Congress, White House

White House rebuffs space summit proposal

As you may recall, earlier this year that Sen. Barbara Mikulski called for a “space summit” with the President regarding NASA’s programs and funding. That proposal picked up bipartisan support in Congress, but no response from the White House—until now. Yesterday Sen. Mikulski announced that she had received a response, from outgoing OMB director Rob Portman and science advisor John Marburger rather that the president himself. In the letter, Marburger and Portman offer to meet with Mikulski and NASA administrator Mike Griffin “to discuss civil space and other important topics in the coming weeks”, but reiterated the administration’s belief that “the President’s budget requests since the 2004 announcement [of the Vision] would have provided sufficient resources to implement this program and to support other NASA activities, such as science and aeronautics.”

Mikulski was not mollified by the response, saying in a statement, “I regret the President did not address this invitation himself.” She is not, though, giving up on her efforts for a space summit: “However, I will continue to seek a new dialogue with the President. Only through the active cooperation of the White House and the Congress, can we have a healthy, robust and balanced space program.”

24 comments to White House rebuffs space summit proposal

  • Chance

    Par for the course. Why talk about anything? I’m kind old King George, my word is law.

  • anonymous

    In fairness to the Bush Administration, excepting disasters and war, it’s very rare for any White House to go back on its annual budget request. Mikulski, an old hand at the appropriations process, surely knew this going in. Behind closed doors, the letter probably comes as no surprise to her. But it makes her look like a strong NASA supporter to her NASA constituents back in Maryland and it costs her nothing, so it’s worth pursuing. The annual congressional parade for NASA is always full of empty, posturing gestures like this one.

  • In fairness to the Bush Administration

    Oh … go f*ck yourself.

  • anonymous

    “Oh … go f*ck yourself.”

    [crossing fingers]

    Please let the software support user bans…

  • Please let the software support user bans…

    You just love this administration, dontcha! You’re right at home with the fascists. Viva la fascism!

  • MarkWhittington

    The Administration is about to pick a fight with Congress over spending, planning to veto as many as eleven spending bills. I suspect that now is not the time for a “space summit” with a view of massively boosting NASA’s budget. Of course this coming battle will likely result in a general budget summit some time late this summer or early fall.

  • The Administration is about to pick a fight with Congress over spending

    How ironic.

  • Keith Cowing

    Gee Mark, whatever happened to the robust support of the VSE at the WH? Shouldn’t they stand up and be counted? Or is it that they have lost interest in the VSE?

  • MarkWhittington

    Keith – I cannmot imagine that nearly four billion in th exploration account even before the shuttle fleet’s retirement somehow constitutes “losing intrest in VSE.” Now if Mikulski et al is interested in boosting that amount, I suspect it would be fine with the Administration so long as the money is found elsewhere. Considering the enthusiasm that the Dems have embraced earmarks, I think there is plenty of money floating around that can better be spent exploring the universe than–say–building a bridge or a water project no one needs.

  • Keith Cowing

    Mark: I cannmot imagine that nearly four billion in th exploration account even before the shuttle fleet’s retirement somehow constitutes “losing intrest in VSE.”

    You should check what their current un-costed carryover is at ESMD, Mark (you do know that that term means, yes?) – money that was scammed from canceling many other things NASA is supposed to be doing. Now they don’t even know how to spend it

    I think there is plenty of money floating around that can better be spent exploring the universe than–say–building a bridge or a water project no one needs. Ah yes – bridges – as in Sen. Ted Stevens (Republican from Alaska) and his ‘bridge to nowhere’ – …. yes, he sets such a fine example for others to emulate …

  • John Malkin

    I haven’t been able to find a list of Earmarks for 2006, 2007 or 2008 budget like the OMB did for 2005. I really liked this database but I’m sure it provides too much information on an embarrassing topic. I don’t believe either side will ever eliminate earmarks and Bush’s 50% reduction in earmarks is a long shot. I think the only way to reform congress is via a set of amendments from the people. Until there is reform the budgets will be fluid and full of politics.


    (Anyone know?)

  • Chance

    “[crossing fingers]

    Please let the software support user bans…”

    anonymous, according to the WordPress link on the right, the blog does have comment moderation. Since many of these comment threads are quite long, I assume Jeff just doesn’t have the time to review every comment. Maybe he could get a trusted colleague or reader administrator access, and a volunteer could moderate comments. Just an idea. Getting my snarky post above removed is a small price to pay to to stop seeing TLE’s rants and personal attacks.

  • MarkWhittington

    “You should check what their current un-costed carryover is at ESMD, Mark (you do know that that term means, yes?) – money that was scammed from canceling many other things NASA is supposed to be doing. Now they don’t even know how to spend it.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by that, Keith. VSE has been enshrined not only by the President but by legislation. Congress has essentially ordered NASA to do VSE. Everything else would seem to me to be of lower priority.

    And I certainly don’t know what you mean by “don’t know how to spend it.” I thought the beef was that VSE is being underfunded. How, at the same time, can it be the case that VSE has so much money that NASA doesn’t know how to spend it? It doesn’t compute.

  • Al Fansome

    I second the motion by Anonymous.

    I think it is time for a software-based user ban.

    Freedom of speech does not equal a right to be rude and disrespectful on private property. If somebody comes into my home, and starts cursing at my guests, I would throw them out.

    If I don’t kick you out, then it is no longer MY home.

    This is totally in Jeff’s power and within his rights.

    – Al

  • Tom

    Keith – I cannmot imagine that nearly four billion in th exploration account even before the shuttle fleet’s retirement somehow constitutes “losing intrest in VSE.”

    Sure it can. This is chump change compared to its other priorities. With VSE, the Administration promulgated a broad directive to NASA, whose implementation could be interpreted many different ways. It is quite apparent that the whole purpose of VSE (at least in the eyes of the Bush Administration) was to provide an inspirational response to the Columbia failure. Only a handful of congressmen and NASA aficionados are taking it seriously, and only to the extent that it serves their self interests.

  • Keith Cowing

    If Congress really supported VSE they’d be funding it at – or above the levels originally requested. They are trying to cut it instead by virtue of not fully funding it.

    If WH really supported VSE they’d be funding it at – or above the levels originally requested. They are trying to cut it instead by virtue of not fully funding it.

  • Al Fansome

    I agree with Mr. Cowing, and I would add a distinction to explain “why” it is happening.

    In my opinnion, Congress & the WH would have supported funding “above the levels originally requested” if NASA’s specific plan to implement the VSE had delivered significant and measureable benefits in “national security, commerce, and science” as mandated by the White House.

    Look at the big checkes that the WH & Congress are writing for the DoD (national security).

    Look at the big checks that the WH & Congress are writing for the American Competitiveness Intiative (commerce, national security, and science).

    When the Griffin’s team conducted the ESAS assessment of the so-called options, “national security”, “commerce” and “science” were never “measures of merit”. If you disagree, please point me to the part of the ESAS study where NASA attempted to objectively measure these WH mandated outputs.

    Because Griffin’s NASA did not assess and measure the actual deliverables demanded by their customers, we have the result we have. Which explains the phenomena that Mr. Cowing describes.

    From one perspective, this was a “systems engineering” failure from an agency which purportedly understands “systems engineering”. Good systems engineers start with the output criteria which includes “What is the customer’s requirement?” and then focus like a laser on delivering what the customer wants. But if you don’t set up the problem right (e.g., if you don’t start with the correct requirements) then you get into big trouble.

    – Al

  • Outside the Beltway

    Al said: “…this was a “systems engineering” failure from an agency which purportedly understands “systems engineering”.

    Beg pardon? Speaking as former insider at NASA, the Agency most emphatically DOES NOT understand systems engineering. NASA’s first priority is the preservation of its bureaucracy. If that means parroting buzz words to make it seem that it understands system engineering (or Total Quality Management, or concurrent engineering, or Zero Defects, or the latest flavor-of-the-month), then it will do so.

    As for ‘customer requirements’ – NASA has never understood who the customer is or given a fig as to what the requirements might be.

  • […] the chatter associated with the most recent post, it appears it’s time for your regular admonishment about appropriate comments. Rather than […]

  • anonymous

    “I cannmot imagine that nearly four billion in th exploration account even before the shuttle fleet’s retirement somehow constitutes ‘losing intrest in VSE.'”

    No, but there’s no denying that the White House’s annual budget requests for NASA have fallen billions short of the promises made in the VSE budget projection.

    “Now if Mikulski et al is interested in boosting that amount, I suspect it would be fine with the Administration so long as the money is found elsewhere.”

    That’s not how the federal budget process works. Appropriations subcommittees are assigned budget allocations to work within. If they want to add money to a department/agency/program, then it’s almost always coming out of another department/agency/program’s hide. And that almost always means that the White House will oppose the cut because the White House has already decided that the higher amount is the right amount to fund that department/agency/program. There is no free ride.

    “You should check what their current un-costed carryover is at ESMD, Mark (you do know that that term means, yes?) – money that was scammed from canceling many other things NASA is supposed to be doing. Now they don’t even know how to spend it”

    Mr. Cowing is right that there is a huge bow-wave of uncosted carryover (i.e., dollars appropriated in one year but still unspent by NASA the next year or two) in ESMD, much of which was taken from ISS research, Project Prometheus, exploration research, science, and aeronautics.

    But in fairness to ESMD, Ares I/Orion is going to need that carryover to stay on track for a 2015 IOC because the budget profile will not support that schedule without the carryover. The budget for most development projects resembles a Bell curve (rising and then falling through the years), but the top of the Ares I/Orion Bell curve is rather flat without that carryover.

    Of course, NASA should not have pursued a budgetarily overextended ESAS plan that required risky funding strategies like carryover, but that’s another argument.

    “VSE has been enshrined not only by the President but by legislation. Congress has essentially ordered NASA to do VSE.”

    Simply not true. Congress passed an authorization bill supportive of the VSE. But authorization bills only set limits (ceilings) on funding. They do not set floors. They are only guidance and have no teeth that would prevent NASA’s appropriation bills, the mechanism from which agencies like NASA actually get their budgets passed, from funding NASA at a lower level. And of course, that’s exactly what’s been happening nearly every year since the VSE was rolled out (NASA’s first year after the VSE rollout being the exception, largely due to the intervention of O’Keefe and Delay).

    It’s also important to remember that it was the prior, Republican-controlled Congress that passed NASA’s last authorization bill. The Democratic takeover effectively made that measure an outdated bill. Aside from the $500 million flattening of the NASA exploration budget in the 2007 budget resolution, we have no real indication of whether the new Democrat-controlled Congress as a whole supports the VSE or not.

    “Everything else would seem to me to be of lower priority.”

    Even setting aside macro funding issues like the war on terrorism, within NASA’s subcommittees, that’s not going to be the case. For example, initiatives, some started by the White House, in basic research (American Competitiveness Initiative) and energy research are going to rank higher in scramble for funding amoung competing R&D agencies, including NASA.

    “When the Griffin’s team conducted the ESAS assessment of the so-called options, “national security”, “commerce” and “science” were never “measures of merit”. If you disagree, please point me to the part of the ESAS study where NASA attempted to objectively measure these WH mandated outputs.

    Because Griffin’s NASA did not assess and measure the actual deliverables demanded by their customers, we have the result we have.”

    This is an interesting argument. I don’t think it explains everything because politicians always overpromise. But maybe the White House and Congress would have been favorable to higher funding if the ESAS plan had made quicker progress to actual lunar science and commerce (per DIRECT or even just a vibrant lunar robotic program) and/or had allowed effective use of national security assets (EELV). Those are stronger and more sustainable policy arguments than full employment at NASA field centers.

    Although there is plenty of blame for VSE underfunding on both sides of the aisle and in both the Congress and White House, for me, it always comes back to how expensive and budgetarily overextended ESAS/Ares I/Orion were from the get-go. Anyone with a modicum of program or budget planning sense and political acuity could have projected that the budget would fall short at some point in a federal program that spanned multiple White Houses and Congresses. Knowing that, they could have pursued a plan that at least fit the budget (or, better yet, provided margin to spare). Griffin did the exact opposite with ESAS, and for that reason, I place most of the blame for the five-year gap, the slipping of any actual human lunar hardware development over the horizon, the massive science and aeronautics cuts, etc. at his feet and not with the Congress or the White House.

    “Beg pardon? Speaking as former insider at NASA, the Agency most emphatically DOES NOT understand systems engineering. NASA’s first priority is the preservation of its bureaucracy. If that means parroting buzz words to make it seem that it understands system engineering (or Total Quality Management, or concurrent engineering, or Zero Defects, or the latest flavor-of-the-month), then it will do so.

    As for ‘customer requirements’ – NASA has never understood who the customer is or given a fig as to what the requirements might be.”

    That statement is a trifecta. Funny, sad, and true.

  • Al Fansome

    OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY: As for ‘customer requirements’ – NASA has never understood who the customer is or given a fig as to what the requirements might be.

    Deart OTB,

    I totally agree.

    My point is that it is in the NASA bureaucracy’s material self-interest to understand the custoemr and to give a fig about their requirements. If they did that, they would be enjoying the benefits of a lot more money.

    – Al

  • Paul Dietz

    Perhaps NASA understands its customers, the politicians, all too well, and knows that the current approach maximizes the money it would receive. That is, it sees itself as being funded for reasons of pork, and doesn’t believe in space-fan dreams at all.

  • John Malkin

    I agree with Paul and we all know it’s true in every branch of the government. Many good things have come from NASA despite it being a government agency. How does NASA compare to it conterparts in other countries? All NASA administrators know that in government beuracacy comes first, dreams second, engineering third and American people last. This goes for all the government agrencies. When the last time is the Energy Department had a dream to actually improve American life. Health and Human Services is the biggest dreamless department. Sigh…

Leave a Reply to MarkWhittington 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>