Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for April, 2007
April 30, 2007 at 8:05 pm · Filed under Congress, NASA
The Houston Chronicle reported this morning that Congressman Nick Lampson (D-TX) is considering a run for the US Senate in 2008 against incumbent Republican John Cornyn. Lampson, who won the seat previously held by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (and which includes NASA JSC) is said to be considering the Senate run despite low name recognition statewide because he expects tough competition for reelection to the House in 2008: “Lampson faces a battle to hold on to his House seat, and, since he’ll have to raise millions of dollars anyway, he might as well go for the brass ring,” the Chronicle article notes.
How tough a reelection race? According an AP article this afternoon, Lampson is number one on a list of top 20 “targets” compiled by Karl Rove and presented to officials at federal agencies. The rest of the article is a little confusing, though: the article claims that the presentation was made to officials at “about 20″ federal agencies, including NASA, citing a Washington Post article published last week. However, that article suggests that the NASA briefing, as well as those for many other federal agencies, was made prior to the 2006 midterm elections; Lampson was not in the House at that time. Further complicating the article are comments by a Lampson spokesman, Kier Murray: “We’ve seen a tendency to overpoliticize things at the White House often at the expense of the public good. We hope nothing like trying to move part of JSC to another part of NASA, or nothing like that would happen (as a result).”
April 30, 2007 at 7:21 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
That’s the proposal of Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA), who is drafting legislation that would name the NASA research center at Edwards Air Force Base in California after Neil Armstrong, the Los Angeles Daily News reported Sunday. The name is fitting, since Armstrong worked there for several years in the 1950s and 1960s, flying the X-15 and other research aircraft. The Dryden name would be retained for Western Aeronautical Test Range.
Why the name change? Supporters argue that the name change will help tie the center more closely to space exploration work in the eyes of the public. Also, backers claim that the name change “will inspire young people to get them interested in math and science.” How a name change will do that isn’t elaborated upon in the article.
April 30, 2007 at 7:12 am · Filed under NASA
In this week’s issue of The Space Review, Eric Hedman argues that the best solution to NASA’s current problems implementing the Vision for Space Exploration is to increase its budget so that it accounts for a full one percent of the federal budget, compared to its current level of about 0.6 percent. The idea isn’t new: a number of groups, like the NSS, have previously called for raising NASA’s share of the budget to one percent. As Hedman states, “Going out and backing space exploration by saying it is only one percent of our federal budget sounds to the average taxpayer not much different than six tenths of one percent.” That doesn’t sound like much of a change, but when put in absolute dollars—an increase of on the order of $10 billion to NASA’s annual budget—it makes it much harder for Congress to swallow, giving all the competing demands on the budget and the relatively low priority given to space.
That article reminds me that I forgot to discuss here an article I wrote last week for The Space Review about the new approach NASA has been taking in recent months to sell the Vision and the agency in general. This approach leans heavily on “soft power” logic: if the US returns to the Moon and makes other advances in space exploration, it will give the US geopolitical prestige. Yet, as I note, the same argument can be used for spending in other areas, such as dealing with climate change, with potentially greater effectiveness than in space. Such arguments are, on their own, not compelling enough to support government spending on civil space, particularly in a time when people are more willing to cut space spending than any other major federal program.
April 30, 2007 at 6:55 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
A couple of developments last week certainly were not helpful to the image of NASA and administrator Mike Griffin. On Friday the Washington Post reported that Congressman Brad Miller claimed that NASA destroyed evidence when it reportedly destroyed a videotape of a meeting between Griffin and embattled inspector general Robert Cobb. This development came a day after a front-page story in the Post reported that officials with NASA and many other federal agencies attended “political briefings” with White House officials prior to the midterm election. One person went so far as to forward me an email from a mailing list with the subject line “Mike Griffin in trouble?”
The answer is probably not, at least not over this. As both the Post story and one Saturday in Florida Today reported, the meeting was not a one-on-one affair between Griffin and Cobb but one that involved “something approaching” 200 people that was not planned to be taped in the first place to allow a freer flow of discussion, so the general counsel advised that the tape be destroyed. As for the political briefings, the results of the November election proved just how useful they were to the White House.
The IG issue, though, won’t be going away any time soon: a hearing on the investigation into Cobb and his work is planned for next week. The danger is that it will be a distraction to members of Congress who should focus instead on appropriate levels of funding for the space agency, both overall and among its various programs, and the state of its work carrying out the Vision for Space Exploration.
April 30, 2007 at 6:39 am · Filed under Other
This blog uses an automated system to catch comment spam before it can be posted. It works very well, but on occasion can be a little overzealous. If you submit a comment and it doesn’t show up, send me a note and I’ll see if it got caught for some reason by the spam filter, and if so, get it posted.
On another topic: a lot of people post comments here using pseudonyms. By and large such comments are informative and engaging, and add to the discussion. Unfortunately, I’ve noticed in the last week comments from some people hiding behind screen names that involve pejorative language. That is certainly not acceptable. If it continues, I’ll look into taking additional steps to improve the level of discussion (though moderation, IP-banning, etc.) If you can’t resist taking a cheap shot against someone (versus someone’s idea), please post elsewhere. Thanks for your anticipated cooperation.
Comments off
April 26, 2007 at 7:11 am · Filed under Pentagon
It seems a little cottage industry is forming in the area of reviews of US military space programs. The Defense Department is planning an outside review of its military space programs, the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported today. The panel, the article notes, will be the third such review in five years. This panel, though, will have a broader scope than previous ones, including a review of overall space policy and the relationship between the defense and intelligence communities. The review is supposed to be complete by the end of the year although the Pentagon is still deciding who should serve on the panel.
April 26, 2007 at 7:03 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
The Huntsville Times reports that NASA will keep the robotic lunar exploration office at MSFC open while it reevaluates its plan to close the office. A temporary victory, at the very least, for Sen. Richard Shelby and other allies of the office. However, even if the office remains open in the long term, there are still the questions of where else NASA will cut to make up the $20 million is planned on saving on keep the office open, as well as just what the office will do, since NASA isn’t planning any follow-ons for the foreseeable future to LRO/LCROSS.
April 25, 2007 at 6:50 am · Filed under Congress
The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee held a hearing yesterday that included some discussion of NASA funding (you can be excused if you didn’t hear about it, since there were no details about the hearing released on the subcommittee’s web site). One person who did testify was Planetary Society executive director Lou Friedman, who argued, to no one’s surprise, that NASA funding cuts had “distorted” the Vision for Space Exploration: “Its mantra, ‘go as you pay,’ has become ‘go as you cannibalize other programs.’ Its scientific underpinnings have been removed, leaving it suspended with uncertain public support and public interest.” Friedman calls for increased NASA funding to “restore the Vision’s scientific underpinnings”. “If such a realistic budget increase is impossible, then the Vision’s timetable should be stretched.”
Meanwhile, the Huntsville Times reports that one member of the subcommittee is asking for more money for NASA. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee “asking for serious consideration to a NASA budget shortfall of about $500 million.” Aderholt, whose district is just south of Huntsville, is concerned in particular about support for Marshall’s Ares 1 and lunar exploration programs.
April 23, 2007 at 7:48 am · Filed under NASA
About a week and a half ago I noted here that some were concerned with NASA’s decision earlier this month to sign a contract with Roskosmos for ISS resupply through 2011, including both Progress cargo and Soyuz crew missions. Their concern was with mixed messages or a lack of confidence that NASA appeared to be showing in the two companies with COTS demonstration contracts, Rocketplane and SpaceX.
Now there’s word that those concerns may have adverse consequences for the industry. An an email sent out very late last night (or very early this morning, depending on your point of view) by space consultant Charles Lurio warns that the NASA-Roskosmos contract could deal a fatal blow to one company by reducing the market for resupply services, and thus the potential revenue available to the company. “My primary informant stated that within weeks (or at best a few months) this will likely directly lead to the collapse of one of the COTS winners due to the loss of ability to close the business case for needed private capital,” he writes. Lurio doesn’t say which company is at risk, but Rocketplane had been working for months to line up private funding to supplement its COTS award, while SpaceX appears to relying for now on founder Elon Musk’s pocketbook. (Lurio adds that “the other winner may not be as immanently [sic] vulnerable, but still has limits to how far it can go without a firm initial market.) Such a failure, Lurio warns, would be “a body blow to a big part of the ‘New Space’ enterprise,” an assessment that’s hard to disagree with, regardless of the exact nature of the current situation facing one or both of the COTS companies.
April 21, 2007 at 11:16 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
The Huntsville Times reports that Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and NASA administrator are still at odds over plans to close the robotic lunar exploration office at MSFC, a dispute that had Shelby saying earlier in the week that he was counting down the days until Griffin left office. Shelby told the newspaper Thursday, regarding Griffin:
He had some sharp words for me… I just responded to what he said. I can work with Mike Griffin. I’ve worked with people in the past, and will in the future. don’t think Mike Griffin wants to work with me, though. (Rep. Bud) Cramer and (Sen. Jeff) Sessions and I will be here long after Mike Griffin is gone, and we will work with the next person to support NASA and Marshall.
As for the office itself? It remains open, but NASA is proceeding with plans to close it, according to a spokesman.
Next entries »
