For fy 2011:$1,631,000,000 shall be for Space18 Launch System and associated program and19 other necessary support;Over 5 years to 2016 thats: 8 billion, right on DIRECT's numbers
The case still needs to be made though....We seriously underfund NASA!A half a penny of federal discretionary spending dollar?A tiny tiny portion of the federal budget? http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gifGiven the tiny amount spent compared to the tens of billions or more congress will authorize in a hearbeat, even during these economic times, it's amazing that there is so much time and argument spent about NASA in Congress. They could eliminate the NASA budget entirely and it wouldn't change a thing in the big federal spending picture. And that argument goes for doubling the NASA budget too!Yet NASA assures so much for this nations future, and humanity. There are those that accept underfunding as a fact of life, that it will never change.That has been a big mistake in my view. We do not make our wheels squeek as well as others that get far more funding for questionable returns to the nation. That needs to change.
Senators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 11:54 pmSenators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:51D Mascot can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the apparent discrepancies is that Authorization bills don't have to list *every* subcategory under a category.
I've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 11:25 pmI've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?Apparently not, hehe, even with seven pairs of eyes and a couple of Excel spreadsheets doing the arithmetic. If you can point to specific items in the version released on the website today, please PM me and I can pass them on to be sure they can be addressed before the bill is considered by the Senate.
(4) For Aeronautics, $1,070,600,000, of which— (A) $584,700,000 shall be for AeronauticsResearch; and(B) $486,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?
Final Reported version of the Senate:
What really annoys me about both the Senate and House bills is that neither does anything at all to reduce spending on outreach to Muslim countries. It's zero in the President's proposal; why don't the Senate and House reduce it below zero?
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be de-signed to have, at a minimum, the following: (A) The initial capability of the core ele-ments, without an upper stage, of lifting pay-loads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. (B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 10:33 pmFinal Reported version of the Senate:The SLS language on page 26 has changed:Quote(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be de-signed to have, at a minimum, the following: (A) The initial capability of the core ele-ments, without an upper stage, of lifting pay-loads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. (B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.