No, it wasn’t. Most federal budgets aren’t passed until after the fiscal year has begun due to various legislative logjams. (The government relies on continuing resolutions until the new budget is passed.) Because of delays that year, the VA/HUD/IA bill containing the NASA budget was rolled up with other appropriations bills and passed under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004. That bill wasn’t passed and signed into law until calendar year 2004. It included a new appropriations account titled “Science, Aeronautics, and Exploration” reflecting the new human space exploration activities at NASA under the VSE.

“The main tenets of the VSE were not passed by Congress until HR 3070, S.181, which did not go into effect until December 30, 2005 at the NASA Reauthorization Bill of 2005. This means that NASA FY2006 was the 1st fiscal year in which VSE would have had significant impact on NASA and its budget.”

NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate existed and had billions in funding for two fiscal years prior to FY 2006. For your distortion of reality to be true, ESMD couldn’t have existed, certainly not with any significant budget, until late CY 2005/early CY 2006. And that’s simply not true.

You’re giving way too much credit to an authorization bill that didn’t show up until two fiscal years after Congress had started funding the VSE and Constellation. Appropriations are what set budgets, and Congress can and usually does pass appropriations bills in the absence of authorization bills.

“And this is pretty much the same findings that I find in a number of other authoritative documents concerning the funding profile for Constellation.”

Don’t rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary sources. NASA’s budgets are easily found on the NASA CFO’s website and the relevant bills are easily found at the Library of Congress’s website.

“So please quit misusing NASA budget information to propagandize your opposition to Constellation program.”

Repeating what is printed in black and white (or photons and electrons) at the NASA CFO’s or the Library of Congress’s websites is not “misuse” or “propaganda”. It’s just the facts.

FWIW…

FY2004 fiscal year began October 1, 2003. The NASA budget for FY2004 was passed by both Houses of Congress in September of 2003. The Vision for Space Exploration was not announced until January 14, 2004, some 4 months later.

The main tenets of the VSE were not passed by Congress until HR 3070, S.181, which did not go into effect until December 30, 2005 at the NASA Reauthorization Bill of 2005. This means that NASA FY2006 was the 1st fiscal year in which VSE would have had significant impact on NASA and its budget.

If you go to the this Wiki link NASA Budget, you will find this quote below:

Despite the Bush Administration’s public commitment to the space program in the form of the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration initiative which had set goals of returning men to the Moon, establishing a base there, and later mounting manned missions to Mars, the Bush White House never fully committed to funding it. The five-year projection of the budget needed annually by NASA to meet the program’s major milestones that was proposed by the Administration and passed by Congress in 2005 had been underfunded by more than $1 billion per year

And this is pretty much the same findings that I find in a number of other authoritative documents concerning the funding profile for Constellation. So please quit misusing NASA budget information to propagandize your opposition to Constellation program.

Sorry but they haven’t come up with a plan to go to Mars, so far. You could say that even the Augustine committee said Mars ought to be our destination. Heck, even I might say so. BUT there is no such thing as an official plan to go to Mars. Again any reference/link and I’ll be happy to oblige.

Ares/Orion are dead. But you’re welcomee to believe they will survive. Not sure who “we” are in your post but I don’t think that “you” are going to be compelling enough.

Duh, when I say Obama I of course mean Obama Administration which in this case is represented by Charles Bolden. Don’t you recall?

To me the commersial is a Plan-B if we fail to save Ares I/Orion. I don’t think we will but I defend in depth.

What are you talknig about? Where/when did Obama talk about going to Mars? Please provide a reference/link.

“Sure we have a cost/schedule problems with Constellation. ”

Yes uit is bankrupt and bankrupting the rest of NASA at it. Not just HSF! How do you think astrobiologist like Constellation? Aeronautics? Etc?

” we can spend it all on climate studies!”

Look, most, MOST, climatologists say there is Global Warming whether you like it or not. I do not have the expertise to dispute their findings, do you? I am not going to base my thoughts on those of a minority of “excited” ones, you may, it’s your choice. Are you afraid you won’t be able to drive your SUV? Talk about cheap shot… But if the warming trend accelerates as it may your dream of Constellation may be the last thoughts you or I may have. So we better be making sure. See some people did not believe a Hurricane would bring New Orleans down… Be ready, or… Be sorry. Your choice.

” feared that a new administration would scrap their pet project and launched expended commerical as a Plan-B for HST.”

Nope, it is maandated by LAW and in the VSE that the commercial were to be part of the game. Whether you like it or not. Their “pet” project was just that and now the people working it are paying the price of “enlightened” management.

“There is (some) substance to the idea that if you give something glorious for NASA to achieve yet not provide the means it is almost certain NASA would fail. Is there not? I don’t know what do you think?”

One might well back the case against Bush era Moon plans. But, isn’t the case even stronger against the Obama Mars talk? Sure we have a cost/schedule problems with Constellation. Hey, let’s cancel going to the Moon and start talking Mars, advance technologies, low-cost commercial, etc. It fails and we can spend it all on climate studies! (cheap shot, sorry)

What I might believe is that in the end game Griffin, etc,, feared that a new administration would scrap their pet project and launched expended commerical as a Plan-B for HST. That’s how view the SpaceX manned Dragon and Falcon 9.

this is the uninformed rhetoric based comments of Ares supporters…

it is factually wrong and ignores the thrust of the program..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103484.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

it is just ignorant.

and assumes the readers are. BTW he made similar ignorant comments about Iraq

Robert G. Oler

Griffin and gang knew this. LRO was developed very quickly for a ~ $600M mission…

if they thought LRO would do it then they were simply wrong…bad political misjudgment

Robert G. Oler