Sunday’s Washington Post reports on additional evidence of “raw relations” between NASA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Those tensions were illuminated last week when the Orlando Sentinel reported on the leaked email from NASA administrator Mike Griffin where Griffin complained of a “jihad” for retiring the shuttle by OMB and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
The Post reported that OMB deleted some passages in a statement prepared by Griffin in March in response to a request for additional information after a House Science and Technology Committee hearing. The OMB deleted this comment by Griffin: “A Chinese landing on the moon prior to our own return will create a stark perception that the U.S. lags behind not only Russia, but also China, in space,” as well as another, “The bare fact of this accomplishment [a Chinese manned lunar landing] will have an enormous, and not fully predictable, effect on global perceptions of U.S. leadership in the world.”
Those edits, one NASA official who asked not to be identified told the Post, are additional evidence that OMB and NASA re not on the best of terms. “Whether this is cost-cutting across the board or if some people in OMB just don’t like NASA, we don’t know,” the official said. “But the result is that our budget always seems to be less than it’s supposed to be.” That is the key issue: how worse is this situation now compared to earlier in this administration, or in previous administrations? Are these just natural tensions between an agency that wants more money and an office trying to balance competing priorities, or is there something more serious going on?
There is really nothing that mysterious here. Both the OMB (the white house) and Michael Griffin, are out to totally destroy NASA, and like two alpha male lions after the kill, they are merely fighting over the carcass.
It’s simple. Griffin & co. need more money because Constellation is turning out to be more expensive and difficult than their initial hopes. They are worried that if the “gap” continues to lengthen due to budget restrictions, Ares would be canceled in favor of a quicker solution. Hence, they’re trying to play politics to put pressure on OMB for more money to accelerate it, or at least keep it from sliding further right. They neglect to mention, however, that NASA’s budget has actually been increasing steadily since 2004, unlike the vast majority of other domestic agencies. Not as much as promised, but they’re doing much better than most all of the other discretionary spending in the government.
OMB / OSTP are big COTS fans, and appear to be very skeptical of huge NASA projects (wonder why?). Nothing will change in the next few months, and the problem will be dumped into the next administration’s lap.
The key to understanding why OMB struck Griffin’s China language is in this paragraph from the Washington Post article:
“Asked for comment, OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said that the editing involved ‘internal deliberative and pre-decisional’ documents that she could not discuss. She also said it was unclear whether the editing was done by the OMB or another agency. In general, she said, ‘OMB coordinates the executive branch review process so that other offices and departments have the opportunity to comment and offer their views.'”
Before any Administration official (like the NASA Administrator) provides an oral or written record to Congress (testimony, responses to questions for the record, etc.), OMB distributes a draft to all the other agencies, departments, and White House offices in the Administration that might have a stake in what the official says. They all have the right and duty to read the draft and strike language that is not consistent with the Administration’s positions, including foreign policy. Dollars to donuts, OMB didn’t strike this language. Rather, someone in the State Department, National Security Council, etc. directed OMB to strike Griffin’s language because it was at odds with Administration policy and goals on China. The NASA leak to the Washington Post is inexperienced and out of their depth (I’m guessing Chris Shank or somone on his communications staff) and doesn’t know what the heck they’re talking about. They’re blaming OMB budget battles for what was very likely another agency’s foriegn policy edit under routine OMB clearance procedures. If NASA doesn’t want those kinds of edits in the future, then it needs to educate itself about the Administration’s foreign policy positions.
And factually, Griffin’s comments just aren’t true, as the OMB spokesperson points out in the article:
“Regarding competition with China, Lee said President Bush has described his Vision for Space Exploration as ‘a journey, not a race,’ to the moon and beyond. ‘The race to the moon was already won by the U.S. decades ago,’ she said.”
Some historians have argued that, during the Cold War, Apollo achievements may have been an influence on former colonial nations in Africa and Asia and their decisions about whether to align their political ideologies with communism or democracy. But assuming this historical analysis is correct, NASA is living in a post-Apollo and post-Cold War world.
A second lunar landing (by the U.S. or any other nation) is not going to have anywhere near the same impact as the first landing did — it’s almost 40 years later. Instead of being admired overseas, whoever makes that second lunar landing is as likely to be questioned why they’re spending tens or hundreds of billions of their taxpayer’s dollars and national treasury repeating a half-century old feat.
And, more importantly, there is no ideological struggle with China or hearts to be won in newly independent nations. China is not trying to export what remains of its communist ideologies, and the U.S. is in a (for now) mutually dependent economic competition with China where both economies are, more or less, market-based.
And then there’s just the unreality that there is no written or physical evidence that China is actually pursuing a human lunar program. Multiple leaders in their space agency and government have repeatedly stated that there is no Chinese human lunar program, and there is no physical evidence in this Google Earth world (Chinese heavy lift launch vehicle development and launch facility construction, lunar return reentry experiments, lander development and experiments, etc.) for such. Griffin’s focus on a Chinese human lunar bogeyman that exists only in his mind just takes the U.S. focus away from the real disruptive Chinese space threats (cough, cough… asymmetric ASAT demonstrations… cough, cough) that would actually be affordable and useful to China in its economic competition with the U.S. should that competition heat up in the future.
Of course, only six months after the Administration struck Griffin’s comments on China, NASA is holding talks with the Chinese space agency on a “landmark” mechanism for long-term cooperation. See (add http://www):
.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/China090808.xml&headline=U.S.,%20China%20In%20Space%20Talks&channel=space
Good to see that Griffin’s crystal ball is as polished and accurate as ever. [Rolling eyes.] It would appear that the OMB clearance process has more of NASA’s interests at heart than its Administrator does.
What a joke…
Personally, I think the “Jihad” is coming from NASA.
NASA works for the White House. Griffin was hired by the White House to implement White House policy. Griffin was explicitly told to make do within the means provided, when he was hired.
Yet, near the very end here, NASA and Griffin are aggressively and intentionally bucking White House policy. Griffin people are leaking Griffin emails that criticize the White House. Griffin people are leaking White House comments and directives on pre-decisional NASA statements. Griffin people are crying to the press that “We don’t get enough moneeeeeyyy.” Griffin people are spinning a race to the Moon against China, which is contrary to White House policy (as specifically stated by President Bush).
Griffin has gone native.
– Al
anonymous.space: “Griffin’s focus on a Chinese human lunar bogeyman that exists only in his mind just takes the U.S. focus away from the real disruptive Chinese space threats (cough, cough… asymmetric ASAT demonstrations… cough, cough) that would actually be affordable and useful to China in its economic competition with the U.S. should that competition heat up in the future.”
To add to anonymous.space’s comment, it would be a good idea for Griffin to consider what kind of response by NASA would be useful to the U.S. in countering the real military and economic space threats from China. It seems to me that ESAS doesn’t help counter these real threats at all.
The kinds of capabilities that NASA could encourage, invent, or improve to counter China’s ASATs, launchers, and satellites are things like:
– operationally responsive space
– small satellites
– Earth observation satellites
– telecommunications satellites
– economical commercial launch vehicles
– commercial suborbital rockets
– improved education in space-related fields
– space infrastructure (e.g.: commercial space stations, tugs, refueling)
It’s possible that, if NASA were contributing more in areas like these (through incentives to U.S. commercial space, research, demos, etc), it would find the budget battles easier to win.
“The kinds of capabilities that NASA could encourage, invent, or improve to counter China’s ASATs, launchers, and satellites are things like:”
It is not NASA’s job or area to counter any of this.
– operationally responsive space
Plain and simple the military’s job to research and implement and not NASA
– small satellites
Chipsat, Themis, ST-5, LCROSS, P-pods, etc. NASA already does this
– Earth observation satellites
Aura, Aqua, Cloudsat, Calipso, Icesat, LDCM, OCO, Glory, etc, NASA does launch many of these mission
– telecommunications satellites
NASA used to launch them but now that is industry’s job. NASA does not need to be involved
– economical commercial launch vehicles
There is COTS, but again, this is industry’s job. NASA can support subsystem development
– commercial suborbital rockets
NASA does this already
– improved education in space-related fields
NASA does this already
– space infrastructure (e.g.: commercial space stations, tugs, refueling)
Commercial means NASA is not involved.
Me,
Red may be a little redundant in laying out his list, but his heart is in the right place. The real threat from China is military and commercial, not from civil space stunts.
The agency formerly known as NACA had no trouble partnering with industry and the military to develop vital national capabilities in aviation. Why is that model so forgotten to its successors in NASA?
– Jim
Me: I probably wasn’t clear in describing how I think NASA should be contributing to things like countering China’s military and economic space efforts (rather than the potential Chinese manned lunar effort).
I don’t think NASA’s job should be “counter China’s military and economic space efforts”, or more generally to improve U.S. military space and commercial space efforts. Similarly, I don’t think NASA’s job should be to be an energy agency, or an environment agency, or a disaster relief agency, or an educational agency, or a health and medicine agency. However, I do think NASA and its Congressional and Executive leaders should choose NASA’s assignments, and the way NASA performs those assignments, in such a way as to contribute to areas like these, while at the same time doing “Aeronautics and Space” as it always does.
It seems to me that NASA’s Science, Aeronautics, and Education areas do a fairly good job at this. Although it has a troubled history, the ISS is (aside from the gap controversy) positioned to do this as well. The COTS program, Centennial Challenges, other IPP programs, and the old and new suborbital efforts also contribute this way.
The programs that stand out (IMHO) as not contributing this way are the Shuttle and ESAS because don’t only don’t they contribute to areas like these, but they also use a huge percent of NASA’s budget.
I’m also critical of very large robotic science missions like the Mars Sample Return as currently envisioned, as scientifically great as such a mission would be, for similar reasons – the contribution to areas like the ones I mentioned is too small compared to the financial cost and risk of failure.
I do recognize, as you point out, that NASA already does smallsats, Earth Observation, suborbital rocket missions, and education. What I meant to suggest is that, given big slice of the budget from these other, more costly areas, NASA could completely transform the smallsat, Earth Observation, suborbital spaceflight, and space education areas. Besides the direct benefits of doing this, we would see a side benefit in that NASA’s efforts would help counter the real military and economic threats, as described by anonymous.space, from China.
I also recognize that NASA isn’t a military agency. However, it could contribute to operationally responsive space efforts by concentrating considerably more efforts on missions that tend to encourage operationally responsive space, like quickly developed, focused small satellites and associated small launchers. Again, doing this would help in a critical area, while at the same time doing NASA’s own job well.
Finally, I don’t mean to suggest that NASA should build telecommunications satellites, commercial launchers, or commercial space infrastructure. I agree with you that this is industry’s job. However, I recognize that space, and in particular improving capabilities in space, is a difficult business proposition. It’s even more difficult in areas that might be helpful to NASA, or to U.S. government concerns with China’s ASATs, or other national concerns. Therefore, it seems appropriate for NASA to encourage commercial space in areas like the ones I mentioned (telecommunications satellites, commercial launchers, space infrastructure, suborbital rockets, etc). It does this with Centennial Challenges, COTS, hosted payloads like SeaWiFS, and new purchases of commercial services like those seen with Zero-G and recent suborbital RFIs. However, I’d like to see NASA do a lot more of this, as well as more NASA use of EELVs. Again, such a stance would, in addition to many other benefits, have the side benefit of countering China’s ASATs and other challenges.
In contrast, I don’t see ESAS contributing to any of these areas. If the military, or commercial space interests, or similar voices were clamoring for Ares-V style heavy lift, or Ares-1 style crew transportation, run by NASA, I’d probably be persuaded otherwise. However, even the Titan launchers were shut down.
Of course there is the question of NASA’s new lunar mission. I’d be surprised if a vigorous NASA effort in the areas I mentioned, boosted by, say, the Shuttle and ESAS budgets, wouldn’t do a better job at a sustained lunar program. The ingredients would be there: commercial launchers inspired by COTS and suborbital purchases, infrastructure like tugs and in-space refueling, a well-education workforce, and small and cheap lunar robotic missions for lunar GPS, communication, and mapping based on smallsat technologies (plus roving based on lunar X PRIZE NASA follow-ons).
red
“However, it could contribute to operationally responsive space efforts by concentrating considerably more efforts on missions that tend to encourage operationally responsive space,”
Still not within NASA’s goals, charter, or needs (especially, need, NASA does require this at all). The military has labs that can do this without NASA.involvement.
“NASA could completely transform the smallsat, Earth Observation, suborbital spaceflight, and space education areas”
There is nothing to “transform” here. NASA already does this. The only thing needed is money to sustain the current programs.
“Therefore, it seems appropriate for NASA to encourage commercial space in areas like the ones I mentioned (telecommunications satellites, commercial launchers, space infrastructure, suborbital rockets, etc)”
NASA already uses EELV’s. Comsats need no help from NASA, just as MP3 players don’t.
The non Shuttle and ESAS parts of NASA already do everything you suggest, except for the military applications. The military can do those on its own.
The ESAS may not contribute to any of the areas you suggest but a different architecture for VSE could. A lunar program using current boosters and onorbit refueling would be a better stimulus for commercial interest.
NASA already uses EELV’s.
Not for VSE.
The ESAS may not contribute to any of the areas you suggest but a different architecture for VSE could.
I’m pretty sure that was the point.
RED: “NASA could completely transform the smallsat, Earth Observation, suborbital spaceflight, and space education areasâ€
ANON: There is nothing to “transform†here. NASA already does this.
They do?
This is news to me.
How has NASA transformed small sats?
MSFC has already stolen one “small sat” program from Ames, and turned it into a “large sat”. Is that what you mean by transformation in small sats? (Yes, I know Pete Worden wants to transform how NASA uses small sats, but he is scraping. The problem is the rest of NASA.)
How has NASA transformed suborbital spaceflight?
NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), was ready to start a procurement of suborbital spaceflight services under the leadership of Alan Stern. However, Stern is gone, and Ed Weiler (Stern’s replacement) cancelled Stern’s plan. NASA SMD is only doing a “study” of such a notional procurement now.
Do you mean to suggest that conducting a STUDY is a “transformation” of suborbital services? (Yes, I know Pete Worden wants to transform this function, but the problem (again) is the rest of NASA.)
How has NASA transformed space education?
By making huge cuts to it?
FWIW,
– Al