Comments on: With budget uncertainty resolved, sequestration’s effects kick in

By: James

James — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:36:52 +0000

NASA surely is shadow of its former self. Hallow. Self-deluded over what it can accomplish given its budget situation. A house of cards that will shortly blow over given its predictable future – i.e. reduced budgets as far as the eye can see.

And it is a shame too as despite a few poor leaders and a sty-filing bureaucracy (typical of any large aerospace corporation approaching 60 years old) there are many great talented passionate folks who work there who deserve better.

By: Egad

Egad — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 14:57:07 +0000

Reduce requirements?

What are these requirements of which you speak? It’s seemed to me that a great strength of SLS is lack of requirements (other than 130 tons someday) and the consequent impossibility of criticizing the program for not meeting them.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 13:40:47 +0000

SLS and MPCV get whacked by more than $190 million according to these figures. What’s the impact? Do they slip schedule? Reduce requirements?

Or is management of these projects irrelevant as long as the old Shuttle workforce remains employed?

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:09:30 +0000

“Boldenâ€™s response is completely goofy.” says RGO

Bot for a ‘Peter Principle’ man.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:35:20 +0000

If my understranding is correct Bolden is highly constrained in what he can do.
The budget fixes the amount to be spent on each line item and the effect of sequestration is to reduce each line item by a further fixed amount.
Thus moneys reduced for SLS can not be made up from outreach or vice versa. Every department gets cut seperately and Bolden has limited ability to flip money about to protect pet projects.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 09:12:46 +0000

This is the way it always happens. When budgets get cut the first thing to go is discressionary spending. Like travel. Like attending conferences. Cuts like that save money without actually costing anyone their job.
It’s a quick cheap fix.
Later on when it becomes clear the budget position isn’t going to get any better you start looking for ways to actually cut jobs – and/or programs.
The temptation is to think that this cut is the end of it. Next year the budget will go up. If not a lot, at least a little.
Actually no.
There is likely to be a further cut next year, and the year after that and so on for quite some time yet.
Wasn’t the original plan ten years?

By: Aberwys

Aberwys — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 01:21:30 +0000

Foolish. So much for furthering STEM education.

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:32:28 +0000

Bolden’s response is completely goofy…RGO