Quote from: Jorge on 05/01/2010 05:15 pmCorrect. However, if Congress fails to pass FY11 appropriations by October 1 and NASA gets funded by a Continuing Resolution, the above provision remains in force until Congress *does* pass a real appropriations bill (and if we see a repeat of FY07, even that's not a given).Didn't realize it was that persistent. Would it be correct to assume that IF NASA is funded by a continuing resolution, that Shuttle cancellation would continue at full speed?If that's the case, could we be headed for a situation where:-Congress passes a continuing resolution for FY2011-Shuttle canceled "on schedule" in early 2011, all politicians involved point to others for causing gridlock.-After final flight of 2011 Congress acts shocked at the now existent gap, and passes a 2012 budget in May 2011, Obama signs, and uses 1 Billion from Stimulus money to "bridge" the at that point running FY2011 over to his plan.It seems dirty, but it would allows all parties to blame someone else for the Shuttle retirement, allows the Space Representatives to run as NASA defenders, and get's Obama what he wants in early 2011. I hope this is not where we are headed, seems like dirty pool to me.
Correct. However, if Congress fails to pass FY11 appropriations by October 1 and NASA gets funded by a Continuing Resolution, the above provision remains in force until Congress *does* pass a real appropriations bill (and if we see a repeat of FY07, even that's not a given).
Quote from: mmeijeri on 05/01/2010 06:47 pmQuote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 06:38 pmNote that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.Is a CR for an individual agency even possible? I thought that always applied to the budget as a whole.There are about 12 different budget "pieces" that cover the entire federal government. Its possible for one or more of the 12 to operate under a continuing resolution while the remainder are covered by FY 2011 budgets. NASA's budget is wrapped up in a bundle of independent agencies, and that bundle is one of the 12 pieces described above. ALL of these agencies would have to be covered under a continuing resolution. This would mean, for example, that the Veterans Administration would have to operate under FY2010 budget limits next year, because of opposition to Obama's NASA budget. Same with HUD.This is an extremely unlikely scenario, especially in an election year.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 06:38 pmNote that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.Is a CR for an individual agency even possible? I thought that always applied to the budget as a whole.
Note that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.
Quote from: kkattula on 05/01/2010 02:39 pmQuote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 02:27 pmSecond, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.Which is what SpacexULA said. Congress have to act. If Congress actually pass FY2011, then it isn't 'by default'.To add some context (51D Mascot, please step in if I misstate any of this):1) NASA Appropriations are never considered as a standalone bill. At a minimum, each agency's appropriations are bundled with the other agencies covered by each appropriations subcommittee. In NASA's case this is "Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies" (previously HUD, VA, and independent agencies).2) In recent years it has been standard for Congress to bundle most discretionary spending into a single bill (called an Omnibus or Consolidated bill) passed on a single vote and sent to the president for either signature or veto.3) In recent years it has been common for Congress to fail to pass appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. In these cases Congress passes a Continuing Resolution which funds the affected agencies at the previous fiscal year's level (and leaves intact any statutory provisions in the previous appropriations act).With that out of the way, here are the appropriations acts covering NASA for the last several years, including date they became law (keep in mind that the fiscal year starts October 1 of the previous calendar year):Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, became law 12/16/2009.Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, became law 3/11/2009.Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, became law 12/26/2007.Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, became law 2/15/2007.Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, became law 11/22/2005.Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, became law 12/8/2004.Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, became law 1/23/2004.Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, became law 2/20/2003.Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, became law 11/26/2001.These results should be sobering for proponents of the FY11 plan. In none of the previous nine fiscal years has NASA appropriations been passed before the start of the fiscal year. In seven of those years NASA appropriations have been bundled with most of the rest of the government in a Consolidated or Omnibus bill. And in one of those years (2007), Congress failed to pass a NASA appropriations bill *at all*, resulting in the agency being funded for the entire year at the previous year's level. And in none of those years was the NASA appropriations bill as controversial as it is this year.Based on this I would say that the probability of NASA starting FY11 under a Continuing Resolution at FY10 levels, with the statutory prohibition against Constellation termination in place, approaches unity.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 02:27 pmSecond, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.Which is what SpacexULA said. Congress have to act. If Congress actually pass FY2011, then it isn't 'by default'.
Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.
...Based on this I would say that the probability of NASA starting FY11 under a Continuing Resolution at FY10 levels, with the statutory prohibition against Constellation termination in place, approaches unity.
...AFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations...
... - Constellation cancelled - Orion continued in some form - Commercial crew development - Some extra money for science - Some deep space technology R&D - HLV R&D (in the form of an SDHLV) - ISS extension to 2020 - Possibly a short Shuttle extension
I expect the deal language will probably be flexible enough for Obama to represent it as close enough to his budget request, while protecting the interests of Congress: - Constellation cancelled - Orion continued in some form - Commercial crew development - Some extra money for science - Some deep space technology R&D - HLV R&D (in the form of an SDHLV) - ISS extension to 2020 - Possibly a short Shuttle extension
Quote from: kkattula on 05/01/2010 07:16 pmI expect the deal language will probably be flexible enough for Obama to represent it as close enough to his budget request, while protecting the interests of Congress: - Constellation cancelled - Orion continued in some form - Commercial crew development - Some extra money for science - Some deep space technology R&D - HLV R&D (in the form of an SDHLV) - ISS extension to 2020 - Possibly a short Shuttle extension And for that to function, a much more than a 1-3 billion dollar a year increase being talked about at this point.
Given the amount of controversial legislation still piled on the plate for the current Congress (financial reform, cap-and-trade, immigration reform), I don't see them getting to appropriations before mid-summer, at the earliest, which doesn't give them much time to finish before October 1.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 05/01/2010 05:40 pmQuote from: Jorge on 05/01/2010 05:15 pmCorrect. However, if Congress fails to pass FY11 appropriations by October 1 and NASA gets funded by a Continuing Resolution, the above provision remains in force until Congress *does* pass a real appropriations bill (and if we see a repeat of FY07, even that's not a given).Didn't realize it was that persistent. Would it be correct to assume that IF NASA is funded by a continuing resolution, that Shuttle cancellation would continue at full speed?If that's the case, could we be headed for a situation where:-Congress passes a continuing resolution for FY2011-Shuttle canceled "on schedule" in early 2011, all politicians involved point to others for causing gridlock.-After final flight of 2011 Congress acts shocked at the now existent gap, and passes a 2012 budget in May 2011, Obama signs, and uses 1 Billion from Stimulus money to "bridge" the at that point running FY2011 over to his plan.It seems dirty, but it would allows all parties to blame someone else for the Shuttle retirement, allows the Space Representatives to run as NASA defenders, and get's Obama what he wants in early 2011. I hope this is not where we are headed, seems like dirty pool to me.Under a CR with everything at FY 2010 levels, shuttle funding would be retained at a level sufficient to enable continuing operations. There is nothing anywhere in statute requiring shuttle termination (anything written in recent statutes has pushed AGAINST that termination, actually, while not actually requiring continuation). The issue would be whether the agency could "reprogram" those funds to other uses consistent with the FY 2011 request as an administrative action. That's technically "possible" but it will depend on whether the appropriators would find that acceptable. (no reason right now to think they wouldn't but the debate on these major issues is really just beginning to gather steam within the Congress, so who knows?)
Quote from: Jorge on 05/01/2010 04:51 pm...Based on this I would say that the probability of NASA starting FY11 under a Continuing Resolution at FY10 levels, with the statutory prohibition against Constellation termination in place, approaches unity.Thanks for a very interesting summary of the appropriations process and recent history. Quote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 05:03 pm...AFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations..."True that no Congress can bind a future Congress", but he said "Administration", which I took to refer to the executive branch. It would appear that they can so bind, which is one of the reasons we have "structural" deficits, for example. They are built into the process. A previous Congress enacted Social Security, binding future administrations until such time as Congress changes the law. As I interpret Congress' actions, supported by the implications of Jorge's observation, inertia rules Congress to a large part in some aspects of these matters. Like it or not, we have the POR, until such time as the Congress changes the law. I believe this to be correct, even as I disapprove of the management of the program; these things cannot be turned on and off on political whims. As to the idea of leftover money: It is to laugh. Kkattula speculates:Quote from: kkattula on 05/01/2010 07:16 pm... - Constellation cancelled - Orion continued in some form - Commercial crew development - Some extra money for science - Some deep space technology R&D - HLV R&D (in the form of an SDHLV) - ISS extension to 2020 - Possibly a short Shuttle extension... which is very interesting also. But still, Congress would have to get off its butt.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 07:14 pmQuote from: mmeijeri on 05/01/2010 06:47 pmQuote from: Danderman on 05/01/2010 06:38 pmNote that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.Is a CR for an individual agency even possible? I thought that always applied to the budget as a whole.There are about 12 different budget "pieces" that cover the entire federal government. Its possible for one or more of the 12 to operate under a continuing resolution while the remainder are covered by FY 2011 budgets. NASA's budget is wrapped up in a bundle of independent agencies, and that bundle is one of the 12 pieces described above. ALL of these agencies would have to be covered under a continuing resolution. This would mean, for example, that the Veterans Administration would have to operate under FY2010 budget limits next year, because of opposition to Obama's NASA budget. Same with HUD.This is an extremely unlikely scenario, especially in an election year.As 51D Mascot and I pointed out, NASA is now covered under "Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies", not VA/HUD/IA.And as I pointed out, NASA *has* started at least the last nine years under a CR, including the last four congressional election years. Indeed, in three out of the last four election years, NASA appropriations were not ultimately passed until after the new Congress convened in January. Maybe even further than that, but the legislative trail for 2001 was complex and my Thomas-fu is weak.Why do *you* think Congress will suddenly break this 9+ year trend and get appropriations passed before October 1? The data suggests the opposite: Congress *doesn't* pass appropriations before October 1 in an election year, and if so, they typically don't pass it before the election in November (because everyone is out campaigning) or between November and January (because the session becomes lame-duck after the election until the new Congress convenes on January 3).Given the amount of controversial legislation still piled on the plate for the current Congress (financial reform, cap-and-trade, immigration reform), I don't see them getting to appropriations before mid-summer, at the earliest, which doesn't give them much time to finish before October 1.
possibly old news but nasawatch just linked NASA Heavy Lift Launch System and Propulsion Technology Request for Information which came out May 3
The more that I hear about this process, the more that I think that ULA's Atlas-V Phase 2 has already been selected and all we are seeing is the facade of a bidding process plus an artificial delay to allow the national budget deficit to at least settle down.
Boeing seem to have known in advance the way this RFI was shaping up. Their SDLV-In-line included lighter configurations that could, theoretically, be used for commercial launch (the no upper stage versions).
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 05/04/2010 03:08 pmThe more that I hear about this process, the more that I think that ULA's Atlas-V Phase 2 has already been selected and all we are seeing is the facade of a bidding process plus an artificial delay to allow the national budget deficit to at least settle down.I doubt it. Maybe, maybe not. The whole "selection by 2015" really doesn't fit into the picture at all. If they said "selection as soon as possible AND potentially R&D into a first stage kerolox engine" I would think EELV Growth would be the front runner. But it just looks like they want to go for many, many studies first instead.
Quote from: simonth on 05/04/2010 04:32 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 05/04/2010 03:08 pmThe more that I hear about this process, the more that I think that ULA's Atlas-V Phase 2 has already been selected and all we are seeing is the facade of a bidding process plus an artificial delay to allow the national budget deficit to at least settle down.I doubt it. Maybe, maybe not. The whole "selection by 2015" really doesn't fit into the picture at all. If they said "selection as soon as possible AND potentially R&D into a first stage kerolox engine" I would think EELV Growth would be the front runner. But it just looks like they want to go for many, many studies first instead.The great advantage of "selection by 2015" is that you have a chance to see how propellant depot tests go. You may not even need something as big as Atlas V Phase 2