And with the exception of Olympia Snowe, they all voted AGAINST this bill.
Quote from: kraisee on 02/13/2009 03:04 amQuote from: Launch Fan on 02/13/2009 02:44 amWhy did the same amount of extra funds for exploration also go to Earth Sciences?? Because there is a very strong push from the Obama Administration to increase the amount of scientific climate monitoring in order to find out, once and for all, just how much affect humans are having on our environment.Ross.The prior administration was hostile to science, environment, international partnerships. This one is struggling to reverse that trend at a time when that isn't easy to do.For a while it will seem that a lot of ox's will be gored - that's because in rewriting the rules, so much will appear to change that it's easy to assume that its an attack. That's the wrong presumption. It's actually an attempt to address a lot of *valid issues* that were *ignored*.Eventually some ox's will be gored - happens all the time when the country changes directions. Don't think that's a bad thing in the mean.What I liked about Chris's article is that it was one of the best, balanced pieces that gives you a genuine read of the situation, rather than the idiotic, hysterical, made up, or simply bad reporting that passes for coverage in the major rags these days.At this point House and Senate aren't the problems for NASA - fear more the industry giants and their paid thugs, as well as general indecision taking away options. At the moment you can actually be heard in promoting new ideas - may not last for long. Everyone's scared enough to listen. The cynics (here and elsewhere) think its time to bully and get an advantage - but they always think that, even when it isn't working.It will take time to find a new administrator, because of the credibility gaps that are present, because too much strong (actually weak) "leadership" fatigued the executive branch. First you must address the imbalances of the past, then you try to create a level playing field, and then you attempt to get people to play by balanced rules, and then you attempt to introduce new leadership that plays by those rules and advocates a reasonable plan to move forward.I can't see manned EELV not being a critical part of this - its how you deal with the obvious shortfall. Another obvious change is keeping Shuttle going while transitioning to new launch vehicles - gone is the presumption that you can remove one counting on the next to slot in immediately after it - because they are too difficult to presume you've hit all the issues in advance, on schedule, and on budget. We've been stung by our hubris.
Quote from: Launch Fan on 02/13/2009 02:44 amWhy did the same amount of extra funds for exploration also go to Earth Sciences?? Because there is a very strong push from the Obama Administration to increase the amount of scientific climate monitoring in order to find out, once and for all, just how much affect humans are having on our environment.Ross.
Why did the same amount of extra funds for exploration also go to Earth Sciences??
True, they were politically motivated 'No' votes. But is a vote against for political reasons really going to be forgiven so easily?
Sorry, not trying to start a flame war. I'm glad NASA got the extra $1B, however it happened.
As a Texas voter, I've forgiven Sen. Hutchison already. It's clear to me that she voted against the bill not because of the $1B for NASA, but the other $788 billion.
If the $1B for NASA had been a standalone bill, not tied to the overall stimulus bill, do you really think the Republicans on the science committee would have voted against it?And just how many Democrats do you think would have voted for it?
QuoteAs a Texas voter, I've forgiven Sen. Hutchison already. It's clear to me that she voted against the bill not because of the $1B for NASA, but the other $788 billion.This is the most unilateral view expressed so far. Everything else ($788 billion) is wrong and only the NASA part is right. Couldn't it be even remotely possible other agancies do something useful with the money allocated to them? It seems no in your biased view: No education, new energies ... lean government straight ahead. Except NASA, of course.QuoteIf the $1B for NASA had been a standalone bill, not tied to the overall stimulus bill, do you really think the Republicans on the science committee would have voted against it?And just how many Democrats do you think would have voted for it? The bias goes on. A standalone bill wouldn't even made it to the floor. Remember the failed "miracles", supported by Democrats too. Please remind me of the NASA funding provided by a Republican controlled Congress until 2006, submitted by a Republican (VSE Moon, Mars and beyond) President until less than a month ago. Where was the successful NASA standalone bill when the "better" party had all the power? Where?Analyst
Note that the $400 million for exploration needs to be used by 2010.
Quote from: Will on 02/14/2009 03:13 pmNote that the $400 million for exploration needs to be used by 2010.Most of that will be put into unmanned exploration then.
Have we heard any comments from NASA leadership on how helpful this all is? Chris Scolese seems a bit mute.
I agree stowbridge, the silence is deafening. But I would hope it means examining options.