Comments on: Budget roundup

By: Arthur Smith

Arthur Smith — Tue, 21 Sep 2004 03:30:53 +0000

It looks like the Appropriations committee is marking up the VA-HUD bill tomorrow (Tuesday) at 2:30 pm – according to this schedule:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/b_three_sections_with_teasers/committee_hearings.htm

Though maybe the 9-11 hearings scheduled for the morning will delay that. Anyway, given that they’re discussing the DC appropriations bill at the same time, it sounds like the full committee is involved. Did the subcommittee ever post a marked-up bill? Or are they just starting from the House version with the NASA cuts?

Any news on whether the full senate is likely to ever get to vote on this?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:24:25 +0000

Given just the date, I’d have thought (given that Moon-Mars is always on Frank’s mind) that he meant over SEI, but he specifically said station. Weird.

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:17:33 +0000

Rand,

I agree that the 1990 reference seems odd. In addition to the 1993 vote (which was in the House, not the Senate, as I recall) there were a number of efforts on the floor of the House and Senate to introduce amendments to appropriations bills to kill the station. Those efforts in the Senate lasted through 1998 (after which Sen. Bumpers retired and no one picked up the torch). You can argue whether this was serious debate, since the station wasn’t in any real risk by the mid-90s, but there was debate on the floor as well as roll call votes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:20:48 +0000

I heard somewhere that folks were trying to get NASA’s budget detached from vets and housing.

You may hear that, but it’s never going to happen. Why should NASA get special treatment over other independent agencies?

By: Cindy

Cindy — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:43:18 +0000

I agree with the statements in Florida Today article concerning the veto threat. A veto of the VA Budget at a time of war just because NASA was not funded as desired could turn out to be a political nightmare. So the likelihood of this veto actually occurring would be relatively small.

Instead of attempting to push the Moon to Mars program through Congress, maybe we should consider making adjustments to the program and sell it as a long term strategy directed at developing a commercially based, manned, orbital space flight industry that would eventually become independent of government programs. As I have stated on previous post, there is a very interesting strategy at the following web site
http://dserweb.echoechoplus.com

While the proposed strategy is not as prestigious as the Moon to Mars program, it could however be the catalyst that would lead to the development of a more commercially based manned space industry and redefine the role of government within the industry. You have to review all of the material on the web site, including the audio presentations, to gain a full understanding of the strategy. It makes sense.

By: Mark Zinthefer

Mark Zinthefer — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 14:26:42 +0000

I heard somewhere that folks were trying to get NASA’s budget detached from vets and housing. Am I the only one who’s heard that?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:04:27 +0000

Since 1990?

How about 1993, when the station survived by a single vote?

I’ll bet there was a debate then.

Of course, if he means serious debate, that hasn’t really happened since Sputnik…