Congress, NASA

Edwards introduces alternative NASA authorization bill

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), ranking member of the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee, announced Monday that she is introducing an alternative version of a NASA authorization bill that would approve additional funding for the space agency while giving it the goal of sending humans to Mars by 2030.

The text of the legislation, HR 2616, wasn’t immediately available, but a statement released by the Democratic leadership of the House Science Committee on Monday evening (and now available online) provided the general outlines of the bill. The bill would authorize $18.1 billion for NASA in fiscal year 2014, growing to $18.87 bilion in FY2016. By contrast, the draft authorization bill proposed by the Republican leadership of the House Science Committee would authorize $16.865 billion for NASA in FY14 and FY15 (the Republican bill is a two-year authorization, while Edwards’s version is a three-year authorization.) The Democratic bill would also give NASA the “clear goal of a crewed mission to the surface of Mars and requiring a roadmap that identifies intermediate destinations and activities which contribute to enabling achievement of that goal.”

The announcement of the bill came after Edwards spoke at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington on Monday morning. “There’s a growing consensus among the scientific community that that next great frontier really is Mars, and I agree,” she said. “In order to accomplish this challenging and pioneering endeavor, we have to declare as a nation that a manned mission to Mars is a priority and a program of national significance.”

The press release about the bill didn’t specify a timeline for such a goal, but Edwards indicated she wanted to send humans to Mars by 2030, a more aggressive schedule than what President Obama proposed in his April 2010 speech at the Kennedy Space Center. “If we commit today to reach Mars by 2030, we’ll have more than a 15-year funding profile for planning and development to meet the challenges of accomplishing a complex mission,” she said.

While the topline authorized spending level and the emphasis on an accelerated human Mars exploration program are key differences in the Democratic bill, other elements of Edwards’s legislation appear similar to the Republican bill. Her bill would authorize $1.5 billion for planetary science, as the Republican bill does, up from the approximately $1.2 billion requested by the administration. The press release doesn’t specify Earth science spending levels, although those are likely to be higher in the Democratic version given the opposition previously expressed by Edwards and others about the cuts in the Republican version.

The Democratic bill also would authorize $700 million for commercial crew development, the same as the Republican bill, but less than the approximately $820 million requested by NASA. Edwards said at CSIS that her views on commercial spaceflight have “evolved” in the last couple of years. “I was not a believer, at first, in the role of commercial companies in commercializing space transportation,” she said. “I’ve actually been quite pleased with the progress that’s been made thus far and really look forward to the future.”

Edwards’s bill has 11 co-sponsors, all fellow Democratic members of the House Science Committee, including Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), ranking member of the full committee. However, with no Republicans on board, it seems unlikely this bill would make it out of committee, if it came down to a party-line vote on it versus the proposed Republican bill. Edwards said she’s discussed some of the issued raised in her bill with Republican colleagues “and this will be a work in progress.”

The bill could have a greater influence, though, on the version of a NASA authorization bill that comes out of the Democratic-led Senate. “We have had a discussion with the Senate” about the bill, she said after her CSIS talk. “We’ve actually looked at least at some of the outlines of what the Senate is shooting for. There’s some similarities.”

15 comments to Edwards introduces alternative NASA authorization bill

    • Coastal Ron

      Stephen C. Smith said:

      Publicity stunt.

      Yep.

      And this is another example of someone in Congress trying to “lead”, which to them means picking a particular destination that sounds “challenging”, and then throwing out a date that sounds “doable”.

      Unless or until we have a “National Imperative” for going somewhere in space, any date for going somewhere is a fake date. And once you have pinned a date on something, per the Project Management Triangle (Fast, Good and Cheap, where the date = “Fast”), you end up sacrificing either “Good” or “Cheap”.

      My preference would be if Congress and the President declare that it is in the best interests of the U.S. to become a spacefaring nation, and that our next goal in space is to build a reusable transportation system to the region of the Moon (EM-L or LLO). NASA would be tasked with being the lead agency to put it in place, but no part of the system would be owned by the government. Tis a dream I have, and unfortunately it’s likely to stay that way…

  • By the way, Rep. Edwards’ appearance at CSIS yesterday is on YouTube at:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGTRywxogK4

  • Hiram

    Politics is mostly about publicity stunts. One can forgive them that. In fact, this alternative bill a nice way to articulate the complete vision for NASA from the minority, as opposed to just nitpicking on the majority bill. They know it doesn’t have a chance of being adopted in toto. It’s just a policy stake-in-the-ground that, as pointed out, gives some advice to the Senate.

    But the lack of detail is puzzling. As far as we know, the main difference is the top line budget number. What’s that extra $2B/yr all about? It will be interesting to do a comparison when the minority bill is released.

    As to the call for a “clear goal of a crewed mission to the surface of Mars and requiring a roadmap that identifies intermediate destinations and activities which contribute to enabling achievement of that goal”, there isn’t a lot of space between this and the majority bill. The majority bill calls explicitly for a Mars Human Exploration Roadmap, and spells out the requirements for that roadmap in some detail. While the majority bill isn’t explicit that Mars is the final goal, the key objectives noted in the majority bill include efforts “to accelerate the development of capabilities to enable a human exploration mission to the surface of Mars”. So that goal is strongly implicit.

    • Hiram wrote:

      As far as we know, the main difference is the top line budget number. What’s that extra $2B/yr all about?

      Rep. Edwards’ bill doesn’t take into account sequestration. The GOP version does.

      Elsewhere … NASA’s Inspector General released a report yesterday auditing NASA’s efforts to maximize use of the ISS. Click here for the report.

      It’s generally positive, but cites room for improvement. One action item called out is lack of access for crew and cargo. The Obama administration has tried every year to increase funding for commercial crew, only to have it whacked by Congress. Rep. Edwards’ bill keeps commercial crew at the same number proposed by the GOP, more than $100 million below what the administration requested.

      But who cares. Edwards can tell people we’re going to Mars. Even though we’re not.

      • Hiram

        That’s correct about sequestration, but it isn’t clear if Edwards’ bill puts back where sequestration took out.

        “But who cares. Edwards can tell people we’re going to Mars. Even though we’re not.”

        Very well put.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    I’m still waiting to find out if it specifies SLS/MPCV or gives NASA more flexibility.

    • Jeff Foust

      One of the bullet points in the press release is that the bill recognizes “the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle as the highest priorities for carrying out the Mars goal”.

      • Egad

        One of the bullet points in the press release is that the bill recognizes “the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle as the highest priorities for carrying out the Mars goal”

        I wonder if anyone will be so impolite as point out that a Mars architecture that hauls Orion all the way there and back would be somewhat suspect.

  • Justin Kugler

    There is absolutely nothing bold about specifying a goal that cannot be accomplished in an affordable manner by sticking with the SLS/MPCV architecture. If Edwards was serious about letting NASA figure out the best technical solution, that requirement would not be there.

  • Destination-based objectives for NASA, especially as dictated by Congress, is a bad idea. The objectives should be capabilities based, and the reasons for pursuing particular capabilities well articulated. Cold War habits die hard, apparently…

  • Egad

    $18.1 billion for NASA in fiscal year 2014, growing to $18.87 bilion in FY2016

    I.e. a modest boost followed by keeping up with current inflation rates.

  • DCSCA

    Quaint. Press release in July. August recess to come. “Free drift” continues in ‘muddle through mode’ toward midterms and the next administration. And so it goes.

Leave a Reply to Jeff Foust 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>