Congress

Brooks wins, Giffords with a narrow lead

Republican Mo Brooks won the race for Alabama’s 5th district, which includes NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, defeating Democrat Steve Raby 58-42 percent. Brooks, during a debate with Raby last month, claimed that he would named “to at least two key Congressional Committees that would have a major say in steering funding toward NASA”; as previously noted, it’s not clear what he meant, since only appropriators “steer funding” to NASA or other agencies. Brooks succeeds Parker Griffith, the one-term Democrat-turned-Republican who lost to Brooks in the Republican primary.

In Arizona’s 8th district, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) has a narrow lead over Republican challenger Jesse Kelly: less than 2,500 votes out of nearly 250,000 cast. Even if she wins, though, she will lose her chairmanship of the House Science and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee as Republicans take control of the House. In the neighboring 7th district, meanwhile, incumbent Raúl Grijalva (D) also has a narrow lead over “rocket scientist” Ruth McClung (R), although with far fewer votes cast overall.

41 comments to Brooks wins, Giffords with a narrow lead

  • GeeSpace

    Whether Reprentative Brooks and/or Representative Giffords win or not might be an interesting discussion topic around the coffee pot. But the real issue is how the change in Congress will or will not impact on our “soace” program. This is assuming that we do have a space program

  • amightywind

    One thing is for sure. The political foundation of Obamaspace is in utter ruins. It will take time for new GOP congressional leadership to turn to NASA. The first order of business is to take a chainsaw to the budget. One cannot foresee $5G ISS and $1.5G for Newspace surviving.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    I’m surprised that Jeff has not mentioned the splendid news from last night. Jim Oberstar, that great foe of commercial space, is gone.

  • Major Tom

    “One cannot foresee $5G ISS…”

    The ISS FY 2011 budget is $2.8B in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, not “$5G”.

    The Act passed on a bipartisan vote.

    No incoming or outgoing Republican congressman has stated opposition to the ISS.

    The space station program was started and sustained by three Republican Presidents (Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II).

    “and $1.5G for Newspace surviving.”

    The FY 2011 COTS and CCDev budgets total $612M in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, not “$1.5G”.

    The Act passed on a bipartisan vote.

    NASA has to have COTS. There’s no domestic alternative for ISS cargo transport.

    MPCV and SLS have yet to be defined. Until they are, NASA has to have CCDev. There’s no domestic alternative for ISS crew transport.

    Outside parochial concerns in a few districts/states, Republicans support on principle outsourcing of government functions and private sector solutions.

  • MichaelC

    Dark days ahead. The crooks are back in charge. The spineless dems deserve it for trying to play both ends against the middle. When will we learn?

    The republicans are only concerned about one thing- taking care of the ultra-wealthy. Commercial space will get no help from them.

  • @amightywind

    “One thing is for sure. The political foundation of Obamaspace is in utter ruins. It will take time for new GOP congressional leadership to turn to NASA. The first order of business is to take a chainsaw to the budget. One cannot foresee $5G ISS and $1.5G for Newspace surviving.”

    Yeah right! You mean a butter knife! Unless you seriously believe that Congress is going to dramatically cut military, medicare, and medicaid expenditures which are the core reasons for the enormous amounts of Federal deficit spending.

    I didn’t include social security because:

    1. No elderly person is getting rich off of social security
    2. We’re all going to get old. That’s just a fact of life.
    3. Cutting social security and shifting to burden to the elderly or to their families doesn’t really change anything except impoverishing the elderly or their families.

  • MrEarl

    Tom:
    While what you wrote is technically correct, last night’s results makes it all irrelevant. Unless the lame duck congress takes up an appropriations bill in it’s waning days, all NASA funding is in jeopardy. The top priority of the next congress will be deficient reduction and NASA always seems to be a convenient target.
    Given the inordinate amount of indifference that this administration has to NASA, I don’t see Obama spending any of the little political capital he has on the agency.
    The part that worries me is that Bolden is not the person to fight for funding for the agency.

    This will definitely be a turning point for NASA. The ISS will be the last big budget project the agency will be able to do for a very long time.
    This will force NASA to do the SLS on time and on budget.
    HEFT is dead.
    Bolden needs to be replaced by an administrator that can play the inside politics game to convince this new deficit cutting congress that SLS, Orion and CCDEV are important to the future of this nation .

  • This will force NASA to do the SLS on time and on budget.

    Or more likely, to not do it at all, since it is unneeded.

    HEFT is dead.

    HEFT deserves to die.

  • Major Tom

    “While what you wrote is technically correct, last night’s results makes it all irrelevant.”

    Your post does nothing to show that my reply to the other poster is “irrelevant”. You make no reference to ISS, and you actually agree with me on the criticality of commercial crew/cargo. Neither I nor the other poster wrote about SLS, Orion, HEFT, or the NASA Administrator.

    If you want to post about what kind of Administrator NASA needs going forward, that’s fine. Just don’t tie it to a post of mine that has nothing to do with that topic.

  • Vladislaw

    Wolf won reelection and he was pretty much against the direction the president took, i wonder if he will appropriate what is authorized. And John B said dial back the budget to 2008 levels … it looks like they will be at odds. Wolf i believe wanted constellation.

  • Ferris Valyn

    This will force NASA to do the SLS on time and on budget.

    Why? There is no evidence that they KNOW how to do a project on time and on budget, so why should they do it this time?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bolden needs to be replaced by an administrator that can play the inside politics game to convince this new deficit cutting congress that SLS, Orion ISS and Commercial Crew are important to the future of this nation

    Fixed that for ya

    And her name is Lori Garver

  • Ferris Valyn

    Shoot, somehow my strike-through didn’t work – in the preview it showed it

    It should read

    SLS, Orion

    Hopefully this works

  • amightywind

    Marcel F. Williams wrote:

    1. No elderly person is getting rich off of social security
    2. We’re all going to get old. That’s just a fact of life.
    3. Cutting social security and shifting to burden to the elderly or to their families doesn’t really change anything except impoverishing the elderly or their families.

    My country club parking lot is filled with the Cadillacs of the elderly not getting rich off of Social Security. It must evolve into a welfare program. Yes, we are all going to get old which means we will need to save beforehand and stop living hand to mouth. Is this really a such a wild idea? The ‘burden of the elderly’ belongs primarily with the family. Some might even consider it a privilege to honor their parents.

    Hopefully the new congress will grasp the opportunity cost of funding ISS. The ISS recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. 10 years on a flight to nowhere. Why don’t we just declare success and end it?

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ November 3rd, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    “This will definitely be a turning point for NASA.”

    What do you mean? The elections of last night? If you mean NASA is at risk of losing a large amount of budget I agree but it is not done yet.

    “The ISS will be the last big budget project the agency will be able to do for a very long time.”

    Yes but it is not NASA’s fault, not really.

    “This will force NASA to do the SLS on time and on budget.”

    Not a chance they can do it. Not the lightest of chance. SLS is nothing but a continuing jobs program.

    “HEFT is dead.”

    HEFT is not dead, yet, and it will go on until they cannot make the SLS go and waste a crazy amount of money doing so. Then they will say “oh but we could have done HEFT with EELVs” but it’ll be too late. This will take more or less 4 years or possibly 2 years if they keep wasting at current levels with absolutely no smarts in their plans. Just engineers playing with their Christmas toys.

    “Bolden needs to be replaced by an administrator that can play the inside politics game to convince this new deficit cutting congress that SLS, Orion and CCDEV are important to the future of this nation .”

    Not a chance any one will take that job and do what you say. No one, not in our times anyway. And the reason is that SLS, Orion and CCDev are not that important to the future of this nation. Nope. Period.

  • Anthony

    I’m sorry but what” does “HEFT” and what does “SLS” mean?

  • DCSCA

    @Ferris Valyn wrote @ November 3rd, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Garver’s useless and carries little weight, particularly against the sea change at hand.

    The budget ax is out and the tainted teaparty blood infecting Congress are down market and to the right souls who embrace NASCAR, not NASA. Expect America’s space program to be told to do more with less. It is a luxury the United States cannot afford. With two or three shuttle launches left, enjoy them while you can, so you can tell your grandkids about the time when Americans once flew into space. That half-century period of achievement will end soon as America continues to decline on all fronts.

  • Vladislaw

    Human Exploration Framework Team
    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/457412main_EEWS%20-%20Intro.pdf

    space launch system

  • Ferris Valyn

    DCSCA – we’re going to just have to disagree on this one.

  • Byeman

    you can tell your grandkids about the time when common Americans flew into space. That half-century period of achievement will followed by a brighter future.
    NASA will no longer stifle spaceflight advancement

    there, fixed if for you

  • Joe Dere

    Garver wouldn’t be confirmed by the Senate that exists today, much less the one that will exist in January.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Joe Dere – Fortunately, thats not the only way you become a NASA administrator (although I grant the other way is more unlikely)

    That said, I am not so certain that will be the case, when it all gets said and done.

  • sc220

    NASA and the human spaceflight program will be easy prey for he new congress. This agency’s days are numbered now.

  • Byeman

    There is more to NASA than HSF. Its days are not numbers. The other half is getting healthy since CxP is gone.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    sc220 wrote @ November 3rd, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    NASA and the human spaceflight program will be easy prey for he new congress. This agency’s days are numbered now.

    LOL NASA’s appropriation may be reduced somewhat but NASA and the U.S. Government still have international partners in the ISS that they will continue to support so the agency’s HSF program still has a way to go.

    There’s plenty bigger fish to fry than the minnow that’s NASA in terms of reductions for the GOP to get their teeth into.

  • DCSCA

    Byeman wrote @ November 3rd, 2010 at 8:34 pm <- At projected prices, 'common folks' flying is highly unlikely. Especially if they need any government subsidies to get off the ground. Best you get a down to earth grip on the real world economics facing 'common folks'. They can barely afford a ticket on Disney's Space Mountain' ride as it is. These budget cutters are going to press deep, deep cuts and can't wait to slash the space agency and let the military do all the flying, if it's needed at all. There, fixed that for you. Bye, bye NASA by 2020.

  • DCSCA

    @ sc220 wrote @ November 3rd, 2010 at 10:41 pm <– Agreed. They probably wont know what hit them when it comes. Tea Partiers can make a strong case to save $19 billion a year and let the best assets be absorbed into existing agencies like DoD, NOAA, FAA, etc. And they'll be culled for waste as well.

  • DCSCA

    @Ferris Valyn wrote @ November 3rd, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    We’ll see. But in these times the space agency has been all teed-up to get sliced into rough times. These new Congressional tea partiers want spending slashed. Don’t expect NASA to be around by 2020 or 2025 at the latest. It has a lot of redundancy for a Cold War relic and can be easily dissolved and absorbed into other agencies.

  • byeman

    “DoD, NOAA, FAA,” have no use for NASA assets and it can not be easily dissolved. NASA will always exist, it just may not be handicapped by the HSF mafia anymore.

  • byeman

    “military do all the flying,”

    They have no need for NASA type missions.

  • DCSCA

    byeman wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 11:11 am
    “NASA will always exist.” Don’t bet on it. Elements of it can easily be folded into other agencies in years to come as part of cost cutting. Look at the new Congress. See how they handle voting on raising the debt level. The military can make a pitch for space operations of some kind but the need for a ‘civilian space agency’ now stripped and gutted of any real purpose, a purpose defined chiefly out of Cold War angst, is now a high profile waste. All good things must come to an end and NASA’s days appear numbered. Congress can easily farm out the reserarch to existing agencies. The need for a civilian space agency is fading fast. Sad.

  • Byeman

    DCSCA, again, you show that you don’t what you are talking about. You are among the clueless that HSF equates to NASA and NASA is only HSF. Rest can not be farmed out. No other org has the expertise. Why do you think NOAA looks to NASA for spacecraft procurement?

  • Martijn Meijering

    Can you elaborate? Doesn’t NASA “farm out” work to JPL?

  • byeman

    JPL is a NASA center.

  • Yes and no. Unike all the other NASA centers, it’s an FFRDC, and gets contracts from NASA via Cal Tech.

  • Martijn Meijering

    But it’s an FFRDC that’s run by Caltech. Couldn’t that sort of thing become more common?

  • byeman

    That is only changing the management of the center, most of same people would be involved. It is not moving or creating a new center.

  • common sense

    @ Martijn Meijering wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    “But it’s an FFRDC that’s run by Caltech. Couldn’t that sort of thing become more common?”

    I heard multiple times that all NASA centers would go this way but so far… The national labs just change from UC to UC+Industry (including Bechtel). It’s also what the ISS end up being (see NASAWatch). So if something like that happens I would not be surprised to see University+Industry in charge. Is it good? Bad? I believe the changes at the labs were prompted by security issues to include industry (just an excuse? most likely). Now if you include the Industry you may not want to have the usual contractors because of conflict of interests. But I don’t know as a whole if it is the right route. What NASA does at the fundamental levels, the research centers, may very well stay federal. The space centers with ops or engineering only may go this very route. I think first and foremost “we” must decide what we want NASA to do in the future before saying what kind of business model they should be under.

    FWIW…

  • But it’s an FFRDC that’s run by Caltech. Couldn’t that sort of thing become more common?

    When the Aldridge Commission proposed that in 2004, it was dead on arrival on the Hill. Maybe the politics have changed, though.

  • DCSCA

    @Byeman wrote @ November 4th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
    You are deluding yourself by not comprehending that the people of the United States, particularly the down market and to the right crowd struggling to make ends meet these days, equate NASA with sending people into space. Listen closely to the way Americans are informed about NASA activities. Listen to the language of Fox hosts covering a shuttle launch. It borders on childishness and would make the late Walter Cronkite cringe. Even his telecasts from Apollo days were smarter in content and they were targeted to viewers with high school educations of the era. The rest of NASA is esoteric research for science geeks as far as the public knows. We both know that not the case but the dumbed down public of today can be convinced that kind of expensive research can easily be done- if not already duplicated- by other government agencies, like DoD, NOAA or the FAA. They already believe the military as a big stake in NASA as all their pilots are culled from the miltary. The military launches satellites so why duplicate the capability with a civilian agency. The mood in this country is most decidely foul when it comes to government spending with such massive deficits and, as in the private sector, the first thing to cut is any kind of R&D work that won’t show any return for many years. When the shuttle program ends, as far as the public is concerned, the core rationale for keeping NASA ends. If the hard decisions are actually made by the budget cutters, NASA is clearly a luxury they can rationalize that the United States no longer needs. It is a relic of the Cold War. Gutted and stripped of manned spaceflight operations, it’s really not needed. Stamp it ‘mission accomplished’ and fold its assets into other existing agencies.

Leave a Reply to sc220 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>