|
JohnFornaro
|
|
« Reply #60 on: 05/17/2012 02:38 AM » |
|
Rohrabacher had a good chance to amend that language but did not. I don't know how good his chances could have been, but I am sure he's quite aware of the several different channels available to him, by which he could have affected the language of an amendment. I have no idea what political capital are needed to do that sort of thing. Not being on the Committee doesn't help.
|
|
|
|
RocketScientist327
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 05/17/2012 05:23 AM » |
|
A couple of statements by Republican Representative Rohrbacher on the House Language Report on commercial crew:
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Colloquy_-_Rohrabacher-Wolf_re_Commercial_Crew_FINAL.pdf
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=294927
The report of this bill contains some strong language about NASA’s Commercial Crew program, and I admittedly have some concerns about that language.I believe it makes a flawed comparison between commercial crew program partners and the energy firm Solyndra. In addition, it requires an immediate downselect to a single program partner, which I do not believe is the best path forward.
It should be noted that as a member of the majority party, Rohrabacher had a good chance to amend that language but did not.
It should be noted that Mr. Rohrabacher serves on the Science Committee, an "authorizer". Mr. Wolf serves on the Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee Chairman on Commerce, Justice, and Science, an "appropriator". As I understand it, and could be wrong (probably not), Mr. Wolf and Mr. Rohrabacher are truly friends. The chance to actually amend this on the floor of the House after its gone through committee is about -2%. I think we should all be happy that Mr. Wolf allowed Mr. Rohrabacher to have a colloquy on the matter. Commercial Crew is not Solyndra. Commercial Crew is working as intended. VR RE327
|
|
|
|
spectre9
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 06/02/2012 11:03 AM » |
|
In response to QG from the Mitt Romney thread, didn't want to drag it OT into an SLS discussion. As for the BEO exploration plan being worked on right now. If NASA's incapable of developing and executing a plan. Which is what I understand your and QuantumG's criticism to be. Then it makes not one bit of difference if SLS exists or not. Neither does it matter what rocket, architecture, technology, company, are involved. Because all NASA plans are doomed.
I don't think NASA is incapable of making a plan that Congress will approve and fund. I just don't think they have, or will. These plans we see on L2, Congress doesn't see those. One day they will be a total surprise, Charlie Bolden will go to Congress and they'll ask him why NASA is working on plans to utilize a less-than-130-metric-ton-SLS when the law clearly states that SLS must be 130-metric-ton. Charlie will say the law doesn't say that, and they'll respectfully disagree. A few months later they'll call him back and yell at him some more. Then they'll get indignant and make press releases saying NASA is pursuing a path which they won't fund, and that'll be the end of another set of plans. Some other team will be pulled from the back of the room and their plans will become front and center and it'll start all over again.
"lift capability not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously" Seems this is in both drafts. So the law doesn't say this yet but it might? I guess those missions we saw on L2 using the Block 1A SLS weren't that favourable after all. 
|
|
|
|
FinalFrontier
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 06/05/2012 01:12 AM » |
|
In response to QG from the Mitt Romney thread, didn't want to drag it OT into an SLS discussion.
As for the BEO exploration plan being worked on right now. If NASA's incapable of developing and executing a plan. Which is what I understand your and QuantumG's criticism to be. Then it makes not one bit of difference if SLS exists or not. Neither does it matter what rocket, architecture, technology, company, are involved. Because all NASA plans are doomed.
I don't think NASA is incapable of making a plan that Congress will approve and fund. I just don't think they have, or will. These plans we see on L2, Congress doesn't see those. One day they will be a total surprise, Charlie Bolden will go to Congress and they'll ask him why NASA is working on plans to utilize a less-than-130-metric-ton-SLS when the law clearly states that SLS must be 130-metric-ton. Charlie will say the law doesn't say that, and they'll respectfully disagree. A few months later they'll call him back and yell at him some more. Then they'll get indignant and make press releases saying NASA is pursuing a path which they won't fund, and that'll be the end of another set of plans. Some other team will be pulled from the back of the room and their plans will become front and center and it'll start all over again.
"lift capability not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously"
Seems this is in both drafts.
So the law doesn't say this yet but it might?
I guess those missions we saw on L2 using the Block 1A SLS weren't that favourable after all.
It would appear congress wants to ensure this program is un-cuttable. Even if that means building a rocket that is 3 sizes too big. To Congress: Can't have it both ways guys. Make up your mind, do you want a program or not? If you do don't make it an ideal target for cutting by over-sizing everything.
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 06/05/2012 03:34 PM » |
|
I think that the 130 mt provision is meant to ensure that J-2X and the 5 segment boosters aren't cancelled. Previous appropriations bills mentionned a 130 tons requirements. I guess that the difference is that "metric" has been added in this draft legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #66 on: 09/13/2012 03:00 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FinalFrontier
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 01/25/2013 07:00 AM » |
|
Ugh.
What a right mess this is going to be. SLS needs more funding, but heck, (pardon me for beating the drum) the entire agency needs more funding overall.
Putting more of my faith in commercial at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #70 on: 03/06/2013 07:21 AM » |
|
Looks like the Senate will try to improve the House's CR by adding appropriations for a few agencies. It's not clear in the article but I am guessing that NASA is one of these agencies given that Mikulski (Chair) and Shelby (Ranking Member) lead the Senate Appropriations committee. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/mikulski-wants-to-move-more-agency-budgets-88479.htmlDepartments that could see their budgets addressed include Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security and Transportation, as well as major science agencies. At this stage, neither party is prepared to roll back the sequestration cuts. But the goal is to provide the most detailed, updated budget for departments who may be better able then to cope with the reductions.
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 03/06/2013 07:26 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 03/09/2013 04:03 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
