JF Mezei wrote:
On 2018-01-20 08:25, David Spain wrote:
A quick search of DuckDuckGo (enough of Google already) using this
phrase: "iss and government shutdown" let to this website:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/19/1...s-falcon-heavy
Gives the standard text. Does not address the fact that the White House
refused to provide details on exactly ahwt will and won't shutdown as
per Friday afternoon's press briefiengs, except reveal that the shutdown
would have far less impact than in the past because they found different
ways to interpret the rules.
The test firing of Falcon Heavy has been cancelled because of the
furlough of government safety personnel to support commercial test
flights.
The budget guy also refused to state
whether once settled, there would be retroactive pay. (despite this
being the expected behaviour from previous shutdowns).
That's because whether that happens or not is up to CONGRESS. If the
bill they eventually pass calls for retroactive pay, then people get
retroactive pay. If it doesn't then they don't. Nobody knows the
answer to that until a deal passes.
So the "standard" answers may not be applicable. Yes, of course, ISS
"essential" ops continue. But my question pertained more on how much
leaway NASA has to consider something "essential".
Yes, yes, and we could all die of magic unicorn farts on Tuesday.
Pretty unlikely, though.
The article provides some colour in terms of the spacewalk going ahead.
Does not mention ground based staff assigned to experiments. Oh, and
note the byline of that article "THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF UNKNOWNS"
Look, if you want minute details, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
I'm not trying to be overly critical here, or antagonistic. But searches
likes these are rudimentary these days and the information you seek is
So, even when the articles you point has "THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF
UNKNOWNS", you feel it is inappropriate to ask questions on exactly how
this shutdown will happen ?
So, even when there are unknowns you think asking questions is useful?
There's a reason they're called 'unknowns' and the fact that there are
some doesn't mean everything is.
I am more curious to see what "running out of funds" really means in
terms of the law (and how much leaway each department has).
It's real simple. If funds are part of the annual budget, they stop.
I can understand a "no more contracts can be signed". But am not clear
what happens to existing contracts and international commitments.
They don't get paid until after a deal passes to fund things.
I can understand how a government worker at IRS who gets paycheck from
"US Government" is no longer funded, but not so clear about independent
organsiations such as NASA that get yearly budget, have their own
payroll, bank accounts etc. I would have expected that as long as they
remain within their already allocated budget envelope, they could
continue to operate normally.
NASA isn't 'independent', as you note yourself. It's a government
organization funded by annual budgets. No annual budget authority and
payments stop. They don't have an "already allocated budget
envelope". The failure to pass any sort of budget deal means nothing
is "already allocated".
And also curious on how NASA is different from say the US Post Office
and Amtrak , both of whom continue to operate normally under a shutdown.
(and whether a commercial operation such as launching Falcon Heavy would
be allowed since it generates revenues for NASA).
The US Post Office and AMTRAC are actually independent organizations
that aren't funded out of the annual budget. NASA is funded out of
the annual budget process and is NOT an 'independent organization'.
There's your difference.
And if the shutdown was real, woudln't utilities cut power/gas to
government buildings if, by law, they couldn't be paid for services
provided after the shutdown?
You've never heard of credit cards?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn