So who is responsible for the looming five-year (or more) gap in US government human space access between the retirement of the shuttle and the introduction of Constellation? President Bush, for introducing the Vision in 2004 that had, as an inherent part of it, the gap? NASA, for failing to be able to close the gap with the development of Ares 1 and Orion? Congress in general, for not providing the agency with sufficient funding to accelerate Constellation? If you’re the Florida Democratic Party, though, one person in particular comes to mind: Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain. And in a press release Wednesday, they don’t mince their words.
McCain’s NASA stance went from “downright schizophrenic” to outright delusional yesterday with his campaign boasting of his influence on space policy in his former role as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation – without mentioning that, under McCain’s watch, the impending five-year gap between the retirement of the Shuttle and the development of the next generation vehicle was created, putting thousands of Space Coast jobs at risk.
(The “downright schizophrenic” quote is from a Florida Today editorial in June that questioned McCain’s support for NASA while also calling for a discretionary budget freeze.)
The Florida Democrats accuse McCain of “ignoring” the gap problem as early as 2004, when the Commerce Committee held hearings on the Vision. While Sen. Bill Nelson (a Florida Democrat) asked questions of McCain (chairman of the committee at the time) about the gap, “McCain had no response.”
Meanwhile, the Orlando Sentinel reports that McCain himself plans to visit the Space Coast on Monday and address space issues while he’s there, including plans to “tweak Barack Obama” on the Democratic candidate’s recent statements on space policy.
Hmmm. Instead of calling policy stances “outright delusional” or planning to “tweak” their opponents, perhaps the campaigns can take some time to offer some substance on these issues, including how they plan to minimize the gap given the recent delay in the first crewed Constellation flight, as well as concerns about access to the ISS given the apparently dimming chances of getting an extension of NASA’s INKSNA waiver.
McCain himself plans to visit the Space Coast on Monday
Maybe just in time for a hurricane?
Anybody remember the infamous “sand chart” that explained how the administration was going to fund the Vision? Soon after Bush announced the VSE, they released a budget chart that showed that the money to support it in the next five years would come from a slight increase in the NASA budget and savings internally from things like shuttle retirement. This was produced under O’Keefe, long before Griffin came on the scene. Congress held a hearing on it and Congressman Bart Gordon asked some really pointed questions about where the money was going to come from. Gordon said that he did not think the administration would provide even the modest amount of money that they indicated in that sand chart. Congress takes its lead from the administration’s budget and rarely adds money to specific projects.
Every single year since then the administration has provided less money than it said in 2004 was necessary to implement the Vision. That’s where the gap comes from. If Bush said he was going to do something and then didn’t do it, he should be held accountable. And he made the decision to rely upon the Russians for American access to space.
Bush isn’t alone in this; It more prominently lies at the feet of Congress which holds the purse strings. In any case I agree it is not so much Griffin’s fault, despite the whining of his detractors. The gap existed before Griffin took his place on the stage.
“Every single year since then the administration has provided less money than it said in 2004 was necessary to implement the Vision. That’s where the gap comes from.”
Incorrect. While the Bush II White House (and Congress) have not met VSE funding commitments, additional funding cannot accelerate Constellation. Senior NASA managers, like Constellation manager Jeff Hanley, have been saying so for several months now. See (add http://www.):
floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080709/NEWS02/807090319/1006/NEWS01
Moreover, the program is plagued by a myriad of high-risk technical issues that are driving the schedule to the right. For example, J-2X engine development is likely to take two more years than NASA has scheduled. The GAO has enumerated these on these problems in multiple reports, like this one (add http://www.):
gao.gov/new.items/d08186t.pdf
Even before NASA management’s acknowledgement this summer that more money wouldn’t accelerate Ares I/Orion, the program has been delaying major reviews and demonstrations in attempts (vain so far) to deal with some of these technical issues (add http://www.):
nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5419
nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5404
Poor program formulation and subsequent technical decisions are driving the gap, not budgetary considerations.
FWIW…
“The gap existed before Griffin took his place on the stage.”
A gap existed before Griffin, but it has only grown since Griffin took the Administrator’s helm.
FWIW…
“under McCain’s watch, the impending five-year gap between the retirement of the Shuttle and the development of the next generation vehicle was created, putting thousands of Space Coast jobs at risk.”
Rather bold talk coming from a campaign whose candidate until recently proposed extending that gap to ten years.
“additional funding cannot accelerate Constellation”
The money was promised starting in 2005 and was not delivered in the 05, 06, 07, 08, or 09 budgets. The administration did not provide the money that it said it _would provide_ for the VSE. They shortchanged their own program from the start, which was pretty much what people like Gordon were saying was going to happen.
“Rather bold talk coming from a campaign whose candidate until recently proposed extending that gap to ten years.”
The Obama campaign never proposed “extending the gap” to “ten years” or any other timeline. They did propose reallocating five years worth of Constellation funding, but questions about the specific impact of those reductions — like whether the cuts would have fallen on Ares I/Orion or the lunar elements of Constellation, whether the campaign had cheaper Ares I/Orion substitutes in mind, etc. — were never asked or answered. It’s fine to criticize one campaign or the other, but we need to keep our facts straight about what was actually said and written, not what we think was said and written.
Since he sits on one of the relevant committees, McCain does arguably bear more responsibility for NASA oversight than other members of Congress that don’t sit on those committees (like Obama). That said, there are many other members of Congress on NASA’s committees that bear equal responsibility, not to mention White House responsibility and (most importantly) NASA management responsibility for the current mess. So it is rather over-the-top for the Obama campaign to levy all the blame on McCain.
FWIW…
“The money was promised starting in 2005 and was not delivered in the 05, 06, 07, 08, or 09 budgets. The administration did not provide the money that it said it _would provide_ for the VSE.”
An incorrect statement. The Bush II White House (and Congress) did provide most of the funding promised under the VSE. They did not provide _all_ of the funding promised under the VSE.
“They shortchanged their own program from the start, which was pretty much what people like Gordon were saying was going to happen.”
It’s a little two-faced for any member of Congress to complain about White House budget shortfalls for anything. Under our system of government, there’s a balance of power when it comes to developing the budget, and Congress always has the option of passing an appropriations bill that exceeds the President’s budget. Gordon and other congressmen on NASA’s committees should spend more time lobbying their fellow congressmen on NASA’s budget (which is hard), and less time criticizing the White House (which is easy).
And regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that those budget shortfalls have nothing to do with what’s driving the gap. Even if the White House and Congress had met their VSE budget commitments exactly, it wouldn’t change the Ares I/Orion’s myriad technical problems and critical path issues.
FWIW…
I think there’s ultimately a chain of responsibility here. whomever told Bush the best option involved a gap is primarily responsible. I don’t know enough about the subject to know who that is. Perhaps it’s someone in the White House, perhaps someone at NASA, I don’t know.
Bush definitely holds responsibility next as it’s supposed to be the implementation of his vision and his legacy, and by shear priority of time, he had the first opportunity to protest. History is rife with leaders who, upon seeing a displeasing proposal, have simply said ‘this is unacceptable, show me something better.’ If he really wanted to make this a centerpiece for his legacy, he should have had the guts to speak out on it before he made the big speech.
The next level of responsibility lies with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I’m not a McCain supporter, but I think it unfair that the failure of that committee to make some major noise about it is placed squarely on his shoulders. It is a committee after all. While he may hold the reigns on the agenda as it stands, anyone in the room had the power to make it an issue.
Congress as a whole does certainly have responsibility here. I would agree that the squeaky wheels should be held to the fire first. You wanna make it a political weapon? Make sure you’re holding the right end. As for the rest, it’s not in most of their districts, most of them haven’t made space a priority so I expect them to justifiably view this from a big picture perspective and vote on it based on its place in the budget at large.
The only people I particularly hold in contept here are the politicians from the white house down who claim to hold a grand space view but fail to support it. In that way, my candidate, Obama, is just as guilty as Bush.
Space is not important, despite the most fervent wishes of space supporters. Once they understand that, then the policy makes perfect sense.
Rand,
I’d modify that slightly – how it happens makes sense – but that doesn’t mean that the policy itself makes sense.
“The Obama campaign never proposed “extending the gap†to “ten years†or any other timeline. They did propose reallocating five years worth of Constellation funding, but questions about the specific impact of those reductions — like whether the cuts would have fallen on Ares I/Orion or the lunar elements of Constellation, whether the campaign had cheaper Ares I/Orion substitutes in mind, etc. — were never asked or answered.”
Sorry, Anon, but you’re spinning. But then that’s exactly what the Obama Campaign did in the months following their proposal as the its implication became apparent. See the following:
“http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/”
After the ofuscation didn’t work, Obama merely followed the advice of Bill Nelson and he flip flopped, another thing he constantly does.
“Sorry, Anon, but you’re spinning.”
No, I’m not. I’m stating the facts as they exist in writing. Nowhere, including the link you provided in your second post, did the Obama campaign propose delaying the Constellation program by “ten years”, per your first post. “Ten years” are your words, not theirs.
Again, we should stick to what the campaigns actually say or write, not what we think or wish they would say or write.
“After the ofuscation didn’t work”
How does a clear and public campaign statement about redirecting funds from program A to program B meet the definition of “ofuscation [sic]”? How is that confusing, opaque, or difficult to perceive or understand?
“Obama merely followed the advice of Bill Nelson and he flip flopped, another thing he constantly does.”
“Flip-flop” is a lazy insult that implies that our candidates should be unintelligent, ideological automatons incapable of changing their minds in the face of changing evidence in a complex world. We don’t do the nation any favors by insisting on such a ridiculously simple litmus test for our Presidents.
But to the extent that there has been any “flip-flopping” on civil space, both candidates are equally guilty. McCain is actually on the record in the Senate as being opposed to the VSE just a few years ago. For example, see (add http://):
edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/28/space.senate.ap/index.html
FWIW…
Actually, “flip flop” has become grossly misused. I thought it originally meant changing one’s position, then going back to the original one. Merely changing one’s mind is just a “flip.”
I completely agree Rand. If changing one’s mind is a case of flip-flopping then Ronald Reagan is guilty of one of the most severe flip-flops in american political history.
Why does the “gap” even matter? Mr. Griffin has said that the budget is not sufficient to maintain both ISS and the lunar landing program, and that he is keeping both on the schedule simply to give the next administration the option to decide which to pursue. If the lunar landings are more important, and we plan to drop ISS anyway, what purpose is served by supporting ISS with CEV?
Returning to the original; topic, it appears Biden is willing to work with China as a partner, while McCain would prefer an adversarial relationship. I feel Biden’s course is more appropriate for a time when money is short.