Comments on: House NASA authorization could offer some fireworks

By: Hiram

Hiram — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 19:03:09 +0000

SpaceX has been flying human-rated launch vehicles while NASA has not. That’s what the “gap” is, that NASA has. It’s nada. NASA gets to point to accomplishments in history books, but it can’t point to hardware that is actually now flying. EM-2 gets NASA back flying people in 2019, we’re told, but NASA’s “half a century of HSF experience” frankly doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in that date. EM-2 needs a launcher that they haven’t even started cutting metal for, and half a century of human space flight experience means squat for that.

Now SpaceX certainly won’t make NASA human space flight obsolete, as SpaceX won’t provide jobs in key congressional districts. That is, of course, what NASA human spaceflight is for.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Sat, 20 Jul 2013 01:26:56 +0000

“Anyone know the real driver for raising shutting down MSFC?”

Consolidation of rocket testing facilities. MSFC and SSC overlap in this function.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 21:35:43 +0000

“It says basically if sequestration is repealed/replaced add money for ISS, SLS, Orion, and Commercial Crew”

And it does so without any clear justification. That’s just laziness. It’s authorization by default.

“One model to look at is how the defense authorization and appropriations processes work.”

I’m not sure that’s an appropriate model. Defense is an all-encompassing activity, and what one branch does strongly impacts what is needed from the other branches. That’s why Approps and Auth need to work closely. You need some coordination in the whole investment. Nothing could be further than the truth for NASA. If human space flight disappeared off the face of the Earth, it wouldn’t matter a whit to science, and vice versa.

That Approps deferred to the Authorizers on policy with regard to Constellation on policy is exactly right. Because Constellation required some level of detailed inspection that Approps was simply not set up to give it. But I don’t think Approps was deferring budgeting of Constellation to the authorizers.

By: Aberwys

Aberwys — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 11:20:16 +0000

Not too much to expect from a member of Congress to do their job, it’s simply that there is always a good answer to “Why this? Why now?” Most folks of her ilk think very carefully about releasing such an attack.

I agree with James’ earlier comment. Someone has to start to step up and be vocal, as Babs will eventually retire.

By: Stephen C. Smith

Stephen C. Smith — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:15:47 +0000

This morning's Florida Today: “House, Senate Fund Different Paths for NASA”

By: Michael Mealling

Michael Mealling — Fri, 19 Jul 2013 01:50:13 +0000

Will the “Center Realignment and Closure Commission” be setup only after the “Base Utility and Technology Trust” has been created?

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:57:41 +0000

Aberwys said:

“Such a blatant attack of MSFC by a former GSFC-er (Ms. Edwards) is political folly.”

That may be, but it has people talking about why (or why not) the idea has any validity.

“Anyone know the real driver for raising shutting down MSFC?”

That would be interesting to know, but I’m not sure we ever will. Or at least the whole story.

By: MattW

MattW — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:57:10 +0000

She compared the costs against the benefits and performed her duty as ranking member of the authorizing committee? I know, too much to expect from a member of Congress.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:54:37 +0000

MECO,

I would agree with you that before 2010 appropriators had little regard for authorizations. This was especially true in the House when Rep. Rohrabacher ran House Science. The term Rep. Lewis’ people used for him was, “Nuts”.

But in 2010, thanks to Sen. KBH and the Great Space Fight, appropriators and authorizers tried to work together. And it worked pretty well between 2010 and the end of 2012.

The budget nonsense of sequestration and trying to keep adherence to the Ryan budget has muddied the water in the House. As for the Senate, it will depend upon how much Sen. Nelson goes off the reservation on Orion, SLS, and Commercial Crew. Too far and Sen. Shelby, and by extension Sen. Mikuslki, will ignore Nelson’s bill.

Honestly, I just don’t see how the reconciled NASA budet can get approval by both chambers. To win one is get a budget that is anathema to the other. And a CR would be a convenient way for NASA funding to stay level while House GOP members can talk about how they held the line on statist Senate spending. I would like your thoughts on that.

By: Jimmy

Jimmy — Thu, 18 Jul 2013 23:44:08 +0000

Rep. Smith is doing an exemplary job of adhering to the Party line, literally. He has to, I guess. His Congressional district in TX, though it touches on San Antonio, is rural and very conservative. This is a Tea Party state and he has to be on the look-out for a Primary challenge.

I personally think Rep. Johnson has lost her way. She has been butting heads with Chairman Smith, and for what? Now she proposes to close Marshall? That won’t help her efforts to work with Rep. Brooks later. And Sen. Shelby, the RM of the full Senate Approps Committee, and also the RM of the Approps CJS Subcommittee, must be having a good laugh at that.