Comments on: “The same problem as last year, but bigger”

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:30:18 +0000

Aeronautics makes no sense anyways, unless they are using it to launch payloads into orbit. We are talking about squeezing another percentage point in performance out of something. Surely industry can handle that.

By: Ted

Ted — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 02:56:18 +0000

>>Explain why, please sir

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:10:57 +0000

Screw aeronautics.

Explain why, please sir.

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 20:39:38 +0000

Screw aeronautics.

By: Nemo

Nemo — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:32:12 +0000

Oops, sent too soon. From Hodges’ original article:

The president’s NASA budget for fiscal year 2007 is expected to be about $17.9 billion, up from $16.2 billion a year ago.

Since Mr. Hodges himself acknowledges that the source of the $17.9 billion figure was the congressional authorization legislation, he should have said so. Surely he realizes that presidential budget requests are unconnected to prior years’ authorizations?

By: Nemo

Nemo — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:28:39 +0000

In the e-mail he stated to me that the approximate $17.9 billion 2007 NASA budget figure he cites in his article is “from a fact sheet from the Dec. authorization legislation passed in Congress”.

True enough. Of course, the actual presidential budget request (due to be released in two weeks) is likely to be lower.

By: Rick Sterling

Rick Sterling — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:23:43 +0000

I just received an e-mail from Jim Hodges , the author of the recent Daily Press article which discussed the 2007 NASA budget(Delegates To Push NASA Vision At Budget Hearing). In the e-mail he stated to me that the approximate $17.9 billion 2007 NASA budget figure he cites in his article is “from a fact sheet from the Dec. authorization legislation passed in Congress”.