Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 189305 times)

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Liked: 18
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
Is it the House or Senate bill?

That part is still under discussion, but at this stage I would say it would most likely be either the House bill with modifications that bring it closer to the Senate or agreeable to the Senate (because anything else would be dead-on-arrival in the Senate, and even THAT might be if only ONE Senator were to object) or the Senate bill, as passed by the Senate, with no amendments, and sent directly from the House to the President--who, I am certain, would sign it. Anything they do, given the compressed schedule available, will likely have to be under suspension of the rules, which allows no amendments from the floor.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Liked: 156
Would be a good time for another poll

- Obama FY2011
- Senate bill
- House bill
- CR

i'd vote for the CR, as of now.
We are sorry to announce that due to irreversible nature of the events depicted in this movie, there will not be a "Gravity 2"

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Liked: 18
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
Would be a good time for another poll

- Obama FY2011
- Senate bill
- House bill
- CR

i'd vote for the CR, as of now.

The CR will NOT contain any new money or new language guiding NASA. Without an enacted authorization/policy bill, signed by the President, things will continue JUST as they have been, with the Constellation funding restricted, impounded, whatever you want to call it, but held back from the contractors, just as it has been for the past six months. That means even longer delays in ending the uncertainty, more unnecessary layoffs and disruption of lives and careers, and I just don't see that as a viable option. At least with an enacted bill, and the President's signature, that officially reverses the policy of the Administration and there would be NO BASIS for continuing the financial squeeze on resources needed for new HLV development. And with an enacted LAW, there would be ample basis for congressional oversight to ensure NASA compliance with that direction regardless of the level and allocation of resources in the CR. There would also then be a legal basis for pressing for new directive language in the follow-on to the CR, whether it is another CR for the balance of FY 2011, or an Omnibus appropriations for 2011, which would reflect the combination of Budget Requests in some areas and enacted authorization levels in other areas, such as NASA.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline TheFallen

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Liked: 11
Congress delays NASA decision

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100922/NEWS02/9220325/1086/Congress+delays+NASA+decision

WASHINGTON Congress isn't expected to make spending decisions about NASA until after the election, lawmakers said Tuesday.

« Last Edit: 09/22/2010 01:40 PM by Chris Bergin »
The Dawn spacecraft arrives at dwarf planet Ceres, New Horizons arrives at dwarf planet Pluto, and Star Wars: Episode VII comes out in movie theaters...all in the same year. What could possibly make 2015 more awesome for space and sci-fi nerds everywhere?

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5847
  • Liked: 101
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
This could easily be the worst of all possible worlds, no matter what your view on the next path NASA could take.  No one is going to risk making any big strides or taking any big decisions when the overall direction could change as early as the start of next year.  So, we'll just have the various CxP sub-projects spinning their wheels as bits of infrastructure disappear and the gap gets ever wider.

At this rate, commercial will win by default because it is going to be the only thing still seriously in development.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16631
  • Liked: 112
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
This could easily be the worst of all possible worlds, no matter what your view on the next path NASA could take.  No one is going to risk making any big strides or taking any big decisions when the overall direction could change as early as the start of next year.  So, we'll just have the various CxP sub-projects spinning their wheels as bits of infrastructure disappear and the gap gets ever wider.

At this rate, commercial will win by default because it is going to be the only thing still seriously in development.

The funny thing is (though it's not funny), that commercial DOESN'T win. Nobody does. Many lose, and that's the unnecessary part.

I 'could' see a silver lining in a CR, but not at the expense of so many & so much; it's not worth it. Some in the workforce may just move on to other projects, leaving a huge empty space (excuse the pun) which use to be a developing capability.

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.
My thoughts and prayers to the families of our fallen soldiers Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, and Corporal Nathan Cirillo in the terror attacks against Canada. Rest in Peace.

Offline grdja

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
  • Liked: 0
Commercial plus depots is one of best options. If you don't all go crazy with cost plus contracts and allow projects to run and allow contractors to milk government money without ever having to deliver. :(

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Liked: 18
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
For 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.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Chris Bergin

  • NSF Managing Editor
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 95834
  • Liked: 5163
Would we be talking days, weeks or months to get an enacted authorization/policy bill signed by the President?

If you're allowed to say (noting other sites are listening in with a glass placed on the side of the wall).

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15639
  • Liked: 17
Would we be talking days, weeks or months to get an enacted authorization/policy bill signed by the President?
The President only has I believe about a fortnight to do something with legislation passed by Congress (don't have the Constitution handy), so the issue is getting both houses to pass the same bill.

We may find out soon enough what NASA does with STS-135, CxP, etc. if this first CR goes into effect without an enacted reauthorization.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2010 01:55 PM by psloss »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Liked: 12
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia

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.


Amen. Thank you once again Robertross.

The ISS is the mission we are currently flying and sometimes that fact is ignored by some politicians. Placing it in jeapordy for local political gains or pork or ego or whatever else that may float their individual boats seems pretty crazy. If we end up having major problems with or even losing the ISS during the upcoming US human spaceflight capability gap, Congressional members as well as the previous and current President would bear the responsibility for their gross inability to do their jobs and work out an effective replacement for the Space Shuttles.

Politicians, of whatever party, who talk a lot of hot air but fail to maintain our ability to robustly support the International Space Station are sending out mixed messages. Such mixed messages are confusing political and technical invitations for trouble of one sort or another.

Does the information in this article have any relevance on the political possibilities of a Congressional compromise or is it political noise? 
NASA administrator draws an ethics reprimand
By Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews, Orlando Sentinel
7:18 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2010

At:  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-administrator-embarrasses-oba20100920,0,503695.story


Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Liked: 4
Horrible news.   The worst possible case is NASA getting dragged into the coming post-election political food fight.    I think there is a risk of returning to the drawing board again.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7336
  • Liked: 37
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
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.

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.
« Last Edit: 09/22/2010 04:41 PM by mmeijeri »
May Decatur do to SLS what Decatur did to the USS Philadelphia.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7044
  • Liked: 339
For 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.   
« Last Edit: 09/22/2010 04:35 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7044
  • Liked: 339
Congress delays NASA decision

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100922/NEWS02/9220325/1086/Congress+delays+NASA+decision

WASHINGTON Congress isn't expected to make spending decisions about NASA until after the election, lawmakers said Tuesday.

That article is confusing. The core of the article appears to contradict its title.

Tags: