so this is a good thing, right?

The hearing took all of six minutes. Nearly empty room. Not clear how many subcommittee members were there, but the Chair was not.

The purpose of this one-year authorization bill is, according to Chairman Udall ...

"In addition to providing funding and programmatic direction for fiscal year 2009, this bill is also intended to provide congressional guidance for the next Administration relative to NASA. I believe that it is critically important for Congress to do so. Without a clear statement of congressional priorities and policies for the Nation's civil space and aeronautics enterprise, we run the risk of wasting both time and scarce resources during and after the transition from one
Administration to the next. I want to avoid such an outcome if at all possible."

A lot of this bill is about transition.

I like how Congress forgets the part it has played in extending the gap between the Space Shuttle and Constellation. Remember the '07 year with a CR that forced NASA to work with '06 funding? And guess what? Congress is very likely to do it again in '09, which will make the gap even larger!

NASA cannot do what it's being directed to do with the funding it has.

NASA needs to buy Soyuz for ISS. Sorry, COTS D will not make it in time and cannot be used as an ISS rescue craft. I know it is hard for everyone to swallow, but it is a fact.

NASA should not extend the Space Shuttle. Anyone remember Columbia? The CAIB considered it dangerous and urged NASA to build a replacement. The only reason Space Shuttle is still flying is because of ISS and international commitments.

Has so much time passed that Congress, especially those in Florida, forgot about the loss of seven astronauts? Is the risk more acceptable now because jobs are on the line? Those jobs have been on the line since the accident. And if there's a serious incident in space before shuttle's retirement, those jobs are lost immediately. The remaining fleet will likely be grounded for good.

Finally, Congress isn't likely to do a thing. It is an election year and no one wants to make waves. NASA has a tough road in front of it and the White House and the Hill are doing very little to help.

Re: COTS D will not make it in time and cannot be used as an ISS rescue craft. I know it is hard for everyone to swallow, but it is a fact.

No, that is an estimate or an assertion, not a fact.

JSC_LIS: "NASA cannot do what it's being directed to do with the funding it has."

That might be true, but it has as much to do with the choices NASA management has made as with the amount of funding it has. Some decisions that come to mind: ESAS crew size to ISS/Moon, new focus on larger robotic missions, and lack of incentives for commercial and international participation in some areas. NASA's funding problems were entirely predictable in general, if not in the specifics. I'll make another prediction: NASA's funding problems will continue. NASA management needs to manage with this possibility in mind.

JSC_LIS: "NASA needs to buy Soyuz for ISS. Sorry, COTS D will not make it in time and cannot be used as an ISS rescue craft. I know it is hard for everyone to swallow, but it is a fact."

We don't even know what the COTS D proposals would be, so you can't know it won't make it in time or be used as a rescue craft. Depending on the ground rules, proposals might even include hybrids with U.S. components and existing foreign components (Soyuz, etc), which could make the date earlier. There are a number of U.S.-only possibilities, too.

COTS D should have been started a couple years ago ... that would have improved the schedule. The longer we wait, the later it will be available. If the proposals don't sound attractive enough, or a winner can't make its milestones, what have we lost by trying? Not much. There's very little down side, and a lot of up side.

Anyway, what is "in time"? I'd say that if it reduces the ever-growing gap, it's "in time".

I do agree that Shuttle shouldn't be extended. The single AMS mission wouldn't be too much of a departure from that policy ... unless our luck runs out that mission. Congress does need to consider that risk more closely.

So does the authorization bill provide NASA's intended amounts to fund the Shuttle replacement? ..or not.