Author Topic: 2015 NASA Authorization Bill  (Read 2744 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9764
  • Liked: 1458
  • Likes Given: 886
2015 NASA Authorization Bill
« on: 02/16/2015 03:33 pm »
Last week, the House passed its 2015 NASA Authorization bill. Here is a copy of the bill.
https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr810/BILLS-114hr810rfs.pdf

The House's version seems very similar to the one that was proposed last year. It still has a number of bad provisions in respect of SAAs, termination liability and the language on commercial crew funding isn't that great either.

The Senate has yet to pass its version of the bill.
« Last Edit: 02/16/2015 04:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9764
  • Liked: 1458
  • Likes Given: 886
Re: 2015 NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #1 on: 02/16/2015 03:58 pm »
« Last Edit: 02/16/2015 04:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: 2015 NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #2 on: 02/20/2015 03:25 pm »
The authorization bill requires only "at least one" Commercial Crew provider and requires an independent assessment of the effects of cutting Commercial crew to 800, 700, or 600 million per year. No study on benefis of increasing appropriation to the level requested by the Obama Administration. On the positive side, China is not mentioned and although NASA is precluded from procuring foreign launch services collaboration with "appropriate" forieng countries, even those not ISS partners, is permitted.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2015 03:27 pm by vulture4 »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6259
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 804
Re: 2015 NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #3 on: 02/20/2015 04:22 pm »
The authorization bill requires only "at least one" Commercial Crew provider and requires an independent assessment of the effects of cutting Commercial crew to 800, 700, or 600 million per year. No study on benefis of increasing appropriation to the level requested by the Obama Administration. On the positive side, China is not mentioned and although NASA is precluded from procuring foreign launch services collaboration with "appropriate" forieng countries, even those not ISS partners, is permitted.

I don't think that would preclude NASA from including the benefits of increasing appropriations in the report, it just doesn't require them to.

~Jon

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: 2015 NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #4 on: 02/23/2015 04:46 pm »
The authorization bill requires only "at least one" Commercial Crew provider and requires an independent assessment of the effects of cutting Commercial crew to 800, 700, or 600 million per year. No study on benefis of increasing appropriation to the level requested by the Obama Administration. On the positive side, China is not mentioned and although NASA is precluded from procuring foreign launch services collaboration with "appropriate" forieng countries, even those not ISS partners, is permitted.

I don't think that would preclude NASA from including the benefits of increasing appropriations in the report, it just doesn't require them to.

~Jon
Except that the report is supposed to be an "independent assessment". I wonder who does those?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11577
  • Liked: 3129
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2015 NASA Authorization Bill
« Reply #5 on: 02/24/2015 11:25 am »
The authorization bill requires only "at least one" Commercial Crew provider and requires an independent assessment of the effects of cutting Commercial crew to 800, 700, or 600 million per year. No study on benefis of increasing appropriation to the level requested by the Obama Administration. On the positive side, China is not mentioned and although NASA is precluded from procuring foreign launch services collaboration with "appropriate" forieng countries, even those not ISS partners, is permitted.

I don't think that would preclude NASA from including the benefits of increasing appropriations in the report, it just doesn't require them to.

~Jon
Except that the report is supposed to be an "independent assessment". I wonder who does those?

It could be done by several entities. For starters, it could be the NASA Inspector General office, although that's probably not suited for this. Could also be GAO. Could be the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), or the NRC (the NRC is not really suited to do this). And it could be an organization like the Aerospace Corporation. All of them have some ability to do this kind of thing, but it's not immediately clear to me who Congress has in mind.

Tags: