Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

Pages: 1 ... 94 95 [96] 97 Next
Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 152352 times)
yg1968
Full Member
*****
Online

Posts: 5471



« Reply #1425 on: 09/23/2010 03:28 PM »


http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf
Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921


Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf
It's comparing this proposed, amended bill with the House bill that passed committee (HR 5781); what would be more useful would be a "side-by-side' comparison to the bill that passed the Senate, S. 3729.

(Expecting a wave of blogosphere postings on that...)

At first glance, it looks like it's closer.


It looks a lot like the Senate bill!!!!
rusty
Full Member
***
Offline

Posts: 61


« Reply #1426 on: 09/23/2010 03:28 PM »

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.

Excellent points 51D Mascot. A CR is a poor option and Obama FY2011 is nothing more than a suggestion. If a poll is taken, I'd discount these choices and, between H.R.5781 and S.3729, I'd choose the House Bill because...

- Senate maintains Shuttle workforce to leave the door open for extension while the House closes shop, but permits one more flight if criteria are met. Senate maintains ET workforce for Shuttle and a HLV to fly by the end of the decade while House wants an HLV selected in 6mos without putting conditions on what tank, equipment and workforce is used.

- Senate requires a HLV loft 70-100mt and 130mt with upper stage to LEO while House simply requires vehicle capable of extensive BEO human missions.

- Senate continues Orion for BEO and as a Commercial Crew 'back-up' to LEO by the end of 2016 while House funds AresI as primary LEO vehicle by the end of 2015 and Commercial must have an established, cheaper option to replace AresI. Senate funds commercial development at $300mil/yr while House allows $150mil/yr, including $100mil/yr in loans, to put the burden of proof on commercial.

- Senate authorizes a large diameter SRB study which, along with ensuring a Shuttle option, probably means the RSRBs will continue while House mandates there use in AresI and HLV.

<Please correct this comparison if necessary or state disagreements>
robertross
Canadian Member
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 15185
Location: Westphal, Nova Scotia


« Reply #1427 on: 09/23/2010 03:30 PM »


http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf
Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921


Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf
It's comparing this proposed, amended bill with the House bill that passed committee (HR 5781); what would be more useful would be a "side-by-side' comparison to the bill that passed the Senate, S. 3729.

(Expecting a wave of blogosphere postings on that...)

At first glance, it looks like it's closer.


It looks a lot like the Senate bill!!!!

I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks  :)
jongoff
Rocket Plumber
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 3914
Location: Louisville, CO


WWW
« Reply #1428 on: 09/23/2010 03:32 PM »

I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks  :)

Seconded.

~Jon
JohnFornaro
Not an expert
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 6942


« Reply #1429 on: 09/23/2010 03:36 PM »

Thirded.
Namechange User
Elite Veteran
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 7310


« Reply #1430 on: 09/23/2010 03:37 PM »

I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks  :)

It actually could be that easy.  I don't believe that is actually the case here but without a doubt this version of the House bill is much, much closer to the Senate bill and that is a good thing and the immediate message that needs to be sent. 
Bill White
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 2018
Location: Chicago area



« Reply #1431 on: 09/23/2010 03:38 PM »

From the summary:

Quote
EXPLORATION

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $13.18 billion for the Restructured Exploration program, including ground operations and launch infrastructure investments. It also separately included a total of $150 million for the 21st Century Launch Complex initiative.
The Compromise Bill provides a total of $12.21 billion for the Space Launch System, Crew Vehicle, and associated activities, of which a total of $1.33 billion is provided for a NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization program.

COMMERCIAL CARGO AND CREW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $464 million for commercial cargo and crew development activities.
The Compromise Bill provides a total of $1.212 billion for commercial cargo and crew development activities.

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $9 billion for the ISS.
• The Compromise bill provides a total of $8.9 billion for the ISS.
• Both bills provide a total of $275 million for ISS research.

ADDITIONAL SHUTTLE FLIGHT

The Compromise bill provides $600 million in FY 2011 for an additional “Launch on Need” (STS-135) Shuttle flight.
Ben the Space Brit
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 5071
Location: London, UK


A spaceflight fan


« Reply #1432 on: 09/23/2010 03:39 PM »

Well. I'll leave interpreting the bill to those more skilled than I in these matters.  However, I will make one point: Let's hope they've got this right and clear of nonsense from those whose main concern is their 'legacy' in astronautics.

We often hear polilticians talk of things being "the last chance" to do this that or the other.  However, it is true in this case.  It really is the last chance for them to save the skill-sets and jobs which they claim are so important.  Without a clear direction, irrevocable layoffs and infrastructure demolition will start happening very soon.
psloss
Veteran armchair spectator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 15157


« Reply #1433 on: 09/23/2010 03:41 PM »

Don't have time to do much more than a shotgun of a few sections...others here have done a great job breaking these down and hopefully they can do it again.

In Section 101, the Senate bill breaks out SLS and MPCV funding, this bill has a lump sum for both, along with infrastructure and support.

The Senate bill has $300M for Commercial Cargo, $312M for CCDev; this bill has $412M for both.  (At first blush, that's $200M less for both.)

The Senate bill applies $425M to "NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program" under Space Opertaions; this bill "charges" that to Exploration.

Otherwise, the numbers look the same for ISS and Shuttle Ops.
M_Puckett
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 297


« Reply #1434 on: 09/23/2010 03:43 PM »

Waiting on 51D Mascot to give us his take.
Ben the Space Brit
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 5071
Location: London, UK


A spaceflight fan


« Reply #1435 on: 09/23/2010 03:44 PM »

The Senate bill has $300M for Commercial Cargo, $312M for CCDev; this bill has $412M for both.  (At first blush, that's $200M less for both.)

That fits in with the impression I get that, to the House, Orion/SLS ought to be the primary vehicle rather than the backup.
psloss
Veteran armchair spectator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 15157


« Reply #1436 on: 09/23/2010 03:45 PM »

(Skipping around a little bit)

The Senate bill has a section on assurance of "core capabilities" (Section 203) that this bill does not have.

Both bills have a minimum capabilities section on SLS, Section 302(c); they are worded differently, but I'm not sure they can't be interpreted similarly -- this bill doesn't have any initial capability specified and says "provide a scalable capability of lifting payloads of at least 130 metric tons."
Chris Bergin
NSF Managing Editor
Administrator
*****
Online

Posts: 84270



« Reply #1437 on: 09/23/2010 03:53 PM »

Worth starting a new thread? I've got several documents on this now.
DaveJSC
Full Member
****
Offline

Posts: 270
Location: ISS FCR. Former Shuttle FCR


« Reply #1438 on: 09/23/2010 03:54 PM »

Yes Chris!
psloss
Veteran armchair spectator
Full Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 15157


« Reply #1439 on: 09/23/2010 03:54 PM »

Back to Exploration line items...

Technology Development is in different places in Section 101 (FY 2011); the Senate bill has $250M under Exploration, this bill has $300M under Aeronautics & Space Development.

Edit -- got the Senate number wrong; fixed.

In Section 102 (FY 2012), the Senate bill has $500M for Commercial crew capabilities; this bill has $400M for "Commercial Cargo and Crew Capability Development."

Same description and numbers for Section 103 (FY 2013).
Tags:
Pages: 1 ... 94 95 [96] 97 Next
 

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0 Beta 3.1 Public | SMF © 2006–2008, Simple Machines LLC
All content © 2005-2011 NASASpaceFlight.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.066 seconds with 21 queries.