Rohrabacher had a good chance to amend that language but did not.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/17/2012 01:24 amA couple of statements by Republican Representative Rohrbacher on the House Language Report on commercial crew:http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Colloquy_-_Rohrabacher-Wolf_re_Commercial_Crew_FINAL.pdfhttp://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=294927QuoteThe report of this bill contains some strong language about NASA’s Commercial Crew program, and I admittedly have some concerns about that language.I believe it makes a flawed comparison between commercial crew program partners and the energy firm Solyndra. In addition, it requires an immediate downselect to a single program partner, which I do not believe is the best path forward.It should be noted that as a member of the majority party, Rohrabacher had a good chance to amend that language but did not.
A couple of statements by Republican Representative Rohrbacher on the House Language Report on commercial crew:http://rohrabacher.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Colloquy_-_Rohrabacher-Wolf_re_Commercial_Crew_FINAL.pdfhttp://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=294927QuoteThe report of this bill contains some strong language about NASA’s Commercial Crew program, and I admittedly have some concerns about that language.I believe it makes a flawed comparison between commercial crew program partners and the energy firm Solyndra. In addition, it requires an immediate downselect to a single program partner, which I do not believe is the best path forward.
The report of this bill contains some strong language about NASA’s Commercial Crew program, and I admittedly have some concerns about that language.I believe it makes a flawed comparison between commercial crew program partners and the energy firm Solyndra. In addition, it requires an immediate downselect to a single program partner, which I do not believe is the best path forward.
Quote from: notsorandom on 06/02/2012 04:03 amAs for the BEO exploration plan being worked on right now. If NASA's incapable of developing and executing a plan. Which is what I understand your and QuantumG's criticism to be. Then it makes not one bit of difference if SLS exists or not. Neither does it matter what rocket, architecture, technology, company, are involved. Because all NASA plans are doomed. I don't think NASA is incapable of making a plan that Congress will approve and fund. I just don't think they have, or will. These plans we see on L2, Congress doesn't see those. One day they will be a total surprise, Charlie Bolden will go to Congress and they'll ask him why NASA is working on plans to utilize a less-than-130-metric-ton-SLS when the law clearly states that SLS must be 130-metric-ton. Charlie will say the law doesn't say that, and they'll respectfully disagree. A few months later they'll call him back and yell at him some more. Then they'll get indignant and make press releases saying NASA is pursuing a path which they won't fund, and that'll be the end of another set of plans. Some other team will be pulled from the back of the room and their plans will become front and center and it'll start all over again.
As for the BEO exploration plan being worked on right now. If NASA's incapable of developing and executing a plan. Which is what I understand your and QuantumG's criticism to be. Then it makes not one bit of difference if SLS exists or not. Neither does it matter what rocket, architecture, technology, company, are involved. Because all NASA plans are doomed.
In response to QG from the Mitt Romney thread, didn't want to drag it OT into an SLS discussion.Quote from: QuantumG on 06/02/2012 04:17 amQuote from: notsorandom on 06/02/2012 04:03 amAs for the BEO exploration plan being worked on right now. If NASA's incapable of developing and executing a plan. Which is what I understand your and QuantumG's criticism to be. Then it makes not one bit of difference if SLS exists or not. Neither does it matter what rocket, architecture, technology, company, are involved. Because all NASA plans are doomed. I don't think NASA is incapable of making a plan that Congress will approve and fund. I just don't think they have, or will. These plans we see on L2, Congress doesn't see those. One day they will be a total surprise, Charlie Bolden will go to Congress and they'll ask him why NASA is working on plans to utilize a less-than-130-metric-ton-SLS when the law clearly states that SLS must be 130-metric-ton. Charlie will say the law doesn't say that, and they'll respectfully disagree. A few months later they'll call him back and yell at him some more. Then they'll get indignant and make press releases saying NASA is pursuing a path which they won't fund, and that'll be the end of another set of plans. Some other team will be pulled from the back of the room and their plans will become front and center and it'll start all over again."lift capability not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously"Seems this is in both drafts.So the law doesn't say this yet but it might?I guess those missions we saw on L2 using the Block 1A SLS weren't that favourable after all.
Seems this is in both drafts.So the law doesn't say this yet but it might?I guess those missions we saw on L2 using the Block 1A SLS weren't that favourable after all.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) has been advocating full appropriations bills for the entire government instead of just the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments. One possibility, according to a Democratic source, is a 10-bill package that includes all the annual appropriation bills except those funding the financial services agencies and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Those bills are most likely to cause delays because they control funding for the healthcare and financial reform laws.
Departments that could see their budgets addressed include Commerce, Justice, Homeland Security and Transportation, as well as major science agencies. At this stage, neither party is prepared to roll back the sequestration cuts. But the goal is to provide the most detailed, updated budget for departments who may be better able then to cope with the reductions.
The FY 2014 Budget will be released on April 8th:http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/287003-presidents-budget-delayed-until-april
Justice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, NASA and the National Science Foundation should benefit most.
It looks like the Senate will have a FY 2013 appropriation bill for NASA next week:http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/mikulski-rogers-work-together-before-cr-runs-out-88608.htmlQuoteJustice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, NASA and the National Science Foundation should benefit most. The Senate CR should be released on Monday.
- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $17.5 billion to support a portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments.- The bill provides for human space flight in and beyond low Earth orbit: o $1.17 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle;o $2.1 billion for the Space Launch System, including ground operations and construction, which includes $260 million for SLS-related construction, including related test facilities;o $515 million for commercial crew transportation to the International Space Station (ISS); ando $2.9 billion for operations and research aboard the ISS.- The bill provides $5 billion for NASA Science to explore the universe and help us learn about our planet, and $630 million for Space Technology to help develop technologies that make human and robotic missions safer and more efficient.
