The burden of moving forward is on Congress and the challenge facing Congress is whether they can agree on a plan other than FY2011.If they cannot, FY2011 may very well win by default.However that does not mean that all the "good stuff" in FY2011 - fuel depot R&D, advanced propulsion R&D, etc . . . won't be stripped out in future years in favor of a limited LEO-only crew taxi and a reduced overall NASA budget. = = =Edit to add: If FY2011 wins by default (because Congress fails to coalesce around another alternative) then the FY2011 plan likely would not have long term staying power during subsequent years.
Assume two commercial car companies....
The way to find out which would be best would be free competition...
How many Russian launch entities are required...
What strikes me is that the opposition to the new Obama plan is so fragmented...
So would a LOV/LOC during a "commerical" launch from a lack of safety and reliability oversight in order to save money Danderman.
That is a blatent mischaracterization in order to manipulate perception.
Furthermore, it seems people like yourself try to place people in very strict, very defined boxes, which in no way universally exist, in order to promote "me vs. them" further enflaming the fragementation you so lament.
In reality, opposition to the "Obama plan" may actually subside if honest, real details on how this plan is to be implemented were released. So far, we have heard vague policy and buzzwords.
...I expect that's part of what's preventing a negotiated compromise. POR supporters hoping to avoid any change, and thus win.
Edit to add: If FY2011 wins by default (because Congress fails to coalesce around another alternative) then the FY2011 plan likely would not have long term staying power during subsequent years.
That is a blatent mischaracterization in order to manipulate perception. Furthermore, it seems people like yourself try to place people in very strict, very defined boxes, which in no way universally exist, in order to promote "me vs. them" further enflaming the fragementation you so lament. In reality, opposition to the "Obama plan" may actually subside if honest, real details on how this plan is to be implemented were released. So far, we have heard vague policy and buzzwords.
FY2011 can't "win by default". Congress must cease their prohibition against ending constellation work, and provide funds for the change for FY2011 to go forward.
I PERSONALLY support most of the President's FY2011 proposal, but I would gladly take Shuttle extension + Directish HLV on a flat budget over a continuing motion any day of the week.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 05/01/2010 02:13 pmFY2011 can't "win by default". Congress must cease their prohibition against ending constellation work, and provide funds for the change for FY2011 to go forward.I think this is a canard. First off, "Constellation" is not a legal term. "Zombie Orion" therefore could be construed as "Constellation", and thus for the purpose of satisfying Congress, the continued work on the Orion Lifeboat could be construed as "Constellation".
Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.
First off, "Constellation" is not a legal term. "Zombie Orion" therefore could be construed as "Constellation", and thus for the purpose of satisfying Congress, the continued work on the Orion Lifeboat could be construed as "Constellation". Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 02:27 pmFirst off, "Constellation" is not a legal term. "Zombie Orion" therefore could be construed as "Constellation", and thus for the purpose of satisfying Congress, the continued work on the Orion Lifeboat could be construed as "Constellation". Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.I haven't read that bill in... months, but the way I read it, and the way the congressional panels seem to be quoting it, is that almost ANY modification form Constellation, as dictated by Dr. Griffin, can be construed as a deviation.
H.R.3288Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)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.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 02:27 pmSecond, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.Which is what SpacexULA said. Congress have to act. If Congress actually pass FY2011, then it isn't 'by default'.
My interpretation of the bill is closer to yours than David's:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3288.enr:Quote from: HR3288H.R.3288Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)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."Program", "project", and "activity" have specific definitions and there is an Ares Project in addition to the Orion Project. Therefore, preserving only what David calls "Zombie Orion" without preserving Ares would not be considered to be compliant with HR 3288.
Quote from: Jorge on 05/01/2010 03:26 pmMy interpretation of the bill is closer to yours than David's:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3288.enr:Quote from: HR3288H.R.3288Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)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."Program", "project", and "activity" have specific definitions and there is an Ares Project in addition to the Orion Project. Therefore, preserving only what David calls "Zombie Orion" without preserving Ares would not be considered to be compliant with HR 3288.Thanks for providing this. I hope you realize that the specific clause above simply states that no leftover money within the Constellation program can be used for the purpose of paying for termination or to start a new activity, program or project within the architecture. As you know, Obama is not proposing a budget based on leftover funds, he is proposing NEW funds, so the above clause is not relevant to the discussion, IMHO (I may be misreading the clause).
AFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations (although it can tell the future Administration what NOT to do).
Correct. However, if Congress fails to pass FY11 appropriations by October 1 and NASA gets funded by a Continuing Resolution, the above provision remains in force until Congress *does* pass a real appropriations bill (and if we see a repeat of FY07, even that's not a given).
Didn't realize it was that persistent. Would it be correct to assume that IF NASA is funded by a continuing resolution, that Shuttle cancellation would continue at full speed?
-After final flight of 2011 Congress acts shocked at the now existent gap, and passes a 2012 budget in May 2011, Obama signs, and uses 1 Billion from Stimulus money to "bridge" the at that point running FY2011 over to his plan.
QuoteAFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations (although it can tell the future Administration what NOT to do). Correct. However, if Congress fails to pass FY11 appropriations by October 1 and NASA gets funded by a Continuing Resolution, the above provision remains in force until Congress *does* pass a real appropriations bill (and if we see a repeat of FY07, even that's not a given).
Note that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 06:38 pmNote that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.Is a CR for an individual agency even possible? I thought that always applied to the budget as a whole.
I don't think so. A continuing resolution does appropriate new money. The provision in question strictly deals with FY2010 money, not FY2011 money. Therefore, the status of Constellation would be that the money would be appropriate at FY2010 levels, but Obama would be free to move it around within the Constellation "bucket", which would effectively be Zombie Orion and HLV studies.Note that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.
Such amounts as may be necessary under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year xxxx for continuing projects or activities
A typical CR would contain the following language: QuoteSuch amounts as may be necessary under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year xxxx for continuing projects or activitiesSo restrictions that applied to 2010 money would be applied to 2011 money appropriated by a CR.
Quote from: Jorge on 05/01/2010 03:26 pmMy interpretation of the bill is closer to yours than David's:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3288.enr:Quote from: HR3288H.R.3288Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)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."Program", "project", and "activity" have specific definitions and there is an Ares Project in addition to the Orion Project. Therefore, preserving only what David calls "Zombie Orion" without preserving Ares would not be considered to be compliant with HR 3288.Thanks for providing this. I hope you realize that the specific clause above simply states that no leftover money within the Constellation program can be used for the purpose of paying for termination or to start a new activity, program or project within the architecture. As you know, Obama is not proposing a budget based on leftover funds, he is proposing NEW funds, so the above clause is not relevant to the discussion, IMHO (I may be misreading the clause).AFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations (although it can tell the future Administration what NOT to do).