Author Topic: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2  (Read 322477 times)

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.

I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.


Interesting and compelling.
But decisions had damn well be made really soon.
I don't think congress can move that fast though.

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
A question for those who watched, did any Democrats defend the proposal?
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.

I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.

Wow! It sounds super cheap! I think that it is something like $3 billions now?


Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17927
  • Liked: 3856
  • Likes Given: 2020
A question for those who watched, did any Democrats defend the proposal?
Only defense of the controversial part of the HSF policy I recall was Rohrabacher's.  (Anyone who watched please correct my memory.) 

Representative Gordon endorsed most of the other changes -- ISS extension, increases in science and aeronautics.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 04:59 pm by psloss »

Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

That's a very interesting game.

Offline CessnaDriver

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
"Senatorís attack on NASA deputy chief Lori Garver backfires"

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html

(Please remove if duplicate.)



I think Garver's role is extremely relavant and does need to be examined.
She has clearly attached her career to democrat politicans in hopes she would be appointed. She did this with Kerry.
Her motivations are not about HSF, and are about pleasing her political masters and her own career.

In other words, Garver put herself and Obama ahead of the good of NASA.

It's like the Augustine commission never happened, so why the radical Obama plan?....  Garver.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 04:58 pm by CessnaDriver »

Online Chris Bergin

Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.

I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.

Figures, as you'd be running two orbiters in an extension scenario for starters. Something like 25 percent of the shuttle workforce (mainly KSC) retire in 2010 too.

Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.
He noted Admiral Dyer and the ASAP during the hearing today in response to a question -- an oblique reference, but I'm not sure his opinion on Shuttle safety has changed.


That's annoying, as the ASAP are also deadset against Commercial and heavily pro-Ares - so he's being selective. And on recertification, his own SSP answered that already.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17927
  • Liked: 3856
  • Likes Given: 2020
"Senatorís attack on NASA deputy chief Lori Garver backfires"

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html

(Please remove if duplicate.)



I think Garver's role is extremely relavant and does need to be examined.
She has clearly attached her career to democrat politicans in hopes she would be appointed. She did this with Kerry.
Her motivations are not about HSF, and are about pleasing her political masters and her own career.

In other words, Garver put herself and Obama ahead of the good of NASA.

It's like the Augustine commission never happened, so why the radical Obama plan?....  Garver.
All of that may be true (although it doesn't look like everyone here agrees with you), but the problem is that style matters.  Even if Senator Vitter is correct, the way in which he approached that yesterday may make it more difficult for fence-sitters to support his position.  And it may have frakked off other fence-sitters.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 05:06 pm by psloss »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17927
  • Liked: 3856
  • Likes Given: 2020
That's annoying, as the ASAP are also deadset against Commercial and heavily pro-Ares - so he's being selective. And on recertification, his own SSP answered that already.
Yeah, I think that's why the cost of extension was emphasized.

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If funding of two "Commercial" spacecraft is all NASA will get out of this I think that we will not see any space exploration for the next 20 years. If "Commercial" spacecraft will be able to provide trips for the price of $20 millions per seat (and there is no assurance of that) you will get only 10-20 Tourists per year. And there will be two competing companies. They will not have any money left for the new development. Without government funding we will be stuck for the next 20 years.


Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1318
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
When it comes to the question of the president's "veto" power (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), he does not have a line-item veto. So once the Congress formulates and amends the NASA portion of the budget, if the president does not like it, he must veto the entire FY2011 budget in order to get at this one little item (and to Obama- the NASA component is, I'll bet, pretty little).

I'd think that whatever the Congress changes, he will simply live with as far as NASA is concerned- just to egt his budget passed. Obama (or the 2 or 3 people he assigned to the task of the NASA budget and who cooked up this ill thought out mess) have played their one and only card in this game IMO.

Additionally, (and again someone correct me if I'm wrong,) although these committees and sub committees consist of just a few members of Congress, they are very powerful groups.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 16
I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.

That sounds sweet :)

That sounds unrealistic, right from fantasyland. And should it be true, you can reduce the cost by this much only by reducing the workforce. Some guys want it both ways: Save the workforce and reduce the costs. Won't work, by definition.

Same with commercial being cheaper: They may be, but because they use less workforce. So what do you want?

As for government (Orion/Ares) as backup to commercial: Who has been backup for Orion/Ares (or Shuttle, or Apollo, or Gemini, or Mercury)? Nonsense argument by politicains who pray to the private sector elsewhere but not when it comes to their district.

Analyst

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
If funding of two "Commercial" spacecraft is all NASA will get out of this I think that we will not see any space exploration for the next 20 years.

Did you forget all the R&D and science funding boost? And what evidence did you base that estimate on?


If "Commercial" spacecraft will be able to provide trips for the price of $20 millions per seat (and there is no assurance of that) you will get only 10-20 Tourists per year.

So what? It has to start somehow. No one said once commercial takes over we'll be flying thousands of people in space.


And there will be two competing companies.

Competition is a good thing. That's the basic force that drives the economy.


They will not have any money left for the new development. Without government funding we will be stuck for the next 20 years.

The point of commercial is not new developement, it's sustainable and cost effective operations of already developed technology. NASA will help with development, but will not interfere with operations aside from ensuring safety standards are met.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 05:29 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1920
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 545
Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.


http://www.astronautix.com/craft/indility.htm


Because Congress Prevented it over twenty-two years ago. Just like they will try to do, again.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10305
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1109
  • Likes Given: 656
"The Moon is too hard and expensive.  Let's go to Mars!"

Grayson is basically yelling at Bolden and asking where's the next destination.
...
Grayson claims commercial entities haven't put people in orbit and Bolden said that the NASA contractors are technically commercial entities aslo.

Grayson says the new program is "faith based"

It was very disappointing to hear Bolden argue the "technicality" of the "next" destination with Grayson.  It began to sound like some of the discussions around here, where itty-bitty refutations are used to deride fairly sensible, albeit non-expert, suggestions about the priorities of the various missions.  Finally, he says the Moon is our "next" destination almost as if it was of no consequence.  It was an agonizing exchange for me to watch, and it was not at all inspirational.  Grayson was speaking for me at that time.

And Mr. Bolden's tortured explanation that the shuttle is a "commercial" undertaking had the flavor of dishonesty, to me.  I can imagine the comments made were I to insist that the shuttle was a commercial space enterprise.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17927
  • Liked: 3856
  • Likes Given: 2020
When it comes to the question of the president's "veto" power (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), he does not have a line-item veto. So once the Congress formulates and amends the NASA portion of the budget, if the president does not like it, he must veto the entire FY2011 budget in order to get at this one little item (and to Obama- the NASA component is, I'll bet, pretty little).
No, you're correct, but that's the second fundamental hurdle.  There will be a NASA Authorization Bill for FY 2011 and that will be a standalone bill that the President could veto without directly affecting other agencies.

Congress could authorize essentially continuing the POR, but then on the appropriations side (which will be a broader-in-scope bill), it may collectively choose to provide less funding than is authorized.

And while there's still that unfunded mandate problem, you can't extend Shuttle (for example) without authorizing it and authorizing the money.  Same applies for the President's proposed changes.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 05:19 pm by psloss »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 16
They will do "Shuttle extension talk" until late this years. In the end extension won't be technically or financially possible, so it remains just talk.

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17927
  • Liked: 3856
  • Likes Given: 2020
They will do "Shuttle extension talk" until late this years. In the end extension won't be technically or financially possible, so it remains just talk.
You may be right, but it would have to be mandated in an authorization bill first.  If an extension isn't authorized, the talk would end sooner than end of the year.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10506
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 26
Figures, as you'd be running two orbiters in an extension scenario for starters. Something like 25 percent of the shuttle workforce (mainly KSC) retire in 2010 too.

From the small amount I have managed to glean so far, that is really just the "contractors take over, no other changes".   The civil servant workforce goes off to do other things within the agency, and the contractors stay "as is" at that level.   Zero contractor RIF's included.

Again, this is so far only single-source to me right now, but I'm putting my feelers out to get more info about it.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 05:28 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1