Congress, NASA, White House

More talk (and denials) of a Plan B at NASA

The Wall Street Journal published an article earlier today claiming that NASA is “scrambling to come up with a new budget proposal” because of congressional criticism of the existing one. The article, first published just before today’s budget hearing and updated afterwards, includes comments by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, who said that opposition to the current proposal “appears overwhelming” and there are enough members of the committee on both sides of the aisle ready to block the plan’s passage.

If there is such work, though (which presumably would have to be supported by the White House), NASA administrator Charles Bolden wasn’t letting on during the subcommittee’s hearing about the budget proposal this afternoon. Bolden reiterated his wholehearted support for the plan. “I think that the budget that we got is the best budget for the nation and the best budget for NASA, and it essentially represents what I recommended to the president,” Bolden said during questioning from Wolf.

Later, when asked by Wolf about the request he and other members made for a 30-day study of alternatives, Bolden said there was no examination of alternative concepts underway. “There is no alternative plan, there is no alternative budget,” he said. “I stick by the budget that I helped the president develop. So if the question is, ‘Am I developing a Plan B?’, there is no Plan B.”

However, it is clear that there is opposition to the plan in Congress; the question is how much. “The president’s proposal for space exploration has not been embraced by many members of Congress,” Wolf said. “There are some that have, but overall, it has not.” Later, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) claimed, “We’ve only been able to find one member of the House who supports the president’s budget proposal.” Culberson didn’t name that member, although in previous hearings the one member who has wholeheartedly endorsed the budget proposal, particularly its emphasis on commercial crew transportation, has been Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).

In Tuesday’s hearing, while Bolden got some critical questions, the reception was certainly no worse than what he got last month before the House Science and Technology Committee; some members even appeared to be favorably disposed in general to the budget proposal or at least not actively opposed to it, based on the questions they asked. Interestingly, more of the questions focused on development of heavy-lift launch capabilities under the new plan than the commercial crew aspect of the budget proposal. That’s not necessarily good news for commercial crew, though: as I noted in this week’s issue of The Space Review, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) was asking last week about using commercial crew funding for heavy-lift launch vehicle development in a hearing by his subcommittee on commercial space capabilities.

The one hint that there may be some reconsideration of elements of the NASA budget proposal came at the end of the hearing, when Bolden noted the president’s interest in space policy. “He is engaged in space policy. I spent a half-hour this morning not with him but with the deputy chief of staff because he is engaged,” Bolden said. (There are actually two deputy chiefs of staff at the White House, Jim Messina and Mona Sutphen; it’s not clear who he met.) “He has promised that we’re going to find a solution to this problem, and he has stated—or through his deputy chief of staff he has stated—that we’re going to find a way to come together because it’s important for the nation.” He continued: “I don’t think it’s a matter of anybody backing down, I think it’s a matter of us trying to find common ground on what is an incredible budget… I’m confident that we’re going to find a solution that will be good because no one will be happy.”

31 comments to More talk (and denials) of a Plan B at NASA

  • Major Tom

    Someone should really let Wolf or his staff know that a _Virginia_ company has multi-billion dollar NASA contracts to launch COTS and CRS missions from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport in _Virginia_.

    FWIW…

  • Fred Cink

    “…an incredible budget…” I know of Mr Bolden’s career and previous accopmplishments. I wish I was half as accomplished as he. I also know that you can’t go around badmouthing the POTUS who is your boss and gave you your job. But at what point do you loose any and ALL credibility by parroting this unadulterated BS. If you check the OMB “president’s budget” page, you will find gallons of kool aid in the flowery introduction, “increases nasa’s budget by 5 B” but on the last line of the NASA page OUTLAYS (real money spent) goes from 19 B last year (09) to 18 B this year (10) and 17B the next (11). If that in itself isnt proof enough to sound the BS alarm I don’t know what is.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    I watched the hearings and was rather embarrassed for Bolden. He was throwing around wild numbers and generally contradicting himself. At one point he even suggested that he didn’t care if the Chinese beat us to the Moon, a statement that he later retracted. He also seems not to be aware of some of the loopy things that his Deputy has been saying.

    All in all, a train wreck.

  • Major Tom

    “If you check the OMB “president’s budget” page, you will find gallons of kool aid in the flowery introduction, “increases nasa’s budget by 5 B” but on the last line of the NASA page OUTLAYS (real money spent) goes from 19 B last year (09) to 18 B this year (10) and 17B the next (11). If that in itself isnt proof enough to sound the BS alarm I don’t know what is.”

    You need to learn the difference between budget authority and outlays. Budget authority — the amount of money that is in an agency’s appropriations bill in any particular fiscal year — is spent over 1, 2, 3, or more years. The outlays in any particular fiscal year are largely or substantially composed of the projected spending from prior year’s budgets. For example, the FY 2011 outlays are composed of FY 2011 one-year budget authority that gets spent in FY 2011, FY 2010 two-year budget authority that gets spent in FY 2011, FY 2009 three-year budget authority that gets spent in FY 2011, etc. We really can’t blame a White House or congress for outlays in any particular year when they’re largely or substantially composed of spending from prior congresses or White Houses. You can certainly pin budget authority on the current White House or Congress, but not outlays.

    “But at what point do you loose any and ALL credibility by parroting this unadulterated BS.”

    We lose credibility by making claims based on unadulterated BS about things we don’t understand.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “He also seems not to be aware of some of the loopy things that his Deputy has been saying.”

    Culberson may not agree with the priorities, but stating that NASA’s FY 2011 budget request better aligns it with national priorities is not a “loopy thing”.

    Don’t make things up.

  • Major Tom

    The opening statement from the appropriations chair was very good and worth reading:

    http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Opening_Statement_Mollohan.3.23.10.pdf

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    I watched the hearings and was rather embarrassed for Bolden. ..

    I am sure he will press on. He is winning!

    you should read David Frum…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Set it straight

    “Culberson may not agree with the priorities, but stating that NASA’s FY 2011 budget request better aligns it with national priorities is not a “loopy thing”.

    Major Tom, the national priorities are not what NASA’s directives are. NASA’s directives are very clear and what Garver stated at the conference earlier this month is not what NASA’s directives are. I would say that for what Garver’s job is, and what NASA’s directives are, what she did say was maybe not “loopy’ but is for sure not consistent with her NASA priorities. Her ambitions should not translated into NASA’s directives.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Major Tom wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    The opening statement from the appropriations chair was very good and worth reading:..

    concur…there really is only one way to read this. Obama gets his program. (in my view)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/03/florida-space-s.html#comments

    this is the surest sign yet Obama has no plan B…This is what he does when he has made up his mind…Everyone should look at how he handled his health care plan…he is working the same issues and tactics here.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Major Tom, the national priorities are not what NASA’s directives are. NASA’s directives are very clear and what Garver stated at the conference earlier this month is not what NASA’s directives are.”

    What “NASA directives”? This isn’t Star Trek. There’s no Prime Directive.

    C’mon…

    “I would say that for what Garver’s job is, and what NASA’s directives are, what she did say was maybe not ‘loopy’”

    Then why are you arguing with me?

    C’mon…

  • Fred Cink

    Major Tom… OK, fine, lets disect the numbers more closely. My previous statement dealt with outlays so lets check authority. TOTAL AUTHORITY goes from 17.8 Billion in ’09 to 18.7 Billion in ’10 to 19.0 Billion in ’11. Thats is a little better, a whole 1.2billion. But what’s it do? “Space Ops” goes from 5.7 B, to 6.1 B, to 4.8 B. (Maybe what you might expect as shuttle winds down) “Space Exploration” DOES go from 3.5b to 3.7 B to 4.2 B. I dont have the fine print but I would venture a guess that launching the new Mars Science Lab is a big part of that. Messenger, Cassini, Dawn, New Horizons, and the mars “fleet” (in orbit and on the ground) are all a part of these two areas. What “new” or “significant” measures does this visonary leader who “knows and “supports” space offer other than claiming credit for other’s past accomplishments, (talking to ISS in front of school kids is pure propaganda) gutting the future HSF and current manned launcher programs, all for some flowery words and very little (propossed and easily reversable) funding for the (budget out years) future?

  • OK, Robert, let’s go to FrumForum.com and see what David and the others have to say about the Obama space program…

    From Feb. 23, 2010, “Gusher” wrote, Loosing The Space Race, In short, Americans in space will become a rarity after next year. Dreaming of becoming an astronaut, one of American childhood’s most common aspirations since the 1960’s, will increasingly be seen not as fanciful, but as fantastical.

    And that’s wrong.

    Sorry, I’m not buying any of it. The ability to launch men and women into the hostile environment of outer space and return them safely to the earth is important evidence of a nation’s sense of its own prestige and technical self-confidence. (Not to mention military prowess.)

    Well…that wasn’t what you wanted to read. So let’s try again. How about October 23, 2009 in response to the Augustine Committee, written by Kenneth Silber, Privatize Outer Space. Yes, that must be the one you were thinking of.

    Why the difference? Who knows. But reading both articles, it’s clear that conservatives are not doing as Obama’s amazingly inept policy people expected, that is embracing the privatization of our human space program. If anything, quite the opposite, so far.

  • Major Tom

    “concur…there really is only one way to read this. Obama gets his program. (in my view)”

    That wasn’t my point, but as Mr. Foust already wrote, you’re right that the statement from the appropriations chair appears supportive of NASA’s FY 2011 budget request.

    My point was that the statement was a very good yet concise overview of the policy environment surrounding human space flight, both historically and today. I’d like to know who wrote it. This is the sort of deep yet clearly ordered understanding that’s rare on appropriations and should be duplicated on authorizations.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “‘Space Ops’ goes from 5.7 B, to 6.1 B, to 4.8 B. (Maybe what you might expect as shuttle winds down)”

    Yes, obviously.

    “’Space Exploration’ DOES go from 3.5b to 3.7 B to 4.2 B. I dont have the fine print but I would venture a guess that launching the new Mars Science Lab is a big part of that. Messenger, Cassini, Dawn, New Horizons, and the mars ‘fleet’ (in orbit and on the ground) are all a part of these two areas.”

    You “venture” wrong.

    The “Space Exploration” line is for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. ESMD is the division within NASA that was previously building Ares I/Orion, COTS, and little else, but will now be pursuing HLV development, exploration technology demonstration missions, exploration precursor missions, and commercial crew. That entire budget line support human space exploration or human space flight.

    The robotic missions you’re referencing are space science missions run by NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. They’re bookkept under the “Science” line.

    “What ‘new’ or ‘significant’ measures does this visonary leader who ‘knows and ‘supports’ space offer other than claiming credit for other’s past accomplishments”

    If you don’t understand the budget numbers you’re looking at, then you should be asking questions (here or elsewhere), instead of making ill-informed statements like this.

    Go to the NASA CFO’s website, download the FY11 budget, and read and comprehend it in detail before jumping to conclusions.

    FWIW…

  • […] Space Politics » More talk (and denials) of a Plan B at NASA […]

  • haha.. Congress seems lost. They demand this and demand that and the NASA administrator just says “no”. Maybe the only ones who are talking are the ones who haven’t cut a deal yet.

  • Major Tom

    “I watched the hearings and was rather embarrassed for Bolden.”

    Although I still don’t get the crying thing, I find it hard to be embarrassed for a NASA Administrator (or anyone else) who ably stands up to dumb congressional requests for 30-day studies about nonexistent Plan Bs that could never close the human space flight gap at this point in time even if they existed.

    That’s a lot better behavior than the prior NASA Administrator, who folded and sold out whole programs like LREP to parochial interests in congress and made the circumvention of competition in and sole-sourcing of the agency’s largest development contracts a normative practice rather than the exception.

    FWIW…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Cowing is reporting that Obama will hold a townhall at KSC after the Space Summit and then tour the Center.

    This tells me that either he is going to announce a new plan that will cheer the folks down there or else he is so arrogant that he thinks he can convince them that Obamaspace is actually good for them and the country. Either way, it will be entertaining.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Major Tom wrote @ March 23rd, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    apologies if the impression was that I was “concurring” with an opinion that I stated inferring it was something you stated.

    A bit more precision would have been that I too concur that it was interesting.

    It was well written and very thoughtful. The “inflection” points in it I found “fascinating”.

    there are a few problems with an “alternate” plan.

    The first is that there has to be a coherent one that is affordable (this is where of course the DIRECT apostles spring up)…

    the second is that there has to be some yearning for it

    the third is that industry has to want it (and other then ATK they dont)…and finally BHO Has just gotten major “juice” behind him.

    This is (the health care), to mimic the VP ” a big fracken deal” and nothing suceeds like victory…Obama is going to do nothing for a bit except get stronger particularly with House Dems…who are now joined at the hip with him…and growing more and more to really “not like” The Republicans

    sorry for the confusion

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 24th, 2010 at 12:29 am

    I posted the link

    What this is, is the same thing that Obama did with the GOP. make them look like idiots on TV (SAVE OUR JOBS) and then go boldly onward.

    There is no plan b.

    Obama could flounder (he has certainly done that in the past) …but he could also have turned the corner, particularly when the GOP is just flat out of gas. Suntan John B. looks like an idiot.

    Robert G. Oler

  • googaw

    Major Tom:
    The opening statement from the appropriations chair was very good and worth reading

    Yes, that’s a very good statement of the present situation. And the astronaut budgets are only going to get tighter as the depression and sovereign debt crisis make the next generation more aware of living on a budget, just like the 1930s generation. That giant sucking sound you hear coming is the baby boomers retiring and consuming ever larger chunks of the federal budget. Kind of like a black hole that will suck NASA and much else into it. Only projects of practical use will see their budgets increase. Astronauts had better learn to fly on a tight budget or they are not going to fly at all for the rest of our generation.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Trent

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdAU_dBmu_Q&NR=1

    or these people…

    I understand their pain, it is their job, but in the end they are not living in reality. I love the guy who says “for every space job there are three created”.

    reality …

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    I’m not trying to flip or a troll with this, but the parent in me is bothered when otherwise brilliant people don’t seem to get the difference between “than” and “then”.

    “then” is a time sequence word, ie: I choose my groceries, then I pay the cashier.

    “than” is a comparative word, ie: more than, less than, honey is better for you than sugar.

    FWIW

  • Bennett

    “be” flip or a troll

  • What this is, is the same thing that Obama did with the GOP. make them look like idiots on TV (SAVE OUR JOBS) and then go boldly onward.

    He made Paul Ryan look like an idiot on TV? And here I was, thinking it was the other way around.

  • […] More talk (and denials) of a Plan B at NASA – Space Politics […]

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>