Congress, NASA

Breaking the law?

That’s the allegation made in a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden by 27 members of the House, primarily, but not entirely, from Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Utah. They are concerned about apparent efforts by NASA to wind down elements of Constellation during the current fiscal year, despite this provision in the appropriations bill that funds NASA for FY10:

[N]one of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.

The congressmen cite a number of actions, or at least rumored actions, by NASA since the unveiling of the FY11 budget proposal that would end Constellation. Those include the formation of “tiger teams” to deal with the transition from Constellation and “disturbing report” (as the letter puts it) of verbal instructions to Constellation program managers about planning the shutdown of those efforts.

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) is concerned in particular with the agency’s decision to cancel the planned solicitation of one Constellation element, the Exploration Ground Launch Services (EGLS) contract at the Kennedy Space Center. On Friday NASA sent a letter to interested companies that the procurement had been canceled. “In light of recent events and the uncertainty of future ground processing requirements for fiscal year 2011 and beyond, it is in NASA’s best interest to cancel the current solicitation,” the letter states.

“The termination of the Constellation programs is a proposal by the President, but it is Congress who will accept or reject that proposal,” the letter states. “In the meantime, FY10 funds for the Constellation programs are to be spent if the program will continue – that is the clear intent of the specific language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act.”

The letter demands that NASA reverse those efforts, including its decision to “unapprove” an unspecified “major contract” for Ares 1 last month. It also asks NASA to accelerate an effort by the agency to develop safety criteria for the proposed commercial crew transportation effort because of its “enormous impact” on the cost to the agency. Those issues will no doubt come up at congressional hearings next week on the agency’s new direction.

38 comments to Breaking the law?

  • […] Continue reading here: Space Politics » Breaking the law? […]

  • Doug Lassiter

    I had been under the impression that this language was in report language, and not the bill language. But I was wrong. It is, in fact in the bill language, and as a result it is the law of the land. Not sure where I got the impression that it was report language.

    But all this provision says is that previously obligated money can’t be pulled back. That’s what Posey is saying. FY10 funds will continue to be spent on Constellation until Congress says they won’t. Not clear how this impacts the FY11 budget proposal. One would assume that the substantial termination cost expenditures listed in that budget proposal are aimed at contract provisions that extend beyond FY10. So unapproving the outyear parts of a contract, if that’s what NASA is really doing, seems not to be in conflict with this provision.

    The fact that NASA is not, to my knowledge, reallocating the money involved in this “unapproval”, just means that it’s not real money. It’s just unapproval that a future budget (FY11 and beyond) will support future years of the multiyear contract.

    So this would mean that the agency grits it’s teeth as it continues to support Constellation through FY10, but is telling its contractors not to expect any money for Constellation after that (for real work, as opposed to termination costs), even if the original contract provisions ran well beyond FY10.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The letter suggests, besides ire against premature winding down of Constellation, that Congress is not ultimately going to approve the cancellation of the back to the Moon program. I hope that the administration is prepared to start negotiating a compromise, otherwise the result is not going to be pretty.

  • Major Tom

    “That’s what Posey is saying.”

    Posey’s objection isn’t supported by the law. NASA stopped a solicitation to create a new Constellation obligation (i.e., a new EGLS contract). But NASA didn’t stop an existing Constellation obligation (e.g. other, ongoing Ares I/Orion work), which is what the law is concerned about (along with redirecting funds for existing Constellation obligations to other programs or termination funds).

    As for tiger teams and shutdown planning, again, the law says nothing. Given what’s printed in the the FY11 budget, it would be gross mismanagement not to put in place contingencies and plans for various options for ramping down Constellation.

    Sure would be nice if Congess followed the laws it passes.

    FWIW…

  • tps

    Its hard to say just what congress is going to do because you’ve heard mostly from the members who have a stake in the program in their district. What about the rest of them? Do they want to spend all this money for something that might not work or if it does will take years to do so? With budgets these days I think some will say its a luxery we can’t afford.

  • Ground Control

    Major Tom,

    But the language doesn’t refer to new Constellation obligation – it refers to funds for operations appropriated for 2010.

    Was seems frightening to me is that letter to Bolden sounds like these Congressmen are holding a gun to NASA’s head – saying to support Constellation, or they will appropriate the money elsewhere. I hope this is just political jockying- not a real threat.

  • Major Tom

    “The letter suggests, that Congress is not ultimately going to approve the cancellation of the back to the Moon program.”

    The letter suggests no such thing. It only states that Congress reserves the right to weigh in on whether Constellation will be terminated.

    Moreover, the letter is only signed by 27 members of the House, which is a rather small number given a couple of the states involved. There’s another 408 members of the House, and 100 Senators that will also weigh in.

    At this point, there’s no way to know what “Congress is not ultimately going to approve”.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom,

    But the language doesn’t refer to new Constellation obligation – it refers to funds for operations appropriated for 2010.”

    Right. And NASA would have created a new obligation out of those funds if it had signed a new EGLS contract. The law doesn’t say that NASA has to create new Constellation obligations. The law only says that NASA must honor old Constellation obligations through FY 2010.

    “Was seems frightening to me is that letter to Bolden sounds like these Congressmen are holding a gun to NASA’s head – saying to support Constellation, or they will appropriate the money elsewhere. I hope this is just political jockying- not a real threat.”

    The letter doesn’t say that, and the representatives from these states would be stupid to do so — that would hurt the NASA workforce in their districts much more than the new FY 2011 budget (which, so far, actually proposes no cuts to the NASA workforce).

    Some historical perspective is important, here. For example, in its first budget year, Congress cut the VSE pretty severely in the VA/HUD/IA appropriations bills. In fact, the Bush II White House sent a Statement of Administration Position to Congress threatening to veto the bill if the VSE wasn’t better funded. In the end, Congress sent a bill to the White House tht fully funded the VSE in its first year.

    FWIW…

  • Storm

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    “I hope that the administration is prepared to start negotiating a compromise, otherwise the result is not going to be pretty.”

    Yeah, the result, if Southern Congressmen get their way, will be that Bolden has to wear Ares around his neck like a dead chicken until nobody can stand the stench. Would make a great satirical cartoon.

    “A humiliated Bolden on all fours with the fumes illustrated rising from the rocket around his neck while Posey and Nelson are pointing and laughing off in the background.”

    I guess the question is will NASA and Congress work out a plan to continue incremental testing of Ares I like Nelson suggested, or will Bolden get lucky and finness Congress to sweep Ares out of the way, and go back to drawing board on a new design, which would certainly result in the firing of workers.

    What other options are there, depending on how favorable Congress is to Bolden? Bolden seems to favor R&D with just certain components from Ares that he deems progressive in the design of a new HLV. Some in Congress favor incremental testing of the Ares I – How could you marry the two approaches?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Storm – I do see another option, that might provide a realistic compromise. On “This Week in Space”, there was some discussion about whether there could be a shuttle extension or not. Short version – there are enough parts to construct between 2-4 additional shuttle tanks. One thing, that could be done, to ease the shut down, would be to utilize those parts, to allow for a minor extension (with no intention of restarting the ET line).

    We could keep that on stand-by, until we have Commercial Crew flying.

    This wouldn’t be my first choice, but it could work

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    The letter suggests, besides ire against premature winding down of Constellation, that Congress is not ultimately going to approve the cancellation of the back to the Moon program…

    sure in your head anything is possible.

    the letter is signed by a small number, there is no real groundswell in The House, much less the Senate to save the program…

    It is in my view very clever how Bolden has started to shut the thing down…not only will he win politically but he is going to win big.

    Now imagine what happens if Musk and Dragon make it to orbit…then people like you are in the “laughing spot”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    that wouldnt work.

    all that would do is prolong the agony of the “end times”. Look…one has to shut the shuttle system down to get rid of all the contractors AND to start changing the organization of NASA.

    As long as the shuttle system remains then the way of “work” which was the shuttle system (as well as the people) remain. Worse if in one of the “extension” flights something happens (and that could happen at any time) then there is a lot of “you were cheaping this so the people died” claim.

    When “the end times come” pull the plug.

    that is what Bolden has to do. And as for the right wing…they finally get to have a “death panel”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Posey’s objection isn’t supported by the law. NASA stopped a solicitation to create a new Constellation obligation”

    Not clear about this. If FY10 congressional appropriations said that this money had to be expended on Constellation, doesn’t that mean that even new procurements can’t be stopped? Congress dictated how that money had to be spent. Of course, those procurements could be limited to one year contracts only. As in, continue efforts on Ares I for one year, and then give the whole shebang the heave-ho at the end of that year. Sure, why not? Not clear who’d want to work on such a brick-wall contract, though.

    It is also an important point that this language in no way prejudges congressional reaction to the termination of Constellation. It’s just saying that FY10 money can’t be diverted, and not that FY11 money has to be thrown at the same things.

  • Returning Student

    There are multiple options for keeping a large segment of the workforce in place for some period of time – launching the final LON stack, stretching out the remaining 4 flights, finishing the 2-4 ETs & adding addt’l flights, doing 1-2 addt’l Ares test flights (as an R&D effort), etc. – or any combination of the above.

    The rub is that they all take funding, & they don’t solve the conundrum that started all this: that CxP is an underfunded plan.

  • Storm

    I listened to the Space Week excerpt of Howard DeCastro. He has a point that Shuttle seems to finally have in place a careful way of evaluating potential problems. Its hard to tell if United Space Alliance has really nipped those problems in the bud. I do feel a lot more comfortable with the safety than before. I think many are still reeling from the previous two tragedies.

    However, what would be the cost of the extension? If the cost is high then how do you fund shuttle extension and the $6 Billion for commercial rockets, not to mention all the other NASA programs?

    Many claim that an orbiter has inherent capabilities that other spacecraft do no have. Is this true? Could ISS have been built without the shuttle? Certainly Russia launched the first ISS module, Zarya, without shuttle. It seems like it would be easy to build another ISS without shuttle – just put a robot arm on the first module so that it can act as the shuttle did to connect the first modules together. Repairs to space assets like HST though, are another matter. I don’t see how Dragon, or Orion could fix HST.

    Perhaps, in the future, a plasma driven module on ISS could dispatch on missions to higher orbits to service HST, and even Kepler, which is way out there.

  • Storm

    A future station could also be assembled with simple automated docking.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Storm wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 6:38 pm

    I listened to the Space Week excerpt of Howard DeCastro. He has a point that Shuttle seems to finally have in place a careful way of evaluating potential problems. Its hard to tell if United Space Alliance has really nipped those problems in the bud. I do feel a lot more comfortable with the safety than before. I think many are still reeling from the previous two tragedies. …

    oh they “reel” from the tragedies all the time…they just never do anything about them.

    the shuttle orbiter has no less chance of suffering some fatal catastrophe today then it did 1 day before Columbia reentered.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Storm

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    “Not clear who’d want to work on such a brick-wall contract, though.”

    Its pretty clear to me that certain Congress Members (I’m not sure who) would want a brick-wall contract. The anticipation that Ares would eventually canceled was high do to the fact that the project was stretching over the course of more than one administration.

  • Storm

    Oler,

    What do you base you feelings on? Wouldn’t NASA have discovered the hole that destroyed Columbia with the current systems put in place?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, et al. The letter was signed by many of the members who count; the appropriators and authorizers who will have to deal with what is increasingly looking like a train wreck of a proposal.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    By the way, “Storm”, I doubt that much wrath is going to fall on Charles Bolden. He’s recognized as being the good Marine who is saluting and being ordered to sell this turkey. Lori Garver, on the other hand…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    LOL

    really just a hoot.

    you have not predicted a thing correct since Bush threw out this stupid policy. and you are wrong here.

    enjoy the death panel Mark. another bad penny of the bush administration is about to “extinguish”. you use to be a good analysis of politics…now you are just blinded by trying to defend the worst administration in my lifetime

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark W…again lots of laugh

    This is Charlies policy…you just dont know what you are talking about…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Storm wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    Oler,

    What do you base you feelings on? ..

    how NASA acted during the run up to Challenger, how they acted after the foam had been discovered coming off of the ET on Columbia…they pretend about safety…but have no clue about it

    Robert G. Oler

  • Oler and Major,

    Marks right about the signatories. As for how successful defying Congress is, ask Dick Cheney, who tried every trick in the book to not do as Congress wished regarding the V-22 program.

    Here’s the precise language:

    Human Spaceflight: In October 2009, the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (The Augustine Commission) reported its findings on NASA’s human space flight program. The Augustine Commission raised several issues regarding the current program and budget profile that will require thoughtful consideration by the Administration. In the absence of a bona fide proposal from the Administration on the future of U.S. human spaceflight activities and investments, the bill provides the budget request of $3.1 billion for activities to support human spaceflight in fiscal year 2010; however, the bill requires that any program termination or elimination or the creation of any new program, project or activity not contemplated in the budget request must be approved in subsequent appropriations Acts.

    The key part is,

    the bill requires that any program termination or elimination or the creation of any new program, project or activity not contemplated in the budget request must be approved in subsequent appropriations Acts.

    The intention and language is to continue Constellation.

    The ground support contract was not a new program but an anticipated part of the existing Constellation program. How do you launch an Ares I if you don’t have ground support?

    Budgeting money and spending it on personnel within NASA to end Constellation would be a new program and a violation of continuing the existing Constellation Project.

    Telling Mike Coats, as is alleged in the letter, to slow down or to terminate contracts related to the Constellation programs is a clear violation of the language in the 2010 Omnibus Bill. It was also stupid.

    You have to feel for the SpaceX folks because their successful launch of the Falcon 9 will mean little but a launch failure will be the instant death of the Obama, Holdren, Garver “Kill NASA” effort of 2011.

    Whoever is driving the NASA ship needs a new piloting course. I agree that Bolden will be fine no matter what. But Deputy Admin. Garver is another matter all together. If Obama fails in this effort, someone has to take the fall. And that won’t be Holdren.

  • Storm

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 8:24 pm

    …but have no clue about it

    Perhaps you are right. They certainly didn’t have a pro-active style of dealing with the first tragedy. Maybe the 2nd tragedy finally put them on guard.

    The whole idea of having foam, wings, and tiles under such a large surface area has certainly proven hazardous. Perhaps the concept would be better served on a smaller shuttle orbiter a some point in the future.

  • G. Clark

    IMNSHO, the key phrase of the language is “In the absence of a bona fide proposal…”

    The FY11 proposed budget sounds rather like a bona fide proposal to me.

    Just sayin’.

  • red

    Jim Hillhouse: “You have to feel for the SpaceX folks because their successful launch of the Falcon 9 will mean little but a launch failure will be the instant death of the Obama, Holdren, Garver “Kill NASA” effort of 2011.”

    What does SpaceX and their Falcon 9 have to do with the 2011 budget? Are you talking about the commercial crew part of that budget? SpaceX wasn’t even one of the CCDev winners. Falcon 9 is still in the test phase, so an unsuccessful launch wouldn’t be a surprise at all, and would be irrelevant to the commercial crew proposal. Did the Ares supporters call for the end of that program when the Ares 1-X parachutes didn’t open? Even if SpaceX wins one of the eventual commercial crew contracts, they won’t be launching any astronauts until they pass all sorts of tests and other hurdles.

    Also, why would you characterize the 2011 budget proposal as a “kill NASA” proposal? That makes no sense. The 2011 budget proposal gets rid of the thing that was killing NASA – Constellation. It was Constellation that destroyed all of the main points of the Vision for Space Exploration: security, economic, and science benefits through exploration using commercial participation, international participation, a series of robotic precursors, and broad technology innovation in a sustainable way. Constellation is the antithesis of those Vision for Space Exploration cornerstones. Not only that, but it’s set to kill ISS, deliver Ares I/Orion after ISS is gone (so Ares I/Orion have nothing to do), deliver Ares V in 2028 or so but with nothing to put on it, and squash everything else in NASA in the process. That’s killing NASA.

    The 2011 budget, on the other hand, delivers:

    – an exploration technology demonstration program for inflatable structures, ISRU, in-space refueling, close-loop life support, in-space propulsion, etc
    – heavy lift and propulsion R&D (instead of waiting a decade for Ares I to finish before seriously investigate heavy lift)
    – a strong HSF robotic precursor series of missions
    – extending the ISS to 2020 or later
    – actually using the ISS
    – adding to ISS capabilities
    – funds Shuttle to ensure it completes the current round of ISS missions
    – accelerating commercial cargo
    – a robust commercial crew program for multiple new spacecraft compatible with multiple launchers to service the ISS to decrease the “gap” caused by Ares I (although even with the Shuttle we depend on Soyuz for ISS crew rescue anyway, so the ISS “gap” has in a sense always existed)
    – modernization of KSC
    – a much stronger general space technology program
    – increases in NASA Earth science missions, including traditional satellites and small “Venture-class” missions (probably smallsats, suborbital rides, and similar affordable efforts)
    – an increase in Planetary science, including addressing NASA’s NEO search obligation and NASA’s Plutonium-238 dependency on Russia
    – an increase in Aeronautics

    How is all of that “killing NASA”? It seems like just 1 NASA program that happened to be extremely off the rails is removed, and the rest of NASA (as well as NASA partners like commercial space, universities, other U.S. space agencies, etc) should thrive.

    Yes, it’s true that there is no beyond-LEO mission planned, but that may be added soon. Maybe it won’t, or maybe there will be a plan but in the out years. It may take time to recover from the damage Constellation caused. Even so, NASA is no worse off even in that respect than it’s been for most of its post-Apollo history (i.e. all but 2004 and early 2005), and it’s better off in most other respects.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Jim Hillhouse wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    I know who the signatures are and I also know that it wont matter. It just wont matter.

    Four points.

    First there is no hint in the House that The Speaker is not going to go along with the change in course…thats the end of any opposition.

    Second, the language is immaterial. There is the “law and there is the law”. At the time this language was put into the bill…I discussed this with a classmate (Mark knows him Mark has in fact met him) who was Chief of STaff to the (at the time) Senior Texas Senator (Mark met him in his Senate office as COS)…and who has put a bunch of bills together and put them through Congress…he was the driving force (my friend) behind getting us Gramm-Leach…so my friend knows what he is doing…he currently lobbies on K street for various interest.

    As my friend puts it…nothing in the appropriation will stop the NASA administrator from killing Constellation as long as the money is not used for anything different then 1) building Constellation or 2) shutting down contracts (ie not pushing them into the next appropriation cycle). That was before The Administration named the new administrator…and my friend and I had lunch today and nothing has changed. Whittington is just in pretendville.

    Third .. nothing is going to happen to Garver (or Charlie) for this. nothing but harsh words and how you deal with harsh words is nod and then go have a Jack and COke (or Bourbon and Branch) and recognize that “you have won”.

    Fourth…I dont think the entire effort hinges on “one” launch…the collolary is however accurate. If the launch is a success…then all the argument is over. What is going to put the finishing nails in the coffin of Constellation…are some cost numbers that will come out as the cycle works. It is just way over budget.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Storm wrote @ February 14th, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    I suggest you read the CAIB report…NASA has no idea of “safety”…they are unsafe in so many ways, and the way that they try to be safe is to through bodies at a problem that really only requires one.

    I sort of had a morbid chuckle on this latest launch someone resurrected the phrase “in family” sigh.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    storm…sorry it should be “throw bodies at it”…the editor regrets the error
    Robert G. OLer

  • Major Tom

    “As for how successful defying Congress is, ask Dick Cheney, who tried every trick in the book to not do as Congress wished regarding the V-22 program.”

    Rather than relying on history about relationships between Administrations and Congresses that are no longer in power, I’d ask the current Administration about its success or failure when it comes to cancelling large capital expenditures in the current Congress. And on that count, the Obama Administration has had considerable success with programs like the F-22.

    “Here’s the precise language:”

    That’s not the language from the law. It’s a summarization of the law.

    “The ground support contract was not a new program but an anticipated part of the existing Constellation program.”

    It doesn’t matter whether the contract was a “new program”. What matters is whether the contract was an ongoing or new obligation. And if NASA had signed that contract, it would have been a new obligation. The law doesn’t direct NASA to keep signing up for new obligations under Constellation. The law only directs NASA to maintain existing Constellation obligations through FY 2010.

    “Budgeting money and spending it on personnel within NASA to end Constellation would be a new program and a violation of continuing the existing Constellation Project.”

    Agreed, but where was that done?

    “Telling Mike Coats, as is alleged in the letter, to slow down or to terminate contracts related to the Constellation programs is a clear violation of the language in the 2010 Omnibus Bill.”

    Terminate existing Constellation contracts? Yes. (But it’s not clear that was done.) Slow down or stop obligating NASA to new Constellation contracts? No.

    “It was also stupid.”

    It’s stupid to continue obligating taxpayer money to a program that the White House is going to oppose for the next 3-7 years. There’s no way that a couple dozen Constellation representatives are going to convince the rest of Congress every year for the next 3-7 years to take funding away from their priorities in order to keep Ares I and Orion going. Especially when the White House is proposing a different set of programs. Especially if the White House sends SAPs and threatens vetos. It’s an incredibly high bar to overcome in one year. It’s ridiculous to think that such a bar can be overcome over multiple years.

    “You have to feel for the SpaceX folks because their successful launch of the Falcon 9 will mean little”

    Why? Unlike Ares I-X, this test launch is of the actual, operational article. And it’s carrying a boilerplate Dragon capsule. A successful test would put SpaceX far down the road to finishing its COTS cargo demonstration commitments and crewed Dragon development.

    “but a launch failure will be the instant death of the Obama, Holdren, Garver ‘Kill NASA’ effort of 2011.”

    Why? Multiple other Falcon 9 launches are scheduled for later in the year. And even if those launches are delayed, they’d have to be delayed at least seven (and more likely nine) years before Ares I would have its first operational launch.

    And even if SpaceX imploded, there’s OSC and Taurus II/Cygnus. And five new CCDev awards.

    “Whoever is driving the NASA ship needs a new piloting course. I agree that Bolden will be fine no matter what. But Deputy Admin. Garver is another matter all together. If Obama fails in this effort, someone has to take the fall. And that won’t be Holdren.”

    What’s with the weird, self-contradictory conspiracy theory? If Garver is so powerful that she’s singlehandedly responsible for developing he Administration’s new plan, then why would she allow herself to take the fall?

    It’s pretty obvious that the Administration’s plan — commercial crew, get HLV started now, heavy exploration technology investment, multiple destinations — comes from the final report of the Augustine Committee. There’s no need to conjure conspiracies about all-powerful deputy public servants.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    So much for breaking the law and the threats in this congressional letter (add http://):

    spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=728:about-that-congressional-letter-to-nasa-re-compliance-with-the-law&catid=67:news&Itemid=27

    FWIW…

  • danwithaplan

    I am really curious what IS a “commercial crew”?

    Or are your just throwing meaningless terms around, based on a yet another President’s diatribe.

    Why is this new way of doing things with SpaceX and all, is – in any way commercial, as well as a crew.

    There is still no HSF LEO market.

    What is SpaceX shooting for? Abundandt tax monies?

    Just like USA, ULA?

    Please explain. “Major Tom”?

  • […] meanwhile, has responded to a letter from over two dozen House members claiming he was breaking the law by trying to wind down Constellation in the current fiscal year. “While you have received […]

  • […] Bill Nelson with an interest in the topic. For example, when over two dozen representatives signed a letter to NASA last month alleging the agency was breaking the law by starting efforts to wind down Constellation, only two […]

  • […] that to what’s in the existing FY10 appropriations bill: [N]one of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation […]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>