Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[Mark S]

It would only be one test flight.

Since they seem intent on continuing 5 seg and j2x that does enough damage on its own (SDHLV has to morph).

No, they don't want just one more test flight.  Read the draft, they use the CAIB language that Griffin used to justify Ares-I: safety above all else, even if it's not affordable, flexible, practical, or even usable.  Just "safe".  You know, like sitting in a bank vault underground somewhere.

Mark S.

Edit: And to top it all off, it doesn't even have to actually be safer, as long as someone can claim that it's safer using a computer model or probabilistic calculations.

[FinalFrontier]

It would only be one test flight.

Since they seem intent on continuing 5 seg and j2x that does enough damage on its own (SDHLV has to morph).

No, they don't want just one more test flight.  Read the draft, they use the CAIB language that Griffin used to justify Ares-I: safety above all else, even if it's not affordable, flexible, practical, or even usable.  Just "safe".  You know, like sitting in a bank vault underground somewhere.

Mark S.

I didn;t say they want more than just a test flight (house side). I know that.

I said it will only be one more

If they go down this road one way or another there will only be one more ares 1 flight

If there is more than one it will most likely break the bank........again

[DigitalMan]

I don't care for a few things you (not to imply you did it all yourself!) put in the senate bill, but I think yours is MUCH better than the house bill.

One of my concerns is how much development, if any will be accomplished for commercial crew in 2011.  Time is of the essence.   The house version seems to allow this to proceed right away.  It might even concede that Atlas and Delta could qualify easily since they already launch 'Class A' payloads, according to its definition.

Another is the huge cuts to technology development, the house version does not seem to cut as much, although I didn't take the time to add the numbers or do side-by-side comparisons.  Some of these things are low TRL or will require more or longer build / launch / test cycles to get to a point where they are usable for BEO exploration.  Small fission reactors for instance and effective shielding.

In spite of all the disagreements between so many folks, I'm happy to have been here for so long watching this unfold and then to see someone like yourself be recognized like that last week. 

Congrats.

Thanks Zerm, and also noting they are really going after commercial crew here (as in badly). Wording such as a government crew system.

Is Congress trying to bring back Constellation, with Ares I/Orion?

Remember, this is the House proposal, as the bill reported last week was the Senate proposal; it becomes the "Congress'" proposal only when they've come to agreement on a final version to send to the President. It probably matters somewhat in determining the eventual outcome that the White House has signaled its support of the Senate bill, which was the product of a very intense effort to reach a compromise across party lines and across divergent space policy interests and approaches. From its inception as a body of text it was a jointly-developed product, built step by step (word by word!) with a view to maintaining consensus. I am not suggesting the House bill was constructed any differently; just describing the approach taken by the Senate.

[Lars_J]

I dont think thats where we should be worried.

I dont see any reason why Obama wouldn't just veto the thing.

At this point I'm starting to hope that he WILL veto the thing. More CxP and Ares allusions that you can shake a stick at. Ugh. Or call it the "jobs creation act" and just call it a day.

BUT if Commercial crew is funded at decent levels I will be happy. The rest of NASA can take their money and and prove once again how poor they are at project management.

[SpacexULA]

What happens when you blend this bill and the president's proposal?

POTUS fy 2011 is dead ethier way. Period.

It's already blended.  That's the Nelson Bill

[Chris Bergin]

What happens if this all results in the President vetoing it? I thought Congress has the power? If he vetoes it, what happens?

(I REALLY don't understand politics )

[Aobrien]

As I know it it's a check and balances set up. I believe the president can be overpowered by congress with a strong enough vote...

[HelixSpiral]

A veto by the President can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. From my recollection, it doesn't happen that often.

[yg1968]

That's right. It also unlikely to happen since the Democrats control Congress and they don't want to overide the President.

[FinalFrontier]

A veto by the President can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. From my recollection, it doesn't happen that often.

OV and others seem to have indicated that as there wre 0 descenting votes on the Senate side, and there are likley to be very few or none on the House side, such a majority is already there in case of a Veto HOWEVER: If he vetoes it what guaranty is there that the "Vote" to override will occur before fy 2011 begins ? If they don;t enact this thing before year's end then SDHLV is a goner.

Not out of the woods yet. If congress can pull this off it will be one of the few good things (IMO) that *this* congress has done.

If not, well................



Another monkey wrench: Many in Congress most likely wont be there next year. What are the chances of the "new" congress cutting this thing drastically for the fy 2012 bill?

[FinalFrontier]

That's right. It also unlikely to happen since the Democrats control Congress and they don't want to overide the President.

They have until November.

A major political shift is coming, I believe it will hurt NASA in the long run because the candidates that are getting elected in these primaries are increasingly "anti spending" and "anti government"

Nasa fits both of those so.................

[TexasRED]

I'm not seeing this as the resurrection of Ares I, maybe I'm missing something. 

House:

In an environment of constrained budgets, responsible stewardship of taxpayer-provided resources makes it imperative that NASA’s exploration program be carried out in a manner that builds on the investments made to date in the Orion, Ares I, and heavy lift projects and other activities of the exploration program in existence prior to fiscal year 2011 rather than discarding them.

Senate Draft:

In developing the Space Launch System pursuant to section 302 and the multi-purpose crew vehicle pursuant to section 303, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the Space Shuttle and former Orion and Ares 1 projects, including Space Shuttle-derived components and Ares 1 components that use existing United States propulsion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank or tank-related capability, and solid rocket motor engines, and associated testing facilities, either in being or under construction as of the date of enactment of this Act.

Are they really that drastically different from an Ares I perspective? Other than the mention of shuttle derived these two basically both say "use as much as you can from CxP" to me. I'm assuming that Orion was to be government owned and operated in the Senate draft too.

What speaks more is the $50 million a year compared to $312/$400/$500 million for commercial crew. Massive difference, unless I'm missing something again. All the sudden the Senate bill draft speaks pretty favorably to commercial crew IMO.

Also, 51D Mascot mentioned that the White House is saying they support the Senate bill, and Nelson said to expect a comment last Friday, but I haven't seen anything directly from them. Anybody have a link?

Whats involved in the merger of these two? How long will it take?

However, NASA’s share of the Federal discretionary budgetary authority has declined significantly relative to its post-Apollo historical average share of 2.07 percent. It should be a national goal to restore NASA’s funding share to its post-Apollo historical average.

Hah! TEASE!   

[Drapper23]

Lets also remember that this is the Authorization bill--not the Appropriations bill. The Appropriators may realize that putting Ares 1 back in is an absolute diaster!!!

[Chris Bergin]

Thanks, but if the President vetos, does that mean there's a Continuing Resolution?

I know, long way off yet, but there's thousands of workers about to lose their jobs in October, and I doubt a CR would save many of them?

[yg1968]

That's right. It also unlikely to happen since the Democrats control Congress and they don't want to overide the President.

They have until November.

A major political shift is coming, I believe it will hurt NASA in the long run because the candidates that are getting elected in these primaries are increasingly "anti spending" and "anti government"

Nasa fits both of those so.................

The Democrats will still control the Senate as only 1/3 of the Senators are up for election. However, the Democrats will likely lose control of the House.

[jongoff]

It would only be one test flight.

Since they seem intent on continuing 5 seg and j2x that does enough damage on its own (SDHLV has to morph).

No, they don't want just one more test flight.  Read the draft, they use the CAIB language that Griffin used to justify Ares-I: safety above all else, even if it's not affordable, flexible, practical, or even usable.  Just "safe".  You know, like sitting in a bank vault underground somewhere.

Mark S.

Edit: And to top it all off, it doesn't even have to actually be safer, as long as someone can claim that it's safer using a computer model or probabilistic calculations.

You'd be amazed what you can prove with computer models... ;-)

~Jon

[Jeff Bingham]

Thanks, but if the President vetos, does that mean there's a Continuing Resolution?

I know, long way off yet, but there's thousands of workers about to lose their jobs in October, and I doubt a CR would save many of them?

Veto of the authorization bill does not directly affect the appropriations. If the appropriators are unable to pass a separate appropriations bill before October 1st, THAT is what triggers a CR. A CR can have a wide range of things incorporated into it, from benchmarking funding levels at levels in a House or Senate version of a specific appropriations bill, if passed, by either body, but not yet by both, or by tying the spending levels during the life of the CR to the amounts previously appropriated for FY 2010, or can even incorporate relevant language from an authorization bill passed by one House of Congress, or by an authorization bill in which a veto was over-ridden, assuming no objection is raised to "legislating in appropriations." It's not as cut and dried as many people think, and it depends heavily on the degree of consensus among the Appropriations leadership, in concert with the White House, primarily, so no definitive, cut-and-dried answer to the question is really possible--or valid--until much later in the process.

I know...clear as mud, as many of my "process posts" seem to be, because the legislative process is just not "simple," regardless of how simple-minded many of us involved in it might be, hehe. There's also the potential that, if the Administration has truly embraced the essence of the compromise Senate bill, and at least the Senate appropriators have adopted the funding levels and distribution for FY 2011, that it could represent an evolution of the internal policy of the Administration in such a way that they could, administratively, direct NASA to "undo" some of the steps taken to begin implementing the direction of the FY 2011 Budget Request which, by the "adoption of the new policy direction" are no longer valid, and in fact disruptive of the "new policy direction." That could have immediate salutary effects on the workforce disruptions that were initiated or accelerated to implement the February 1st policy. They don't NEED the legislation to make voluntary shifts in the new, compromise direction, IF they have truly embraced it.

[Chris Bergin]

Not at all, sure it's complicated, but that actually helps explains things - even to me! Appreciate the info, as always!

[aquanaut99]

Well, it seems that someone in the House is determined to see NASA go under. Resurrecting Ares I is the best way to achieve that.

[CessnaDriver]

That's right. It also unlikely to happen since the Democrats control Congress and they don't want to overide the President.

They have until November.

A major political shift is coming, I believe it will hurt NASA in the long run because the candidates that are getting elected in these primaries are increasingly "anti spending" and "anti government"

Nasa fits both of those so.................

I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Many voices on the right were upset that NASA HSF was radically being altered by Obama and also there is upset that soon American astronauts will have to ride Russian rockets to get to space station we mostly payed for.

I would venture that NASA HSF is viewed more as a strategic interest that America must maintain a lead in.

It could easily be a change for the positive for NASA HSF.

In fact I would bet on it. Democrats are generally far more likely to make the old tired and flawed arguement of why are we "wasting" money up there when there are people down here that need help.

At least that is my experience with everyday folks that are clearly on the side of one party or the other.