Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[yg1968]

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

It's unlikely that the President will veto the entire FY2011 Budget appropriation. This will have to be fought in Congress.

[cro-magnon gramps]

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

It's unlikely that the President will veto the entire FY2011 Budget appropriation. This will have to be fought in Congress.

the problem as I see it, the NASA FY11 Appropriations is bundled into a 60B Justice, Commerce and Science Bill, going to be hard for the President to Veto this, without creating a boondogle for the Democrates come the Novemeber vote; this bill covers everything from the cop on the beat up to and including Homeland Security; tell me that the people will allow him to get away with veto on all that;

[yg1968]

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

It's unlikely that the President will veto the entire FY2011 Budget appropriation. This will have to be fought in Congress.

the problem as I see it, the NASA FY11 Appropriations is bundled into a 60B Justice, Commerce and Science Bill, going to be hard for the President to Veto this, without creating a boondogle for the Democrates come the Novemeber vote; this bill covers everything from the cop on the beat up to and including Homeland Security; tell me that the people will allow him to get away with veto on all that;

I think that the Commerce and Science Appropriation Bill later gets bundled with other appropriation bills in one large appropriation bill for the entire FY2011 Budget.

This is a long process and many amendments are possible along the way. Stay tuned...

[wronkiew]

$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.

Protecting them by taking away their ride to orbit. Nice. Are they going to ground the T-38s too?

[simonbp]

Well, both Boeing and SpaceX claim that they'd be developing their crew capsules anyway for "commercial customers". Here's their chance to put their own money where their mouth is...

[Robotbeat]

Well, both Boeing and SpaceX claim that they'd be developing their crew capsules anyway for "commercial customers". Here's their chance to put their own money where their mouth is...

So it's a good idea to defund commercial crew entirely for 2011 just to increase funding for the HLV and Orion by a measly 10%?

[psloss]

I think that the Commerce and Science Appropriation Bill later gets bundled with other appropriation bills in one large appropriation bill for the entire FY2011 Budget.

This is a long process and many amendments are possible along the way. Stay tuned...

The CJS appropriations bill doesn't have to be bundled with other appropriation bills, but it has been in several recent years.

[mr_magoo]

I doubt it would be vetoed.   The WH already revealed their stick when Garver linked the funding boost to CC.    If the WH is displeased they may simply lose interest and reduce funding next year.  It will be left to the Congress to restore the funding year after year.

[MP99]

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

It's unlikely that the President will veto the entire FY2011 Budget appropriation. This will have to be fought in Congress.

D'oh! You're right, of course.

cheers, Martin

[mr_magoo]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”

[yg1968]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”

That's actually a lot better than what I expected from Shelby. The NASA Authorization bill had $312 million for commercial crew for FY2011.  So it's a cut of $62 million. The FY2011 funding for commercial crew was expected to be lower in its first year. Hopefully, it will go up to $500 million in FY2012.

[psloss]

I doubt it would be vetoed.   The WH already revealed their stick when Garver linked the funding boost to CC.    If the WH is displeased they may simply lose interest and reduce funding next year.  It will be left to the Congress to restore the funding year after year.

It doesn't sound like there's any public veto threat for either type of bill, but there are two types of bills "in play" right now.  An authorization bill for only NASA, which we've seen full text versions of from both House and Senate.  And an appropriations bill from today's Senate subcommittee markup of which NASA is only a part.  We haven't seen the text of the Senate CJS appropriations bill; the House subcommittee marked up a bill at the end of last month before the "compromise" was publicized.  (I don't know that the House appropriations bill has been marked up by the full committee yet.)

Vetoing either or both bills (or threatening to do so) would be different matters.

[mr_magoo]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”

That's actually a lot better than what I expected from Shelby. The NASA Authorization bill had $312 million for commercial crew for FY2011.  So it's a cut of $62 million. The FY2011 funding for commercial crew was expected to be lower in its first year. Hopefully, it will go up to $500 million in FY2012.

Yeah.  But this still leaves $250 million of the HLV boost coming from somewhere.  Should be interesting.

[yg1968]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”

From the same article:

For months, Shelby has threatened to torpedo the new direction for NASA and only came on board after lengthy negotiations with other lawmakers with ties to NASA, particularly Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, according to congressional sources.

So we owe thanks to Senator Hutchison and her staff (Jeff Bingham) for the compromise which should finally fund commercial crew. This was long overdue.  Good work.

P.S. I apologize for scaring people before, I took Mikulski's comments to mean that they would only fund commercial cargo. Thankfully, this is not the case.

[Jeff Bingham]

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. 

Modifying this post, since the latest from yg1968 was being posted as I was writing this:

Really not sure how you gleaned those impressions from a very top-level discussion of some of the high points of a mark-up. In point of fact, as I review the account numbers, this is the closest that the appropriators for NASA have marked to levels provided in a NASA authorization bill (and one not even formally enacted yet!) than I can recall in thirty-five years of being in the business! This mark-up result, when you see the details, SOLIDLY supports the Commerce compromise bill reported out last week. It clearly demonstrates Senate solidarity between the authorizers and the appropriators!

BTW, They did NOT eliminate commercial crew, but did reduce it to $250m for FY 2011, from $312m in the Senate Commerce compromise. Nothing done in this mark-up that would undermine that compromise!

And MSFC being the lead on rocket development is no surprise and nothing new..it's what they DO and always have. Where and how a "program" office is set up and divided up, will be a function of the eventual architecture determined for the system and its components.

[nooneofconsequence]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”

My read of the situation is that they are getting past the denial/anger stages WRT the commercial providers "12 step" program, courtesy of the administration.

There is a creeping realization that if the gap becomes politically important again (viz. the "blame game"), injuring the most likely means to close the gap is an unacceptable liability.

The House has not yet caught up to the Senate in understanding the new political realities of Shuttle close out. In attempting to get in late hits in this conflict, the net effect is to hasten the demise of govt HSF by a grand overreach in the opposite direction of the Senate. So the Senate version drifts more to compensate for this towards the administration's side, in anticipation of conference. The situation is highly unstable.

The longer this goes on, the greater likelihood of bad choices for both govt/commercial HSF, as the govt HSF is less and less dominated by BEO and the ability for more near term resilience for commercial providers occurs.

And finally at the end of the process, when they discover (if they do) that the fixed (and dev) costs of govt HSF is not in keeping with future budgets, and that keeping the old deals they have/are fighting for ... are unaffordable ... they may find it hard to lock the admin into a multi year plan that they require ... that they have to accept full blame for/close down ... because a)it like CxP falls behind/cost overruns and b) straddles BEO/LEO too much while seeming like a pink elephant to the anemically financed but more flashy commercial guys.

Then it looks like all they did was enforce "earmarks". Again. Sigh.

[yg1968]

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. 

Really not sure how you gleaned those impressions from a very top-level discussion of some of the high points of a mark-up. In point of fact, as I review the account numbers, this is the closest that the appropriators for NASA have marked to levels provided in a NASA authorization bill (and one not even formally enacted yet!) than I can recall in thirty-five years of being in the business! This mark-up result, when you see the details, SOLIDLY supports the Commerce compromise bill reported out last week. It clearly demonstrates Senate solidarity between the authorizers and the appropriators!

BTW, They did NOT eliminate commercial crew, but did reduce it to $250m for FY 2011, from $312m in the Senate Commerce compromise. Nothing done in this mark-up that would undermine that compromise!

And MSFC being the lead on rocket development is no surprise and nothing new..it's what they DO and always have. Where and how a "program" office is set up and divided up, will be a function of the eventual architecture determined for the system and its components.

Yes, I made a mistake and apologize for it. I shouldn't have inferred things from one sentence that Mikulski said and should have waited for the numbers to come out. I am glad that $250M was appropriated for commercial crew. Thanks for your comments.

The Orlando Sentinel said that Senator Hutchison managed to persuade Shelby of going along with this compromise.  Congratulations to her and her staff for making this happen. Good work. It's a clever compromise. It also goes along with what Elon Musk has proposed on many occassions: commercial crew concentrates on LEO (and the ISS) and NASA concentrates on BEO.   

[Drapper23]

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. 

Modifying this post, since the latest from yg1968 was being posted as I was writing this:

Really not sure how you gleaned those impressions from a very top-level discussion of some of the high points of a mark-up. In point of fact, as I review the account numbers, this is the closest that the appropriators for NASA have marked to levels provided in a NASA authorization bill (and one not even formally enacted yet!) than I can recall in thirty-five years of being in the business! This mark-up result, when you see the details, SOLIDLY supports the Commerce compromise bill reported out last week. It clearly demonstrates Senate solidarity between the authorizers and the appropriators!

BTW, They did NOT eliminate commercial crew, but did reduce it to $250m for FY 2011, from $312m in the Senate Commerce compromise. Nothing done in this mark-up that would undermine that compromise!

And MSFC being the lead on rocket development is no surprise and nothing new..it's what they DO and always have. Where and how a "program" office is set up and divided up, will be a function of the eventual architecture determined for the system and its components.

Is there launguage in the detailed Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Bill which states that the new HLV will be a SD-HLV? I know this language was in the Senate NASA Authorization Bill.

[yg1968]

I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the authorization bill. 

[neilh]

For the curious, I've tallied up the total spending on various items for FY2011-FY2013 (the only three years covered by the Senate draft bill):

Space Launch System: $7.15B (1.9+2.65+2.6)

Multi-purpose crew vehicle/Orion: $4B (1.3+1.3+1.4)

Mid/high-TRL exploration technology, heavy-lift, exploration architectures, and demonstrations: $975.9M (WH proposed $5.45B)

Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Low/mid-TRL space technology: 225+450+500= $1.175B (WH proposed $2.64B)

Commercial crew: 312+400+500= $1.2B (WH proposed $3.3B)

For reference, I've tallied up the FY2011-FY2013 numbers for the final Senate authorization bill (the last pre-Appropriations bill):

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

Space Launch System: 1.631+2.65+2.64=$6.921B

Multi-purpose crew vehicle/Orion: 1.12+1.4+1.4=$3.92B

Mid/high-TRL exploration technology, heavy-lift, exploration architectures, and demonstrations: 250+437.3+449=$1.1363B (WH proposed $5.45B)

Robotic exploration precursor missions: 100+100+100= $300M (WH $1.33B)

Low/mid-TRL space technology: 350+486+500= $1.336B (WH $2.64B)

Commercial crew: 312+400+515= $1.227B (WH $3.3B)

Also, in the Education section, whose top-line is remaining the same, there's $25M/year for the pre-existing "Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research" which I hadn't seen in the earlier draft of the bill. It seems like an interesting program, and this amount is substantially higher than the ~$10M/year the WH sought for it.