US Senate Says Cut NASA Budget, CCDEV In Favor Of SLS - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/09/16/senate-gives-500m-to-commercial-crew-limits-future-use-of-space-act-agreements/[/URL] [quote] In the last three days, the Senate has proposed: cutting NASA’s overall budget by over a half billion dollars; spending $3 billion on a massive heavy-lift program and Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle that probably won’t fly people for 10 years; slashing the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program from a proposed $850 million to $500 million; dictating that NASA conduct the CCDev program in the most complicated, expensive and time consuming manner possible. Welcome to the Congressional sausage factor, 21st century style. Real pretty, ain’t it? And congratulations to the Russians. If this plays out like I think it will, NASA will continue to pay you ever increasing amounts of money for many more years to come to send its astronauts to a station it primarily funded. But, enough of this. Let’s get to the numbers for human spaceflight in the Senate proposal. Key excerpts are below. [B]SENATE’S PROPOSED FY 2012 NASA BUDGET[/B] Appropriations, 2011: $18,448,028,000 Budget estimate, 2012: 18,724,300,000 Committee recommendation: 17,938,773,000 The Committee’s recommendation provides $17,938,773,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]. The recommendation is $509,255,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $785,527,000 below the budget request. [B]Exploration [In thousands of dollars][/B] Exploration Research and Development: 275,000 Commercial Space Flight: 500,000 Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle: 1,200,000 Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle System: 1,800,000 [B]TOTAL:[/B] 3,775,000 The Committee shares the administration’s enthusiasm for new acquisition models intended to keep the cost of space access low and for investments in new technologies that can radically reduce the cost of human transportation, to and in, space. However, NASA cannot abdicate its responsibility for safety and oversight of entities receiving Federal dollars as an investment in developing launch and crew capabilities. [B][I]Commercial Crew.[/I]—[/B]Of the amount included for commercial crew development activities, $307,400,000 shall be available on October 1, 2011. This amount is equal to the fiscal year 2011 level for commercial crew development. An additional $192,600,000 of commercial crew funding will become available after the NASA Administrator has certified, in writing, that NASA has: (1) published the notifications to implement acquisition strategy for the heavy lift launch vehicle system, also known as the space launch system [SLS], authorized in section 302 of Public Law 111–267 and (2) begun to execute relevant contract actions in support of development of SLS. This certification may not be delegated and will assure the Committee that NASA is committed to all elements of the balanced human spaceflight program authorized in Public Law 111–267. The Committee understands that NASA will be providing more information on the acquisition strategy for SLS in the coming weeks. Currently, NASA lacks one consolidated set of requirements for crew safety. Within this funding, NASA shall develop and make available to the public detailed human rating processes and requirements to guide the design of all crew transportation capabilities. These requirements shall be at least equivalent to requirements for crew transportation currently in use, as well as any relevant recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, and shall apply to all NASA-funded vehicles that carry humans, both commercial and Government-owned. The Committee is pleased by NASA’s commitment to hold commercially developed launch vehicles to be used to carry out NASA missions to the same safety standards as Government-developed launch vehicles. The Committee encourages NASA to develop plans to fully utilize NASA-owned rocket testing infrastructure for commercially developed launch vehicles to ensure that these vehicles are tested in the same manner as Government-developed launch vehicles. NASA Policy Directive 1050.1I states that funded Space Act Agreements may be used only when the Agency’s objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. The Committee believes that the current practice by NASA has gone beyond what is cited under NASA’s own policy directive. Such misuse of these authorities undermines the oversight of NASA in the procurement process and threatens crew safety. For future rounds of commercial crew competitions and acquisitions, NASA shall limit the use of funded Space Act Agreements as stated in the directive in order to preserve critical NASA oversight of Federal funds provided for spacecraft and launch vehicle development. [B]Editor’s Note:[/B] In a message mailed out last night, Space Access Society Founder Henry Vanderbilt said that shifting from Space Act Agreements to more traditional NASA procurement approaches will all but kill the commercial crew program:[/quote] Additional information in the link. TL;DR: The Senate wants to slash the budget for SpaceX and other commercial crew-carrying development in favor of shoveling more and more money into the miniature black hole that Lockheed Martin keeps at their headquarters. They want to spend multiple times SpaceX's entire development cost for a capsule that (optimistically) won't fly until the ISS is at the bottom of the Pacific. No more seed money for private enterprise that can do the job cheaper, faster, and better than Big Aerospace. We just go back to the old days of funneling taxpayer money into the same few no-bid contractors who inevitably go 200% over budget and years late. But, hey, at least we can spend money on the Senate Launch System for a few years until that gets cancelled to. Sorry, Elon, the Senate apparently thinks your money is better spent buying three chairs, a hatch, and a cupholder for Orion.

Oh come on, isn't NASA already damn low on budget? And now this? This honestly sucks..

Nasa is small-time. The defense budget can be 4/5ths and the US would still be the country in the world spending the largest amount on it. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png[/IMG] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures[/url] So for gods sake, do that.

[QUOTE=mac338;32324054]Nasa is small-time. The defense budget can be 4/5ths and the US would still be the country in the world spending the largest amount on it. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/0b7ea9b398bc3d1defb7852c62eb50e3.png[/IMG] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures[/url] So for gods sake, do that.[/QUOTE] For the price of the entire year's CCDEV program, you could get about 3 F-35s (R&D included). Yeah.

Which, hilariously enough, is a Lockheed plane.

Gotta love it when the uneducated and corrupt get to make decisions about what a research agency is supposed to do and how much money they get to do it.

isnt spacex privately owned anyway

NASA Says Cut Senators Budget 90% of Americans agree [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] SpaceX - the newest leading Russian space technology company.

[QUOTE=AltFanatic;32325098]isnt spacex privately owned anyway[/QUOTE] Yes, but without NASA funding their manned capsule development would cease overnight.

I think the only thing that wastes/eliminates money faster than Lockheed Martian is a bonfire.

There has to be something fucked up going on between someone powerful and the people at Lockheed. First the F35, now the fucking SPACE PROGRAM? Too much of a coincidence

The US government has not cared an honest two shits since they beat the russians to the moon. They have been corner cutting NASA's budget ever since the Apollo missions ended.

Its strange that when we think about humanities real accomplishments space travel is one of the first things we think of. But apparently human legacy and advancement isn't that important. Really while a tax break could be good right now what we will look back on and what we think really made a difference a 100 years from now will come from are science not are economy.

Blowing each other up is more important than colonizing other planets. But even if we do that there's no doubt in my mind the people on those colonies will one day be blowing each other up again. Greed and corruption is a sad thing.

[QUOTE=MIPS;32325876]The US government has not cared an honest two shits since they beat the russians to the moon. They have been corner cutting NASA's budget ever since the Apollo missions ended.[/QUOTE] Which is sad seeing how monumental things space travel has been. I can't imagine a single person that saw the moon landing that did not feel proud about it. One of my wishes would be to see a launch, and i have seen 2 shuttle landings on the tv, In the middle of the night and still felt proud, Especially when the first Swedish astronaut came home When the budget for the aircon or the soldiers in Iraq is higher then the budget for Space Exploration and Development, Then you got your priorities wrong

Need money? Cut NASA's budget!

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;32326021]Blowing each other up is more important than colonizing other planets. But even if we do that there's no doubt in my mind the people on those colonies will one day be blowing each other up again. Greed and corruption is a sad thing.[/QUOTE] Once we get to the point that we are able to go to other planets we will be able to take resources from the rest of the solar system meaning there should be enough resources to make everyone happy. That is if we aren't a cloud of nanobots by then just floating across the cosmos.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;32326068]I say we hand NASA over to Norway/Sweden, they're the best explorers in the universe, they probably already explored Mars but forgot about it, just like with North America. There's probably a god damn viking colony on the other side of the moon.[/QUOTE] Actually, We didn't bother with Mars. Too close and to red. Europa seemed like a fitting choice instead. [Posting via LaserCom - Origin: Europa Station #5]

Just cut the fucking military budget. Seriously, what's so hard about that?

[QUOTE=erik802;32326200]Need money? Cut NASA's budget![/QUOTE] Cut a tiny budget even more and tax the poor that's the GOP way

[QUOTE=rosthouse;32326277]Just cut the fucking military budget. Seriously, what's so hard about that?[/QUOTE] If we do then Britain will take its revenge. Sure it says no hard feelings but we know deep down its just waiting for us to let down are guard.

[QUOTE=rosthouse;32326277]Just cut the fucking military budget. Seriously, what's so hard about that?[/QUOTE] You sir, sound like a communist. We would not have that now would we

[QUOTE=rosthouse;32326277]Just cut the fucking military budget. Seriously, what's so hard about that?[/QUOTE] Cutting military spending would mean closing down military bases. Closing down bases puts soldiers out of jobs. I don't think that laying off, and pissing off hundreds of fit young men trained in the use of weapons and explosives would be a great Idea. It would have to be a gradual process to prevent this, such as perhaps raising the standards of recruitment so less men get in as more men retire.

[QUOTE=uberdood15;32326593]Cutting military spending would mean closing down military bases. Closing down bases puts soldiers out of jobs. I don't think that laying off, and pissing off hundreds of fit young men trained in the use of weapons and explosives would be a great Idea. It would have to be a gradual process to prevent this, such as perhaps raising the standards of recruitment so less men get in as more men retire.[/QUOTE] Other things can be done besides firing soldiers. I mean, lots of them just sit on their asses in comfy desk jobs doing nothing anyway.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32326480]If we do then Britain will take its revenge. Sure it says no hard feelings but we know deep down its just waiting for us to let down are guard.[/QUOTE] Hurry up and cut it faggots Operation Tea for Uncle Sam is go

[QUOTE=Atlascore;32326680]We could easily afford to keep all our military bases open and our soldiers paid with a third of the current budget, most of the military budget is spent on bullshit like research into jets we won't need for another 50 years.[/QUOTE] No, damnit, we spend the money on jets so the Chinese and Russians can reverse-engineer the good bits, so they don't have to fund their own programs as much. Why else would America continue to fund the F-35 program after most of the stealth info was stolen by the Chinese.

How much does it cost to build a relatively cheap and efficient capsule to send the senmate into the sun? [editline]17th September 2011[/editline] I think I may have an idea.

Fucking retarded old men on the senate don't care about the future of the human species since they're pretty much going to be dead in 10, considering space travel IS the future of our species.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32326480]If we do then Britain will take its revenge. Sure it says no hard feelings but we know deep down its just waiting for us to let down are guard.[/QUOTE] Why do you keep saying "our" as "are"?

[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;32328857]Why do you keep saying "our" as "are"?[/QUOTE] Dyslexia. They sound almost the same=they are spelled the same.