Congress, Lobbying, NASA

“A travesty of incredible proportions”

You have to hand it to the Institute for Liberty (IFL), a conservative think tank: they don’t mince words when it somes to their assessment of the House version of the NASA authorization bill. “The bill is worse than a sham,” said Andrew Langer, president of the organization, in a press release. “It is a travesty of incredible proportions.”

The organization held a press conference yesterday (on either very short notice or with little publicity; I got an email about it roughly 20 minutes before it was scheduled to start, and thus was unable to attend even if I had been free) about a new initiative called “No Space Pork!” (the exclamation point is apparently part of the name of the effort.) Interestingly, the IFL targeted two members of the House Science and Technology Committee, Reps. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) and Alan Grayson (D-FL), who both supported the legislation during the committee’s markup of the bill in July:

IFL took their message to the people of Arizona’s 8th and Florida’s 8th congressional districts early last week, polling households and asking for permission to send letters on their behalf. Thousands agreed to lend their names to the effort, inundating both offices with messages of opposition.

“While people continue to be enthusiastic about the nation’s space program, they want that money spent wisely, on concrete and measurable goals that will be historic. But this bill, and the vision it endorses, go against all that,” Langer said in the statement. According to the release, the IFL is creating a web site, NoSpacePork.com, for its new initiative, although as of midday today the site redirects to the press release.

43 comments to “A travesty of incredible proportions”

  • Rightwing Talkingpoints

    Andrew Langer is a right wing anti-science shill working for lobbyists. He’s a complete fraud, and I find it ironic that he can invoke space scientists and nobel laureates with a straight face, and yet you people still drink the righteous koolaide.

  • sc220

    Don’t dismiss this outright. This is the shape of things to come if the Tea Partiers and new Republicans are successful in taking over the reigns of government. The so-called “Republican” exhortations of Amightywind, Wittington, etc. are completely out of synch from where we’ll be heading if Palin’s Army takes power. There will be no human spaceflight program, and probably little science to boot.

  • Coastal Ron

    Of course they are not targeting Republican Senator Shelby for his support of the Senate bill pork. I guess Republican pork doesn’t smell as bad – yet! ;-)

  • Jeff, in looking over their issues, I think that it would be more accurate to call it a “libertarian” than “conservative” organization. For instance, there are no social issues.

  • Also note that they linked to the ReformSpaceNow site and called them “fellow travelers.”

    Ron, Shelby isn’t running this year. If he were, they’d probably be banging on him, too, but they have to focus their resources.

  • Ralph Hall is running, isn’t he?

  • Doesn’t Pete Olson (R-TX) also support this “travesty of incredible proportions” ??

    Also, does Langer give Obama’s NASA credit for the original FY2011 proposal?

  • Ralph Hall is running, isn’t he?

    Yes, but not in a tight race. They’re going after the Dems because a) they run the committee that created this atrocity and b) because they’re vulnerable, and they get more bang for the buck and greater ability to intimidate that way.

  • Martijn Meijering

    If the House bill is a travesty of incredible proportions, does that make the Senate bill a travesty of credible proportions?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Actually there have been Tea Party protests about the Obama space program, but they have been against it. True they were conducted by Texas and Florida Tea Party organizations, but there has not been any Tea Party positions taken in support of Obamaspace.

    I suspect that GOP control of Congress will not translate into automatic support of Obamaspace. It just might, though, result in more sensible, more effective measures to support commercial space efforts that massive government subsidies.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    By the way, both Giffords and Grayson are in trouble for reasons that have nothing to do with their positions on space, which any case considering the districts they represent are likely a plus. If they fall, it will not be because of “space pork.”

  • DCSCA

    Rightwing Talkingpoints wrote @ September 22nd, 2010 at 1:32 pm <- Correct. Conservatives have never been advocates for government funded and managed civilian space programs unless wrapped in the cloak of fear for defense.

  • googaw

    Considering that Obama substantially _increased_ the NASA budget, it’s not clear to me why the Tea Party movement would support it. They wouldn’t support it even (especially?) if it were authored by establishment Republicans.

    But it’s even less clear why they’d sign up for the sci-fi frauds of establishment Republicans like Constellation. I think they’ll go for big cuts of the kind that Martijn and I are advocating — which by the way would not hurt science an iota.

    Just as Tea Partiers see global warming hysteria as a sci-fi fraud, they will soon come to recognize that shooting off astronauts in tin cans at government expense for the umpteenth useless mission as an even more preposterous sci-fi fraud. Just as, for that matter, most top scientists recognize HSF as a sci-fi fraud. On this issue we will see an odd-looking alliance of the Tea Party and science.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 22nd, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Actually there have been Tea Party protests about the Obama space program, ..

    lol the group I saw in Clear Lake was about as goofy as it gets, what we call “the yard engines”

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 22nd, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    I suspect that GOP control of Congress will not translate into automatic support of Obamaspace.

    It’s funny how good ideas can get smeared with bad sounding labels and no longer be thought of as good ideas.

    Why wouldn’t anti-government conservatives like to kill a potential government-run transportation system, and instead use American businesses to lower the cost of accessing space? Weird

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 22nd, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    I suspect that GOP control of Congress will not translate into automatic support of Obamaspace. ..

    and it certainly wont translate into any support of Cx…which is doomed

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    sc220 wrote:

    The so-called “Republican” exhortations of Amightywind, Wittington, etc. are completely out of synch from where we’ll be heading if Palin’s Army takes power. There will be no human spaceflight program, and probably little science to boot.

    I think you are reading it wrong. HSF is a matter of national pride with mainstream conservatives, like the military. Square jawed programs like Constellation do quite well. So should meritorious science missions. The rest, not so much.

  • Square jawed programs like Constellation do quite well.

    More like square headed.

  • If the GOP regains the House and Boehner reduces NASA to 2008 levels, the only place that would make sense to cut would be Constellation and Human Space Flight.

    This sets up the US to surrender control of LEO to China by the end of this decade. These Tea party politicians will be choking on their Chinese Tea come that event. The good ole GOP, won’t stand for Chinese preeminence in space and will have to beef up DoD’s space investments.

    Commercial crowd and American ingenuity may not be enough to prevent orbital intimidation and threats if Congress abandons NASA now.

  • Bennett

    but there has not been any Tea Party positions taken in support of Obamaspace.

    Strange, Rand is supportive of both the proposed FY2011 NASA budget (Obamaspace, to idiots) and the Tea Party ideals.

    Doesn’t that count?

  • Wodun

    I haven’t seen any Tea Party talk of gutting NASA except from people who don’t like the Tea Party. The same people who complain they wrap themselves in the flag while singing jingoistic songs about patriotism.

    That same flag waving sentiment, is why the Tea Party will support NASA. Obama, NASA, and New Space would been foolish not to appeal to the patriotism of the Tea Party to accomplish their goals.

    The anti-Obamaspace sentiment could very well melt away with the fingerprints of a Republican congress on whatever plan congress approves and Obama would have no problem taking credit for it.

    It is very possible that a Republican controlled congress would continue Bush’s dual track strategy of private (COTS) and public (NASA) for HSF. It is eerily similar to Obama’s plan, minus Ares I and the Moon as a goal.

    It is all speculation at this point. The Tea Party doesn’t have an official position on NASA so the left demonizes their opponents with stereotype attacks and the right hopes another stereotype of the Tea Party will mean they support NASA and HSF.

  • Wodun

    @ Bill White

    Good interview the other night on the Space Show.

  • googaw

    I haven’t seen any Tea Party talk of gutting NASA except from people who don’t like the Tea Party.

    How is this an attack against the Tea Party? You are attacking them by implying that they are hypocrites who talk a good game about government bureaucracy but won’t actually do anything about it when it comes to NASA.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    HSF is a matter of national pride with mainstream conservatives

    Much as I don’t mind the Russians, you would think that those “mainstream conservatives” would combine their desire for an American solution, with the tried & true solution the military uses – let American aerospace build vehicles for the U.S. It works just fine for Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be OK for NASA.

    If NASA wants to pilot their own vehicles, fine, I’m sure all of the vehicle manufacturers would love to either lease or sell them as many vehicles as they want. And, as I’ve said many times, if the U.S. really wants to make sure they have dedicated access to space, then Congress should create something like the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF), which all U.S. crew service launch providers would have to be a part of.

    We know what the solutions are – it’s just politics holding them back.

  • Wodun

    Good point Ron.

    Conservatives were on board with commercial space when Bush started COTS, now they are against it when it is Obama’s idea.

    I think most of the bruhaha over this has been because of the bad strategy and marketing at the political level.

    I’ve got a great idea, lets announce the cancellation of Constellation by not telling anyone and just releasing a proposed budget were it is gone.

    Excellent idea, let’s follow that up with changing the “new” plan several times after people get upset, showing we didn’t put much thought into the process.

    If anything, this would make a great case study on how not to implement changes in large organizations.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=86&load=4152

    congratulations to Rand Simberg and Glenn R for a nice give and take on space policy. I agree with what they are saying, but the interview is well done, Simberg does a nice job putting together some answers and Glenn does a nice job keeping it going.

    Besides Whittington pans it…

    nice job both of you

    Robert G. Oler

  • Smally Busyness

    Yeah, and we all know who the small businesses are that Andrew Langer is so selflessly advocating, wink, wink, nudge, nudge :

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39317328/ns/politics/

    Oops, gotta go, I just got invited to a lavish dinner party with the Koch Brothers! See you there, Andrew!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Smally Busyness wrote @ September 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    all the spontaneous tea party people will be there. Robert

  • Short history of Rep. Boehners NASA Votes as he may be the next Speaker of the House:

    NOT VOTING – HR 6063 – 2008 NASA FUNDING

    YES – HR 3070 – 2005/2006 NASA Funding

    YES – HR 1654 – 1999 Vote to pass a bill that appropriates $41.24 billion for NASA from 2000 to 2002.

    and perhaps most telling:
    YES – HR 5382: Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004

    Plus the Ohio delegation (Boehners home state) was complaining they were being left out when House Science Committee voted to move commercial investment $$$ to heavy lift.

    No NASA enemy here, unless Musk turns him into one.

  • Nemo

    Much as I don’t mind the Russians, you would think that those “mainstream conservatives” would combine their desire for an American solution, with the tried & true solution the military uses – let American aerospace build vehicles for the U.S. It works just fine for Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t be OK for NASA.

    It has already worked for NASA. Every NASA spacecraft, past and present, has been built by American aerospace. Mercury and Gemini by McD, Apollo CSM and shuttle by NAA/Rockwell, Apollo LM by Grumman. Orion by Lockheed would be no different.

  • Rhyolite

    “Conservatives were on board with commercial space when Bush started COTS, now they are against it when it is Obama’s idea.”

    Commercial under Bush didn’t threaten the Shuttle and its reincarnation as Constellation. It is the loss of the Shuttle / Constellation trough that engendered the real position – not losing the moon or trusting “untried” commercial companies or any of the other rhetorical devices that were wheeled out.

    “I think most of the bruhaha over this has been because of the bad strategy and marketing at the political level.”

    Think about the bruhaha that happens every time someone proposes to close a military base or cut off C-17 funding, or JSF second engine funding.

    Now consider that some districts in Utah, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida have been feeding off of the Shuttle program for thirty years and were counting on Constellation to keep the money flowing. They consider that money as a god given right.

    This is the real source of the opposition. They wouldn’t care a bit about commercial funding if their checks were gong to keep cashing – they didn’t before.

    Better marketing might have swayed the general public but the public generally doesn’t care. But it would have done nothing to blunt the die hard opposition who care a lot because it is their meal ticket.

  • Coastal Ron

    Nemo wrote @ September 22nd, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    It has already worked for NASA. Every NASA spacecraft, past and present, has been built by American aerospace.

    Built, but not designed. Griffin mandated the design of Constellation, and Congress is essentially designing the franken-launcher that has yet to emerge. In-house designed and managed.

    The military does not design their own aircraft – they rely on the aerospace companies to do that. And quite often they even hold real hardware competitions with fly-offs to determine the best solution (F-22 & F35 the most recent).

    Imagine that. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ULA, SpaceX and whoever competing for an HLV contract, and the two top competitors get chosen to build & launch their proposed solutions. That would drive innovation, and it would drive down operational costs too, since both are usually key requirements of the eventual winner. I have a dream!

  • Nemo

    Built, but not designed.

    It was you who wrote “built”, not me.

  • Coastal Ron

    Nemo wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 12:47 am

    It was you who wrote “built”, not me.

    I guess I was not clear enough. But my statement “let American aerospace build vehicles for the U.S.” was meant as industry designed & built.

    Constellation and the franken-launcher have industry acting as contractors – they assemble the hardware, but it’s not their product, nor their responsibility.

  • vuture4

    “Commercial under Bush didn’t threaten the Shuttle and its reincarnation as Constellation.”

    Threaten Shuttle? Bush threatened Shuttle, in fact he killed Shuttle in 2005. So far as I know Congress wasn’t asked.

    Constellation doesn’t replace Shuttle, it carries half the crew and a tenth the cargo and costs more to launch. Since Shuttle is irrevocably gone, we have to compare Orion and Dragon; Orion comes up short by large margins on cargo, crew size and cost. Even Boeing is proposing their own capsule to compete with it. We need to face facts here. Orion was not designed for ISS logistics, and when it was morphed into this mission it made no sense.

  • Wodun

    vuture4 wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 1:24 am

    We need to face facts here. Orion was not designed for ISS logistics, and when it was morphed into this mission it made no sense.

    So true. Lets hope Dragon or the CST work out and Orion can be used for some expensive exploration.

  • Rhyolite

    vuture4 wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 1:24 am

    “Threaten Shuttle? Bush threatened Shuttle, in fact he killed Shuttle in 2005. So far as I know Congress wasn’t asked.

    Constellation doesn’t replace Shuttle, it carries half the crew and a tenth the cargo and costs more to launch.”

    I fully agree that Constellation was not a functional replacement for Shuttle. However, it was designed to be a jobs and funding allocation replacement for Shuttle. People in Utah who made 4-segment SRBs would now make 5-segment SRBs. People in Louisiana who made external tanks would now make Ares I upper stage tanks and eventually Ares V cores. SSME work would transition to J-2X work. MSFC would keep managing everything and the cape would keep launching them. No one’s Ox would get gored – someone else would keep picking up the tab. Canceling Constellation upset that apple cart. Opposition was unavoidable no matter how sensible the administrations plan.

  • Any time a new organization comes out with a word like “liberty” in its name, beware. They are just pushing buttons.

  • amightywind

    People in Utah who made 4-segment SRBs would now make 5-segment SRBs. People in Louisiana who made external tanks would now make Ares I upper stage tanks and eventually Ares V cores. SSME work would transition to J-2X work. MSFC would keep managing everything and the cape would keep launching them.

    You have captured the unassailable logic of Constellation in exquisite detail! The alternative is to hand the space program over to Silicon Valley charlatans in black tee shirts.

  • Justin Kugler

    That is the political logic of Constellation. It also explains, at least in part, why the costs couldn’t be contained.

    The actual alternative is to develop public-private partnerships so NASA can focus on R&D and exploration, as the Aldridge Commission and many others called for. No one is seriously talking about just handing over the entire spaceflight enterprise to NewSpace.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 9:23 am

    The alternative is to hand the space program over to Silicon Valley charlatans in black tee shirts.

    Since Delta IV Heavy is the only possible launcher alternative to Ares I (or it’s zombie offspring), you must be talking about ULA.

    I wasn’t aware that Michael Gass, CEO of ULA, wore black tee shirts, and I know for a fact that ULA is not headquartered in Silicon Valley.

    Maybe you were trying to allude to Elon Musk of SpaceX, but it’s Steve Jobs that wears the black tee shirts (Musk is more of a button down type). You need to work harder on these analogies – you really suck at them.

    You have captured the unassailable logic of Constellation in exquisite detail!

    No, what we see is that you demand guaranteed jobs for certain segments of the labor sector, regardless of the cost or the need. You better hope the Tea Party doesn’t find you out… ;-)

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    FWIW, the House has released the bill on which they will vote. It is pretty close to the Senate bill apart from some juggling of figures and the precise name of certain budget items. One thing worth noting is that, as far as I can tell at this stage, the bill diverts money to Orion/SLS from CRS and CCDev.

Leave a Reply to Rand Simberg 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>