Author Topic: Extra NASA funds: An initial step towards gap reduction options/extension  (Read 19374 times)

Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • KSC
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 2
I'm more than happy to say I appear to have been wrong about the change of government being a diaster for the space program. Encouraged is a word used often on this thread, and I agree with its use.
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Offline Tergenev

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I would just like to point out that although, yes, Jeff Bingham knows his stuff and seems to be an advocate for NASA . . . the Republican members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation are:

- Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
- Olympia Snowe (ME)
- John Ensign (NV)
-Jim DeMint (SC)
-John Thune (SD)
-Roger Wicker (MS)
-Johnny Isakson (GA)
-David Vitter (LA)
-Sam Brownback (KS)
-Mel Martinez (FL)
-Mike Johanns (NE)

And with the exception of Olympia Snowe, they all voted AGAINST this bill. And because Senator Snowe voted for it, the conservative wing of the Republican party is now targeting her for a primary challenge from the right. This was all done with some completely disingenuous arguing on their side that we are 'robbing from our children' because of our 'profligate spending'. Strange how they never seems to worry about ridiculous spending when it came to funding the rebuilding of Iraq.

Even though $2B in additional spending on NASA would have been a tremendous job generator, it was not even considered because anything that even hinted at being 'pork' had to be stripped out because the Republicans would vote against it. Guess what, they did anyway.

I'd love to see the Democrats put forward another jobs bill that adds even more to the NASA budget, but given the lesson the conservatives in the Senate taught them over this stimulus package, and given the timidity of their leadership, I can't see them even wanting to HINT at such spending. Which is a pity.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183

And with the exception of Olympia Snowe, they all voted AGAINST this bill.

Yeah, but _not_ because of NASA, specifically, but because of wider political issues beyond the scope of this thread and forum.

Simon ;)

Offline Tergenev

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Offline Chris Bergin

Why 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.

Just a quick note of appreciation for the kind words! Means a lot.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
True, they were politically motivated 'No' votes. But is a vote against for political reasons really going to be forgiven so easily?

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.

Quote
Sorry, not trying to start a flame war. I'm glad NASA got the extra $1B, however it happened.

Answer this question honestly:

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?
JRF

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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?

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

Offline Justin Space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • England
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 293
Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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?

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

But is it any of our business on the money other than for NASA? I'm English and it's not my tax money. You're a German and it's not your tax money?

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
My nationality has nothing to do with how valid or unvalid, biased or unbiased, coherent or not statements of other people are.

Analyst

Offline Chris Bergin

Let's get this back on track with comments relating to the content of the article guys. Thanks.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2460
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 278
Have we heard any comments from NASA leadership on how helpful this all is? Chris Scolese seems a bit mute.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
« Last Edit: 02/14/2009 05:12 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Note that the $400 million for exploration needs to be used by 2010.

Most of that will be put into unmanned exploration then.  Not that such a thing would be bad, of course.
"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 Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Note that the $400 million for exploration needs to be used by 2010.

Most of that will be put into unmanned exploration then.

Highly unlikely. Constellation got shorted a few hundred million in FY2009 when Congress' failure to pass a NASA appropriations bill led to NASA being funded under a CR at the previous fiscal year's level. Constellation responded with a hiring freeze.

Most of the money will most likely be used to allow Constellation to lift the hiring freeze and try to recover ground on their 2009 objectives.
JRF

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 75


Note that the $400 million for exploration needs to be used by 2010.

We knew that, those of us who read the article on the front of this site anyway.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Note that the $400 million for exploration needs to be used by 2010.

Most of that will be put into unmanned exploration then.


Non sequitur (wrong inference, IOW).

Dr.Griffin:

"CDR for Orion is toward the end of 2010 and for Ares 1 in early 2011. We cannot go faster, not because of technical troubles or weight issues, but because we simply do not have the money to do so until after the Shuttle retires. In fact, as things stand today, the critical path on Orion includes the purchase of certain long-lead parts which are needed irrespective of design details. We just don't have the money."

« Last Edit: 02/14/2009 06:31 pm by renclod »

Offline Stowbridge

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Have we heard any comments from NASA leadership on how helpful this all is? Chris Scolese seems a bit mute.

He's not really in a position to comment, as his role is a temp. However, the silence from NASA has been deafening. Maybe they are too busy putting out "we're good at Twittering and Myspaceing to 13 year olds who aren't even interested" media releases.
Veteran space reporter.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
I agree stowbridge, the silence is deafening. But I would hope it means examining options.

I certainly hope the extra funds are put to good use, that's all I'll say.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15287
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
I agree stowbridge, the silence is deafening. But I would hope it means examining options.

Can you provide a list of quotes from the acting heads of other government agencies on how they will be using their stimulus money?

Maybe they're silent too and you have not really noticed?

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
I would be interested, Blackstar, to read your own 'take' on what this silence means. 

Bureaucratic paralysis? Lack of ideas? Some kind of desire to keep things confidential until they actually issue spending proposals?

You seem to be 'plugged in' to the political pulse, so your input would be interesting to say the least.
"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!!!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0