Congress, Lobbying, NASA

Two months later

Two months ago today the White House released its FY11 budget proposal that contained sweeping changes for NASA, initiating a cycle of commentary and criticism of the planned change in direction for the agency’s exploration plans that has not ceased. As the Orlando Sentinel notes, many people are anxiously awaiting additional details about the plan, which may be forthcoming on April 15 when President Obama visits the Kennedy Space Center. “Administration sources said Obama is expected to defend his NASA vision when he comes to Florida,” the Sentinel reports, “starting with an effort to channel John F. Kennedy’s famous ‘we choose to go to the moon’ speech in 1962.” Locals are also hoping for more details about plans to fund modernization of the launch infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center, fearing that effort could be politically vulnerable if not better explained.

Criticism of the plan has also fallen into a rut, with the usual concerns about the loss of national prestige and reliance on untested commercial providers. In an op-ed in Wednesday’s issue of POLITICO, Reps. Pete Olson (R-TX) and Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) attack plans to cancel the Constellation program and turn over human access to low Earth orbit to the private sector. “Our dominance in human space coincided with our status as a superpower,” they state (evidently the US was not a superpower before the 1960s.) “Ending human space flight would be a major setback for our country. It could set us back 50 years and force us to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get Americans into space,” they claim. Turning human spaceflight over “to unproved commercial entities to reinvent what we have already achieved”, they argue, “is a wasteful redirection of taxpayer funds.”

There may be a secret ingredient for winning over recalcitrant members of Congress, though: teachers. Bob Werb, chairman of the board of the Space Frontier Foundation, described a “remarkable experience” he had recently in Washington, holding meetings in Congressional offices with teachers selected for its “Teachers in Space” program. Those meetings, he said, went much better than he expected, even with offices that gave him a less-than-warm reception earlier in the month during ProSpace’s March Storm lobbying blitz. “While I certainly don’t expect politicians under pressure to bring home the bacon to come around to active support of the proposed NASA budget, there is hope that their opposition can be moderated into grudging acceptance of the inevitable,” he writes. “Doing so in the context of also supporting an educational agenda for space may be just the honey we need to get some key players to swallow what they see as the bitter medicine of reform.”

28 comments to Two months later

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Reading this stuff could cause great despair. First – teachers in space. Should we note that the first was lost on the Challenger? Some other teachers were selected and they eventually were rolled in with the other mission specialists. Will any teacher actually ever return to the classroom, except perhaps in a university setting – as more of an inspiration than a teacher? Barbara Morgan seems to be more of a speaker than a teacher you see regularly in a classroom. The program seemed to be sold as a way of getting a teacher into space who would then return to some high school somewhere – this has never happened. Now it is some sort of inspirational program.
    My Congressional representative, Pete, should read the news and find out that we are already spending lots of money getting our folks into space, on the Soyuz, and the Shuttle is still flying!!
    Obama will likely have some weasel words, while allowing the little people to fight over the details. Sigh.

  • richardb

    The OS reporter also said this “While congressional critics have issues with the entire plan, it’s the $429 million requested for KSC in 2011 that appears to be especially vulnerable. Members of Congress privately complain that nobody at NASA or in the White House has been able to explain to them exactly what the money will be used for.”

    So it goes for others as well. Will Congress budget billions for long term R&D when the HLV won’t be built until 2020 to 2030 at the earliest? Thats 5 to 10 Congresses from now.

    Then this gem “Lawmakers are unimpressed, with some claiming that the funds are nothing but a political payoff to Florida in an election year. They have been telling members of the aerospace industry in Florida not to hold out hopes for the money.”

    Given the vacuous nature of Obama’s Nasa vision, the congressional piranhas will have a banquet at Nasa’s expense once all those jobs are lost around the country that currently support Shuttle and Constellation.

  • Vladislaw

    ““Ending human space flight would be a major setback for our country. It could set us back 50 years and force us to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get Americans into space,” they claim”

    I would like to see the data from their computer modeling that showed it would set us back 50 years. I mean couldn’t that data have shown we would only get set back 49 years, maybe even 45 years?

  • While opposition may be in a rut, left unmentioned above is that opposition is very nearly universal in Congress. The only outward ally of the Administration’s position is Rep. Rohrabacher. And that’s only because SpaceX is in his district and he believes NASA’s not created any new tech during the Ares I program…never mind that R&D done for the Ares I second-stage by Langley and MSFC produced a spun-formed dome that required only 1 weld and is 25% less in both cost and weight.

    And it didn’t help the NASA Administrator’s credibility about his claims that Ares I is too expensive when it was confirmed by Doug Cooke during his March 24 hearing before Gifford’s Committee that the marginal cost for an Ares I launch, at 2 launches per year, is $176M. Why…that’s right in line with some, and cheaper than other, commercial launch marginal costs.

    Nor did it help Bolden’s case when he could not answer during his March 23rd hearing before Mollohan’s Committee how the infrastructure costs of commercial crewed launches would expensed. So far, from ULA to SpaceX are claiming great savings for launching astronauts. Left unsaid is who will pay for the pads, launch control, mission control, facilities, etc. that, according to the Augustine Committee, make up $1.5B yearly of the Shuttle program’s cost. For Ares I launches, that cost is expected to decline to just over $500M annually, but still, that will have to be borne by someone. But the NASA Administrator just doesn’t know yet by whom. In fact, during his time before Mollohan’s Committee, Bolden’s most frequent response to questions was, “I’ll have to get back to you on that.” And it’s that lack of answers that adds fuel to the fire of opposition to the Administration’s plans, really non-plans, for NASA.

    There may be a secret ingredient for winning over recalcitrant members of Congress, though: teachers.

    This must be a part of an April Fool’s joke. Teachers will staunch the flow of opposition to the Administration’s plans for NASA? Right…we’ll see.

    Even if the President gets his way, he’ll win the battle but loose the war in 2012 when he looses Florida and its 27, now maybe 26, electoral votes. I have to wonder, and Jeff’s the only one who can really answer this question as he occasions the company of DA Garver, whether the policy wonks in the Administration ever even considered that.

  • CI

    The money for KSC is going to modernize the launch facilities, LCC, firing rooms, etc…
    The computers for launching the shuttle are ANCIENT and they are currently bringing in new hardware and a new Launch Control System to the firing room 1.
    No one is going to launch their rocket on the outdated 1980’s hardware. It’s not just money to throw at KSC for the hell of it, this was already budgeted and part of Constellation.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The criticism is “in a rut” only because the issues have not changed. Obama is still abandoning space exploration. Congress is still not sold on commercial space. NASA is still spinning.

  • force us to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to get Americans into space,” they claim

    Yes, why spend hundreds of millions on getting people into orbit when we could be spending tens of billions, with Ares?

    And it didn’t help the NASA Administrator’s credibility about his claims that Ares I is too expensive when it was confirmed by Doug Cooke during his March 24 hearing before Gifford’s Committee that the marginal cost for an Ares I launch, at 2 launches per year, is $176M. Why…that’s right in line with some, and cheaper than other, commercial launch marginal costs.

    Which is completely irrelevant, except to people who are ignorant of cost accounting. It doesn’t help to have a low marginal cost when you have a horrendous development cost that must be amortized, along with a high fixed annual cost and a low flight rate. In real accounting terms, every Ares flight will be well over a billion dollars.

  • Obama is still abandoning space exploration.

    Mark, it’s hard to figure out whether you’re lying, or out of your mind. But those are the only two options.

  • Mark R. Whittington, manned space exploration was abandoned the moment some paper napkin idea was decided to be the focus of NASA, with no one in the chain of command questioning it, despite the unrealistic budget it would require, despite having to give it exceptions (that would have otherwise put the whole tech path out of the running), despite design changes throughout the development path. No.one.questioned.it.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mark, it’s hard to figure out whether you’re lying, or out of your mind. But those are the only two options.

    Actually, Rand, I have to disagree – there is a third option.

    Why does Mark have to pick one or the other? Why can’t he be both?

  • Michael Kent

    never mind that R&D done for the Ares I second-stage by Langley and MSFC produced a spun-formed dome that required only 1 weld and is 25% less in both cost and weight.

    We spend $9 billion so far on Ares I and we’re supposed to be impressed with a spun-formed dome?

    it was confirmed by Doug Cooke during his March 24 hearing before Gifford’s Committee that the marginal cost for an Ares I launch, at 2 launches per year, is $176M

    We’re spending $35 billion to develop a new launch vehicle that will only fly twice a year so we can reduce the marginal cost of a flight from $250 million to $176 million? That’s a 236-year payback period if you don’t count the time value of money.

    Oh, and what’s the annual fixed cost of the Ares I? The space shuttle, whose SRB the Ares I is based on, has a similar marginal cost to the Ares I only because it has an annual fixed cost of about $2.5 billion. The same will be true of Ares. That makes the Ares I payback period infinite.

    Nor did it help Bolden’s case when he could not answer during his March 23rd hearing before Mollohan’s Committee how the infrastructure costs of commercial crewed launches would expensed.

    There is no need to expense the infrastructure at all if it’s a commercial launch. Boeing has a huge infrastructure in Seattle to build commercial airliners. Yet Southwest Airlines pays no annual infrastructure charge to Boeing — infrastructure is included in the purchase price of their 737’s.

    Left unsaid is who will pay for the pads, launch control, mission control, facilities, etc.

    The commercial provider, of course. They’re the ones who will own the facilities if it’s a commercial launch. Just like ULA and SpaceX own (actually long-term lease) their launch facilities at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg.

    that, according to the Augustine Committee, make up $1.5B yearly of the Shuttle program’s cost.

    Greatly reducing this high cost is one of the purposes of commercial launch.

    For Ares I launches, that cost is expected to decline to just over $500M annually

    $500 million annually? $500 million is what Boeing paid for both their launch pad and horizontal integration facility at both the Cape and at Vandenberg.

    I’ve seen a lot of arguments for the Program of Record, but I never expected anyone to try to make a serious argument for it based on cost.

    Mike

  • mark valah

    @ Mark Whittingtnon: “Obama is still abandoning space exploration”

    @Rand Simberg: “Mark, it’s hard to figure out whether you’re lying, or out of your mind. But those are the only two options.”

    @Ferris Valyin: “Actually, Rand, I have to disagree – there is a third option. Why does Mark have to pick one or the other? Why can’t he be both?”

    Gentlemen, perhaps we could concentrate on more proffessional arguments. I believe that Mark’s point of view is this: if a politician who can only hope to be in office through 2016 at best proposes a budget with objectives to be accomplished in 2020 or later with no clear milestones to be used for accountability, it may be interpreted as a discused abandonment of the entire issue the budget is proposed for. It is a legitimate interpretation, whether true or not. This issue has been debated already, but you may want to state your decent argumentation against the stated point of view.
    With best regards, and wishes for happy holidays.
    Mark Valah

  • Vladislaw

    “And it didn’t help the NASA Administrator’s credibility about his claims that Ares I is too expensive when it was confirmed by Doug Cooke during his March 24 hearing before Gifford’s Committee that the marginal cost for an Ares I launch, at 2 launches per year, is $176M. Why…that’s right in line with some, and cheaper than other, commercial launch marginal costs.”

    Gosh, that’s under 30 million a seat for a six seat capsule. Now that’s a bargin! NASA should be selling commercial rides at that rate, it would increase their flight rate. If you buy that one .. lets look at my real estate guide for swampland in florida.

    OT: The Space Show’s lesson 5 has a good overview of safety at NASA and NewSpace.

    The Space Show

  • MrEarl

    Why are we upgrading the firing rooms, etc when it’s supposed to be a commercial venture?
    I’m told over and over again, (because it’s tuff for me to get it through my thick head) that it’s the infrastructure cost that makes shuttle, Aries, Direct, SDHLV so expensive. If we go with commercial launches then it’s their responsibility to to provide the infrastructure for the launch and flight, not NASA.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Valah

    With Mark, the answer is no. He doesn’t, as a rule, really present any new arguments (particularly here). And no, its not a legitimate interpretation.

    Further, lets consider your argument, but lets change a few minor things

    if a politician who can only hope to be in office through 2010 (Bush) at best proposes a budget with objectives to be accomplished in 2012 (original flight date of Orion/Ares), or later, with no clear milestones to be used for accountability, it may be interpreted as a discused abandonment of the entire issue the budget is proposed for.

    It works both ways.

  • Vladislaw

    “And it didn’t help the NASA Administrator’s credibility about his claims that Ares I is too expensive when it was confirmed by Doug Cooke during his March 24 hearing before Gifford’s Committee that the marginal cost for an Ares I launch, at 2 launches per year, is $176M.”

    Lets beat this dead horse a little bit more.

    According to NASA, as reported in the “side by side” comparison of launch costs for Ares 1 and the EELV’s, the price has sure inflated in the last 13 months.

    In the graphically rich presentation of the Ares the cost per launch was only 120 million. a mere 56 million increase in 13 months or 4.3 million per month. At this rate, when Ares finally launched in 2017 it would 400 million per launch.

    Safe simple soon
    [opens a new window]

  • SpaceMan

    I wonder how many times this show of TeamObama is going to have to be run before folks “get it”.

    This appears to be classic strategy. Toss out a few bare bone details to outline a policy structure, watch the self important ones reveal their foolhood by projecting their interpretations of said few details onto the over all policy. Once this phase is done then reveal more details which reinforces the foolish ones self delusion. The next phase is making public policy statements w/implementation details that reveal that the self important ones HAVE NO IDEA what is going on and are just foolish self absorbed individuals driven by self interest.

    Mr. Obama and his team are very smart and do know what they are doing. The term health care comes to mind.

    Watch and learn.

    Babbling by the unknowing to commence in 5…4…3…2…

  • richardb

    The bantering about cost for Constellation needs to be in context with some prior NASA programs.
    ISS, which we are now devoted too started out as a $8 billion dollar program. Its now cost somewhere north of $100 billion and still rising.

    Shuttle. I don’t have exact numbers for its estimated price tag in 1973. But a fair estimate of its annual costs is about $3 billion/year. Over 30 years that is $90 billion not counting development costs in the 1970’s. Very close to the cost of the ISS. I am sure Congress in 1973 wasn’t persuaded that Shuttle was a bargain at $100 billion.

    Both programs barely won approval from Congress despite their unrealistically low price tags. Yet both programs are very successful. Both programs have done wonders for International co-operation between the US and other advanced countries. Shuttle will forever be linked to Hubble.

    Which leads to Hubble. Another program with blown costs and schedules.

    Now to Constellation. It’s no different than the other three programs in having ballooning costs. Its also no different in the blown schedules for coming online. Where it differs remarkable is Congressional support. Its had bipartisan support with wide approval margins since the first dollar was appropriated. Obama and Nasa critics says it costs too much. If prior Congresses and Presidents thought like them, there would have been no ISS, Hubble nor Shuttle.

  • common sense

    “Babbling by the unknowing to commence in 5…4…3…2…”

    Wow talk about babbling…

  • common sense

    “Both programs barely won approval from Congress despite their unrealistically low price tags. Yet both programs are very successful. Both programs have done wonders for International co-operation between the US and other advanced countries. Shuttle will forever be linked to Hubble. ”

    Both programs were results of the1991 ended Cold War. This is why they came to be and were sustained.

  • Set it straight

    “If we go with commercial launches then it’s their responsibility to to provide the infrastructure for the launch and flight, not NASA.”

    Where do you think the revenue will come from to support the infrastructure costs? OH yeah.. NASA + Overhead and Profit on top of that. Not cheaper for taxpayers. If it was supplemented by a thriving market, then maybe it would lower costs but, not realistically.

  • common sense

    @Set it straight wrote @ April 1st, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    “Where do you think the revenue will come from to support the infrastructure costs? OH yeah.. NASA + Overhead and Profit on top of that. Not cheaper for taxpayers. If it was supplemented by a thriving market, then maybe it would lower costs but, not realistically.”

    So what is it you actually want? To preserve the NASA/contractor workforce or not?

  • red

    richardb: “The bantering about cost for Constellation needs to be in context with some prior NASA programs.
    ISS, which we are now devoted too started out as a $8 billion dollar program. Its now cost somewhere north of $100 billion and still rising.”

    One early figure for the basic Constellation “astronaut to the lunar surface” capability was $105B. If you’re suggesting that Constellation will have cost growth similar to what you’re claiming for ISS (and the $100B figure could be debated), that would put Constellation over $1 trillion – not counting operations, etc. Is initial Constellation development worth that much?

    richardb: “Both programs barely won approval from Congress despite their unrealistically low price tags. Yet both programs are very successful.”

    Some would debate that, based on cost, safety, opportunity costs, and other factors. In fact, if Constellation is kept, the ISS in particular is sure to be a failure, because we won’t be able to afford it nearly long enough to justify its expense.

    richardb: “Which leads to Hubble. Another program with blown costs and schedules.”

    Hubble has had its ups and downs, but it’s important to note that a large portion of its costs over the years have been for adding capabilities. Shuttle and ISS, on the other hand, suffered Constellation-like loss of capabilities even as they suffered Constellation-like increases in costs. Interestingly, with the cancellation of Constellation, the ISS now suddenly has an opportunity (specified in the 2011 NASA budget) to have added capabilities.

    rchardb: “It’s no different than the other three programs in having ballooning costs.”

    There is a difference. Constellation’s cost increases are so severe that they’ve already devestated NASA technology innovation, science, ISS, aeronautics, and other areas. Future prospects for non-Constellation areas of NASA are extremely grim for decades to come, even with completely unrealistic budget boosts for NASA overall, if Constellation is kept.

    richardb: “Its also no different in the blown schedules for coming online.”

    The ESAS form of Constellation isn’t even 5 years old, and it’s already blown its 15 year goal of astronauts to the lunar surface by 15 or so years. Schedule problems are common in space work, but the Constellation schedule problems are in a league of their own.

    richardb: “Obama and Nasa critics says it costs too much.”

    I wouldn’t count Constellation critics as NASA critics. Many Constellation critics have supported NASA science, aeronautics, technology, ISS, Shuttle, and other programs. Many Constellation critics support NASA’s current plans and management. Many Constellation critics are tough on NASA whenever they think it’s making mistakes, and support NASA whenever they think it’s making good decisions.

  • I wonder when LSPA is gunna kick in.

    1. the wording of the act does not provide an exclusion for human launch vehicles.
    2. the exceptions that are provided (shuttle unique capability, cost effective commercial availability, unacceptable risk of loss of a unique scientific opportunity, national security/foreign policy) clearly do not apply anymore.

    see http://www.cwo.com/~davida/lspalaw.txt

  • mark valah

    @Ferris Vlyin wrote :”if a politician who can only hope to be in office through 2010 (Bush) at best proposes a budget with objectives to be accomplished in 2012 (original flight date of Orion/Ares), or later, with no clear milestones to be used for accountability, it may be interpreted as a discused abandonment of the entire issue the budget is proposed for”.

    Mr. Valyin you have a point: a system should be in place where politicians should have less access to alter long term programs such as the space exploration projects. And perhaps a system where adjustments to such programs are better shielded from politics. With regards to Mr. Bush: he fired his decision for reasons I failed to understand – I do not believe space was high in his priorities – without a review of the funding needed and without making any provisions for such funding. It is interesting to note that the first initiatives after Mr. Bush’s decision, led my R. Admiral Steidle, also tried the “new technolgies” approach, through a BAA published by NASA at the end of 2004 or 2005, can’t remember exactly. I remember working on very interetsing proposals. The bottom line is that NASA soon realized there is not enough money for that approach, and in time the program reversed to an Apollo like venue.

    Anyway, I digressed. Personally, I believe the Obama plan is trying to introduce a reasonable approach – and the discussions here are very interesting in capturing various ideas and interpretations – however, in a bit of an academic style, whereas the field is tensed with issues such as job losses and billions already spent. The arguments in the exchange I referred to in my previous posting seemed a bit too personal rather than touching on the substance of the argument.

  • CI

    MrEarl,
    Regarding LCC, pads, firing room, etc…Those are being upgraded because they were part of Constellation and well, Constellation is not cancelled yet. And as we know they are trying to save parts of Constellation. I think they might be trying to convince the commercial firms that if NASA already has a launch control system then that is one less thing they have to develop. They can just concentrate on their rocket and spend money in other places. Why have 10 different commercial companies developing 10 different launch control systems (with government money of course) when those companies can use one generic system. Since commercial companies want to be profitable they should be happy that is money they don’t have to spend.
    But, of course, that stuff may never be used for commercial companies. Like many people are speculating, there is a heavy lift vehicle of some sort that will be launched from KSC and will need a launch control system.
    So, either way it would be used.

  • Vladislaw

    mark valah wrote:

    “Mr. Valyin you have a point: a system should be in place where politicians should have less access to alter long term programs such as the space exploration projects. And perhaps a system where adjustments to such programs are better shielded from politics.”

    With the amount of pork in NASA and the good buddy network of legislators in the space states, then toss in the cost plus contracting I could not imagine a better recipe for disaster for the American space program.
    ———————

    “With regards to Mr. Bush: he fired his decision for reasons I failed to understand – I do not believe space was high in his priorities – ”

    When President Bush took office there was 238 billion in the bank in the form of a budget surplus. The 10 year projection was a 4 trillion dollar surplus. If Bush would have been serious about space he could have did an “apollo on steriods” and fully funded it and no one would have batted an eye at that time.

Leave a Reply to common sense 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>