Mr. Foust started a discussion on this topic three threads ago. Post there.

“Again, for all those claiming wisdom in Obama Nasa policy, Young in essence says hold on their partner, Obama’s commercial approach was tried before and failed”

Commercial crew has not been tried. DOD threw most of the oversight and insight out of their development contracts during the 90s. Nothing of the sort is being proposed for commercial crew.

Young’s expertise is in unmanned space missions (Viking, Marietta R&T, Mars mission failure reviews, NPOESS failure review, etc.). He’s misapplying lessons from the unmanned, military world to the manned, civil/commercial world.

And it’s not “Obama’s commercial approach”. Commercial crew was an option under COTS in the prior Administration, and it was a feature of every non-POR option in the Augustine report months before the FY11 budget came out.

“Of course he’s referring to the comparatively simpler jobs of building infinitely complex NRO satellites rather than the infinitely more complex task of building Ares for instance.”

JWST-class recon satellites are more complex than most launch vehicles. Ares is not more complex than those satellites, but it was made needlessly complex. That’s why it’s billions of dollars over budget, years behind schedule, technically fragile, and being replaced by simpler commercial launchers.

FWIW…

Again, for all those claiming wisdom in Obama Nasa policy, Young in essence says hold on their partner, Obama’s commercial approach was tried before and failed “The results were devastating, and the adverse impact is still with us today.”. Of course he’s referring to the comparatively simpler jobs of building infinitely complex NRO satellites rather than the infinitely more complex task of building Ares for instance.

Nice find on that quote.

FWIW…

{OPEN MOUTH} “The Anti-Deficiency Act

{INSERT FOOT} can be waived,

{INSERT OTHER FOOT} as was done for Boeing and Rocketdyne on their Ares I second-stage contracts.”

Oh, come on Tom.

Senator Rockefeller will be first in line to defend Constellation. Don’t you remember last July when he said:

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2009/088.html

“I need bolstering on NASA” he said, asking Bolden and Garver what they would do to restore the agency to its former position. Rockefeller went on to say that NASA was “more a splendid story of the past” which since then “had some really bad mishaps.” He told the nominees that support for NASA has to be earned every year, warning that “it is not a given.”

Ooops. I guess not.

Don’t depend on any legislation getting out of Rockefeller’s committee that overturns the President’s decision on Constellation.

FWIW,

– Al

“The Anti-Deficiency Act can be waived, as was done for Boeing and Rocketdyne on their Ares I second-stage contracts.”

Reference? Evidence?

Where has Congress passed a bill and the President signed into law a provision waiving the Anti-Deficiency Act for the Ares I upper stage?

FWIW…

Reference? Evidence?

FWIW…

The Anti-Deficiency Act can’t be waived.

Looks like that law degree came in handy…wait a minute! You don’t have a law degree.

The Anti-Deficiency Act can be waived, as was done for Boeing and Rocketdyne on their Ares I second-stage contracts.

The Anti-Deficiency Act can’t be waived. The government can’t maintain commitments it hasn’t provided money for. That opens the government up to all sorts of lawsuits from the contractors involved. If LeMieux & Crew want NASA to continue Constellation contracts, then they need to pass the necessary appropriations bills into law. Waiving the Anti-Deficiency Act doesn’t provide funding. (Duh…)

Even if the Anti-Deficiency Act could be waived, the Constitution itself prohibits any branch of the Federal government from expending funds unless appropriated by Congress. NASA can’t commit a future Congress to funding Constellation’s termination costs. (Double duh…)

Are LeMieux and his staff really this ignorant of contract and constitutional law?

Goofy…

“The bill has six cosponsors, similar to that his earlier amendment but with one key difference: Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) is replaced by Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). That could be important as the bill has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee, where Sen. Hutchison is the ranking member.”

Bills referred to a committee, instead of originating from a committee, often, maybe even typically, die in committee. It’s hard to see the committee chair, Jay Rockefeller, making this a priority.

FWIW…