Congress

Global space capabilities and other hearings

The House Science and Technology Committee has released the list of witnesses for Thursday’s hearing on “The Growth of Global Space Capabilities”:

  • Marty Hauser, Vice President, Washington Operations & Research and Analysis, The Space Foundation
  • J.P. Stevens, Vice President, Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association
  • Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University
  • Kai-Uwe Schrogl, Director, European Space Policy Institute
  • Ray A. Williamson, Executive Director, Secure World Foundation

Speaking Saturday at the SpaceVision 2009 conference in Tucson, Arizona, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, chair of the space subcommittee, said her committee was planning a series of three hearings on space issues through the end of the year “where we’re going to try and really drive home the importance of our human spaceflight program to our country.” This hearing is the first of three: the other two, she said after her talk, will deal with safety (comparing Ares/Orion with commercial systems) and jobs. She added that the committee would wait until at least January before starting work in earnest on a new NASA authorization bill, depending on when the White House announces its decision on human space exploration policy, and what that decision is.

Giffords, while supporting President Obama and the White House on general issues, expressed concern that he isn’t necessarily getting the best advice. “I feel very confident that NASA is important to the president,” she said, but also noted, “I think he’s doing a great job, but has not necessarily surrounded himself with people really close to him in his inner circle who are space people.”

11 comments to Global space capabilities and other hearings

  • Major Tom

    It would be nice if the hearing dealt with the implications of this:

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/17/content_12475199.htm

    But instead, it will probably be more warmed over, Cold War-era rhetoric about how other countries are racing ahead of the United States in a nonexistent human space flight competition.

    FWIW…

  • Doug Lassiter

    Re Obama’s China visit, that he made no mention of space in his press statement

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/joint-press-statement-president-obama-and-president-hu-china

    is significant, especially with a replan announcement for the U.S. human space flight effort expected in just a few weeks. The Augustine committee made a big deal about the importance of international collaborations to future human space flight endeavors, and one would think that an aggressive future posture on human space flight would be responsive to that recommendation. This statement by Obama would have been a great opportunity to signal such a posture. In this case, what he didn’t say is just as interesting as what he could have said. That could mean that we’re not going to see announcement of an aggresive posture.

    On the other hand, I suppose if the replan highlights international collaboration, it’s nice to have the Chinese government at least on record (see the statement of President Hu) as being interested.

  • Major Tom

    “Re Obama’s China visit, that he made no mention of space in his press statement”

    That’s a good point. It may be that the Chinese press is making more of the talks than what was actually discussed. But if not, that should be a primary focus of the hearing.

    FWIW…

  • commons sense

    So, hmm, China and the US together in space? Hmm But what if India gets to the Moon first? And… Who will be the first man to set foot on the Moon? I mean it is going to be a man after all, right? Is it okay if it is a US-Chinese woman? Arrgghh that is getting really complicated. So okay. How about we use the Shenzou capsule to go to the ISS, the Moon and beyond? I am sure they’ll be plenty available at Wal Mart soon. So if we have a US astronaut going back to the Moon in a chinese vehicle will we be able to say that the US just returned to the Moon? So confusing…

  • Doug Lassiter

    “And… Who will be the first man to set foot on the Moon? I mean it is going to be a man after all, right?”

    Duh. It was Neil Armstrong. He was a man. Not really that complicated. As to who or what nationality will be the thirteenth, I’m not sure I really care.

    “So if we have a US astronaut going back to the Moon in a chinese vehicle will we be able to say that the US just returned to the Moon?”

    I’m guessing that if you looked carefully at the parts list for any major piece of the Constellation hardware, you’d find a respectably international vehicle.

  • Dave Huntsman

    Giffords, while supporting President Obama and the White House on general issues, expressed concern that he isn’t necessarily getting the best advice. “I feel very confident that NASA is important to the president,” she said, but also noted, “I think he’s doing a great job, but has not necessarily surrounded himself with people really close to him in his inner circle who are space people.”

    Personally speaking, I find that almost ludicrous: it is Giffords, with her (almost blind, unwavering) support of the current, unaffordable (per Augustine) NASA program, who ‘isn’t necessarily getting the best advice’. And her own ‘inner circle of space people’ includes only Constellation-as-it-currently-is people, as can be seen from her speeches (and occasional rants).

    Kinda like Fox calling itself Fair and Balanced, y’know?

  • Doug Lassiter

    Rep. Giffords is not dumb, and actually shows evidence of technical and scientific sensibility as befits a chair of the Space and Aeronautics subcommittee. But I too feel uneasy about her very close personal connections to the human space flight program (her husband and brother in-law being shuttle astronauts) such that her opinions on the matter are not clearly unbiased. She’s essentially married into the program that she’s being tasked to oversee. I’m not sure what ethics rules apply, but it is somewhat surprising that leadership gave her that assignment. When the subcommittee gets around to drafting an authorization bill for NASA, she’ll have primary responsibility for it.

    It would seem that from the perspective of the rest of Congress, her judgments on space matters are going to be colored by her personal background. So, she’s complementing NASA? Well, hey …

  • Robert G. Oler

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ November 17th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Rep. Giffords is not dumb, and actually shows evidence of technical and scientific sensibility as befits a chair of the Space and Aeronautics subcommittee. But I too feel uneasy about her very close personal connections to the human space flight program (her husband and brother in-law being shuttle astronauts) such that her opinions on the matter are not clearly unbiased. ..

    Doug and Loki (I hope Loki you found the thread)…

    Giffords is not dumb, but your criticism is valid, she is literally married to the program…but the same can be said for almost every congressional representative in every district that has something significant to do with spaceflight…

    Loki in another thread mentioned that a lot of the problem of projects was the “committee” which is Congress…and I agree as well that has merit…but that “committee” is nothing new it has existed since the dawn of The Republic.

    What is new and somewhat frightening is with deficit spending being the norm the requirement for “hard choices” (as Morning Joe calls it “the sharp stick of failure”) has simply ceased. And now there is no such thing has failure. Programs which do not succeed can merely have success redefined in a manner to have failure eliminated.

    Because we are more then willing to deficit spend…there never is a finite amount of money (ie the money brought in by taxes) so there never is a cut. There never are hard choices (“would you like Program A which is actually fighting the war or would you like B which is still planning”).

    This situation has never really existed in The Federal government. Even in WW2 when spending on the war was going at full tilt…programs had to succeed, meet their goals both by the sharp stick of combat AND of natural resources. The US Navy institutionally wanted the Montana Class of battleships (which would have been useless) spent a lot of time trying to get them…and finally had them killed by the simple reason that the “steel” that they took was needed to build X number of other ships that were badly needed.

    Even the “Midway class” carriers in a war where carriers were doing all the heavy lifting were subject to steel priorities (there were suppose to be six, FDR really did not want them, cut it to 2 and a third was only built on his death…to name one after him).

    Today it does not matter. Ares can take 9 billion and use half a billion for a bottle rocket flight…and there is nothing in the Congress which says “spend it on this or that” it is “spend it on both of them”.

    Gifford, Olsen, whats his name in Alabama…Nelson, they are all married to some extent to the program.

    Failure is not an option, we just redefine success.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Loki

    Found it…
    I can’t say that I disagree. I think we all know that you can’t just keep deficit spending ad-infinitum. Sooner or later fiscal sanity has to make a comeback.

  • […] and Industrial Base?”. This appears to be the third and final in a series of hearings that subcommittee chairperson Gabrielle Giffords mentioned earlier this month, after a global space capabilities hearing November 19 and the safety hearing scheduled for […]

  • […] has been anticipated for months. Back in November Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords said that the committee would wait until at least January to draft an authorization bill as it waited on the White House to make a decision on space exploration policy. Yesterday’s […]

Leave a Reply to Major Tom 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>