Comments on: House committee approves authorization bill

By: Space Politics » House passes NASA authorization bill

Space Politics » House passes NASA authorization bill — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:27:07 +0000

[…] bill to the science committee because it didn’t contain language on use of alternative fuels (an amendment that was proposed but rejected by the full committee earlier this month), the full bill was passed by the House on a 409-15 vote. All 15 nays came from Republicans, […]

By: gm

gm — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:35:15 +0000

four months ago, I’ve suggested to Yahoo founders to sell their company to Microsoft and use the $4 Bn earned to start a new.space company or just buy NASA…

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/024yahoospace.html

two months ago I’ve suggested the same thing to Apple that has over $18 Bn cash to invest…

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/027applenasa.html

talking about my suggestions on several Space forums and blogs (nearly) everybody said me it was a “crazy idea”…

but, now, the US government space agency “sells” part of a Space center to a private company!

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/google-signs-le.html?cid=117845478

the ONLY difference is that, the “buyer” is NOT Apple or Yahoo or Microsoft, but (again) the (Orwell’s Big Brother) Google!!!

sure, NASA did not (exactly) “sell” part of the Ames center, but just LEASE it to Google for the next 90 years…

in my opinion, lease it to Google for 90 years (!!!!!) it’s only the best way to (really) SELL it, but WITHOUT ask Google to pay the (higher) price to BUY it…

however, I was right again…

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:32:37 +0000

I’m in rare agreement with Doug. The fact that so many politicians from both parties are signing off on this suggests limits to what either Presidential candidate would be able to cut without a serious fight in Congress. That said, money will be so tight that something has to go, and space remains a relatively politically easy target — it doesn’t directly involve millions of voting elderly people. . . .

— Donald

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:13:51 +0000

I would not play down the role of authorization legislation. Although this particular bill is just for one year (as are the approps bills), it sets the stage for a subsequent authorization bill (once the White House is de-Bushed and NASA is probably de-Griffined) that will likely set the tone of congressional space policy for many years.

Mike Griffin is no dummy. That’s why he repeatedly invokes authorization legislation (as in, the 2005 bill) as opposed to appropriations legislation, when called upon to justify his implementation of the Vision.

Remember that authorization legislation is precisely that. It authorizes spending. As long as Constellation, for example, is formally authorized, Congress can shoot money at it. Without such authorization, efforts to appropriate funding are sitting ducks for fiscal raids. Yes, approps is where the bean counters are, and where the money comes from, but authorization is where the big picture comes from.

By: GRS

GRS — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 02:21:02 +0000

And remember, this is just the authorization bill. The bigger test will come during the appropriations process.

This is really no big whup. What goes on in the appropriations process will be much more telling. Although even then, it can all come unglued in February of next year.

By: Jeff Brooks

Jeff Brooks — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:02:47 +0000

There is little danger of a veto- President Bush won’t want to look foolish by vetoing a program he himself initiated. The challenges will come when amendments are offered during the floor debate. Barney Frank and Co. will almost certainly try to remove the $1 billion extra for Constellation.

And remember, this is just the authorization bill. The bigger test will come during the appropriations process.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:42:15 +0000

It may be worth noting the number of Democrats co-sponsoring. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Oregon is known for big NASA contractors.

— Donald

By: spectator

spectator — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:05:26 +0000

I’ll get excited it its signed into law, but it looks to be veto bait.