Another politician who is going to be talking about NASA in Washington this week is Houston Mayor Annise Parker. She plans to meet with local members of Congress, NASA administrator Charles Bolden, and White House advisor Valerie Jarrett, among others, during the two-day visit, with a particular emphasis on trying to save Constellation. “I don’t know what the best plan is for going back to space, for continuing human spaceflight,” she told the Houston Chronicle. “I want to ensure that we are and remain one of the centers of human spaceflight.” She fears a loss of 7,000 jobs in the Houston area and economic losses of over $500 million should the cancellation of Constellation go through.

Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) is also worried about Constellation, and concerned that NASA is already working to end the program and start the new plan despite legislation that prevents the agency from terminating Constellation or initiating new exploration programs this fiscal year. He and 15 other House members have asked the GAO to investigate NASA’s activities since the unveiling of the FY11 budget proposal to see if NASA is in violation of that law. “While the word contract does not appear in the bill language (it is in the report language), this question naturally occurs: to what extent can planned contracts be canceled, suspended, or slowed and the agency still be considered to have not terminated the program?” the GAO letter asks.

Finally, we’re working to reform our Export Control System for our strategic, high-tech industries, which will strengthen our national security. What we want to do is concentrate our efforts on enforcing controls on the export of our most critical technologies, making America safer while enhancing the competitiveness of key American industries. We’ve conducted a broad review of the Export Control System, and Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates will outline our reform proposal within the next couple of weeks.

NASA is also involved in the export control reform effort, deputy administrator Lori Garver said Wednesday at the Goddard Memorial Symposium. “This is an administration-led issue,” she said in response to a question on ITAR. “We are trying to get all the data we can about the kinds of things that ITAR restrictions have kept us from doing that have actually led to this nation being less secure rather than more.” She said that most people in the industry acknowledge that ITAR has been a “hindrance” to companies as well as organizations trying to cooperate with international partners on space projects. “NASA is one of the reasons why ITAR needs to be reformed, but not the only one. This is an administration-led activity we are active participants in.”

At the same time there are still efforts in Congress to pass legislation to enact reforms, such as HR 2410, the State Department authorization bill the House passed last year and is currently sitting in the Senate. “We do believe there will be legislative fixes as well, as we work with the Hill,” Garver added. “But right now we’re working on this administration effort.”

“When the Augustine Committee reported out last fall and it became more and more clear that change was absolutely necessary for NASA and our community to have a vital future, it was always clear that the president was going to take a personal role in that future,” she said, “and this is just the opportunity he’s choosing to do that.”

She also defended the process by which the new plan for the agency was rolled out as part of the FY2011 budget proposal. “That’s how our leadership in this administration makes the big decisions,” she said. “People who expressed concern that this is not the president’s plan struck me as rather odd given that this was in the president’s budget.” As for the lack of statements from the president about the new plan to date, she noted, “Think of the nation’s budget and how many things the president can talk about in the short period of time—less than a month and a half—since the budget came out.”

“This is something that we absolutely recognize is adopted at the highest levels of the administration going forward,” she continued, “and they knew this was a major shift. You don’t do major shifts without feeling strongly about it, and the president feels strongly enough about it to personally participate in a public way. He’s been personally participating in the last few months’ deliberations on the budget.”

As for the conference itself, there will be more details about the event coming out from the White House, she said, although not saying when those details will be released.

The event, expected to take place at or near the Kennedy Space Center, hasn’t been formally announced by the White House (the Sentinel article suggests a formal announcement could come today) (update 11:45 am: the White House has announced it, according to the AP), but Sen. Bill Nelson all but confirmed the event to both papers. Details in general about the event are scant, including the event’s agenda and who will be invited to attend. An unnamed White House official told Florida Today that the conference would include “the implications of the new strategy for Florida, the nation and our ultimate activities in space”.

Nelson, meanwhile, hopes that by the conference the White House and NASA will make several changes to the plan. Nelson told the Sentinel he wants to see one more shuttle flight added to the manifest (although not explaining why only one, instead of several as others in Congress have proposed), a commitment to human exploration of Mars as the plan’s long-term goal, and continued development of a heavy-lift launcher.

The issue about the conference, though, is its timing: Thursday, April 15. That may work well for Florida (other than it’s also the deadline for filing tax returns), and also some in Washington: Nelson tells Florida Today the timing is good since his space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee will vote “on NASA’s budget” in May (a reference, presumably, to an authorization bill). However, it could cause some angst in Colorado Springs, home of the Space Foundation. The 15th happens to be the last day of the National Space Symposium, one of the major annual space conferences in the US. A competing space event with a presidential imprimatur, depending on the specifics of that event, could wreak havoc on attendance and the conference’s agenda. For example, NASA administrator Charles Bolden is scheduled to speak on the afternoon of the 15th according to the latest agenda; that seems unlikely if there’s a space conference featuring the president in Florida at the same time.

However, at least the National Space Symposium will have that day something the Florida conference won’t: Spock.

And so we just wanted to let you know that the amazing work that’s being done on the International Space Station not only by our American astronauts but also our colleagues from Japan and Russia is just a testimony to the human ingenuity; a testimony to extraordinary skill and courage that you guys bring to bear; and is also a testimony to why continued space exploration is so important, and is part of the reason why my commitment to NASA is unwavering.

But instead of me doing all the talking, I wanted you guys to maybe let us know what this new Tranquility Module will help you accomplish. One of the things that we’ve done with our NASA “Vision for the Future” is to extend the life of our participation in the Space Station.

This is the first reference I recall seeing the agency’s new direction called the “Vision for the Future” as its proper name. The first impression is something, well, bland and almost redundant: shouldn’t your vision be about the future?

A little later, after some comments by ISS astronaut T.J. Creamer about research being performed on the ISS, Obama also discussed the technology R&D efforts in the budget proposal—as well as a particular planet:

Well, some of the things that you talked about are in line with where we want to see NASA going increasingly: What are those transformational technologies that would allow us to potentially see space travel of longer durations? If we want to get to Mars, if we want to get beyond that, what kinds of technologies are going to be necessary in order for us to make sure that folks can get there in one piece and get back in one piece and that — the kinds of fuels that we use and the technologies we use are going to facilitate something that is actually feasible? And we’re very excited about the possibilities of putting more research dollars into some of these transformational technologies.

The video of the event is available on the White House web site.

There may be a good reason why the FY11 release was so brief. Speaking at the NASA Innovative Partnerships Program Commercial Space Update Meeting in Crystal City, Virginia, on Tuesday, a NASA official indicated that NASA got its budget “passback” from OMB very late in the budget process. Very late. Normally the passback to the agency is provided around Thanksgiving, or at the latest early December. “The passback this year was the Saturday night before—less than 48 hours before—the budget rollout,” said Charles Miller, senior advisor for commercial space at NASA, as an explanation for the lack of details about some of the technology R&D programs contained in the budget proposal.

Why the budget passback was so late isn’t clear, but if the agency doesn’t know its funding levels until just before the budget’s release, it doesn’t give people much time to fill in the details. Miller added that the new emphasis on technology programs came at the direction of the White House, which had indicated to NASA last year that what they agency was doing was not innovative enough, and asked NASA to study what it could do if it had more R&D funding. That effort culminated in the new technology programs included in the budget request.

In the days since last Monday’s budget release, agency officials have mentioned that they’re working to provide more details, in particular on the exploration plan. In today’s Houston Chronicle, administrator Charles Bolden said he’s working on the “beginnings of a plan” for human exploration that will be ready when he appears at Congressional hearings currently scheduled for February 24 and 25. That plan, he hinted, would have Mars as a long-term goal, possibly as soon as the early 2030s.

Orszag noted the $6-billion increase in the next five years, and that Norm Augustine himself issued a statement supporting the new plan. “I choose to disagree with that characterization,” Nelson responded, referring to Augustine’s memo. “It was a namby-pamby watered-down statement that was oblique at best.”

Orszag defended the budget, saying that it wasn’t necessarily a case of not being able to afford a $3-billion increase but instead reflected the change in course for NASA, with greater emphasis on technology development and related efforts to “leapfrog existing technologies and allow us to have human spaceflight to different parts of the solar system.”

Nelson then turned to his “unfriendly” question, which wasn’t really a question at all but instead a criticism of the plan to rely on commercial crew transportation providers. “The problem is that you have put all the eggs in the basket of assuming that those commercial rockets are going to work,” he said, ending the “testing and development of an alternative rocket”, presumably a reference to the Ares 1. “If those commercial rockets don’t work, then for the foreseeable future of the next decade or so we’re going to be relying on the Russians just to get to and from our space station.”

“I want you to take that for consideration,” Nelson concluded, “and that’s got to be changed, Dr. Orszag.” Orszag didn’t have a chance to respond before Nelson’s time expired and the committee moved on to other topics.

Love It

As you would expect, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation “welcomes” the proposal and its emphasis on commercial crew transportation. “President Obama has given NASA a bold and exciting new mission: to once again push the limits in technology and exploration, promote innovation, and foster a vibrant commercial spaceflight sector,” said CSF president Brett Alexander in a statement.

The Planetary Society asks Congress to endorse the budget proposal in a statement. The organization believes that the new approach, including both commercial crew and NASA technology development initiatives, “should enable human space exploration to move ahead more realistically and even more quickly than previous plans,” in the words of executive director Lou Friedman.

The X PRIZE Foundation also sees positives in the budget proposal. “While many are calling President Obama’s proposed grounding of NASA’s program to return to the Moon the ending of an era for space travel, the X PRIZE Foundation sees this new budget proposal as a visionary step for NASA and an opportunity to forge new ideas, develop much-needed technology, and channel the American Spirit spurring innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Hate It

Sen. Shelby isn’t the only member of Congress to issue a statement opposing NASA’s change in direction. Fellow Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions is also opposed to canceling Constellation. “This ill-advised decision, which comes on the 7th anniversary of the sacrifice of the space shuttle Columbia crew, abandons our nation’s nearly five-decade commitment to human space flight and will likely result in NASA taking a back seat to China, Russia, and India in space exploration,” he states. He predicts a “long, difficult battle” over the FY11 budget and the agency’s future.

Speaking of battles, the mayor of Huntsville, Alabama, Tommy Battle, vows to “do everything we can” to restore funding for Ares. “I respectfully ask you to please, sir, not give up on the Constellation program,” Battle states in a letter to the president. “Doing so does not just negate the billions of dollars already invested in safe, manned space flight – canceling this program puts limits on the dreams of our country.”

Several other members of Congress were, as one might expect, opposed to canceling Constellation, including Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), and Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX). All has previously expressed their concerns about the NASA budget and Constellation last week.

ATK, a company closely tied to the Ares 1, issued a statement in response to the budget proposal that, indirectly at least, expressed disapproval about the budget. “It is not clear why at this time the nation would consider abandoning a program of such historic promise and capability – with so much invested,” the ATK statement reads. “In the weeks and months ahead we are hopeful that the Congress and Administration will work together to deliver a budget that supports a program that capitalizes on the investments the nation has made in the Constellation program, closes the gap in US capability to return to space, and best assures continued US leadership in space.”

Undecided

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, said that the NASA budget request “requires deliberate scrutiny” but didn’t pass judgment on it. “We will need to hear the Administration’s rationale for such a change and assess its impact on U.S. leadership in space before Congress renders its judgment on the proposals,” he states.

The Coalition for Space Exploration adopted a neutral tone in a statement, saying that it “awaits collaboration between the White House and Congress” on the budget proposal. “We urge the White House and Congress to come together under the proposed budget increase for NASA to develop a sustainable, long-term strategy,” it adds.

NASA’s Constellation program—based largely on existing technologies—was begun to realize a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria, an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its Moon goals had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration.

That building block approach includes heavy-lift launch vehicle R&D, “vigorous” technology development work in areas like automated rendezvous and docking and propellant transfer, and a “steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions”.

The budget also includes, as expected, an ISS extension and support for commercial crew transport to and from the station. From the document:

Commercial launch vehicles have for years carried all U.S. military and commercial—and most NASA—satellites to orbit. The Budget funds NASA to contract with industry to provide astronaut transportation to the International Space Station as soon as possible, reducing the risk of relying solely on foreign crew transports for years to come. A strengthened U.S. commercial space launch industry will bring needed competition, act as a catalyst for the development of other new businesses capitalizing on affordable access to space, help create thousands of new jobs, and help reduce the cost of human access to space.

There’s also support for enhanced Earth science missions, “green” aviation technology, and infrastructure upgrades at the Kennedy Space Center.

More details will come later today when NASA releases its detailed budget documents, along with the telecon with Administrator Bolden.

I am also disappointed that the President did not take this opportunity to highlight the importance of NASA and human spaceflight, especially in light of reports casting doubt on the future of our space exploration program. Human spaceflight boosts our economy, helps develop countless new technologies, and supports thousands of jobs in Central Florida and across the country. Space exploration is also critical for inspiring this and future generations to excel in science and technology that will make us competitive in the 21st Century.
 
The President has pledged to minimize the spaceflight gap and Space Coast families are looking for him to fulfill that promise.  It will be unacceptable if his budget does not reflect a commitment to a robust human spaceflight program.