This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Budget

New Hearing: NASA Authorization Act of 2013

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
June 14, 2013
Filed under , , , ,

Subcommittee on Space Hearing – NASA Authorization Act of 2013, House Science Committee
The House Science Committee’s space subcommittee has scheduled a hearing for 10:00 a.m. ET next Wednesday, June 19 on the “NASA Authorization Act of 2013.” The House version of the bill has not been released yet but should be soon and possibly before the hearing.
The scheduled witnesses are:
– Dr. Steven W. Squyres, Goldwin Smith Professor of Astronomy, Cornell University
– Mr. A. Thomas Young, Former Executive Vice President, Lockheed Martin Corporation
UPDATE: Draft NASA Authorization Bill Nixes Asteroid Retrieval Mission, Space News
“The House Science, Space and Technology Committee has begun drafting a NASA authorization bill that would hold the agency to a top line of about $16.87 billion, bar funding for a planned asteroid rendezvous mission, and divert money for Earth observation into robotic missions to other parts of the solar system, according to an official summary of the bill obtained by SpaceNews.
The bill also would authorize NASA to spend $700 million annually on the Commercial Crew Program — up from the $500 million Congress authorized in 2010 — and require the agency to report every 90 days on the effort.”

FUTHER UPDATE: NASA Invites Media to Asteroid Initiative Industry and Partner Day (June 18) , NASA

Related:
House Hearing on FY 2014 Budget (April 24)
Today’s NASA Budget/Policy Hearings and Meetings (April 24)
NASA FY 2014 Budget Information (April 10)

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

14 responses to “New Hearing: NASA Authorization Act of 2013”

  1. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    Why do we continue to have the same people show up and testify. The congress people already know what they are going to say, maybe that is the point….

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      I agree. By this point, we could just about write the meeting minutes on the day before the meetings. It doesn’t appear to accomplish anything rerunning the same reality-TV-like committee meetings over and over again. And given that much of what is said is read directly from prepared scripts, why don’t they just fax each other copies of their notes and skip the meetings. With the money saved they could probably have another planetary probe sitting on the launch pad ready to go every couple of years..

  2. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    With respect to the Update report on the House Bill — why not save a lot of time and money and just send these issues straight to the House first, bypassing all of the other song and dance committees and studies. It seems to me that the House committees always change what is brought to them re: NASA anyhow, so why not just jump straight to the decision point and get the final answer at the outset? Of course, that might put a lot of lobbyists out of business and shrink a lot of campaign funding, but I think we could live with that. Just an idea.

  3. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    “Continued commitment to develop the Space Launch System and Orion Crew Vehicle to return to the Moon and beyond”

    Are there any serious (as in budgeted) plans for going somewhere in SLS/Orion? How much lead time is needed to plan and build the necessary equipment for any of these missions (Lunar lander, habitat, space station for L1 or L2, …)?

    I feel Congress seems happy with executing Apollo 8 missions.

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      There is no committed plan and no funding for any mission that uses the SLS. There are destinations mentioned, that’s it. Expect that if we want to land on any rock as part of an SLS/Orion mission, we’ll spend a good four or so years from selection of that rock (assuming funding is allocated immediately) to the construction of the lander, then another year or two on integration testing and validation. During that time (easily six years), all the contracting companies that build and maintain the SLS components will need to remain on contract to do nothing so that they’re assured to be available if the time does come to actually fly an SLS on an operational mission. I’m thinking 2024 is an optimistic early date for such a mission.

  4. mattmcc80 says:
    0
    0

    I can’t help but be suspicious of this initial raise (Or rather, less significant reduction) in the commercial crew budget. It seems to me there are four explanations. In order of perceived likelyhood for me, I would explain it as: 1) It comes with a quiet threat that the amount will be reduced if NASA fails to down-select to one provider, 2) It comes with the explicit threat that it will be reduced or a down-select will be required if, at any point along the series of 90-day reviews Congress finds a reason to be unhappy, 3) It’s become sufficiently politically embarrasing to continue relying on Soyuz, 4) It’s become politically unpopular to keep trying to kill commercial crew, and they’re actually willing to let the program complete.

    I still have no faith that more than one provider will be awarded a crew services contract after development has completed. The most I can bring myself to hope for is that one will receive a contract, a second will receive some modest on-call retainer for backup service. Such a retainer may be enough, combined with modest commercial business such as servicing a Bigelow station, to stay in operation.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Matt,
      I hear where you’re coming from, but even a Senator can understand the need for redundancy. So I think that two companies may end up getting contracts, the second one being just enough to keep them in the game, while the first one has all the gravy.
      But, like you, I figure there’s no way that all of the contenders are coming out of this with government contracts, which means a least one company is going to take a serious hit. So much for “jobs program” thinking in government.
      Personally, I find this ugly. With some simple changes to the “commercial” programs and their funding, everybody, including the taxpayers and the government reps, could have come out of this ahead.

  5. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    Good entertainment is about all it is. CR and Sequester will continue.

  6. James Stanton says:
    0
    0

    Back to the Moon instead of Lost in Space? A sensible move, finally.

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      Regardless of whether or not you think going to the Moon, or Mars, or an asteroid are a good idea, Congress mandating specific destinations for NASA (which is what they’re doing by explicitly excluding other destinations) makes no sense whatsoever. Their job is to allocate the budget, not define the mission. Imagine if Congress went to the NIH and told them specifically which strains of the flu that they could or could not spend research money on.

  7. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    This is bad news for Earth Observation. Decreasing their funds is a mistake at best. I can’t help but think that this decision is partially driven by the House’s bete noire, climate change.

  8. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    For Congress to specify missions and hardware architecture is absolutely the wrong way to achieve a successful and long term viable program.

    Technical and scientific knowledge in Congress are certainly not required, and judging by statements and decisions by Congress, they are definitely not in evidence.

  9. grassrootsofone says:
    0
    0

    The President formulates the budget request. Congress reviews and negotiates with its own version.

    The final spending bills must be signed into law by the president, and a spending bill can be vetoed if the president doesn’t like it. We have SLS and Orion because Obama has agreed to them.

    We don’t know that the next president won’t veto spending for one or both of them.

  10. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    “and require the agency to report every 90 days on the effort”

    Report to who? Congress I’m guessing?