(sigh) That mindset is taking far, far too long to die. The sixties are over.

This seems to imply that the committee has some way of knowing what the proper funding is, does it not? Where does the committee get that information? Or is “proper funding” just an euphemism for “Minimum Acceptable Amount of Pork”? (Dibs on MAAP as a new acronym.)

Bizarro-world logic. If an agency can’t develop a cost estimate for a project after years of work, then it makes no sense to flush hundreds of millions of more dollars down that toilet. You have no idea if those extra taxpayer funds will have any effect at all. Talk about throwing good money after bad. Cripes.

Further, if there is to be any hope for Commercial Crew to turn out as efficient and affordable as Commercial Cargo has, it too must continue on a commercial basis.

FARs-type cost accounting requirements impose significant additional burden on commercial operators, by some estimates as much as doubling overall costs. It also potentially reveals to both domestic and international rivals a great deal of competition-sensitive confidential commercial information.

Senator Shelby looks here to be engaging in straightforward sabotage against rivals of his massively wasteful home-town government rocket project. This cannot be allowed to stand.

The full Senate Appropriations Comittee marks this bill at 10 am tomorrow. The time to contact your Senator (if any) on the Committee and raise (polite) hell is today.

Committee Members

Mikulski, Barbara A. (MD) , Chairman
Leahy, Patrick J. (VT)
Harkin, Tom (IA)
Murray, Patty (WA)
Feinstein, Dianne (CA)
Durbin, Richard J. (IL)
Johnson, Tim (SD)
Landrieu, Mary L. (LA)
Reed, Jack (RI)
Pryor, Mark L. (AR)
Tester, Jon (MT)
Udall, Tom (NM)
Shaheen, Jeanne (NH)
Merkley, Jeff (OR)
Begich, Mark (AK)
Coons, Christopher A. (DE)

Shelby, Richard C. (AL), Ranking Member
Cochran, Thad (MS)
McConnell, Mitch (KY)
Alexander, Lamar (TN)
Collins, Susan M. (ME)
Murkowski, Lisa (AK)
Graham, Lindsey (SC)
Kirk, Mark (IL)
Coats, Daniel (IN)
Blunt, Roy (MO)
Moran, Jerry (KS)
Hoeven, John (ND)
Johanns, Mike (NE)
Boozman, John (AR)

Why do I have to remind you to read the news from six months ago?

Space Station 2024 Extension Expands Economic and Research Horizons http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/2024extension/

International space station operation extended by Obama until at least 2024
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nasa-space-station-operation-extended-by-obama-until-2024-at-least/2014/01/08/9819d5c8-788e-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html

International Space Station Gets Life Extension Through 2024
http://www.space.com/24208-international-space-station-extension-2024.html

“Commercial crew is losing value to American every day.”

Bullcrap. Commercial crew has already saved billions versus using MPCV at a $1 billion a pop (not including SLS launch costs) for ISS transport.

“Orion is proceeding to its first flight without incident.”

Sure, just ignore the parachute failure:

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/orion_banner.jpg

And the structural test failure:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/orion/eft1/130512eft1loads/#.U49MASxOWaN

And the four-year schedule slip in the high-altitude abort test:

“the MPCV program is already suffering from delays in testing key components and systems, including postponing the Ascent Abort-2 test by 4 years”

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/08/16/orion-review/

The three-month slip in the first partial test mission itself:

http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2014/03/orion-slips-launch-schedule-to-december.html

ESA’s mass and schedule issues on the SM:

http://aviationweek.com/space/esas-orion-service-module-overweight-delaying-pdr

And the fact that the operational version of the CM is 4-5,000 lbs. overweight.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/nasa-review-sls-core-stage-orion-weight-issues

Other than that, everything is great! No “incidents” whatsoever!

“As one contributor is so fond of saying, ‘Tic tock tic tock…'”

Idiots of a feather, tick-tock together.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/06/senate_joins_house_as_disappoi.html

Senate joins House as ‘disappointed’ at White House commitment to NASA’s Space Launch System

By Lee Roop | lroop@al.com
on June 04, 2014 at 8:46 AM, updated June 04, 2014 at 8:58 AM

(excerpts)

WASHINGTON – Senate appropriators are “disappointed” in the White House commitment to NASA’s Space Launch System, and they are taking steps to strengthen the administration’s resolve.

A NASA budget passed by an Appropriations Committee subcommittee Tuesday takes NASA to task for budgets that repeatedly “fall far short of requirements by providing unreliable and unsubstantiated cost estimates.”

“The committee remains disappointed that the funding requested by NASA for SLS and the Orion (crew vehicle) once again bears little relation to either funding levels provided in previous years or NASA’s own cost estimates and policies,” appropriators said in the language accompanying their appropriations bill. “NASA has yet to provide independent cost and schedule assessments for SLS and Orion, which the committee has requested since the programs began. To preserve the current schedule and maintain proper funding for planned work and reserve levels, the committee must rectify NASA’s planned budget shortfall for SLS and Orion.”

Senate appropriators said in their official report accompanying the budget that they are concerned “insufficient funding for SLS will lead to cost escalation and unnecessary schedule delays that will have to be addressed in future budget years.”

“Confirm vehicle set to puree?”

“Vehicle set to puree confirmed.”

“3, 2, 1, ignition, launch.”

“The astronaut masher has cleared the tower. Good job, everyone.”

Except for the days it’d convert to parachute crisper if they needed to separate the capsule and range-safety the solid booster.

(b) Exceptions to certified cost or pricing data requirements. The contracting officer shall not require certified cost or pricing data to support any action (contracts, subcontracts, or modifications) (but may require data other than certified cost or pricing data as defined in FAR 2.101 to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price or cost realism)—

(1) When the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on adequate price competition (see standards in paragraph (c)(1) of this subsection);

(2) When the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on prices set by law or regulation (see standards in paragraph (c)(2) of this subsection);

(3) When a commercial item is being acquired (see standards in paragraph (c)(3) of this subsection);

(4) When a waiver has been granted (see standards in paragraph (c)(4) of this subsection); or

(5) When modifying a contract or subcontract for commercial items (see standards in paragraph (c)(3) of this subsection).

Do I need to remind you of the date, and the likelihood that ISS will end in 2020? Commercial crew is losing value to American every day. Speed is needed. Competition is less important. Orion is proceeding to its first flight without incident. As one contributor is so fond of saying, “Tic tock tic tock…”