I think some are missing the point. This bill does not divorce NASA from the government, the executive or legislative branch. It would still very much be subject to oversight.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 08/17/2012 01:12 amI think some are missing the point. This bill does not divorce NASA from the government, the executive or legislative branch. It would still very much be subject to oversight.And NASA would still be subject to Congress telling NASA what to do if Congress chose to legislate, for its own reasons, its own preferences. I refrain from pointing out a current example.
Actually, now that I think about it, getting rid of OMB's authority over NASA's budget would probably be the best option. They have been strangling NASA for decades....and are neither bipartisan nor non partisan.
What about allowing "end-of-year" money to be carried over without adversely affecting subsequent budgets?
Quote from: John Duncan on 08/17/2012 05:32 pmActually, now that I think about it, getting rid of OMB's authority over NASA's budget would probably be the best option. They have been strangling NASA for decades....and are neither bipartisan nor non partisan.That makes no sense. OMB works for the president and they are following his policy. OMB manages the whole budget for executive branch which NASA is part of. There is no way around excluding nasa
Quote from: vulture4 on 08/17/2012 07:02 pmWhat about allowing "end-of-year" money to be carried over without adversely affecting subsequent budgets? If, for valid reasons, the budget is not used up entirely, save it. This is the key reform which could streamline our government. The bureaucrats will object that if they should save money in a given fiscal year, that Congress will give them less money the next fiscal year. That's fine. The bureacrats are actually making a concerted effort to expand government without reason, and it should stop.There are readily legislated limits to how much can be saved and how that financial process transpires. The state of Virginia, for example, has a rainy day fund which is filled when income outpaces expense, and used when expense outpaces income.
I'm saying that the wonderful reports about what multi-billion dollar exploration system developments should be undertaken are full of errors and bias because politics gets in the way.
Even something like "NASA must use shuttle hardware" is too much control and will end up costing them more money in the long run.The concerns for jobs in certain areas should not be an engineering concern for exploration hardware.
What about putting NASA back under the AF wing or Military in general?
Quote from: Prober on 08/17/2012 08:30 pm What about putting NASA back under the AF wing or Military in general?It was never under to go back to. It would get less money then and anyways defeats the purposes of NASA existing in the first place.
Quote from: Jim on 08/18/2012 12:55 pmQuote from: Prober on 08/17/2012 08:30 pm What about putting NASA back under the AF wing or Military in general?It was never under to go back to. It would get less money then and anyways defeats the purposes of NASA existing in the first place.was trying to think of a way to "shield" NASA from all funding and mission interference(s). Thinking now, the Military has enough issues to deal with.
The bill is being introduced on Thursday:http://wolf.house.gov/press-releases/advisory-culberson-wolf-posey-olson-and-smith-introduce-space-leadership-act/I seriously doubt that any President would ever agree to sign such a bill. I also hope that the rest of the House will not agree to pass this bill. Interesting to see that Ralph Hall isn't a co-sponsor of the bill.
Can't say I disagree with that, but it doesn't explain your comments on Griffin's tenure.