Author Topic: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012  (Read 107582 times)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #100 on: 03/25/2012 09:24 pm »
1. I wasn't being dismissive, I was trying to find out what you had in mind when you indicated that we should commercialize the ISS. I consider efforts to commercialize ISS as very positive.

2. I meant that if you have more than one provider, you have the building blocks for a market. It is possible for a market to have only one customer. ULA's fixed costs get paid by the DOD ($1.3B per year apparently) not by NASA. But I agree that ideally ULA shouldn't receive any subsidies. I imagine that this was done in order for ULA and its shareholders to be able to recuperate some of their large original investments. The COTS/CCDev model is better in that sense since it is not a permanent subsidy.

3. Gerst said that they intend to spend on commercial crew operations, essentially the same amount that they pay the Russians ($450 million per year).

4. I agree that the requirements should be kept to a minimum. But I think that the commercial crew office has already made some efforts to do just that. The requirements could have been a lot worse. I hope NASA opts for the optional milestones and the lite certification phases as this should also reduce costs. The decision to stick to SAAs was a good one.

5. NASA picks a few winners but there will still be competition for the non-NASA market among the winning providers. This is similar to the sub-orbital market, you need more than one company competing in my opinion.

6. As I said in the point number 1, I wasn't being cynical, I was simply trying to understand what you meant by efforts to commercialize ISS. I like the idea in principle. I just wanted you to expand on it.   

1.  It very much came of that way.  What I have in mind for a "market" means no more than whatever you may have in mind.  What is imperative is establishing the means to have a true market established and then truly letting whatever that market becomes dictate what needs to be launched, serviced and returned. 

At this point there are no real truly aggressive effort on NASA's part to commercialize anything.  CASIS is a disaster.  Requirements and regulations required to fly something onboard ISS stifle the very "market" you suggest is there now. 

Again, NASA by itself is not a true market.  NASA will pay to have its services met, and its requirements.  This is no different than it has ever been.

Want something different?  Unleash the potential of ISS.  Make it easier and more user-friendly to do something on ISS.  If that happens then one has a much greater potential to see utilization and true use of ISS, beyond government, that then allows a better and true value proposition for commercial activity.  This then translates to a need to get to/from ISS, closed the business case for potential providers and stimulates not only the mother corporations to invest capital funds but potentially other private investment as well.

This does mutliple things.  This frees "commercial" from the pitfallls of government funding and, perhaps more importantly, minimizes the "stick" in which government has over commercial in the form of requirements, etc.  With this at a minimum, and government just "another customer", then one will see true innovation and competition unleashed. 

2.  The reason government pays ULA the subsidy is to keep them online for national security reasons.  The launch vehicle market in its own right is not sufficient to absolutely assure they will be around for the needs of the government. 

I find it strange you don't think ULA should get subsidies when that was what you advocated above and in fact is exactly what you prescribe with everyone else when you say "government should pay whatever it takes", or something like that, for "ideally more than two providers"

3.  That's always the intent.  The problem is nobody knows what this is really going to cost.  If NASA is the only customer, which very well may be the case at this point, use this formula to derive the cost.

Commerical Crew Price = (Corporate Operations Cost + fee and/or profit) x number of providers

4.  The requirements could have been a lot simpler too.  Reference the OSP Level 1 requirements.  You can't really reduce costs as far as certification goes, you can just kick the can down the road and, perhaps, reduce some of the paperwork that the government would want to see.  Certification and qualification of the hardware, saying it can do the requirements defined for it, and proving that is where what this is all about in a lot of aspects, certainly it is the very culmination of the DDT&E phase. 

5.  Again, what "non-NASA" market.  You and others like you have said a lot about that.  CSF, TPiS, etc spun the hell out of that.  Can you tell me one other non-NASA customer at this point, now a few years on?  Have we seen any "buys" of these spacecraft and/or services that actually helps these vehicles bottom-lines and bring them to operational status?  If so, why does the operational dates for these vehicles seem to mirror government funding so well?

6.  You like the idea "in principle".  You go on and on about "commercial" but seemingly time and time again just believe the idea to creating a "market" and "commercial" space is the government willing it into being by paying whatever it takes.  You will be disappointed. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #101 on: 03/25/2012 10:18 pm »
2. My point was that NASA shouldn't need to subsidize the commercial crew companies past the developmental phase. Commercial companies say that commercial crew transportation would eventually happen even if it wasn't subsidized through CCDev, etc. That is probably true but even if that was the case, they would still need the government as an anchor tenant in order for them to close their business case.  In any event, transportation to the ISS is needed now which explains the need to fund it now and hurry it along.

4. There is also talk of having a more detailed certification phase which would include funding test flights. I would prefer a liter certification phase that does not include such test flights. I think that funding for test flights should be funded through SAAs. One advantage of the liter certification approach is that anybody could ask for certification even if they are not chosen by NASA for commercial crew services (e.g. Stratolaunch).

5. As Boeing has mentioned before, the non-NASA market is considered a bonus at this point. But obviously the space tourism market would be an example of such a market. I seriously doubt that this will ever be allowed by NASA but one idea might be to attach a Bigelow module to the ISS for space tourists to stay in. Another idea is to rent the ISS to space tourists for a fee as the Russians are doing.
« Last Edit: 03/25/2012 10:24 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #102 on: 03/25/2012 10:41 pm »
2.  That is a very bad point.  Of course NASA will "subsidize" it.  If there are no other other customers, NASA pays for it all, which is a subsidiztion because the government is paying all costs to maintain a capability, or two, or however many. 

4.  I guess you do not know what "certification" really means, in this context.  While NASA or the FAA may endorse the certification, it is the provider that must prove that the vehicle meets requirements/intent and can show that rationale. 

5.  Sure, because NASA will pay for all of it otherwise.  Not Boeing.  Personally, I'm tired of hearing people talk about the "potential" of the non-NASA market, how it is there or will be there if NASA just fund "whatever it takes" to create it (and that somehow two or so directly government funded vehicles with no nother purpose outside of NASA is the result we want) and then see really weak rationale like you just presented to justify your argument. 

Again, create the value proposition and the need to go to space.  Watch the market grow from that instead of working in reverse.   
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #103 on: 03/25/2012 11:44 pm »

What do you have in mind? Using ISS to develop vaccines, etc? That's already being done (although maybe not to the extent that it should). I hope that NASA will allow space tourists to the ISS for a fee. But it's not clear if NASA intends to that.


I'm sorry, but this just stood out at me and I had to react.

1. This is a RESEARCH FACILITY. (and observing NASA's position on the matter should make that clear, despite the actions of the Russians).

2. To say that reasearch on vaccines 'has been done' is to say the same for here on Earth. It never stops, because viruses are living organisms and constantly change, as does our technology in understanding and fighting them.

Despite the fact that congress (and NASA, along with partner nations) has dropped the ball on full planning and utilization of this station should not be a way to discredit it's role and function.

They are working on the problems at hand, and 'hopefully' they can move forward and make the best of it now. Extension to at least 2020 was step #2 (finishing it was step #1).

(sorry again for stepping in)

Yeah, I agree we should definitely have full utilization of this national resource. When it comes down to it, that's what fully funding commercial crew is for. All the talk about secondary markets is great and all but it is NOT the primary reason for it. I don't understand why some people (ala Congress) have a vendetta against commercial crew and attack it as if it's some sort of communist plot. There is no other way to get redundant domestic access for the same price and the same schedule. All the vitriol directed against it is utterly ridiculous and totally damaging and counter-productive to full utilization of ISS.
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 kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #104 on: 03/26/2012 07:08 am »
Over the last 3 decades, the companies with the ability to develop new crew launch service have failed to do so. Presumably because they didn't see a sufficient return on investment. Even when Bigelow offered a $50m bonus, no-one was seriously interested.

Now the USG is part subsidizing that investment, and we've seen that roughly $100m per year per company is enough in the early development phase (using SAAs). Moving into the later development/test phases, it looks like around $250m per company per year is needed to keep them interested and viable, (using FAR).

NASA want to keep the 3 main providers in the program to increase the chance one will be ready around 2016/17.

Some in Congress would rather down select to 1 or 2 now, reducing the immediate cost but increasing the risk and quite possibly the long term cost due to schedule overrun and less competition & flexibility.

Hard to say who's right. On the one hand, emotionally, I want to see all three fly, and the chances at least one will succeed are improved by funding at a higher level. I also like the different capabilities offered by a spaceplane vs a capsule.

On the other hand, the business case for each takes a big hit if one or both of the others succeed too.  This could lead to NASA having to subsidize two operationally to ensure redundant access, potential lawsuits from the third, and a big mess.

On the gripping hand, SpaceX (and maybe Boeing) are probably far enough down the track they'd continue without NASA, albeit at a slower pace. So the business case argument may be moot. 


I think FAR vs SAA is a side issue. Many bureaucrats on both side seem to think you can never have enough oversight, missing the whole point of the cheaper SAAs. Absent their requested funding, last year NASA chose to stay with SAA and take less of a schedule hit rather than downsize to 2 or slow to a crawl with 3 under FAR. Somehow I don't think they'll have that option this year.

I wish they'd compromise, say $650m by SAA?
« Last Edit: 03/26/2012 07:12 am by kkattula »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #105 on: 03/26/2012 11:26 am »
Over the last 3 decades, the companies with the ability to develop new crew launch service have failed to do so. Presumably because they didn't see a sufficient return on investment. Even when Bigelow offered a $50m bonus, no-one was seriously interested.


Well, give credit to those companies for being smart. Just look at how much money is involved with this development effort (you could use COTS as an active example if you wish). $50M? Peanuts. Why go it alone when you have 'paying' customers with the 'need' (NASA) to pay for that development.

The companies that saw an immediate ROI put some skin in the (space) game. Now they are better positioned (I was going to say well positioned, but that could be misconstrued). The ones that haven't will likely struggle.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #106 on: 03/26/2012 02:39 pm »
4.  I guess you do not know what "certification" really means, in this context.  While NASA or the FAA may endorse the certification, it is the provider that must prove that the vehicle meets requirements/intent and can show that rationale.   

I know what certification phase means. Brent Jett and Ed Mango explained at the CCiCap meeting that they were hesitating between 2 options in 2014: one is to go with the optional SAA milestones and a lite certification phase (which would overlap each other); the other option is to have a FAR DTEC certification phase with test flights. I prefer the first option as it would continue SAAs as long as possible.

See slide 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27540.msg859264#msg859264
« Last Edit: 03/26/2012 02:49 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #107 on: 03/26/2012 07:44 pm »
4.  I guess you do not know what "certification" really means, in this context.  While NASA or the FAA may endorse the certification, it is the provider that must prove that the vehicle meets requirements/intent and can show that rationale.   

I know what certification phase means. Brent Jett and Ed Mango explained at the CCiCap meeting that they were hesitating between 2 options in 2014: one is to go with the optional SAA milestones and a lite certification phase (which would overlap each other); the other option is to have a FAR DTEC certification phase with test flights. I prefer the first option as it would continue SAAs as long as possible.

See slide 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27540.msg859264#msg859264

In vehicle system engineering, certification of the vehicle and it systems is the end result of DDT&E prior to beginning any operations

Certification is the formal process of taking the vehicle and system qualification tests and/or analysis and verifying that the system/vehicle performs as expected and meets requirements.  In this reports are generated based on data gathered, etc and when approved by the necessary parties, it is said to be "certified".

This is a rather short explanation for a rather long, difficult and very important process.  You cannot cut that corner and what they are talking about is phasing it, not doing some "lite" version and calling it good. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

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: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #108 on: 03/26/2012 08:21 pm »
OV:  Can you provide some link to a discussion or an explanation about the certification process?  My knowledge here is basically that the process exists, but not really anything more than that.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #109 on: 03/29/2012 10:27 am »
A frustrating reality is apparent... Congress, specifically the house of Representatives (or more specifically, Rep. Wolf), seem to have that "itch" and desire to have the NASA CCDev budget request cut in order to fund planetary science above the requested amount.

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/120322-wolf-eyes-commercial-budget.html

This is just the latest in a series of vocalizations by Congressional members of a desire to reprogram funds requested for CCDev to other areas within NASA. Let's not forget that last year, Congress did succeed in cutting CCDev almost by half the requested amount!

This battle seems to be fueled by a misconception that the commercial efforts are redundant to and divert funds from NASA's Orion and SLS program developments. Unfortunately, there is no way around the illogic of these lawmaker's thought process's. If the CCDev budget is halved again this year, the CCDev program will be as good as cancelled.

What is needed is a back-up plan just in case this the above described scenario does happen. Could NASA use a severely cut CCDev budget to fund human-rating the Delta IV Heavy to guarantee Orion a reasonable liift to the ISS and fulfill its required backup role as ISS crew taxi? Would there be enough funds left after that to continue development for just a single commercial provider like SpaceX?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #110 on: 03/29/2012 11:48 am »
Could NASA use a severely cut CCDev budget to fund human-rating the Delta IV Heavy to guarantee Orion a reasonable liift to the ISS and fulfill its required backup role as ISS crew taxi?

No, that is a different budget item.  Orion budget can be used for that

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #111 on: 03/29/2012 11:53 am »
The Senate is doing the same, nice summary: http://newstrendnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/back-to-drawing-board-for-nasa.html

Seems like the Back To SAAs strategy has failed.. that's what happens when you ignore the demands of Congress.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #112 on: 03/29/2012 12:40 pm »
Kay Bailey Hutchison accused General Bolden of “stealing” money from SLS/Orion to fund Commercial. Pretty strong words... If you listen to her and Shelby they would gladly shut down all funding to Commercial period. What are the chances of that happening if NASA keeps pi$$ing them off?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #113 on: 03/29/2012 12:47 pm »
The Senate is doing the same, nice summary: http://newstrendnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/back-to-drawing-board-for-nasa.html

Seems like the Back To SAAs strategy has failed.. that's what happens when you ignore the demands of Congress.

They continue to be awful at their job?
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline briguy700

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #114 on: 03/29/2012 01:01 pm »
Let me preface this by saying I am NOT well versed in the reasoning behind the question I am asking, so please go easy on me.

If Commercial Spaceflight (which I am all for !!) is truly commercial, then shouldn't they be footing their own bill as opposed to getting funds from the government ?? Are we actually providing funds to them to help produce their product and then when it is functional and ready we are going to PAY them to loft astronauts and payloads ?? So we are helping pay to create their product and then we still have to pay to use it ??

This may all make perfect sense to some of you and I am VERY open to being educated as to it's merit. I just simply don't see why, at this point, we can call it commercial if it's being government funded anyway.
"The greatest failure is in not even trying."

Offline OpsAnalyst

Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #115 on: 03/29/2012 01:07 pm »
A frustrating reality is apparent... Congress, specifically the house of Representatives (or more specifically, Rep. Wolf), seem to have that "itch" and desire to have the NASA CCDev budget request cut in order to fund planetary science above the requested amount.

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/120322-wolf-eyes-commercial-budget.html

This is just the latest in a series of vocalizations by Congressional members of a desire to reprogram funds requested for CCDev to other areas within NASA. Let's not forget that last year, Congress did succeed in cutting CCDev almost by half the requested amount!

All due respect, there are a few things that need to be addressed:

1) Just as a reminder to anyone else reading this, as you reference above, the President requests budget.  The Constitution delegates management of the purse of the United States to Congress. "The President proposes, the Congress disposes" is the old mnemonic from civics class (back when they still taught civics classes). 

2) Your statement that Congress "succeeded in cutting CCDEV by almost half the requested amount" last year, while true, is a bit slanted.  The President via his signature on the NASA 2010 Authorization Act agreed to funding CCDEV to $500M in 2012  Then he requested $850.  Reflecting reductions in the overall budget and shifting some funding to JWST across the board, the final tally for CC was $406M.  This was $94M below what Congress had previously authorized _and the President had agreed to_.

3) There are unallocated funds from 2012.  When you add those to the Congressional authorization for CCDEV you get around $900M available funding.  NASA says it absolutely positively must have $850M in 2013.  Well, what does it mean by that?  That it wants to recover the losses from last year?  That it's really shooting for an available budget over over $1.1B?

Quote
This battle seems to be fueled by a misconception that the commercial efforts are redundant to and divert funds from NASA's Orion and SLS program developments. Unfortunately, there is no way around the illogic of these lawmaker's thought process's. If the CCDev budget is halved again this year, the CCDev program will be as good as cancelled.

To parse this a bit - you're absolutely right, there is apparently confusion among some members in the House (at least on the basis of public statements in the hearing, but I'm not sure what that really means) that some aspects of commercial are redundant to Orion/SLS.  But other members completely grasp the situation - the ranking member, Rep. Bernice Johnson, for example, who is sharp as a whip and fully appreciates all the implications.  She has great questions about the go-forward plan, very much on target.

With regard to your statement about diverting funds from SLS/Orion - well, that's one of the questions, isn't it?  Point of fact is that, like the deviation from agreement that marked the upper in the President's request for CC in 2012, there is similarly a deviation from agreed-upon levels for the SLS/Orion.  Now, you can say that the money hasn't been diverted, but when Commercial goes up by about the same amount that SLS/Orion goes down....NASA budget, like every other, is a zero-sum game.  It certainly begs that question.

With regard to your statement about "dead" -  Why do you say this?  On what basis?  There are options remaining, including an early downselect.  I'm not advocating that one way or another, I'm just pointing out that there is a great deal of gamesmanship going on.

The Senate is doing the same, nice summary: http://newstrendnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/back-to-drawing-board-for-nasa.html

Seems like the Back To SAAs strategy has failed.. that's what happens when you ignore the demands of Congress.


The last half of your statement is dead on.  Not certain that the Back to SAAs strategy is the sole driver - but as much as the questions about the SAA strategy, the spread of CC budget amongst 4 players, and the reductions in SLS/Orion budget requests are all adding up in some members' minds to an intentional decision on the part of the Executive Branch (per NASA) to subvert the will of Congress as expressed in the 2010 Authorization Act - first evident in the 2012 request and now in this one - well, as you point out that kind of thing is not looked upon kindly.

I was struck by Senator Hutchinson's discussion with the Administrator - she chose her words carefully but seemed to imply she does not trust him or the Administration.  The Administrator stated that the reduction in funds for Orion (in particular) but also SLS was based on "progress" and "technology gains" that were not anticipated when Congress and NASA came to an agreement about funding levels.  She told him that, OK, he says this this year, but if Congress goes along he'll come back next year and say well, we didn't make the progress we thought we would and with the cuts from last year, now we can't do SLS and Orion - because that's how you've (aka the Administration) has been playing this game (my paraphrase).

Listen to the webcast carefully. The battle lines are shaping up all over again and what is saddest about this is that EVERYBODY loses.  We have got to find a way to go forward together and this certainly isn't it.

http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=3750aefe-a8c6-4bd5-a520-bef0671db1df

« Last Edit: 03/29/2012 01:19 pm by OpsAnalyst »

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #116 on: 03/29/2012 01:34 pm »
Listen to the webcast carefully. The battle lines are shaping up all over again and what is saddest about this is that EVERYBODY loses.
On the contrary, I imagine China and Russia will be quite pleased.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #117 on: 03/29/2012 02:16 pm »

I was struck by Senator Hutchinson's discussion with the Administrator - she chose her words carefully but seemed to imply she does not trust him or the Administration.  The Administrator stated that the reduction in funds for Orion (in particular) but also SLS was based on "progress" and "technology gains" that were not anticipated when Congress and NASA came to an agreement about funding levels.  She told him that, OK, he says this this year, but if Congress goes along he'll come back next year and say well, we didn't make the progress we thought we would and with the cuts from last year, now we can't do SLS and Orion - because that's how you've (aka the Administration) has been playing this game (my paraphrase).


That was (partially) my perception as well. What I see is the disconnect between the vehicle and the (still being developed) 'plan' of destinations - that's when we'll really see a funding shortfall. There were words to that effect from the webcast, in referencing the Augustine Commission's requested funding levels. It was touched on, but don't think many see the upcoming situation (yet). Maybe it was just the preamble.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #118 on: 03/29/2012 02:25 pm »
OV:  Can you provide some link to a discussion or an explanation about the certification process?  My knowledge here is basically that the process exists, but not really anything more than that.

John,

I'm not going to post internal documentation as you I'm sure you can appreciate.  However, there may be some things in here regarding cert process, it has been a bit since I've thumbed through it though honestly.

http://education.ksc.nasa.gov/esmdspacegrant/Documents/NASA%20SP-2007-6105%20Rev%201%20Final%2031Dec2007.pdf
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: House committee on appropriations - March 21, 2012
« Reply #119 on: 03/29/2012 02:33 pm »
Listen to the webcast carefully. The battle lines are shaping up all over again and what is saddest about this is that EVERYBODY loses.  We have got to find a way to go forward together and this certainly isn't it.


Indeed.  I firmly believe this Administration has nearly destroyed everything (and while they may not get 100% of the blame, I personally believe they deserve the lions share) and, for those remaining in what is left of the industry, I believe the next 10 years of those careers will be spent getting back to where we were 8 months ago. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

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