Quote from: yg1968 on 12/01/2010 07:21 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 12/01/2010 05:25 pmQuote from: TimL on 12/01/2010 04:50 pmPretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless. 2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes. Vitter didn't give the CFO the chance to actually answer that question. But in all likelyhood, the legal clarity memos relating to the SLS takes a lot more time because they depend on the overall funding of the HLV and they are also more complicated from a legal point of view. The fact that NASA is allowed to pursue CCDev 2 under a continuing resolution isn't much of a surprise since it's a continuation of CCDev 1 (which was started under the stimilus bill). Drafting a legal opinion on the legality of starting a new SLS program which likely requires cancelling part of Constellation is a lot more dificult. On your first paragraph, as I mentioned, it was Senator Nelson. However, that is not really the subtle point in which I was referring. On your second paragraph, CCDev 2 is not really a simple "continuation" of the first. It is an open competition, not just additional funding to those who got it during the first round. I'm not saying by any means CCDev 2 RFPs for Space Act Agreements should not have been let, just curious that seems so "simple" to rationalize. However it takes a lot of time to "explore the trade space" with respect to MPCV (based on Orion where a contract is already in place and significant money already spent) and an HLV (where the options - and really the intent of congress - is pretty clear). In addition, there was something about grad students thrown in there. While I absolutely agree research is important at universities and the students there are part of the future workforce pipeline, IMHO there are thousands of people now who are the current workforce pipeline who are wondering how long their current job lasts and how best to try to apply their talents and experience for what comes next. So, as I said, I found that conversational exchange to speak volumes to me personally.
Quote from: OV-106 on 12/01/2010 05:25 pmQuote from: TimL on 12/01/2010 04:50 pmPretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless. 2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes. Vitter didn't give the CFO the chance to actually answer that question. But in all likelyhood, the legal clarity memos relating to the SLS takes a lot more time because they depend on the overall funding of the HLV and they are also more complicated from a legal point of view. The fact that NASA is allowed to pursue CCDev 2 under a continuing resolution isn't much of a surprise since it's a continuation of CCDev 1 (which was started under the stimilus bill). Drafting a legal opinion on the legality of starting a new SLS program which likely requires cancelling part of Constellation is a lot more dificult.
Quote from: TimL on 12/01/2010 04:50 pmPretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless. 2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes.
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
If I understand what was said in this hearing correctly, in order to have NASA moving forward along 2010 auth law guidance, in the context of a long term FY 2011 CR, three (3) things must be inserted in the CR language :A. an explicit reference to removing current language in the 2009 Appropriation bill and in the new war supplemental funding bill that prohibits NASA to terminate programs, projects or activities relating to Constellation. B. an explicit reference to removing current language (that is generally found in continuing resolutions) that prohibits NASA (or other government agencies) to start new programs, projects or activities that weren't already funded under the prior appropriation bill. However, given the fact that appropriation bills aren't that specific, there is some leeway on this. C. an explicit reference to NASA authorization law of 2010 as the legal source of guidance when it comes to distributing CR funds to new and existing programs, projects and activitiesDid I get that right ?
"Provided further, that notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, funds made available for Constellation in Fiscal Year 2010 for 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration' and from previous appropriations for 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration' shall be available to fund continued performance of Constellation contracts, and performance of such Constellation contracts may not be terminated for convenience by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Fiscal Year 2010."
EXPLORATIONFor necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the conduct and support of exploration research and development activities, including research, development, operations, support, and services; maintenance; space flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities; program management, personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901–5902; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, $3,746,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That notwithstanding section 505 of this Act, none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.
SEC. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary, at a8 rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropria9 tions Acts for fiscal year 2010 and under the authority and1 conditions provided in such Acts, for continuing projects2 or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan3 guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for4 in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2010, and5 for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were6 made available in the following appropriations Acts:
Quote from: Pheogh on 12/01/2010 06:50 pmand when does the 90 day study start? Is it dependent on the appropriations?The 90 day period starts from the day that the NASA Authorization bill was signed by the President (October 11, 2010).
and when does the 90 day study start? Is it dependent on the appropriations?
...90 day study ... January 9, 2011...
Looks like the House is voting on a CR to Dec. 18 right now.http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx
I feel pretty good about the hearing; from my perspective, it accomplished its primary objectives, which were to a) demonstrate that the Committee is VERY serious about using its oversight authority to closely monitor--and thus be in a position to enforce--compliance with both the language and intent of the law, b) to express concerns about indications the Committee has received from a variety of sources about less-than-adequate enthusiasm for full and complete implementation of the law or inaccurate "interpretations" of the law, c) establish a dialogue about what real or imagined impediments exists (i.e., appropriations language and FY 2011 potential funding level scenarios) and potential solutions thereto, and d) get affirmative statements on the record from senior officials regarding the "adoption" of the law as a matter of Administration policy and commitments to its successful implementation. (The focus was on the NASA CFO for this hearing simply because the current situation of working through the tangled web of CR appropriations--and that official's role in working through that and developing allocations among programs and providing longer-term budget planning guidance--is especially critical right now during the "transition.")It was also made clear, though maybe not as noticeable to observers as some of the above, that this was the "opening salvo", if you will, of what will be an ongoing process of careful oversight and follow-up; that the enactment of the law represented just the "first step" in ensuring the new "re-direction" established by the law, especially in the realm of human spaceflight; and to reflect that that oversight includes being able to fine-tune the language and policy, where needed, to ensure an "executable" program (including changes to out-year funding, etc., depending on what becomes clear and more certain on exactly what vehicle designs and mission definitions are developed, as required by the law.)So...a good beginning, in my view, skeptics and critics of the law and the process on this site and elsewhere notwithstanding, hehe.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 12/02/2010 01:32 pmI feel pretty good about the hearing; from my perspective, it accomplished its primary objectives, which were to a) demonstrate that the Committee is VERY serious about using its oversight authority to closely monitor--and thus be in a position to enforce--compliance with both the language and intent of the law, b) to express concerns about indications the Committee has received from a variety of sources about less-than-adequate enthusiasm for full and complete implementation of the law or inaccurate "interpretations" of the law, c) establish a dialogue about what real or imagined impediments exists (i.e., appropriations language and FY 2011 potential funding level scenarios) and potential solutions thereto, and d) get affirmative statements on the record from senior officials regarding the "adoption" of the law as a matter of Administration policy and commitments to its successful implementation. (The focus was on the NASA CFO for this hearing simply because the current situation of working through the tangled web of CR appropriations--and that official's role in working through that and developing allocations among programs and providing longer-term budget planning guidance--is especially critical right now during the "transition.")It was also made clear, though maybe not as noticeable to observers as some of the above, that this was the "opening salvo", if you will, of what will be an ongoing process of careful oversight and follow-up; that the enactment of the law represented just the "first step" in ensuring the new "re-direction" established by the law, especially in the realm of human spaceflight; and to reflect that that oversight includes being able to fine-tune the language and policy, where needed, to ensure an "executable" program (including changes to out-year funding, etc., depending on what becomes clear and more certain on exactly what vehicle designs and mission definitions are developed, as required by the law.)So...a good beginning, in my view, skeptics and critics of the law and the process on this site and elsewhere notwithstanding, hehe. 51D- Thanks for the summary. Just curious, what steps would the committee be empowered to take should implementation of the law deviate from the intended path?
The fact that the appropropriation process has been stalled in Congress is making it hard for NASA to implement the NASA Authorization bill. If you ask me, Congress should focus its efforts on getting this done before crying foul and claiming that NASA is not following the spirit of the law. Some people in the House have vowed to continue fighting some of the items that are found in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. This makes it difficult for NASA to commit to any new programs including CCDev-2 and the SLS.
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/02/2010 02:33 pmThe fact that the appropropriation process has been stalled in Congress is making it hard for NASA to implement the NASA Authorization bill. If you ask me, Congress should focus its efforts on getting this done before crying foul and claiming that NASA is not following the spirit of the law. Some people in the House have vowed to continue fighting some of the items that are found in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. This makes it difficult for NASA to commit to any new programs including CCDev-2 and the SLS. Please don't assume that Members can't "multi-task." The issues in appropriations have been, and continue to be, worked very diligently by these Members. There are "institutional constraints" that are at work as well, which complicate the issue, not least of which is the pending transition of power in the House, and the fact that the current appropriations morass is not just in the area affecting NASA, but the ENTIRE federal government, so getting "special attention" to something that represents less than one half of one percent of that total is not easy; but everything possible is being done in the context of those realities, and one of the outcomes of yesterday's hearing was a commitment for direct White House engagement on the issues affecting NASA. We shall see, as Senator Vitter noted, how well that "test" is met.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 12/02/2010 02:44 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 12/02/2010 02:33 pmThe fact that the appropriation process has been stalled in Congress is making it hard for NASA to implement the NASA Authorization bill. If you ask me, Congress should focus its efforts on getting this done before crying foul and claiming that NASA is not following the spirit of the law. Some people in the House have vowed to continue fighting some of the items that are found in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. This makes it difficult for NASA to commit to any new programs including CCDev-2 and the SLS. Please don't assume that Members can't "multi-task." The issues in appropriations have been, and continue to be, worked very diligently by these Members. There are "institutional constraints" that are at work as well, which complicate the issue, not least of which is the pending transition of power in the House, and the fact that the current appropriations morass is not just in the area affecting NASA, but the ENTIRE federal government, so getting "special attention" to something that represents less than one half of one percent of that total is not easy; but everything possible is being done in the context of those realities, and one of the outcomes of yesterday's hearing was a commitment for direct White House engagement on the issues affecting NASA. We shall see, as Senator Vitter noted, how well that "test" is met.I am not assuming that Congress is unable to multi-task. But Congress needs to admit that the NASA Authorization bill is stalled partly because of their lack of progress on these issues. But Vitter was honest enough to say that they are partly to blame for the situation when he admitted that there is "language" deficiencies that need to be fixed in the (December 17) continuing resolution. Incidentally, any news on that? Is there any hope that the December 17th CR will contain the necessary language to fix some of these issues?
Quote from: yg1968 on 12/02/2010 02:33 pmThe fact that the appropriation process has been stalled in Congress is making it hard for NASA to implement the NASA Authorization bill. If you ask me, Congress should focus its efforts on getting this done before crying foul and claiming that NASA is not following the spirit of the law. Some people in the House have vowed to continue fighting some of the items that are found in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. This makes it difficult for NASA to commit to any new programs including CCDev-2 and the SLS. Please don't assume that Members can't "multi-task." The issues in appropriations have been, and continue to be, worked very diligently by these Members. There are "institutional constraints" that are at work as well, which complicate the issue, not least of which is the pending transition of power in the House, and the fact that the current appropriations morass is not just in the area affecting NASA, but the ENTIRE federal government, so getting "special attention" to something that represents less than one half of one percent of that total is not easy; but everything possible is being done in the context of those realities, and one of the outcomes of yesterday's hearing was a commitment for direct White House engagement on the issues affecting NASA. We shall see, as Senator Vitter noted, how well that "test" is met.
The fact that the appropriation process has been stalled in Congress is making it hard for NASA to implement the NASA Authorization bill. If you ask me, Congress should focus its efforts on getting this done before crying foul and claiming that NASA is not following the spirit of the law. Some people in the House have vowed to continue fighting some of the items that are found in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. This makes it difficult for NASA to commit to any new programs including CCDev-2 and the SLS.
If you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 12/02/2010 04:01 pmIf you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be. I thought I heard that, but thanks for making it clear.
Quote from: simonbp on 12/02/2010 04:54 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 12/02/2010 04:01 pmIf you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be. I thought I heard that, but thanks for making it clear. It would be worth reading the transcript. I thought that she meant that the amount of spending was a bigger impediment than the language itself (which would make sense). Although, I imagine that there is ways around the language in the sense that you could argue that the SLS is essentially a modified Ares V. You could also try to argue that NASA is not cancelling Ares I but that it is focusing its energy instead on this modified Ares V.