Comments on: Committee approves NASA budget

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:41:58 +0000

Another nail in the coffin to the idea that VSE is â€œnot politically sustainableâ€ IMHO.

The issue has never been about whether or not VSE was politically sustainable. It was about whether or not ESAS is. Over the long terms, it’s not (long term being defined as long enough to actually get astronauts to the moon). It’s silly to talk about any single year’s budget as a “nail in the coffin” of anything.

By: J.B.

J.B. — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:29:50 +0000

When will the Conference Committee be held?

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:26:59 +0000

anonymous: I think you're looking at the Senate version of the appropriations bill, which never contained the provision prohibiting human Mars exploration R&D. The House version (not yet available online) apparently still contains the offending language, but, as Jim Muncy notes above, it can later be removed when the House and Senate versions are reconciled in conference committee.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:19:02 +0000

My apologies, the link to the legislation can now be found here under commerce/justice/science: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app08.html

Again, am I reading the wrong document?

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:11:14 +0000

I read the copy of the legislation here and it doesn't seem to have any of the Mars language. Am I reading the wrong document?

By: Jim Muncy

Jim Muncy — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 04:10:44 +0000

My understanding is that language was not removed.

It can easily be removed in conference, of course.
And hopefully it will be.

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:39:12 +0000

anonymous: I assume you're basing that conclusion upon a reading of the legislation. I have not seen the legislation yet and it's not yet posted on Thomas. (Nor has the House Appropriations Committee even posted a press release about the bill on its web site.) However, according to the Space News account (sub. required), the bill still "prohibits the agency from spending any money on efforts geared exclusively toward sending human to Mars". If you are correct, though, it's likely someone will make an effort to reintroduce such a provision (or a broader prohibition) once floor debate on the bill begins.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:25:28 +0000

The bill doesn’t appear to contain any of the threatened language prohibiting r&d on the human exploration of Mars. Are we to assume this means that the phone/fax blitz of the Mars Society’s angry legions was successful?

By: anonymous.space

anonymous.space — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:35:33 +0000

“Another nail in the coffin to the idea that VSE is ‘not politically sustainable’ IMHO.”

Unfortunately, we really won’t get a read on that in this year’s budget cycle until after the President vetoes these appropriations bills (as he’s promised to do) and Congress works up new ones. Until then, the budget numbers in the current bills are largely hypothetical. It will be interesting to see how Constellation and NASA overall get treated in a tougher, post-veto budget environment by Obey, the rest of Congress, and the White House itself.

FWIW…

By: MarkWhittington

MarkWhittington — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:47:11 +0000

I suppose that means that David Obey is not planning on any nonsense this year, though one supposes he could still grandstand on the floor. Another nail in the coffin to the idea that VSE is “not politically sustainable” IMHO.