Congress, NASA, White House

Another Augustine meeting; another request for money

NASA announced Friday that the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee will hold another meeting on Thursday the 8th via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is the “finalization of scoring of options the committee presented in their summary report” released last month. (The meeting is being held via teleconference and the public can call in, although only about 300 callers can be supported; the committee staff is looking into a webcast option to allow more people to listen in.) No other testimony or public input will take place in the meeting.

This is further indication that it’s going to be a little while longer before the full report is released. As previously reported, the committee was not expected to deliver its final report until mid-October. When I asked Jeff Greason about the status of the final report in Boston earlier this week, he said the committee members were reviewing final drafts of the full report, but didn’t have an estimate when the report would be complete.

Meanwhile, Space News reports that the White House has requested Congress restore $670 million in NASA exploration funding cut in the House version of an appropriations bill. The letter, from OSTP director John Holdren, asked that funding be restored in the final version of the bill “in anticipation of a forthcoming presidential decision on NASA’s manned spaceflight future”. This is not the first time the administration has criticized that cut: in June, shortly after the House appropriations subcommittee acted on the bill, a Statement of Administration Policy from OMB stated that the White House was “concerned” about the cut. “This large reduction would likely cause major negative impacts to any options that may emerge from the ongoing blue ribbon review of U.S. human space flight plans,” the statement added.

13 comments to Another Augustine meeting; another request for money

  • Mark R. Whittington

    President Bush has been justly criticized for not funding the space exploration program properly. But it should be noted that in the VSE’s first year, when Congress threatened to gut the program, Bush gave his first veto threat. This was backed up by strong action by then House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

    A tepid complaint by a lower level White House official is likely to be ignored by the Congress. Obama himself needs to weigh in. After all, if he can fly all the way to Copenhagen to try to snag the Olympics, he can make a few phone calls to some appropriators. Otherwise he will be seen to be once again weak and spineless.

  • Major Tom

    “But it should be noted that in the VSE’s first year, when Congress threatened to gut the program, Bush gave his first veto threat… Obama himself needs to weigh in.”

    President G.W. Bush “himself” didn’t “weigh in” on the VSE budget. The veto threat was transmitted by his OMB Director (John Bolten). See:

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/197/1

    “… complaint by a lower level White House official is likely to be ignored by the Congress.”

    Dr. Holdren’s letter comes on top of the official statement of Administration position from Obama’s OMB Director (Peter Orszag). Dr. Marburger didn’t make a written budget appeal for NASA during the Bush II Administration. So far, more senior officials in the Obama White House are going to bat against NASA budget threats than in the Bush II Administration (which didn’t keep it commitments to the VSE budget, anyway).

    FWIW…

  • Robert Oler

    Mark Whittington wrote:

    “Obama himself needs to weigh in. After all, if he can fly all the way to Copenhagen to try to snag the Olympics, he can make a few phone calls to some appropriators. Otherwise he will be seen to be once again weak and spineless.”

    Isee Major Tom has corrected a few issues…I would address this.
    f
    Flying to Copenhagen to try and snag the Olympics was an effort that would have affected the entire Republic. Making a few phone calls on a minor part of the NASA budget is not something that changes the dynamics of The Republic near as much as the Olympics would have.

    Had it worked out it would have been seen as a great move, that it didnt means nothing. The fact that he failed, and probably knew he was going to makes me respect him even more for taking the chance…getting the Olympics would have meant a lot for The Republic. It is narrowed minded people who beat up on him for this…heck and most of the folks who are doing it praise Bush for exaggerating us into a war.

    As an aside “once again weak and spineless” is a pejorative judgment made by someone who view Dick Cheney still in a positive light.

    I voted for the “other person” In the 08 election, but if your definition of Cheney is “bold and courageous” then all and all I wouldnt say that Obama has done all that bad. So far he has not exaggerated to us about threats from abroad. (and my using the “exaggeration” word is being kind)

    Mark this may come as a shock to you but for the most part most People dont use human spaceflight as a marker for Presidential leadership. If you want something to rail about see what happens with health care and Afland…two vastly more important decisions.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    Over at NASAWatch, in the comments on the same topic, Frank Sietzen makes some excellent points comparing the House appropriators’ cuts to Constellation to the House authorizers’ defense of Constellation during Augustine’s recent hearing:

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/10/white-house-con.html#comments

    FWIW…

  • GuessWho

    “Flying to Copenhagen to try and snag the Olympics was an effort that would have affected the entire Republic. Making a few phone calls on a minor part of the NASA budget is not something that changes the dynamics of The Republic near as much as the Olympics would have.”

    This is a rather bold statement. Any data to back it up? A very short search indicates that a very successful Olympics Game (in terms of financial success) generates a few Billions of dollars ($3B-$6B) for the host city and local economy. The Atlanta Games netted about $5.5B . If these estimates are anywhere close to the right order of magnitude, it disproves your statement. Personally, I would think an additional $3B injected into the economy on a yearly basis would have more positive return than a one-time $5-$6B event. Even better, since it comes from people who actually pay taxes, would be to leave it in the private sector and let it generate multiple returns on the initial investment.

    “Had it worked out it would have been seen as a great move, that it didnt means nothing. The fact that he failed, and probably knew he was going to makes me respect him even more for taking the chance…”

    Wow! Talk about a win-win scenario. If Obama succeeds in getting the Games in Chicago, he is a hero. If he fails, he is still a hero. Is there any scenario where he is actually held to task for failure? But more importantly, where is the evidence that supports your argument that he probably knew he would fail to sway the decision? All the reports from the MSM that I have seen indicate that it would come down to Chicago and Rio in the final vote. Having Chicago fall in the first round was a shock. Where does your insight come from? I may need it for future stock buys.

  • Robert Oler

    GuessWho.. I wont even try!

    “Personally, I would think an additional $3B injected into the economy on a yearly basis would have more positive return than a one-time $5-$6B event. ”

    As one of my old professors on the river use to say “when you find a major failure of logic in someone’s argument then the rest can be assumed to collapse as well”.

    the above quote is that major failure.

    The Olympics are not a “one time $5-6 billion” event. Assume that you are are correct and the total “net” is 6 billion dollars. And assume that the games were in 2016.

    The spending/benefits while not linear would be spread out over the next six years not just one massive spending push Of course 3 billion injected into a local economy on a yearly basis would do far more then 1 billion a year but then the NASA 3 billion a year (which I guess is what you are referencing) would not go to a single local economy but be spread out over several…

    Worse for your logic the 3 billion per year that would be spent, would be mostly spent on two things…one salaries for people who are doing things which have little or no multiplicative effect in the local economy and two things which have no multiplicative effect in the local economy.

    this is the “multiplicative” effect that space advocates, NASA, and Congresspeople are so frequently talking about…the problem is that it doesnt really exist in most NASA spending and almost all of human spaceflight.

    I could pick both where the salaries are created or what the people who are paid build (part one or two) but lets try what is built. If NASA were to get 1 billion a year (some simplistic assumptions being made here but they track) to build Ares 1 and say 1 billion a year were spent in Chicago to build roads…in the end the roads will exist for decades but the Ares 1 boosters (no matter how many are built or viewgraphed) will be gone with no multiplicative moment after that.

    IE even if the Ares flew that spending is over…but the roads in Chicago would remain. This is why no matter how inefficient or over budget or badly managed the “Big Dig” is in Boston, it is still a much greater multiplicative effect on the local economy, then if they built Ares 1 solids there.

    Spending on human spaceflight is what communities call “dead cat ” spending..meaning it has a single bounce and then it is well dead. On the other hand the NASA BYPASS (NASA PARKWAY) spending will affect the Clear Lake community well “forever”.

    Nice try but the effort you make is one reason that space advocates flounder when they start talking about spinoffs. No dont bring up teflon (My mother had teflon pans in Teague Texas well before the space age) or microwave ovens (again pre SPutnik) or….

    As for the politics. There are times in life and in politics… when an effort is well done, no matter the outcome…and times when it is a turd no matter the outcome. The Reykjavik Iceland summit (Ronaldus the Great and Gorby) is an example of the former…Bush and his thunderheads in Iraq is an example of the latter (ie even had the matter been done competently, the basis of the effort was a “exaggeration”).

    Obama did not risk a lot going to make the sales and had it worked out it would have meant something for The Republic…plus while the MSM might have thought it was “down to two”…more sophisticated analysis knew it was going to be a hard sale. The effort in Copenhagen of course didnt have the magnitude of those events…and I grant you that the “Obamaites” probably overestimate President Obama’s sales ability (true believer status does that)…but in these cases…you send the A team.

    “s there any scenario where he is actually held to task for failure?”

    of course. As I told Whittington (reading is important) “If you want something to rail about see what happens with health care and Afland…two vastly more important decisions.”

    I think that should answer the question.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    Personally I think the Olympic move was not right: Too much visibility for any President with very uncertain outcome. I do not see this as a presidential preoccupation. My suspicion is some promise of some kind to Chicago’s mayor once upon a time. Or maybe a well needed distraction from the ongoing mess here. Anyway. No (real) harm done. Water under the bridge and I don’t think the WH won anything in that case.

    I will also add that about the road building thing. The investment we are doing in our country must bring some return short term sure: The roads. But what about the long term? Once the road are built then what do we do? I am far from suggesting money to the current Constellation. But take the billions we are talking about and put them to work at NASA for HSF to develop the private sector and R&D. What do you get? Long term investment that can return “new” products and highly skilled high paying jobs. High paying jobs are very important since they provide more jobs around by the means of services.

    So I’d love to see the “exclusive” or not being used since things cannot be simplistically disconnected. There MUST be an overarching plan. That is what is missing, to me anyway. There was a rush to the bail out and probably rightfully so but now is the time to start regrouping and thinking. Short term benefits seem (I said seem) to be here in a slow down of the recession (I would not venture it is over unlike some). But now what do we do? Can NASA be part of the future? The answer is a definite YES. But not the NASA of old. We need a new course, new goals. It is going to hurt pretty bad first but if handled well it may last only a little (months? 1 year?). Get COTS-D going and make NASA help the private sector in anyway they can. End the Ares failures. Be more humble about the goals: Flexible Path is more humble but also a lot more ambitious, it will take a little while for us to see the results but some may be achieved really soon.

    So if the $670M go back to the current plan as is then it is a total waste. If it goes back with a renewed perspective then it is a good thing.

    Don’t get all excited about this. The $670M are far from enough to the current plan anyway, they would just delay a little what is coming. And maybe it is the intent?…

  • GuessWho

    “…The spending/benefits while not linear would be spread out over the next six years not just one massive spending push.”

    Which is exactly what happened in Atlanta in the lead up to the Games once they were announced in 1990. Thus over a 7-year period (6 years leading up to the games and 1 year for residual carryover (which may be overly optimistic, but what the heck)), the net positive was $6B. In the grand scheme of things, this was a very short term event.

    “Of course 3 billion injected into a local economy on a yearly basis would do far more then 1 billion a year but then the NASA 3 billion a year (which I guess is what you are referencing) would not go to a single local economy but be spread out over several…”

    So what is better for “The Republic” (I hate that term.), spending in one local economy or spending over the (nearly) entire US? Unless I lived in Georgia in 1996 (or Illinois in 2016 should they have been successful), I wouldn’t have realized much of a benefit.

    “… salaries for people who are doing things which have little or no multiplicative effect in the local economy…”

    Direct salaries are certainly multiplicative. Those salaries buy goods and services from the local economy which creates jobs. Those jobs create additional wealth within the business community which in turn either reinvests that money (in the case of new equipment, new buildings, etc.) or expenses that wealth through payment of salaries to their employees or through purchase of other goods and services that are needed to continue to operate. This is particularly true for small businesses which account for more than 75% of all jobs growth across the US. What you fail to recognize is that the piece of hardware that comes out at the end of the assembly line is not the true deliverable. For most businesses, particularly those that service the US Govt., what they are really selling is manhours (i.e., wages). The rocket, or a submarine or an airplane comes out of that process merely justifies the amount paid in wages since the actual hardware costs provide very little “profit” while the knowledge and expertise related to taking raw materials and producing something of value is where one company distinguishes itself from another.

    Where NASA fails (for the most part), is that they do not produce something of value that can justify the monetary investment as reflected by their annual budget. The “bang for the buck” just isn’t there, particularly for HSF.

    ““If you want something to rail about see what happens with health care and Afland…two vastly more important decisions.”

    On these points, I couldn’t agree more. Against these issues, NASA doesn’t rate.

  • Robert Oler

    GuessWho

    I would make three points about the latest of your post.

    First most communities that “get” the Olympics find them of enormous value along a broad scale. I know for instance in the Atlanta games Delta was helped enormously by them…and the general area around Atlanta was and the areas where the games were held had a lot of long term infrastructure improvement.

    That improvement is “forever” (or at least as forever as it gets in the scheme of things. And unlike the space program not all the spending is tax dollars. A Lot of the “net” is from oh you know peoples pockets and that is the kind of spending that changes things in a community.

    Second. Direct Salaries are not really multiplicative. Oh there is the secondary spending…ie a NASA employee at JSC whose salary is funded from the taxpayer coffers (or deficit spending) will buy lunch at the Oriental Gourmet and that helps my good friends there stay in business…but that always has to be balanced out (in the case of taxpayer spending) what it is stopping the people who are having the taxes collected from spending.

    I find it always amazing that folks (and I dont know you so dont know if this is you) who are so opposed to taxpayer spending for school lunches or college grants or whatever…are so for government spending on space because “the money is spent in the community”. LOL

    and that bring me to three.

    What changes government spending on “things” or salaries from infrastructure to pork, is what the spending produces. You can argue all you want that the taxpayers have recieved something from the 9 billion spent on Ares 1 so far…but it is nothing. Period. All we have done is redistributed wealth from people who earn it (or deficit spend take your pick) and spent it on an effort which has returned nothing of value for the cost.

    I am sorry the Olympics did not come to Chicago and am proud of The President for making the stab at it. The right wing is desperate to find things wrong with Obama, particularly after 8 years of their President, the one that they told us was going to be “a good man” turning almost everything he touched to human excrement, being lax on the job and allowing the worst terrorist attack in history on The Republic, not finding the person who did it…and exaggerating the need for a war (or wars) which he handled in a most incompetent manner.

    As for “The Republic” I am sorry you do not like the term. I do. We are a Republic (just go read that “pledge”) and that to me is something special. People have died for it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert Oler

    Mark Whittington on his web site wrote:


    My fear is that what we’ll wind up with is an anemically funded pretend space exploration program, certainly with no serious commercial component, maybe with some noises about international partners, but nothing of substance until a regime change takes place in Washington. The Obama people certainly did not want to hear that more money is needed. I also can’t see them being all that enthused about commercialization. They are not all that supportive of capitalism on this planet, not to mention off of it.”

    this is what I find amazing about those who would judge the actions the present administration is GOING to take amazing…

    the above really describes Bush the last space effort.

    It really shows the just inability to look at reality that some folks are in.

    No matter what President Obama does, we are where we are because of very very bad decisions made by members of the last administration..bad decisions which a lot of folksk who are now nashing their teeth over the situation we are in …supported.

    Worse the last administration took a bad program and executed it very very badly. There is no commercialization of the effort, Bush appointees purposely avoided that,

    I have no doubt that the Obama folks dont want to hear that more money is needed, any prudent first question about “more money is needed” is “what have you done with what you had?” And the answer is that we have spent 9 billion dollars on a viewgraph Rocket..Ares 1. A rocket with so many flaws that it makes Vanguard look positively awesome (and that was at the dawn of the space age).

    What we have now is truly a “faith based” space program. Pump money in and have faith that sometime somewhere something will result.

    Before this weekend I didnt think that the administration was going to follow Frank S’s musings (linked above) and really cut NASA’s budget…but I went to a Birthday paarty of someone who had a lot of the JSC “illuminatee” in attendance…and they are pretty glum.

    If Obama does that and shuts the thing down to just the space station, commercial lift, and some technology experiment. Go far it.

    Put it this way. We have had almost 5 years of “the vision” most of it under Bush the last…and have nothing to show for it but spending and viewgraphs.

    Musk is going to try and go to orbit with a “capsule” for under 1/2 billion dollars total cost.

    anyone who claims we have to have exploration to have commercial development of space…doesnt understand the problem. Commercial development of space is far more important then exploration.

    BTW Mark…we dont have regime change in The Republic…we have elections. I should think that even you would have retired a phrase which is so discredited.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    It really literally blows my mind what people think about HSF and exploration. The fact that some who should be the most ardent supporters of commercial space dispise it so much in particular!

    What is it that is so hard to understand after decades of abysmal failures?! If HSF keeps this course there will be nothing, just nothing: The budget will die a slow death at best.

    People, please come (back?) to reality. It is not about the cash only, can you not see that? The $670M will only keep the program alive a few weeks, months maybe. And then what? We will fly Ares 1X and maybe another prototype that better be close to the real Ares 1… What is it about keeping the solid rocket booster industry alive anyway? I mean for HSF?

  • Loki

    My 2 cents (about what my thoughts are worth):

    As common sense pointed out $670 million isn’t going to go very far anyway, plus they’re really just restoring funding that was previously removed. I don’t think you can read a whole lot into that as far as the level of support Obama is or isn’t giving the space program at this point.

    Also, since others have brought up Bush’s support (or lack thereof) for his own vision, I think it would help to keep in mind that other than a speech here or there one would be hard pressed to find any president that was a strong space advocate. Even JFK didn’t do a whole lot after laying down the gauntlet in his famous Rice U speech. After that it was up to congress and the people to support the Apollo program, which they ultimately did, at least long enough to achieve the goal he laid out and beat the communists.

    As for Obama’s infamous Copenhagen trip, I say who cares? If Bush had made a similar trip in ’02 to pitch for Dallas or Houston in ’08, the same left wing talking heads that praise Obama would have slammed Bush for wasting taxpayer money on a junket for some local interest, or wasting time on an issue that isn’t that important, etc. Meanwhile right wingers would have praised him or at least said “it’s no big deal, quit whining.” Instead, you’re seeing just the opposite. Ultimately it’s pretty much the same old partisan bickering that we should all come to expect at this point. I will say this though, it would have been nice if the city of Chicago had picked up the tab for the trip rather than the taxpayers. Especially since it probably was just a case of Obama paying back a political favor that he owed Daley. Oh well, just more “I rub your back you rub mine” politics as usual, really. Again, something we should come to expect from our politicians at this point.

  • MR

    Mark Whittington on his web site wrote:


    My fear is that what we’ll wind up with is an anemically funded pretend space exploration program, certainly with no serious commercial component, maybe with some noises about international partners, but nothing of substance until a regime change takes place in Washington. The Obama people certainly did not want to hear that more money is needed. I also can’t see them being all that enthused about commercialization. They are not all that supportive of capitalism on this planet, not to mention off of it.”

    this is what I find amazing about those who would judge the actions the present administration is GOING to take amazing…

    the above really describes Bush the last space effort.

    It really shows the just inability to look at reality that some folks are in.

    No matter what President Obama does, we are where we are because of very very bad decisions made by members of the last administration..bad decisions which a lot of folksk who are now nashing their teeth over the situation we are in …supported.

    Worse the last administration took a bad program and executed it very very badly. There is no commercialization of the effort, Bush appointees purposely avoided that,

    I have no doubt that the Obama folks dont want to hear that more money is needed, any prudent first question about “more money is needed” is “what have you done with what you had?” And the answer is that we have spent 9 billion dollars on a viewgraph Rocket..Ares 1. A rocket with so many flaws that it makes Vanguard look positively awesome (and that was at the dawn of the space age).

    What we have now is truly a “faith based” space program. Pump money in and have faith that sometime somewhere something will result.

    Before this weekend I didnt think that the administration was going to follow Frank S’s musings (linked above) and really cut NASA’s budget…but I went to a Birthday paarty of someone who had a lot of the JSC “illuminatee” in attendance…and they are pretty glum.

    If Obama does that and shuts the thing down to just the space station, commercial lift, and some technology experiment. Go far it.

    Put it this way. We have had almost 5 years of “the vision” most of it under Bush the last…and have nothing to show for it but spending and viewgraphs.

    Musk is going to try and go to orbit with a “capsule” for under 1/2 billion dollars total cost.

    anyone who claims we have to have exploration to have commercial development of space…doesnt understand the problem. Commercial development of space is far more important then exploration.

    BTW Mark…we dont have regime change in The Republic…we have elections. I should think that even you would have retired a phrase which is so discredited.

    Robert G. Oler

Leave a 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>