they probably still will reach a deal, probably the one The POTUS put on the table awhile back…but gee maybe not. Its pretty clear that The Speaker does not control his caucus…and the deal the POTUS put on the table will require Dem votes so it will probably have to go more “to the left” and that will fracture the GOP caucus because well the Defense Lobbiest are right now explaining to every Tom Dick and Jane in the GOP that they wont like sequestration.

The more I look at it, the more I like it…among its benefits it destroys the GOP right wing.

And it probably takes SLS/Orion with it…

Silver bells….RGO

“I will admit that if it came down to Orion/SLS or the Webb Telescope she would protect GSFC and Maryland interests but I don’t think she would let it come to that.”

All it takes is simple math to foresee the future of the SLS, something I’m sure even you are capable of. Just pencil out what NASA would need to build two SLS mission payloads per year, for ten years, and it quickly becomes apparent that the massive budget increase NASA would need to use the SLS at such a minimal level will never happen. Never.

OK, not never in the way that it can’t happen, since if one of E.P.’s asteroid is determined to be a major threat, that might create a “National Imperative” that requires an SLS-sized rocket. But without a change in the status quo, there is no “National Imperative” that demands a massive increase in NASA’s budget.

Eventually this will be noticed in Congress, especially when grand budget deals are required. It may not be this year, nor next, but eventually the house of cards that is the Space Launch System will fall – there just isn’t enough money to use it.

From that perspective, Mikulski would have no problem in choosing between the SLS or NASA programs in Maryland. No problem at all.

I don’t see your point. The Space News article just confirms what I wrote earlier — that Mikulski is an appropriator (not authorizer), has made tepid qualified statements in support of MPCV/SLS (e.g., “alternative framework that could”), and had no direct hand in the development of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.

“I have also talked to the senator personally and she is genuinely interested in human spaceflight BEO and the options that Orion and SLS opens up.”

If you’re one of her constituents, I’m sure she’d be “personally” and “genuinely” interested in anything you have to say.

But getting a secure agreement out of her with regards to MPCV/SLS funding is something else entirely. The reality is that the appropriators, Mikulski included, did not introduce, nevertheless pass, a NASA budget last year that came anywhere close to what MPCV/SLS required for FY 2012 in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act.

Words are cheap, especially for politicians. Taxpayer dollars are not, especially in this budget environment.

“I will admit that if it came down to Orion/SLS or the Webb Telescope she would protect GSFC and Maryland interests but I don’t think she would let it come to that.”

She’ll have little choice. Either Boehner and Obama come to an agreement that cuts discretionary funding by some amount or they don’t and sequestration does it for them. Either way, Mikulski is not at the table.

I will admit that if it came down to Orion/SLS or the Webb Telescope she would protect GSFC and Maryland interests but I don’t think she would let it come to that.

“Yes, and every other GSFC and APL mission.”

That was the impression I had, so thanks for confirming it.

“Just poking fun Ron. Lighten up.”

Oh I know what humor is, and I think you are a little rusty at it. Instead it looked like you were desperate to find any hope the SLS will survive…

Mikulski is an appropriator, so she (and her staff) didn’t help write the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that created MPCV/SLS.

That said, she has released lukewarm statements of support. But these are always couched in terms of a “balanced” NASA program, including the science dollars that keep the lights on at Goddard Space Flight Center, the Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute, and the Space Department at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab. Here’s an example:

http://www.mikulski.senate.gov/media/pressrelease/9-14-2011-1.cfm

And if you follow the questioning during NASA hearings before Mikulski’s subcommittee, it’s very clear her interests lie with these science programs, not MPCV/SLS. Here’s an example:

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2012/051.html

“I think all this means is the JWST is safe.”

Yes, and every other GSFC and APL mission.

The bigger question is who takes Mikulski’s subcommittee chair if she does not retain it. That would likely be someone indifferent or even inimical to NASA interests. With the exception of Feinstein, none of the remaining senior Democrats on the subcommittee come from a state with a NASA field center.

Mikulski has a good relationship with Nelson and even more so Shelby. (Who would have thought?). She was a supporter of SLS.

It does seem you’ve reached anger though.