eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun11.200742.12731@csun.edu> swalton@corona.csun.edu (Stephen Walton) writes: > >1) It is incorrect to conclude that funding frozen at last year's levels would >not severely hurt these programs. The funding profile of any space flight >project is not flat -- instead it grows sharply in the early years, and then >decreases as hardware problems have been solved and the project moves toward >launch and mission operations. CRAF/Cassini, AXAF, and EOS all required large >increases in FY '92, and the House action would deny these increases. The >situation is particularly severe for CRAF and Cassini, both of which have >perishable launch windows. > Hopefully the committees involved are intelligent enough to understand that planetary exploration missions rise and fall in funding through their development cycles, and the intent of the amendment is to freeze the overall planetary exploration budget at last year's level. If the committees are too dumb to understand this, we need to educate them fast, since projects winding down, like Mars Observer, will get unneeded windfalls, while those ramping up will be stalled. Dani Eder
szabo@sequent.com (06/18/91)
In article <328@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes: >If the committees are too dumb to understand this, we need to educate >them fast, since projects winding down, like Mars Observer, will get >unneeded windfalls, while those ramping up will be stalled. Congress has to cover a wide range of topics including DoD, DOE, Commerce, Agriculture, EPA, etc. etc. It cannot be expected to understand details of planetary missions, any more than a rocket engineer can be expected to be well-versed in tort law. It is up to the NASA leadership to provide an intelligent budget and guidance on these issues. They have failed to do so. On this topic, is there any way for space explorers to transfer money "under the covers" to provide the funds where they are needed? For example, CRAF work performed under the MO budget line, etc. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.
aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) (06/18/91)
In article <1991Jun18.001107.16534@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >Congress has to cover a wide range of topics including DoD, DOE, >Commerce, Agriculture, EPA, etc. etc. It cannot be expected to understand >details of planetary missions, any more than a rocket engineer can be >expected to be well-versed in tort law. Nonsense. Congress has an entire subcommittee devoted to nothing but space. This includes a dozen or so Congresscritters, their staff, the majority subcommittee staff, the minority subcommittee staff, and part of the full committee staff for the majority and minority. In the House the head of the full committee (Rep. Brown) is very interested in space and devotes significant time to it. Members may call on one of several research services to address specific questions. This subcommittee (in both houses) set a series of priorities for NASA funding. These priorities where then endorsed in both houses by a wide margin. >It is up to the NASA leadership to >provide an intelligent budget and guidance on these issues. Of the people I talk to none trust NASA further than they could spit a rat. >On this topic, is there any way for space explorers to transfer >money "under the covers" to provide the funds where they are needed? It has already happened. Space explorers in both NASA and the DoE have scraped together a few million to do the work needed to support a cost effective human infrastructure. If some new line items survive in the DoE budget we will see even more. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer | DETROIT: Where the weak are killed and eaten. | | aws@iti.org | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+