The Constellation Program goal of returning Americans to a moon base has been thrown in doubt, a House hearing revealed.

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee commerce, justice, science and related agencies subcommittee, voiced grave misgivings about whether adequate funding will be available for the Constellation Program and other NASA efforts.

His comments were made to Acting NASA Administrator Christopher Scolese, whom Mollohan said is performing well, but with a sorely underfunded agency.

Scolese in return acknowledged that NASA may not be able to afford to do all that it has been assigned to accomplish.

In the Constellation Program, NASA is to develop a replacement Orion-Ares spaceship system in place of the space shuttle fleet, which then-President Bush last year ordered into retirement as of Sept. 30 next year.

Even if all were to go well, the replacement Orion space capsule and Ares I rocket to lift it to space wouldn’t have an initial manned trip to low Earth orbit until 2015.

But now, if the Ares I rocket is scrapped in favor of using existing military rockets, moon missions wouldn’t occur. And even if Ares I is developed (it now is four years down the road toward realization), Scolese indicated the money may not be there for a full permanently manned moon base.

Bush in 2004 issued his vision for space exploration, calling for a return to low Earth orbit, visits to the moon, then a permanent encampment on the moon, and finally manned voyages to Mars and other solar system points.

But he didn’t fund the program, instead calling for a halt to space shuttle flights. That has created a half-decade gap, during which the United States — the only nation thus far to place men on the moon — will have to hitch rides with the Russians to the U.S.-funded International Space Station.

Now, the funding for that delayed vision of missions for a permanent moon base and on to Mars is in question, and Mollohan wasn’t pleased.

"NASA continues to fly the Shuttle, operate and maintain the International Space Station, and proceed with the Constellation program," Mollohan noted. But "costs for all these activities are rising," with almost 70 percent of all major NASA projects running over cost and/or behind schedule.

This is especially true, he said, for the Constellation Program, where the "price tag for Orion and Ares continues to mount, and there are considerable unknowns as to whether NASA’s plans for the Ares and Orion vehicles can be executed within schedule and current cost estimates."

Mollohan warned that the Constellation Program is about to run into funding trouble that may damage the program, and the vision for space exploration.

"These cost increases occur within finite annual budgets, and as such, cost increases in one program likely mean reductions in another."

He urged, as lawmakers in Congress have for years, that NASA take steps to stop the upward spiral in the price of the space program. "It is incumbent upon NASA to have far more reliable cost estimates at the time missions are proposed; effective management tools and empowered managers in place to minimize cost increases and schedule slippages; and greater transparency in NASA’s budgeting and execution to improve program costs, budgeting, review and oversight. This is an ongoing process and one that continues today."

Even with corrective action, though, Mollohan said budget constraints may mean something has to give, and some programs may have to be cut back.

"The larger, looming question remains: can NASA do all that it is asked to do within its budget allocation?"

While President Obama has proposed almost $1 billion extra for NASA in the upcoming fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2010, in later years there is no such largesse, Mollohan observed.

"The out-year profile for NASA is straight-lined over the next five years, signaling little change in the budget profile from" the Bush years, the chairman noted.

And the fiscal pressures on the agency are closing in from all sides, with a need to invest in science and aeronautics (airline safety and more) urgent and compelling, Mollohan said.

All of this places a huge question mark on the ability of NASA to execute that vision for space exploration.

"NASA is to continue with its development of the existing ‘vision’ and the new generation of U.S. human space flight capabilities, the cost of which … continues to mount — and the timeline for initial operating capability gets pushed further and further into the future," the chairman said.

Noting that the shuttle fleet is to retire next year, Mollohan expressed dissatisfaction with the five-year gap when the United States can’t even send one astronaut to low Earth orbit.

Mollohan then voiced a grim picture: if the $100 million space station that hasn’t yet been fully used for research isn’t given authorization to continue operations past 2015, then maybe one of the first jobs of the Orion space capsule will be to go to the station and shove it out of orbit, to be demolished by burning up in the atmosphere.

That such a catastrophe could even be possible, Mollohan told Scolese, is one reason that Obama hasn’t yet found a new administrator to take over NASA, after former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin left the top post Jan. 20. Scolese has been acting administrator since then.

"Is it any wonder that it has been so difficult to find an administrator for this agency?" Mollohan said.

What it all comes down to, he continued, is what most issues in Washington come to: money. NASA is woefully underfunded, the Appropriations Committee leader said.

"At some point, it seems clear that the walk must match the talk, and that funds must follow policy," he said.

While some observers, including Griffin, have blamed "mattress mice" — mid-level bureaucrats and White House staffers who try to rob NASA of the funds it needs — that isn’t really where the problem lies, Mollohan said.

"The problem is not mid-level career staff at the [White House] Office of Management and Budget: the president, the [NASA] administrator and the Congress are responsible for defining NASA’s missions and then ensuring that funds are there to support those missions," Mollohan said.

With a pandemic shortage of money in some government programs (not counting trillions of dollars being spent on the banking, Wall Street, insurance, mortgage and other industries), hard choices lie ahead, Mollohan indicated.

"The appropriate choice is one of two things: to put more money on the selected missions, or to select and fund fewer missions within a constrained budget. We can’t have our cake and eat it too with NASA," he said.

Mollohan made clear he would like to fund NASA, fully, but that may not be in the cards.

"I’m all for putting more money on missions," the chairman said. "I would hope that the new [Obama[ administration and the new [NASA] administrator share my view."

And he said he wants to see what Obama provides in the fiscal 2010 NASA budget, which the White House may release Thursday.