NASA's FY 2013 budget has been out about a week and already one Senator and various Representatives from Texas are complaining there isn't enough money for NASA's Space Launch System (SLS). In the bizarre world of Congressional rocket science, it makes more sense to accelerate a system that will cost at least a billion dollars per launch to act as a "backup" to commercial efforts for delivering cargo and crew to the International Space Station (ISS) than to simply fully fund a lower-cost program ($830 million per year)  designed to provide two (2) different commercial vendors -- one as a "backup" -- for services.  

Texas logic starts at the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) complaining about hundreds of millions of dollars trimmed out of SLS and Orion budgets. "These reductions will slow the development of the SLS and the Orion crew vehicle, making it impossible for them to provide backup capability for supporting the space station," wrote Hutchinson in a February 13 press release. "The Administration remains insistent on cutting SLS and Orion to pay for commercial crew rather than accommodating both."

There are already two vendors in the process of demonstrating American-flagged cargo services to ISS under NASA's COTS/CRS programs and a number of vendors ready to build commercial space vehicles via NASA's Commercial Crew program. Spending money on SLS to provide "backup" capability to support the space station seems excessively redundant if NASA already has two U.S. companies on deck to provide cargo to ISS and plans to have at least two U.S. companies capable to provide manned crew transport to the space station if it gets full funding.

On the other side of Congress, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) says the proposed FY 2013 budget “continues to slow-roll development of a new heavy-lift launch vehicle.” During a February 17 hearing, Hall called upon witness Dr. John Holdren, President Obama’s chief science and technology advisor, to get NASA to accelerate the SLS timetable, saying it is necessary to ensure America has an alternative method to transport our astronauts and cargo to ISS.

Ironically, while Hall uses the podium of the House Committee to push SLS, fellow committee member Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA (News - Alert)) has condemned funding of the project and come out in support of fully funding Commercial Crew.

“The administration’s FY’13 budget includes almost $1.9 billion for continued pursuit of the SLS Titanic, a ‘monster rocket’ based on 40-year-old Space Shuttle technology in an attempt to recapture the glory days of the Apollo Saturn V,” said Rohrabacher. "I am pleased the President requested $830 million for Commercial Crew programs, which is America’s single most important near-term civil space project."

Two problems exist for the Congressional delegation from Texas if they continue to push SLS funding at the expense of fully funding NASA Commercial Crew program. First, it would appear that they advocate a policy that has the United States continue to purchase transport to ISS from Russia until SLS is built -- rather than "insourcing" the dollars and work to American companies.

Second, if Russia's spotty track record with the pieces to its manned launch system continues, a Soyuz failure leaving the $100 billion space station unmanned and untended -- or worse, deorbited -- could have a significant impact on the 15,000 employees employed at Houston's Johnson Space Flight Center (JSC). If ISS goes down, there's no need to have a Mission Control Center for its operations or the many other NASA employees and contractors supporting space station operations.

The best form of insurance for JSC and its jobs would be to line up behind Commercial Crew to ensure near-term, affordable U.S.-based access to the International Space Station.