“Clearly the Congress is of the opinion that HLV is needed, and that once at least one HLV is in place, the payloads can be built.”

Let’s remember that the decisions being made for NASA, which represents %0.5 of the total budget, are not being made by members with benevolent interests. Congress doesn’t work that way, and those interested in NASA’s budget are not necessarily interested or well versed in space related issues.

Secondly, part of the rationale given for the 2016 date is that “SLS is needed for exploration”. OK fine, what exploration, and when is the money going to be appropriated? Because every year the SLS is not used, it will consume $1B+ in NASA budget to have people doing busy work, not exploration.

Until Congress can prove that they need heavy lift (i.e. payloads greater than 25 tons & 4.5m diameter), the SLS is a pork project, nothing more.

“If Congress thinks HLV’s are truly needed, then where is the funding for the payloads?”

Clearly the Congress is of the opinion that HLV is needed, and that once at least one HLV is in place, the payloads can be built.

For some reason the final legislation strikes me as being pretty good.
Here is my take on the trade space that was before the Congress:

1) USA – most likely will work, but expensive
2) ULA – Needs to get full manufacturing license for RD tech
3) SpaceX – low cost, but uncertain of reliability

The Congress decided the nation had enough money to keep all three threads going, and in competition, with future payloads and architectures kept in the definition/very preliminary.design stage. Life support systems continue to be tested on ISS, along with other future payload systems and operation systems.

With the big issues worked out, the immediate smaller impact issues of interest to myself and others will be worked through.

Maybe you should apply this criterion to all your contributions to our debates.

“Your distinction is the difference stated above and I am a “semantic cop”?”

If you can’t tell the difference between someone stating an opinion, and someone stating something as fact, then no wonder you’re always so confused.

“To you (and a number of others) an earmark is any appropriated money that goes to a company you do not approve.”

As always, I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space.

As long as there is fair and open competitions, I’m a happy camper, regardless if a company I happen to like didn’t win, because the end result will hopefully be more space activity overall, which I would imagine is the goal of most commenters on this blog.

But what you continue to miss is that by definition if Congress specifies who is to receive appropriated money, then it qualifies as an earmark. Your buddies, my buddies, it doesn’t matter, Congress is deciding where the money should go.

Instead, Congress should set the goals, set the budget, and let NASA identify the solutions using fair and open competition. That keeps costs competitive, and ensures that new innovations are considered. This is not a new concept, and the government departments/agencies do it on all their major programs. Congress needs to let it happen on the SLS too.

What is your philosophy for how things should be done?

“I don’t understand why you have such a problem understanding this.”

Very simply because Joe has appeared to be a sidemount, hence SD-HLV, advocate in his past posts. Therefore I think it satisfies him that the legislation pushed towards a SD vehicle. See no evil hear no evil.

It has nothing to do with whether or not we “approve” of the company it goes to. It has to do with whether there is a fair competition, based on actual requirements, or if it’s simply directed to a politically favored entity by political diktat. I don’t understand why you have such a problem understanding this. It seems quite simple to us.

The original question I asked was based on the following assertion:
Rand Simberg wrote @ April 14th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
“ It is for a specific project to occur in a specific zip code, usually for a specific company. SLS, as defined by Congress, is clearly an earmark.”

As usual we have now drifted completely off the original topic (because there is no good answer to the original question). To you (and a number of others) an earmark is any appropriated money that goes to a company you do not approve. If you approve of the destination for the appropriated money then it is not an earmark.

“I won’t make assumptions about the anal retentive part, but you are such a semantic cop that sometimes you parse words too finely. In this case, if all I said was “most people suspect earmarks”, then you would have a right to ask for the source. But I didn’t say that. I said “I think most people suspect earmarks”, which is a personal statement of opinion.”

Your distinction is the difference stated above and I am a “semantic cop”?

This discussion has long exceeded its usefulness.

Have a nice day.

“The question was “Which specific Zip Code and Which specific company is that?” The point being singular.”

You assume that an earmark benefits only one company or one zip code, which is not necessarily the case.

What is plain to see from the legislation is that it was written to preserve the companies already involved in the Shuttle & Constellation programs, and not to open up the SLS program to outside competitors or alternative solutions.

And by the way, my dictionary defines earmark as “designate (something, typically funds or resources) for a particular purpose“, which doesn’t limit it to a single zip code or company.

“I suppose I should play “Major Tom” here and demand poll numbers to justify the use of the expression “most people”, but I am not that anal retentive.”

I won’t make assumptions about the anal retentive part, but you are such a semantic cop that sometimes you parse words too finely. In this case, if all I said was “most people suspect earmarks”, then you would have a right to ask for the source. But I didn’t say that. I said “I think most people suspect earmarks”, which is a personal statement of opinion.