Because the Senate proposed the lowest funding level to Planetary Science in FY 2017, and because OMB has no idea what budget will finally pass at the end of April, they will likely limit spending for this program to a rate commensurate with the Senate’s funding proposal, despite receiving significantly more funding in FY 2016. Why? Think of it this way: if OMB allowed the program to spend at the FY16 rate, but the final budget approved in April used the Senate’s funding level, NASA would have to scramble to cut those hundreds of millions of dollars in the final few months of the fiscal year. This is a much harder pill to swallow than the opposite situation: receiving additional funding mid-way through the fiscal year.

The fact remains, however, that a CR through April 2017 could effectively implement a $275 million cut to NASA’s planetary science program until final budget action is taken. This hampers NASA’s ability to meet the recommendations of the National Academies’ Decadal Survey for Planetary Science, the document Congress has instructed NASA to use as its governing directive for planning the nation’s exploration of the solar system. A CR could delay or prevent the selection of two new Discovery-class missions. It may delay the selection of a new New Frontiers-class mission. It will also make life difficult for Mars 2020—already in development—and programs in formulation such the Europa orbiter, both of which needed (planned) budget increases as they build their teams and progress through their development.

This same problem applies to many NASA programs, particularly ones that have a strong disagreement between Congressional funding levels and White House funding requests. For example, here are the funding differences for the major human spaceflight programs at NASA: