Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for Lobbying
January 31, 2012 at 7:11 am · Filed under Campaign '12, Lobbying
Yesterday the space advocacy organization Tea Party in Space (TPIS) formally endorsed Newt Gingrich for the Republican presidential nomination. “Newt Gingrich is the only credible candidate in this primary race in Florida who has any credibility when it comes to America’s future in space,” TPIS president Andrew Gasser said in a statement. The organization said it based that endorsement of an evaluation of the candidates’ space policy positions and a grading on “tea party core values of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets”, where Gingrich was ranked as “superior”.
Although the statement made no mention of the other GOP candidates, a previous post on the TPIS web site by Gasser criticized a lack of vision by Mitt Romney in his policy, in large part because one of those people advising the Romney campaign on space is former NASA administrator Mike Griffin. “While we all agree that Dr. Griffin is well educated in physics and engineering, his track record suggests he is not grasping the economic condition of this country,” Gasser writes. “Moreover, NASA was crippled under Dr. Griffin’s leadership.”
While TPIS has come out strongly for Gingrich in advance of today’s primary in Florida, other space organizations have remained noncommittal. The National Space Society said it was “pleased” Gingrich released a space policy, the organization said in a press release last week. The organization stopped short of formally endorsing that policy, but noted the plan “contained many details that align with NSS goals”. The NSS asked other candidates to release their own policies (the release is dated January 26, a day before Romney’s space speech.)
The Space Frontier Foundation also didn’t formally endorse Gingrich’s policies, citing its desire to remain non-partisan, but the organization was clearly pleased with its emphasis on space settlement. “The SFF applauds Speaker Gingrich for embracing space settlement and is celebrating that support for space settlement has grown to include large parts of NASA, the current administration, and Speaker Gingrich,” it stated in a release Thursday. The organization was less welcoming of Romney’s plan, though, citing, like TPIS, Griffin’s association with the Romney campaign. Recalling Romney’s comment in Thursday’s debate that he would have “fired” any executive that came to him with a multi-hundred-billion plan for a lunar base, the Foundation’s executive director, Will Watson, said, “Confronted with Mike Griffin’s plan to return to the Moon, Mitt Romney would have fired Griffin and rightly so.” The Foundation called for the Romney campaign to “cast a much wider net for space policy advisors”.
While these organizations tend to show more support for Gingrich than for Romney, it doesn’t appear it will do the former Speaker of the House much good: latest polls showed that Romney was headed to a sizable victory in Florida today.
January 20, 2012 at 6:36 am · Filed under Congress, Lobbying, NASA, White House
Early month the White House will release its fiscal year 2013 budget proposal. While most of the details of that budget proposal have been, or very soon will be, nailed down, some organizations are making a last-minute push to lobby for funding for NASA science programs in particular. Others, though, worried about what the budget proposal may contain, are already looking ahead to Congressional action on the budget.
The Planetary Society is in the first camp. This week the organization released a letter it sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on NASA science funding. In the letter the society asks OMB for a “small but significant” change in NASA science funding, so that it accounts for 30 percent of NASA’s overall budget. (In FY2012 science accounts for $5.09 billion out of the agency’s $17.8-billion budget, or 28.6%.) This “modest rebalancing”, the society argues, would support the agency’s portfolio of science programs in an era of tight budgets. “If NASA’s overall budget shrinks, we are concerned that the Science program will carry a disproportionate burden of any reduction,” the letter states. “Increasing the share of the NASA budget for Science is the best place for the agency to make the most effective use of the taxpayers’ money in today’s austere budget environment.”
The Division for Planetary Sciences (DPS) of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) is more pessimistic about the administration’s budget request, particularly for the planetary science portion of the overall NASA science budget. “The reality is that within NASA’s science budget, planetary science is nowhere near the Administration’s top priority and that does leave us vulnerable to budget pressures,” DPS chair Dan Britt writes in a DPS newsletter published this week. A cut to planetary science funding, he notes, would jeopardize a wide range of missions as well as research funding.
However, he is more optimistic about how Congress will deal with planetary science funding. “Planetary science has a lot of friends on both sides the aisle in Congress. Congress likes the results the planetary science program, they like the consensus plan in the Decadal Survey, and they want to see it continue,” he writes. NASA’s planetary science program got a largely sympathetic hearing by the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee in November, with the OMB blamed for problems like the apparent unwillingness to commit to cooperation with Europe on Mars exploration. Britt adds, though, that Congress won’t act on its own. “While Congress is a potentially friendly forum, it’s going to be up to us, the planetary science community, to make the case for continued priority support.”
January 11, 2012 at 8:20 am · Filed under Lobbying, States
Today, as Florida legislators ramp up their activities for the 2012 session, they’ll be visited by representatives of the state’s space industry for Florida Space Day. This annual event is designed to raise awareness among legislators of the industry and advocate for measures to help support it. As the Space Florida release suggests, industry will both try to demonstrate that Florida is a leading state in the industry, but has room to grow.
This year, Florida Today reports, Space Day participants will press for passage of three relatively modest bills designed to support the state’s commercial space industry. One would formally recognize Cecil Field in Jacksonville, which already has an FAA spaceport license, as a spaceport. Another would revise the definition of “spaceport facilities” to make them eligible for state transportation funding. A third would change how Space Florida gets funding from the legislature, giving the state agency the money for specific projects up front to improve efficiency. None of the bills proved to be particularly controversial in recent committee hearings, Florida Today noted.
December 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm · Filed under Congress, Lobbying, NASA
Last month, NASA officials offered a bit of good news about plans to restart production of plutonium-238 (Pu-238), the isotope used in radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) that power some NASA deep space missions, including the recently-launched Mars Science Laboratory. In a hearing about the future of NASA’s planetary exploration program, NASA’s Jim Green said the agency was moving ahead with plans to restart production in cooperation with the Department of Energy (DOE), using $10 million allocated in the final FY12 appropriations bill for that purpose.
The original intent was to split the costs of Pu-238 production evenly between NASA and DOE, but Congress has failed to provide any money for that purpose in the separate DOE funding bill, saying that DOE funds should not be used for a program that primarily benefits NASA. This week, as House and Senate conferees work on an omnibus spending bill for various government agencies, including DOE, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) is making one final push to win DOE funding for Pu-238 production. In an “action alert” issued earlier this week, AAS asked its members to contact Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee, and ask them to add Pu-238 funding. The AAS notes than even if production is restarted immediately, there will be a five-year gap in Pu-238 supplies. Any additional delay, the organization warns, “will push back the proposed planetary space missions that would require Pu-238. We cannot afford to delay production any longer.”
November 9, 2011 at 7:19 am · Filed under Congress, Lobbying, NASA, White House
With Congress expected to complete work next week on a FY2012 appropriations bill that includes NASA (the goal is to complete the bill before the current continuing resolution expires next Friday), supporters of NASA’s commercial crew program are making another, perhaps final, push to win full funding for the program. In an op-ed published Monday in The Space Review, Alan Stern, the new director of the Florida Space Institute, and Frank DiBello, president of Space Florida, argued that NASA, Congress, and the White House all should work to “expedite” the program. For Congress, that means funding the program at $850 million, the level requested by the administration in its FY12 request. NASA, meanwhile, should “streamline the business and technical processes” for commercial crew providers, while the Obama Administration should push NASA to make commercial crew a top priority for the agency.
Stern and DiBello are also signatories on an open letter to Congress and the White House released Tuesday on the topic of commercial crew funding. The letter, like the earlier op-ed, calls for expediting commercial crew through increased funding and streamlined processes. The letter is signed by over 40 people, ranging from executives of entrepreneurial space companies to former astronauts and NASA officials.
The day before that letter, nearly two dozen former astronauts submitted a similar letter to key House and Senate appropriators, also in support of commercial crew. This letter also calls for full funding of commercial crew, although the signatories appear willing to accept the $500 million the Senate approved in its version of the appropriations legislation. “Funding Commercial Crew at least at the Authorization Act level of $500 million will mean less reliance on Russia and a stronger space program here at home, and funding Commercial Crew at NASA’s requested level of $850 million will enable these commercial vehicles to be developed on an even more expeditious basis,” they write.
It’s noteworthy that commercial crew has been the one NASA program that has received significant lobbying attention as the appropriations process reaches its conclusion. NASA’s Space Technology program, for example, had its requested budget cut significantly in both the House and Senate, but hasn’t received nearly the same attention as commercial crew. (There has been concern about planetary exploration, but that has focused more on the long-term prospects beyond the FY12 budget.) Of course, commercial crew has a clear constituency—those companies involved or seeking to be involved in the program, as well as those companies and organizations that would benefit from commercial crew systems—while the constituency for technology programs is more diffuse. Whether this press of attention will have any affect on the appropriations process, though, remains to be seen.
October 28, 2011 at 7:45 am · Filed under Lobbying, NASA, Other, White House
In a letter this week to President Obama, the mayors of Houston and Huntsville ask for immediate action on contracts related to the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) programs. Specifically, they ask that NASA “move forward as expeditiously as possible” on converting contracts for the Constellation program to SLS and MPCV. “Speed is imperative to protect the workforce and to ensure our nation’s global leadership in spaceand in technological advancement,” Houston mayor Annise Parker and Huntsville mayor Tommy Battle write.
They add that those programs are at least as important, if not more so, than commercial crew development efforts at the agency. “While we all agree that commercial space ventures are critical to the future of human space flight, they cannot come at the expense of NASA’s role in ensuring access to space. They cannot come at the expense of seeing all the amazing, cutting edge expertise gathered together at MSFC and JSC being dispersed around the world – lost to this country and our own space efforts.”
Meanwhile, Mars Society president Robert Zubrin raised alarm bells when he claimed in an op-ed published Thursday in the Washington Times that the White House was planning to “terminate” NASA’s planetary science program in its FY2013 budget proposal. After the 2013 launch of the MAVEN Mars orbiter, he said, “No further missions to anywhere are planned.”
There’s one problem with his piece, though: that fantastic claim appears to be incorrect. “It is not true the planetary program is being killed,” Jim Green, head of NASA’s planetary science program, told the NASA Advisory Council Thursday during a telecon, Space News reported. The planetary program does face some problems with funding in future years, he acknowledged, but termination is not in the cards. “I’m here to say the future doesn’t look as healthy as it has been, but it is still the best program in the world,” Green said, SpacePolicyOnline.com reported.
Zubrin, incidentally, will be appearing at a Capitol Hill forum next Thursday jointly organized by The Planetary Society and The Mars Society, titled, “NASA at a Turning Point: Vibrant Future or Close Shop”.
September 22, 2011 at 6:59 am · Filed under Congress, Lobbying, NASA
A reminder that at 10 am EDT today, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee will be holding a hearing titled “NASA Human Spaceflight Past, Present, and Future: Where Do We Go From Here?”, which will be webcast on the committee’s site. The witnesses include former astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, as well as former NASA administrator Mike Griffin; late last week the committee added another witness, MIT planetary sciences professor Maria Zuber, the principal investigator of NASA’s recently-launched GRAIL lunar orbiter mission.
On the eve of today’s hearing, the student space advocacy group Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS) said it send a letter to Armstrong, asking him to “carry with you some of the messages” that SEDS members articulated in a letter earlier this year. That earlier letter strongly supported commercial spaceflight, saying that “NASA and the nation both benefit greatly from investing in commercial spaceflight programs that will allow astronauts to fly on commercial vehicles,” and playing up the educational and workforce development benefits of such efforts. Given that Armstong (along with Cernan and Griffin) have been critics of the administration’s space policy, which has put an emphasis on commercial crew vehicle development, it’s not clear the students’ message will resonate with the legendary astronaut.
September 1, 2011 at 7:02 am · Filed under Lobbying, NASA
For Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas, it’s a question of what’s the lesser evil: “We can either go billions over budget on mismanaged science projects, or we can go billions over budget on even more mismanaged manned-spaceflight programs,” he writes in a column today. Thomas, who has been a critic of human spaceflight activities in the past, unsurprisingly chooses the former, in part because of the money already spent on the James Webb Space Telescope, as well as the scientific and other benefits it can yield: “It would be a big in-your-face to the Chinese, who could never build such a technical marvel, at least not until they’ve downloaded the plans from the NASA computers.” He doesn’t apply similar arguments to the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), and is skeptical of the cost estimates reported last month. “Factoring in the usual NASA cost overruns and delays, this rocket will cost $200 billion and go up in the year 2525.” (If man is still alive…)
The advocacy group Tea Party in Space (TPIS) sees last week’s Soyuz launch failure as proof Congress should fully fund NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program in order to ensure American access to the ISS, the conservative news site NewsMax reports. CCDev would be faster and cheaper than SLS, the organization argues; a TPIS official called congressional support for SLS “a pretty warped sense of priorities”. “Tea Party in Space officials see NASA’s cost overruns as a microcosm of the larger bureaucratic snafus that plague the federal government generally,” the report adds.
Back in July, SpaceX hired Mark Bitterman, who had spent nearly 20 years at rival Orbital Sciences Corporation, most recently as vice president of government affairs, as its new senior vice president of government affairs. But Space News reported this week that, after less than two months on the job, Bitterman has resigned; a company spokesperson said “family obligations” require more of his time than the job would allow. (The version of the press release announcing his hiring is no longer listed on the SpaceX web site, although in addition to the Business Wire version listed above, there’s a cached version from earlier this week.)
August 23, 2011 at 6:31 am · Filed under Congress, Lobbying, NASA, White House
On Monday Aviation Week and Nature reported on the latest cost estimate for building and operating the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST): $8.7 billion. That includes the costs to build and launch the telescope, as well as five years of science operations. That new total figure should not be surprising: last month Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee, said the GAO has estimated the telescope’s cost at $7.8-8.0 billion. Excluding the five years of science operations from the new NASA cost estimate brings the JWST cost back to $8 billion.
So how does NASA propose to cover these additional costs? According to Nature, NASA is seeking to split the costs on a 50:50 basis between the agency’s science account and the rest of the agency. That could mean over half a billion dollars could be taken from exploration, technology, aeronautics, and other non-science programs over several years to cover those costs, should the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve NASA’s proposal. OMB has been studying the plan for several weeks, according to Nature, but hasn’t signed off on it yet.
Then there’s the issue of winning funding for fiscal year 2012 for JWST, given that the legislation the House Appropriations Committee approved last month included no funding for the telescope. JWST advocates are cautiously optimistic that some funding for the telescope can be restored later in the appropriations process. Representatives of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) met with House staffers earlier this month and found some support for the telescope even from the office of Rep. Wolf. “The staff expressed Rep. Wolf’s belief that JWST has an extremely strong science merit,” the AAS noted in a blog post late last week. “The staff commented that they have been inundated by social media correspondence about JWST and have made note of recent editorials in the NY Times and Washington Post.” Cutting JWST’s budget in committee, the report suggests, was a maneuver to “get NASA’s attention on these broader, Agency-wide management issues at the highest levels.” The AAS statement added that the organization is “hopeful” Congress will work out a deal to fund JWST in 2012.
August 17, 2011 at 6:20 am · Filed under Congress, Lobbying, NASA
Earlier this month came word that a draft letter was circulating on Capitol Hill, reportedly linked to Utah’s congressional delegation, calling on the administration to publish its design for the Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift launch vehicle and ensure it makes use of solid rocket motors. The advocacy group Tea Party in Space (TPIS) recently obtained a signed copy of the letter, featuring the signatures of five senators, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and four Republicans, most notably Orrin Hatch of Utah. TPIS minced no words in its reaction to the letter: “TPIS calls on these five senators to renounce this letter and apologize to Administrator Bolden and the hard working men and women at NASA.”
While five western senators signed one letter about the SLS, five southern senators have put their names to another letter critical of the administration’s work on SLS. The letter to President Obama, dated Monday and signed by Republican senators from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, called on the White House to “immediately provide the Section 309 report to Congress”, a reference to the provision of the 2010 NASA authorization act that called on NASA to provide Congress with a report the reference vehicle designs for the SLS and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) within 90 days of the bill’s enactment. The letter notes that the final report is now nearly 200 days overdue. “We believe the time has come to deliver the report to Congress.”
That letter is also critical of elements of NASA’s 2011 operating plan, which includes spending money allocated for SLS on facility work at the Kennedy Space Center that the senators believe should not be charged exclusively to SLS. “The misallocation of SLS funds and the lack of synchronization between rocket and spacecraft development at NASA seem to suggest that this Administration has no intention of properly using appropriated funds,” the letter concludes, asking for NASA to resubmit an operating plan “to ensure that the funds appropriated for SLS are used to develop the 130 metric ton heavy lift vehicle required in both the authorization and appropriations acts.”
Next entries »
