Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 493787 times)

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #400 on: 12/18/2010 01:53 am »
Those are just the harsh realities of where we are in the process right now; early next year, however, there will be more of an opportunity to work on focused legislation, where needed, to help NASA move forward.

Ah yes, my statement was only regarding the next Congress.

Quote from: spacetraveler
If NASA presses for that in the next Congress I wonder if they could get something.

I realize there is no potential for them to do that the rest of this term with the clean CR, which is unfortunate.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2010 01:56 am by spacetraveler »

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #401 on: 12/18/2010 01:56 am »
So just to clarify, 51 is it currently the case that constellation is being funded and not the new HLV and commercial and "the new direction" for NASA?

Or is it simply that the amount of money NASA has to spend is maintained at 2010 levels but they can still change direction internally?

51D can clarify better, but the current law restricts NASA from terminating any PPAs relating to Constellation or creating any new ones until a "subsequent appropriations act" changes their guidance.

So they cannot proceed with any meaningful development effort on SLS until that restriction is lifted.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2010 01:58 am by spacetraveler »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #402 on: 12/18/2010 03:59 am »
So just to clarify, 51 is it currently the case that constellation is being funded and not the new HLV and commercial and "the new direction" for NASA?

Or is it simply that the amount of money NASA has to spend is maintained at 2010 levels but they can still change direction internally?

The latter is the case. At a large senior staff meeting today I am told the Administrator reiterated that there is a new law, that the President has signed, and that is the direction NASA is going to be moving, irrespective of the funding levels eventually determined by the Congress. Obviously, funding levels as close to those authorized--such as were reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and included in both the full-year CR that passed the House and is still pending in the Senate--will make that task easier. But NASA DOES have the authority, granted by P.L. 111-267, to modify existing contracts to the maximum extent possible to redirect work in the manner outlined in the law. There will be a report filed, around January 10th, as required by that law, which will provide NASA's plan to move forward in that new direction, and by all accounts, the Report will more fully outline the plan for implementing the law.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #403 on: 12/18/2010 04:05 am »
So just to clarify, 51 is it currently the case that constellation is being funded and not the new HLV and commercial and "the new direction" for NASA?

Or is it simply that the amount of money NASA has to spend is maintained at 2010 levels but they can still change direction internally?

51D can clarify better, but the current law restricts NASA from terminating any PPAs relating to Constellation or creating any new ones until a "subsequent appropriations act" changes their guidance.

So they cannot proceed with any meaningful development effort on SLS until that restriction is lifted.

As an attorney noted in a luncheon meeting I attended this week, in the final analysis, "the law is what everybody agrees it is."  The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law. There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences, hehe, but I think the meaning is clear.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #404 on: 12/18/2010 04:39 am »
Yeah, it would be an amusing spectacle for Congress to haul NASA officials in, demanding they account for the SLS hold-up,  then bring them back the next month to account for breaking the law by trying to build it.

I might pay money to see that,  just for the sheer absurdity.



Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #405 on: 12/18/2010 07:08 am »
Thank you so much for clearing that up I was about to go utterly mad from the insanity of wasting time/money in that way!


Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #406 on: 12/18/2010 07:27 am »
As an attorney noted in a luncheon meeting I attended this week, in the final analysis, "the law is what everybody agrees it is."  The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law. There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences, hehe, but I think the meaning is clear.

Well, that would be great news. It seemed like this restriction was a huge deal at the commerce committee hearing. But I guess if it's a situation where everyone agrees that they can just disregard that provision since we know it will be changed anyway, maybe that can work. I wonder if NASA will have reservations about doing that though, given that GAO just investigated them for possibly failing to follow that exact provision in the law (though ultimately found them compliant for now).

Thinking about it a little bit more though, I get the sense that the GAO investigation was motivated by Congress being a little irked that NASA seemed to be taking steps to fulfill the president's budget request without waiting for direction from them (since there was still question as to whether Constellation would be cancelled). Now that Congress has spoken with the authorization act and they want to see it implemented, they would probably not be motivated to initiate any further action of that sort.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2010 07:32 am by spacetraveler »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #407 on: 12/18/2010 07:40 am »
As an attorney noted in a luncheon meeting I attended this week, in the final analysis, "the law is what everybody agrees it is."  The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law. There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences, hehe, but I think the meaning is clear.

Well, that would be great news. It seemed like this restriction was a huge deal at the commerce committee hearing. But I guess if it's a situation where everyone agrees that they can just disregard that provision since we know it will be changed anyway, maybe that can work. I wonder if NASA will have reservations about doing that though, given that GAO just investigated them for possibly failing to follow that exact provision in the law (though ultimately found them compliant for now).

Thinking about it a little bit more though, I get the sense that the GAO investigation was motivated by Congress being a little irked that NASA seemed to be taking steps to fulfill the president's budget request without waiting for direction from them (since there was still question as to whether Constellation would be cancelled). Now that Congress has spoken with the authorization act and they want to see it implemented, they would probably not be motivated to initiate any further action of that sort.

Obviously, of course, the "cleanest" thing to have happen is for the prior language to be either repealed or made no longer applicable to alternative heavy lift or crew vehicle development activities, as would have been done in both the House-passed CR and the proposed Omnibus substitute. That was why it was a strong focus of the Commerce Committee hearing. But NASA now understands the authority granted in the authorization act (now law) to modify existing contracts, where possible, to redirect performance on the newly reconfigured work requirements for Orion and elements of the SLS/HLLV development. That is what can enable relevant ongoing work to continue and minimize disruptions and schedule delays, which was the purpose of that grant of authority.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2010 07:41 am by 51D Mascot »
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #408 on: 12/18/2010 02:26 pm »
"the law is what everybody agrees it is."

With the important, always active proviso that, some "somebodies" are more equal than other "somebodies".  Sometimes this is fair and appropriate.  Sometimes it is not.

As an aside, what is the current status of the results of that "termination clause" brouhaha that erupted this last summer?

Quote
There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences ...

Hey.  Your sentences are great.  The length does require a careful read.  I'm gonna paraphrase this one, because I wasn't quite clear on my understanding:

Quote
The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.

The appropriators, who are also the law's authors, placed legislative restrictions on NASA forbidding terminating certain aspects of the Constellation program.  Even at that time, there was a large outcry from many of the stakeholders, which include taxpayers as well, that the Constellation program was fatally flawed and should be terminated.  Therefore, there was not really any surprise in the idea of termination.  Even so, within NASA, the already extant termination clauses were read again with greater attention.  It was found, it seems to me, that some types of termination actions were within the law already, and these were enacted, causing a number of layoffs along the way.

In a way, these "overt actions" may be what the more savvy appropriators intended all along.  In the CR and Omnibus, the restrictions are more forcibly and directly worded.  (I haven't read them personally, and am trusting in 51D's summarization.)  Rather than create a huge list of the specific restrictions, it seems more that they're going to allow NASA management to continue this process as they see fit.

Is that an accurate paraphrase?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #409 on: 12/18/2010 04:22 pm »
"the law is what everybody agrees it is."

With the important, always active proviso that, some "somebodies" are more equal than other "somebodies".  Sometimes this is fair and appropriate.  Sometimes it is not.

As an aside, what is the current status of the results of that "termination clause" brouhaha that erupted this last summer?

Quote
There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences ...

Hey.  Your sentences are great.  The length does require a careful read.  I'm gonna paraphrase this one, because I wasn't quite clear on my understanding:

Quote
The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.

The appropriators, who are also the law's authors, placed legislative restrictions on NASA forbidding terminating certain aspects of the Constellation program.  Even at that time, there was a large outcry from many of the stakeholders, which include taxpayers as well, that the Constellation program was fatally flawed and should be terminated.  Therefore, there was not really any surprise in the idea of termination.  Even so, within NASA, the already extant termination clauses were read again with greater attention.  It was found, it seems to me, that some types of termination actions were within the law already, and these were enacted, causing a number of layoffs along the way.

In a way, these "overt actions" may be what the more savvy appropriators intended all along.  In the CR and Omnibus, the restrictions are more forcibly and directly worded.  (I haven't read them personally, and am trusting in 51D's summarization.)  Rather than create a huge list of the specific restrictions, it seems more that they're going to allow NASA management to continue this process as they see fit.

Is that an accurate paraphrase?

Actually, not quite. You've taken it in a few different directions than I was directly addressing, and characterized the background on the termination issue slightly differently than I would, but I'll clarify what I mean by that when I have some more time to lay it out. In the middle of something right now but will get back to this later. Sorry ;-)
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #410 on: 12/18/2010 09:14 pm »
http://spacenews.com/policy/101217-house-readies-short-cr.html

Quote
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives was expected to take action on a short-term spending measure to continue funding the federal government at 2010 levels through Dec. 21, giving the U.S. Senate time to complete work on a longer-term spending package for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Dec. 17.
FWIW, the CR was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate last night.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #411 on: 12/20/2010 12:42 pm »

Offline ras391

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #412 on: 12/20/2010 12:58 pm »
From reading The Hill, it sounds like the show is not over yet. There is still time to get a NASA appropriations provision in the Senate CR. I suggest we all contact our Senators, NOW.

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #413 on: 12/20/2010 05:23 pm »
Hope they can get something spelled out.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #414 on: 12/20/2010 05:46 pm »
Thinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.
« Last Edit: 12/20/2010 05:50 pm by marsavian »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #415 on: 12/20/2010 05:56 pm »
Thinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.

It's unlikely. They are more likely to replace the entire bill from the House through an amendment.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #416 on: 12/20/2010 06:01 pm »
Thinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.

It's unlikely. They are more likely to replace the entire bill from the House through an amendment.
Yes, and the full-year CR bill passed by the House was an amendment to a Senate amendment to HR 3082.

The proposed CR was offered in a series of amendments by Senator Reid to the first CR (PL 111-242); the text is available in the Congressional Record and can be found on Thomas's FY11 appropriations page:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html

(The bulk of the proposed CR is in SA 4885.)
« Last Edit: 12/20/2010 06:08 pm by psloss »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #417 on: 12/20/2010 06:38 pm »
Thinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.

It's unlikely. They are more likely to replace the entire bill from the House through an amendment.
Yes, and the full-year CR bill passed by the House was an amendment to a Senate amendment to HR 3082.

The proposed CR was offered in a series of amendments by Senator Reid to the first CR (PL 111-242); the text is available in the Congressional Record and can be found on Thomas's FY11 appropriations page:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html

(The bulk of the proposed CR is in SA 4885.)


Nothing about NASA in this (proposed) modified CR (i.e. SA 4885).

As Philip said, the amendments that are being made are amendments to the currently enacted continuing resolution (which also doesn't specifically address NASA funding) which can be found here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3081enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3081enr.pdf

P.S. The statement by Chairman Inouye explaining the reasons for the withdrawal of the Senate Omnibus Appropriation bill last week is worth reading as it sort of describes how difficult and partisan the process will continue to be next year. It is obviously very much one sided but you can figure out that there is another half to this story:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=2d895947-938c-489c-9e27-a9fce660cd37
« Last Edit: 12/21/2010 04:52 pm by yg1968 »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #418 on: 12/21/2010 02:52 pm »
Actually, not quite.[/quote]

Let me try again:

Quote from: 51D
The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.

The appropriators placed legislative restrictions on NASA forbidding certain aspects of the Constellation program. 

(The appropriators are also the lawmakers, but some of the people involved are in the creation of legislation and some of them are involved in the determination of appropriation.)

At that time, it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight. 

(Also at that time, there was a context of uncertainty, based on the hasty, secretive rollout of FY2011 combined with the projected forecast of continued delays and cost overruns for Constellation.  In addition, the language of the then proposed legislation was clear in some areas but not in others.  NASA mamagement, at least the best I can tell, conducted a review of certain Constellation contracts and then took certain actions.  One of the results of these actions seems to have been regarding the termination clauses.  Of the results of the actions, it seems that more uncertainty was generated.  The appropriators reacted to this additional uncertainty.)

After PL 111-267 was passed and signed, the appropriators then took overt actions, witnessed by the language of their appropriation bill, to support the new direction outlined in the new law.

(It seems to me that the "overt actions" included the throw weight specification and the direction of the evolutionary path.  Nevertheless, this does not explain the increase in the size of the initial rocket from the amount specified in the new law.  Not only that, there is still a fair amount of uncertainty in the new law, especially regarding the sorts of missions that Congress would be likely to fund, using the new launch vehicle.  So it's not at all clear what these "overt actions" would be.)

(Now the part where I remain confused:  The original restrictions were to restrict NASA from terminating Constellation because the termination clause brouhaha seemed to be an indirect, but apparently legal, way to terminate key portions of Constellation.  "To set aside" those restrictions would then seem to include the meaning that Constellation could be terminated by NASA management within the existing contractural framework.)

So I don't get:

Quote
(including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.

Whenever you get a chance to elaborate, I and probably we, would appreciate it very much.

From Inouye's statement:

Quote
The continuing resolution by design mandates that programs are to be held at the amounts provided last year regardless of merit or need.

God grant me the senility I need to accept the fact that we have the government that we have, regardless of merit or need.  Because I'm not serene about it at all.

Quote
My colleagues should be advised that since 2006, the Congress has reduced spending on earmarks by nearly 75%.

That is certainly not the general perception.  One obvious question is, how many earmarks, rather than being tacked on to the end of the legislation, are now hidden in the body of the legislation itself?  But I digress.

Quote
Mr. President, this election was about gridlock and partisan gamesmanship.  And what we saw in the past 24 hours was more of the same.  Endless delaying tactics followed by decision making by partisan point scoring rather than what is good for our nation.

Did the senility prayer work?  Not yet, that I can tell. 

Quote
The Omnibus bill included $142 million in vital program increases for the Indian Health Service ... and thereby provide more and better medical care for Native Americans and Alaska Natives.  A CR brings this progress to a halt.

And we are still screwing the Indian tribes.  America.  Early 21st century.  Our government does this for merit?  Or neeed?  I'm confused.

Quote
Mr. President, I wish there were a better way, but the decisions by our colleagues on the other side who helped craft this bill have left us with no choice.

Just to repeat myself:  I'm no Democrat.  Not a Republican either.  I'm an American.  And I'm thoroughly incorrected off at our government.  But I digress.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #419 on: 12/21/2010 07:47 pm »
The next continuing resolution (clean-ish) passed the Senate a little while ago:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00289

The House has received the formal message of that and is likely to vote on the bill as-is.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1