Author Topic: New senate bill could shut down rovers, is the senate stupid?  (Read 8315 times)

Offline cpcjr

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
michelle21 - 4/7/2007  10:00 AM

What kind of idiots are we putting in the senate???

The finest that money can buy.  :)

Offline michelle21

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Ducati94 - 5/7/2007  9:03 AM

NASA will not build the same rovers with the same instruments or the same capabilities. The next rover will have advanced instrumentation that built off the old rovers data. Besides we just don’t fly to Mars anytime we want the orbital aliment (approximately 2.5 years?) that allows for the shortest flight time is the driver for when missions are launched. The typical pattern for NASA as of resent years is to use the assets in ever riskier task (as in going into a crater) after the primary mission is complete. It is hard to abandon functioning hardware but at some point the rate of new information falls below the investment cost of the new hardware and the data returned from it. I don’t know that the rovers have passed that point because I have not done that study but as some time they will have and it will impact the next Mars mission.

What makes you think there will be an msl if this appropriation passes this way.
An Engineer with an active imagination

Offline Ducati94

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It’s already in the works. One year of no appropriation  only slows down the development process it takes several years of no money to kill a program.  But I did not read into this stop no more mars exploration . I'll go back and re-read.

Offline 02hurnella

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 87
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If this is true its only a draft bill. I expect there will be a minor outcry if they have to be turned off. Frankly i doubt they will push this one through. (if its true)

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
I'd sure like to know what language is being talked about here in the Senate Bill. Here are the links to the actual bill language:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1745:

and to the accompanying Senate Report language:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(sr124)

I've made a quick look through both and haven't found anything even remotely resembling language that would cut the rover programs, but I could have missed it, so if anyone has a specific reference to text, I'd love to see it.
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
DID find a line item on page 103 of the report, which shows the Mars Exploration account funded at $596.16 million. The amount requested in the FY 2008 budget submission was $625.7 million, so that would account for the $30m amount being mentioned--below the request. But don't see anything that specifically focuses the cuts on the rovers. In fact, according to informal conversations with the Senate appropriations staff, they only reduced the amount requested for Program Management, which had jumped from $7m in 2007 to $45m in FY 2008, and NASA could not give them a reasonable explanation for what drove that increase. They basically said, "we'll only give you $15m and you can come back and give us a better story as to why you need more." If there truly IS a ripple-impact that would adversely affect the rovers, I get the sense they would address that, and ensure that didn't happen.  The House-included prohibitive language on direct-Mars-related research is not in the Senate bill--and likely, in my opinion, not to survive the Conference between the two bills, assuming they are both adopted by the respective chambers and actually go to conference.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Thanks 51D Mascot, that is what I see in there also, looks like there are specific line items for all the Mars projects that I know of. Looks to me like The Planetary Society went off half-cocked without doing the research you just did.

Any idea who added the prohibitive language in the House bill?

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 5/7/2007  5:05 PM

Thanks 51D Mascot, that is what I see in there also, looks like there are specific line items for all the Mars projects that I know of. Looks to me like The Planetary Society went off half-cocked without doing the research you just did.

Any idea who added the prohibitive language in the House bill?


My understanding is it was added by or at the request of Representative Barney Frank (D-MA).
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
It could also be a clever way of saying "Hey, look over here and pay attention to this!", while knowing it wouldn't survive the conference committee.

Offline Ducati94

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
It's not a death blow as advertised.  I'm with you guys , just some spin.

Offline michelle21

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
51d mascot , Thanks for doing this reseach, As I said I've always liked the planetary society, but they have there own agenda and sometimes they spin the news the way they want it.

However, I still trust them as a source for information related to the planetary program. Maybe there just a bit over zelous.

Barney Frank really has something against the space prrogram, Based on some of his remarks even about non space matters I don't know how he got to were he is in the senate.
An Engineer with an active imagination

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Quote
michelle21 - 6/7/2007  6:46 AM

51d mascot , Thanks for doing this reseach, As I said I've always liked the planetary society, but they have there own agenda and sometimes they spin the news the way they want it.

However, I still trust them as a source for information related to the planetary program. Maybe there just a bit over zelous.

Barney Frank really has something against the space prrogram, Based on some of his remarks even about non space matters I don't know how he got to were he is in the senate.

Mr. Frank has always been very negative about space, and has rarely missed an opportunity to vote against it in the House (he's a Representative, not a Senator). He just has a different set of priorities, and the majority of his constituents in his District apparently agree with him, because they keep returning him to the Congress. They deserve a voice in the discussion, and he gives it to them. The challenge, ultimately, is to work to change THEIR minds, by better informing them about the value--to them--of the space program. Many more Planetary Society members in his congressional district might help, hehe.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Tags:
 

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