Does that preclude an Authorization Bill in the 11 hour if say the house decides to go along with the Senate Bill as being the lesser of 2 evils the CR being the other evil?
The possibility exists for the House to take up and pass the Senate-passed bill and send it directly to the President at ANY point between right now and before they go into recess, presumably near the end of next week.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 09/22/2010 01:35 pmWithout it, under a clean CR (which is what is expected), the layoffs continue, no real work gets done in the direction of a new HLLV, whatever the design concept, and, in all likelihood, LON goes away and complete shuttle termination/eradication remains the agency focus. I don't see how that helps anyone, except those who prefer those outcomes anyway.It would certainly be good for those who oppose SDLV. It would also be good for SpaceX and to a lesser extent ULA. It would probably be bad for Boeing and especially for LM, which would be only partially offset by good news for ULA. It would be really bad for SDLV supporters. But a CR might not be the worst thing in the world for all of them. If ATK expects SDLV to fail reasonably soon, no matter which one is chosen, then they're better off with continuation of Ares I and 5 seg development, even if it is only for a year. If the Shuttle workforce is dispersed then that means less competition for that chunk of NASA's budget, which would be good for other NASA centers. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the players are expecting SDLV to continue in some form for a short while, before giving up the ghost eventually. Those players may be positioning themselves for what happens then. In that case they're not trying to save SDLV, but trying to salvage as much from the wreckage as possible.
Without it, under a clean CR (which is what is expected), the layoffs continue, no real work gets done in the direction of a new HLLV, whatever the design concept, and, in all likelihood, LON goes away and complete shuttle termination/eradication remains the agency focus. I don't see how that helps anyone, except those who prefer those outcomes anyway.
Quote from: marsavian on 09/22/2010 05:58 pmCould the NASA Administration though take a new authorized bill and decide actions on that even though there is a CR without any specific NASA directive language ? So if you passed the Senate bill in Congress they could act on that basis even with a CR with FY2010 funding ?Yes, strictly speaking they could, though with some limitations due to overall less money in continuing at FY 2010 levels.
Could the NASA Administration though take a new authorized bill and decide actions on that even though there is a CR without any specific NASA directive language ? So if you passed the Senate bill in Congress they could act on that basis even with a CR with FY2010 funding ?
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 05:00 pmThey will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill. We could have an enacted reauthorization for NASA, but still have a 'clean' CR that only refers to the FY2010 enacted appropriations, without explicit language for NASA. In that case, I don't believe the newly authorized numbers would apply. The oft-used phrase 'unfunded mandate' comes to mind, but I would welcome corrections. This is an unique situation.
They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 09/22/2010 06:11 pmThe possibility exists for the House to take up and pass the Senate-passed bill and send it directly to the President at ANY point between right now and before they go into recess, presumably near the end of next week.What kind of probability would you give that possibility?
My understanding is after the CR, the House and Senate are going to re-conviene after thanksgiving during a lame duck session to pass FY 11.
Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.
Quote from: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 09:23 pmConcerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.Then there goes commercial crew. Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?
Killing NASA does not help the expansion of humanity throughout the cosmos. Reducing its budget by that much (effectively killing manned spaceflight at NASA, not just NASA launch infrastructure) won't help, either, even if you think NASA "shouldn't be in the launch vehicle business."
Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/22/2010 09:41 pmKilling NASA does not help the expansion of humanity throughout the cosmos. Reducing its budget by that much (effectively killing manned spaceflight at NASA, not just NASA launch infrastructure) won't help, either, even if you think NASA "shouldn't be in the launch vehicle business."That is certainly true, but if you think it wasn't going to help very much anyway, then that's not a big loss. In principle you could increase spending later, though by that time you might no longer have the special interests in Congress fighting for a bigger budget. If the rest of Congress then doesn't want to fund it, then that's not necessarily a bad outcome if you believe in limited government. That is not a generally accepted belief of course.
We're going to have rich folks and government employees flying into space. You really think there are going to be any more rich folks flying into space if we eliminate all the government employees?
I've read a lot of libertarian primary sources. Doesn't make sense to me. I mean, a lot of libertarians still probably support some role in government funding for things like NASA.
Quote from: psloss on 09/22/2010 05:24 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 05:00 pmThey will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill. We could have an enacted reauthorization for NASA, but still have a 'clean' CR that only refers to the FY2010 enacted appropriations, without explicit language for NASA. In that case, I don't believe the newly authorized numbers would apply. The oft-used phrase 'unfunded mandate' comes to mind, but I would welcome corrections. This is an unique situation.You're basically correct, as far as the numbers go, but remember, an authorization bill is not just about MONEY and authorization of appropriations. That accounts for about 5% of the bill's language. The rest is about POLICY and PROGRAM authority and direction. THAT's as much, if not more, what is at stake here...a redefinition of the DIRECTION that NASA and especially its human spaceflight programs will be headed in the near and long-term future.