NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[Jeff Bingham]

Congress can't amend legislation that's already been signed into law without doing the whole process, including votes in both houses and the President's signature.

If Congress is in session, I think it's more correct to say "the President not vetoing".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto.

cheers, Martin

Edit: or maybe I've misunderstood:-

Well, of course any amendment to existing law has to be passed by the Congress and either approved by the President or enacted over his veto.

Getting a law out of congress is not an easy thing and the President can pull favors to either prevent a law he dislikes from getting out or just threaten a veto.  In addition a bill can be stop via filabuster in the Senate.  In addition the president does have the power of veto and the Republicans lack the votes to over turn his veto.

Yes, and all those reasons were cited as why there was absolutely no way to pass a NASA authorization bill this year that differed substantially from what the President originally proposed in February...yet it was done anyway (same was said regarding NASA Authorization bills in 2005 and 2008, as well, and those bills were also enacted, incidentally). Trust me, making definitive, conclusive predictions about potential outcomes of the legislative process is not a wise thing to do, hehe.

[Robotbeat]

51D Mascot, I think it can be argued that the NASA Authorization bill was most of what the President wanted.

I agree, though, that you can't necessarily predict ahead of time the outcome.

[Jeff Bingham]

51D Mascot, I think it can be argued that the NASA Authorization bill was most of what the President wanted.

I agree, though, that you can't necessarily predict ahead of time the outcome.

You could argue that in terms of the top-line funding level, the Science portfolio (space and Earth science), some of the space tech and advanced r&d, though at much reduced levels, commercial crew initiation at least, but clearly NOT in the area of government-owned and operated space launch systems, which was where the "battle lines" had been drawn most assiduously within the Congress. Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.

[Robotbeat]

51D Mascot, I think it can be argued that the NASA Authorization bill was most of what the President wanted.

I agree, though, that you can't necessarily predict ahead of time the outcome.

You could argue that in terms of the top-line funding level, the Science portfolio (space and Earth science), some of the space tech and advanced r&d, though at much reduced levels, commercial crew initiation at least, but clearly NOT in the area of government-owned and operated space launch systems, which was where the "battle lines" had been drawn most assiduously within the Congress. Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.

Interesting... Thanks for the inside scoop!

[Namechange User]

......Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.

And this is precisely the "back-up" that further reinforces my opinion about the view some have about current programs and their place in the go-forward plan. 

It seems to me personally that some are dragging their feet intentionally with certain elements of the law and why Orion (MPCV) is in advanced limbo along with STS-135 all as a way to get what they "wanted" all along. 

[yg1968]

......Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.

And this is precisely the "back-up" that further reinforces my opinion about the view some have about current programs and their place in the go-forward plan. 

It seems to me personally that some are dragging their feet intentionally with certain elements of the law and why Orion (MPCV) is in advanced limbo along with STS-135 all as a way to get what they "wanted" all along. 

It also probably explains why they invited Holdren to the meeting...

[Jeff Bingham]

......Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.

And this is precisely the "back-up" that further reinforces my opinion about the view some have about current programs and their place in the go-forward plan. 

It seems to me personally that some are dragging their feet intentionally with certain elements of the law and why Orion (MPCV) is in advanced limbo along with STS-135 all as a way to get what they "wanted" all along. 

It also probably explains why they invited Holdren to the meeting...

yep

[nooneofconsequence]

Yes, and all those reasons were cited as why there was absolutely no way to pass a NASA authorization bill this year that differed substantially from what the President originally proposed in February...yet it was done anyway (same was said regarding NASA Authorization bills in 2005 and 2008, as well, and those bills were also enacted, incidentally).

I was on the Hill, in the Senate offices around the end of September, and was amazed at  S.3729 passing. Didn't think it would happen. Incredible job.

Trust me, making definitive, conclusive predictions about potential outcomes of the legislative process is not a wise thing to do, hehe.

Especially now. All bets are off.

[marsavian]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/12/03/02.xml&headline=Senators%20Suspicious%20Of%20NASA%20Planning&channel=space

Even after the compromise had been reached between the administration’s original Fiscal 2011 budget request and members of Congress worried over its drastic employment impact, White House staffers called key senators asking them to introduce amendments to the draft bill that would tilt the balance back toward the original request.

[JohnFornaro]

I don't know the right answer to the riddle OV...

Man, I hear that!  Later, OV points out the obvious, "that is the nature of our system", but that says too little.  Stuff isn't happening.  Maybe there is a leadership issue.  There are not consistent, logical, enforcable commands coming from the helm, that is, the Administrator.  Worse, the position should be more similar to Alan Greenspan's, in that the Administrator of NASA should stay at the helm over sequential executive and legislative periods.  But this could only happen if the Administrator were able to accomplish these goals which are within our technical reach, but which continually evade our political will to achieve.

In the short term, maybe indeed, STS-135, 136, and 137 should be stand alone line items in an appropriation bill, as Tim suggested, and as I enlarge by a few more flights.  Same with JWST.

There was talk in the Senate hearing today to the understanding (or relief for NASA) that, given lack of resources, they will present partial study results at the term.

What?  They're already failing to accomplish the writing of a report?  Does the Committee have access to the "Fire" button?  The one with the two week notice provision?

I feel pretty good about the hearing... a), b), c), d)... that this was the "opening salvo", if you will...

Excellent, if what you say is true, and if future events proceed as could be possible.  Quoting Thoreau again, as usual: Oversight, oversight, oversight.

As to your later comments about "very specific and detailed questions" being sent to the witnesses, my understanding is that this sort of thing happens a lot, in hearings of this sort.  There are almost certainly others besides me who would relish the opportunity to review these questions, their context in the hearing, and comment about the wording of the questions, as well as comment about the answers themselves.  Private communications always welcome.

As to the complexity of the "anomaly language":  Oh my garnet.

As to the transcript.  Does copyright law forbid citizens from receiving timely information from their government?  Months down the road is far to late for it to be of any utility whatsoever to any citizen or member of Congress.  May I have a copy of this transcript please?

Now, NASA comes along and its  advisers tell the president that "we don't want solids" and the Act doesn't require us to use solid.

The Pentagon has said that it does not want nor need a "spare" engine for the F-35.  The possiblity that you raise is quite real, I think.

Doesn't this strike you as shocking?

I do find it shocking that political direction given by the President to NASA's Administrator, does indeed seem to indicate an intent to follow some other direction than has been clearly mandated in the Act.  I only offer one circumstantial bit of corroborating evidence.  Perhaps this is an intentional ploy, the "trial balloon", if you will, of suggesting that a crucial report cannot be made on time.  Should that work, what else could they get away with?  In the meantime, there are plenty of funds to develop HEFT further.  These are deliberate manipulations of the allocation of resources.

Cynical, true.  But what is the Prez doing?  If I were he, and I signed that act into law, it would be because I agreed with the intent of the Act.  And I would instruct my Administrator to follow that intent.  One crucial thing, at this time, would be not to go to Prague for the IAC.  (Not IAF, right?)  Send a droid.  This hearing was far more important.

Online humor lesson 05F6H:

The answer is it all goes back to number 2.....

OV.  Stop it with the potty talk.

[MP99]

As to the transcript.  Does copyright law forbid citizens from receiving timely information from their government?  Months down the road is far to late for it to be of any utility whatsoever to any citizen or member of Congress.

Yes, I believe it stops you having the right to a copyright transcript just because it's more convenient. ISTR the video is available, so the information is available to you.

cheers, Martin

[jongoff]

Yes, and all those reasons were cited as why there was absolutely no way to pass a NASA authorization bill this year that differed substantially from what the President originally proposed in February...yet it was done anyway (same was said regarding NASA Authorization bills in 2005 and 2008, as well, and those bills were also enacted, incidentally). Trust me, making definitive, conclusive predictions about potential outcomes of the legislative process is not a wise thing to do, hehe.

While I definitely agree with this last sentence, I really wonder how a "Thou Shalt Use SRBs" bill would actually fare this time around.  A lot of the support the Senate bill got was because the House one was a total travesty and many people who normally would've fought such a bill plugged their noses and lobbied for what they saw as a reasonable compromise.  I definitely know a whole lot less than you do about all this, but I'd be surprised if Congress was really able to get such a bill passed now that the interests aren't as aligned as they were a few months ago.

It'll be interesting to see.  I just wonder when NASA will actually get some sort of funding bill with the 2010 restrictions lifted.

~Jon

[marsavian]

A lot of the support the Senate bill got was because the House one was a total travesty and many people who normally would've fought such a bill plugged their noses and lobbied for what they saw as a reasonable compromise.

~Jon

More like the alternative that was seen as less desirable was the original FY2011 as professed in countless public statements. Despite these clear statements it has been wishful thinking for some time for some people to assume that the position of Congress is not the narrow difference between 1 or 2 SDLVs.

[mr_magoo]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

No talk of additional shuttle flight,  no KSC upgrade money.

[sdsds]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

Can the appropriators do that?

[Jeff Bingham]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

No talk of additional shuttle flight,  no KSC upgrade money.

Not strictly accurate; funds are there; requires a careful read to identify, and it's still a DRAFT, so I can't comment in more detail right now. Just keep powder dry, folks.  ;-)

[Jeff Bingham]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

Can the appropriators do that?

FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; so keep powder dry and don't react, even if you see the actual language; it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes, and will almost certainly be modified before formally proposed.

[Robotbeat]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

Can the appropriators do that?

FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; so keep powder dry and don't react, even if you see the actual language; it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes, and will almost certainly be modified before formally proposed.

Doesn't it make more sense to react to a draft, since then the final one can be modified in accordance?

I mean, to whatever extent us blathering about this at NSF (and possibly sending our opinions to Congress, etc) even matters at all, I would expect it would make more difference as soon in the decision process you can.

[2552]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

Can the appropriators do that?

I know this is a draft, but does this seriously mean core elements AND upper stage should be done by 2016? Won't developing them simultaneously just make both developments take longer than they need to?

[pathfinder_01]

I know this is a draft, but does this seriously mean core elements AND upper stage should be done by 2016? Won't developing them simultaneously just make both developments take longer than they need to?

I don't think SLS itself can be done by 2016 with or without the upperstage, but without the upper stage SLS has no reason to exsist. A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless. A rocket that can deliver a payload to BEO or lift an EDS is useful.