Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for June, 2010
June 30, 2010 at 7:51 am · Filed under Lobbying, Other
Earlier this week the Greater Houston Partnership and the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership issued a release this week critical of the administration’s human spaceflight plans and asking for a revised plan. They don’t ask for much: a “limited” number of additional shuttle flights, continuation of Constellation, and to “fast-track” a heavy-lift launcher starting in 2011. They notably don’t mention how much doing all of these things simultaneously would cost, or where the funding should come from. The partnerships, of course, are worried about the local impact if the administration’s plan goes through: they fear the loss of “up to 7,000 direct and indirect jobs with a resulting loss of income and expenditures reaching $1 billion in the Houston region.”
In an op-ed in Wednesday’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Space Frontier Foundation co-founder Bob Werb calls for Republicans to continue the fight against socialism—in space. He notes that while the administration’s plan would rely on commercial providers to transport astronauts to LEO while canceling the “socialist boondoggle” called Constellation, “Republicans have been either silent or opposed” to the proposal. “You might think that Florida’s Republicans in particular would embrace this change because it means more jobs for Florida than the prior ‘program of record,’” he writes. “You would again be wrong. Maintaining the socialist status quo seems to be more important than either Republican ideology or jobs for the people of Florida.”
About a month ago Daily Kos published a poll on space spending performed by polling firm Research 2000, that had some interesting results, including that Republicans were more likely to think we spend too much on space. Yesterday the site announced that the polls the company performed for Daily Kos were “likely bunk” based on an independent analysis that found irregularities in the data. Not all the polls were analyzed in the study, and the space spending poll was not specifically mentioned, but “I no longer have any confidence in any of it, and neither should anyone else,” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas said in a post yesterday.
June 29, 2010 at 9:59 pm · Filed under Congress, NASA
Would members of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, in the markup of their FY11 appropriations bill Tuesday, signal their willingness to support the White House’s new direction for human spaceflight or defend the existing Constellation program? The answer is… neither. The subcommittee elected not to take a position on the program, instead deferring to authorizers.
“Any major change to the direction of the Nation’s space program should come through an authorization passed by Congress and signed into law by the President,” Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), chairman of the subcommittee, said in his opening statement. “Unfortunately, a determination about the direction of the space program has been effectively on hold for well over a year. First, we waited for the recommendations of the Augustine Commission; next we waited for the Administration to react to those recommendations; and since early this year, we have waited for the authorizing committees to take action. In the meantime, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have been invested in procurements and technology development that may or may not have a role in NASA’s human exploration future.”
“Until that program is defined through an enacted authorization, this Subcommittee has no business in appropriating even more funding for uncertain program outcomes,” he concluded. “Accordingly, this bill makes the funding for Human Space Exploration available only after the enactment of such authorization legislation.” That puts a new emphasis on, and power to, authorizers in both the House and Senate who have yet to put forward authorizing legislation—bills that in prior years have often been considered useful but not mandatory.
Mollohan, though, made clear in his statement he is no fan of Constellation. “The program of record is fiscally unsustainable and will not serve the purpose of preserving this Nation’s leadership role in space exploration,” he said. “It is time to move forward with a human space program that will fulfill the aspirations of a great nation, but that also has well-defined and realistic costs and goals.”
Few other specifics about the budget proposal have been released by the subcommittee yet. The subcommittee gives $19 billion to NASA overall in its markup, the same as the administration’s topline request for the agency. However, a comparison on an account-by-account basis in the summary table is more difficult presumably because of differences for how they account for funding; the subcommittee’s version has considerably more in Cross-Agency Support Programs at the expense of other accounts.
June 29, 2010 at 1:24 pm · Filed under Congress, NASA, Other, Pentagon, White House
It’s not surprising that NASA issued a statement about the national space policy on Monday, with administrator Charles Bolden noting that the agency “is pleased to be an integral part” of the new policy. But he was not the only administration official to speak out about the new policy. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a statement Monday indicating his full support for the policy. He said the DOD will work with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to develop “a strategy document to address specific national security requirements for outer space.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also issued a statement, calling the policy “a strong statement of our principles and goals regarding U.S. national interests and activities in space.” The State Department, she said, “will expand our work in the United Nations and with other organizations to address the growing problem of orbital debris and to promote ‘best practices’ for its sustainable use,” among other areas. And in a brief statement, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke praised the commercial elements of the policy. “It recognizes the sea changes occurring in the space community, with federal budgets tightening at the same time that commercial space capabilities and markets are gaining momentum,” he said
The new policy got some third-party endorsements as well. The Aerospace Industries Association said that the policy “takes important steps needed to maintain our global leadership in space and ensure continued competitiveness and innovation”. The AIA noted its strong support of international cooperation provisions in the policy and its goal of strengthening US leadership in space. The Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement apparently prepared and released just before the policy’s release Monday, supported the policy’s shift in language back to policies from the Clinton and earlier administrations. And the Secure World Foundation “salutes” the new policy, calling it “a highly pragmatic approach to the international space regime that substantially enhances the long-term national security interests of the United States in space.”
The Space Foundation, though, had a mixed assessment of the policy. On one hand it supports elements of the policy ranging from improved space situational awareness to the “recognition” of space nuclear power in the policy (although the previous policy also had a section on that subject). However, it’s concerned that the new push for international cooperation will exclude India and China. It also claims that the policy statements on developing and retaining space professionals “ring hollow” given “plans for NASA continue to put thousands of American space professionals out of work”.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), meanwhile, “blasts” the policy in a statement late Monday. “The Administration is yet again trying to sell this country a failed space policy that irrevocably diminishes our central role in space exploration,” he said, citing plans to make the US “more dependent” on Russia and other nations as well as plans for “dismantling a proven and effective space program that has propelled our nation to tremendous heights.” Sen. Hatch concluded: “I urge the President to rethink this flawed policy, because while this might be a new direction for manned space flight, it’s a direction we don’t want to take.”
June 29, 2010 at 7:10 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
On Monday Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) announced plans to introduce legislation that would compel NASA to spend FY10 funds on Constellation. The “Protecting Human Space Flight Act of 2010″, which Aderholt said he was introducing Monday (it has not yet shown up in Thomas), would require NASA to spend remaining FY10 Constellation funds on that program, rather than reserve the funds to cover contract termination liabilities, as NASA is now doing. “NASA is putting jobs in jeopardy because of a drastic proposal that isn’t even actual law,” Aderholt said in the statement. The agency “should not be assuming that this plan will be approved by Congress and signed into law.”
While the legislation has a number of co-sponsors from both parties (primarily from states most affected by plans to cancel Constellation), one wonders if this bill is designed more to highlight the situation than to actually become law. As a standalone piece of legislation the bill’s chances of making it through the House and Senate and be signed by the president by the end of September (the end of the current fiscal year) appear slim. A better strategy would be to do as the Senate has done and attach language to a must-pass supplemental appropriations bill. This may, in fact, be their strategy, but as Aderholt himself states in his press release, introducing a bill can send a stronger message. “I hope this bill sends the message to the rest of the House or Representatives and the Administration that NASA must wait for Congress to act on its proposal and that our nation needs to make a commitment to properly fund the Constellation program to save jobs and make sure that America remains the leader in space,” he said.
Aderholt later told Huntsville TV station WHNT that the legislation would “end a message to these [Constellation] contractors, that we are moving forward, that Congress fully expects the Constellation program to be in effect, and therefore the money should be spent, as is dictated by the 2010 law.” He added that he believes “90% or more of Congress right now believes that Constellation is a good program,” but did not disclose how he reached that conclusion.
June 29, 2010 at 6:40 am · Filed under Congress
At 10am this morning the House Science and Technology Committee’s investigations and oversight subcommittee will hold a hearing on the country’s troubled polar weather satellite program. “Since 2003, there have been seven hearings before the Science and Technology Committee or its subcommittees on the subject of the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program,” the hearing charter notes. The administration now wants to split NPOESS into two, one for the DOD and a separate one for NOAA and NASA. Officials from NOAA, NASA, OSTP, DOD, and the GAO are all scheduled to testify on the status of this planned restructuring.
Then, at 3:30 pm this afternoon, the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will hold a markup of its FY11 appropriations bill. This will be the first chance for Congress to put dollar amounts, and other conditions, on the administration’s plans for NASA.
June 28, 2010 at 3:09 pm · Filed under White House
The White House released at around 2 pm EDT today the administration’s new national space policy, along with a fact sheet and a statement by the president about the policy. A quick glance through the policy (and comparison to the 2006 policy issued by the Bush Administration) reveals a few initial impressions:
- The new policy seems to emphasize a greater need for international cooperation but also greater responsibility by all spacefaring nations. A quote from the introduction: “All nations have the right to use and explore space, but with this right also comes responsibility. The United States, therefore, calls on all nations to work together to adopt approaches for responsible activity in space to preserve this right for the benefit of future generations.”
- The new policy appears to walk back some of the more strident (in the eyes of critics) language of the 2006 policy, taking out the US-first emphasis some saw in the older policy. Compare this quote from the 2006 policy’s principles section—”Consistent with this principle, ‘peaceful purposes’ allow U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests.”—with the related portion of the new policy: “Consistent with this principle, ‘peaceful purposes’ allows for space to be used for national and homeland security activities.”
- There is a greater emphasis on promoting commercial space in the new policy. However, some might find the portion of the policy dealing with export control lacking, given the interest in ITAR reform. The new policy notes that “…space-related items that are determined to be generally available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably with a view that such exports are usually in the national interests of the United States.” That’s similar to the 2006 policy, which noted that “space-related exports that are currently available or are planned to be available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably.”
What else do you see, or don’t see, in the new policy?
June 26, 2010 at 9:37 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
It appears that NASA has complied, at least partially, with a request by a House committee for documents about the FY11 budget process. Tucked into an article about impending layoffs at Constellation contractors, the New York Times reports that NASA sent over documents to the House Science and Technology Committee Friday evening, which staff members are now reviewing. The committee demanded the documents last week after NASA was not forthcoming with earlier requests for information about aspects of the budget. The report does not indicate, however, whether the agency withheld any documents, and if so for what reasons.
Meanwhile, six senators have written to NASA administrator Charles Bolden, asking him to abandon efforts to slow down Constellation by requiring contractors to withhold funds to cover termination liability. In the letter the senators cite concerns about “inconsistent treatment and the counter-productive effect of withholding funding” on NASA contractors. The letter was organized, according to Florida Today, by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and signed by Sens. Robert Bennett (R-UT), Jon Cornyn (R-TX), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), George LeMieux (R-FL), and David Vitter (R-LA). While the signers are all from states that have perhaps the most to lose from the cancellation of Constellation, interestingly, neither Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) nor Alabama’s two senators signed the letter.
All this comes as the House is expected to finally start to take action on the NASA budget proposal. Next Tuesday afternoon the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will markup its version of the FY11 spending bill, which includes NASA. The House is also expected to take up next week a supplemental appropriations bill for FY10, including deciding whether to include language similar to the Senate version that requires NASA to fund “continued performance of Constellation contracts” with the remaining funding this fiscal year. An article in Saturday’s Houston Chronicle discusses these developments, although some might find the article has a curious tilt. “Two milestones in the protracted congressional budget process are expected to provide NASA supporters their first concrete evidence next week that lawmakers from states without major NASA facilities are willing to defy the president and support the campaign to salvage parts of the $108 billion back-to-the-moon program,” the article states. So one can’t be a “NASA supporter” and also back the administration’s new direction for the agency? Perhaps not in Houston.
June 25, 2010 at 6:15 am · Filed under Other, White House
With all the debate about the future of NASA, it’s easy to overlook the fact that the administration has also been busy crafting its overall national space policy, taking into account commercial, civil, and national security issues. That process has been ongoing for months and appears to be nearing completion. As SpacePolicyOnline.com reports, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said Thursday that the policy will be released in the near future, giving responses ranging from “this summer” to “in the next couple of weeks”. That timeframe is not unexpected: at the National Space Symposium in Colorado in April, one official said that he expected the policy to come out this summer.
So what will be in the policy? Donley said Thursday he expected the policy would reflect the changes in the space domain over the last couple of decades, as Earth orbit becomes more congested and even contested. Meanwhile, Laura Grego and David Wright offered their opinions on what should be in the policy in a white paper published by the Union of Concerned Scientists this week. They hope to see the Obama Administration walk back some of the changes in the 2006 policy that represented, in their view, “a more aggressive U.S. approach to space”. They expect the new policy to include language “restoring a balance among civil, military and commercial uses of space”.
Update 6:45 pm: Space News reports that the new policy could come out as soon as Monday. One of the areas of emphasis of the new policy, according to a one-page fact sheet obrained by the publication, is “to strengthen our domestic commercial space industry”; improved international cooperation is another.
June 24, 2010 at 6:54 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
In an article in the Birmingham News yesterday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) described a meeting Tuesday with NASA administrator Charles Bolden as “troubling” because he didn’t see any signs of compromise from the administration. “We should not think that the president at the moment has any plans to make significant alterations to what they have stated is their goal,” he told the newspaper. Sessions also said he and a group of other, unidentified senators are interested in an “independent legal opinion” on NASA’s use of the Antideficiency Act to slow down work on Constellation. “We think this is clearly a violation of the congressional intent.”
Despite a NASA directive to withhold nearly $1 billion in Constellation funds in order to comply with the act, money is still flowing to Constellation contractors, the Wall Street Journal reports. The article suggested that the latest releases of funds to contractors ATK and Lockheed Martin were somehow done in contradiction to that directive and without Bolden’s knowledge or approval, claiming that “NASA’s bureaucracy seems to be equivocating” even though monthly Constellation expenditures have dropped by two thirds.
Bolden also faces criticism in an editorial in today’s Orlando Sentinel, this time about his potential conflict of interest regarding an agency biofuels program the newspaper reported over the weekend. That controversy, the editorial argues, “raises doubts about whether he has all the right stuff – including the savvy and sound judgment – to succeed in his position.” The Sentinel wants Bolden to step back from any decisions about this particular project as well as any others where he might have some kind of financial stake. “Mr. Bolden has called into question his ability to lead NASA in this extraordinary time. How quickly, and how firmly, he acts to defuse this controversy will speak volumes about whether he is up to the job.”
June 23, 2010 at 1:03 pm · Filed under Congress, Lobbying
Or, at least, its morning on the Hill. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation (CSF) announced today that Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) will be hosting an event tomorrow morning for senators and their staffers to discuss commercial spaceflight. Keynoting the event will be Norm Augustine, with other speakers from SpaceX, ULA, Orbital, and Sierra Nevada Corporation. The CSF release notes that in his invitation to his Senate colleague, Brownback wrote that the event will allow them to “hear [from] some of the leading private aerospace companies about what they believe the private sector can contribute to America’s mission in space, and what Congress can do to make it possible.”
Brownback, who did chair the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee several years ago, has been relatively quiet on the debate about NASA’s future and the role of the commercial sector to date, although he did appear supportive of a greater role for commercial providers in a Senate hearing on the subject last month. The event will be from 10:30am to 12 noon Thursday in Dirksen 562, and is also open to the media.
Next entries »
