Comments on: Arguing over a nonexistent $3 billion http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/10/21/arguing-over-a-nonexistent-3-billion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=arguing-over-a-nonexistent-3-billion Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: Arnaud http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/10/21/arguing-over-a-nonexistent-3-billion/#comment-135900 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:44:05 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1776#comment-135900 Um, still not sure about the meaning. Based on the context, shouldn’t the last sentence read “However, it is LIKELY that funding will come up short of that ? If I understand your intention correctly to state that whatever has happened in the past, the final actual budget for NASA will be lower than 20 B$ (and possibly, one would think, even lower than 17 B$)?

3 B$ even in NASA terms is quite significant money, they could do quite a lot with that…

A.

]]> By: Jeff Foust http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/10/21/arguing-over-a-nonexistent-3-billion/#comment-135857 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:59:45 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1776#comment-135857 Al: oops, you’re right. I’ve corrected it in the post. Teaches me for trying to dash off a post under time constraints…

]]> By: Al Fansome http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/10/21/arguing-over-a-nonexistent-3-billion/#comment-135825 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:40:15 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=1776#comment-135825 FOUST: However, it’s unlikely that, when (and if) a final FY09 authorization bill is passed,

Jeff,

I think you meant “appropriation” bill here. :-)

FWIW,

– Al

]]>