JWST is just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Its ruining the potential for future astrophysics. This is like a 20 year ding.
Thank you for posting this and we are reviewing this - however what is clearly evident is that JWST is slaughtering the astrophysics budget.Not at a computer where I can really crunch the JWST numbers (or any of the other programs) but holy smokes. JWST is just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Its ruining the potential for future astrophysics. This is like a 20 year ding.And for ISS - and I am just asking the question - How much of that ISS budget is the Boeing "Sustaining Engineering" program and how much goes to you know, science?Yep - I asked it. Respectfully,Andrew GasserTEA Party in Space
Anyone else very happy with this draft?
Quote from: Tea Party Space Czar on 07/18/2013 08:00 pmThank you for posting this and we are reviewing this - however what is clearly evident is that JWST is slaughtering the astrophysics budget.Not at a computer where I can really crunch the JWST numbers (or any of the other programs) but holy smokes. JWST is just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Its ruining the potential for future astrophysics. This is like a 20 year ding.And for ISS - and I am just asking the question - How much of that ISS budget is the Boeing "Sustaining Engineering" program and how much goes to you know, science?Yep - I asked it. Respectfully,Andrew GasserTEA Party in SpaceOf all the things in this bill, that is all you take away from it?
It was my understanding the Senate Appropriations Committee was the last step prior to releasing funds. If this is not the case, what are the next steps prior to this actual commitment for FY14?
Quote from: newpylong on 07/20/2013 01:50 amIt was my understanding the Senate Appropriations Committee was the last step prior to releasing funds. If this is not the case, what are the next steps prior to this actual commitment for FY14? The respective legislation would have to be passed by both chambers. Once that is done, a conference committee could be set up to come to a compromise that both chambers are willing to agree to. But the biggest hurdle is the negotiations on what to do with the sequester and the Budget Control Act. Until, there is an agreement on this, we are not likely to see much progress. Most people think that we are heading towards another continuing resolution in FY 2014 (which would mean FY 2013 numbers less additional cuts under the sequester).
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/20/2013 02:01 amQuote from: newpylong on 07/20/2013 01:50 amIt was my understanding the Senate Appropriations Committee was the last step prior to releasing funds. If this is not the case, what are the next steps prior to this actual commitment for FY14? The respective legislation would have to be passed by both chambers. Once that is done, a conference committee could be set up to come to a compromise that both chambers are willing to agree to. But the biggest hurdle is the negotiations on what to do with the sequester and the Budget Control Act. Until, there is an agreement on this, we are not likely to see much progress. Most people think that we are heading towards another continuing resolution in FY 2014 (which would mean FY 2013 numbers less additional cuts under the sequester). I just don't see how House or the Senate would approve anything near what the other chamber could. So I'm afraid that NASA will be living under a CR for most, if not all, of 2014.
...to achieve human exploration of Mars, including the establishment of a capability for human habitation on the surface of Mars
...the utility of an expanded human presence in cis-lunar space toward enabling missions to various lunar orbits, the lunar surface, asteroids, the Mars system, and other destinations of interest for future human exploration and development...
The Administrator, in collaboration with the Secretary of Defense and Director of National Intelligence, shall include a discussion of the work, cost, and schedule required to enable and utilize a cargo variant of the Space Launch System, including the 70, 105, and 130 metric ton configurations, with both a 5 meter or 8 meter faring.
It is the policy of the United States that ... the Launch Complex... to enable and facilitate civil, defense, and private launches...
With respect to any invention ... the Administrator may waive the license ... if the Administrator finds that the reservation of the license by the Administrator would substantially inhibit the commercialization of an invention.
The deteriorating condition of the Administration’s facilities and other infrastructure is hampering the research effectiveness and efficiency performed at those facilities...
Overall, the draft legislation has good language, with some important exceptions."Opening the solar system to the full range of peaceful human activity."It's the economy, stoopid. Quote from: Senate Draft Section 201...to achieve human exploration of Mars, including the establishment of a capability for human habitation on the surface of MarsWhich is absolutely fine by me. To do this, we need a strategy. How about we use this strategy?Quote from: Senate Draft Section 201...the utility of an expanded human presence in cis-lunar space toward enabling missions to various lunar orbits, the lunar surface, asteroids, the Mars system, and other destinations of interest for future human exploration and development...Obviously, the intent here is that that Luna is a stepping stone, which is exactly as it should be. I expect the haters to come out with their scientificist viewpoint that once we land on Luna again, we'll never go anyplace else, ever, due, I suppose, to some sort of galactic law.