I just finished watching the archived web cast. It seems like once again we have the Administration going off on a tangent regarding SLS/MPCV funding, and once again Congress will be more than willing to put them back on course, the course they all agreed to two years ago.What will it take to get the Administration to quit tweaking Congress's nose when it comes to NASA's priorities?
Quote from: Mark S on 03/29/2012 06:53 pmI just finished watching the archived web cast. It seems like once again we have the Administration going off on a tangent regarding SLS/MPCV funding, and once again Congress will be more than willing to put them back on course, the course they all agreed to two years ago.What will it take to get the Administration to quit tweaking Congress's nose when it comes to NASA's priorities?USA access to space is the priority and commercial crew is way to do.KBH priorities are not the nation's but pork for her area. It will be good for NASA when she is gone.
Don't make ignorant statements. Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area. In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork". Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2012 08:15 pmDon't make ignorant statements. Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area. In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork". Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing. That is water under the bridge and bringing it up now is just as ignorant. Same as ignoring KBH priorities. As for areas hit hard, Houston pales compared to Brevard County
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2012 08:15 pmDon't make ignorant statements. Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area. In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork". Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing. That is water under the bridge and it is not relevant and bringing it up now is just as ignorant. Same goes for ignoring what KBH real priorities are. As for areas hit hard, Houston pales compared to Brevard County
And since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".
her motives are more likely to be out of genuine concern for NASA and our space program than for "pork".
Quote from: Mark S on 03/29/2012 08:42 pmAnd since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".wrong, how we got here is NOT relevant, the past can't be changed.Sick and tired of people saying it is this Administration's policy, it was the previous one that initiated it and started the program termination. It was the past Administration, who put all eggs in the basket with CXP. It was the current Admin that started commercial crew. So your contempt for this administration is without merit.
Who are you to decide what is "not relevant"?
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Short-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.
Quote from: Mark S on 03/30/2012 03:57 amShort-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.Applicable to SLS
Quote from: Jim on 03/30/2012 04:19 amQuote from: Mark S on 03/30/2012 03:57 amShort-sighted and wrong. Quote Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.Applicable to SLSYup, very applicable. The problem is that those who cannot remember the past tend to drag the rest of us along for their remedial lessons.~Jon
experience, expertise, and processes,
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.
Quote from: Jim on 03/29/2012 09:53 pmQuote from: Mark S on 03/29/2012 08:42 pmAnd since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".wrong, how we got here is NOT relevant, the past can't be changed.Sick and tired of people saying it is this Administration's policy, it was the previous one that initiated it and started the program termination. It was the past Administration, who put all eggs in the basket with CXP. It was the current Admin that started commercial crew. So your contempt for this administration is without merit.Just a another pertinent fact you will likely consider irrelevant, but for those interested in historical details, I'll throw it into the mix here anyway. This is from the 2008 NASA Authorization Act. It specifically preserved the option for continuing shuttle beyond 2010 for the incoming Administration--which was of course unknown when the legislation was drafted and even when enacted on October 15, 2008. Subsequent to the election, this provision was very clearly pointed out to the Obama Transition Team for NASA (headed by Lori Garver) and they clearly understood they had the option to continue--and that the Congress would likely support that move, given its history, since 2005, of concern about "The Gap," especially with respect to the ability to support and sustain ISS. They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. The FY 2011 Budget Request the following year demonstrated THIS Administration's DECISION:Section 611(d) TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD PRECLUDE CONTINUED FLIGHT OF SPACE SHUTTLE PRIOR TO REVIEW BY THE INCOMING 2009 PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall terminate or suspend any activity of the Agency that, if continued between the date of enactment of this Act and April 30, 2009, would preclude the continued safe and effective flight of the Space Shuttle after fiscal year 2010 if the President inaugurated on January 20, 2009, were to make a determination to delay the Space Shuttle’s scheduled retirement.(2) REPORT ON IMPACT OF COMPLIANCE.—Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administratorshall provide a report to the Congress describing the expected budgetary and programmatic impacts from compliance with paragraph (1). The report shall include—(A) a summary of the actions taken to ensure the option to continue space shuttle flights beyond the endof fiscal year 2010 is not precluded before April 30, 2009;(B) an estimate of additional costs incurred by each specific action identified in the summary provided undersubparagraph (A);(C) a description of the proposed plan for allocating those costs among anticipated fiscal year 2009 appropriationsor existing budget authority;(D) a description of any programmatic impacts within the Space Operations Mission Directorate that would resultfrom reallocations of funds to meet the requirements of paragraph (1);(E) a description of any additional authority needed to enable compliance with the requirements of paragraph(1); and(F) a description of any potential disruption to the timely progress of development milestones in the preparationof infrastructure or work-force requirements for shuttle follow-on launch systems.122 STAT. 4798 PUBLIC LAW 110–422—OCT. 15, 2008Added Note: Since the above provision expired at the end of April 2009, NASA, knowing of the HSF Review, elected to take only non-irreversible termination activities pending the outcome of that review, and pending the Administration's formal response to that review as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. Thus, the Bush-initiated termination "decision" could have been reversed as late as the Spring (and actually into the summer) of 2010. As added "insurance" for that option, the 2010 Act included language "protecting" ET-94 to enable the shuttle flow to ramp back up. Senator Hutchison also introduced a bill (S. 3068), the ‘‘Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010", which provided for a recertification process for Shuttle, authorized funding for two flights per year for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012, and required a joint determination by the President and the Congress regarding a decision to terminate the shuttle. Rather than pursuing passage of that bill, it became the starting point on the Republican side of negotiations regarding the content of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, and the removal of those shuttle provisions became part of the "Compromise" that produced the 2010 Act.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2012 11:02 pmWho are you to decide what is "not relevant"? There is no decision involved. Because isn't relevant any. Plain and simple. Going forward with crew access is not based on why or how the shuttle program ended.