Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[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.

Replying to myself...tells you what sort of several weeks it's been! 

Here are the basic puts and takes, comparing preliminary--unofficial--notes from the appropriations mark-up with the Commerce-reported compromise authorization bill:

Space Launch System (HLLV) increased from $1.631B to $1,900B; Commercial Cargo increased from $300m to $312m; Space Flight and Support up from $1.119B to $1.144B; and Inspector General up from $37m to $38m.

Accomplished by taking $20m from Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, $100m from Exploration Tech Development, $62m from Commercial Crew, $55m from Robotic Precursors, and $25m from Space Technology Development, $35.6m from Cross-Agency Support, and $13m from Construction and Remediation.

All other accounts marked at the same levels as the Commerce compromise bill (Science, ISS Ops, Shuttle, Aeronautics, and Education.)

Some "rounding errors" might mean some variances when adding and subtracting to get totals, but these are pretty close.

[psloss]

Thanks for the early look, 51D Mascot.

[Jeff Bingham]

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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

[Drapper23]

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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

[Pheogh]

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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

I am sure you know this but I think the over-arching question is, what specific legal mechanism is there to prevent the program deviating so far afield as it did before.

Let's not forget that Ares-1 as originally envisioned was simpler, and the Ares-V actually at one point did have 5 SSME's?

If they play the same games as before then I can guarantee NASA will be put out of business by the taxpayers, well at least this one

and thank you enormously for all your work. Your efforts have certainly made the very late nights worth it and provided more than a little hope.

Thank you

[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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Yes, thanks. Will you need to adjust the numbers in the NASA Authorization bill for FY2011 in order for them to correspond to the FY2011 appropriation bill? My guess is that it is not really necessary to do so.

For FY2012, the numbers in the FY2012 appropriation bill should have precedence over the numbers in the 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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 

[Pheogh]

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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 

I can't stress this enough, up until about a month ago there were still very vocal and high ranking voices that would tell you the Ares-I/V was Shuttle Derived, how does the language prevent this same thing from occurring once again.

[psloss]

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 

There are still the matters of which of these bills gets to the finish line.  Not sure it's a guarantee that both will yet.  Full passage of appropriations may still be up in the air.

[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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 

I can't stress this enough, up until about a month ago there were still very vocal and high ranking voices that would tell you the Ares-I/V was Shuttle Derived, how does the language prevent this same thing from occurring once again.

Ares V lite would probably still fit the bill. But I suspect that Bolden and the President want the cheapest HLV possible.  So Direct becomes a front runner because of this.

[Mark S]

I can't stress this enough, up until about a month ago there were still very vocal and high ranking voices that would tell you the Ares-I/V was Shuttle Derived, how does the language prevent this same thing from occurring once again.

I'm worried about that too.  But the language specifically requires 75-100 tons to LEO.  That rules out Ares-I (too small) and Ares-V (too big).  Another clause requires the design to support future growth to 130 tons, which would rule out side-mount.  Other clauses require currently existing (or in progress) engines and boosters, so that would rule out RS68A/Regen (ala Augustine Ares-V "Lite"). 

So what's left that can fit within all of these constraints?  Only inline SD-HLV, as far as I can see, using SSME and 8.4m tanks.  Possibly using stretched 8.4m tankage, possibly 5-segment RSRM, possibly J2-X.  Or just as easily they can leave all three of those options for future growth, which is what I think they should do.

Only time will tell.  I just hope we don't have to endure more endless (and pointless) studies and trades.  I think everyone now acknowledges that a baseline inline SD-HLV using 4-segment SRBs and Shuttle-sized tankage is a workable choice, even if many do not agree with the policy.

My hope is that NASA takes the easy path for once, and gets a J-130 (or whatever they want to call it) ready to launch sooner and cheaper than Congress is asking for, instead of the other way around.

Mark S.

[Pheogh]

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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 

I can't stress this enough, up until about a month ago there were still very vocal and high ranking voices that would tell you the Ares-I/V was Shuttle Derived, how does the language prevent this same thing from occurring once again.

Ares V lite would probably still fit the bill. But I suspect that Bolden and the President want the cheapest HLV possible.  So Direct becomes a front runner because of this.

and that is precisely what I am worried about!

[Jeff Bingham]

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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

Well, there was not an authorization bill for FY 2010. That, unfortunately, was essentially a "victim" of the decision by the Administration to conduct a review of US Human Space Flight activities and to propose only "placeholder" numbers in their budget request for FY 2010--at roughly the same as FY 2009 levels--until after the review was completed. That review--the Augustine Panel--took place during the same period of time that the Congress would have considered an FY 2010 authorization bill (the previous bill, enacted in 2008, was only for FY 2009.) The Administration indicated its intent was to provide an "amended Budget Request" following the conclusion of the Augustine Panel review.  So, on the Senate side, some of the authorizing committee staff continued to prepare draft authorizing language while the review was under-way, but obviously needed to await the outcome of the report to evaluate what options would be recommended. In the end, the Administration decided to not provide an amended FY 2010 request, but to develop its response to the Augustine report and release it as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. It did that, of course, with a dramatic proposed realignment of US civil space programs for human spaceflight, and started the debate that's been raging. Meantime, Senator Hutchison decided to introduce a bill, based on the work done during and after the Augustine report, coupled with a review of the FY 2011 request, which suggested a possible area of compromise in the area of human spaceflight issues, between the existing programs and the proposed changes. She did that on March 3, with the introduction of S. 3068, and offered to use that to work, on a bipartisan basis, and with the White House, towards a compromise solution to the question of US human spaceflight.  Not long after, the Senate Commerce Committee, on which she is the Ranking Republican, and on which Senators Nelson and Vitter are the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, began discussions leading to the joint development of a full NASA bill, including human spaceflight provisions as well as the rest of NASA's programs, which eventually became the Committee bill that was marked up last week and is the subject of this forum discussion. But by this time, it's essentially too late to expect final passage of an authorization bill very much before the end of FY 2010, so the Senate bill only addresses FY2011, 2012, and 2013.

It remains now to be seen if either the House or Senate--or both--pass versions of a NASA authorization bill that they can then try to reconcile together to enact a final product into law.  So...a VERY long way of saying why there is no FY 2010 authorization bill.

But I sense an underlying question that really relates, I think, to the language--in both the 2005 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2006, 2007 and 2008) and the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2009), which provided authorization for development of replacement vehicles for the shuttle, and said that they should be based on shuttle-derived systems "to the maximum extent practicable." The appropriators have not provided specific language that would change that guidance; they have simply appropriated funds requested for the program developed by NASA under the authority of the two authorization bills I mentioned. It was the decision of NASA to develop the architecture for what became the Constellation Program, and which ended up being something different than strictly "SD-HLV", but that was still within the scope of the authorization, which did not MANDATE a strictly shuttle-derived vehicle.

Folks will argue for decades, I'm sure, whether that was the right choice, and it's not strictly relevant to this discussion, I suppose. But it is clear that the issue of "design heritage" for a follow-on space launch system is once again being addressed in some detail, at least in the Senate authorization language. But the Senate appropriations subcommittee today used the basic funding levels of the Senate Commerce Committee's compromise authorization bill as the guide for the funding levels in their appropriations for FY 2011. Those numbers, by themselves, don't provide "policy guidance" or "design recommendations," so I guess I'm saying that the underlying premise of the question is incorrect, in that there has never been a "mandated" SD-HLV (and again, it can be debated whether Congress should have been more prescriptive in its language on that point in the past, and whether the language in the current Senate Commerce compromise authorization bill is the right mix of options versus direction), so there was--and is--really nothing for the appropriators to contradict or overturn in that respect. Sorry for the long way to get there, but I hope I've answered your question, at least as I read it.   

[Proponent]

BTW, what makes Sen. Mikulski tick?  Are there any factors in particular that would explain her emphasis on crew safety and her lack of enthusiasm for commercial crew?  I can see why she would be interest in space: APL and the Space Telescope Science Institute are both in her state.  Neither of these, however, has much to do with HSF.

Ditto Rep. Giffords.  Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband.  Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?

[sdsds]

I think the over-arching question is, what specific legal mechanism is there to prevent the program deviating so far afield as it did before.

Wishing there was "de-authorization" legislation, e.g.:  "NASA is not authorized to contract for development of a new first-stage rocket engine, nor a major modification of an existing engine."

[nooneofconsequence]

I think the over-arching question is, what specific legal mechanism is there to prevent the program deviating so far afield as it did before.

Wishing there was "de-authorization" legislation, e.g.:  "NASA is not authorized to contract for development of a new first-stage rocket engine, nor a major modification of an existing engine."

Never going to happen - would allow admin  latitude to abandon J-2X and 5 seg contracts.

[madscientist197]

Isn't it possible to add a clause saying that no appropriated money may be used for a specific purpose?

[Drapper23]

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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

Well, there was not an authorization bill for FY 2010. That, unfortunately, was essentially a "victim" of the decision by the Administration to conduct a review of US Human Space Flight activities and to propose only "placeholder" numbers in their budget request for FY 2010--at roughly the same as FY 2009 levels--until after the review was completed. That review--the Augustine Panel--took place during the same period of time that the Congress would have considered an FY 2010 authorization bill (the previous bill, enacted in 2008, was only for FY 2009.) The Administration indicated its intent was to provide an "amended Budget Request" following the conclusion of the Augustine Panel review.  So, on the Senate side, some of the authorizing committee staff continued to prepare draft authorizing language while the review was under-way, but obviously needed to await the outcome of the report to evaluate what options would be recommended. In the end, the Administration decided to not provide an amended FY 2010 request, but to develop its response to the Augustine report and release it as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. It did that, of course, with a dramatic proposed realignment of US civil space programs for human spaceflight, and started the debate that's been raging. Meantime, Senator Hutchison decided to introduce a bill, based on the work done during and after the Augustine report, coupled with a review of the FY 2011 request, which suggested a possible area of compromise in the area of human spaceflight issues, between the existing programs and the proposed changes. She did that on March 3, with the introduction of S. 3068, and offered to use that to work, on a bipartisan basis, and with the White House, towards a compromise solution to the question of US human spaceflight.  Not long after, the Senate Commerce Committee, on which she is the Ranking Republican, and on which Senators Nelson and Vitter are the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, began discussions leading to the joint development of a full NASA bill, including human spaceflight provisions as well as the rest of NASA's programs, which eventually became the Committee bill that was marked up last week and is the subject of this forum discussion. But by this time, it's essentially too late to expect final passage of an authorization bill very much before the end of FY 2010, so the Senate bill only addresses FY2011, 2012, and 2013.

It remains now to be seen if either the House or Senate--or both--pass versions of a NASA authorization bill that they can then try to reconcile together to enact a final product into law.  So...a VERY long way of saying why there is no FY 2010 authorization bill.

But I sense an underlying question that really relates, I think, to the language--in both the 2005 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2006, 2007 and 2008) and the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2009), which provided authorization for development of replacement vehicles for the shuttle, and said that they should be based on shuttle-derived systems "to the maximum extent practicable." The appropriators have not provided specific language that would change that guidance; they have simply appropriated funds requested for the program developed by NASA under the authority of the two authorization bills I mentioned. It was the decision of NASA to develop the architecture for what became the Constellation Program, and which ended up being something different than strictly "SD-HLV", but that was still within the scope of the authorization, which did not MANDATE a strictly shuttle-derived vehicle.

Folks will argue for decades, I'm sure, whether that was the right choice, and it's not strictly relevant to this discussion, I suppose. But it is clear that the issue of "design heritage" for a follow-on space launch system is once again being addressed in some detail, at least in the Senate authorization language. But the Senate appropriations subcommittee today used the basic funding levels of the Senate Commerce Committee's compromise authorization bill as the guide for the funding levels in their appropriations for FY 2011. Those numbers, by themselves, don't provide "policy guidance" or "design recommendations," so I guess I'm saying that the underlying premise of the question is incorrect, in that there has never been a "mandated" SD-HLV (and again, it can be debated whether Congress should have been more prescriptive in its language on that point in the past, and whether the language in the current Senate Commerce compromise authorization bill is the right mix of options versus direction), so there was--and is--really nothing for the appropriators to contradict or overturn in that respect. Sorry for the long way to get there, but I hope I've answered your question, at least as I read it.   

I understand what your saying. However, the language discussing the use of shuttle derived hardware & the language discussing a 70-100 ton IMLEO launch vehicle with an evolution to a 130+ tons IMLEO booster strongly indicate that the Senate wants a Direct Launcher(SD-HLV).

[Drapper23]

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 autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

Well, there was not an authorization bill for FY 2010. That, unfortunately, was essentially a "victim" of the decision by the Administration to conduct a review of US Human Space Flight activities and to propose only "placeholder" numbers in their budget request for FY 2010--at roughly the same as FY 2009 levels--until after the review was completed. That review--the Augustine Panel--took place during the same period of time that the Congress would have considered an FY 2010 authorization bill (the previous bill, enacted in 2008, was only for FY 2009.) The Administration indicated its intent was to provide an "amended Budget Request" following the conclusion of the Augustine Panel review.  So, on the Senate side, some of the authorizing committee staff continued to prepare draft authorizing language while the review was under-way, but obviously needed to await the outcome of the report to evaluate what options would be recommended. In the end, the Administration decided to not provide an amended FY 2010 request, but to develop its response to the Augustine report and release it as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. It did that, of course, with a dramatic proposed realignment of US civil space programs for human spaceflight, and started the debate that's been raging. Meantime, Senator Hutchison decided to introduce a bill, based on the work done during and after the Augustine report, coupled with a review of the FY 2011 request, which suggested a possible area of compromise in the area of human spaceflight issues, between the existing programs and the proposed changes. She did that on March 3, with the introduction of S. 3068, and offered to use that to work, on a bipartisan basis, and with the White House, towards a compromise solution to the question of US human spaceflight.  Not long after, the Senate Commerce Committee, on which she is the Ranking Republican, and on which Senators Nelson and Vitter are the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, began discussions leading to the joint development of a full NASA bill, including human spaceflight provisions as well as the rest of NASA's programs, which eventually became the Committee bill that was marked up last week and is the subject of this forum discussion. But by this time, it's essentially too late to expect final passage of an authorization bill very much before the end of FY 2010, so the Senate bill only addresses FY2011, 2012, and 2013.

It remains now to be seen if either the House or Senate--or both--pass versions of a NASA authorization bill that they can then try to reconcile together to enact a final product into law.  So...a VERY long way of saying why there is no FY 2010 authorization bill.

But I sense an underlying question that really relates, I think, to the language--in both the 2005 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2006, 2007 and 2008) and the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2009), which provided authorization for development of replacement vehicles for the shuttle, and said that they should be based on shuttle-derived systems "to the maximum extent practicable." The appropriators have not provided specific language that would change that guidance; they have simply appropriated funds requested for the program developed by NASA under the authority of the two authorization bills I mentioned. It was the decision of NASA to develop the architecture for what became the Constellation Program, and which ended up being something different than strictly "SD-HLV", but that was still within the scope of the authorization, which did not MANDATE a strictly shuttle-derived vehicle.

Folks will argue for decades, I'm sure, whether that was the right choice, and it's not strictly relevant to this discussion, I suppose. But it is clear that the issue of "design heritage" for a follow-on space launch system is once again being addressed in some detail, at least in the Senate authorization language. But the Senate appropriations subcommittee today used the basic funding levels of the Senate Commerce Committee's compromise authorization bill as the guide for the funding levels in their appropriations for FY 2011. Those numbers, by themselves, don't provide "policy guidance" or "design recommendations," so I guess I'm saying that the underlying premise of the question is incorrect, in that there has never been a "mandated" SD-HLV (and again, it can be debated whether Congress should have been more prescriptive in its language on that point in the past, and whether the language in the current Senate Commerce compromise authorization bill is the right mix of options versus direction), so there was--and is--really nothing for the appropriators to contradict or overturn in that respect. Sorry for the long way to get there, but I hope I've answered your question, at least as I read it.   

By the way, is Alan Mollohan(Chairman of the House NASA Appropriations Subcommittee) bound by the language in the House NASA 2010 Authorization Bill? In other words, if he wants to fund a bill like the Senate's Compromise can he use it as his guidance & not the House's NASA Authorization Bill? I ask this because Chairman Mollohan has expressed deep concerns about funding the Ares 1 rocket.

[simonbp]

Ditto Rep. Giffords.  Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband.  Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?

Orbital in Chandler, AZ.