Author Topic: Senate NASA Authorization Bill  (Read 47496 times)

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« on: 07/18/2013 07:39 pm »
As proposed by Sens. Nelson and Rockefeller, thanks to Space Policy Online.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #1 on: 07/18/2013 07:45 pm »
Unlike the House (Republican or Democrat) version, the Senate version is friendly towards commercial crew. Commercial crew would get $800M, $815M and $825M for FY 14, 15 and 16. I like the fact that Section 224 seems to lump commercial crew and cargo into one in various sentences. Section 224 is worth reading.  It stresses the importance of competition. It mandates FAR for the commercial crew transportation services contract (which is expected) and asks NASA to provide Congress with a transition plan for going towards FAR. But it doesn't prevent NASA from exercising optional CCiCap milestones.
« Last Edit: 07/19/2013 02:20 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #2 on: 07/18/2013 08:00 pm »
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 Gasser
TEA Party in Space

Online Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #3 on: 07/18/2013 09:04 pm »
JWST is just bad.  Bad. Bad. Bad.  Its ruining the potential for future astrophysics.  This is like a 20 year ding.

So are the budget numbers for JWST higher than what was expected? I mean there was that big brouhaha a while back and the JWST budget and schedule was re-adjusted to conform closer to reality at that time. Is it exceeding the adjusted projections made back then? Because we still have a long way to go until 2018.

And would astrophysics be getting all $642 million + $658 million if JWST did not exist? Or is JWST budget an additional amount over what astrophysics normally got in the past?

Thanks.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #4 on: 07/18/2013 09:48 pm »
The Senate's CJS Appropriation bill has been approved by the full appropriation committee. My understanding from what I have read is that the NASA Authorization bill and the Appropriation bill's numbers for FY 2014 should match. Bear in mind that these numbers are likely to go down as a result of the upcoming Budget Control Act negotiations.

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=3faf5d98-625a-47ee-891d-5250c49207ea
« Last Edit: 07/18/2013 09:49 pm by yg1968 »

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #5 on: 07/18/2013 10:33 pm »
NASA must name the SLS.

Cool  8)

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #6 on: 07/18/2013 10:54 pm »
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 Gasser
TEA Party in Space

Of all the things in this bill, that is all you take away from it?  ???
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #7 on: 07/18/2013 11:17 pm »
It looks like the Senate appropriation bill would fund commercial crew at $775M for FY 14.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36339senate-house-nasa-bills-far-apart-on-funding-close-on-some-priorities#.Ueh3ho1J79o
« Last Edit: 07/18/2013 11:18 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #8 on: 07/18/2013 11:40 pm »
If we got the average of these two bills I would be happy.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #9 on: 07/19/2013 02:20 am »
Anyone else very happy with this draft?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #10 on: 07/19/2013 02:26 am »
Anyone else very happy with this draft?

I like this draft also. The numbers are likely to change but hopefully the language will stay.

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #11 on: 07/19/2013 04:09 pm »
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 Gasser
TEA Party in Space

Of all the things in this bill, that is all you take away from it?  ???
We are juggling a few balls as we go through this - looking at the numbers.  What I can say is that for me, personally, I am a big SMD fan and "JW" is something I have followed for a very long time.  If you go back to the late 90s the concept started at almost the same time Kepler did.

So the JWST numbers really jumped off the screen at me.  Its gonna bust $9 billion over budget at this rate with the numbers outlined.  Its just how these things are.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #12 on: 07/19/2013 06:21 pm »
Heh. CSF issue the same release as last time, but with the positive, as opposed to negative wording.

Commercial Spaceflight Federation Applauds Senate Appropriations Committee NASA Budget


July 19, 2013

Washington D.C. – The Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) applauds the Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill approved yesterday by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill sends $18.1 billion to NASA for Fiscal Year 2014, including $775 million for the Commercial Crew Program and $670 million for Space Technology, of which $17 million is allocated for the Flight Opportunities Program.
 
“With this legislation, the Senate Appropriations Committee has recognized the key role NASA plays in American innovation, exploration, and inspiration,” stated CSF Chairman Stuart Witt. “We thank Chairwoman Mikulski and the rest of the Committee for their commitment to preserving America’s leadership in space and supporting the many American engineers and scientists working to bring the benefits of spaceflight to everyone.”
 
“I cannot overstate the value of this bill's investment in the Commercial Crew Program. It will allow American astronauts to return to flight on American vehicles as soon as possible,” said CSF President Michael Lopez-Alegria. “The bill also funds development in space technology that will enable new NASA missions and keep the U.S. the technological leader in space.”

“America has always been on the forefront of space and technology, but countries like China and India are rapidly expanding their programs and looking to challenge the U.S.,” said Executive Director Alex Saltman. “NASA’s Flight Opportunities Program is a key part of the Space Technology Mission Directorate, facilitating the testing of new technologies and new modes of scientific research on commercial reusable suborbital vehicles.”

Commercial Crew Program

Congress and the Administration have consistently identified commercial providers as a cost-effective, safe, and reliable source of routine flights to low-Earth orbit, including transportation of cargo and NASA astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). The third round of the Commercial Crew Program was awarded in July 2012, with three integrated system designs chosen for further development. Because these are competitively awarded, fixed-price, and milestone-based partnerships, NASA only pays for what is successfully developed.

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program will enable American providers to cut dependence on the Russian Soyuz for crewed access to the ISS, a facility that American taxpayers have invested billions to build. NASA currently pays Moscow more than $60 million per seat to access the ISS, a price that is expected to rise above $70 million in the next few years.

Space Technology

NASA technology development capabilities have shrunk dangerously over the last decade. The Space Technology Mission Directorate is revitalizing innovation at NASA, demonstrating technologies that will allow future manned and unmanned missions to destinations across the solar system. The program includes development and demonstration work at many NASA centers and at companies and universities around the country. The Flight Opportunities Program provides test flights for technology development and new space-based science that will further our exploration capabilities while keeping the U.S. competitive with other space programs overseas.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #13 on: 07/20/2013 01:50 am »
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?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #14 on: 07/20/2013 02:01 am »
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?

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).
« Last Edit: 07/20/2013 02:07 am by yg1968 »

Offline jimhillhouse

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #15 on: 07/20/2013 09:19 am »
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?

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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #16 on: 07/20/2013 01:02 pm »
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?

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.

Bear in mind that the Senate's number are pre-sequester. So the large difference is to be expected. However, finding a compromise on sequester and how to deal with the Budget Control Act will be difficult.

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3431
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1601
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #17 on: 07/20/2013 01:58 pm »
Didn't see these posted earlier in the thread:

Senate S. 1329 Appropriations Bill (dated July 18, 2013) - NASA section pages 68-76
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s1329pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s1329pcs.pdf

Senate Committee Report 113-78 to accompany S. 1329 (dated July 18, 2013) - NASA section pages 104-119
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt78/pdf/CRPT-113srpt78.pdf

Naturally the report gives detailed explanatory comments from the committee.

[copies also attached]

MODS:  I know this thread was set-up for the Senate Authorization Bill, but there has been discussion of the Appropriations as well.  Please move if it would be better elsewhere.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #18 on: 07/20/2013 02:14 pm »
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 Mars

Which 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.

Quote from: Senate Draft Section 201
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.

Which is also the sort of thing that should be happening.  DoD's loaded with money, and they should be supporting SLS.  Not only that, they should absolutely have a cargo variant, allowing more mass to be launched.  The obvious benefit would be the capability to pre-position supplies and hab modules at the lunar base, for starters.

Three sizes of LV is fine too.  Small, medium and large.  This is emphasized in Section 322, where they mention "small, medium, and large space missions".  And 324, "a mix of small, medium, and large planetary science missions".

As always, they should build the 70 ton version first, and start using it to launch "exploration elements".  When the time comes, the larger versions can be built for the larger payloads.  When there are actually larger payloads to launch.

Like that's gonna happen.  The force is strong with those who would not grow our nation's launch capability, but rather pass out pork for no accomplishment.  They are building in reverse order, again, to no purpose, by insisting upon developing the biggest LV they can before the smaller variants have been flight proven.

Quote from: Senate Draft Section 202
It is the policy of the United States that ... the Launch Complex...  to enable and facilitate civil, defense, and private launches...

This is a flaw in the legislation, easily fixed by striking out one word, and simplifying the sentence with a clarifying and beneficial result.

We are trying to build a new private economy in space.  That should be government policy, "opening the solar system to the full range of peaceful human activity".  Otherwise, Section 202 is pretty good. 

Section 203 is stoopid and should be removed. 

The legislation calls the new LV "SLS".  There should be no more name changes:  It should not now be called USCV-1 or some other nonesense which would only be intended to confuse the public for no pragmatic purpose.  Of course the false flag community disagrees, confident in their assumptions about the near total dumbification of the sheople to the point where a contest like this will provide sufficient widespread distraction from the expected continuation of non-accomplishment.  Sigh.

Quote from: Senate Draft Section 223
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.

Interesting Damoclean sword that could cut both ways, depending upon whose head it should fall.  For example, would it be a new medical cure, or a new infectious virus?

I scanned through the section on liability insurance; not sure what I think; hope that the "experts" on this section are correct.  Took a peek at the wishful thinking in Section 326.  Threw an eyeball over the Cross Agency Support section, reserve judgement for later.  Note that in Section 706, the helium shortage is starting to be felt more strongly.  The culture of waste infects the country.  NASA's just a reflection of this larger issue, and the waste is not limited to helium.  Look at the complete waste of the Ares  rocket and its launch pad.

Quote from: Senate Draft Section 707
The deteriorating condition of the Administration’s facilities and other infrastructure is hampering the research effectiveness and efficiency performed at those facilities...

The building looks terrible.  I know, rocket scientists don't do windows.  The gall of the Senate in even suggesting that they take care of their facilities is, well, offensive.

NASA will not even bother with Section 708, which will give future politicians the opportunity to whine about the "painful lessons learned".  Like Adam and Eve said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Finally, I can shake a stick at a good number of things, you'd be surprised.  The number of reports called for in this draft legislation would certainly challenge my stick shaking abilities.
« Last Edit: 07/20/2013 02:22 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Senate NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #19 on: 07/20/2013 02:40 pm »
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 Mars

Which 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.

Well, as long as a government agency didn't start mining the Moon, there wouldn't be too much of a problem.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1