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.
Quote from: vulture4 on 02/20/2015 03:25 pmThe 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
Quote from: jongoff on 02/20/2015 04:22 pmQuote from: vulture4 on 02/20/2015 03:25 pmThe 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.~JonExcept that the report is supposed to be an "independent assessment". I wonder who does those?