Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for June, 2006
June 30, 2006 at 7:49 am · Filed under NASA
One bit of conventional wisdom about public support for NASA is that the agency has broad bipartisan support. A USA Today/Gallup Poll released today confirms that notion to first order, although does show some slight differences. Respondents were asked to rate how well NASA was performing (excellent, good, “only fair”, poor, no opinion), what should be done with NASA’s budget (increased, kept at present levels, reduced, ended altogether, no opinion), and whether the shuttle program was worth the money spent on it.
On the job performance question the split between people who identified themselves as Republicans and those who identified themselves as Democrats was virtually identical: 58% of both Republicans and Democrats said NASA was doing an excellent or good job; 37% of Republicans and 36% of Democrats thought NASA was doing a fair or poor job. (There’s no breakout, unfortunately, for those who didn’t associate themselves with either party.)
A difference does emerge, however, on NASA spending: while 22% of Republicans thought that NASA’s budget should be reduced, 32% of Democrats were in the same camp, a difference that exceeds the three-percent margin of error of the poll. However, the overall distribution of opinion is similar between Republicans and Democrats, with 50% of Republicans and 46% of Democrats saying NASA’s budget should be kept at the same level, and only 18% of Republicans and 16% of Democrats in favor of a budget increase.
There’s also a visible difference between Republicans and Democrats on their opinion of the worth of spending money on the shuttle. Among Republicans, 40% thought the money would better spent in some other way (the question doesn’t specify if that means within or outside of NASA), while 55% think the shuttle is worth the money; the figures are almost reversed for Democrats: 53% think the money would be better spent elsewhere while 43% think the shuttle is worth it. Over all party affiliations, there’s a 48%-48% split on the question.
June 29, 2006 at 6:56 am · Filed under Congress
NASA’s budget easily survived three attempts to either transfer funds from it or prevent it from being spent on its intended projects during floor debate on the HR 5672 appropriations bill Wednesday:
- Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), introduced an amendment that would transfer $783M from “various accounts” within NASA to NOAA. Gilchrest brought forward the amendment primarily, it seems, to draw attention to his concern that NOAA is not getting enough money, and withdrew the amendment after a brief floor debate. (He would go on to vote against two later amendments that sought to transfer or restrict NASA funding.)
- A widely-anticipated amendment was introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to “prohibit funds from being used for a manned space mission to Mars.” Most of the debate that followed focused on the vague nature of the resolution: what exactly did the amendment cover? NASA isn’t actively working on a manned Mars mission, but since that is a distant goal of the overall exploration program, at least one member argued that it could prohibit NASA from supporting the entire exploration program. The amendment failed on a voice vote and a later roll call vote, 145-274.
- Wednesday evening Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Jim Ramstad (R-MN) introduced a resolution that would transfer $476 million from NASA’s Mars exploration program and use it to fund the Community Oriented Policing Services program, the AP reported. I missed the debate on this amendment, but it was defeated on a voice vote and on a roll call vote, 185-236.
One amendment that did pass was one proposed by Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN) that would prohibit NASA from spending money on “travel policies and practices in contravention of Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-126.” This was associated with NASA’s use of its aircraft to transport staff, a policy that was sharply criticized in a GAO report last year; NASA officials had said the agency was changing its policy on this. The amendment passed on a voice vote. Debate on the overall appropriations bill wasn’t completed last night, so it will continue, and likely conclude, today.
Update 1pm: The House did approve the spending bill, without (to the best of my knowledge) any additional changes that affected NASA.
June 29, 2006 at 6:35 am · Filed under Other
The Los Angeles Daily News reported that an effort to win a tax credit for companies that perform Crew Exploration Vehicle work in California failed to make it through the state legislature. The bill, AB 2033, would extend an existing tax credit for Joint Strike Fighter work in the state and expand it to include CEV work. However, the bill failed to make it out of committee in the Assembly and was not included in the overall state budget. One of the co-sponsors of the legislation, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster), said she would work with the governor’s office to find a way to get the tax credit approved, perhaps as part of an omnibus tax credit bill later this year.
(The article has one laugher: “The CEV program is expected to cost more than $104 billion over the next 15 years.” Gosh, I hope not.)
Speaking of California space legislation, another bill introduced by Assemblywoman Runner is gradually making progress. AJR 52 is a resolution that would ask NASA to loan the shuttle Atlantis, which will likely be the first of the three remaining orbiters to be retired, to its Palmdale assembly site. (Read some earlier coverage of this bill.) The bill was unanimously approved by an Assembly committee last week, with minor amendments, such as formally identifying the “Palmdale facility” as “Air Force Plant 42″ and including the NASA administrator on the distribution list for the resolution if it is eventually approved.
June 28, 2006 at 7:28 am · Filed under Congress
The full House is currently debating HR 5672, the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce appropriations bill, although they have not yet debated any of the NASA provisions of the bill. However, the AP reports this morning that some members will attempt as early as today to cut exploration program funding from NASA and distribute it elsewhere within—or outside—NASA:
Democrats plan to try to cut spending for the moon-Mars initiative, which would return U.S. astronauts to the moon by 2020 and to Mars after that, and spend the money instead on other NASA programs or grants to local police at a time when violent crime rates are rising.
Opponents of the Mars mission says it’s too expensive and that unmanned space travel produces better science per dollar spent. Others say there are more pressing needs here on Earth.
“It’s a complete and total waste of money,” said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. “The manned shot to Mars is a pure boondoggle.”
The article notes that opponents of the program are emboldened because Tom DeLay, the most powerful supporter of the space agency, has retired from the House. However, even if this vote went on straight party lines (which seems unlikely since a number of Democrats support the program), it would still fail provided Republicans closed ranks in support of the space agency.
June 28, 2006 at 6:15 am · Filed under Other
Aviation Week reports in its latest issue that earlier this month the Treasury Department moved to freeze the assets under US jurisdiction of four Chinese companies, including China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC), the principal Chinese commercial space company, and its US subsidiary, G.W. Aerospace, Inc. The companies allegedly provided support to Iran for the development of medium-range ballistic missiles. The orders “prohibit all transactions between the designees and any U.S. person and freeze any assets the designees may have under U.S. jurisdiction,” according to a Treasury Department press release.
The Aviation Week article notes that this could have an adverse effect on potential US-Chinese space cooperation, to be discussed during NASA administrator Mike Griffin’s trip to China later this year:
The U.S. deals with China across a wide range of commercial and scientific topics. If the U.S. views this as a Chinese-company problem, the cooperation will not be directly impacted. But if the Bush administration views it as more of a government problem, then it could cool the administration’s recent cooperative tone.
It should be noted that CGWIC, which primarily sells Long March launches to foreign customers, is owned by the Chinese government.
June 28, 2006 at 5:56 am · Filed under Congress
I noted last week that members of Congress had been quiet, at lease in public, about NASA’s decision to proceed with the STS-121 launch despite no-go recommendations from two key officials. Now, after Monday’s surprise reassignment of astronaut and JSC engineering director Charlie Camarda (which now appears to be associated with “management style” rather than a specific shuttle safety issue), some members of Congress are now raising the issue with the space agency, according to this morning’s Houston Chronicle:
Houston Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee, who sits on the House space subcommittee, sent a letter to Griffin on Tuesday requesting a meeting to discuss safety concerns related to Saturday’s planned flight.
The meeting is scheduled for this morning before Griffin travels to Cape Canaveral.
“It is my understanding that the decision to launch the Discovery was made notwithstanding the serious concerns of NASA engineers over potentially fatal design flaws of the external fuel tanks,” she wrote. “Space innovation need not be accompanied by unnecessary sacrifice or loss, nor unnecessary delay.”
The Chronicle article also reports that the staff of the House Science Committee “are talking with agency officials about the Camarda case”. However, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) gave a vote of confidence in NASA and administrator Mike Griffin, commending him for creating an atmosphere where “t is considered acceptable to, raise concerns and questions.”
Comments off
June 27, 2006 at 7:44 pm · Filed under White House
The Orlando Sentinel and Florida Today reported late Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney plans to attend the STS-121 launch scheduled for Saturday. He’s not making a special trip to the launch: assuming the launch goes off as scheduled Saturday afternoon, he’ll head up to Daytona for the Pepsi 400 race there Saturday night. (One imagines that he’ll also make some appearances for Republican Congressional candidates while he’s down there, but the Vice President’s office hasn’t released details about his trip yet.) That suggests that Cheney won’t stick around if the launch is delayed a day or more.
Comments off
June 27, 2006 at 7:33 pm · Filed under Congress
Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA), chairman of the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee, will appear on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” call-in show Wednesday morning at 7:30 to 8 am. Given that C-SPAN is billing him as “Space Subcmte Chairman”, expect some questions about the upcoming shuttle mission and other NASA issues—or ask your own, or course.
Comments off
June 26, 2006 at 12:52 pm · Filed under NASA
An article by Technology Review magazine covers what is familiar ground for most readers here: the cutbacks in NASA’s science budget and the resulting cancellations and delays in various programs. However, in its zeal to cover all the programs—big and small, high priority and low—affected by the cuts, the article goes a little too far:
NASA budget cuts over the last few months have also struck spending for astrobiology programs, meant to learn about life in the rest of the universe; a new program called Beyond Einstein, aimed at learning about dark energy; and the cancellation or cutback in other research satellites, including one called NPOESS, designed to gather more information about the Earth and its climate.
[Emphasis added above.] While the planned NASA science budget cutbacks have hurt a number of programs, they have nothing to do with the long-running, multi-billion-dollar snafus that have caused the NPOESS program (for which NASA shares responsibility with the Defense Department and NOAA) to be delayed and descoped. Let’s not get carried away with the budgetary hand-wringing.
[Disclosure: I worked for Technology Review for about a year several years ago (back in the last millennium, actually).]
Comments off
June 23, 2006 at 6:50 am · Filed under Congress
A NewScientist.com summary of Wednesday’s House Armed Services Committee strategic forces subcommittee hearing on “space and U.S. national power” plays up the worst-case scenario of an attack on US civil and military satellites:
If the US does not protect its Earth-orbiting satellites, the equivalent of a car bomb in space could take the economy back to the 1950s, according to witnesses testifying in Washington DC earlier this week.
The article goes on to discuss the effects of detonating a nuclear weapon in low Earth orbit, a move that could devastate the satellites there. However, as the witnesses at the hearing pointed out, most major communications satellites are not in LEO but in GEO, which is much harder to reach (the exceptions are the ORBCOMM, Iridium, and Globalstar satellite constellations), while navigation satellites are in MEO, which is also difficult to reach. It still makes for a very bad day for satellites (and astronauts) in LEO, but it doesn’t necessarily “take the economy back to the 1950s”. That makes the doomsday scenario hyped by NewScientist.com less of a worry that more conventional attacks on specific satellites, through anti-satellite weapons, terrestrial jamming, or attacks on ground stations.
Next entries »
