Congress

Ch-ch-ch-changes

So what effect with the Democratic takeover of the House have on space issues? While there will be widespread changes in leadership, staffing, and the like, the effects on policy are less certain. Bart Gordon (D-TN) is in line to become the next House Science Committee chairman, and Mark Udall (D-CO) the chairman of the space and aeronautics subcommittee; since both have frequently worked, and worked well, with Republicans while in the minority it’s not clear that there would be any major shifts in focus with the Democrats in the majority. There might be more of an interest in supporting science and aeronautics research at NASA, but that had already been a concern of the committee.

On the appropriations side, Alan Mollohan (D-WV) is in line to take over the chairmanship of the science/state/justice/commerce subcommittee; he has fought for NASA funding in the past and would likely continue his advocacy here. CQPolitics.com reports that Nick Lampson is seeking a “plum spot” on the subcommittee; he’d also like a seat on the science committee. A bigger concern, though, is Rep. David Obey (D-WI), who is expected to become chairman of the overall appropriations committee. Obey has not been fond of NASA funding in the past; earlier this year he accused some of his fellow Congressmen of having “Mars fever” during a debate on an amendment to the NASA appropriations legislation that would have prevented the space agency from spending money on a manned Mars mission.

Another area of concern for space advocates is Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), who will become the chairman of the House Transportation Committee. Oberstar was previously critical of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, concerned about the lack of safety provisions for passenger spaceflight in the legislation, and commissioned a recently-released GAO report on the subject. While that report didn’t appear to provide Oberstar with much ammunition to seek changes to the CSLAA, rumor has it that Oberstar is talking about revisiting the issue, this time with the added power that a committee chairmanship provides.

21 comments to Ch-ch-ch-changes

  • Chance

    As great man once said, “w00t, w00t”.

  • Chance

    As a great man once said, “w00t, w00t”.

  • Ryan Zelnio

    At the AIAA/AAS conference Nov 1-2, there was a congress panel there with staffers from both parties from both side of the hill. They were asked about what changes there would be if they won and there were only a few things. For the most part they said they agreed with the VSE as could be seen by the bipartisan support of the NASA authorization bill in 2005. The dems did say that they would push for significantly more funding for science and aeronautics.

    Also, there was some talk about the Mikulski amendment for $1B increase in funding to reimburse NASA for costs associated with return to flight. Carliner (senate dem staffer and x-Mikulski staffer) said that even though the white house opposes it, there is a strong bipartisan push to get it into the appropiation bill on both sides of the hill.

  • Tom

    Good luck trying to get any additional funding for NASA. In fact, I’ll put good odds on its budget being reduced over the next few years. Almost all of the ESMD money will go to Shuttle replacement, but funded at a reduced development pace. (No one has given a good reason why we can’t handle a few-year gap in U.S. crewed flight capability after 2010.)

    I just cannot see the new congress being very supportive of VSE. Let’s face it, the Griffin Interpretation of VSE is primarily a cat toy for NASA’s human spaceflight centers (e.g., Marshall, Johnson and Kennedy) and cat toys don’t usually survive well when new interests come on board.

    The warning shots were fired in this election. Anyone who has embraced Bush’s Big Spending Republican philosophy (which VSE is a perfect example) had better get the message that there are important priorities that have not been addressed.

  • wg cannon

    And your posting in this blog because???

    There is a lot of bipartisan support for the vse and Nasa as a whole.

    A lot of vse supportive democrats where elected, Nick Lampson for instance. In some ways the house science committee may end up with a better makeup than under Sherwood Boehlert.

    The key , is that no one on either side wants to continue flying the shuttle, and with the exception of a few radical democrats no one wants to eliminate human space flight. Not when many other nations are starting to embrace it.

  • Ryan Zelnio

    I agree with wg, the VSE has pretty strong bipartisan support as seen by the NASA authorization bill of 2005. I think the key for continued support is for the rhetoric to change and shift the VSE form being Bush’s Vision to being the nation’s vision. If this change in rhetoric can be accomplished, I think that there is a strong chance that the VSE will survive in some form after 2008.

  • wg cannnon

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Mike Griffin is popular on both sides of the house.
    Sherwood Boehlert really was always a cautious supporter of the VSE. Bart Gordon who is likely to replace him may be more of an ally. Only time will come.
    I don’t think aries i is a big risk for after 2008, Aries V is the wild card, it will need momentum to continue.. and that may just come from increased competition by other nations.

    Also , It may be democratic sweep, but it wasn’t a liberal sweep.. the new house has a lot of moderates… I think its going to be hard to get a 2/3 majority on anything big . President Bush may find he uses his veto pen a lot more.
    As for all you doom and gloomers out there is was a democratic president Clinton that vetoed the attempt to kill the ISS.

  • I still think our biggest ally in this is simple conservatism (with a small “c”). Few politicians in either party are actively opposed to human spaceflight, and some of those that are cannot be seen to back down in the face of China (and soon India) joining the “club.” Combined with that, and more importantly, the Democrats have much bigger fish to fry. My prediction is that, unless there is a major change in the non-political arena (e.g., the VSE runs into serious technical or managerial problems or there is another Shuttle accident or, less we forget, someone gets killed building the Space Station), the VSE will slide beneath the radar. Even if one of those things happen, the nation has a history of rallying behind the project of the day, and the result might even be a net (political) gain — as was the loss of Columbia. The ball really is in Dr. Griffin’s court now to make the execution as smooth and invisible as possible. Wish him luck because he’s going to need it.

    — Donald

  • Edward Wright

    > The key , is that no one on either side wants to continue flying the shuttle,
    > and with the exception of a few radical democrats no one wants to eliminate
    > human space flight. Not when many other nations are starting to embrace it.

    > Few politicians in either party are actively opposed to human spaceflight,
    > and some of those that are cannot be seen to back down in the face of China
    > (and soon India) joining the “club.”

    Oh, boy. Here we go again!

    Your arguments assume no one can do “human spaceflight” except NASA (or some NASA-analog in China or India).

    Do you have any evidence that Mike Melvill and Brian Binney were not human?

    At its high point, NASA flew just over 50 astronauts a year. Post-Columbia, they’ll be lucky to reach 24. VSE would cut that rate to 8 or, at best, 12.

    At the same time, private companies are developing vehicles that will enable *thousands* of people to travel into space every year.

    VSE has nothing to do with preserving human spaceflight.

  • Tom

    VSE has nothing to do with preserving human spaceflight.

    Amen, and it has everything to do about preserving government jobs at NASA field centers.

    However, better to have engineers on the public dole doing useful work, like expanding our understanding of the universe or developing new technologies. Let the private sector develop the launch and human spaceflight market.

  • Right on, Tom. Nothing is standing in Mike Melvill and Brian Binney, et al’s, way. Their success does not change the need for the VSE.

    — Donald

  • Edward Wright

    > However, better to have engineers on the public dole doing useful work,
    > like expanding our understanding of the universe or developing new
    > technologies. Let the private sector develop the launch and human spaceflight
    > market.

    Of course, NASA is cutting science and technology research so they can develop new launch vehicles.

    A point Donald continues to miss in fixed belief that we “need” VSE.

  • Tom

    Of course, NASA is cutting science and technology research so they can develop new launch vehicles.

    Exactly my point. And this is driven by the Griffin Interpretation of VSE, which is basically exploration viewed through the lens of Apollo…a big mistake in my opinion.

  • Jim

    Regarding Mark Udall (D-CO), the expected new chairman of the space and aeronautics subcommittee:

    From the Denver Post (10/31/06) – Udall would likely shift the tenor of a debate over funding for space exploration vesus research on such subjects as climate change, pollution and severe-weather patterns.

    Udall wants to ensure that the space program isn’t funded at the expense of earth sciences, spokesman Lawrence Pacheco said.

  • Brad

    The return of Democratic control could very well mean the return of an inward focused space program, rather than the outward focused VSE. Instead of space exploration, manned spaceflight will revolve around ‘Earth sciences’ and ‘global-warming’ studies.

    Plus, just wait for the safety-fetishists to strangle in the crib private spaceflight.

  • wg Cannon

    Most experts seem to think that won’t happen, there was an article in the huntsville post about that today.

    This is not a very liberal congress comming in, its quite conservative. Its unlikely the congress would abandoned the VSE , there is a lot of support for it in congress. There may be an attempt to shift more monies to science programs but completing the station and time pressue required to meet a 2010 deadline for retiring the shuttle may make that difficult.

    Bart Gordon who is the likely chairman of the science committee is a strong supporter of manned space flight.
    There will be a lot more questions but the programs will most likely continue.

    I think the democrats are going to be very careful when it comes to shifting monies and priorities. First of all they may have a majority but its not that big especially in the senate. Secondly they really are focused on 2008.

    Its going to be very interesting and sad in 2007 when the LHC comes on line at cern, and the impact of budget decisions from a previous democratic congress is felt when the center of all physics reseach shifts for the first time in 30 years from Fermi Lab in the US to Cern in Europe Largely because of the decision to not build the super collider and the failure of the Clinton Administration to invest in any high energy physics research. Basically that is another loss of a key area of reseach and industry for this country.

    With other countries notably India and China looking at manned space efforts I don’t think this country can afford not to persuse it.

    Those of you who post here about private industry filling the gap just don’t grasp the fact to do anything beyond sub orbital “Barn Storming” and limited orbital operations still requires a national budget not a few billionairs getting together .

  • Nemo

    As for all you doom and gloomers out there is was a democratic president Clinton that vetoed the attempt to kill the ISS.

    Incorrect. Clinton never exercised a veto for ISS.

  • Edward Wright

    > in 2007 when the LHC comes on line at cern, and the impact of budget decisions from a previous
    > democratic congress is felt when the center of all physics reseach shifts for the first time in 30 years
    > from Fermi Lab in the US to Cern

    *All* physics research has been centered at Fermi Lab for the last 30 years???

    > With other countries notably India and China looking at manned space efforts I don’t
    > think this country can afford not to persuse it.

    Reality check. India has sent one astronaut into space, and that was 20 years ago. China’s flight rate is virtually nonexistant.

    > Those of you who post here about private industry filling the gap just don’t grasp the fact to do anything
    > beyond sub orbital “Barn Storming” and limited orbital operations still requires a national budget
    > not a few billionairs getting together .

    So, you resort to namecalling. Those “limited” operations are more than anything NASA plans to do in the next 40 years.

    Once again, VSEers diss any human spaceflight program that goes beyond what Apollo did 40 years ago.

  • GuessWho

    As currently envisioned, VSE is a waste of time and money. Simply replacing Shuttle as a means to getting to ISS just to baby-sit the hardware is uninspiring and does nothing to advance a manned presence in space. Lunar missions are so far out as to be off the radar map, especially when the basic science to survive in space is being decimated. I have yet to see a strong approach put forth that allows an astronaut crew to survive on the moon for more than 1 week, let alone through a lunar night. At the same time, joy rides to 100000 ft does nothing to establish a manned space presence either. It’s a fun roller coaster ride but then again so is the vomit comet. Ed, where is your vision to establish a lunar or martian colony? how about one on an asteroid? Where is your vision to establish a thriving manned space presence that does more than entertain?

  • GuessWho, I’m going to take the opposite tac her and agree to some extent with Edward. Tourism, even suborbital tourism, is extremely important for the long-term achievement of the goals you list. While it will not happen as fast as any of us would like, a successful suborbital tourism business puts money into the wider “space tourism” bucket. That money can be used to convince Wall Street that the industry is real and that it is worth investing Grandma’s savings in. Then that greater bucket of money can be used to develop second generation COTS-type orbital vehicles that can make orbital tourism into a large market. And, once you have a large market to deliver people “half-way to anywhere,” you’re more than half way to that lunar or asteroidal or Martian moon colony.

    — Donald