NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Space Policy Discussion => Topic started by: yg1968 on 05/27/2014 09:55 pm

Title: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 05/27/2014 09:55 pm
The Full Committee hearing is on June 5th at 10AM:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/event/full-committee-markup-cjs-and-thud

The Subcommittee hearing was on June 3rd at 11AM:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/event/cjs-subcommittee-markup
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 03:01 pm
June 3rd Hearing has started.

Here is an image via Twitter:
https://twitter.com/SenateApprops/status/473841628038578177/photo/1
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 03:05 pm
Mikulski says that NASA would get $17.9B under the Senate's proposed CJS Appropriation bill. Commercial crew would get $805M. SLS would get $1.7B. ISS operations would get $3B.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 03:11 pm
Shelby says that there is language requiring transparency for the commercial crew program (it's not clear what he means by that).
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 03:13 pm
The bill passed the subcommittee by a voice vote (no objections).
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 03:21 pm
Archived audio from the June 3rd hearing (NASA starts at 29:40):
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/webcast/cjs-subcommittee-fy15-markup
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 03:28 pm
Quote from: CJS Appropriation Bill Summary
No agency represents the Nation’s scientific prowess like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The dream of space inspires schoolchildren to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. NASA scientists and their private sector and university partners are peering into the big bang and the origins of the universe, drilling into rocks on Mars, researching cures for salmonella on the International Space Station, building the vehicles that will let humans explore beyond low earth orbit, preparing to analyze samples from the Sun, and looking back to Earth to understand and protect our planet. The $17.9 billion in the bill for NASA will preserve a NASA portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology, and human space flight investments. Moreover, it will keep NASA in the forefront of innovation, inspiring private companies to build new crew transportation, and fueling a new satellite servicing industry that can revive, refuel, and rejuvenate defunct communications satellites. The amount provided for NASA is $439 million above the President’s request and $254 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level.

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/fy15-cjs-subcommittee-markup-bill-summary
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 03:33 pm
Shelby's statement relating to NASA:

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/shelby-statement-commerce-justice-science-fy15-appropriations-bill-markup

Quote
In addition, the subcommittee recommendation includes nearly $18 billion for NASA.

The bill maintains focus on efforts to develop a heavy lift launch vehicle, or SLS, and preserve the mission schedule for a 2017 launch by requiring NASA to follow its own internal guidance regarding joint confidence levels in future funding requests.

In order to maintain the schedule for a 2017 launch date, the bill includes $1.7 billion for SLS rocket development.

The recommendation also includes funding for ongoing activities of the International Space Station and other important science research missions.

I want to commend the Chair for working with me to include language that provides greater accountability and budgetary transparency in the commercial crew program and future commercial cargo missions.

We must ensure that taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar and I believe that this language will make that happen.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: Lar on 06/03/2014 07:29 pm
Shelby's statement relating to NASA:

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/shelby-statement-commerce-justice-science-fy15-appropriations-bill-markup

Quote
In addition, the subcommittee recommendation includes nearly $18 billion for NASA.

The bill maintains focus on efforts to develop a heavy lift launch vehicle, or SLS, and preserve the mission schedule for a 2017 launch by requiring NASA to follow its own internal guidance regarding joint confidence levels in future funding requests.

In order to maintain the schedule for a 2017 launch date, the bill includes $1.7 billion for SLS rocket development.

The recommendation also includes funding for ongoing activities of the International Space Station and other important science research missions.

I want to commend the Chair for working with me to include language that provides greater accountability and budgetary transparency in the commercial crew program and future commercial cargo missions.

We must ensure that taxpayers are getting the best value for their dollar and I believe that this language will make that happen.

I'd be more concerned about greater accountability and budgetary transparency (along with "taxpayers getting the best value for their dollar") in other parts of the program than Commercial Cargo or Crew, which are huge successes in terms of value for dollar. But that's just me.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/03/2014 07:43 pm
Here is a good summary of the June 3rd hearing:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40784senate-spending-bill-includes-179-billion-for-nasa
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5 at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/04/2014 02:23 pm
The bill now goes to the full committee which has scheduled a hearing for Thursday at 10AM:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/event/full-committee-markup-cjs-and-thud
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/04/2014 10:11 pm
Shelby says that there is language requiring transparency for the commercial crew program (it's not clear what he means by that).

I had a feeling this would be bad news. Shelby is requiring full-cost accounting for commercial crew and cargo:
http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/big-news-huntsville-shelby-announces-1-7-billion-space-launch-system/

See this link as to why this is bad news for commercial crew and cargo (it increases paperwork tremendously):
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060414.html

See also this tweet (Simberg is calling it a poison pill for commercial crew and cargo):
https://twitter.com/Rand_Simberg/status/474301055027531777
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: Prober on 06/04/2014 10:19 pm
Shelby says that there is language requiring transparency for the commercial crew program (it's not clear what he means by that).

I had a feeling this would be bad news. Shelby is requiring full-cost accounting for commercial crew and cargo:
http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/big-news-huntsville-shelby-announces-1-7-billion-space-launch-system/

See this link as to why this is bad news for commercial crew and cargo:
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060414.html

See also this tweet:
https://twitter.com/Rand_Simberg/status/474301055027531777

NASA is getting decent increases

Here is a quick breakdown of NASA funding in the subcommittee’s appropriations bill:
◾NASA is funded at $17.9 billion, which is $254 million (1.4%) above its current funding level.
◾Space exploration is funded at $4.4 billion, a $254 million (6.2%) increase above the current level, including $1.7 billion for the SLS Rocket, $1.2 billion for the Orion Capsule, and $805 million for commercial crew.
◾The bill includes language requiring NASA to ensure that companies participating in the competition for the development of Commercial Crew launch vehicles be required to submit certified cost and pricing data.
◾The bill includes language requiring NASA to demand certified cost and pricing data for the new round of contracts for future cargo resupply missions.

But while these men and their companies are worthy of much of the praise being heaped upon them, it’s important to keep in mind that over 90% of the money being spent on the Commercial Crew program is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not from the private companies themselves.


if true its skewed the wrong direction. :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: butters on 06/04/2014 10:34 pm
So NASA is getting a 10% discount on crew transport for being an early adopter. Kickstarter would have thrown in a free T-shirt.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JBF on 06/04/2014 10:45 pm
Can anyone clarify exactly what is certified cost and pricing data?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: butters on 06/05/2014 12:18 am
Can anyone clarify exactly what is certified cost and pricing data?

I don't know what certification is exactly, but I think it involves two years, a staff of 100, and $60M.

I'm in a snarky mood today.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/05/2014 12:52 am
But while these men and their companies are worthy of much of the praise being heaped upon them, it’s important to keep in mind that over 90% of the money being spent on the Commercial Crew program is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not from the private companies themselves.


if true its skewed the wrong direction. :(

What is the source for your claim that "90% of the money being spent on the Commercial Crew program is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not from the private companies themselves"?

I ask because on the COTS program NASA only ended up paying for 47% of the total cost for the SpaceX system, and 43% of the Orbital system.

And based on comments we've heard from NASA, we know that Boeing has not been co-investing a significant amount (but we don't know the value), which means that both SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have been perceived as co-investing a significant amount.  Still I'd think that Boeing would be co-investing more than just 10%, which is why your claim seems suspect.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/05/2014 02:57 am
Can anyone clarify exactly what is certified cost and pricing data?

It's explained in the link that I provided.

http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060414.html

Quote
To be absolutely clear, imposing full FARs cost-plus contract-type accounting controls on a commercial-style operation increases costs from 50% to 200%, depending on the size and details of the commercial operation.  It will also delay the commercial operation for months or longer while the intensely detailed account-for-every-rivet procedures are being imposed.

It also potentially reveals to both domestic and international rivals a great deal of competition-sensitive confidential commercial information.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/05/2014 03:00 am
But while these men and their companies are worthy of much of the praise being heaped upon them, it’s important to keep in mind that over 90% of the money being spent on the Commercial Crew program is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not from the private companies themselves.


if true its skewed the wrong direction. :(

What is the source for your claim that "90% of the money being spent on the Commercial Crew program is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not from the private companies themselves"?

I ask because on the COTS program NASA only ended up paying for 47% of the total cost for the SpaceX system, and 43% of the Orbital system.

And based on comments we've heard from NASA, we know that Boeing has not been co-investing a significant amount (but we don't know the value), which means that both SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have been perceived as co-investing a significant amount.  Still I'd think that Boeing would be co-investing more than just 10%, which is why your claim seems suspect.

It was mentionned in a House hearing. But this was on average. Boeing is believed to have invested very little in the CST-100. SpaceX much more. I believe that skin in the game will be more important for CCtCap.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 06/05/2014 04:20 am
<snip>

But while these men and their companies are worthy of much of the praise being heaped upon them, it’s important to keep in mind that over 90% of the money being spent on the Commercial Crew program is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not from the private companies themselves.

Not true.  In the case of SpaceX its about 50/50. 

What ticks off a lot of people inside the beltway is how SpaceX is using its CRS money.  It isn't "profit" but being recycled into the Commercial Crew Effort.  This is how SpaceX is advancing so rapidly.  And on a side note - Boeing does not have a lot of its own skin the Commercial Crew game.

The COTS model works.  Don't fall for the FUD.

VR
RE327
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: QuantumG on 06/05/2014 04:26 am
Last I heard, Boeing had explicitly said they won't be putting any of their own funding into CCtCap. I really wish NASA's blackout period would end and they'd get on with it.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/05/2014 01:36 pm
Last I heard, Boeing had explicitly said they won't be putting any of their own funding into CCtCap. I really wish NASA's blackout period would end and they'd get on with it.

No, it's the opposite. Boeing said that it would invest some of its funds for the next round (CCtCap). But they have put little to no funding into the CST-100 so far.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/05/2014 02:00 pm
The Full Committee hearing is on June 5th at 10AM:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/event/full-committee-markup-cjs-and-thud

Hearing has started.
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/webcast/full-committee-markup-cjs-and-thud-audio
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Hog on 06/05/2014 02:13 pm
Heroin, $6/pound, doesnt sound correct to me.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/05/2014 02:50 pm
CJS bill passed the full committee without any amendments that relate to NASA.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/05/2014 02:56 pm
Disgusting. Shelby is able to ram through anti-commercial crew stuff without any opposition.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/05/2014 03:18 pm
Disgusting. Shelby is able to ram through anti-commercial crew stuff without any opposition.
You have to admit that Shelby is a real political operator on the scale of say, Jason Webb.

He plays the committee like a church organ.  :(

And will no doubt continue doing so until there is a "regime change" in 'bama.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/05/2014 03:20 pm
Here is a good summary of the June 3rd hearing:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40784senate-spending-bill-includes-179-billion-for-nasa

$179Bn for NASA

I wish.  :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/05/2014 03:32 pm

NASA is getting decent increases

Here is a quick breakdown of NASA funding in the subcommittee’s appropriations bill:
◾NASA is funded at $17.9 billion, which is $254 million (1.4%) above its current funding level.
◾Space exploration is funded at $4.4 billion, a $254 million (6.2%) increase above the current level, including $1.7 billion for the SLS Rocket, $1.2 billion for the Orion Capsule, and $805 million for commercial crew.
◾The bill includes language requiring NASA to ensure that companies participating in the competition for the development of Commercial Crew launch vehicles be required to submit certified cost and pricing data.
◾The bill includes language requiring NASA to demand certified cost and pricing data for the new round of contracts for future cargo resupply missions.

But while these men and their companies are worthy of much of the praise being heaped upon them, it’s important to keep in mind that over 90% of the money being spent on the Commercial Crew program is coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers, not from the private companies themselves.


if true its skewed the wrong direction. :(
I'd really like you to quote exactly where that 90% figure comes from because if you can't I'd suggest you remove it or qualify it.

AFAIK both Spacex and SNC are roughly 50/50 on in terms of NASA/company funding. Boeing is the odd one out. I'm not sure how much they have put in but I got the impression it's not much. So Boeing's segment would have to dwarf that of Spacex and SNC for that figure to be real.

Except we know it's not.

While I'm at it I wonder how much time all that increased funding will lop off the SLS schedule? A day? A week? Two weeks?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/05/2014 03:38 pm
What ticks off a lot of people inside the beltway is how SpaceX is using its CRS money.  It isn't "profit" but being recycled into the Commercial Crew Effort.  This is how SpaceX is advancing so rapidly.  And on a side note - Boeing does not have a lot of its own skin the Commercial Crew game.
Outrageous.

The audacity of spacex. Reinvesting their funds like some sort of regular business.  ;)

Who do they think they are?
<tongue being removed from cheek>
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: InfraNut2 on 06/05/2014 04:59 pm
AFAIK both Spacex and SNC are roughly 50/50 on in terms of NASA/company funding. Boeing is the odd one out. I'm not sure how much they have put in but I got the impression it's not much.

ShotwellElon just said NASA funding was 70-80% of Commercial Crew costs. That makes sense vs COTS  (< 50%) since the costs are significantly higher and the "guaranteed" NASA market is similar in value.

SNC has probably somewhat more skin in the game, as a percentage, since their share of the money for CCiCap was significantly smaller and they have been aggressively investing to keep up.

NASA "complained" in a report (I think it was CCDEV2 selection) that Boeings skin-in-the-game was significantly less in an earlier phase, without releasing the numbers. I think that is true for CCiCap as well. It will be interesting to see if they are willing to step up and invest more in CCtCap now that the risks and rewards are better defined, or if they still will be as financially risk-averse as before.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Subcommittee Markup June 3 at 11 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/05/2014 08:28 pm
NASA "complained" in a report (I think it was CCDEV2 selection) that Boeings skin-in-the-game was significantly less in an earlier phase, without releasing the numbers. I think that is true for CCiCap as well. It will be interesting to see if they are willing to step up and invest more in CCtCap now that the risks and rewards are better defined, or if they still will be as financially risk-averse as before.
Honestly I would not bet on it.  :( Boeing is a publicly quoted joint stock company, Spacex is private and SNC is (IIRC) an employee owned business.

I think the amount of company investment and risk taken shows pretty clearly what a bad choice a publicly traded joint stock corporation is for a highly innovative government project.  :(

Just my impression.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: AncientU on 06/05/2014 09:16 pm
Then again, Boeing's annual revenue($87B in 2013) is about 5x NASA's annual budget.
They could afford a bit more skin.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/05/2014 10:20 pm
Then again, Boeing's annual revenue($87B in 2013) is about 5x NASA's annual budget.
They could afford a bit more skin.
I'd suggest that Boeing's upper management see only NASA as the possible customer and are either relying on their reputation "We're Boeing, obviously we're the safe pair of hands," or they realize deep down they don't bring enough design diversity to be the backup option, so they preparing to cut and run.  :(

One of the things I still can't get my head around in the whole COTS/CRS/CCiCAP story is that Spacex were the only people who saw Crew as an upgrade to an existing cargo vehicle.

It was so obviously the way to go by designing in the hooks for crew carriage from day one.  :(

However to return more to topic I can' help feel that anyone who thinks Spacex should bid for any new OSC lox/kero engine should ask what Some members of the US Senate have done and ask why Spacex would bother.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: QuantumG on 06/05/2014 10:25 pm
Boeing was burned by the EELV program. They know first hand how "skin the game" translates to no profits when it comes to government programs. If anything, Boeing has the better case for markets beyond NASA.

Boeing is building CST-100 the way NASA likes spacecraft to be built these days: lots and lots of paperwork and computer models, very little testing and iteration. They'll make claims like "99.999% safe" before the vehicle has even flown, and that'll force the competition to do the same - even though, sensibly, no such claim can be made about a vehicle that hasn't even flown.

Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/05/2014 10:32 pm
Boeing was burned by the EELV program. They know first hand how "skin the game" translates to no profits when it comes to government programs. If anything, Boeing has the better case for markets beyond NASA.
Based on their reputation or something else?
Quote
Boeing is building CST-100 the way NASA likes spacecraft to be built these days: lots and lots of paperwork and computer models, very little testing and iteration. They'll make claims like "99.999% safe" before the vehicle has even flown, and that'll force the competition to do the same - even though, sensibly, no such claim can be made about a vehicle that hasn't even flown.
Which would appear to be an exceptionally silly strategy when they have no flown hardware.  :(
But as I don't have an MBA what do I know?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: QuantumG on 06/05/2014 10:40 pm
Based on their reputation or something else?

Apparently Bigelow is going with Boeing as the leader for transport to their future stations. He has an agreement (http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/spacex-announces-deal-to-shuttle-tourists-to-private-space-stations/) with SpaceX too, but it's a lot more mum.

Quote
Which would appear to be an exceptionally silly strategy when they have no flown hardware.  :(

I agree, but the customer is always right, right?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2014 01:31 am
Commercial space advocates concerned about NASA spending bill:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2014/06/05/commercial-space-advocates-concerned-nasa-spending-bill/10035713/

https://twitter.com/csf_spaceflight/status/474711787787808768
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2014 01:52 am
Here is a copy of the CJS Report (NASA starts on page 106):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt181/pdf/CRPT-113srpt181.pdf
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-approves-fy-2015-cjs-and-thud-appropriations-bills

The Shelby text requiring certified cost and pricing data for commercial crew and cargo is on pages 117 and 118.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Lar on 06/06/2014 02:53 am
I self moderated a rather snarky post (and someone calling me on it).
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: peter-b on 06/06/2014 05:37 am
Does anyone think SpaceX would take their toys and go home if they were required to start full FAR25 cost accounting?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: QuantumG on 06/06/2014 05:42 am
Does anyone think SpaceX would take their toys and go home if they were required to start full FAR25 cost accounting?

They won't punch clocks. I'm sure they'll submit to just about anything else before walking away.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/06/2014 06:14 am
Does anyone think SpaceX would take their toys and go home if they were required to start full FAR25 cost accounting?

They won't punch clocks. I'm sure they'll submit to just about anything else before walking away.
The question is can SpaceX or any other commercial provider afford to do the paperwork Shelby's amendment requires and have money leftover for hardware?
I would say SpaceX probably already has the business systems in place to provide the data.
SpaceX might be inclined to disclose cost and designs of their vertically integrated business processes because the monolithic competitors have too much internal inertia to evolve the new paradigms SpaceX is founded upon.
Of course competitors could simply decline ISS resupply and crew programs if the new requirements will harm their long term business strategies of capturing the world's commercial launch markets.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Proponent on 06/06/2014 07:35 am
Isn't it at least a little odd that Shelby is so strongly against Commercial Crew, given that two of the three front runners would fly on Atlas Vs, which are assembled in his state.  I wonder whether his recent move is payback for SpaceX's lawsuit.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/06/2014 09:41 am
Isn't it at least a little odd that Shelby is so strongly against Commercial Crew, given that two of the three front runners would fly on Atlas Vs, which are assembled in his state.  I wonder whether his recent move is payback for SpaceX's lawsuit.
I see Shelby as moving to slow competition in the USG launch market and minimize the R&D funding available for competitors by adding onerous burdens to the commercial front runners. The ULA family and their politicians including Shelby don't care as much about jobs as they care about protecting the primary USG ULA family revenue stream for as long as possible. Requiring funds for paperwork that would otherwise be used for reinvestment in technology development is a clever ploy, as is a requirement for technology disclosure under FAR rules on the part of competitors.
We'll have to see how Shelby's rules impact NASA's use of Space Act Agreements going forward. See page 134 of draft CJS FY2015 report (attached, sourced upthread).
My opinion; it's all about the money, ISS will starve or burn if it benefits the entrenched USG space monopoly revenue streams to special interests.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/06/2014 10:34 am
A history of the COTS programme indicated that using SAA's they were able to put by 3% of budget for "Programme Management." But the usual level is 15%.

I guess Shelby's requirement will do tht for the $805m as well as waste a load of what ever increase the committee has given.

Thanks a bunch Sen. Shelby.  :(

However before people think "30:0 no one opposed this?" I think the vote was one of these "all or nothing" things. IOW disagree on this NASA thing and everything  is put on hold.

Clearly any opposition to the "Honorable Gentleman from Alabama" was grossly ineffective.  :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/06/2014 11:06 am
From the General Falcon and Dragon Discussion (Thread 10):
edit: btw: reads the same as Floridatoday article posted by yg1968 above...
If you look at the article, there is some language in the Senate / House bill that would force NASA to start over on negotiations for the commercial crew program. It would turn this into a more traditional government program.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/05/nasa-space-station-senate-shelby/10033153/

Quote
WASHINGTON — Advocates of aerospace firms vying to deliver cargo and crew to the International Space Station are concerned that language in a Senate spending bill that a key committee passed Thursday could make it more difficult and expensive to carry out those missions.

The provision, sponsored by Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, would require firms in the commercial crew and commercial cargo programs to submit "certified cost and pricing data" similar to what's required in traditional contracts NASA uses for other services.

Shelby's proposal is included in a spending bill the Senate Appropriations Committee passed 30-0 Thursday to fund several federal agencies, including NASA, in the 2015 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

"The language would effectively change an efficient and lean commercial program into a traditional government procurement with all of the associated overhead and cost," said Alex Saltman, executive director of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.

"In addition, if this language were to become law before NASA awards the latest commercial crew contracts, NASA would likely have to restart the procurement with these new rules, pushing back the program up to a year and sending hundreds of millions of more taxpayer dollars to Russia for Soyuz rides," Saltman added. "If the language were to go into effect after the awards, NASA could be tied up in contract renegotiations and challenges for months, if not years."

Quote
NASA officials declined to comment, saying they were still reviewing the Senate language. There was no immediate comment from SpaceX. The California firm has a contract with NASA to deliver cargo to the space station and is among the competitors for the contract to transport astronauts as well.

Another commercial space advocate, the Space Access Society, said Shelby was sponsoring the language merely to protect the "massively wasteful" space launch system. Much of the work to develop SLS is being conducted at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., which Shelby represents.

Asked about the criticism of his motives after Thursday's hearing, Shelby said simply: "That's not true. We're looking for transparency."
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 06/06/2014 01:28 pm
Having fought a few of these battles on behalf of my own company over the years (I've always insisted on invoking FAR 15 for work packages that involve requirements analysis and report production, which we did on an FFP basis), it might be worth pointing out that the language is actually more proscriptive in the portion referring to quarterly reporting than to the FAR, _if_ a "strict" reading of the latter is applied.  To wit:

Shelby's language:

"...the Committee directs NASA to maintain FAR 15.403-4, related to certified cost and pricing data for prime contractors, for any contracts entered into to support the development of a commercial crew vehicle.  Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated with the crew vehicle."

FAR 15.403-4:
(1) The contracting officer shall obtain certified cost or pricing data only if the contracting officer concludes that none of the exceptions in 15.403-1(b) applies.

FAR 15.403-1(b):
15.403-1 Prohibition on obtaining certified cost or pricing data (10 U.S.C. 2306a and 41 U.S.C. 254b).

(b) Exceptions to certified cost or pricing data requirements. The contracting officer shall not require certified cost or pricing data to support any action (contracts, subcontracts, or modifications) (but may require data other than certified cost or pricing data as defined in FAR 2.101 to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price or cost realism)—
(1) When the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on adequate price competition (see standards in paragraph (c)(1) of this subsection);
(2) When the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on prices set by law or regulation (see standards in paragraph (c)(2) of this subsection);
(3) When a commercial item is being acquired (see standards in paragraph (c)(3) of this subsection);
(4) When a waiver has been granted (see standards in paragraph (c)(4) of this subsection); or
(5) When modifying a contract or subcontract for commercial items (see standards in paragraph (c)(3) of this subsection).

Without going into all the standards, clauses and subclauses (which are important because they provide the legal definitions invoked in 1-5), there could be some room to 'work around' the apparent intent of the CJS language re: FAR. 

The quarterly reports requirement is another thing.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/06/2014 01:55 pm
Isn't it at least a little odd that Shelby is so strongly against Commercial Crew, given that two of the three front runners would fly on Atlas Vs, which are assembled in his state.  I wonder whether his recent move is payback for SpaceX's lawsuit.
I see Shelby as moving to slow competition in the USG launch market and minimize the R&D funding available for competitors by adding onerous burdens to the commercial front runners. The ULA family and their politicians including Shelby don't care as much about jobs as they care about protecting the primary USG ULA family revenue stream for as long as possible. Requiring funds for paperwork that would otherwise be used for reinvestment in technology development is a clever ploy, as is a requirement for technology disclosure under FAR rules on the part of competitors.
We'll have to see how Shelby's rules impact NASA's use of Space Act Agreements going forward. See page 134 of draft CJS FY2015 report (attached, sourced upthread).
My opinion; it's all about the money, ISS will starve or burn if it benefits the entrenched USG space monopoly revenue streams to special interests.
Nah, he just seems to prefer Russian Commercial Crew...
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/06/2014 02:08 pm
In reading OpsAnalyst and Rocket Science's posts above, Shelby's secret plan to put humans on Mars became clear.
In two years we shall stand upon the resultant pile of paperwork generated by the commercial crew program every quarter and simply step off of the pile to the surface of mars. Brilliant!
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Go4TLI on 06/06/2014 02:41 pm
I really dislike space advocates in all forms any more.  What so many of these groups and even folks on here and elsewhere don't realize is that you are your own worse enemy. 

These advocacy groups, and the vocal bloggers here and elsewhere who tend to view things from only their desired perspective, are contributing to ripping things apart. 

Casting motives, implying evilness, etc, on Shelby without knowing the facts is disingenuous.  These same people who feel so free to do that upon their "alter of righteousness" would be up in arms (and were recently) if questions about Musk's motives and character were raised that goes against what the mythic perception wants it to be. 

Fact is funding for commercial crew went up, there seems to be no happiness about that at all.  This is not the final bill as it needs to go to a joint session!!  And if it is in there ultimately, there are potential ways around this as OpsAnalyst pointed out.  Instead we have advocacy groups calling other useful programs a "waste", etc and people being openly hostile just further poking and provoking because, in reality, they want more money while calling out "others" and accusing them of the same thing.

Programs that are currently in work are and can be synergistic to each other.  It's been a VERY rocky past 5 years.  But, what I have concluded, is that everyone wants it their way and nobody will ever be happy unless it is their way and only their way.  When China, perhaps Russia eventually, surpass the US we, the United States, will have "space advocacy" partly to blame. 

This attitude that seems like a cancer everywhere is one reason I am considering leaving this industry.  I don't see anything useful, in an integrated fashion, ever getting done because of it. 
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2014 02:44 pm
Having fought a few of these battles on behalf of my own company over the years (I've always insisted on invoking FAR 15 for work packages that involve requirements analysis and report production, which we did on an FFP basis), it might be worth pointing out that the language is actually more proscriptive in the portion referring to quarterly reporting than to the FAR, _if_ a "strict" reading of the latter is applied.  To wit:

Shelby's language:

"...the Committee directs NASA to maintain FAR 15.403-4, related to certified cost and pricing data for prime contractors, for any contracts entered into to support the development of a commercial crew vehicle.  Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated with the crew vehicle."

I don't see any wiggle room. In the case of commercial crew, the introduction makes it clear what the intent of the language is:

Quote
While NASA has chosen to use a FAR-based contract, it has also waived significant portions of the standard FAR-based contract, including verifiable cost data, capping repayment of funds in case of inability to perform, and rights in data. NASA has informed the Committee that these deviations were necessary to ensure competition. However, with multiple entrants that collectively have extensive Federal contracting experience, the Committee questions the true need to waive these traditional requirements.

In the case of CRS2, it is spelled out more clearly:

Quote
As NASA begins soliciting participants for the second round of cargo resupply missions, certified cost and pricing data should be required and made available to NASA.

The House Report doesn't contain this language. So maybe there is hope that the language in the final report will change.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2014 02:49 pm
The language needs to be taken out as quickly as possible. It risks delaying CCtCap and CRS2. The final CJS Approppriation bill might not be passed by Congress until after the election. 
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 06/06/2014 03:08 pm
Having fought a few of these battles on behalf of my own company over the years (I've always insisted on invoking FAR 15 for work packages that involve requirements analysis and report production, which we did on an FFP basis), it might be worth pointing out that the language is actually more proscriptive in the portion referring to quarterly reporting than to the FAR, _if_ a "strict" reading of the latter is applied.  To wit:

Shelby's language:

"...the Committee directs NASA to maintain FAR 15.403-4, related to certified cost and pricing data for prime contractors, for any contracts entered into to support the development of a commercial crew vehicle.  Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated with the crew vehicle."

I don't see any wiggle room. In the case of commercial crew, the introduction makes it clear what the intent of the language is:

Quote
While NASA has chosen to use a FAR-based contract, it has also waived significant portions of the standard FAR-based contract, including verifiable cost data, capping repayment of funds in case of inability to perform, and rights in data. NASA has informed the Committee that these deviations were necessary to ensure competition. However, with multiple entrants that collectively have extensive Federal contracting experience, the Committee questions the true need to waive these traditional requirements.

In the case of CRS2, it is spelled out more clearly:

Quote
As NASA begins soliciting participants for the second round of cargo resupply missions, certified cost and pricing data should be required and made available to NASA.

The House Report doesn't contain this language. So maybe there is hope that the language in the final report will change.

I'm not arguing about intent but responding to legally-binding language, which is only present in "directs" and "shall".   Hence my statement about wiggle room.  It all depends on how much chutzpah is brought to the interpretation ;)

I concur completely that the language needs to go ASAP...but (speculating here) it may have been necessary, in the way of these things, to get the bill to this point, with $805M for CC.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2014 03:10 pm
Here is more on this issue (a second alert from Space Access):
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060514.html

https://twitter.com/Stratocumulus/status/474788962314502144
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2014 04:01 pm
I'm not arguing about intent but responding to legally-binding language, which is only present in "directs" and "shall".   Hence my statement about wiggle room.  It all depends on how much chutzpah is brought to the interpretation ;)

I concur completely that the language needs to go ASAP...but (speculating here) it may have been necessary, in the way of these things, to get the bill to this point, with $805M for CC.

My understanding is that the language in the report isn't legally binding (because the report is not part of the legislation). But NASA generally follows it. Otherwise, the appropriators could refuse to release the funds for commercial crew and cargo to NASA. 
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 06/06/2014 04:14 pm
I'm not arguing about intent but responding to legally-binding language, which is only present in "directs" and "shall".   Hence my statement about wiggle room.  It all depends on how much chutzpah is brought to the interpretation ;)

I concur completely that the language needs to go ASAP...but (speculating here) it may have been necessary, in the way of these things, to get the bill to this point, with $805M for CC.

My understanding is that the language in the report isn't legally binding (because the report is not part of the legislation). But NASA generally follows it. Otherwise, the appropriators could refuse to release the funds for commercial crew and cargo to NASA. 

True.  History, however, tells us that at various times, NASA has responded in varying ways and degrees to language and intent.  See: 2011-2013.  This is true of all agencies at various points in time, though...at any rate, here's hoping the language goes away.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2014 04:54 pm
Space politics has a good summary of the Senate's CJS appropriation bill as it relates to NASA:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/06/06/examining-the-senates-nasa-funding-bill/
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/06/2014 05:08 pm
Here is another article on Shelby's poison pill. I am glad this is starting to get media coverage. I am also glad the CSF is strongly against it.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/nasa-budget-bill-could-include-a-poison-pill-for-spacex-other-commercial-companies/#22787101=0
https://twitter.com/csf_spaceflight/status/474958918347948032
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 06/06/2014 05:09 pm
Post by Houston Chronicle Eric Berger on his blog re: Shelby language:  "It's just bad policy".

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/nasa-budget-bill-could-include-a-poison-pill-for-spacex-other-commercial-companies/#22787101=0
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: spacetraveler on 06/06/2014 09:17 pm
Casting motives, implying evilness, etc, on Shelby without knowing the facts is disingenuous.  These same people who feel so free to do that upon their "alter of righteousness" would be up in arms (and were recently) if questions about Musk's motives and character were raised that goes against what the mythic perception wants it to be. 

Fact is funding for commercial crew went up, there seems to be no happiness about that at all.

Why would anyone be happy when the EFFECTIVE monies available for commercial hardware likely declined due to a new 50+% cost overhead requirement (by available industry standard estimates)?

As far as motives, there is not much ambiguity there, Shelby has been anti-commercial crew for years.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: mlindner on 06/07/2014 01:40 am
If this language stays I don't really see SpaceX competing. They'd fly solo and wait for the next round of contracts.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 06/07/2014 03:08 am
If this language stays I don't really see SpaceX competing. They'd fly solo and wait for the next round of contracts.

OK, time to slow down.

It's unclear what the implementation of this language would be, and that's more important than Shelby's motivation.  Will be interesting to hear what NASA's response is, once they (and their lawyers and contract specialists) have a chance to study and think about the language.  As for what SpaceX will do, it is presumably based upon what it the actual implementation might be - that is, if the language survives - when bumped up against their strategic plans and business plans, which are not available for public scrutiny.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 06/07/2014 06:25 am
Its really disturbing when "experts" weigh in and say that "Group J" doesn't know what they are talking about... after all "its just a tweet". 

The truth of the matter is that it is somewhere in the middle of the two points is reality.  Maybe closer to Point A or maybe closer to Point B.  It is the struggle to get to point A or point B. 

What we do know is NASA is being royally screwed by congress.  I am a tea party conservative and (almost) every liberal Democrat will agree with me that House Republicans, some Senate Democrats and one Senate Republican are completely screwing over Commercial Crew.  Its not even debatable anymore.

Richard Shelby
Barbara Mikulski
Wild Bill Nelson
Lamar Smith
Frank Wolf
Steven Palazzo
Team Alabama

As for the interpretation it will cause the most mature designer to at least pause and look to see how it will impact their development.  It simply may be too much of a PITA to comply with the FAR.  These policy armchair rocket wizards who we elect every couple of years are paranoid of the ramifications of Commercial Crew.  They are not stupid.  Billions of dollars every year since 1960 flood into MSFC, KSC, JSC, and GSFC.

What happens when you don't need MSFC?
What happens when you hear "Hawthorne" and not "Houston"?
What happens when you launch from Texas and not KSC or CCAFS?

If you really think SpaceX and Bigelow are just going to stop at LEO you just need to stop now.  The first 150 mile up is the hard part.  The private sector will take on much more risk once we go BEO.  I know, I have been told by those who make decisions on this.  If Company K has a failure and a crew is lost somewhere past L2 it sucks - but they all knew it was a possibility.  However, it will be privately funded and while Congress may hold hearings it won't cause another Challenger or Columbia length delay.

Sorry for the rant but some of the condescending comments needed to be rebutted.

VR
RE327
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/07/2014 09:50 am
Here is more on this issue (a second alert from Space Access):
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060514.html

https://twitter.com/Stratocumulus/status/474788962314502144
Thanks for posting this update to their original request. It's interesting reading.

Note According to Space Access dissent by any senator (not just those on the committee) can block this on the floor of the house.

I think Space Access has been remarkably even toned in it's response to this. They remind us that you should not ascribe to malice what could simply be due to ignorance (although you do have to wonder if there's a bit of self interest in there as well  :( ).

As Ed Kyle commented on the retirement of another member of the Legislature "His view of NASA was stuck in the 1960's."  It may be that Shelby's is as well (although he was first elected to the Senate in 1986, as a Democrat).

BTW it seems there was no effective opposition to Shelby last time round for his Senator's post. He could be there till he dies.  :(

[EDIT I think it was one of the articles you linked to that pointed out that Boeing probably is geared up to deliver this pricing information by default. A cynic could imagine this was a way to give Boeing an edge over Spacex despite having made no launches to the ISS with their design (or indeed any launches of crew since Shuttle).
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 06/07/2014 02:10 pm
Its really disturbing when "experts" weigh in and say that "Group J" doesn't know what they are talking about... after all "its just a tweet". 

Unless, of course, they don't know what they're talking about, because none of us do.  To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a tweet is just a tweet.  And sometimes, it isn't.

The truth of the matter is that it is somewhere in the middle of the two points is reality.  Maybe closer to Point A or maybe closer to Point B.  It is the struggle to get to point A or point B. 

Or sometimes you can't get to either at  the moment;  you just have to wait and see how things play out.

What we do know is NASA is being royally screwed by congress.  I am a tea party conservative and (almost) every liberal Democrat will agree with me that House Republicans, some Senate Democrats and one Senate Republican are completely screwing over Commercial Crew.  Its not even debatable anymore.

Richard Shelby
Barbara Mikulski
Wild Bill Nelson
Lamar Smith
Frank Wolf
Steven Palazzo
Team Alabama

As for the interpretation it will cause the most mature designer to at least pause and look to see how it will impact their development.  It simply may be too much of a PITA to comply with the FAR.  These policy armchair rocket wizards who we elect every couple of years are paranoid of the ramifications of Commercial Crew.  They are not stupid.  Billions of dollars every year since 1960 flood into MSFC, KSC, JSC, and GSFC.

What happens when you don't need MSFC?
What happens when you hear "Hawthorne" and not "Houston"?
What happens when you launch from Texas and not KSC or CCAFS?

With regard to interpretation,  I'm pulling on "implementation" of the language, meaning how it will be interpreted by contract specialists and lawyers, specifically, NASA's.  I don't know if the language will survive, or might be amended, or what its actual legal status is; others may but I don't.  I'm well aware of how onerous the FAR is; I worked for a Prime for years and have started 3 companies, one of which has moved in and out of Federal subcontracting for years and another which was based on an offering of FFP UAV systems.  On the basis of that admittedly limited experience it appears that a strict reading of 15.403-4 (to which Shelby's language points) could allow for waiver of the provision under certain circumstances and I'm betting those circumstances will be thoroughly investigated if the language survives.

My point was simply that any company is going to weigh these burdens and resultant costs against their business cases and strategies, and we don't know what that equation is for SpaceX or Boeing or SNC or anyone else (and frankly, it's none of our business nor of the gov't's, which is a point on which I'm guessing we agree.)

As for the rest this is what always happens when there are disruptive shifts and "vested interests" are threatened.   If you were addressing me with your comments (and I'm not sure you were), my point (above) was simply that "motivation" is one thing, "law" is another, and SpaceX's decisions about what they will do next are going to be based on what the legal implications of the language is vis-a-vis their plans. 

(I personally could care less about motivation; I care about strategy, tactics, policy, planning, law, markets and business.  I leave the rest to mind-readers << now, that's condescending!  ;)  )

If you really think SpaceX and Bigelow are just going to stop at LEO you just need to stop now.  The first 150 mile up is the hard part.  The private sector will take on much more risk once we go BEO.  I know, I have been told by those who make decisions on this.  If Company K has a failure and a crew is lost somewhere past L2 it sucks - but they all knew it was a possibility.  However, it will be privately funded and while Congress may hold hearings it won't cause another Challenger or Columbia length delay.

Again I'm not sure who the "you" you are referring to is, but I personally have no such thoughts.  I too talk to these people and to other people and have been one of many voices for policy enabling  commercial development both in LEO and beyond LEO and in fact am working on this now.  However if you talk to these people you also know that the real business cases beyond LEO are murky and based largely on conjecture and preliminary business case analysis at this point.  That's not to say that things won't progress - indeed I hope they will and if so, they will be out of reach of many of the constraints they're currently having to deal with as you point out.

Sorry for the rant but some of the condescending comments needed to be rebutted.

I don't believe my comments are condescending and I am sorry if they're taken that way.  My intended point was that, rather than people making pronouncements about what this company will do or that company will do or what the US government will do or what the Russians will do on the basis of a couple of headlines, or on attributions about that Senator or this one's motivation (regardless of whether I agree personally), sometimes it an be helpful to slow down and wait a bit to see how things develop. That's just my opinion, people are free to disagree with me as you have, but I don't see how it's condescending to say so.  If it is, then so be it.

Personally I'm pleased to see the battle being joined and the gloves coming off because it means that the disruption is becoming real; this is a far better set of circumstances then when it was simply being ignored.  It's worth noting that at the same time as the poison pill was inserted the appropriations went to $805M, which is the first time that the digit in the leftmost slot has matched the President's request (ballpark).  A good sign, I think.

VR
RE327
[/quote]

VR
- MLD
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 06/07/2014 02:27 pm
Post by Houston Chronicle Eric Berger on his blog re: Shelby language:  "It's just bad policy".

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/nasa-budget-bill-could-include-a-poison-pill-for-spacex-other-commercial-companies/#22787101=0 (http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/nasa-budget-bill-could-include-a-poison-pill-for-spacex-other-commercial-companies/#22787101=0)

After reading through this, it looks like it could also be leverage to award the contract and downselect more quickly than NASA might want.

From the article above:
Quote
"I had a chance to speak with four-time astronaut Michael Lopez-Alegria, who heads up the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, about the effect of this language. He explains:

This was introduced by Senator Shelby, and to comply with this you have to have an infrastructure in place in your company to do that, which a company like Boeing certainly has, but SpaceX certainly does not have. More importantly if it became law on Oct. 1, and they hadn’t awarded the commercial crew contract by then, they would probably have to recompete it."

It states later that if they don't get it awarded by then, it will likely cause at least a year delay in commercial crew operations.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Danderman on 06/07/2014 04:18 pm
Commercial space advocates concerned about NASA spending bill:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2014/06/05/commercial-space-advocates-concerned-nasa-spending-bill/10035713/

https://twitter.com/csf_spaceflight/status/474711787787808768

The language inserted by Senator Shelby is clearly aimed at derailing SpaceX and Sierra Nevada, and "wiring" the Commercial Crew program so only Boeing could win.

This is a real problem for SpaceX.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: veblen on 06/07/2014 05:03 pm
Post by Houston Chronicle Eric Berger on his blog re: Shelby language:  "It's just bad policy".

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/nasa-budget-bill-could-include-a-poison-pill-for-spacex-other-commercial-companies/#22787101=0 (http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/nasa-budget-bill-could-include-a-poison-pill-for-spacex-other-commercial-companies/#22787101=0)

Here is more on this issue (a second alert from Space Access):
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060514.html (http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060514.html)

https://twitter.com/Stratocumulus/status/474788962314502144 (https://twitter.com/Stratocumulus/status/474788962314502144)
Here is more on this issue (a second alert from Space Access):
http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060514.html (http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060514.html)

https://twitter.com/Stratocumulus/status/474788962314502144 (https://twitter.com/Stratocumulus/status/474788962314502144)

From the first link, the last part: selling cars is not a good or even any kind of analogy to commercial cargo and crew transport to the space station. One customer, one space station. 1 existing supplier, 3 prospective new suppliers. Not dozens of manufacturers selling millions of cars to millions of customers. Total specialization. The nature of the beast.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/09/2014 01:35 pm
The Senate's CJS bill has now been posted (NASA starts at page 68):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s2437pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s2437pcs.pdf
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: muomega0 on 06/09/2014 01:54 pm
The Senate's CJS bill has now been posted (NASA starts at page 68):
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s2437pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s2437pcs.pdf

Quote from: SenateBill
That not less than
-  1.2B for Orion MPCV
-  2.05B for SLS which shall have a lift capability of not less than 130 mT and shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously
- 1.7B for SLS, 351M for ground systems
- JCL for SLS below 70% documented, submit request to achieve 70% JCL
- 805M for commercial flight,  311M for exploration research
- Space Operations 3.8B
No 70 mT and ask for more money to reach confidence levels. 
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/09/2014 02:03 pm
It was so obviously the way to go by designing in the hooks for crew carriage from day one.

Remember that intelligent design is a religious figment of the imagination.

From:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt181/pdf/CRPT-113srpt181.pdf

Quote
The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on acommercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.

The clear implication being that an SAA contract wouldn't, in principle, allow for any safety requirements whatsoever.  Not only that, but in principle, any SAA contract, could not, by some mystery, be even worded to accomodate safety.

The contractural system wasn't broke, so they now propose to fix it.  All Cretans are liars.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/09/2014 02:04 pm
In reading OpsAnalyst and Rocket Science's posts above, Shelby's secret plan to put humans on Mars became clear.
In two years we shall stand upon the resultant pile of paperwork generated by the commercial crew program every quarter and simply step off of the pile to the surface of mars. Brilliant!

Except for that one chaotic butterfly which flaps its wings and knocks one piece of paper out of that pile...
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/09/2014 02:15 pm
... What so many of these groups and even folks on here and elsewhere don't realize is that you are your own worse enemy. 

These advocacy groups, and the vocal bloggers here and elsewhere who tend to view things from only their desired perspective, are contributing to ripping things apart.

You are sadly completely overlooking the fact that the USG can't launch a damn thing by design, and that the premise of the spy sat launch system is predicated on using an adversary's rocket engine to spy on the adversary.

This is not to say that the advocacy groups are above pragmatic criticism, since many of them do not see the whole HSF picture. 

If there are any enemies, they are within the halls of Congress.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/09/2014 02:41 pm
Having fought a few of these battles on behalf of my own company over the years (I've always insisted on invoking FAR 15 for work packages that involve requirements analysis and report production, which we did on an FFP basis), it might be worth pointing out that the language is actually more proscriptive in the portion referring to quarterly reporting than to the FAR, _if_ a "strict" reading of the latter is applied.  To wit:[...]

Thinking about this some more. The CJS Appropriation bill makes no mention of the certified cost and pricing data requirement for commercial crew and cargo (it's only mentionned in the report). In such a case, it can be argued that because it isn't part of the law, the Shelby language in the report cannot contradict FAR law and regulations. Namely if one of the FAR exception applies, certified cost and pricing data is not required.  To the extent that the Shelby language contradicts FAR law and regulations, it could be argued that this language is invalid from a legal point of view and will have to be ignored by NASA.

Ironically, one of the FAR exceptions is that there must be adequate price competition for the item. That is one more reason not to downselect to only one provider. Another exception exists when a commercial item is being acquired by the government. It seems likely that CCtCap and CRS2 falls under one or both of these exceptions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2306a
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/48/15.403-1

Having said all of that, it would be better if the Shelby language was removed in the Final report.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/09/2014 05:37 pm
Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:
Quote
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7vs2ofy1AE&feature=youtu.be&t=14m15s

Watch the entire presentation from the beginning.
I've attached this for those who have difficulty accessing YT, although to minimize NSF bandwidth please watch from YT if you are able.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/09/2014 06:28 pm
It was so obviously the way to go by designing in the hooks for crew carriage from day one.

Remember that intelligent design is a religious figment of the imagination.
True.
Quote
From:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt181/pdf/CRPT-113srpt181.pdf

Quote
The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on acommercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.

The clear implication being that an SAA contract wouldn't, in principle, allow for any safety requirements whatsoever.  Not only that, but in principle, any SAA contract, could not, by some mystery, be even worded to accomodate safety.

The contractural system wasn't broke, so they now propose to fix it.  All Cretans are liars.
Just to be clear I was more talking about the engineering design than how it would be funded or the contract supervised.  :(

TBH If the Legislature had funded COTS D (the human carriage version) this process could be years ahead of where it is.  :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/09/2014 07:02 pm
From attached at page 117-118:

Quote
Commercial Crew.—The Committee has been consistent in its direction
that NASA use a FAR-based contract for the development
of a domestic crew capability. The use of the FAR was considered
necessary due to the risks associated with transporting humans.
Additionally, the Committee felt that a FAR-based contract was the
only contracting vehicle that would provide NASA the transparency
necessary to ensure the appropriateness of cost and pricing data
and the insight into the ongoing work. While NASA has chosen to
use a FAR-based contract, it has also waived significant portions
of the standard FAR-based contract, including verifiable cost data,
capping repayment of funds in case of inability to perform, and
rights in data. NASA has informed the Committee that these deviations
were necessary to ensure competition. However, with multiple
entrants that collectively have extensive Federal contracting
experience, the Committee questions the true need to waive these
traditional requirements.
While the Committee appreciates NASA’s commitment to a firm,
fixed-price contract for a commercial crew launch vehicle, it remains
concerned that NASA may use other funding vehicles to provide
additional resources. Given the importance of the commercial
crew program to the long-term viability of the International Space
Station, the need for transparency only grows in importance. As
with any such project, the technical risk and probability for cost
growth is high. Without the proper foundation and necessary requirements
for certified cost and pricing data, NASA will have no
insight into ongoing cost growth that could jeopardize the viability
of the program.
In order for NASA and Congress to have the appropriate level of
transparency to ensure that the cost of the program is in line with
the activities undertaken and that it does not grow exponentially,
the Committee directs NASA to maintain FAR 15.403–4, related to
certified cost and pricing data for prime contractors, for any contracts
entered into to support the development of a commercial
crew vehicle. Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be
submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested
by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter
and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated
with the crew vehicle.
The Committee agrees with concern expressed by the Aerospace
Safety Advisory Panel, the OIG, and others that Space Act agreements
may not give NASA sufficient oversight to correct safety defects.
The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on a
--118--
commercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract
that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.
The Committee encourages NASA to continue working
closely with commercial companies, even under Space Act agreements,
so that those companies know what will be acceptable
should NASA eventually contract for crew transportation services
aboard those companies’ vehicles. The Committee encourages
NASA to develop plans to fully utilize NASA-owned rocket testing
infrastructure for commercially developed launch vehicles to ensure
that these vehicles are not only tested in the same manner as Government-
developed launch vehicles but at the same facilities to ensure
consistency in testing across all potential vehicles.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/09/2014 07:21 pm
Commercial Cargo:
Quote from: p119
As NASA begins soliciting participants for the second round of cargo resupply missions, certified cost and pricing data should be required and made available to NASA.

There is concern not only regarding FAR contract requirements for commercial crew and cargo, but the pathways for private R&D testing as well:
Quote from: 118
"The Committee encourages NASA to develop plans to fully utilize NASA-owned rocket testing
infrastructure for commercially developed launch vehicles to ensure that these vehicles are not only tested in the same manner as Government-developed launch vehicles but at the same facilities to ensure consistency in testing across all potential vehicles."
-chilling.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Hauerg on 06/09/2014 07:32 pm
Somebody does not want his problem (crew to ISS) solved.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: WindnWar on 06/09/2014 10:25 pm
This line bothers me.

 "Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be
submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested
by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter
and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated
with the crew vehicle."

That basically not only extends the FAR reporting requirements to the capsules but also to the rockets as well, such as both Antares and Falcon 9. So SpaceX is supposed to start over and add in millions of overhead in order to compete in the way its competitor is comfortable with?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/09/2014 11:43 pm
These kinds of restrictions may lead in the future to the majority of American astronauts
not being NASA employees.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: robertross on 06/10/2014 12:14 am
This line bothers me.

 "Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be
submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested
by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter
and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated
with the crew vehicle."

That basically not only extends the FAR reporting requirements to the capsules but also to the rockets as well, such as both Antares and Falcon 9. So SpaceX is supposed to start over and add in millions of overhead in order to compete in the way its competitor is comfortable with?

All of this bothers me.
The lobyists & the big corporations are pulling the strings (yet again) of these politicians, and may get away with it (yet again).

This is how SLS came to be, and they are working on another program now. Thumbs on the scale yet again.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: QuantumG on 06/10/2014 01:56 am
Orbital sciences (aka ATK) gets cargo and Boeing gets crew. What's the problem?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Proponent on 06/10/2014 05:50 am
Isn't it at least a little odd that Shelby is so strongly against Commercial Crew, given that two of the three front runners would fly on Atlas Vs, which are assembled in his state.  I wonder whether his recent move is payback for SpaceX's lawsuit.
I see Shelby as moving to slow competition in the USG launch market and minimize the R&D funding available for competitors by adding onerous burdens to the commercial front runners. The ULA family and their politicians including Shelby don't care as much about jobs as they care about protecting the primary USG ULA family revenue stream for as long as possible. Requiring funds for paperwork that would otherwise be used for reinvestment in technology development is a clever ploy, as is a requirement for technology disclosure under FAR rules on the part of competitors.
We'll have to see how Shelby's rules impact NASA's use of Space Act Agreements going forward. See page 134 of draft CJS FY2015 report (attached, sourced upthread).
My opinion; it's all about the money, ISS will starve or burn if it benefits the entrenched USG space monopoly revenue streams to special interests.
Nah, he just seems to prefer Russian Commercial Crew...

I guess the key thing I missed, which has been pointed out in a number of articles, is that it's probably going to be much easier for Boeing to comply than for SpaceX.  Hence, it all makes more political sense than I had thought.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: mlindner on 06/10/2014 06:50 am
Orbital sciences (aka ATK) gets cargo and Boeing gets crew. What's the problem?

Careful, your sarcasm wasn't quite coming through.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: woods170 on 06/10/2014 08:27 am
These kinds of restrictions may will lead in the future to the majority of American astronauts
not being NASA employees.
There, fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/10/2014 09:40 am
Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:
Quote
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
I've had to re start viewing this a few times to calm down.

I think it would be interesting to picture what would happen if Shelby posted on NSF.

"Seemingly unlimited federal resources" for commercial crew. "Budget cuts" for SLS.

You'd have to ban him for blatant trolling.  :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/10/2014 11:20 am
Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:
Quote
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
I've had to re start viewing this a few times to calm down.

I think it would be interesting to picture what would happen if Shelby posted on NSF.

"Seemingly unlimited federal resources" for commercial crew. "Budget cuts" for SLS.

You'd have to ban him for blatant trolling.  :(
I understand your restarts John.
When I was eight or nine, of course I believed championship wrestling (in B&W) was real...
The eye gouging, biting, hair pulling used to really upset me...how could the ref not see? Of course a lot of times the bad guy knocked the ref out...I feel the same way when Shelby speaks.
I was thinking of a "Meet the Press" with Sen.s Shelby, Boxer, and CEOs M. Gass and E. Musk-
or, maybe Wrestlemania in a Texas open market tag team event. We'd need a Canadian ref, perhaps George St. Pierre is available.


I quit using frowny faces because I didn't want folks to mistake me for John Smith 19.
 
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/10/2014 12:17 pm
I understand your restarts John.
When I was eight or nine, of course I believed championship wrestling (in B&W) was real...
The eye gouging, biting, hair pulling used to really upset me...how could the ref not see? Of course a lot of times the bad guy knocked the ref out...I feel the same way when Shelby speaks.
I was thinking of a "Meet the Press" with Sen.s Shelby, Boxer, and CEOs M. Gass and E. Musk-
or, maybe Wrestlemania in a Texas open market tag team event. We'd need a Canadian ref, perhaps George St. Pierre is available.


I quit using frowny faces because I didn't want folks to mistake me for John Smith 19.
Well as a non American it can be difficult to tell what's real and what's fantasy in a hearing of your Legislature.

Unfortunately Shelby's amendments are quite real and if carried through will cripple all competitors, except perhaps Boeing.  :(

What I can't figure out was when Shelby asked about soon Commercial Crew providers could take over from Russia if unlimited funding was available for them (and Bolden sticking to 2017) wheather that was a)Shelby laying a trap so he could complain NASA was dragging its feet (Bolden recognizing it and side stepping it) or
b)Shelby giving Bolden a golden opportunity to let NASA shine by potentially handing off ISS tasks to an American company in less than 2 years (freeing NASA from the rising costs of Soyuz) and Bolden simply not seeing it?

Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/10/2014 12:36 pm
I understand your restarts John.
When I was eight or nine, of course I believed championship wrestling (in B&W) was real...
The eye gouging, biting, hair pulling used to really upset me...how could the ref not see? Of course a lot of times the bad guy knocked the ref out...I feel the same way when Shelby speaks.
I was thinking of a "Meet the Press" with Sen.s Shelby, Boxer, and CEOs M. Gass and E. Musk-
or, maybe Wrestlemania in a Texas open market tag team event. We'd need a Canadian ref, perhaps George St. Pierre is available.


I quit using frowny faces because I didn't want folks to mistake me for John Smith 19.
Well as a non American it can be difficult to tell what's real and what's fantasy in a hearing of your Legislature.

Unfortunately Shelby's amendments are quite real and if carried through will cripple all competitors, except perhaps Boeing.  :(

What I can't figure out was when Shelby asked about soon Commercial Crew providers could take over from Russia if unlimited funding was available for them (and Bolden sticking to 2017) wheather that was a)Shelby laying a trap so he could complain NASA was dragging its feet (Bolden recognizing it and side stepping it) or
b)Shelby giving Bolden a golden opportunity to let NASA shine by potentially handing off ISS tasks to an American company in less than 2 years (freeing NASA from the rising costs of Soyuz) and Bolden simply not seeing it?
Shelby was doing a CYA for himself and Bolden side stepped him by saying if CC received the President’s original request at the program’s inception we would fly to ISS in 2015...
To add... the whole “fiscally responsible” line Shelby likes to throw around does not match with funding to build the unneeded SLS rocket at this time with such urgency... There was only one SD vehicle that was needed and that was DIRECT and now it's too late for it...
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/10/2014 01:32 pm
I understand your restarts John.
When I was eight or nine, of course I believed championship wrestling (in B&W) was real...
The eye gouging, biting, hair pulling used to really upset me...how could the ref not see? Of course a lot of times the bad guy knocked the ref out...I feel the same way when Shelby speaks.
I was thinking of a "Meet the Press" with Sen.s Shelby, Boxer, and CEOs M. Gass and E. Musk-
or, maybe Wrestlemania in a Texas open market tag team event. We'd need a Canadian ref, perhaps George St. Pierre is available.


I quit using frowny faces because I didn't want folks to mistake me for John Smith 19.
Well as a non American it can be difficult to tell what's real and what's fantasy in a hearing of your Legislature.

Unfortunately Shelby's amendments are quite real and if carried through will cripple all competitors, except perhaps Boeing.  :(

What I can't figure out was when Shelby asked about soon Commercial Crew providers could take over from Russia if unlimited funding was available for them (and Bolden sticking to 2017) wheather that was a)Shelby laying a trap so he could complain NASA was dragging its feet (Bolden recognizing it and side stepping it) or
b)Shelby giving Bolden a golden opportunity to let NASA shine by potentially handing off ISS tasks to an American company in less than 2 years (freeing NASA from the rising costs of Soyuz) and Bolden simply not seeing it?
What Rocket Science Said, and Shelby is perpetuating the the nine women and a baby in a month myth for the benefit of his constituent ULA employee audience.
Bolden was simply stating project milestones, he knew based on past history he wouldn't get the full commercial funding requested and that Shelby had already made decisions regardless of what Bolden had to say.
It's important to remember what Bolden said regarding 70% SLS JCL -Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
So what did Shelby do? Added more money to SLS and required a 70% JCL, and still failed to fund commercial programs at the full level-while adding additional requirements. 

Yes indeed, watching the interplay of fantasy and reality in the US Congress (the house and senate), does remind me of championshop wrestling. Especially when it comes to environmental issues and climate change.  It would be a lot more fun watching the maestros of spin if it were another country. In the US we traditionally refer to the national bicameral legislature as Congress, and typically use "legislature" specifically to refer to state legislatures-which vary radically by state according to state constitutions. Legislatures are just as much fun...for example;  North Carolina passed a bill limiting the amount of Sea Level rise  (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/north_carolina_costly_mistake_on_climate_change/2543/)climate change models used in the state could predict. After public embarrassment the bill went unsigned by the Governor.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: notsorandom on 06/10/2014 02:10 pm
Shelby was doing a CYA for himself and Bolden side stepped him by saying if CC received the President’s original request at the program’s inception we would fly to ISS in 2015...
To add... the whole “fiscally responsible” line Shelby likes to throw around does not match with funding to build the unneeded SLS rocket at this time with such urgency... There was only one SD vehicle that was needed and that was DIRECT and now it's too late for it...
Not sure Direct would have worked out much better. They assumed a launch tempo of 2 lunar missions a year or at least four launches. At half a launch a year the Jupiter rockets wouldn't have looked much better. Just cheaper to develop. At this point the difference in development costs has narrowed. Jupiter just like SLS would have used the 4 RS-25 and 4/5ths of the SRB segments of SLS along with 2 more RL-10's and another launch pad. My point isn't that Direct was a bad idea, just that it assumed a flight rate and funding level which would likely make SLS look better if applied to it now.

The bottom line is that NASA doesn't have the funding to match what it has been tasked with. In this budget environment not a whole lot of NASA's HSF programs make any sense. The budget has forced ISS to be in doubt past 2020. Commercial crew has been delayed to the point where people can legitimately question why we are spending all this for only 6 crew rotation missions to ISS. SLS has been forced into a flat funding profile that is drawing its schedule out and making the development as a whole more expensive and uncertain. Orion was forced to change its service module, a deal which has added a significant amount of time to its IOC.

NASA has the ability and competency to do all of these programs well, it just doesn't have the budget to do so. When people say we should cancel one of the programs to make room for the rest of them that ignores the dynamics that created this mess in the first place.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/10/2014 02:26 pm
Shelby was doing a CYA for himself and Bolden side stepped him by saying if CC received the President’s original request at the program’s inception we would fly to ISS in 2015...
To add... the whole “fiscally responsible” line Shelby likes to throw around does not match with funding to build the unneeded SLS rocket at this time with such urgency... There was only one SD vehicle that was needed and that was DIRECT and now it's too late for it...
Not sure Direct would have worked out much better. They assumed a launch tempo of 2 lunar missions a year or at least four launches. At half a launch a year the Jupiter rockets wouldn't have looked much better. Just cheaper to develop. At this point the difference in development costs has narrowed. Jupiter just like SLS would have used the 4 RS-25 and 4/5ths of the SRB segments of SLS along with 2 more RL-10's and another launch pad. My point isn't that Direct was a bad idea, just that it assumed a flight rate and funding level which would likely make SLS look better if applied to it now.

The bottom line is that NASA doesn't have the funding to match what it has been tasked with. In this budget environment not a whole lot of NASA's HSF programs make any sense. The budget has forced ISS to be in doubt past 2020. Commercial crew has been delayed to the point where people can legitimately question why we are spending all this for only 6 crew rotation missions to ISS. SLS has been forced into a flat funding profile that is drawing its schedule out and making the development as a whole more expensive and uncertain. Orion was forced to change its service module, a deal which has added a significant amount of time to its IOC.

NASA has the ability and competency to do all of these programs well, it just doesn't have the budget to do so. When people say we should cancel one of the programs to make room for the rest of them that ignores the dynamics that created this mess in the first place.
DIRECT was great as a transition vehicle to reduce any gap and who knows could have been developed into what we are seeing being constructed now. That being said we have a Commercial Crew competition program now so the issue is moot.
I totally agree with the underfunding and that it barely keeps up with inflation and new vehicle development which results in shrinking allotment per program.  This is a disservice to the good people working on them...
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Prober on 06/10/2014 04:07 pm
Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:
Quote
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."

for sake of argument did the Shuttle meet the 70%?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Prober on 06/10/2014 04:11 pm
Shelby was doing a CYA for himself and Bolden side stepped him by saying if CC received the President’s original request at the program’s inception we would fly to ISS in 2015...
To add... the whole “fiscally responsible” line Shelby likes to throw around does not match with funding to build the unneeded SLS rocket at this time with such urgency... There was only one SD vehicle that was needed and that was DIRECT and now it's too late for it...
Not sure Direct would have worked out much better. They assumed a launch tempo of 2 lunar missions a year or at least four launches. At half a launch a year the Jupiter rockets wouldn't have looked much better. Just cheaper to develop. At this point the difference in development costs has narrowed. Jupiter just like SLS would have used the 4 RS-25 and 4/5ths of the SRB segments of SLS along with 2 more RL-10's and another launch pad. My point isn't that Direct was a bad idea, just that it assumed a flight rate and funding level which would likely make SLS look better if applied to it now.

The bottom line is that NASA doesn't have the funding to match what it has been tasked with. In this budget environment not a whole lot of NASA's HSF programs make any sense. The budget has forced ISS to be in doubt past 2020. Commercial crew has been delayed to the point where people can legitimately question why we are spending all this for only 6 crew rotation missions to ISS. SLS has been forced into a flat funding profile that is drawing its schedule out and making the development as a whole more expensive and uncertain. Orion was forced to change its service module, a deal which has added a significant amount of time to its IOC.

NASA has the ability and competency to do all of these programs well, it just doesn't have the budget to do so. When people say we should cancel one of the programs to make room for the rest of them that ignores the dynamics that created this mess in the first place.
DIRECT was great as a transition vehicle to reduce any gap and who knows could have been developed into what we are seeing being constructed now. That being said we have a Commercial Crew competition program now so the issue is moot.
I totally agree with the underfunding and that it barely keeps up with inflation and new vehicle development which results in shrinking allotment per program.  This is a disservice to the good people working on them...

no a sidemount design would have been the excellent transition, with a Direct follow on a maybe.   We would be operational now.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/10/2014 07:33 pm
for sake of argument did the Shuttle meet the 70%?
Good question.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Proponent on 06/10/2014 07:45 pm
I don't believe NASA was using JCL budgeting when the Shuttle was in development.  To answer the question, one would probably need to retrospectively construct a 70% JCL.  If I recall correctly, though, cost overruns on the Shuttle's development (though not it operations) were modest, at least by the standards of cutting-edge technology programs.  If that's right, it might tend to suggest that the Shuttle was budgeted at a fairly high JCL.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/11/2014 11:29 am
What Rocket Science Said, and Shelby is perpetuating the the nine women and a baby in a month myth for the benefit of his constituent ULA employee audience.
That's the thing I keep forgetting. It's not just Marshall he's worried about, it's Decatur (which for some reason I keep thinking is in Georgia). A successful Spacex will impact on Decatur, although it does not necessarily have to impact Marshall. 
Quote
Bolden was simply stating project milestones, he knew based on past history he wouldn't get the full commercial funding requested and that Shelby had already made decisions regardless of what Bolden had to say.
It's important to remember what Bolden said regarding 70% SLS JCL -Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
So what did Shelby do? Added more money to SLS and required a 70% JCL, and still failed to fund commercial programs at the full level-while adding additional requirements. 
I sort of wonder if they did this with Apollo and Shuttle as well or if there's a view that NASA pads it's costs?
Quote
In the US we traditionally refer to the national bicameral legislature as Congress, and typically use "legislature"
Noted. I'll go with Congress in future.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/11/2014 01:08 pm
for sake of argument did the Shuttle meet the 70%?
Good question.
Attached are some NASA publications regarding JCL. The earlier dates back to 2009.
hth


Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:11 pm

Quote from: JF
From:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt181/pdf/CRPT-113srpt181.pdf

Quote
The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on acommercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.

The clear implication being that an SAA contract wouldn't, in principle, allow for any safety requirements whatsoever.  Not only that, but in principle, any SAA contract, could not, by some mystery, be even worded to accomodate safety.

The contractural system wasn't broke, so they now propose to fix it.  All Cretans are liars.

Just to be clear I was more talking about the engineering design than how it would be funded or the contract supervised. 

...

I realize that you were discussing a somewhat different aspect, engineering design.

My point is more along the lines of observing how the very language that they use is intended to limit and frame the conversation.  This is not random language with unintended meaninga; it is deliberate language.  The quiet falsehood is that an SAA contract, again, by a mystery process, could not in principle allow for NASA to "require the company to meet all safety requirements".

By their words, ye shall know them.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:14 pm
no a sidemount design would have been the excellent transition, with a Direct follow on a maybe.   We would be operational now.

Probably the case, from the perspective of this armchair.  The time was five years ago, the shuttle was still flying, the expertise was at its peak, manufacturing lines had not been completely disassembled, subsequent actually budgeted  funding would have been adequate.

There is no intent to succeed.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:15 pm
Somebody does not want his problem (crew to ISS) solved.

Bingo.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:20 pm
Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:
Quote
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
I've had to re start viewing this a few times to calm down.

I think it would be interesting to picture what would happen if Shelby posted on NSF.

"Seemingly unlimited federal resources" for commercial crew. "Budget cuts" for SLS.

You'd have to ban him for blatant trolling. 

At least Mr. Sowers screwed up enough courage to post his viewpoint here.  Did he listen to anyone but himself?  Will he respond to fact based objections?  Nahh.

Shelby will not post here; his position is indefensible, and he could not make any rational line of reasoning to support the positions he is taking, and would, in an ideal instance of the universe, have to admit the false premises underlying his virtually complete track record in his long term evisceratiion our nation's HSF capabilities, not to mention a good possibility of not getting any such capability back within the next few decades.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:24 pm
 
...Shelby asked about [how] soon Commercial Crew providers could take over from Russia if unlimited funding was available for them ...

Shelby's deliberately false premise translated in less than 140 CHAR's:

If pigs had wings, we wouldn't need to launch our astros on unsafe trampolines.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/11/2014 01:46 pm
I get the impression that the good senator could care less if ISS goes away in 2020 since they are not using his launch vehicle of choice. Once that happens all the funds can go to evolve the “Shelby Launch System”.....
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:53 pm
NASA has the ability and competency to do all of these programs well, it just doesn't have the budget to do so.

Jim has pointed out over and over, that competence, particularly managerial competence, possibly due to an overactive Peter Principle, may be at the heart of NASA's inability to do "all of these programs well".

I think I agree.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:53 pm
...  North Carolina passed a bill limiting the amount of Sea Level rise climate change models used in the state could predict. After public embarrassment the bill went unsigned by the Governor.

And Stalin disagreed with the principles of genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko).

Thanks in part to the tea party, our legislatures are getting closer to the point where they actually babble when in office.  D's and R's are going right along with the Babylon program.

But I gotta go now, and yoga ain't until 5:30.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/11/2014 02:00 pm
I don't believe NASA was using JCL budgeting when the Shuttle was in development.  To answer the question, one would probably need to retrospectively construct a 70% JCL.  If I recall correctly, though, cost overruns on the Shuttle's development (though not it operations) were modest, at least by the standards of cutting-edge technology programs.  If that's right, it might tend to suggest that the Shuttle was budgeted at a fairly high JCL.
Cost overruns have been very problematic for NASA, but risk management assessment technology is improving to address the issue.  New tools are developing that take project management from an art to a science, as it should be.
I think we can all agree that it's a waste of resources to cancel huge investments in projects nearing completion, but at the same time, if project management including risk assessment isn't handled properly from the outset overruns/delays and possible cancellation is the result.
Consider the ISS propulsion module (GAO report attached) and follow on NodeX projects.  I mention these because propulsion module technology may become relevant in extending the life of ISS beyond 2020.
New development efforts such as SLS should be funded so they succeed...so I don't have an issue with funding a project to a level that assures success.
I do have issues with underfunding or intentionally interfering with commercial programs that are already proving successful at meeting milestones.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/11/2014 02:55 pm
I get the impression that the good senator could care less if ISS goes away in 2020 since they are not using his launch vehicle of choice. Once that happens all the funds can go to evolve the “Shelby Launch System”.....
That is my concern for the FY2016 budget, that the commercial crew program may be cancelled because it would be much cheaper to ride out the last three years with the Russians. As it stands NASA has paid Russia for rides through 2017. We'd be spending 3.4 billion on Commercial Crew for 4-6 launches to ISS, then it would be over as far as LEO research goes. And we need the ISS for an engineering and medical research platform.
However, by adding crippling FAR reporting requirements, testing at NASA facility requirements, and other "transparency" requirements Shelby's language may effectively thwart Americans launching from US soil in 2017.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/11/2014 04:13 pm
At least Mr. Sowers screwed up enough courage to post his viewpoint here.  Did he listen to anyone but himself?  Will he respond to fact based objections?  Nahh.
TBF he did respond a few times. I'm not sure if they were to substantive questions however.
Quote
Shelby will not post here; his position is indefensible, and he could not make any rational line of reasoning to support the positions he is taking, and would, in an ideal instance of the universe, have to admit the false premises underlying his virtually complete track record in his long term evisceratiion our nation's HSF capabilities, not to mention a good possibility of not getting any such capability back within the next few decades.
His "rationale" can be summed up in 2 words. "Marshall" and "Decata," with a side order of Alabama U. (go "The Crimson Tide" What ???)

I'm fairly sure he <irritating redaction of relatively mild profanity> less about if the rest of NASA imploded as long as they, and the centres that support them, were preserved (Yes I'm aware Decata is not a NASA facility).

Keep in mind that that is exactly in line with his responsibilities of keeping the cash flowing to his state.  :(
It's what the people who employ him want.

Wheather it's in line with his responsibilities for the good of the nation as a whole is another matter.  :( I thought members of Congress were meant to swear some kind of oath to support the whole nation, not just the region they were elected to represent, but my education on that side of things has been fairly minimal.

The Space Access Society are more charitable. They feel a lot of this is that members of Congress basically still see NASA though the rose tinted backvision of the mid 1960's, when every mission was an exploration missions, as so little was known the environment (both LEO and Lunar) and how well (if?) the equipment they had been issued with would function.

So if people want a more sensible space programme (and a better NASA) I guess they have to engage with their bit of Congress, find out what they think about NASA and start to (gently) correct their misconceptions ("No sir 'Armageddon' was not a dramatization of real events") about it.  :(

One Senator can stop the Shelby amendments cold. It all begins with one.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/11/2014 07:54 pm
At least Mr. Sowers screwed up enough courage to post his viewpoint here.  Did he listen to anyone but himself?  Will he respond to fact based objections?  Nahh.
TBF he did respond a few times. I'm not sure if they were to substantive questions however.
Quote
Shelby will not post here; his position is indefensible, and he could not make any rational line of reasoning to support the positions he is taking, and would, in an ideal instance of the universe, have to admit the false premises underlying his virtually complete track record in his long term evisceratiion our nation's HSF capabilities, not to mention a good possibility of not getting any such capability back within the next few decades.
His "rationale" can be summed up in 2 words. "Marshall" and "Decata," with a side order of Alabama U. (go "The Crimson Tide" What ???)

I'm fairly sure he <irritating redaction of relatively mild profanity> less about if the rest of NASA imploded as long as they, and the centres that support them, were preserved (Yes I'm aware Decata is not a NASA facility).

Keep in mind that that is exactly in line with his responsibilities of keeping the cash flowing to his state.  :(
It's what the people who employ him want.

Wheather it's in line with his responsibilities for the good of the nation as a whole is another matter.  :( I thought members of Congress were meant to swear some kind of oath to support the whole nation, not just the region they were elected to represent, but my education on that side of things has been fairly minimal.

The Space Access Society are more charitable. They feel a lot of this is that members of Congress basically still see NASA though the rose tinted backvision of the mid 1960's, when every mission was an exploration missions, as so little was known the environment (both LEO and Lunar) and how well (if?) the equipment they had bee issued with would function.

So if people want a more sensible space programme (and a better NASA) I guess they have to engage with their bit of Congress, find out what they think about NASA and start to (gently) correct their misconceptions ("No sir 'Armageddon' was not a dramatization of real events") about it.  :(

One Senator can stop the Shelby amendments cold. It all begins with one.

This kind of “monkey business” has been going on since 1776...
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 06/12/2014 02:23 am
At least Mr. Sowers screwed up enough courage to post his viewpoint here.  Did he listen to anyone but himself?  Will he respond to fact based objections?  Nahh.
TBF he did respond a few times. I'm not sure if they were to substantive questions however.

The few times were unsubstantial, by my take, since he did not address the salient issues I raised.  Which is not to say that there is some unique majik that I bring to the table; I merely recounted the facts of the bid protest, and pointed out the grammatical, ecumenical, and spiritual inadequacies of the discussion that he started.  That is the false attribution of responsibility of one American company for the intransigence of another nation.

There's not really a "TBF" here, that I would agree to.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/12/2014 09:06 am
This kind of “monkey business” has been going on since 1776...
Sadly I fear that is literally true.  :(

Whenever a situation exists that most people agree is very bad yet persists in existing you have to ask yourself 2 questions.

1)Who benefits and how?
2)What do they do to maintain the status quo?

Once you can answer those questions you should have a handle on how to disrupt their influence.

But note. That does not guarantee the outcome you want, just a different outcome.  :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: docmordrid on 06/18/2014 07:26 am
Good read. Hopefully it influences those working on the final Senate version and conference report.

Link.... (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/17/administration-opposes-senate-provisions-commercial-crew-europa-mission/#more-52646)

Quote
In a policy statement issued today, the White House took issue with two objectives near and dear to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): crippling NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and boosting its Space Launch System (SLS).
>
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/18/2014 08:23 am
Good read. Hopefully it influences those working on the final Senate version and conference report.

Link.... (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/17/administration-opposes-senate-provisions-commercial-crew-europa-mission/#more-52646)

Quote
In a policy statement issued today, the White House took issue with two objectives near and dear to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): crippling NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and boosting its Space Launch System (SLS).
>
policy statement attached from:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/06/17/white-house-washington-times-both-criticize-senate-commercial-crew-language/ (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/06/17/white-house-washington-times-both-criticize-senate-commercial-crew-language/)
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/18/2014 01:32 pm
policy statement attached from:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/06/17/white-house-washington-times-both-criticize-senate-commercial-crew-language/ (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/06/17/white-house-washington-times-both-criticize-senate-commercial-crew-language/)
Yes, but check the comments section.

I didn't know Henry Vanderbilt ever commented.  :)

I also noticed this little gem about Boeing's approach to Commercial Crew

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-loss

This isn't the first time Boeing have played the "Give us the Commercial Crew contract or the workforce gets it" routine either.  :(

I have to wonder did Boeing stockholders vote to behave this way?  :(

I'm glad Shelby's efforts are getting some (negative) attention in mainstream media but this battle is far from over.  Where politics is concerned I've learned the truth that "The game's not over till the last balls down."
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: AncientU on 06/18/2014 01:53 pm
Quote
The Senate provides no specific FY 2015 funding for a mission to Europe, which is believed to have a substantial ocean beneath its frozen surface.

That would be an interesting find...
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Proponent on 06/18/2014 02:08 pm
I also noticed this little gem about Boeing's approach to Commercial Crew

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-loss

This isn't the first time Boeing have played the "Give us the Commercial Crew contract or the workforce gets it" routine either.  :(

I have to wonder did Boeing stockholders vote to behave this way?  :(

It's not pretty, but it's perfectly reasonable corporate behavior.  I'd say, in fact, that Boeing's management has a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders to at least consider the use of all legal means at its disposal to win the contract.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/19/2014 12:32 am
More interesting news:
Nelson Wants To Revisit Senate Appropriations Committee’s Stricter Commercial Crew Oversight  (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40955nelson-wants-to-revisit-senate-appropriations-committee%E2%80%99s-stricter)
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Rocket Science on 06/19/2014 01:15 am
More interesting news:
Nelson Wants To Revisit Senate Appropriations Committee’s Stricter Commercial Crew Oversight  (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40955nelson-wants-to-revisit-senate-appropriations-committee%E2%80%99s-stricter)
Thanks for posting it Sean!
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/19/2014 11:04 am
"Rolled up into a minbus with 2 other bills"

Sounds like a classic "Either you vote yes to all of it or none of it gets through" squeeze play.

I read RA Heinlein's "Magic Inc" as a kid and damm if it isn't still a very handy guide to practical US politics.  :(

And not in a good way.  :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Prober on 06/19/2014 10:34 pm
Looks like Sen. Reid put a hold on all funding....he didn't get his way.

Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/20/2014 08:46 am
Marcia S. Smith gives a good explanation of status of the minibus on spacepolicyonline.
Senate Appropriations Process Hits a Snag, Minibus Derailed for Now (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-appropriations-process-hits-a-snag-minibus-derailed-for-now)

Quote from: From the article
Optimism about completing congressional action on at least some FY2015 appropriations bills earlier than usual hit a wall today (June 19) when the Senate postponed action on a set of three appropriations bills, including those that fund NASA, NOAA and the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation.  Substantive issues underlie the disagreement, but they are unrelated to the space program and are being manifested in procedural moves.
Really appreciate the way Marcia explains procedural issues.


Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/20/2014 10:39 am
Marcia S. Smith gives a good explanation of status of the minibus on spacepolicyonline.
Senate Appropriations Process Hits a Snag, Minibus Derailed for Now (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-appropriations-process-hits-a-snag-minibus-derailed-for-now)

Quote from: From the article
Optimism about completing congressional action on at least some FY2015 appropriations bills earlier than usual hit a wall today (June 19) when the Senate postponed action on a set of three appropriations bills, including those that fund NASA, NOAA and the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation.  Substantive issues underlie the disagreement, but they are unrelated to the space program and are being manifested in procedural moves.
Really appreciate the way Marcia explains procedural issues.

I think the bit about the Republicans desire to dismantle the "Clean Air" and "Clean Water" acts, effectively by the back door,  would probably make quite a few people annoyed.  :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Mongo62 on 06/20/2014 12:57 pm
From the article:

Quote
Yesterday (June 18), Shelby, a long-standing critic of the commercial crew program, defended the language on the Senate floor saying its intent was “not to up-end a fixed-price contract: rather the goal is to make certain that the price NASA has agreed to pay for vehicle development matches actual development expenditures.

If it's a fixed-price contract, what difference does it make what the actual supplier expenses are? The cost to the government is the same whatever the supplier's expenses might be. If the expenses were so high that the supplier went out of business, then yes it would be an issue, but that possibility is negligible. Shelby is just fishing for a semi-plausible excuse to kill commercial crew.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: john smith 19 on 06/20/2014 06:06 pm
From the article:
If it's a fixed-price contract, what difference does it make what the actual supplier expenses are? The cost to the government is the same whatever the supplier's expenses might be. If the expenses were so high that the supplier went out of business, then yes it would be an issue, but that possibility is negligible. Shelby is just fishing for a semi-plausible excuse to kill commercial crew.
Or cripple everyone who's not geared up to handle those reporting requirements IE Everyone not Boeing.

More work for Decata, Alb?  :(
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2014 09:32 pm
Or cripple everyone who's not geared up to handle those reporting requirements IE Everyone not Boeing.

SNC says they can. Blue Origin probably can too. Orbital/ATK definitely can.

This is a specific attack at SpaceX.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: spacetraveler on 06/20/2014 11:20 pm
Or cripple everyone who's not geared up to handle those reporting requirements IE Everyone not Boeing.

SNC says they can. Blue Origin probably can too. Orbital/ATK definitely can.

This is a specific attack at SpaceX.

Well, since SpaceX and Boeing are realistically the only two contenders for the commercial crew contract, that's not all that surprising.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: QuantumG on 06/20/2014 11:21 pm
Well, since SpaceX and Boeing are realistically the only two contenders for the commercial crew contract, that's not all that surprising.

Nah. It's an open competition.  ::)
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/21/2014 04:41 am
Well, since SpaceX and Boeing are realistically the only two contenders for the commercial crew contract, that's not all that surprising.

Nah. It's an open competition.  ::)
QG, You crack me up. I'll get you a golden unicorn for your birthday.

Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/21/2014 05:12 am
From the article:

Quote
Yesterday (June 18), Shelby, a long-standing critic of the commercial crew program, defended the language on the Senate floor saying its intent was “not to up-end a fixed-price contract: rather the goal is to make certain that the price NASA has agreed to pay for vehicle development matches actual development expenditures.

If it's a fixed-price contract, what difference does it make what the actual supplier expenses are? The cost to the government is the same whatever the supplier's expenses might be. If the expenses were so high that the supplier went out of business, then yes it would be an issue, but that possibility is negligible. Shelby is just fishing for a semi-plausible excuse to kill commercial crew.
Shelby's transparency rules are shockingly transparent...

Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: deltaV on 06/21/2014 08:26 am
Quote
The Senate provides no specific FY 2015 funding for a mission to Europe, which is believed to have a substantial ocean beneath its frozen surface.

That would be an interesting find...

People have known about the ocean beneath Europe for many decades. :)
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 06/24/2014 07:12 pm
CSF continuing to criticize Shelby's anti-commercial crew language:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lopezalegria/new-restrictions-on-nasa-_b_5526013.html?1403626891
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 06/24/2014 07:53 pm
CSF continuing to criticize Shelb's anti-commercial crew language:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lopezalegria/new-restrictions-on-nasa-_b_5526013.html?1403626891
Glad to see the threat to NASA commercial programs moving into more mainstream media.

From the article:
Quote
Flying our astronauts should be a national strategic priority, and NASA should be free to continue expanding its use of public-private partnerships and building on its successes. NASA will always lead our nation's exploration of space, but it must empower all the members of the team that makes that happen, including commercial companies. If Congress can ensure that NASA is cutting bureaucracy and getting the most value for its money, our nation will have a bright future of space exploration ahead of it. If not, our human spaceflight program may be a disappointment for years to come.
Pump up the volume; discuss and share on social media.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: SWGlassPit on 06/25/2014 03:51 pm
I also noticed this little gem about Boeing's approach to Commercial Crew

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-loss

This isn't the first time Boeing have played the "Give us the Commercial Crew contract or the workforce gets it" routine either.  :(

I have to wonder did Boeing stockholders vote to behave this way?  :(

It's not pretty, but it's perfectly reasonable corporate behavior.  I'd say, in fact, that Boeing's management has a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders to at least consider the use of all legal means at its disposal to win the contract.

Boom and bust is the nature of all government contract work.  RIFs are par for the course, regardless of the company or industry.  The difference here is that companies the size and diversity of Boeing can continue to exist after losing a contract.  There were plenty of stories over the past year about small businesses completely vanishing after losing government contract work due to the sequester and subsequent shutdown.

More to the point: CST-100 is being designed to serve as a LEO taxi.  In the reasonably near term, NASA is the only potential customer.  If it's not selected, then it's a product with no viable market (sure, maybe someday, but not in any reasonable time frame).  If the CST-100 is downselected out, why would they spend money to support a product nobody will buy?  Sure, they can transition at least some of the workforce into other programs, but like for any other large organization, those transitions would be based on business needs and workforce skills; it doesn't make sense to shoehorn engineers into work they have no experience in on a program that doesn't need the extra help.

TL;DR -- it's not a threat; it's the simple reality of being a government contractor.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 07/04/2014 01:36 am
Op-eds on the Shelby language:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/41086focusing-on-priorities-in-human-access-to-leo
http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Rockets-red-tape-5594148.php
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/03/no-action-but-more-commentary-on-shelbys-commercial-crew-cost-language/
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Prober on 07/07/2014 01:18 pm
Op-eds on the Shelby language:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/41086focusing-on-priorities-in-human-access-to-leo
http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Rockets-red-tape-5594148.php
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/03/no-action-but-more-commentary-on-shelbys-commercial-crew-cost-language/

Should be less Shelby bashing.  Senator Shelby is one of the "good guys".  Many might disagree, but he is an old school politician.   They sat down and worked with each other, compromised etc.   Whatever people think of Shelby, and a few other politicians; they understood NASA and congress.   When they are gone IMHO, they will be missed at least they tried to keep the lights on.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 07/07/2014 03:18 pm
I would rather have a lower NASA budget and a lower budget for commercial crew than have language like this remain in the bill. This language goes against the very nature of commercial partnerships. It needs to go.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/07/2014 03:21 pm
...at least they tried to keep the lights on.

Isn't that one of the definitions of "pork"?  That work is funded even though work is not really needed?

If so, then as a taxpayer I'm not happy about that, regardless what department or agency it's in.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: joek on 07/07/2014 07:06 pm
If it's a fixed-price contract, what difference does it make what the actual supplier expenses are? The cost to the government is the same whatever the supplier's expenses might be. If the expenses were so high that the supplier went out of business, then yes it would be an issue, but that possibility is negligible. Shelby is just fishing for a semi-plausible excuse to kill commercial crew.

Fixed price is unrelated to the requirement for offerors to provide certified cost or price data. For example (at the risk of oversimplifying):
- A fixed price contract which is not competitively bid would require certified cost/price data.
- A fixed price contract which is competitively bid would not require certified cost/price data.
Thee rules are documented in FAR 15.403, which you can find here (https://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2015_4.html).
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Prober on 07/07/2014 07:44 pm
...at least they tried to keep the lights on.

Isn't that one of the definitions of "pork"?  That work is funded even though work is not really needed?

If so, then as a taxpayer I'm not happy about that, regardless what department or agency it's in.

borderline pork, hibernation of some NASA centers could keep the lights on, but alive.

Some new members of Congress might not be so kind.


 
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: vulture4 on 07/07/2014 09:31 pm
There is an almost unlimited amount of useful work NASA can do. In fact there are hundreds of proposals, some very good, presented every year, and rejected because funding isn't available. If Senator Shelby wants to keep MSFC open, why not let Marshall and the rest of the agency meet with industry and come up with useful ideas for ways NASA and industry can work together to advance technology? We don't need to be ordered to produce unneeded hardware just to spend money.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: joek on 07/08/2014 01:13 am
I would rather have a lower NASA budget and a lower budget for commercial crew than have language like this remain in the bill. This language goes against the very nature of commercial partnerships. It needs to go.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it goes against the very nature of commercial partnerships, although it certainly goes against the nature of competitive and commercial acquisitions, at least as embodied in FAR.

Beyond that, I think much of the language a bit hyperbolic, difficult to reconcile, or simply very, very odd.

There are so many examples I can't decide; although the one about "NASA-owned rocket testing infrastructure" (see below) is near the top of my list.  Apologies in advance for the long post.

Quote
While NASA has chosen to use a FAR-based contract, it has also waived significant portions of the standard FAR-based contract, including verifiable cost data, capping repayment of funds in case of inability to perform, and rights in data.

To say that NASA waived "significant portions of the standard FAR-based contract" is excessive, unless your contract standard is non-compete or cost-plus.  And not all repayments are capped.  At completion of "delivery" milestones, payments are made and are not subject to repayment; interim or "financing" milestones are subject to repayment.  In other words, as long as the contractor meets their deliveries, NASA will pay and can't demand their money back.

Quote
NASA has informed the Committee that these deviations were necessary to ensure competition. However, with multiple entrants that collectively have extensive Federal contracting experience, the Committee questions the true need to waive these traditional requirements.

Ironic.  John ELbon of Boeing stated at a House hearing Oct 2011 on commercial crew (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=38853): "The second attribute is that the contractor should retain intellectual property rights. This is necessary to encourage investment in establishing a commercial market beyond transportation of NASA funded passengers to the International Space Station. Boeing believes that both these attributes can be achieved using a FAR based contract.

Quote
As with any such project, the technical risk and probability for cost growth is high. Without the proper foundation and necessary requirements for certified cost and pricing data, NASA will have no insight into ongoing cost growth that could jeopardize the viability of the program.

"No insight" is an extreme claim.  Certified cost and price data is the magic ingredient that will stop cost growth in other NASA and US Government programs?

Quote
In order for NASA and Congress to have the appropriate level of transparency to ensure that the cost of the program is in line with the activities undertaken and that it does not grow exponentially, the Committee directs NASA to maintain FAR 15.403–4, related to certified cost and pricing data for prime contractors, for any contracts entered into to support the development of a commercial crew vehicle.

Without certified cost and price data, the program cost will "grow exponentially"?  More hyperbole.

Quote
Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated with the crew vehicle.

I'm not sure what this is intended to accomplish beyond the existing CCtCap requirements.  CCtCap proposals are already required to include, on a per-milestone basis, the contractor contribution and the NASA contribution (price to NASA).  NASA pays on a per-milestone basis.  I have no idea what the typical milestone schedule looks like, but I bet they aren't too many months apart.  Maybe the Senators know something more and can explain.

Quote
The Committee agrees with concern expressed by the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, the OIG, and others that Space Act agreements may not give NASA sufficient oversight to correct safety defects. The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on a commercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.

NASA is using a FAR contract for CCtCap, and will use a FAR contract for crew services contract--NASA cannot legally do otherwise.  It's as if someone doesn't think CCtCap is really under FAR, and feels the need to gratuitously point that out.

Quote
The Committee encourages NASA to develop plans to fully utilize NASA-owned rocket testing infrastructure for commercially developed launch vehicles to ensure that these vehicles are not only tested in the same manner as Government-developed launch vehicles but at the same facilities to ensure consistency in testing across all potential vehicles.

Wow.  Words fail.

Quote
The additional investments NASA is currently making to advance crew vehicle development will ultimately enable greater competition for ISS cargo resupply missions through the creation of more viable entrants than were originally available. With a more mature competitive environment, the Committee believes that exceptions to procurement practices to provide reliable cargo transport may be unnecessary. As NASA begins soliciting participants for the second round of cargo resupply missions, certified cost and pricing data should be required and made available to NASA.

A "more mature competitive environment" means we should now eliminate competitive procurement practices?  At least someone had the decency to include "may" and "should".
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: QuantumG on 07/08/2014 01:21 am
Quote
Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated with the crew vehicle.

I'm not sure what this is intended to accomplish beyond the existing CCtCap requirements.  CCtCap proposals are already required to include, on a per-milestone basis, the contractor contribution and the NASA contribution (price to NASA).  NASA pays on a per-milestone basis.  I have no idea what the typical milestone schedule looks like, but I bet they aren't too many months apart.  Maybe the Senators know something more and can explain.

I doubt they'll get to see that, it'd be proprietary information. The demand for a report is basically a demand to make that information public.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 07/08/2014 01:56 pm
I would rather have a lower NASA budget and a lower budget for commercial crew than have language like this remain in the bill. This language goes against the very nature of commercial partnerships. It needs to go.

I wouldn't go so far as saying it goes against the very nature of commercial partnerships, although it certainly goes against the nature of competitive and commercial acquisitions, at least as embodied in FAR.

I agree that the Shelby languages contradicts FAR legislation and regulations. That's a point that I was trying to make in an earlier post. Shelby's language is in a report and the report isn't law. NASA couldn't go against the FAR rules and regulations even if it wanted too. The FAR part 15 rules are clear that certified cost and price data should not be requested if there is adequate price competition for the item or if a commercial item is being acquired by the government. As I said before, these exceptions also provide incentives for NASA not to downselect early. Having said that I still think that the language needs to be removed.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34827.msg1211794#msg1211794
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/09/2014 02:36 am
Should be less Shelby bashing.   Senator Shelby is one of the "good guys".  Many might disagree, but he is an old school politician.   They sat down and worked with each other, compromised etc.   Whatever people think of Shelby, and a few other politicians; they understood NASA and congress.   When they are gone IMHO, they will be missed at least they tried to keep the lights on.

The sad truth is that Shelby owns the current state of affairs with NASA and HSF.  At one point in time, he may have been able to horse trade with other pols, but the clear result of all that trading is no USG launch until 2023 in the OIG "optimistic" sense.

I'm totally bummed, but there it is.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/09/2014 02:53 am
Op-eds on the Shelby language:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/41086focusing-on-priorities-in-human-access-to-leo


Yves:  Many thanks for the links. I'm crushed.

Quote from: the SpaceNews article
Cost and pricing data are the principal means of setting a reasonable price and protecting taxpayer interests.

Normally, human spaceflight would fall into this category. The only meaningful customer is the government and it has rather unique requirements. A truly healthy free market does not exist. Moreover, the taxpayers are contributing significant resources to the development of these capabilities, which they then will not own. Despite constant rhetoric to the contrary, there is nothing “commercial” about the commercial crew program. Without government demand, funding and support, the private companies working with NASA likely would not be in this business. Investors and shareholders would not stand for the expenditure of such resources, preferring to chase higher returns in a more profitable sector. This may be changing, but not in a time frame useful for government needs. From that standpoint, the Senate Appropriations Committee’s move to apply the FAR’s cost and pricing data to NASA’s efforts to acquire crewed access to low Earth orbit (LEO) makes perfect sense.

However — and there is always a “however” in public policy — it is also a mistake in this case. The United States does not apply the cost and pricing provisions of the FAR (among others) to its procurement of human launch services from Russia.

But, and there's always a but: I think the current state of affairs resembles Narcisstic Personality Disorder (NPD) more than anything.  There are nothing but political and corporate egos who are running the show these days, and they will not let there be any accomplishment unless their damn palms are greased.  That's the only way their egos are assuaged.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 07/10/2014 01:08 am
More on the Shelby language:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2014/07/americas_most_influential_-_an.html
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Sean Lynch on 07/10/2014 09:31 am
More on the Shelby language:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2014/07/americas_most_influential_-_an.html
Thanks yg1968!
Quote from: from the link above
NASA and the White House don't like Shelby's rule, either, but the requirement is in the law as it came out of committee and awaits action on the Senate floor. To get rid of it, House and Senate negotiators will have to compromise after the budget measure passes the Senate and goes for reconciliation with the House budget.
I wonder what the probability is that the language can be removed.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Prober on 07/10/2014 03:46 pm
More on the Shelby language:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2014/07/americas_most_influential_-_an.html
Thanks yg1968!
Quote from: from the link above
NASA and the White House don't like Shelby's rule, either, but the requirement is in the law as it came out of committee and awaits action on the Senate floor. To get rid of it, House and Senate negotiators will have to compromise after the budget measure passes the Senate and goes for reconciliation with the House budget.
I wonder what the probability is that the language can be removed.

its clear Shelby is after something, this says it all: negotiators will have to compromise
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 07/11/2014 07:37 pm
There is little chance that the Senate CJS bill will be passed before summer recess. There is a disagreement over the amendment procedures which is stalling the Senate's mini-bus bill (which includes the CJS bill). The most likely scenario is that there will be a CR until after the election:

Quote
Meanwhile, the Senate has not passed any appropriations bills for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 due to a disagreement over amendments. A stopgap funding measure, also known as a continuing resolution, appears likely to keep the government running and avoid a shutdown through the midterm elections.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/211935-house-passes-sixth-15-appropriations-bill

Quote
Unable to reach agreement on amendment procedures with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pulled H.R. 4660, the “minibus” appropriations package, from consideration on the Senate floor on June 19. The bill includes FY15 appropriations for HUD and the Department of Transportation, as well as the USDA and Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bills.
http://nlihc.org/article/senate-hud-funding-bill-stalled-disagreement-over-amending-process
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/11/2014 08:12 pm
I think I would play political hardball with this language for accountability and expand it to the procurement of Russian commercial rides. The Russians would say FU and thus shut down flights to the ISS and might force it removal...
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Lar on 07/11/2014 09:08 pm
I think I would play political hardball with this language for accountability and expand it to the procurement of Russian commercial rides. The Russians would say FU and thus shut down flights to the ISS and might force it removal...
That seems like not a good outcome to me.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/12/2014 12:40 am
I think I would play political hardball with this language for accountability and expand it to the procurement of Russian commercial rides. The Russians would say FU and thus shut down flights to the ISS and might force it removal...
That seems like not a good outcome to me.
Agreed and if it did it wouldn’t last long if it happened as all the heat would be focused on him. Since this all about supposedly fiscal accountability so shouldn’t it be across the board including SLS... We can’t stand by and let Shelby become the “self appointed Czar of U S spaceflight”... What would you do Lar, any thoughts?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2014 06:09 pm
Not entirely surprising but the House intends to pass a CR next week:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/republicans-prep-short-term-funding-to-keep-government-open-through-election-day-20140721
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 08/04/2014 03:11 pm
Update by the Space Access Society on various bills:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/07/28/space-access-society-update/
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 08/04/2014 03:14 pm
Not entirely surprising but the House intends to pass a CR next week:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/republicans-prep-short-term-funding-to-keep-government-open-through-election-day-20140721

The debate about the House CR has been pushed to September:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/24/us-usa-fiscal-congress-idUSKBN0FT2DA20140724
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 08/22/2014 02:18 pm
Update on the House CR. It will be a clean CR and will last until December:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/08/22/house-gearing-up-for-cr-to-last-until-december/
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: vulture4 on 08/26/2014 04:14 am
"NASA and the White House don't like Shelby's rule, either, but the requirement is in the law as it came out of committee and awaits action on the Senate floor. To get rid of it, House and Senate negotiators will have to compromise after the budget measure passes the Senate and goes for reconciliation with the House budget."

In spite of this quote from the AL.com website, in reality the language regarding financial reporting is in the committee report on the bill, not in the bill itself. The committee report is presented to the full Senate and could affect the amendment process if the bill goes to a conference committee. But the committee report does not have the force of law and if the House should pass a budget bill identical to the Senate's, the Shelby language would not be in it.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/02/2014 03:40 pm
Update on the House CR. It will be a clean CR and will last until December:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/08/22/house-gearing-up-for-cr-to-last-until-december/

A clean CR is expected to be passed by the House between September 8th and 19th based on the House's schedule:
http://majorityleader.gov/calendar/113thcongresssecondsession-monthly.pdf
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/03/2014 02:40 pm
A clean CR is still expected to be passed later this month:

Quote
Lobbyists said they expect lawmakers to pass a “clean” stopgap bill to avoid a shutdown fight before the election, but are counting on being able to influence the omnibus funding package when it comes out later this year.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/216461-lobbyists-prepare-for-busy-two-week-sprint

Quote
"So I would expect there will be a continuing resolution to fund the government from September 30th into early December."

http://news.yahoo.com/us-house-leader-eyes-spending-measure-avert-shutdown-183500594.html

Quote
“The only people talking about a government shutdown are the Democrats and nobody has any interest in doing that, so I think we’ll pass a clean CR [continuing resolution], which would operate the government probably into December,” he told Fox Business Network in an interview.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/216552-mcconnell-gop-wants-clean-funding-bill-to-avoid-shutdown-drama
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: jimhillhouse on 09/08/2014 04:06 am
...the language regarding financial reporting is in the committee report on the bill, not in the bill itself. The committee report is presented to the full Senate and could affect the amendment process if the bill goes to a conference committee. But the committee report does not have the force of law and if the House should pass a budget bill identical to the Senate's, the Shelby language would not be in it.

One can play that game with Appropriators. Knowing Shelby, I imagine he hopes on many levels that NASA does not abide by the report's language as that would give him ammo for more draconian efforts, ones that would end-up in the FY16 appropriations bill.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/08/2014 04:05 pm
...the language regarding financial reporting is in the committee report on the bill, not in the bill itself. The committee report is presented to the full Senate and could affect the amendment process if the bill goes to a conference committee. But the committee report does not have the force of law and if the House should pass a budget bill identical to the Senate's, the Shelby language would not be in it.

One can play that game with Appropriators. Knowing Shelby, I imagine he hopes on many levels that NASA does not abide by the report's language as that would give him ammo for more draconian efforts, ones that would end-up in the FY16 appropriations bill.

The bill isn't law. I am not sure why NASA would need to abide by it. Furthermore, I doubt that the text in the report will make it in the final conference report.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/08/2014 05:54 pm
CR is expected to be voted on by the House within the next few days (possibly Thursday):

Quote
Thursday

The House may take up a short-term spending bill to keep the government funded through early December and avoid a shutdown on Oct. 1.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/scheduling/216816-this-week

Quote
A GOP leadership aide Saturday said no final decisions have been made on the exact timing for a continuing resolution vote, but acknowledged “our objective is to get it done quickly.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/gop-leadership-will-move-quickly-to-keep-the-government-open#45o71ir

Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: vulture4 on 09/08/2014 09:19 pm
...the language regarding financial reporting is in the committee report on the bill, not in the bill itself. The committee report is presented to the full Senate and could affect the amendment process if the bill goes to a conference committee. But the committee report does not have the force of law and if the House should pass a budget bill identical to the Senate's, the Shelby language would not be in it.

One can play that game with Appropriators. Knowing Shelby, I imagine he hopes on many levels that NASA does not abide by the report's language as that would give him ammo for more draconian efforts, ones that would end-up in the FY16 appropriations bill.

The bill isn't law. I am not sure why NASA would need to abide by it. Furthermore, I doubt that the text in the report will make it in the final conference report.

I agree with you about the text. However I would point out that the appropriations bill actually produced by the conference committee is almost invariably passed by both houses and becomes law, with all its irrelevant riders, in fact this is the way Frank Wolf inserted his notorious prohibition on communication with China into law.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/09/2014 02:16 am
The text of the CR should be available tommorow. It should be a clean CR:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/217036-chairman-this-will-be-a-clean-cr
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/10/2014 05:03 am
Here is the text of the CR released by the House a few hours ago. I don't see anything specific to NASA (other than the fact that spending levels will remain the same as FY 2014):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140908/BILLS-113hjres124-IH.pdf

Here is a summary:
http://appropriations.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=392934

See also this article:
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/217198-house-spending-chief-unveils-clean-plan-to-avoid-government-shutdown
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/10/2014 05:15 am
The fact that there is nothing specific for NASA is a good thing in the sense that there is no Shelby language on commercial crew or no language that requires a downselection to one provider. I don't know for sure but I expect that the CCtCap announcement was being delayed until the text of the CR was released.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Proponent on 09/10/2014 09:08 am
Does this mean there will likely be a shutdown on 11 December?
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/10/2014 10:46 am
I don't know for sure but I expect that the CCtCap announcement was being delayed until the text of the CR was released.

Forgive me for not knowing the details of the US budget process, but can't the CR still be amended? (or is that in principle yes, but in practice no/unlikely) So could NASA be waiting for a CR to actually be passed so they know for sure where they stand? (or at least until December ...)
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/10/2014 02:23 pm
I don't know for sure but I expect that the CCtCap announcement was being delayed until the text of the CR was released.

Forgive me for not knowing the details of the US budget process, but can't the CR still be amended? (or is that in principle yes, but in practice no/unlikely) So could NASA be waiting for a CR to actually be passed so they know for sure where they stand? (or at least until December ...)

In theory, amendments could be offered. But my understanding is that few amendments are likely to prevail. The point of having a clean CR is to defer amendments to a later date in order to avoid lengthy debates.

But it's possible that NASA will wait for the CR to have been passed by both the House and Senate. The House is expected to vote on the CR on Thursday; the Senate is expected to vote on it next week. 
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/10/2014 02:34 pm
Does this mean there will likely be a shutdown on 11 December?

No they are just punting to a date after the election. A shutdown is unlikely even after the election. Neither party wants one. It is possible that they will just extend the CR in December to March 1st 2015.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/11/2014 02:08 am
The vote on the CR by the House has been pushed to next week because of an extra funding request by the President for training Syrian rebels:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/217304-white-house-push-to-train-syrian-rebels-ties-up-funding-fight
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/15/2014 03:42 pm
The House might vote on the CR as early as Wednesday:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/217744-house-to-limits-obama-aid-to-syria
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/18/2014 02:42 am
House voted in favour of the CR. Senate should vote on it Thursday:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/218071-house-approves-1t-spending-bill
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/218116-reid-sets-up-cr-vote-for-thursday
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 09/19/2014 02:13 am
Senate passed the CR a few hours ago:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/overnights/218289-overnight-defense-senate-approves-aid-for-syrian-rebels
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 11/11/2014 12:40 am
Omnibus bill is expected to be released by the House on December 9:
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/223503-omnibus-spending-bill-likely-to-come-after-thanksgiving
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/03/2014 12:41 am
A deal seems possible on a CRomnibus bill:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/225805-reid-backs-boehner-on-deal-to-avoid-shutdown
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/05/2014 01:39 am
Cromnibus bill will be released on Monday morning:
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/225993-appropriators-plan-to-unveil-cromnibus-spending-package-on-monday
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/08/2014 02:17 pm
The Cromnibus bill likely to be released late today:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/house-senate-spending-deal-113375.html?hp=r2_4
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/226311-house-gops-11t-government-spending-bill-expected-late-monday
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/09/2014 04:17 pm
It has been delayed by a day, it should be released today:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/226448-terrorism-fight-risks-government-shutdown

In the meantime, a CR for 2 or 3 days is likely to be passed by the House:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/house-short-term-spending-bill-113431.html?hp=l3_4
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/226470-hoyer-short-term-funding-bill-possible
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2014 12:15 am
A deal has been reached but the bill hasn't yet been posted:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/226558-deal-on-funding-bill-reached

It should be posted here tonight:
http://rules.house.gov/
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2014 12:37 am
The CJS summary says this about NASA:

Quote
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – NASA is funded at $18 billion in
the bill, an increase of $364 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. Within this total,
$4.4 billion is provided for Exploration, including funding to keep the Orion Multi-Purpose
Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System on schedule.

http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/cjs_press_summary.pdf
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2014 12:39 am
Here is the text of the appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 173):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-HR83sa.pdf
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2014 12:45 am
Quote from: page 176 of the bill
Provided, That not less
11 than $1,194,000,000 shall be for the Orion Multi-Purpose
12 Crew Vehicle: Provided further, That not less than
13 $2,051,300,000 shall be for the Space Launch System,
14 which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 metric
15 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core
16 elements developed simultaneously: Provided further, That
17 of the funds made available for the Space Launch System,
18 $1,700,000,000 shall be for launch vehicle development
19 and $351,300,000 shall be for exploration ground sys-
20 tems:

Quote from: page 177 of the bill
18 Provided further, That
19 $805,000,000 shall be for commercial spaceflight activi-
20 ties: Provided further, That $306,400,000 shall be for ex-
21 ploration research and development.

Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2014 12:50 am
The Report (NASA starts at page 30 on the report or page 42 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/113-HR83sa-ES-B.pdf
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: robertross on 12/10/2014 12:58 am
The Report (NASA starts at page 30):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20141208/113-HR83sa-ES-B.pdf

Thanks for the updates on this.

"Planetary Science.-In lieu of any amounts included for specific Planetary Science
activities in the House and Senate reports, the agreement provides $255,800,000 for Planetary
Science Research, including $165,400,000 for Research and Analysis and $40,000,000 for Near
Earth Object Observations; $255,000,000 for Discovery, including not less than $25,000,000 for
Future Discovery Missions; $286,000,000 for New Frontiers, including not less than $5,000,000
for Future New Frontiers Missions and $224,800,000 for OSIRIS-Rex; $305,000,000 for Mars
Exploration, including not less than $100,000,000 for a Mars 2020 Rover that meets scientific
objectives laid out in the most recent Planetary Science decadal survey; $181 ,000,000 for Outer
Planets, including not less than $100,000,000 for a Jupiter Europa mission as described in the
House report; and $155,000,000 for Technology, including $18,000,000 for technologies for the
study and characterization of the surface and subsurface of Europa as described in the House
report. NASA shall follow direction from the House and Senate reports regarding the Europa
Mission and its potential launch vehicle. Funding pro~eglfs for the planning of a mission in
line with the Planetary Science decadal survey, including an evaluation of
SLS as the baseline launch vehicle."

also

SPACE OPERATIONS
"This Act includes $3,827,800,000 for Space Operations. Any reduction below the request
for the International Space Station should be taken from the operations budget and not from
research, or crew and cargo transportation. The agreement does not include direction in the
Senate report regarding certified cost and price data for the second round of cargo supply
contracts."

and

"Space and Flight Support.-The agreement provides $45,900,000 for the 21st Century
Space Launch Complex program, including funding above the request in support of Senate
direction for the Wallops Flight Facility."
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/10/2014 01:02 am
On page 33 of the Report (or 46 of the PDF), the Shelby language requiring certified cost and pricing for commercial crew and cargo has been removed. Good news, the commercial crew poison pill is gone.

Quote from: page 33 of the report or page 46 of the PDF
Commercial Crew Program (CCP).-The agreement includes $805,000,000 for the CCP.
The agreement does not include direction in the Senate report regarding transparency on cost and
pricing data.

Quote from: page 33 of the report or page 46 of the PDF
The agreement does not include direction in the Senate report regarding certified cost and price data for the second round of cargo supply contracts.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: MP99 on 12/10/2014 08:08 am


On page 33 of the Report (or 46 of the PDF), the Shelby language requiring certified cost and pricing for commercial crew and cargo has been removed. Good news, the commercial crew poison pill is gone.

Quote from: page 33 of the report or page 46 of the PDF
Commercial Crew Program (CCP).-The agreement includes $805,000,000 for the CCP.
The agreement does not include direction in the Senate report regarding transparency on cost and
pricing data.

Quote from: page 33 of the report or page 46 of the PDF
The agreement does not include direction in the Senate report regarding certified cost and price data for the second round of cargo supply contracts.

BTW, that says cargo, not crew.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 12/10/2014 08:54 am


On page 33 of the Report (or 46 of the PDF), the Shelby language requiring certified cost and pricing for commercial crew and cargo has been removed. Good news, the commercial crew poison pill is gone.

Quote from: page 33 of the report or page 46 of the PDF
Commercial Crew Program (CCP).-The agreement includes $805,000,000 for the CCP.
The agreement does not include direction in the Senate report regarding transparency on cost and
pricing data.

Quote from: page 33 of the report or page 46 of the PDF
The agreement does not include direction in the Senate report regarding certified cost and price data for the second round of cargo supply contracts.

BTW, that says cargo, not crew.

Cheers, Martin

It says both.  There are two quotes there.  The first refers to crew and the second to cargo -- just as yg1968 said.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: MP99 on 12/10/2014 10:53 am


On page 33 of the Report (or 46 of the PDF), the Shelby language requiring certified cost and pricing for commercial crew and cargo has been removed. Good news, the commercial crew poison pill is gone.

Quote from: page 33 of the report or page 46 of the PDF
Commercial Crew Program (CCP).-The agreement includes $805,000,000 for the CCP.
The agreement does not include direction in the Senate report regarding transparency on cost and
pricing data.

Quote from: page 33 of the report or page 46 of the PDF
The agreement does not include direction in the Senate report regarding certified cost and price data for the second round of cargo supply contracts.

BTW, that says cargo, not crew.

Cheers, Martin

It says both.  There are two quotes there.  The first refers to crew and the second to cargo -- just as yg1968 said.
OK, thanks.

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: psloss on 12/11/2014 04:22 pm
Looks like some serious arm-twisting at the end on the procedural rule vote in the House.

Reference:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/226800-house-narrowly-passes-rule-for-cromnibus
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: psloss on 12/12/2014 01:07 am
The House has re-convened for the balance of debate on the "cromnibus" spending bill.  Not sure if this means the leadership has the votes to pass it and send it to the Senate; if not, some kind of short(er)-term continuing resolution is predicted to pass both chambers tonight.

Edit: House voting now, three-month CR is the option if it doesn't pass --
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/226897-house-moves-to-vote-on-11t-package-with-backup-plan-in-place
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/12/2014 01:29 am
It's being carried live on C-Span radio:
http://www.c-span.org/live/?channel=radio
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: psloss on 12/12/2014 01:41 am
Passed the House, 219-206.

http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20141211&today=20141211
Quote
9:38:51 P.M.    H.R. 83    On motion that the House agree with an amendment to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (Roll no. 563) (http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2014&rollnumber=563).

Will be reported to the Senate shortly.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: psloss on 12/12/2014 01:59 am
No rush on reporting the bill over to the Senate; Senator Reid announced that the Senate will take up the bill (debate it) beginning tomorrow.  He also said they are looking at a two-day CR to cover the intervening period; however, he didn't project/forecast a time for a vote on the omnibus appropriations bill.
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: Roy_H on 12/14/2014 01:46 am
So do I have this right? Confused about how money goes to ISS operations.

NASA 2015  budget $18,000,000,000

Science: $5,244,700,000
      - James Webb space telescope and other planetary science exploration.
Aeronautics: $651,000,000
      - Includes Spaceflight planning and control.
Space Technology: $596,000,000
      - Looks like overlap with previous, includes Spaceflight planning and control.
Exploration: $4,356,700,000
      - Orion $1,194,000,000
      - SLS $2,051,300,000
      - Commercial Space $805,000,000, I think this is developement as opposed
         to COTS flights for ISS supplies.
      - Exploration $306,400,000
Space Operations: $3,827,800,000
      - Not certain but I think this covers ISS maintenance, Russian delivery of
        personel, COTS supply flights etc.
Education: $119,000,000
Safety, Security, and Mission Services: $2,758,900,000
      - This also covers Space Operations, so I am confused if this includes ISS maintenance etc.
Restoration: $419,100,000
Office of Inspector General: $500,000
Administration Provisions:
      - Comes out of previous programs, not to exceed 5%
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/14/2014 03:07 am
Appropriations bill was passed by the Senate 56-40 tonight:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/227052-senate-passes-%241.1T-funding-bill
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/conservatives-move-backfires-113556.html?hp=t1_r
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: yg1968 on 12/17/2014 03:11 am
Obama signed the Appropriation bill today.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/227368-obama-signs-11t-spending-package-averts-shutdown
Title: Re: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM
Post by: AnalogMan on 12/17/2014 10:36 pm
For the record:

H.R. 83  (enrolled) - Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015
NASA section pages 71 - 75

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr83enr/pdf/BILLS-113hr83enr.pdf (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr83enr/pdf/BILLS-113hr83enr.pdf)

(copy also attached)