And remember, this isn't JUST about BEO, or the jobs, or the skilled workforce (which is still the biggest portion in my view), it's also about the ISS as well. This does nothing to secure it's future, or more to the point, puts it in jeapordy.
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: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 08:23 amFor opponents of SDLV/HLV this is actually a reason to support a CR.Remember there are two separate functions in play. One is authorizations and one is appropriations. There has to be a CR, in order to continue funding for ALL those agencies, not just NASA, whose separate appropriations bill has NOT yet been passed by the House and Senate. It's not a choice between a CR and something else. But the CR, if it's what they call a "Clean CR", means that there is no language directing different spending authority than that already in place. It would take an enacted (i.e., passed by both Houses and signed by the President) to provide a changed set of policies and priorities for NASA. 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.
For opponents of SDLV/HLV this is actually a reason to support a CR.
Congress delays NASA decisionhttp://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100922/NEWS02/9220325/1086/Congress+delays+NASA+decisionWASHINGTON Congress isn't expected to make spending decisions about NASA until after the election, lawmakers said Tuesday.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 09/22/2010 01:35 pmQuote from: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 08:23 amFor opponents of SDLV/HLV this is actually a reason to support a CR.Remember there are two separate functions in play. One is authorizations and one is appropriations. There has to be a CR, in order to continue funding for ALL those agencies, not just NASA, whose separate appropriations bill has NOT yet been passed by the House and Senate. It's not a choice between a CR and something else. But the CR, if it's what they call a "Clean CR", means that there is no language directing different spending authority than that already in place. It would take an enacted (i.e., passed by both Houses and signed by the President) to provide a changed set of policies and priorities for NASA. 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.Thanks for your comments. I have a follow up question. Why is a clean continuing resolution likely? It would seem prudent to have a continuing resolution with language directing a different spending authority in case the 2010 NASA Authorization bill isn't passed on time. I imagine that it is a clean continuing resolution because passage of a NASA Authorization is expected. Not that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010.
CR. Oh well everyone tried. But as usual D.C. is broken beyond repair.
Not that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 04:26 pmNot that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010. It could, but it doesn't have to and that's one of the scenarios that I think many of us are wondering about. I would think that 'clean' in this sense means that there are no exceptions to the FY2010 spending levels. NASA is probably not a high enough national priority to be granted an exception, even in this case -- although we still have to wait and see what happens between now and when Congress recesses for the election.Federal government spending restraint is often a campaign issue and it definitely is this time; a "clean" CR effectively caps federal spending. (Whether the CR is absolutely 'clean' also remains to be seen.)The Library of Congress web site (a.k.a. 'Thomas') has several examples of enacted continuing resolutions (at least one was passed in every recent fiscal year):http://thomas.loc.gov/
They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.
Quote from: psloss on 09/22/2010 04:51 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 04:26 pmNot that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010. It could, but it doesn't have to and that's one of the scenarios that I think many of us are wondering about. I would think that 'clean' in this sense means that there are no exceptions to the FY2010 spending levels. NASA is probably not a high enough national priority to be granted an exception, even in this case -- although we still have to wait and see what happens between now and when Congress recesses for the election.Federal government spending restraint is often a campaign issue and it definitely is this time; a "clean" CR effectively caps federal spending. (Whether the CR is absolutely 'clean' also remains to be seen.)The Library of Congress web site (a.k.a. 'Thomas') has several examples of enacted continuing resolutions (at least one was passed in every recent fiscal year):http://thomas.loc.gov/Senator Nelson seems to believe that the amounts will be capped in the continuing resolution for NASA regardless of what happens to the NASA Authorization bill (which can be defended on the basis that NASA isn't more important than the rest of the government). But what remains to be seen is whether the amounts for NASA must be spent on the "same projects" as FY2010. My understanding from the article that I linked and from 51D Mascot's post is that if a NASA Authorization bill isn't passed, Republican senators will not accept changing the policies for NASA in a continuing resolution. They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.
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 ?