Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 791534 times)

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2248
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 488
Big Shocker on the MSFC Lead.. although does this mean "In-line" is now also In-the-bag?

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
I think he's as mad as hell and not going to take it anymore ;).

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39829
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25898
  • Likes Given: 12327
Well, congratulations, DIRECT team, it looks like you guys are in the newest Senate bill.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17996
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 2132
It seems that nobody watched this. It will eventually be archived (probably later today), here:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm
No "breakthrough" compromise leading up to this -- and it's still going to come down to bills and votes.  The news is going to be the full text of the CJS Senate appropriations bill as reported out of the committee to the Senate floor.  And then we'll have seen the initial versions of three of the four bills (all of which can still be amended further, particularly the appropriations bills).

Edit: this is the subcommittee markup; the full Appropriations committee markup is tomorrow (22 July) afternoon.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 04:56 pm by psloss »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18594
  • Liked: 8258
  • Likes Given: 3371
Live Sreaming of Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Markup Of NASA Budget   http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Thanks. Has it started?
  Yes. It started at 10:00AM.

Did anybody watch this?

There is an article on the meeting (prior to it), here:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/07/nasa-compromise-holds-for-now.html

It seems that nobody watched this. It will eventually be archived (probably later today), here:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm

The webcast is now archived. You can listen to it here:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=d2453d40-c14f-4fe1-a9c1-069c3330ffcb
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 05:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17996
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 2132
Subcommittee markup summary:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=56660e39-3811-4133-816f-93392e152437

The excerpt from the press release:
Quote
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - The bill provides $19 billion for NASA, $278 million above the Fiscal Year 2010 level and equal to the President’s request.  The total funding includes $1.6 billion for Space Shuttle operations; $2.78 billion for Space Station operations; $3 billion for development of the next generation Crew Launch Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle; $5 billion for science; and $904 million for aeronautics and space technology research.  The bill restructures NASA’s human spaceflight programs, providing for a new heavy lift launch vehicle and crew capsule for exploring beyond low-Earth orbit, extending the life of the International Space Station through 2020, supporting the burgeoning commercial space industry, investing in new technology development, and allowing one additional Space Shuttle flight, if determined to be safe.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 05:00 pm by psloss »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18594
  • Liked: 8258
  • Likes Given: 3371
Mikulski said that they supported "commercial cargo". She stressed "commercial cargo" in order to mean that they did not support commercial crew. The full committee will consider the appropriation bill tommorow at 2:30PM. 

Some compromise... So much for the appropriators and the authorizors being on the same side.

I believe that Hutchison is on the full committee. Hopefully, she will defend the compromise bill. 
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 05:18 pm by yg1968 »

Offline MP99

Does "integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system" mean a single vehicle, and not a system of vehicles? No way for this to leave a back-door for Ares I to squeeze back in as part of a "system"?

cheers, Martin

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
It sure does but the House needs to be reconciled to it as they want to continue with the PoR. It also means no sidemount either. I also wonder whose hide Shelby took the extra $300m from ?
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 05:18 pm by marsavian »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
Does "integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system" mean a single vehicle, and not a system of vehicles? No way for this to leave a back-door for Ares I to squeeze back in as part of a "system"?

To me, it means an LV family with the maximum amount of commonality between them, scalable to different sizes and missions.  A good example of this would be the D-SDLV In-line.  However, and I can't stress this too much, to someone else it might mean something different.  Depending on the exact details and what you mean by 'maximum commonality', then, yes, the ALS could fit the description.  That doesn't make it any more affordable but...
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18594
  • Liked: 8258
  • Likes Given: 3371
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39829
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25898
  • Likes Given: 12327
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.
Stupid. Yeah, we'd much rather support the Russian economy...
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Well, if true then they are moving closer to the House version.   More for HLV, kill CC.

Offline cro-magnon gramps

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Very Ancient Martian National
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 843
  • Likes Given: 11008
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

could it be that they are going to side with the other side of the house, re the loans guarrantee plan for Commerical Crew?? this would possibly slow down CC for some and make it more difficult if not impossible for others; not saying who, but I suspect venture capital in this area will be extremely lean;
Gramps "Earthling by Birth, Martian by the grace of The Elon." ~ "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but it has not solved one yet." Maya Angelou ~ Tony Benn: "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself."

Offline MP99

Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

Wouldn't surprise me if that would push the president into a veto.

cheers, Martin

Offline OpsAnalyst

Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

Very hard to tell.  MC(P)V was at 1.4 coming out of Authorization with HLV at 1.6  The press release says "3B" for launch and crew vehicle.  Just doing the math they could have reduced MCV to 1.1B and sent the plus up to HLV.  Or it could be CC, since standing pat on the 300 or so for cargo and eliminating CC would buy it back, as you point out - although that's not too hot for the "compromise" component of all this. Or it could be some other combination - I think ISS is a bit down in this version as well.

Bottom line is won't know until we see the text -  (or 51DMascot chimes in!).  Text release is unlikely before the whole Appropriations Committee takes it up tomorrow - unless staffers are completely tanked on caffeine...  :)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18594
  • Liked: 8258
  • Likes Given: 3371
Well, if true then they are moving closer to the House version.   More for HLV, kill CC.

I am inferring this from her comments at 30:05 of the webcast. The NASA part starts at 29:30.

$19B overall.
$5B for discovery and earth science. She must have made a mistake on this but that's what she said.
$570 million for aeronautics.
Funding for 1 additionnal Shuttle flight.
Extension of the ISS to 2020.
Growing commercial industry that will deliver cargo to the ISS.
HLV and capsule to carry our astronauts to BEO.
Measures to protect the safety of U.S. astronauts.

http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=d2453d40-c14f-4fe1-a9c1-069c3330ffcb
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 06:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Stephan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 565
  • Paris
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Both houses of Congress (Senate and House) must pass a bill, but it does not become law until the President signs it.

The President of the Untied States has three choices. He can sign a law which makes it a law the moment he signs it. He can veto a law, and his veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress (not likely). The third thing he can do is called a pocket veto. If the President does not sign a bill within 10 days and congress is in secession then it becomes law. If however congress adjourns and he does not sign the bill, it is automatically vetoed.

Right now the House is working on it’s version of the bill. Both House and Senate versions must be reconciled by committee before the whole House and the whole Senate votes on it. Also the President can only Veto a bill as a whole (He can’t veto a part of a bill) so there will likely be non space things thrown in the budget.

Due to it being an election year the budget is not likely to be passed before October(when the fiscal year ends). However if the Democrats lose esp. if they lose the house then the outgoing congress will vote in a budget to prevent the incoming congress from being able to change things until the budget expires.
Thanks for the answer pathfinder.
Best regards, Stephan

Offline Drkskywxlt

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote

Shelby: CJS Bill Sustains Human Space Flight
Share
 Today at 9:46am
“The Administration canceled the only realistic approach for the United States to return to low earth orbit and beyond,” said Shelby. “The President’s budget proposal surrendered our nation’s leadership in space to the Russians, Chinese, and Indians and instead chose to set up an entitlement program for the so-called commercial space industry.

“This proposal was simply unacceptable. The overarching point is simple: No so-called commercial space company has ever carried anything successfully to the space station, much less safely launch and return a human being. We cannot risk human lives or the entire future of the space program by deploying an unproven commercial crew concept. The risk is too great.

 How much had the US launched into space when Kennedy made his charge to go to the Moon?  You fund these companies to DEMONSTRATE their capabilities.  If they fail, they get no more money.  Shelby's going to get his mega-jobs program for MSFC and when we have nothing flying in 2016 and haven't launched an American into space in 5 years, Congress will go crawling back to SpaceX and Orbital and beg forgiveness.  I hope Elon rubs these quotes in his face when that time comes. 
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 06:38 pm by Chris Bergin »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1