TuteTibiImperes: So, if I'm reading that correctly, the House Resolution doesn't actually change the funding for NASA programs, or give the House the power to cancel NASA programs, it just makes it so that in the event that NASA does cancel a program, the House has to approve funding to pay any money owed to contractors of that program.I'm not really seeing a way that hurts NASA, and it may be incentive for contractors working with NASA to come in on time and under budget with their work so that they don't risk cost overruns and having their contract canceled and being left with no recourse if the House doesn't agree to pay the termination costs.
BooBoo23: <i>Mo Brooks (R-GA), whose district includes NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, the lead SLS integrator, says funds allocated each year for programs ought to be put to work on development rather than held in reserve to cover the theoretical cost of shutting down a canceled program. </i>Mo Brooks is from Alabama. Even the article cited gets it right.
b2theory: Things will be better when the Republicans take back the Senate this year
flucto: No big contractor is going to accept a multi-year project that doesn't have some kind of early termination penalty. This is all pointless.
ClavellBCMI: There is nothing on this earth more difficult to kill than a government program. A stake to the heart, beheading, and incineration are not sufficient to do the job. You also need to nuke the site from orbit and salt the earth, then deposit the irradiated and salted soil in pressure-resistant steel casks and drop them into the Marianas Trench... and hope someone doesn't decide to retrieve the casks.
vpb: flucto: No big contractor is going to accept a multi-year project that doesn't have some kind of early termination penalty. This is all pointless.Sure they will, for two reasons:One, they often don't have any other potential customers.Two they can structure the uncertainly into their bids, by not ordering raw materials before they get the money to pay for them and such.
BMFPitt: So it appears that DailyKos is arguing that we should never ever cut government spending where a bunch of contracts are involved. Like all of those porktacular military projects.And also that we should never spend money up front for savings down the line.Fark that.
ClavellBCMI: BMFPitt: So it appears that DailyKos is arguing that we should never ever cut government spending where a bunch of contracts are involved. Like all of those porktacular military projects.And also that we should never spend money up front for savings down the line.Fark that.They seem to be suggesting that we should never start a program without knowing that it will be completed on-time and on-budget... which will never happen. Now, once it has been demonstrated that a government program is a complete and total waste of time and money, and serves no purpose other than to enrich the parties getting that government money, OK, kill it. NASA is NOT one of those departments. NASA *needs* a long lead time on a lot of their programs, simply to figure out if they can actually make their idea(s) work, much less to actually research, design, and build the hardware needed to make it work.
enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.
jjorsett: enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.More mush from the party that thinks government spending can defy the laws of physics, math, and economics by virtue of being government spending.
TuteTibiImperes: No, what they're saying is that the organizations which design these programs should be the ones to budget and plan for possible termination costs should the program need to be canceled. The HR they talk about removes that control from the organization and give it to Congress.So, right now, if NASA were to start development of a new Mars Rover, they would set aside money to pay the contractors in the event that the program were canceled before fruition to make sure the contractor wasn't left was unpaid bills for their work.If the HR were to be passed into an actual law they would no longer be able to do that, NASA would only be able to pay contractors for the actual development costs, and if the program were canceled Congress would have to vote on whether or not to pay any remaining bills, contract penalties, severances, etc.
Mrtraveler01: enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.I always love it when they use that analogy because they always forget to mention the possibility of more revenue (in the form of a second job).
Solutare: FTA: On a planet where resources are increasingly finite and population growth seems to know no bounds, a sane species would be piling cash into space faster than old Europe bled men and treasure into the New World centuries ago and for the same reasons. While we're at it, given the stakes, in a saner world zillionaires with a track record of spending money in space and on science for all humankind rather than sheltering it in offshore accounts for their own benefit, would be held up as the Edisons of our time, a role model for young people to admire and a challenge for fellow billionaires to match.Thanks, conservatives, for killing us all.
Lydia_C: TuteTibiImperes: Ideally NASA's funding should be much greater, and it should be guaranteed for years into the future so that they can more effectively plan and develop knowing that their budget won't be pulled out from under them.So much this. But it would require both White House and Congress to have a unified vision. I don't think it would happen short of a space-based threat.
Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: enry: More fiscal brilliance from the party that thinks that a household budget is just like the US budget.Last year I sold my car. So I should expect to have my income permanently increased by $8000 because that's how much it went up last year! So now because my income is higher, I can take more time off from work since I'm running a surplus.
Lydia_C: TuteTibiImperes: Difficulty in canceling programs is a good thing. Oftentimes there are significant sunk costs before fruition, and a new administration coming in that doesn't favor a particular program and kills it before it can start to pay off would just lead to a lot of wasted money.With NASA in particular, where it can take many years of design and research before a usable product is created, there's a danger that a lot of money will be spent for something that will never see the light of day if the administrations priorities change.When President Obama canceled the Constellation program the millions NASA had already spent developing it was essentially wasted. Now that SLS is starting to come together it would be a tragedy if whoever holds the checkbook next were to decide to kill it or change its course on a whim.It's important to point out, though, that the initial Constellation cost estimates of $97M were pretty vague (PDF), and had ballooned to $150M by the time Obama ordered a review. It also wasn't sufficiently funded early on, which led to costly delays. cite Had the Bush Administration funded it properly to begin with (likely not possible because of that pesky Iraq war business), Obama might not have been in the position of having to decide to stop throwing good money after bad.Ideally NASA's funding should be much greater, and it should be guaranteed for years into the future so that they can more effectively plan and develop knowing that their budget won't be pulled out from under them.So much this. But it would require both White House and Congress to have a unified vision. I don't think it would happen short of a space-based threat.
super_grass: This is why I roll my eyes whenever someone mentions "no bid contracts", or "bloated project spending", or "government waste".The money goes some part of the public, so by definition there is no such thing as "wasteful spending".
Don't Troll Me Bro!: I'm thinking this is more of what a space-based threat would bring to the political table.[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]
Crabs_Can_Polevault: Don't Troll Me Bro!: I'm thinking this is more of what a space-based threat would bring to the political table.[24.media.tumblr.com image 500x375]How quickly they forget.[i.imgur.com image 640x960]
Don't Troll Me Bro!: Jesus Tittyf*cking Christ. I really want to yell FAKE at that, but it's par for the course anymore. And how the hell would a meteor colliding with our atmosphere and exploding have anything to do with changes in our climate before the meteor even.... I just.... WTF is wrong with these people?
super_grass: That HAS to be a shoop. Fox news is not THAT desperate.
SCUBA_Archer: super_grass: That HAS to be a shoop. Fox news is not THAT desperate.Uh yeah it is a photoshop....those are two images from 10 years apart.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 25 2017 07:42:26
Runtime: 0.268 sec (268 ms)