House Gets Firm With NASA Over Data Request

To say that the congressmen are upset is an understatement.

The very fact that Bolden, Garver and company are not cooperating with Congress should give cause for concern.

Reminds me of an old song.... "never gonna get it!"

The reason the A-Suite ISN'T supplying documantation is because it CAN'T supply documentation. As in: there isn't any.

The point Congress is trying to make is that there were no studies, analyses or hearings to support the Administration's "plan". None. It was the brainchild of "unnamed" members of OSTP and OMB in a back room.

The phrase "should Congress decide not to terminate those programs" speaks volumes.

I surmise there are no studies, analyses or hearings to support the Administration's "plan", but fear Congress's inaction has made the decision for them.Already hundreds are being affected by the latest salvo from Bolden and Congress has done nothing. Can they? Perhaps. Another hearing with Bolden. Another chance to grand stand to the voters and say, hey I'm fighting for you, vote for me. But you don't see it. Ultimately it comes down to Congress doing something that it hasn't done in generations, directly "denying" the policy of the president. With an upcoming election year, you're not going to see that. Pity. I use to think highly of NASA. It's the reason I became an engineer. Now I guess it will become yet another regulating agency, with the same inspirational value of the FDA or OSHA.

"The phrase "should Congress decide not to terminate those programs" speaks volumes."

Agreed. I think the Obama admin is burning bridges with congress it cannot afford to burn.

Also...

"We therefore demand that the following records (as defined in the Attachment) be produced to the Committee on Science and Technology:...."

"Demand"

Has such language ever been used before from congress to NASA?

The longer this goes on, the more inept Charlie Bolden looks as the new NASA administrator. Is that what Obama wants?

The President needs to get off his posterior and talk to the Democratic leadership on this issue and make a deal with Congress. Or maybe the President just doesn't think NASA is all that important!

Marcel F. Williams

Silly people, actual documents and records dont exist in an "open" and "transparent" government.

It probably didnt help that on top of the 5 months of dodging Congress, he sent them a letter saying they werent done yet and they would provide the data when he was ready. (all of this while he is galavanting around Egypt and Qatar, instead of working on the budget.)

But as others have already said, the truth is, they cannot provide nor produce that which does not exist, since there was no meetings or conversations or presentations or analysis or any input from anybody within NASA (at least not below the deputy admin position).

Maybe the POR needs to be revised, but every single thing about the way this plan was rolled out was done 100% wrong. They didnt work with the Center directors, they didnt work with the Program Managers, they didnt work with Congress, they did not follow any of the normal rules of doing business. They thought they were being clever and blindsided everybody and we have been dealing with their "cleverness" for 5 months now. To the point where everything is now grinding to a standstill and people are losing jobs.

Glad to see the House Science and Technology Committee has finally expressed their disgust with this debacle.

I think people are reading to much and to little into this letter. The various
branches of government are at permanent war with each other. And congress
has something of a civil war between the House and the Senate. There is a
saying in the House, “the enemy is not a congressman of the opposite party,
the enemy is the Senate”.

This letter and the “fight” has to be seen in that light. For once you have an
administration that has the balls to take back the space program in hopes of
using it for something (regardless of what you may think of what they want
to use it for). Congress is PO’d about not being consulted about the revolution.Of coarse if they had been consulted, they would have crushed the revolution.

They had a sweet little deal going where contractors provided political support
and jobs for there constituents, and it didn’t much matter if NASA came up
with program after program that were not fundable and had to be canceled,
as long as new contracts got issued with the available funds and the same
contractors got those contractors. The gravy train kept coming around and
congress had what it really wanted, insured reelection. Well now that is
threatened and they are up in arms.

They should all go fornicate with themselves. This is not the space coast’s
NASA, this is the American people’ NASA. And only the President has to
go before all the people and get a majority of votes.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but Constellation is a complete waste, including Ares and Orion. The only thing that can be reclaimed is the unspent dollars. If we're going to spend money, we should do something useful.

I'm sorry but they can demand all they want and there's really not much they can do about it, except hold the budget hostage. oh, that's right, they can't even PASS a budget. The truth is that Obama has them over a barrel. They can huff and puff; he has the antidifficiency act, a little know piece of actual legislation that will destroy Constellation.

According to the National Aeronautics and Space Act, NASA is "under the supervision and direction of the President".

Congress can make all the "demands" it wants to. They are not the boss of NASA.

Well bearing in mind that the request and especially it's deadline is the very definition of an impossible request. Attachment 1 being a case in point. However:
"6) All other records NASA deems relevant to the support of the Administration's human spaceflight plan."

...does give NASA the opportunity of an info DUMP of humungous proportions. I would suggest the entire contents of the NTRS and embed the data therein.

No Index should be provided. Congress did not ask that the data be indexed!

If I were an Administrator I would merely state that we wanted to be sure that not one iota of data be excluded as everything is interconnected and that no single data point has any more relevance than any other as the decision process was holistic!

As I have asserted before, this huffing and puffing (as alluded to by Frank Sietzen) is a desperate attempt to forstall the day when an investigation asks just how the Committee and your Congress previously FAILED the American taxpayer. Either to bring Cx to fruition by campaigning rigourously for proper funding. Or, less likely, recognising that the program of record had some fundamental flaws: air started SSME for one and started their questions THEN.
NOW it's too much, too late.
IMHO

In some ways, this is a political master class. President Obama is showing how a total unwillingness to compromise can completely steamroller the checks and balances of the American political set-up.

FWIW, I suspect that we are seeing a deliberate delaying tactic here. Simply don't acknowledge and don't reply to the request. Congress will be stymied until CxP is gone and all the necessary elements needed to move onto any alternative archetecture are gone. NASA can then say that ObamaSpace is a fait accompli. There will be no alternative left, no matter what feelings are held about the new plan.

Editor's note: Its always hilarious to watch a foreign national try to analyze another country's political systems. "Steamroller the checks and balances"? Gimme a break. Everyone uses steamrollers here.

The only option left is for Congress to impose an alternative of their own, ignoring NASA's (withheld) figures and going by those from alternative sources. That would be risky on many levels and, if Obama is up for a fight, could lead to vetos and votes paralysing the federal government for the rest of his term.

I love it when Congress tries to play "rocket scientist" when they can barely handle the role of "corrupt politician"

"...he has the antidifficiency[sp] act,"

Many more people have been convicted of misappropriations than of violating of this rarely used Act. NASA cannot simply change how the money is spent once appropriated without prior written approval from the Congress. To do so would be illegal. Congress will not likely yield and submit their power in this, or any case to the Executive branch.

Editor's note: This is hardly a "rarely used Act". Indeed, it sits at the basis of how much governmental budgeting is accomplished - and has been for over a century. People know it is there and that it cannot be violated - so they don't. And oh yes, it covers a lot more than just termination costs in NASA contracts, trust me.

It would be cool if the comments section would display photos..

Special morning edition of WWSD (What Would Spock Do?)

http://nasaengineer.com/?p=368

They can huff and puff; he has the antidifficiency act, a little know piece of actual legislation that will destroy Constellation.

Frank, read the act, and read the case law it's been applied to. There has only been one case used at NASA, and it, like all the cases of prosecuting the act, was applied against the government. The act talks to the government providing open-ended contracts, and while there is language that talks to contractors, it is to avoid situations where businesses default on their contract responsibilities. It does not take away the government's responsibility to satisfy their contractual responsibility, in fact it demands that the executive apply all funds to the contract enacted by congress specifically to the needs of the contract, without "voluntary service," use of other funds, and open ended agreements (those that outlive the contract, like warranties or special studies). To say the Anti-Deficiency Act is a two edged sword is an understatement. The government is holding the blade!

Editor's note: the Antideficiency Act is only "little known" to space cadets of late. I learned about it shortly after I arrived in Washington in 1987 working for NASA. Its a basic part of how the government works - and has worked - for over a century.

Speaking as a former participant in this tug of war, this is a pretty sad state of affairs.

To an extent, Congress is demanding documents and records of internal Administration thinking that no White House has ever allowed to be released to the legislative branch.

On the other hand, Congress already has most of the data that underlay the decision to abandon Constellation: the Augustine Committee report. Congress simply doesn't accept its validity.

While Augustine didn't recommend one option over another, it's been clear for over 4 months that the White House based their FY2011 budget on option 5B.

Of course, for a host of reasons (some defensible and many not), Congress has never accepted Augustine's conclusion that the Program of Record was going nowhere... slowly.

Ironically, Congress has also demanded details about the new program that require time, and more importantly, money, to develop. And this same Congress has demanded that NASA not actually start spending money on anything new (or stop spending money on the POR).

The painful fact is that Constellation wasn't affordable and therefore couldn't be executed. Congress' inability to add any significant monies to the NASA budget proves that Constellation was destined for infinite stretchout.

Against that backdrop, the White House chose a different path that cost a lot less but angered those making money off of Constellation. NASA can't release the details on why the White House made that decision, because it was a White House decision, not a NASA decision. That's what we pay the President for: making tough national interest calls above the fray of agency politics and institutional interests.

I hear the adults in the White House are engaging directly with Congress on this. Hopefully Congress will actually listen to the facts, rather than their nostalgic feelings for Constellation.

The painful fact is that Constellation wasn't affordable and therefore couldn't be executed. Congress' inability to add any significant monies to the NASA budget proves that Constellation was destined for infinite stretchout.

ummmm....the painful fact is that the country is trillions in debt because of Obama. Clearly this administration has priorities not consistant with NASA short or long term goals. Wealth redistribution requires lots of change, particulary when the wealth is not just being redistributed in the USA but across the globe. NASA will be lucky to survive another two years.

> there were no studies, analyses or hearings to support the Administration's "plan".

But Jim didn't you hear? Augustine never happened.

ummmm....the painful fact is that the country is trillions in debt because of Obama.

Ummmm.... you mean Bush 2 and Clinton. The banking industry was imploding before Obama was even elected, much less presiding. The $0.7 trillion stimulus is... well, that debate belongs in another blog. But it's not "trillions", and it was aimed at a severe crisis left by the previous guy.

Oh, and that's not the reason for cancelling CxP; it's the reason the US can't just get out its wallet and just fix the pre-existing problems with CxP -- like the budget/schedule problems, the Gap (planned termination of both STS and ISS before the first Ares-1 flight), the deferral of Altair and biological research, etc.... And CxP cancellation can't be because of the deficit, because Obama's NASA budget would increase, despite the deficit.

Clearly this administration has priorities not consistant with NASA short or long term goals.

Political talking point, and only true if you define NASA goals == Constellation or even NASA goals == government-based HSF. I don't believe that all U.S. HSF must be kept within NASA, nor that the entire country's space agency owes FL, AL and TX a leadership role in a healthy HSF program named Constellation.

Wealth redistribution requires lots of change, particulary when the wealth is not just being redistributed in the USA but across the globe.

Say, are you a Faux News viewer? Whew!

NASA will be lucky to survive another two years.

They'll be fine, but they may be doing different things, and working with different companies than before.

"Editor's note: the Antideficiency Act is only "little known" to space cadets of late. I learned about it shortly after I arrived in Washington in 1987 working for NASA. Its a basic part of how the government works - and has worked - for over a century."

For the other uses of the ADA, has the contractor always had to cover the termination cost as part of their contract? I had heard that previously the government covered the potential termination costs.

Ah yes...it is all Bush's fault..right. Let me make this clear for you...Bush was at fault for a small piece. And I have no love for his part either. It is well documented that the national deficit will far exceed anything Bush added to it. Remember the "Health Care Bill", the one Obama said he would not sign if it exceeded a trillion...well he signed it and the CBO now says it is over a trillion. Remember when he said, "no earmarks cause I will veto" and than he signed a bill full of earmarks. You have to be either blind, deaf or on another world to not know of the dollars this Congress and President are spendinng.

Wealth Redistribution is something Obama himself said, not Fox news or anyone else. There are plenty of videos to support this contention.

You don't get it...it does not matter what NASA's goals are if Obama plans to redistribute American wealth as there will be no $'s for any mission to an astroid or to study Global warming or anything else you dream up. I do not know how NASA will be ok when the country is going bankrupt.

Going? Sorry but the bailout was (technically) under Bush too :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932010#Emergency_and_short-term_responses

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXTl_q8nIqk8&refer=home

Without TARP & whatnot we would have been in a much MUCH worse state. And we are not out of the woods yet!

http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/ezmoneymatters/images/2008/09/15/great_depression_stock_graph_where_.jpg

"Double Dip Recession"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7817995/World-Bank-sees-double-dip-recession-for-parts-of-Europe.html

It's a global economy now...

As for the CBO:
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

"CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

Gary01 you really must provide references to your assertions. As, unless you do, they remain assertions.
So any references to the contrary?

You hit the nail on the head. If it wasn't for NASA forcing contrctors to cover termnination costs with current year FY dollars, which has never been done before and has beed ruled illegal in previous Supreme COurt cases, the ADA wouldn't apply because NASA has sufficient funds to cover the current planned FY 2010 work. This is just an end run of COngress and clearly designed to thwart their expressed will. Mr. Bolden could have easily gone to Congress and asked for their consent to teminate COnstellation now rather then waiting till 2011 but instead of rspecting Congress as partners in the governing process all they care about is getting their way, no matter how corrupt or morally wrong.

This adminstrations' complete lack of respect for the rule of law, the Constitution, and their willingness to use the levers of government to harass and coerce private citizens (please see GM and Chrysler secured creditors in addition to the BP shakedown)are tyrannical acts and completely against American values. We are becoming no better then Venezula or Iran. The fact that folks like Frank are giddy instead of outraged about the use of these tactics makes me fear for the future of my country.

Well brobof, here you go:

My point: Bush was responsible for a small piece and Obama's national deficit will far exceed anything Bush added to it.

Let's use one of your sources: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXTl_q8nIqk8&refer=home

with this quote: “President Bush agreed to the president-elect’s request,” Perino said. And I will add:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

My point: Remember the "Health Care Bill", the one Obama said he would not sign if it exceeded a trillion...well he signed it and the CBO now says it is over a trillion

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/cbo-health-care-bill-will-cost-115-billion-more-than-previously-assessed.html

My point: Remember when he said, "no earmarks cause I will veto" and than he signed a bill full of earmarks

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1881855,00.html

My point: You have to be either blind, deaf or on another world to not know of the dollars this Congress and President are spendinng.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/61454

My point: Wealth Redistribution is something Obama himself said, not Fox news or anyone else. There are plenty of videos to support this contention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Your point : As for the CBO

You point out the health care bill will save $143 Billion in the deficit and
provide the CBO web site as support.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm

From said report: Those longer-term calculations reflect an assumption that the provisions of the reconciliation proposal and H.R. 3590 are enacted
and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation

Note: a. Does not include federal administrative costs that would be subject to appropriation.

If you look at the associated tables you will see that the so called savings is in the area of Medicare.

From the CBO report: mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently
been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration by the Congress.

Note the words "avoid reductions".

Furthermore, the associated tables show that the insurance provisions of the bill increase the deficit significantly by $788 billion.

So essentially the Medicare and the unrelated "Education Provisions" offset this $788 billion INCREASE. But that is only if Medicare is cut.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11379/AmendReconProp.pdf

Have a nice day.

They could give them a copy of the Augustine Report, the Budget, any documents on progress of Constellation, data on past cancelled HSF development programs and call it a day.

But really, yeah, they should be talking to each other a little more.

Ahem "President Bush agreed..." acceded, acknowledged, acquiesced, complied, conceded, concurred, consented, gave blessing, gave carte blanche,... His Presidency. His responsibility.

Thus technically Bush *is* responsible for 2009 and (partially) 2010 budgets. (See below.)
Obama's first 'solo' Budget is 2011 - the one all the fuss is about! Continuing resolution?

The fact that Bush was doing nothing substantive either to bail out a failing economy or the Cx program is a damning measure of the man.

Anyhoo this still confirms MY point: that since GWB was responsible for driving your country into third world status by:
1/ unfunded tax cuts for the rich
2/ unfunded tax cuts for the even richer corporates
3/ not one, not two, but three unnecessary unfunded wars. (Not counting the warious 'Wars' on Poverty, Drugs, Science, etc.)
4/ permitting the financial deregulation started under Clinton to gallop at full tilt over simple fiscal prudency and common sense.
5/...infinity/ other stuff.

If "President Valiant(1)" and the RotW had not done what they did do: usurp the "Doofus Presidency(1)" in order to prevent a financial meltdown of catastrophic proportions; there would be rioting. Now! And soup kitchens and tent cities, riding the rails, and other picturesque scenes from the Great Depression. Culminating in another Global War. History repeating itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company

My guess (and it is just a guess) ...is that your financial industry created a bubble of around 20-30 trillion imaginary dollars. Until that abscess is emptied, the poison of economic melt down hangs over us all. However it can't be drained all at once. That would cause a toxic and probably fatal shock to the global financial system. The process has to be gradual. With TARP and whatnot, President Obama emptied out some $1 trillion along with similar monies from other countries to stop the bubble going 'pop!' However that may not be enough. As I write: Greece, Portugal, Italy and especially the UK are on the verge of collapse. It's not looking good.

"My point: Remember when he said, "no earmarks cause I will veto" and than he signed a bill full of earmarks"
Reference please? I doubt that your President Obama used those precise words! I believe he was refering to a specific bill but I await your response so I can fact check it.
However from your cite:
"the White House argues that the pork-laden bill — which increases federal spending across a range of Cabinet departments by 8% — is part of the prior Administration's legacy. "What may be next week's bill is last year's legislation," said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs."(Time Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009.) See also my point above.
Gary it is naive in the least to believe that a ship of state can be turned on a dime. If that were so then Cx would be dust and we would be building the International Space Ship already!

Finally with regard to the costs of a decent American NHS. Well if the opposition mucks it up naturally it will cost more. After all they are in the pockets of the real Death Panels. I would direct you to the last two paragraphs of the news piece you cite. And, more especially, the link provided therein:

"With momentum building, it’s no surprise that opponents took to the morning talk shows and the Sunday newspaper op-ed pages in an attempt to undermine one of the signature accomplishments of the legislation under consideration today: the fact that it reduces the deficit by more than $100 billion over the first decade, and more than $1 trillion in the decade after that.
Especially at this late hour, it’s important to get the facts right. So let’s consider their main charges one by one."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/10/03/21/Fiscal-Realities/

Personally I think your Health Care system is a disgrace but then I am a product of the greatest achievement of the Labour Party.

Gary the opinion pieces you cite are just that and can assert, just as you do, that black is white or that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Research_Center and the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation are an impartial source of facts.

It looks like it's going to rain at the moment but thanks for the sentiment :)
(1) John Stewart. The Daily Show

Look my friend at your sources? "Whitehouse.gov" is not impartial? The simple fact is that each of us can cite sources left and right and it will not change our opinions because we can find fault with the other as you did. Therefore, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Fortunately, I can vote here, you apparently cannot.

By the way, I noticed that you avoided Obama's redistribution of wealth video in order to bash Bush. Have a nice day.

Thank you, Jim Muncy for your usual sensible response to the commenters. As for the discussion on potential termination liabilities:

Neither the government nor the contractor worry about funding potential termination liabilities when the risk of termination is not a concern. However, both parties worry when the risk of termination rises to the level where the risk is defined and real. As in, proposed by the Congress in its legislative process; or, proposed by the Administration in its budget recommendations. In either of these instances, the potential exists that funding will be required to cover PTLs.

Please note that PTLs are quite different than actual contractual liabilities that exist when a firm fixed price contract or subcontract or material procurement is placed in furtherance of a contractual obligation. The amount of obligation incurred depends on the nature of the contract/subcontract/requisition; very often there are clauses that limit the liability to specific, real and estimatable activities. These obligations are real liabilities; as such, they should be funded by an action of the contracting officer. Contractors who proceed to incur such liabilities without sufficient funds on contract are usually recipients of "idiot letters" from the contracting officer.

Contrast those with potential termination liabilities. There are a legion of examples of potential liabilities, such as those that arise when contract personnel cannot be reassigned within the company and have to be laid off. Pension fund obligations of the parent company, accrued leave, travel reservations, etc.

PTLs are nortoriously hard to estimate with any precision under many -- but not all -- circumstances. In my experience, most estimates made during the maybe-they-will-maybe-they-won't termination threat circumstances are biased high to influence the outcome. The Government contracting officer has the responsibility to evaluate these estimates and provide the Government financial officer with a reasonable and reliable assessment. The financial managers accordingly act to reserve amounts from the appropriation(s) available to the agency for the program in question, based on their assessment --guided by the Administration and the Congress -- of its probability. This reservation of funds is done pursuant to the Anti-deficient Act.

If the Congress disagrees with the intent to terminate, and wishes to avoid any impedance of contract progress due to a reservation of funds, it may appropriate additional funds or create a legislative remedy (not report language) to obligate itself to appropriate future funds. (An example of this is in the Space Act as law to cover liabilities incurred when NASA contracts for the future delivery of expendable launch vehicles under fixed price launch service procurements.)

To the ATK person who claimed NASA was departing radically (from its Shuttle contract history for the SRMs) when the ATK contracting officer was advised to understand the real potential for a contract termination: there's a big difference between supporting an ongoing program (the Space Shuttle) where the intent to terminate was remote if not non-existent and the Ares contract, where the intent to terminate is anything but remote.

Well actually my sources were your sources, just reading a bit further down the page!

With regards to the OMB. Are you suggeting that this Office can just make these numbers up? That there is no scrutiny? OMG!

Please note I am not trying to change your opinion merely point out that your country was already bankrupt under Bush and not "going" bankrupt under Obama.

With regards to redistribution of wealth I direct you to http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/06/its-getting-har.html#comment-36790 et seq

And also Clause IV

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Hopefully we will see this adopted in the United States real soon! After all if you have a nationalised banking sector and a government owned automotive industry and a State run Rocket Bureau. Elon might need to move to Russia where they believe in Free Enterprise.
Interesting times!

Claiming executive privilege, once again demonstrating that constantly trumpeted campaign theme of OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT!

@ RC

RC replied to comment from Jim Muncy

"But Jim didn't you hear? Augustine never happened."

RC, I dont know if you are being intentionally dense, a blind Obamabot, a troll, or just truly a not very intelligent. However, The Augustine Commission has absolutely nothing to do with what the Committee has requested, if you dont understand that, than maybe you should go back to ComiCon and look for the Iron Man booth, I hear Rock Star Elon Musk is making an appearance and is signing autographs.

Go back and read what they are asking for. Now it is possible, that they may be able to provide the Augustine Report as part of their supporting documentaion on how they came to their decisions, but nothing more. Remember, the Commission offered no recommendations and the plan followed none of the Augustine Options. They are asking for budgetary analysis for 2011 and beyond. They are asking for program viability/executability through 2025 (the long term projected budget is cut significantly through 2025 for all the hype about the 6 billion over the next 5 years), and a lot more. The Augustine Report is not something they can submit as their plan and budget analysis and it would not serve as either. Not in any sane world.

Also, for the record, for all the much touted the "plan" is basically Augustine Option 5B - that is a myth. The only thing that The Obama plan and Option 5B have in common is that they both hypothetically some day orbit Mars and both eventutally rely on commercial crew to low orbit. The comparison ends there. 5B clearly still sets up lunar bases and has us landing on the moon twice a year while Obama's plan has forsaken the moon completely. (Actually Option 5A and 5C also have lunar, mars and NEO destinations, they just use different rockets). And also, who ever said Augustine Option 5B was good tom begin with?

The current Constellation ADA/termination kerfuffle has some precedent in SecDef Cheney's cancellation of the Navy's A-12 attack plane back in 1991.

For a very interesting study of the episode with lots of explanation of the ADA, see James P. Stevenson's "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding", ISBN 1-55750-777-5.

There was also a summary in the The Washington Post Magazine of 29 October 1995.

brobof, whitehouse.gov was not my source it was yours. I never said anything about OMB numbers.

The current Constellation ADA/termination kerfuffle has some precedent in SecDef Cheney's cancellation of the Navy's A-12 attack plane back in 1991.

For a very interesting study of the episode with lots of explanation of the ADA, see James P. Stevenson's "The $5 Billion Misunderstanding", ISBN 1-55750-777-5.

There was also a summary in the The Washington Post Magazine of 29 October 1995.

"ummmm....the painful fact is that the country is trillions in debt because of Obama."

MY wife and I own a rarity in the light airplane world...it is a Champion 402 Lancer. There were 21 built and now there are (at last count) 5 flying. We got the Lancer when a friend who was rebuilding it passed about 10 years ago. He had done about 60 percent of the "parts acquiring" (ie it is made up of different Lancers) and about 40 percent of the rebuild.

I never tell people that "I rebuilt it". when we go to airshows we have pictures of Fred on the data sheet.

Nor should in my view anyone say "we are in trillions in debt thanks to Obama".

The debt is a cumulative total but to be fair to history and current events, it got completely out of hand with Mr. Bush. I dont like most of the choices that Mr. Obama has made since taking "the deck" and they have increased the number of trillions...but it is hard not to say that when Mr. Obama took the deck, the situation was "in control".

We had during Mr. Bush's era decreased tax revenues at the same time increasing expenses and that "happy" combination has lead to structured deficits as far as the eye can see. As the economy has collapsed, also due to structured decisions made in the Bush era the situation has gotten worse. I dont think Obama has made it much better...but the collapse started because of decisions made in the Bush years.

One reason Constellation is on the block is that so many bad decisions were made under folks running it during the last administration that there are almost no good decisions today which can fix it. That parallels the economy.

Mr Obama and Bush both agreed to the TARP which I think was valuless. Mr. Obama's spending on the stimulus has in my view been badly targeted. But it is also fair to say this. Had the tax cuts of the last administration not gone into affect, had we not spent on two wars of choice, and had we not had a lot of other badly targeted domestic spending...we probably would not have had our economy collapse as far as it has (and I htink it will go farther) and we would not be running hugh deficits that are going to require very painful cuts and tax increases.

On my Lancer I did the stuff that shows. The fabric work, the cabin work etc. Fred did most of the stuff that no one ever sees, but that keeps the airplane in the air.

The difference between Mr. Bush/Obama and Robert/Fred is that both of us did good work.

Robert G. Oler

I repeat: "Well actually my sources were your sources, just reading a bit further down the page!"
The OMB refutation was linked to by the article YOU cited!

Did you read your cites?
More to the point. Did you read mine?

I maintain my point: your country was already bankrupt under Bush and not "going" bankrupt under Obama.

Here's a little something to get you started :0
Имейте славный день. Камрад!