Problems With NASA's FY 2013 Budget
White House promises veto of GOP spending bill, AP
“The White House on Monday vowed to veto a House spending bill for the Justice Department, NASA and several other agencies, charging its GOP authors with violating last summer’s budget pact and cutting programs like legal aid to the poor too deeply.”
White House threatens veto on Commerce, Justice spending bill, The Hill
“The White House has said that Obama will sign none of the 12 annual spending bills, even if they make it through the Democratic Senate, unless the House GOP abandons its overall budget plans.”
Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 5326 (NASA excerpt)
“The Administration strongly opposes the level of funding provided for the commercial crew program, which is $330 million below the FY 2013 Budget request, as well as restrictive report language that would eliminate competition in the program. This would increase the time the United States will be required to rely solely on foreign providers to transport American astronauts to and from the space station. While the Administration appreciates the overall funding level provided to NASA, the bill provides some NASA programs with unnecessary increases at the expense of other important initiatives.”
Armstrong, Cernan, & Lovell Oppose Lenient Contract For Commercial Space
You know – playing the celebrity angle here is beyond stupid.
They would have more credibility if they bothered to visit the so called commercial space vendors, toured the facilities, inspected the LV/SC, spoke with the designers.
Instead of becoming trivial political “tools”.
So much for walking on the moon.
I hope I don’t lose my mind too when I reach that point in my life.
I’m doubting that this agenda is in any way “pro America”. Sounds more like the worst for America – devoid of virtue.
They are correct in their assertion that a SAA is not the appropriate procurement vehicle for these contracts. By NASA policy SAAs are only to be used when no other procurement vehicle can be used. There is no reason a standard procurement action with full and open competition can’t be used for these actions.
By NASA policy SAAs are only to be used when no other procurement vehicle can be used
I assert this is true with commercial crew now. Can’t explain here. But they know this too. Rude.
Interestingly, after initial commercial crew (or CCDEV) succeeds – then they are right.
This could have been written by almost anyone commenting on this site.
“…Strongly opposes the level of funding provided for the commercial crew program, which is $330 million below the FY 2013 Budget request, as well as restrictive report language that would eliminate competition in the program. This would increase the time the United States will be required to rely solely on foreign providers to transport American astronauts to and from the space station. …The bill provides some NASA programs with unnecessary increases at the expense of other important initiatives.”
SAA (Space Act Agreement) permitted NASA to tell SpaceX that they wanted more work on the Dragon + Falcon 9 before allowing it to fly to the ISS. That is an enormous amount of power to set requirements. How much more requirement setting power is sensible?