NASA Appropriations FY-05

With their trademark flair, the House Appropriations Committee chose the
35th anniversary of the first moon landing to put out the appropriations
bill covering NASA:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14633

"NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1
billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the
elimination of funding for new initiatives."

"The reductions include $30 million for technology maturation efforts;
$230 million from Project Prometheus related to Jupiter Icy Moon Orbital;
$438 million resulting from delaying the Crew Exploration Vehicle;
and $100 million from Space Launch Initiatives by accelerating the
termination of activities."

"The bill fully funds shuttle operations at the requested level of $4.3
billion. The committee fully funds Mars programs at the requested level
of $691 million."

Shuttle remains on the go, as does the current Mars series, but there's
a good bit of trimming of the other headlines - notably the CEV.

(I'll be interested to see what "delaying" translates to...)

--
-Andrew Gray

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
With their trademark flair, the House Appropriations Committee chose the
35th anniversary of the first moon landing to put out the appropriations
bill covering NASA:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14633

"NASA is funded at $15.1 billion, $229 million below last year and $1.1
billion below the request. The bulk of these savings come from the
elimination of funding for new initiatives."

(I'll be interested to see what "delaying" translates to...)

Ultimately, increased costs for anything that is delayed.


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...

(I'll be interested to see what "delaying" translates to...)

Ultimately, increased costs for anything that is delayed.

Why? If I delay purchasing a computer for one year, I can be pretty
sure the price will go down. If I delay purchasing a trip to England
for one year, the price may go up or down. Why do you assume that the
cost of space travel can only go up?

Edward Wright wrote:

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message ...


(I'll be interested to see what "delaying" translates to...)

Ultimately, increased costs for anything that is delayed.


Why? If I delay purchasing a computer for one year, I can be pretty
sure the price will go down. If I delay purchasing a trip to England
for one year, the price may go up or down. Why do you assume that the
cost of space travel can only go up?

Because it's a government development program, not a commercial
off-the-shelf item. Stops and starts tend to add costs.

Rand Simberg wrote in message link.net...

Why? If I delay purchasing a computer for one year, I can be pretty
sure the price will go down. If I delay purchasing a trip to
England
for one year, the price may go up or down. Why do you assume that
the
cost of space travel can only go up?

Because it's a government development program, not a commercial
off-the-shelf item. Stops and starts tend to add costs.

Then perhaps NASA should base its Space Exploration Initiative on
commercial off-the-shelf items, which tend to go down in price, rather
than government development programs, which tend to go up?

Edward Wright wrote:

Because it's a government development program, not a commercial
off-the-shelf item. Stops and starts tend to add costs.


Then perhaps NASA should base its Space Exploration Initiative on
commercial off-the-shelf items, which tend to go down in price, rather
than government development programs, which tend to go up?

Perhaps, but given that they're not, this congressional action is going
to increase, not decrease costs, assuming that the program eventually
does go forward.

"Edward Wright" wrote in message
om...

Then perhaps NASA should base its Space Exploration Initiative on
commercial off-the-shelf items, which tend to go down in price, rather
than government development programs, which tend to go up?

that's fine, as long as the COTS that NASA would buy all have the extreme
level of bugproofing, reliability and low power/volume requirements that you
need for spaceflight...

--
Terrell Miller


proudly keeping alt.music.yes all-to-**** since 1996

Rand Simberg wrote in message hlink.net...

Because it's a government development program, not a commercial
off-the-shelf item. Stops and starts tend to add costs.

Then perhaps NASA should base its Space Exploration Initiative on
commercial off-the-shelf items, which tend to go down in price,
rather
than government development programs, which tend to go up?

Perhaps, but given that they're not, this congressional action is going
to increase, not decrease costs, assuming that the program eventually
does go forward.

However, that given might not be a given by the time Congress finally
gets around to funding the program. The longer Congress waits to fund
SEI, the less likely that given is to apply.

In fact, I'm told that today's Wall Street Journal is reporting a new
White House draft policy that would block NASA from developing new
launch vehicles, requiring them to use COTS instead. If such a policy
is adopted between now and the time SEI is funded, I expect the cost
of SEI to go down by roughly the cost of a Saturn V development
program. If the policy allows for the use of future RLVs, the cost may
drop much further.

On 22 Jul 2004 12:34:18 -0700, (Edward
Wright) wrote:


In fact, I'm told that today's Wall Street Journal is reporting a new
White House draft policy that would block NASA from developing new
launch vehicles, requiring them to use COTS instead.

I don't think a U.S. COTS vehicle is up to the task, and Hell will
freeze over before Congress agrees to buy Russian launch services.
Does this mean NASA won't be able to deal with industry for a Delta IV
Super, Atlas 5 Super or even a Falcon Super? Sounds like this policy
is a "kill the program without really saying so" policy.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..

I'm told that today's Wall Street Journal is reporting a new
White House draft policy that would block NASA from developing new
launch vehicles, requiring them to use COTS instead.

I don't think a U.S. COTS vehicle is up to the task, and Hell will
freeze over before Congress agrees to buy Russian launch services.

Do you think Atlas has regressed since astronauts rode it in the 60's?

Sounds like this policy
is a "kill the program without really saying so" policy.

Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.