusual within the Washington political community but reflected their desperation if Congress was not mobilized.
No new funding—NASA programs must trade-off AAAS 99 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 9/10, http://www.aaas.org/spp//rd/nasa00h.pdf, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
The House VA-HUD bill was originally scheduled to be debated on the House floor this week, but floor action has been postponed until after Congress returns on September 8. [The House approved the bill on September 9.] The Senate version of the bill will not be drafted until September, but it may contain cuts as severe as the House bill because its VA-HUD allocation is well below the House allocation. The Clinton Administration has issued a veto threat over the funding levels in the House bill, making enactment of the bill in anything resembling its current form highly unlikely. During floor debate, there are likely to be several proposed amendments to restore some of the funding cuts, but any restorations of NASA funding will have to be offset. [None of the NASA-related amendments were approved.] Currently, the only offset available is to cut another program’s funding in a zero-sum game, but the total amount available for the bill could be raised if 1) the discretionary cap is raised; or 2) some funds are designated “emergency” as they were in the Commerce-Justice bill; or 3) a further raid on the Labor-HHS bill’s allocation takes place
Link—Inner NASA T/Off
NASA budget zero-sum—competition and cuts between ISS, Constellation, shuttle program prove Thangavelu 9 (Madhu, Prof. Department Of Aerospace Engineering@USC, Space News, 8/24, http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/consortium-for-the-international-space-station.html, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
Now, a most poignant exchange between Augustine Committee members and NASA’s ISS manager reveals that NASA’s current budget, including stimulus funds, will still not allow us to keep the shuttle flying, the ISS operations rolling, and simultaneously provide enough resources for building the systems in the Constellation program for returning people to the Moon. Crawley points to the direct impact of this zero sum situation by suggesting that the Constellation program will have to be delayed until the ISS is decommissioned.
NASA funds limited—new programs would trade-off Space Weather 9 (5/1, http://www.solarstorms.org/SWChapter10.html, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
NASA, and the space scientists that advise this agency, are not interested in building a follow-on satellite to ACE just to supply private industry with a forecasting tool, unless it can be justified on solely scientific terms of advancing our understanding. Even so, any prospective follow-on to ACE will have to compete with astronomy satellites such as the Next Generation Space Telescope to secure its funding, and with MAP, AXAF and Hubble Space Telescope to maintain their year-to-year operating budget. NASA has been forced into a zero-sum, or even declining, fiscal game by Congress, at a time when space research has exploded into new areas and possibilities. Whether the power industry gets a GIC-forecasting tool to keep Boston lights turned on, or NOAA's Space Environment Center can help satellite owners prevent another major communication satellite outage, hinges on whether investigating quasars is deemed more important than studying the physics of solar magnetic field reconnection.
Spending zero-sum, NASA spending would force cuts elsewhere Blond 95 (Kara, staff, Defense Daily, 7/12, ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_n6_v188/ai_n28658227/, accessed 7-1-11, CH)
He conceded, though, that "this is a zero sum game" and that cuts would have to be made elsewhere if the centers are maintained.Previously, Hoyer voted to defer space station funding. Yesterday he suggested that station be examined as a possible source of budget cutting. Appropriators left untouched station's $2.1 billion FY '96 request. During Monday's markup, Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) went a step further than Hoyer, proposing an amendment which would have terminated station, cutting $1.4 billion and leaving $700 million for termination costs. His amendment also assigned $400 million for deficit reduction and added back to the bill only $200 million for NASA science. The remaining $800 million, he reassigned to other agencies. The amendment was defeated by voice vote. NASA officials argue that closing centers threatens the agency's mission.