A Florida congressional redistricting proposal could cut the Space Coast region’s voice in Congess by half. Currently the region has two members in Congress: Rep. Bill Posey, whose 15th district covers the southern part of the region, including the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; and Rep. Sandy Adams, whose 24th district covers the northern part, including Kennedy Space Center. Under the proposal released this week by the state senate, the 15th district would be redrawn to cover the entire region, from north of Titusville to far south of even the broadest definitions of the Space Coast. Adams’s 24th district would move inland, including portions of the Orlando area.
This has led to some concerns that the region will lose some of its clout in Congress, which could, in turn, affect space policy. Adams, for example, serves on the House Science Committee; whether she would continue to do so under her new district, or if Posey would seek a seat on that committee, is unclear. Florida state senator Thad Altman tells Florida Today that he’s confident Adams would continue to support KSC even after redistricting. What’s not mentioned in the article, though, is that both Space Coast representatives have largely had supporting, not leading, roles in recent space policy issues. Neither is an appropriator and their lack of seniority—Adams is in her first term and Posey his second—also limits their influence.
The Cape may lose a little advocacy in congress but the redistricting is an important part of the GOP conquest of Florida. Geographic reality will preserve it as the nations primary launch site. That you can bet on.
The Republican majority in the state Senate drew up this plan, taking away one of two seats from the Space Coast. It’s just more evidence of how little they care about government-funded space exploration.
The only thing Posey and Adams know about space is that they take credit for everything good and blame everything bad on Barack Obama. The GOP has successfully gerrymandered the state so they can keep overwhelming control, in spite of a constitutional amendment prohibiting gerrymandering. You only have to look at the map to see how they have cleverly packed minority voters into gerrymandered “permanent minority” districts.
Space advocacy from the Space Coast is a given along with advocacy from locales where centers affect local economies. The most important center for spaceflight advocacy is 1699 Pennsylvania Avenue. And that has been a relatively dormant, passive source for support for several decades.
I am moving from Poughkeepsie NY to Merritt Island Fl. in a couple of
weeks so this is of interest to me as a lifelong space enthusiast and
ardent political independent (I hate all political parties equally).
It is my fond hope that all these shenanigans will result in the end of
cost plus contracting for space and national defense, and the greater
reliance on competitive, fixed price, milestone based, contracting.
If a number of our aerospace firms would have to be reorganized, then
that should be done with government assistance so that those human
and material assets that are truly useful can be preserved. But going
forward the market and good engineering needs to tell us what is useful
and what is not and what can be done by whom for what, not a bunch
of congress critters doing well by their districts.
It is my fond hope that all these shenanigans will result in the end of
cost plus contracting for space and national defense
You are naive. That notion would work fine if there were a large number of credible defense and space contractors. There aren’t. In the past 30 years there has been massive defense industry consolidation, with the government’s blessing. And it makes sense. With the increasing cost of defense and space systems the government cannot support a large pool of bidders. The problem is the government now has fewer credible bidders who insist on a better deal. The smart folks who survived the industry consolidation won’t take on the risks you propose. Having supported many technical bids myself, and knowing how poor customer specifications can be, there are some risks that responsible business will not take.
amightywind wrote @ December 2nd, 2011 at 11:55 am
“That notion [less cost-plus contracting] would work fine if there were a large number of credible defense and space contractors.”
Cost-plus contracting has nothing to do with the number of potential contractors. Cost-plus contracting is used when there is a lack of initial definition on the part of the customer, yet the customer wants to go forward with the project. Cost-plus contracting will always be with us.
The change that needs to happen within Congress and NASA for our efforts in space is to realize that money matters. Right now we have Congress mandating a super-heavy launch vehicle be built, yet they have made no plans to use it. If their goal is to stimulate the economy, then spending $3B a year on it and the MPCV might be worth it, but so far it’s a rocket to nowhere and providing no space-related ROI for the taxpayer.
If our goal is to leave Earth and do something, then we need to get back to smart planning. Leaders set the goals, and then hand it off to the various science, engineering and industry experts to determine the best ways to achieve those goals. Everyone has input, the choices are clear, and it’s more likely that everyone will have buy-in. Neither Griffin’s Constellation architecture nor the SLS followed this pattern, and that’s why they have/will fail.
But as long as back-room politics drives NASA, we’re not going anywhere beyond LEO.