Comments on: Edwards introduces alternative NASA authorization bill

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 22:03:07 +0000

Quaint. Press release in July. August recess to come. “Free drift” continues in ‘muddle through mode’ toward midterms and the next administration. And so it goes.

By: Egad

Egad — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:35:03 +0000

$18.1 billion for NASA in fiscal year 2014, growing to $18.87 bilion in FY2016

I.e. a modest boost followed by keeping up with current inflation rates.

By: Justin Kugler

Justin Kugler — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:00:11 +0000

The more people tell the National Academies this, the better.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:05:24 +0000

Seconded. Same stupidity. Different bill.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:02:05 +0000

Stephen C. Smith said: "Publicity stunt." Yep. And this is another example of someone in Congress trying to "lead", which to them means picking a particular destination that sounds "challenging", and then throwing out a date that sounds "doable". Unless or until we have a "National Imperative" for going somewhere in space, any date for going somewhere is a fake date. And once you have pinned a date on something, per the Project Management Triangle (Fast, Good and Cheap, where the date = "Fast"), you end up sacrificing either "Good" or "Cheap". My preference would be if Congress and the President declare that it is in the best interests of the U.S. to become a spacefaring nation, and that our next goal in space is to build a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon (EM-L or LLO). NASA would be tasked with being the lead agency to put it in place, but no part of the system would be owned by the government. Tis a dream I have, and unfortunately it's likely to stay that way...

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:37:32 +0000

Destination-based objectives for NASA, especially as dictated by Congress, is a bad idea. The objectives should be capabilities based, and the reasons for pursuing particular capabilities well articulated. Cold War habits die hard, apparently…

By: Hiram

Hiram — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:25:29 +0000

That’s correct about sequestration, but it isn’t clear if Edwards’ bill puts back where sequestration took out.

“But who cares. Edwards can tell people weâ€™re going to Mars. Even though weâ€™re not.”

Very well put.

By: Egad

Egad — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:20:56 +0000

One of the bullet points in the press release is that the bill recognizes â€œthe Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle as the highest priorities for carrying out the Mars goalâ€

I wonder if anyone will be so impolite as point out that a Mars architecture that hauls Orion all the way there and back would be somewhat suspect.

By: Justin Kugler

Justin Kugler — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 13:03:27 +0000

There is absolutely nothing bold about specifying a goal that cannot be accomplished in an affordable manner by sticking with the SLS/MPCV architecture. If Edwards was serious about letting NASA figure out the best technical solution, that requirement would not be there.

By: Stephen C. Smith

Stephen C. Smith — Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:57:36 +0000

Hiram wrote: As far as we know, the main difference is the top line budget number. Whatâ€™s that extra $2B/yr all about? Rep. Edwards' bill doesn't take into account sequestration. The GOP version does. Elsewhere ... NASA's Inspector General released a report yesterday auditing NASA's efforts to maximize use of the ISS. Click here for the report. It's generally positive, but cites room for improvement. One action item called out is lack of access for crew and cargo. The Obama administration has tried every year to increase funding for commercial crew, only to have it whacked by Congress. Rep. Edwards' bill keeps commercial crew at the same number proposed by the GOP, more than $100 million below what the administration requested. But who cares. Edwards can tell people we're going to Mars. Even though we're not.