For those who do not follow Congressional legislation closely, one important metric for this proposed bill will be the number of co-sponsors who add their name to the bill.
Something will have to give - But that is how politics and negotiations work.
Absolutely right, but the point here is timing. At this stage you have "camps" at the extreme edges of "PoR" or bust and "Bold New Idea" with many of the influential folks and key players taking those positions--now. But when it becomes clear, as I believe it will, that neither of those are going to be sustainable, then a mddle ground will be sought. But it has to be articulated as an option, and THAT is the true purpose of this bill.
What's being cut to pay for all this stuff?
I don't get it. What is lost in this bill?
PS: It's weird to read Republican Senators insisting on a government-developed solution awaiting evidence that the private sector can do the job...
Looking at the end of the preliminary bill, what I really want to know is how they want to fit ISS operations, Shuttle operations AND SFS into 4.29bn (Space Operations) by FY2012 from 6.18bn in FY2010 and 4.89bn in FY2011. Well, maybe they are "utilising" the ISS fully by de-orbiting it... there is no other way to squeeze a 2bn STS program and 1bn SFS as well as a 3bn+ ISS program into 4.29bn...
There does not appear to be any authorisation of rules covering the man rating of non-NASA spacestations, orbital transfer vehicles, planetary landers, rovers, spacesuits and planetary bases/villages.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/04/2010 08:27 amThere does not appear to be any authorisation of rules covering the man rating of non-NASA spacestations, orbital transfer vehicles, planetary landers, rovers, spacesuits and planetary bases/villages.Why should there be?Because again, this is the real world and not Swallow's fantasy world. A. most of those items are not within the visible horizon. B. Also why do they need regulation?C. If they do need regulation, not enough is known to develop the rules.