Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) is the latest member of Congress to raise issues about NASA’s approach to dealing with the potential termination of Constellation contracts. In a May 10 letter to OMB director Peter Orszag (reported by Space News and also independently received here from a third party), Mikulski said she was “deeply troubled” by moves by NASA directing industry to retain funds to cover termination costs for Constellation programs. That move, she wrote, “seeks to terminate Constellation activities in apparent violation of terms of the Omnibus provision,” referring to the language in the FY10 appropriations bill that prohibits the “termination or elimination” of any Constellation program in the current fiscal year without the approval of Congress.
Mikulski does acknowledge that the administration’s approach may not be technically illegal, but argues that it is, at least, unwise. “While NASA’s current approach to termination liability may follow the letter of the law, it is not clear that this approach has been NASA’s historical practice,” she wrote, adding that it “seems neither fair nor appropriate” for NASA to change its approach without a third-party review. “This termination liability issue is a needless distraction, if not an obstacle, toward moving forward in a cooperative spirit.”
Mikulski asked Orszag for a response by later in the week on “a path forward to avoid canceling contracts in fiscal year 2010″ and avoiding termination liability set-asides. Orszag responded, according to Space News, by saying that his office would work with NASA and the Justice Department on the issue and report back “when we have additional details.”
eyewash
Robert G. Oler
eyewash
More like hogwash.
obama’s plan is slowly dieing.
I guess it would be better if the companies spent the money, THEN have Constellation get canceled and have the companies coming back for more money.
Stop obeying the law! Except our laws that we tack onto funding bills that is.
@ Robert
A lot of these articles state ‘bipartisan’ opposition to Obama’s plan.
Is this just bad reporting?
There is bipartisan opposition to it. There is also bipartisan support. And mostly, there is bipartisan indifference. NASA is pretty low on the national priorities right now.
“A lot of these articles state ‘bipartisan’ opposition to Obama’s plan.
Is this just bad reporting?”
Well, it’s correct in the exact same vein that there was ‘bipartisan support’ for the Stimulus bill because 3 republicans voted for it. Nelson and Mikulski are pretty much it at the moment. Other voices (such as Alan Grayson’s sophomorish ‘grilling’ several months ago) from the Democrats have been either in support or silent on the issue.
Bipartisan indifference? And yet the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 25-0 to instruct the Obama Admin ” …shall be available to fund continued performance of Constellation contracts, and performance of such Constellation contracts may not be terminated for convenience by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Fiscal Year 2010.”
They then attached that language to the must pass Afghan war supplemental. Obama has to sign it and Constellation will live thru September of this year. Congress just sent a message that they are bipartisan in not being indifferent to Nasa.
That is 14 Dems and 11 Repubs sending the message.
In all likelihood, Constellation lives to fight for its life in the 2011 Congress.
Good for Senator Mikulski. She has sat on this committee for years and the radical and reckless change makes her look bad. The Obamanistas are in a hurry to bury Constellation because they know time is short. They have two more budget attempts for until their term is up and want to make their mark. Unfortunately, ‘their mark’ is about as consequential as a dog urinating on a tree, and will last as long.
Back during the Vietnam War there was a slogan popular on the left that said “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”
There is a real problem that the aerospace establishment does not want to face. “What if Congress funded NASA beyond anybody’s wildest dreams and nobody reported for work?” Young people are turning away from aerospace in particular and tech work in general because of bad work-life balance and bad management of people. Without substantive management reform — some of which was clearly implied by the Columbia investigation — people will not come to work in aerospace — at least in the numbers needed for Constellation etc.
Without substantive management reform — some of which was clearly implied by the Columbia investigation — people will not come to work in aerospace — at least in the numbers needed for Constellation etc.
Sorry, Chuck, but in this economy, they’ll go wherever the work is. The best people may not go to work for NASA, but people will.
Rand,
That’s debatable. The existing space industry — and too much of tech industry — makes all sorts of demands regarding education that take years to accomplish as well as constant upgrading to stay employable. There’s more. Younger people are looking at the whole package — and not liking what they see.
Then there is customer satisfaction. Bad management causes real declines there. People aren’t interested — especially now — in buying products and services that don’t really deliver what is promised.
What I’ve seen in Maryland does not bode well for the future.