NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[2552]

Final version of 3-week CR (#3, Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate]

Only NASA-related language in it:

‘‘SEC. 246. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are provided
for ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Cross Agency
Support’ at a rate for operations of $3,131,000,000: Provided, That
the third proviso under such heading in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.

[Robotbeat]

Final version of 3-week CR (#3, Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate]

Only NASA-related language in it:

‘‘SEC. 246. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are provided
for ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Cross Agency
Support’ at a rate for operations of $3,131,000,000: Provided, That
the third proviso under such heading in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.

What does that mean in human-speak?

[2552]

It means this language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 no longer applies:

CROSS AGENCY SUPPORT
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics, exploration, space oper-
ations and education research and development activities, including
research, development, operations, support, and services; mainte-
nance; space flight, spacecraft control, and communications activi-
ties; program management; personnel and related costs, including
uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901–
5902; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor
vehicles; not to exceed $70,000 for official reception and representa-
tion expenses; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and oper-
ation of mission and administrative aircraft, $3,194,000,000:  Pro-
vided, That not more than $2,206,300,000 shall be available for
center management and operations: Provided further, That not less
than $40,000,000 shall be available for independent verification
and validation activities: Provided further, That within the amounts
appropriated, $63,000,000 shall be used for the projects, and in
the amounts, specified in the explanatory statement accompanying
this Act.

[yg1968]

Final version of 3-week CR (#3, Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate]

Only NASA-related language in it:

‘‘SEC. 246. Notwithstanding section 101, amounts are provided
for ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Cross Agency
Support’ at a rate for operations of $3,131,000,000: Provided, That
the third proviso under such heading in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.

What does that mean in human-speak?

The provisio that is being taken out was an earmark in the 2010 Appropriation bill. It was taken out along with other earmarks in the CR.

[Halidon]

The provisio that is being taken out was an earmark in the 2010 Appropriation bill. It was taken out along with other earmarks in the CR.

Sadly, the mandatory Constellation funding earmark stayed.

[Mark S]

The provisio that is being taken out was an earmark in the 2010 Appropriation bill. It was taken out along with other earmarks in the CR.

Sadly, the mandatory Constellation funding earmark stayed.

Maybe Congress doesn't really trust NASA to follow through with SLS yet, and keeping the CxP cancellation prohibition is one way to keep NASA from haring off in some random direction.

Also, given the testimony of various NASA officials that the CxP lock is not yet inhibiting their actions wrt SLS, perhaps there is little urgency within Congress to get it lifted.

[yg1968]

The provisio that is being taken out was an earmark in the 2010 Appropriation bill. It was taken out along with other earmarks in the CR.

Sadly, the mandatory Constellation funding earmark stayed.

Maybe Congress doesn't really trust NASA to follow through with SLS yet, and keeping the CxP cancellation prohibition is one way to keep NASA from haring off in some random direction.

Also, given the testimony of various NASA officials that the CxP lock is not yet inhibiting their actions wrt SLS, perhaps there is little urgency within Congress to get it lifted.

There is no motivation behind it. It's more a matter of Congress refusing to settle these isues until a deal is reached on all of the other issues.

[clongton]

The provisio that is being taken out was an earmark in the 2010 Appropriation bill. It was taken out along with other earmarks in the CR.

Sadly, the mandatory Constellation funding earmark stayed.

Maybe Congress doesn't really trust NASA to follow through with SLS yet, and keeping the CxP cancellation prohibition is one way to keep NASA from haring off in some random direction.

Also, given the testimony of various NASA officials that the CxP lock is not yet inhibiting their actions wrt SLS, perhaps there is little urgency within Congress to get it lifted.

There is no motivation behind it. It's more a matter of Congress refusing to settle these issues until a deal is reached on all of the other issues.

Actually it's more a matter that the subcommittee experts are all too aware that Bolden and Garver are actively attempting to subvert the law.

[Pheogh]

The provisio that is being taken out was an earmark in the 2010 Appropriation bill. It was taken out along with other earmarks in the CR.

Sadly, the mandatory Constellation funding earmark stayed.

Maybe Congress doesn't really trust NASA to follow through with SLS yet, and keeping the CxP cancellation prohibition is one way to keep NASA from haring off in some random direction.

Also, given the testimony of various NASA officials that the CxP lock is not yet inhibiting their actions wrt SLS, perhaps there is little urgency within Congress to get it lifted.

There is no motivation behind it. It's more a matter of Congress refusing to settle these issues until a deal is reached on all of the other issues.

Actually it's more a matter that the subcommittee experts are all too aware that Bolden and Garver are actively attempting to subvert the law.

If that is in fact true, aren't they in contempt of the law?

[clongton]

The provisio that is being taken out was an earmark in the 2010 Appropriation bill. It was taken out along with other earmarks in the CR.

Sadly, the mandatory Constellation funding earmark stayed.

Maybe Congress doesn't really trust NASA to follow through with SLS yet, and keeping the CxP cancellation prohibition is one way to keep NASA from haring off in some random direction.

Also, given the testimony of various NASA officials that the CxP lock is not yet inhibiting their actions wrt SLS, perhaps there is little urgency within Congress to get it lifted.

There is no motivation behind it. It's more a matter of Congress refusing to settle these issues until a deal is reached on all of the other issues.

Actually it's more a matter that the subcommittee experts are all too aware that Bolden and Garver are actively attempting to subvert the law.

If that is in fact true, aren't they in contempt of the law?

Yes, they are. But building the legal case takes time and the rules of evidence are extremely strict. Be patient my young Jedi. Sooner or later heads will roll.

[SkyKing]

]

Actually it's more a matter that the subcommittee experts are all too aware that Bolden and Garver are actively attempting to subvert the law.

If that is in fact true, aren't they in contempt of the law?
[/quote]

There is being in contempt of the law and being in contempt of the law (grin) and Charlie knows who butters his bread.  The only person who can fire Charlie is the guy who sits at the nice desk in the Oval Office.  Congress is never going to come up with the horsepower to  put Charlie in "contempt of Congress" and that is reality (of course why would Charlie care anyway).

If Congress really wanted a heavy lift made out of shuttle parts they would follow the B-1 model...in the late 70's when then President James Earl Carter announced that there would be no B-1 production a group of Congresspeople of both parties worked to keep the airplane "flying" and hence alive...

Time is on Charlies side...as the end of the shuttle program comes and more parts of the shuttle "go away" it gets harder and harder to keep a SDV of anykind alive.  There is no congressional zeal to "B-1" the shuttle launch system.

As Credance Clearwater REvival would say better then me "the end is coming soon"...the pain will end in about oh 6 months or less...as it is right now I doubt the LON will even fly.

Sky King

[yg1968]

The provisio that is being taken out was an earmark in the 2010 Appropriation bill. It was taken out along with other earmarks in the CR.

Sadly, the mandatory Constellation funding earmark stayed.

Maybe Congress doesn't really trust NASA to follow through with SLS yet, and keeping the CxP cancellation prohibition is one way to keep NASA from haring off in some random direction.

Also, given the testimony of various NASA officials that the CxP lock is not yet inhibiting their actions wrt SLS, perhaps there is little urgency within Congress to get it lifted.

There is no motivation behind it. It's more a matter of Congress refusing to settle these issues until a deal is reached on all of the other issues.

Actually it's more a matter that the subcommittee experts are all too aware that Bolden and Garver are actively attempting to subvert the law.

If that is in fact true, aren't they in contempt of the law?

Yes, they are. But building the legal case takes time and the rules of evidence are extremely strict. Be patient my young Jedi. Sooner or later heads will roll.

That's non-sense. Bolden and Garver serve the President. If you are going to slander Bolden and Garver you need to prove your allegations.

The language in the short term CR is not very detailed and it is not meant to fix such detailed issues as the Constellation language. The 6 month CR should fix the Constellation language.

[HappyMartian]

[quote author=SkyKing link=topic=22991.msg711773#msg711773s

.....

Time is on Charlies side...as the end of the shuttle program comes and more parts of the shuttle "go away" it gets harder and harder to keep a SDV of anykind alive.
.....

Sky King
[/quote]


Delay will continue to cost the President political influence in Congress. Delay is not on "Charlie's side." Congress wants an affordable Shuttle derived SLS. Congress is the customer. Ignoring the law and continuing to delay the SLS and Orion will simply erode Congressional support for other things the President says he wants, including "commercial" crewed spacecraft. Leaders lead. Hand wavers wave their hands and magically claim to be leading with huffs and puffs of hot air while Congress is busy heading in a different direction. Unfortunately, the fully utilized International Space Station orbits in an extreme environment that doesn't respect political hot air leadership or delays in parts and supplies due to a hand waving politician. A safe and fully utilized International Space Station isn't on the President's political agenda. He will bet the ISS's future on the Soyuz, limited supplies, and restrictions on parts, while at the same time delaying the SLS and Orion. Somehow this is beginning to sound like the makings of a major Presidential snafu. Mr. Charles Bolden and Ms. Lori Garver will simply become the sacrificial lambs.


Cheers!

Edited.

Edited again for politeness.

[SkyKing]

[quote author=SkyKing link=topic=22991.msg711773#msg711773s

.....

Time is on Charlies side...as the end of the shuttle program comes and more parts of the shuttle "go away" it gets harder and harder to keep a SDV of anykind alive.
.....

Sky King

Delay will continue to cost the President political influence in Congress. Delay is not on "Charlie's side." Congress wants an affordable Shuttle derived SLS. Congress is the customer. Ignoring the law and continuing to delay the SLS and Orion will simply erode Congressional support for other things the President says he wants, including "commercial" crewed spacecraft. Leaders lead. Hand wavers wave their hands and magically claim to be leading with huffs and puffs of hot air while Congress is busy heading in a different direction. Unfortunately, the fully utilized International Space Station orbits in an extreme environment that doesn't respect political hot air leadership or delays in parts and supplies due to a hand waving politician. A safe and fully utilized International Space Station isn't on the President's political agenda. He will bet the ISS's future on the Soyuz, limited supplies, and restrictions on parts, while at the same time delaying the SLS and Orion. Somehow this is beginning to sound like the makings of a major Presidential snafu. Charlie Bolden and Lori Garver will simply become the sacrificial lambs.


Cheers!

Edited.
[/quote]

I guess it is one of those things where one pays ones money and takes ones choice...but I think most of what you write is wrong.

Congress as  a body does not really care much about spaceflight in general and human space flight in specific and things like Shuttle launch systems or derived vehicles in micro.  And I can tell you the moment I figured out that Obama would get all or almost all of what he wanted in  Congress with out more then the usual space porkers bloviating.

I dont recall the dates but it was during some hearing that Nelson was pontificating on a shuttle derived launch system...and he was trying the B-1 bomber approach...ie seque out some money for a demonstration flight to keep the infrastructure together.  He noted that it would take about 1 Billion dollars...and I noticed the look on Conrad (Senator's) face as he said it and thought "nope never going to happen" and it hasnt.

And it wont.

Shortly some of the commercial cargo vehicles will be flying and flying to ISS, the cost will be more then advertised but not much more...and the shuttles will stop flying and gone will be the infrastructure...and I'll bet you money both Charlie and Lori will be in their same spots as the next election approaches...and since I think right now Obama will be reelected (of course far to early to say) I suspect in their post on the 2nd inaugural.

There is just no real Congressional support for a SLS Derived Heavy lift...if these were Bill Clinton times...ie excess money, surpluses instead of deficits etc...there might have been.

But thats not now.  Besides a Shuttle derived vehicle of any sort couldnt be flying until the end of the decade...

Sky King

[KEdward5]

Besides a Shuttle derived vehicle of any sort couldnt be flying until the end of the decade...

Sky King

More baseless opinion, see previous posts (as much as you clearly enjoy making it up as you go along).

[SkyKing]

Besides a Shuttle derived vehicle of any sort couldnt be flying until the end of the decade...

Sky King

More baseless opinion, see previous posts (as much as you clearly enjoy making it up as you go along).

OK lets say that 2011 is shot and the development starts in 12...thats 8 years...NASA since the shuttle era has carried how many launch vehicle development cycles to completion in under 8 years?  OK just to completion? 

OK those answers are not very helpful..Ares 1 spent twice as much as the Gemini program did (in real dollars) including the actual Gemini Missions and other then a suborbital something has shown nothing of flight quality and is at best what 5 years or so more away in terms of an actual launch vehicle...that would be about a decade.

.it took them about 8 years to develop the shuttle...so at best thats the end of the decade.

NOW YOU might think it can or should be done in less (and I would agree it should be able to)...but going on demonstrated performance...NASA cant do it.  and any effort to say that they can is just a lot of graphs based on hopes.

Sky King

[alexw]

Besides a Shuttle derived vehicle of any sort couldnt be flying until the end of the decade...

More baseless opinion, see previous posts (as much as you clearly enjoy making it up as you go along).

OK lets say that 2011 is shot and the development starts in 12...thats 8 years...NASA since the shuttle era has carried how many launch vehicle development cycles to completion in under 8 years?  OK just to completion? 
[...]
NOW YOU might think it can or should be done in less (and I would agree it should be able to)...but going on demonstrated performance...NASA cant do it.  and any effort to say that they can is just a lot of graphs based on hopes.

     SDHLV economics (and, to be fair, probably HLV economics in general) are sufficiently dismal that there's no need to resort to dogmatic pessimism. Augustine, HEFT, and JSC/MSFC studies have suggested that a 4/3-class inline SDHLV could achieve first flight within about six years, and Sidemount possibly a year or so earlier. The proposed Congressional annual funding rates look (barely) adequate to match such a timeline, at least using the more optimistic cost projections (DIRECT).
 
     It would be more reasonable to claim that a BEO-HSF SDHLV (that is, with a large upper stage) + Orion plausibly wouldn't be completed before the end of the decade at the present funding levels, but that's a different animal than "any [SDLV]".
    -Alex

[HappyMartian]

Besides a Shuttle derived vehicle of any sort couldnt be flying until the end of the decade...

Sky King

More baseless opinion, see previous posts (as much as you clearly enjoy making it up as you go along).

OK lets say that 2011 is shot and the development starts in 12...thats 8 years...NASA since the shuttle era has carried how many launch vehicle development cycles to completion in under 8 years?  OK just to completion? 

OK those answers are not very helpful..Ares 1 spent twice as much as the Gemini program did (in real dollars) including the actual Gemini Missions and other then a suborbital something has shown nothing of flight quality and is at best what 5 years or so more away in terms of an actual launch vehicle...that would be about a decade.

.it took them about 8 years to develop the shuttle...so at best thats the end of the decade.

NOW YOU might think it can or should be done in less (and I would agree it should be able to)...but going on demonstrated performance...NASA cant do it.  and any effort to say that they can is just a lot of graphs based on hopes.

Sky King

Sky King, if you really believe that "Besides a Shuttle derived vehicle of any sort couldnt be flying until the end of the decade" and "NASA cant do it" then the logical conclusion is that our President's unwillingness to follow the law would be at the root of NASA's problems. "The Buck Stops Here" was written on a sign located on President Truman's desk in his White House office. That concept is still valid.

According to: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/buckstop.htm
"In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, 'The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.'"   

If NASA fails to promptly build the Orion and SLS, it will be clearly the President who is responsible for that failure. Also, if the International Space Station is underutilized or undercrewed or gets into other problems because of an inadequate supply chain or Soyuz problems, the reality is that the President's heavy footdragging in building the SLS and Orion will be seen as the major political leadership failure that it clearly is. 

I guess it is one of those things where one pays ones money and takes ones choice...but I think most of what you write is wrong.

Congress as  a body does not really care much about spaceflight in general and human space flight in specific and things like Shuttle launch systems or derived vehicles in micro.  And I can tell you the moment I figured out that Obama would get all or almost all of what he wanted in  Congress with out more then the usual space porkers bloviating.

I dont recall the dates but it was during some hearing that Nelson was pontificating on a shuttle derived launch system...and he was trying the B-1 bomber approach...ie seque out some money for a demonstration flight to keep the infrastructure together.  He noted that it would take about 1 Billion dollars...and I noticed the look on Conrad (Senator's) face as he said it and thought "nope never going to happen" and it hasnt.

And it wont.

Shortly some of the commercial cargo vehicles will be flying and flying to ISS, the cost will be more then advertised but not much more...and the shuttles will stop flying and gone will be the infrastructure...and I'll bet you money both Charlie and Lori will be in their same spots as the next election approaches...and since I think right now Obama will be reelected (of course far to early to say) I suspect in their post on the 2nd inaugural.

There is just no real Congressional support for a SLS Derived Heavy lift...if these were Bill Clinton times...ie excess money, surpluses instead of deficits etc...there might have been.

But thats not now.  Besides a Shuttle derived vehicle of any sort couldnt be flying until the end of the decade...

Sky King

Well Sky King, in your previous posts at   http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24472.msg711609#msg711609    you've shown your ignorance about aviation and the Space Shuttles, and now your comment about "a SLS Derived Heavy lift"  indicates a complete lack of understanding about what Congress is expecting NASA to build. Currently, you are not a "Sky King." And since you obviously don't want to be thought of as a landlubber, it would be wise to go and read for a few years before you post again.   
 
Cheers!


Edited for politeness.

[Jim]

If NASA fails to promptly build the Orion and SLS, it will be clearly the President who is responsible for that failure. Also, if the International Space Station is underutilized or undercrewed or gets into other problems because of an inadequate supply chain or Soyuz problems, the reality is that the President's heavy footdragging in building the SLS and Orion will be seen as the major political leadership failure that it clearly is. 

Wrong, congress has just as much influence and therefore just as much their fact.

Mars, where did all the Obama pumping go?  You thought he was the next best thing to sliced bread.

[Jason1701]

If NASA fails to promptly build the Orion and SLS, it will be clearly the President who is responsible for that failure. Also, if the International Space Station is underutilized or undercrewed or gets into other problems because of an inadequate supply chain or Soyuz problems, the reality is that the President's heavy footdragging in building the SLS and Orion will be seen as the major political leadership failure that it clearly is.

Oh, so it's the President who is responsible for mandating a path for NASA, and for funding it? I wonder why Cx is still being funded then -- didn't Obama want to cancel that? And why are NASA officials going to all these Congressional hearings if it's really the President they should be talking to?