Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 02:15 amThanks for the kind words to the people above Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.That's how I read it too. Congress doesn't want NASA for unecessary cancellation fee if the technology can be used for the HLV.
Thanks for the kind words to the people above Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/04/2010 02:15 amThanks for the kind words to the people above Yeah, the Ares I reference also made me wonder, but I'm not sure it means "go back and continue with Ares I" - they can't based on budget alone anyway, and the Augustine findings would still stand.That's how I read it too. Congress doesn't want NASA to pay for unecessary cancellation fees if the technology from Constellation can be re-used for the HLV.
51D Mascot,I would be interested to know if you believe that the Shuttle extension money has any chance of being appropriated. I wonder if this bill has bi-partisan support and if Obama might be tempted to veto it. Was there any imput from the White House on this bill?
For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/04/2010 01:58 amQuote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 01:28 amGood article but in respect of Shuttle costs (and at the risk of nit picking), I doubt that the $1.2B in FY 2010 and $2B in FY2012 are the entire Shuttle extension costs, they are just the additionnal costs above the NASA regular $19B budget that is necessary for extension. Quote On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide. Not true, yg...the $19B includes only $700m and change for shuttle operations for the first quarter of FY 2011, which is a hedge against extending into that period in order to complete the remaining manifest. No other funding within the proposed $19 billion for FY 2011 has anything to do with shuttle operations. FY 2012 on, under the President's plan, has zero funding for shuttle ops. The $2b authorization--for money over and above what is in the President's request--is the figure for total SSP operations at a flight rate maximum of two per year, and that figure has supporting documentation in reports, both internal and in those provided to the Congress, which provide a good confidence level that the number is sufficient to do the job, if such extended operations are found to be required as a result if the ISS supportability assessment required by the bill as one of the key factors in determining what level, if any, of extended operations would be essential to ensure long-term (2020 and beyond) viability of ISS. That does not mean that SSP would need to be co-extended with ISS; only that, where it's unique capability is required in the near-term to provide delivery for large ORU/SRU elements for prepositioning aboard ISS before SSP capability is "surrendered."OK, thanks for carifying that. So the cost per year for Shuttle extension really is essentially 2B$ per year.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 01:28 amGood article but in respect of Shuttle costs (and at the risk of nit picking), I doubt that the $1.2B in FY 2010 and $2B in FY2012 are the entire Shuttle extension costs, they are just the additionnal costs above the NASA regular $19B budget that is necessary for extension. Quote On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide. Not true, yg...the $19B includes only $700m and change for shuttle operations for the first quarter of FY 2011, which is a hedge against extending into that period in order to complete the remaining manifest. No other funding within the proposed $19 billion for FY 2011 has anything to do with shuttle operations. FY 2012 on, under the President's plan, has zero funding for shuttle ops. The $2b authorization--for money over and above what is in the President's request--is the figure for total SSP operations at a flight rate maximum of two per year, and that figure has supporting documentation in reports, both internal and in those provided to the Congress, which provide a good confidence level that the number is sufficient to do the job, if such extended operations are found to be required as a result if the ISS supportability assessment required by the bill as one of the key factors in determining what level, if any, of extended operations would be essential to ensure long-term (2020 and beyond) viability of ISS. That does not mean that SSP would need to be co-extended with ISS; only that, where it's unique capability is required in the near-term to provide delivery for large ORU/SRU elements for prepositioning aboard ISS before SSP capability is "surrendered."
Good article but in respect of Shuttle costs (and at the risk of nit picking), I doubt that the $1.2B in FY 2010 and $2B in FY2012 are the entire Shuttle extension costs, they are just the additionnal costs above the NASA regular $19B budget that is necessary for extension. Quote On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide.
On the topic of costs, the funding for an extension, the first two years are costed at an extra $1.2B in 2011, followed by an extra $2B in 2012. These figures are much less than previously touted, and may have a good selling point for the huge jobs – and more so skill set – savings a shuttle extension would provide.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 03:00 am51D Mascot,I would be interested to know if you believe that the Shuttle extension money has any chance of being appropriated. I wonder if this bill has bi-partisan support and if Obama might be tempted to veto it. Was there any imput from the White House on this bill? Absolutely a possibility of getting the funds, if the NEED is adequately and convincingly demonstrated as being a requirement for the protection of a $100 billion dollar investment in ISS and the need to ensure its sustainability through at least 2020. There IS bipartisan support, though not completely visible at this stage, except in the group lining up to introduce identical companion legislation in the House. No White House involvement was either sought or offered in developing this bill, as it is seen as an alternative to the White House proposal; in fact, the introduction of the bill itself is seen as providing a potential avenue for establishing the framework for subsequent conversations with the White House at whatever point they deem it is necessary to start talking about a realistic approach to a very clearly unpopular budget proposal.
In other words, spend the budgeted Constellation "close out" money on building something like a Jupiter 130 rather than paying termination fees? Is that reasonably close? Edit to add: The use of the word "novation" also speaks volumes.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/04/2010 03:01 amFor those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill. That is often "a" metric, but should never be construed as a necessarily "telling" metric. Especially when you recognize the kind of process that such a bill goes through after introduction, with referral to and consideration by a Committee of Jurisdiction, a mark-up to refine it to a consensus point prior to reporting to the floor by the Committee. THEN is when the nuts and bolts of coalitions, blocs of support, and vote-counting get relevant.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/04/2010 03:17 amQuote from: Danderman on 03/04/2010 03:01 amFor those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill. That is often "a" metric, but should never be construed as a necessarily "telling" metric. Especially when you recognize the kind of process that such a bill goes through after introduction, with referral to and consideration by a Committee of Jurisdiction, a mark-up to refine it to a consensus point prior to reporting to the floor by the Committee. THEN is when the nuts and bolts of coalitions, blocs of support, and vote-counting get relevant.Your description of the legislative process is not inaccurate, but you forget that amassing co-sponsors is one of the ways that bills make it through that process.BTW, I am surprised that no one has pointed out that appropriations cannot start in the Senate.