Congress, NASA

Distractions and the NASA budget

Late this afternoon the full House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to meet to take up the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill, the one that includes funding for NASA. [update: as noted in the comments the hearing has been postponed until further notice.] The subcommittee added about $300 million to the agency’s overall total in its markup hearing last week, although it transferred some money from space operations (shuttle and station) to aeronautics, science, and education programs.

One challenge the agency will face both in today’s hearing and later floor debate on the bill in the full House is how much issues like the NASA IG investigation and the controversial destruction of recordings of a meeting between administrator Mike Griffin and the IG staff will serve as a negative distraction. That is, will members be willing to approve a budget increase above and beyond what the president requested (albeit one smaller than what many agency supporters wanted) given the negative publicity surrounding the agency in general? Late last week the chairman and ranking member of the investigations subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee requested a criminal investigation of the video destruction in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Also last week came editorials calling for the dismissal of NASA IG Robert Cobb from both newspapers that closely follow the space agency (Florida Today) and papers with much larger circulations (Miami Herald). I asked Congressman Nick Lampson about that last month and he was convinced it wasn’t a major concern, but one can imagine how members who would like to transfer money from NASA to other agencies could use these controversies to their advantage. We’ll see how that works out late today.

19 comments to Distractions and the NASA budget

  • Actually, Jeff… the markup has been cancelled. (Postponed, really.)

    Why? Because last week Chairman Obey and House Republicans reached an agreement that after the first 2 approps bills, the remaining 10 (including CJS) will be reported out of Committee with all earmarks specified and identified as to the requesting member.

    Since it takes time to spell all of that out in the draft Committee Report, there is a delay. (You have to factor in that the Committee staff is working on all of these bills in parallel, so the process basically gets slowed down for a week.)

    I don’t think the distractions you mention above will hurt NASA in committee. But you could see them have an impact on the House Floor, when a non-appropriator who wants to posture as a fiscal conversative or oppose Evil Bush Mars Programs or whatever throws out an amendment.

    One interesting detail of the CJS bill is that it includes legislative language (not report language, but actual text of the proposed law) that prohibits the use of any appropriated funds for activities exclusively related to humans to Mars.

    My sources tell me this was a prophylactic measure, to stave off attacks on the NASA funding from Members who oppose the Vision. In my view this was a mistake, although it may work as a temporary expedient.

  • Jeff Foust

    Thanks, Jim. Sorry for the misinformation. I checked the Appropriations Committee web site early this morning and they still had the hearing on their calendar; it’s since been removed.

  • anonymous

    “I don’t think the distractions you mention above will hurt NASA in committee.”

    I still wonder if the other shoe is going to drop in Committee with Obey at the helm…

    “My sources tell me this was a prophylactic measure, to stave off attacks on the NASA funding from Members who oppose the Vision. In my view this was a mistake, although it may work as a temporary expedient.”

    I don’t know if this was the mistake Mr. Muncy is referring to, but one danger is how the “human Mars program” gets defined. Does it include the Ares V, a heavy lift vehicle obviously sized for Mars missions? Does it include the robotic Mars Exploration Program, small elements of which are intended to pave the way for human Mars exploration? Etc.

    If one wanted to get crazy about it, even ISS and Ares I/Orion could come under attack, as some ISS research is aimed at long-duration human spaceflight to support a future human Mars mission and Ares I/Orion would lift the first human Mars crew if Griffin got his way. Because the human space flight program has always had Mars as an end goal, clever and motivated appropriations staffers could turn that language into a budgetary attack on the whole human space flight effort, i.e., NASA, stop spending money on X, Y, and Z because it supports humans to Mars.

    And although I personally think a lot in the human space flight program needs to be attacked and restructured, this language would be the wrong reason and measuring stick.

  • D. Messier

    Ummmm…..I think this has gone considerably beyond being merely being a distraction. It’s to the point of possible criminal charges being filed against the NASA general counsel. Griffin’s “CDs are like popcorn” defense (which I doubt has any legal basis) seems flippant in light of the seriousness of the potential charges. Who in his position would say something like that? Was this an unconscious cry for help?

    There’s been a tendency to minimize these problems here. The IG thing was seen as merely a distraction and not a problem onto itself. Griffin’s global warming comments were characterized simply as bad timing. And Congress’s right of oversight (which it largely failed to exercise for years) is seen as something optional and unwanted.

    And how is Lampson feeling about this now that the Justice Department is involved? Seems like things have changed since last month.

  • gravitygradient

    Anonymous wrote:

    “I don’t know if this was the mistake Mr. Muncy is referring to, but one danger is how the “human Mars program” gets defined. Does it include the Ares V, a heavy lift vehicle obviously sized for Mars missions? Does it include the robotic Mars Exploration Program, small elements of which are intended to pave the way for human Mars exploration? Etc.”

    Chairman Mollohan’s press release says that the Mars prohibition is “from funding any research, development or demonstration activity related exclusively to Human Exploration of Mars.” So, it looks like the operative word is “exclusively.” This could apply to the Ares V, others would know better than I, but most everything else looks like it would not be affected.

  • anonymous

    Mr. Foust wrote:

    “one can imagine how members who would like to transfer money from NASA to other agencies could use these controversies to their advantage”

    There’s obviously a decent chance of this happening at the committee level with Obey in the House and in the TBD Senate action, too. But it looks like a Presidential veto is in play for the spending bill that funds NASA this year, providing even more opportunity for reductions:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/06/18/bushs_veto_strategy

    I thought last year was the worst I’d seen, but appropriations this year is also shaping up be one, very hard, very long slog…

  • All,

    I agree that the “distractions” have gotten beyond mere “distractions”. My point above was simply that I don’t believe they will cause problems for NASA at full committee markup, versus the House floor.

    re the human mars prohibition “mistake”, last year NASA told the Congress that ~$2.5 million was being spent on research/technology that was exclusively related to sending humans to mars. so that $2.5m could not be spent on the same stuff (or similar stuff) in FY2008

    note that this applies to SBIRs, advanced concept studies, any proposal that is aimed directly at Humans on Mars.

    I also agree with Anonymous, in that a lot of what we will do on the way to the moon via ESAS is actually putting in place the building blocks for mars missions. This could easily become a slippery slope. Why, for example, do things that you plan to test on the Moon before using on Mars, but that you wouldn’t do if you were going only to the Moon?

    Finally. I’m a bit put off my Mollohan’s appelation of “the President’s humans to Mars” program. It’s a NATIONAL vision of continuous exploration that was put in law by an Act of Congress 18 months ago.
    It’s not about just the Moon or just Mars… it’s about exploration.
    (I’m not debating whether that’s good or bad, complete or incomplete.) Calling the whole thing “humans to Mars” is like calling the Strategic Defense Initiative Star Wars.

    I realize that Massachusetts Democrats are used to villifying Republican presidents’ technology initiatives (it was Senator Kennedy that called SDI “star wars” on the floor of the Senate the morning after the March 23, 1983 speech), so Barney Frank doing that to the VSE is expected. The VSE is already vulnerable enough, without supporters like Chairman Mollahan joining the “send Bush to Mars” chorus.

  • Keith Cowing

    Finally. I’m a bit put off my Mollohan’s appelation of “the President’s humans to Mars” program. It’s a NATIONAL vision of continuous exploration that was put in law by an Act of Congress 18 months ago.

    President Bush proposed it.

  • President Bush proposed it.

    Yes, and sadly (and irrationally) that’s apparently sufficient reason for many to oppose it. Pure, unadulterated Bush Derangement.

  • D. Messier

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    Yes, and sadly (and irrationally) that’s apparently sufficient reason for many to oppose it. Pure, unadulterated Bush Derangement.

    Although undoubtedly true that some people oppose it for this reason, this is really the least of the Vison’s problems. The problem lies with the way Bush has implemented it. It would be more productive to focus on that.

  • Folks, while we should credit (or blame) the President for proposing VSE (however imperfectly) and for his appointee’s implementation of the Vision, we should not allow anyone to label the idea that federal human spaceflight should be about continuously expansive exploration instead of circling the Earth as a Republican or Democratic value. Both Democrats and Republicans responded to Columbia by calling for a vision, as did the Gehman Board. The vacuous “we go to space for science” rhetoric of the previous Administrator was not a reason to keep flying the Shuttle for the lifetime of the ISS while waiting for a President to say “go outward”, and both the President and Congress said so by proposing and enacting into law the Vision, and appointing/confirming an Administrator committed to making exploration a priority.

    There’s plenty of time to fight over implementation, but when the Vision is reduced to a soundbite (Bush’s Humans to Mars program) and then Humans to Mars-focused R&D is proscribed by law as a slap at Bush, that has much more negative impact on space exploration than it does the political fortunes of this President or any potential Republican successor.

    Which is a tragedy, IMHO.

  • D. Messier: Actually, this Democrat thinks Mr. Bush’s Administration came up with an excellent proposal, one of their very few good ideas. Unfortunately, underfunding largely caused by the Administration’s more unfortunate decisions, combined with Dr. Griffin’s decisions to pick unnecessary political fights and develop an unnecessary launch vehicle, are rapidly sinking this good policy. But, as somebody else recently said regarding the Clinton Administration, the buck has to stop somewhere, and in this case of insufficient followthrough I agree that it is on Mr. Bush’s desk.

    — Donald

  • D. Messier

    I agree with you, Donald. And we’re not alone in thinking this. There’s been a considerable contingent who have disagreed with how NASA has implemented this vision. I’ve been hearing complaints for about two years now. Apparently there was a lot of pressure to maintain jobs. This hasn’t received nearly the media and blog attention it deserves.

    Griffin’s recent behavior has been disturbing, both with IG and global warming. Not only the content of his comments but the the timing of the remarks. Bizarre. I keep wondering if he’s somehow realizing what a mess things have become and he wants to get out. Maybe not consciously.

  • I suspect that Dr. Griffin is seeing the slow death of his dreams and is getting increasingly frustrated and desperate. He has proven surprisingly poor at politics to begin with — which requires extreme patience and a stable temper and disposition — and neither frustration nor desperation is conducive to improving any of these characteristics. I do not envy the man — but he is living through a hell largely of his own making.

    Needless to say, I sincerely hope (with my own sense of increasing frustration and desperation) that I am wrong with every word above.

    — Donald

  • Wow the knives are getting longer, almost down to the bone now with this fantasy introspection into Mike’s emotional state and dreams. Blair recently characterized this pack behavior of the media that now seems to have spread to bloggers, as hunting feral-like to destroy the reputations of public servants. How about dealing with the facts for a change? Griffin has succeeded in transforming NASA and is struggling with a self serving, largely scientifically and technically illiterate media and Congress. Griffin is not the problem..

  • anonymous

    “I keep wondering if he’s somehow realizing what a mess things have become and he wants to get out.”

    I heard a few weeks ago from someone who speaks to Griffin that Griffin would like to pull a Goldin and stay on as NASA Administrator well into the next Administration (regardless of which party occupies the White House).

    But that was before Griffin’s global warming slip and the public distancing by the White House (Marburger) from Griffin, which has obviously had some impact on the man.

    “fantasy introspection into Mike’s emotional state and dreams”

    It’s not fantasy. Griffin has been apologizing rather abjectly to JPL personnel (among other NASA employees) for his remarks. The man has obviously been taken down (and taken himself down) a notch.

    “How about dealing with the facts for a change?”

    Sure. Here’s some facts:

    — Griffin’s decisions have more than doubled the post-Shuttle human space flight gap, from two years to five.

    — Griffin’s decisions have pushed the development of actual human lunar hardware so far into the future that it is no longer up to the Bush II White House whether their human exploration initiative will start or not.

    — Despite duplicating their lift capabilities, in terms of development cost, Griffin’s chosen solution for LEO transport is about five times more expensive than existing, comparable military systems and about eight times more expensive than comparable commercial systems under development.

    — Griffin has promised full employment at all NASA field centers, even though people need to be coming off the Shuttle program now, pushing all the pain of these workforce decisions onto his successor and jeopardizing future operational savings from Shuttle’s retirement.

    — Griffin has set NASA science on a path to decrease from 7-9 missions per year to a rate of 2 or less missions per.

    — Griffin has cut the budget for NASA aeronautics research nearly in half.

    “Griffin has succeeded in transforming NASA”

    Transforming NASA for the worse? Yes, Griffin has arguably succeeded at doing that.

    There are some things that Griffin does well. For example, he has made some very good technical calls on STS return-to-flight and on ISS. Griffin can arguably run operational programs well.

    But to claim Griffin has been a successful agent of change, “transforming” NASA for the better in the 21st century through properly studied, well planned, and conservatively budgeted programs, is rather laughable in the face of the evidence.

    “Griffin has succeeded in transforming NASA and is struggling with a self serving, largely scientifically and technically illiterate media and Congress.”

    That’s an interesting statement given the number of researchers who have accused Griffin of being illiterate and self-serving on the science of global warming.

    “Griffin is not the problem.”

    As long as we ignore budgets, costs, progress on programs under development, workforce issues, political sustainability, flight rates, and political sensitivities, sure, Griffin is not a problem.

  • Keith Cowing

    Griffins’ chances – far less likely than he seems to have been thinking – of staying on into a future Administration evaporated with his bumbling and ill-timed comments about global warming. He caused far more headaches at WH and among possible future employers than he first imagined.

  • I believe that Keith Cowing is correct. Whatever his engineering skills, Dr. Griffin has proved consistantly poor at politics, but that one took the cake. He destroyed any future he might have had in a Democratic Administration, and hurt his own Administration.

    I have no knives out. I said, and I meant, that I sincerely hope I am wrong. But, unfortunately, I stand by the analysis.

    Anonymous: Griffin has promised full employment at all NASA field centers, even though people need to be coming off the Shuttle program now, pushing all the pain of these workforce decisions onto his successor and jeopardizing future operational savings from Shuttle’s retirement.

    In fairness to Dr. Griffin, this was probably a political requirement for moving forward. Unlike many other political decisions, and however unwise it may be for the future, I don’t particularly fault the man for caving in on this one. It’s the relatively easy decisions that he’s caved in on (SOPHIA) that hurt.

    — Donald

  • anonymous

    “Whatever his engineering skills, Dr. Griffin has proved consistantly poor at politics”

    I’d also argue that Griffin is poor at formulating and planning programs and budgets and decisionmaking on programs in development, all of which are different skill sets from engineering or decisionmaking on operational programs.

    “In fairness to Dr. Griffin, this was probably a political requirement for moving forward.”

    I don’t know about that. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that Hutchison or Nelson conditioned Griffin’s Senate approval on full employment (at least at their centers). But on the other hand, I don’t know of any congressman who has stated that full field center employment is a good goal for NASA’s programs or that has even talked in those terms. Only Griffin seems to.

    But maybe someone will find some quotes that prove me wrong.

    “Unlike many other political decisions, and however unwise it may be for the future, I don’t particularly fault the man for caving in on this one.”

    Even if we agree on this point (and I don’t), there are vehicle options and paths (some of which ESAS missed) that ensure Shuttle workforce employment but that don’t waste such inordinate amounts of time and money reinventing the wheel with a duplicative, intermediate LEO lifter. The DIRECT 2 proposal and Jupiter vehicle over on nasaspaceflight.com is one good example.

    FWIW…

Leave a Reply to Donald F. Robertson Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>