Congress, NASA

CR passes House, with an interesting shuttle provision

The House last night narrowly approved a yearlong continuing resolution last night. The bill, as previously noted here, splits the difference between the authorized level of $19 billion for NASA and the FY10 level of just over $18.7 billion, and includes funds for HLV development as well as COTS and commercial crew. The Senate plans to develop its own omnibus spending bill which, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) tells Florida Today, would also fund NASA at $18.9 billion, but allocate funds among various programs differently. There’s some question, though, if the Senate version would win out over the House’s CR.

The House Appropriations Committee has posted the text of the CR that, among the other provisions previously reported, includes an additional minor but interesting item on page 34. The CR devotes nearly a page to issues associated with the disposition of shuttle orbiters once the fleet is required, in particular cutting a special deal for the Smithsonian. “[S]hould the [NASA] Administrator determine that the Smithsonian Institution is an appropriate venue for an orbiter, such orbiter shall be made available to the Smithsonian at no or nominal cost,” the CR states. The Smithsonian had earlier been given, in effect, right of first refusal on Discovery, but was still on the hook for the costs to accept it, estimated by NASA to be $28.8 million. There had been concerns that the museum might not be able (or willing) to come up with that money. The CR would effectively eliminate that cost, although any other museums selected by NASA to receive Atlantis or Endeavour would presumably still have to pay.

14 comments to CR passes House, with an interesting shuttle provision

  • NASA Fan

    Anyone see any language in there that funds the shortfall experienced by JWST? $250M/year for the next two years?

  • red

    No robotic precursors?

  • red

    Hmmm, in a quick look, the Exploration total and subheadings didn’t seem to add up. Does that mean NASA would have discretion where to allocate the remaining funds within Exploration?

  • amightywind

    Squabbling over the disposition retired orbiters is politics at its worst. As well as selling the shuttles, how about auctioning off the charred remains of Challenger and Columbia as well?

  • Shaggy

    It did not state that NASA could cancel Ares or Constellation.

  • CharlesHouston

    windy — you said: auctioning off the charred remains of Challenger and Columbia and I had thought that you had sunk as low as you could go. You have become a parody of critics.

  • Ferris Valyn

    I’ve got a simple solution for the orbiters, or at least one of em – put it in an orbit near Hubble, and convince Bigelow to put a station nearby

    First museum in orbit.

  • common sense

    amightywind fully deserves the name considering where the wind is coming from.

    More and more pathetic.

  • common sense

    @ Ferris Valyn wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 10:01 am

    Attractive idea and had we got a reliable LEO crew transport to a Bigelow that could be something real fun to “visit” for the few who’d fly. But since you’d have to boost the thing back to orbit on a regular basis it might not be practicable (?).

  • Major Tom

    “As well as selling the shuttles”

    No one is “selling the shuttles”. Someone has to pay for the multi-million dollar modifications and transport necessary to prepare a orbiter for display.

    Read, comprehend, and think before you post.

  • Jeff Foust

    It did not state that NASA could cancel Ares or Constellation.

    The CR includes the following in the NASA section: “That the provisos limiting the use of funds under the heading ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Exploration’’ in division B of Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act.” My interpretation is that refers to the prohibition in the FY10 appropriations bill that prevented NASA from canceling any element of Constellation, such as the Ares 1.

  • Major Tom

    “No robotic precursors?

    Hmmm, in a quick look, the Exploration total and subheadings didn’t seem to add up. Does that mean NASA would have discretion where to allocate the remaining funds within Exploration?”

    I interpret it as meaning ESMD has ~$200 million left over after paying for SLS, MPCV and COTS/CCDev for tech dev/demos and robotic precursors. But I could be wrong, especially since the language for the Space Technology Program under the Chief Technologist seems to give NASA the flexility to reassign some of that ~$500 million budget to ESMD as well. I doubt NASA will do that, but you never know.

    FWIW…

  • DCSCA

    CharlesHouston wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 9:30 am

    There’s actually nothing really wrong with considering that option as a source of revenue.

    Witness the Titanic. You can purchase recovered pieces of coal from the disasterous wreck, were 1500-plus souls perished, for $25. No outcry there. Visit the farmlands of New Jersey and you’ll find antique shops occasionally selling twisted fragments of aluminum from the Hindenburg disaster. No tears over that. You can purchase salvaged bits from Liberty Bell 7 as well. And there’s no real rationale for continuing to warehouse at government expense the pieces of Apollo 1 either. It should be on display at the Smithsonian or sold off to collectors to raise revenue. The general locations of the spent Saturn V SI-C boosters are known as well and if a savvy salvage team sees a profit in it, they’ll make a try to locate any wreckage, match up wreckage to moonshot, and peddle it. It quite appropriate avenue to explore in the Age of Austerity.

  • red

    “Does that mean NASA would have discretion where to allocate the remaining funds within Exploration?”

    Now that I think about it, I guess that leftover amount is probably needed for Human Research.

Leave a Reply to Jeff Foust Cancel 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>