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”?

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…

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…

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

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