Author Topic: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2  (Read 320004 times)

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 16
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.

Very good post. Should people get thinking about their thinking. Won't work with everyone.

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 16

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

2) 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?

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

1) For starters: The way (style) he does the "asking". There are other things.
2) The change is great and there is no need to protect her. This thinking of an evil mastermind is ridicolous.
3) It what usiverse do you live? NASA funding is proposed to increase by $6billion over the next 5 years.

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 16
1) One thing I am sure about now - NASA will not get $3 additional billions -

2) this is what seems Augustine commission pushed for.

1) Bingo. Has been sure forever. And even with these magical billions CxP would not deliver, contrary to popular belief. But go on and defend the POR and be against the new budget. People are free to be not rational.

2) It did not push for it.

Analyst

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 16
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

I think you hit it. Shuttle is ending, if only by momentum. Folks did support this for 6 years, now they get results.

Analyst

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What I take out of the hearings is just this: politics is politics and this is an election year. Senators and House Representatives are gearing up to campaign. Opposing radical changes of any kind are always a nice topic to get some media attention and some votes of those who fear change. That's all what is going on.

For an actual way forward people should watch key Democrats and what they say about the plan (not just Democrats with key Florida districts...). Nelson's approach to the new plan is the closest thing that will happen, the plan will be tweaked to include a bigger chunk of the budget to go to HLV development. Is this wise? I don't know, but that is what they apparently want. There will also be some new goodies/pork for Florida in there and some more explicit measures to mitigate the job losses from Shuttle (something they should have actually thought about years ago... because yes, Cx wasn't talking on 90% of the STS guys, more like 10%...).
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline ChrisSpaceCH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Bern, Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

This is unfortunately very likely; I predicted something like this would happen some time ago and was promtly called an incorrigible pessimist... :P

In a way, this is even worse than some "evil conspiracy master-plan to destroy NASA" (by Obama, Graver, Dr. Evil, take your pick). NASA's spaceflight (human and otherwise) being gutted not because someone wants to but because of lack of vision, political bickering and pure spite.

If this happens, it will prove to the whole world in a most graphic way just how much the US political system is broke and how much the USA is in decline.

« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 07:21 am by ChrisSpaceCH »

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

1. No, absent a miracle STS ends this year or early next year (STS-135).

2. No, Cx is definitely ending, the PoR has practically no supporters any more from either side as it is over budget and off schedule.

3. The new plan faces a lot of criticism for the sake of criticism. It's not like anyone provides a viable alternative. The only really viable changes I have heard of was the suggestion by Nelson to shift some line-item funds to HLV development.

4. That tells me, if anything, the new budget will be modified. But one thing is clear, Ares I is dead, it doesn't have support. Orion is dead too, it's just way to expensive. And Exploration, as odd as this sounds, was just made up of Ares I / Orion and a few advanced capabilies programs noone is talking about anyway (Human research program etc.).

5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline ChrisSpaceCH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Bern, Switzerland
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

1. No, absent a miracle STS ends this year or early next year (STS-135).

2. No, Cx is definitely ending, the PoR has practically no supporters any more from either side as it is over budget and off schedule.

3. The new plan faces a lot of criticism for the sake of criticism. It's not like anyone provides a viable alternative. The only really viable changes I have heard of was the suggestion by Nelson to shift some line-item funds to HLV development.

4. That tells me, if anything, the new budget will be modified. But one thing is clear, Ares I is dead, it doesn't have support. Orion is dead too, it's just way to expensive. And Exploration, as odd as this sounds, was just made up of Ares I / Orion and a few advanced capabilies programs noone is talking about anyway (Human research program etc.).

5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.


Why are you starting points 1 and 2 with a "No"? If you look at the question and your answer, it should be a "Yes"...

1. Shuttle will end
2. CxP will end
3. new NASA budget will be rejected
4. politicians can't agree on an alternative

Results in: NASA basically has nothing left.

Thats what Chris Bergin fears. And thats what may well happen (given that 1 and 2 are almost certain and knowing politicians' stupidity and bickering, 3 and 4 aren't so unlikely anymore...)

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
3. new NASA budget will be rejected
4. politicians can't agree on an alternative

Results in: NASA basically has nothing left.

50 years of NASA budget processes tell me this is an illusion. It's as likely as that they cancel all military projects and can't agree on what they want to replace them with.

Also, it doesn't work like this from a legislative prospective. Until a new budget is passed, the old one lives on. So, even if a deadlocked Congress wouldn't pass a single budget or law for the next 5 years (which would bankrupt the US and very likely lead to its break-up by the way...), NASA would have a program - the old program that lives on.

That means, there are only two choices, not three as suggested. 1. The old program lives on and 2. an alternative is passed. The third choice that people suggest (Cx cancelled + no alternative) is impossible absent a majority of Congress passing a law that would do so. Yes, you would need a majority in the House and Senate to first cancel Cx, have STS phased out and not implement any alternative program. So your point 4. in connection with point 3. and 1. and 2. is impossible.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
3) It what usiverse do you live? NASA funding is proposed to increase by $6billion over the next 5 years.

Analyst

From my experience the budget and public perception game is played at multiple levels.  President cancels Cx, increases the budget, which Congress then cuts.  Not saying it WILL happen or that it is preordained, but it wouldn't surprise me ... especially next year (when the President needs additional cuts to meet his stated 50% deficit reduction goal).

There is also raising the bar so you can say you lowered it further.  Again, no way to know if this is happening without knowing their motives, which I am not clued into.

Offline clb22

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 646
  • Europa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.


Orion is dead.
Spirals not circles, Mr. President. Spirals!

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.

Concur.  Nicely done.

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.


Orion is dead.
Just too quick on the draw this morning. I meant "generic unnamed crew launch capability to be launched on a future unnmamed human rated launcher".  My apologies for the imprecision.

« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 10:49 am by mars.is.wet »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7200
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.

Orion is dead.

Unless reviving it and launching it on an alternate LV becomes the compromise solution.  Stranger things have happened.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Thanks for posting that -- the tweet is gone now and I didn't see it when I checked a few hours earlier...out of curiosity when did you screen shot that?


I did a google search a few minutes before posting the screenshot, search term  :
twitter alan ladwig bite me
(I knew it was about Alan Ladwig because the name came up in the congressman's question.)
The google cache hold the nugget, and even now there are some, ex:
http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:emhE-FJarQ4J:topsy.com/s%3Ftype%3Dtweet%26q%3D%2523isu10+twitter+alan+ladwig+bite+me&cd=10&hl=ro&ct=clnk

The ISU event / "Bite me !" apparently happend on Feb. 16.


« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 10:19 pm by renclod »

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/25/338812/congress-to-dump-obama-nasa-plan.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.

The administrator shall take steps to include options for development by an industry consortium...using existing space shuttle propulsion technologies and related existing infrastructure for defining a cost effective means of obtaining the early development of a crew launch capability to launch a commercially developed multiple-application crew transportation module as well as current payload capabilities approximating those of the space shuttle orbiter. Such development should include evaluation of a variant of the Orion crew exploration vehicle...and an examination of the potential for evolution of such a system to a heavy lift variant using technology developed under a Heavy Lift Vehicle and Propulsion Research and Development Program



« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:04 pm by mars.is.wet »

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1318
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.


Orion is dead.

NOTHING "is dead" not until the Congress decides it is. This process is only beginning.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17917
  • Liked: 3665
  • Likes Given: 1984
Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.
Wow, no kidding about how they pay for all of it.  It does give them more flexibility, but then the Congressional "decision" would fall to appropriations, and they could choose to fund a subset of those projects.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:11 pm by psloss »

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
There's no way they can do all that without cutting R&D and science money. They're going to get rid of the fuel depot and advanced propulsion research imo. The extension is a good idea, but idk about using Ares I as a technology demonstrator that would somehow lead to the development of a HLV. At least they aren't planing to use it as an actual crew vehicle.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:25 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Tags:
 

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