Author Topic: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2  (Read 319978 times)

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
If they make the worst possible choice and decide to continue Constellation with the same vehicles, I hope they at least have the sense to fund it properly this time.
As I see it the battle right now is to go back to the status quo - poorly funded Ares I.

Its ironic that DIRECT may lead a charge back into that incorrect outcome.

If that's so that's truly sad. I'm hoping they'll see the light, cancel Cxp and extend shuttle.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17917
  • Liked: 3665
  • Likes Given: 1984
FWIW, I was referring to the ban on Twitter rather than the attempt to find the person responsible.  People really need to be more tactful, at least when using company computers. 

However, NASA blocking its staff from using Twitter will only encourage conspiracy theorists to suggest that NASA wants to hide stuff.
Well, certainly when they're acting in a capacity that's not just personal.  Watching a recording of the hearing, Representative Olson makes it sound like it was said in a speech rather than posted as a Tweet.  Not sure where the Twitter reference comes in, but perhaps that's the source.  Which would make the Twitter ban more of a head-scratcher.  Guess we'll have to wait to find out more...

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19887
  • Likes Given: 10366
Okay, you guys. I've had enough of the "Obama is just doing this to cancel NASA." Conspiracy theories like that are just stupid. If you say something like "this budget undermines the political support for NASA," that's approaching a valid argument.

If Obama wanted to really cancel NASA's HSF program in a super-tricky, conspiracy-theory way, he would've let Constellation continue but very, very gradually reducing its budget and letting the Shuttle retire in 2010 (like he's doing), letting the ISS splash in 2015 (the opposite of what he's doing), decreasing funding for commercial crew and/or cargo (the complete opposite of what he's doing), and continue to cut advanced technology R&D for propulsion and human spaceflight (the opposite of what he's doing). He'd let Ares-I continue to suck the life out of NASA. Increasing the funding for NASA even by only $6 billion over 5 years is the opposite of what he would do if he was trying to kill NASA, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.

What I want to know: If they actually support exploration so much, where the heck were all these angry Congress critters when Altair was being defunded? Why didn't they even mention this in these hearings? Hmmm??? This is ludicrous.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
All you "Commercial"+R&D guys please remove you pink glasses!!! There will be no R&D - no Automatic rendezvous, no Propellant Depots, no VASIMR, no nothing. I even doubt that they will fund $6 billions "Commercial" spacecrafts fully.
... unless Congress forces a schedule, use of results, and supplies oversight that sees it through.

Take off your own dark glasses - where the restoration of an Ares I *only* program with LESS budget that dribbles on is just as likely as the opposite outcome. With a larger gap.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • 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.


Interesting and compelling.
But decisions had damn well be made really soon.
I don't think congress can move that fast though.
my read is this admin would accept this outcome if more budget were to be found *elsewhere*.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Olson said (paraphrasing):
"Is that the essence of the new plan for the workforce at NASA?"

Bolden responded that that's unacceptable and he'll find out why that statement was made.

One report here:

http://talkradionews.com/2010/02/treatment-of-nasa-employees-a-space-travesty/
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Is there any hope that the other members of Congress will see the conflict of interests of the Congressmen supporting Cxp? I sure hope they do and take that into consideration when they pass judgment.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17917
  • Liked: 3665
  • Likes Given: 1984
Olson said (paraphrasing):
"Is that the essence of the new plan for the workforce at NASA?"

Bolden responded that that's unacceptable and he'll find out why that statement was made.

One report here:

http://talkradionews.com/2010/02/treatment-of-nasa-employees-a-space-travesty/
Problem is that the report attributes the assertion/question to Representative Gordon, rather than Representative Olson.  Not sure it adds anything beyond that, either.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Typo? I'm pretty sure it was Olson who brought up the whole thing not Gordon.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17917
  • Liked: 3665
  • Likes Given: 1984
Typo? I'm pretty sure it was Olson who brought up the whole thing not Gordon.
It was Olson.  The report is in error and will probably get fixed, but it doesn't provide additional sources regarding the remark.  I assume Olson's staff has something...

Offline Roo

  • Member
  • Posts: 84
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This second meeting was far more telling than yesterday's - and yesterday's was telling enough.

Of the 20-25 strong committee (including guests), the score was this :-

1 for the Obama budget.
1 for either, as long as his district keeps the NASA workforce - so this counts as a half.
Everyone else was strongly against it.

So out of the 20-25 people there, only 1.5 people were for it.

I think we're seeing where things are heading already.

The sheer and vehement level of anger directed by numerous individuals towards the budget today (and yesterday) must point to this new direction as being a huge slap in the face to America. When you have such a massive and for all intents and purposes, unanimous reaction such as this - you know you've done wrong.

There is just no defending it anymore. Every argument for it was creditably countered.

Roo.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 06:54 pm by Roo »

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
"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.)


Wow! What is going on here?

Senator Vitter just asked who is the chief of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation. What is wrong with this?

If this new change is so great why do they suddenly need to protect Lori Garver? If she is so genius to come up with this idea aren't she suppose to be proud with it?

It is getting worse and worse. It is just more and more convincing that it is some plan to cut NASA funding.


Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
There is just no defending it anymore. Every argument for it was creditably countered.

Roo.


Yes, and among the "brilliant" counterpoints were things like:
The flexible path requires Constellation
A-com recommended continuing Constellation
Commercial companies are over budget and haven't produced results yet.
Canceling Constellation will make the children of the nation sad.
Constellation is safe (yeah the Ares I is the epitome of safety)
If we cancel Cxp the Chinese win!!!
NASA(a civilian space agency)s ability to launch people in space is critical to national security and privatizing space access for said civilian agency compromises national security somehow.
etc.

They should have pushed for a shuttle extension, not continuing Cxp.

The only legitimate arguments were the lack of a goal and job loses.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 07:08 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
"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.)


Wow! What is going on here?

Senator Vitter just asked who is the chief of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation. What is wrong with this?

If this new change is so great why do they suddenly need to protect Lori Garver? If she is so genius to come up with this idea aren't she suppose to be proud with it?

It is getting worse and worse. It is just more and more convincing that it is some plan to cut NASA funding.

It hasn't been confirmed that Garver singlehandedly came up with the new budget. That's just a suspicion many hold. Check your facts. The reason they're defending her is because Vitter accused her specifically.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 10:47 am by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
This second meeting was far more telling than yesterday's - and yesterday's was telling enough.

Of the 20-25 strong committee (including guests), the score was this :-

1 for the Obama budget.
1 for either, as long as his district keeps the NASA workforce - so this counts as a half.
Everyone else was strongly against it.

So out of the 20-25 people there, only 1.5 people were for it.

I think we're seeing where things are heading already.

The sheer and vehement level of anger directed by numerous individuals towards the  budget today (and yesterday) must point to this new direction as being a huge slap in the face to America. When you have such a massive and for all intents and purposes, unanimous reaction such as this - you know you've done wrong.

There is just no defending it anymore. Every argument for it was creditably countered.

Roo.


Please remove your tinfoil hat before posting.

Nothing of the kind is true outside your personal 'ala cart reality'.

They are screaming to come up with sturm und drang to push back to underfunded Ares I that they don't have to bother oversighting ... and when it goes long and becomes impossible, come up with another like it until one gives up on HSF because you can't argue for more pork ... and its over.

You gotta be nuts to think that's good!

Both sides are hitting each other with Claymores and attempting to whack off limbs. The only loser is NASA, as each side attempts to make impossible the other's vision by cleaving off some critical part. Bolden's approach is to make it hard for them to do so.

What you haven't seen yet is the rivalries between senators when t settles in that they can't fund all of what they want and some get nothing. Then a different set of battles begin.
 
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Roo

  • Member
  • Posts: 84
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
There is just no defending it anymore. Every argument for it was creditably countered.

Roo.


Yes, and among the "brilliant" counterpoints were things like:
The flexible path requires Constellation
A-com recommended continuing Constellation
Commercial companies are over budget and haven't produced results yet.
Canceling Constellation will make the children of the nation sad.
Constellation is safe (yeah the Ares I is the epitome of safety)
If we cancel Cxp the Chinese win!!!
etc.

They should have pushed for a shuttle extension, not continuing Cxp.

Some of those are indeed the creditable counterpoints stated, but I sense some personal opinions have sneaked in there amongst them!

But don't forget, there were various creditable counterpoints for each single argument for it.

But you know, this 'new' budget has the signs of one in its death throes already - and we're only 3 weeks in. Commercial to carry all the risk is simply too much of a risk in itself. That's sheer common sense - and obviously agreed by 95% of the committee today and no doubt to be continually agreed as this 'investigation' pans out.

Roo.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Commercial to carry all the risk is simply too much of a risk in itself. That's sheer common sense - and obviously agreed by 95% of the committee today and no doubt to be continually agreed as this 'investigation' pans out.

Roo.


Hence the whole point of doing a shuttle extension until commercial companies can establish themselves. They should have argued for that instead of defending Constellation in it's present form.
« Last Edit: 02/25/2010 07:15 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Roo

  • Member
  • Posts: 84
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Please remove your tinfoil hat before posting.


Ha ha - by the way, what's this 'tinfoil hat' comment all about then?

I just see it as it is - lots of people very angry. I know about politics, I'm English - we have it over here too. Quite a bit in fact.

The bottom line is this, the NASA FY2011 budget is a mess. The majority of people know it, the minority don't. There are people who scream from both camps but it's always best to go with the facts you read and the facts from the committee hearings you watch.

In these lies your truth my friend.

Roo.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Best argument for continuing Shuttle will always be 'that is what's working now'.

Best argument for Soyuz will always be 'it worked when Shuttle couldn't'
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35723
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19887
  • Likes Given: 10366
Commercial to carry all the risk is simply too much of a risk in itself. That's sheer common sense - and obviously agreed by 95% of the committee today and no doubt to be continually agreed as this 'investigation' pans out.

Roo.

Hence the whole point of doing a shuttle extension until commercial companies can establish themselves. They should have done that instead of defending Constellation in it's present form.
Agreed. Stop defending Ares-I or the currently monstrous (and basically non-existent) Ares V. There are realistic ways to do HLV and short-term HSF using Orion on an EELV or heck even something like the Jupiter 130.

Pushing for Ares I/V at this point is just a good way to lose your credibility with those who understand the current status of the program of record.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags:
 

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