Author Topic: NASA FY 2015 Budget  (Read 62134 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9770
  • Liked: 1460
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #180 on: 03/27/2014 10:44 am »
Well the problem is that the administration constantly requests more money for CCDEV than has been authorised, while at the same time constantly requests less money for Orion and SLS than has authorised. This is no way to cooperate with Congress. In millions of dollars:
Why should the blame be on the President?  I would say it's the current Congress that is refusing to compromise.

It was the administration that totally ignored Congress for the FY2010 PBR that cancelled Constellation to be replaced with a technology program and delaying a HLV start to 2015. This is a standard technique for cancelling a program. "Lets stop for now and study it a little more." Congress made up a new authorisation that included Orion, SLS and CCDEV which the president signed. That was the compromise that Congress and the Administration reached. The administration then ignores the authorisation, requesting up to 70% more for CCDEV, and cutting SLS and Orion by up to 40%. How do you think Congress would react to that? Not very well, which is why I think CCDEV has not always been getting the full authorised amounts. Had the administration cut or increased CCDEV, Orion and SLS equally, without the obvious bias they have been showing, I believe funding would have been more beneficial to all parties.

The 2010 NASA Authorization wasn't a compromise between Congress and the Administration. It was a compromise between Senators Nelson and Hutchison. The amount authorized for commercial crew was a lot less than what the President requested prior to the law being enacted.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #181 on: 03/27/2014 11:27 am »
Its so strange that Congress agrees on support for NASA and space in general, just not how much they wish to spend on it.

That's because, I believe, there is such a large contingent in Congress that is both focused on austerity measures and does not understand the true cost of the things they support. Basically we have an uneducated legislature.
Can we clone your generation?

BTDT.  He's got grandkids. :)
« Last Edit: 03/27/2014 11:30 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #182 on: 03/27/2014 11:29 am »
Well the problem is that the administration constantly requests more money for CCDEV than has been authorised, while at the same time constantly requests less money for Orion and SLS than has authorised. This is no way to cooperate with Congress. In millions of dollars:

Why should the blame be on the President?  I would say it's the current Congress that is refusing to compromise.

Where did Steven mention the term "blame"?  Is there a factual discrepancy in his reporting that we should be aware of?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #183 on: 03/27/2014 11:57 am »
I dunno about the idea that had the President proposed a different funding mix in the PBR, that Congress would have provided more beneficial funding to both SLS/Orion and CCDev.

As to the idea that Congress is uneducated; on an anecdotal level, this sure seems true.  Analyzing congressional actions from a different perspective might support the tentative, and not too controversial thesis that congress critters consistently mis-prioritize the matters of government.  They put Machiavelli and Alinsky at the top of their priority lists, and endlessly fight for the sake of adrenaline and testosterone.

They pretend that the means justifies the ends when arbitrarily suitable, and always defend that erroneous suitability primarily with Alinky's rule #5.

Add in their constant practice of valuing money before principle; multiply by their incessant gerrymandering and campaigning, and our panoply of problems, most of which have solutions, never gets solved.

Over the last few years, I have suggested a number of pragmatic instances which would probably result in a dramatically successful HSF program.  Others with more technical expertise have also weighed in on these matters, agreeing with me in some cases, and I with them in other cases.

Hakuna metata.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2014 11:57 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #184 on: 03/27/2014 02:26 pm »
Note that the opposite case could apply if the budgets were equally increased.

Also, if the administration had asked for the authorisation amounts without significant increases or cuts, Congress would most likely have left those numbers alone or given much smaller cuts. That seems to be the case for the other items in NASA's budget.

I've come to a conclusion that Crew funding was not that high a funding target as promoted with the spin.  If it was, then it would have been fought for.

Something caught my eyes the other day and I did a quick look up.   Was shocked at the increases NOAA has received in the same time frame.  Not going to get into the "need" or any argument about it.....just saying.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Tags: