Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[orbitjunkie]

It's difficult and dangerous to put policy in the mouth of the Tea Party, partly because there is not a strong, comprehensive unity among the candidates. As we've seen here, opinions among well meaning people, even about how to get to the same destination, vary widely. So I'd expect to see varying opinions from different candidates who wear the Tea Party label. Another interesting fact is that space policy is not often a respecter of party lines. And although there are places where it might seem to follow those lines (e.g. "GOP opposition to Obamaspace"), Tea Party candidates have not hesitated to break from GOP when they thought it came down to principle. Recall that Newt Gingrich came out generally in favor of Obama's commercial approach.

If I were to not follow my own advice, I would predict that new conservative potential lawmakers would hold a pretty balanced approach towards space with some of the following planks:
 - GO USA!!! A strong government space program has more in common with a strong government military than a strong government healthcare system.
 - As of TODAY the commercial market for human spaceflight to LEO is in its infancy at best. That means government run systems will probably be deemed necessary, or at least worth the cost, for at least one more decade or so. But, the government has a legitimate role to play in helping to develop the market and then get out as soon as it makes sense.
 - It may never make sense for the government to get out of the business of true frontier exploration. But its primary purpose should be to open up those frontiers for future development and commercial markets. Funding research and technology is also a form of frontier exploration and is therefore a legitimate role as well.
 - Anything the government runs should be done as efficiently as possible without waste or pork, and could inevitably learn a lot from how the business world operates. So I don't think the current cows would be automatically sacred.

[yg1968]

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf

[psloss]

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf

Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921

[yg1968]

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf

Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921

Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf

[psloss]

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf

Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921

Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf

It's comparing this proposed, amended bill with the House bill that passed committee (HR 5781); what would be more useful would be a "side-by-side' comparison to the bill that passed the Senate, S. 3729.

(Expecting a wave of blogosphere postings on that...)

At first glance, it looks like it's closer.

[yg1968]

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf

Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921

Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf

It's comparing this proposed, amended bill with the House bill that passed committee (HR 5781); what would be more useful would be a "side-by-side' comparison to the bill that passed the Senate, S. 3729.

(Expecting a wave of blogosphere postings on that...)

At first glance, it looks like it's closer.

It looks a lot like the Senate bill!!!!

[rusty]

Would be a good time for another poll
- Obama FY2011
- Senate bill
- House bill
- CR
i'd vote for the CR, as of now.

The CR will NOT contain any new money or new language guiding NASA. Without an enacted authorization/policy bill, signed by the President, things will continue JUST as they have been, with the Constellation funding restricted, impounded, whatever you want to call it, but held back from the contractors, just as it has been for the past six months. That means even longer delays in ending the uncertainty, more unnecessary layoffs and disruption of lives and careers, and I just don't see that as a viable option. At least with an enacted bill, and the President's signature, that officially reverses the policy of the Administration and there would be NO BASIS for continuing the financial squeeze on resources needed for new HLV development. And with an enacted LAW, there would be ample basis for congressional oversight to ensure NASA compliance with that direction regardless of the level and allocation of resources in the CR. There would also then be a legal basis for pressing for new directive language in the follow-on to the CR, whether it is another CR for the balance of FY 2011, or an Omnibus appropriations for 2011, which would reflect the combination of Budget Requests in some areas and enacted authorization levels in other areas, such as NASA.

Excellent points 51D Mascot. A CR is a poor option and Obama FY2011 is nothing more than a suggestion. If a poll is taken, I'd discount these choices and, between H.R.5781 and S.3729, I'd choose the House Bill because...

- Senate maintains Shuttle workforce to leave the door open for extension while the House closes shop, but permits one more flight if criteria are met. Senate maintains ET workforce for Shuttle and a HLV to fly by the end of the decade while House wants an HLV selected in 6mos without putting conditions on what tank, equipment and workforce is used.

- Senate requires a HLV loft 70-100mt and 130mt with upper stage to LEO while House simply requires vehicle capable of extensive BEO human missions.

- Senate continues Orion for BEO and as a Commercial Crew 'back-up' to LEO by the end of 2016 while House funds AresI as primary LEO vehicle by the end of 2015 and Commercial must have an established, cheaper option to replace AresI. Senate funds commercial development at $300mil/yr while House allows $150mil/yr, including $100mil/yr in loans, to put the burden of proof on commercial.

- Senate authorizes a large diameter SRB study which, along with ensuring a Shuttle option, probably means the RSRBs will continue while House mandates there use in AresI and HLV.

<Please correct this comparison if necessary or state disagreements>

[robertross]

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf

Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921

Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf

It's comparing this proposed, amended bill with the House bill that passed committee (HR 5781); what would be more useful would be a "side-by-side' comparison to the bill that passed the Senate, S. 3729.

(Expecting a wave of blogosphere postings on that...)

At first glance, it looks like it's closer.

It looks a lot like the Senate bill!!!!

I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks 

[jongoff]

I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks 

Seconded.

~Jon

[JohnFornaro]

Thirded.

[Namechange User]

I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks 

It actually could be that easy.  I don't believe that is actually the case here but without a doubt this version of the House bill is much, much closer to the Senate bill and that is a good thing and the immediate message that needs to be sent. 

[Bill White]

From the summary:

EXPLORATION

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $13.18 billion for the Restructured Exploration program, including ground operations and launch infrastructure investments. It also separately included a total of $150 million for the 21st Century Launch Complex initiative.
• The Compromise Bill provides a total of $12.21 billion for the Space Launch System, Crew Vehicle, and associated activities, of which a total of $1.33 billion is provided for a NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization program.

COMMERCIAL CARGO AND CREW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $464 million for commercial cargo and crew development activities.
• The Compromise Bill provides a total of $1.212 billion for commercial cargo and crew development activities.

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $9 billion for the ISS.
• The Compromise bill provides a total of $8.9 billion for the ISS.
• Both bills provide a total of $275 million for ISS research.

ADDITIONAL SHUTTLE FLIGHT

• The Compromise bill provides $600 million in FY 2011 for an additional “Launch on Need” (STS-135) Shuttle flight.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Well. I'll leave interpreting the bill to those more skilled than I in these matters.  However, I will make one point: Let's hope they've got this right and clear of nonsense from those whose main concern is their 'legacy' in astronautics.

We often hear polilticians talk of things being "the last chance" to do this that or the other.  However, it is true in this case.  It really is the last chance for them to save the skill-sets and jobs which they claim are so important.  Without a clear direction, irrevocable layoffs and infrastructure demolition will start happening very soon.

[psloss]

Don't have time to do much more than a shotgun of a few sections...others here have done a great job breaking these down and hopefully they can do it again.

In Section 101, the Senate bill breaks out SLS and MPCV funding, this bill has a lump sum for both, along with infrastructure and support.

The Senate bill has $300M for Commercial Cargo, $312M for CCDev; this bill has $412M for both.  (At first blush, that's $200M less for both.)

The Senate bill applies $425M to "NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program" under Space Opertaions; this bill "charges" that to Exploration.

Otherwise, the numbers look the same for ISS and Shuttle Ops.

[M_Puckett]

Waiting on 51D Mascot to give us his take.

[Ben the Space Brit]

The Senate bill has $300M for Commercial Cargo, $312M for CCDev; this bill has $412M for both.  (At first blush, that's $200M less for both.)

That fits in with the impression I get that, to the House, Orion/SLS ought to be the primary vehicle rather than the backup.

[psloss]

(Skipping around a little bit)

The Senate bill has a section on assurance of "core capabilities" (Section 203) that this bill does not have.

Both bills have a minimum capabilities section on SLS, Section 302(c); they are worded differently, but I'm not sure they can't be interpreted similarly -- this bill doesn't have any initial capability specified and says "provide a scalable capability of lifting payloads of at least 130 metric tons."

[Chris Bergin]

Worth starting a new thread? I've got several documents on this now.

[DaveJSC]

Yes Chris!

[psloss]

Back to Exploration line items...

Technology Development is in different places in Section 101 (FY 2011); the Senate bill has $250M under Exploration, this bill has $300M under Aeronautics & Space Development.

Edit -- got the Senate number wrong; fixed.

In Section 102 (FY 2012), the Senate bill has $500M for Commercial crew capabilities; this bill has $400M for "Commercial Cargo and Crew Capability Development."

Same description and numbers for Section 103 (FY 2013).