By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 13 at 6:46 am ET With five shuttle missions left on the manifest, many people on the Space Coast are gearing up for life after the shuttle. One member of Congress, though, appears set on making one more try to keep the shuttle alive. Florida Today reported Tuesday that Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL) “pledged to pursue” authorization for additional shuttle flights. Last year he introduced HR 1962, legislation that would authorize funding for at least two shuttle missions a year until 2015 or an alternative vehicle (Orion or an American commercial capability). The problem is that the bill has made no progress since its introduction last April (it was referred to the House Science and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee, which has taken no action on it), and in the unlikely event it someone how made it through Congress, there would still be the issue of appropriating the necessary funding—not to mention the technical issues of trying to extend the shuttle this late in its life.
A video accompanying the article includes some additional comments made by Posey at a community forum on the Space Coast. He at one point criticized both Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and, oddly, Midwestern farmers for not appreciating the benefits of space:
We take our weather report for granted; all that’s the result of space. People in the Midwest, farmers, say, “what do we care about space?” I mean, we heard the Speaker of the House say yesterday, er, last week, “oh, I’m not that sold on space, I’m not that much of a fan.” Apparently she doesn’t need her weather report, she doesn’t need all the other satellite communications we need.
Pelosi, as you may recall, was critical of human spaceflight in comments last month (not last week), but did not speak about other spaceflight issues like weather or communications satellites.
Posey, though, was not attempting to be partisan: at one point he was critical of former President Bush for creating the current space policy that is resulting in what Posey fears will be a seven-year gap between shuttle and Constellation. “If we continue on the space plan that, quite frankly, was first offered by Bush, we will be paying the Russians to take our astronauts back and forth to the space station,” he said.
Posey was also hopeful that President Obama would change that policy. “When the president was campaigning in Brevard County, he made the pledge that he would see that we stayed first in space and he would close the gap,” he said, comments that created an audible commotion (not quite booing, but close) from the audience. “Well, I’m still hopeful, I’m still hopeful that he’s going to do that.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 7 at 1:33 pm ET As the space shuttle enters what is most likely its final year of operations, Florida’s Space Coast region is growing increasingly concerned about what will happen to the local economy once the shuttle is retired and the thousands of jobs associated with it lost, particularly with uncertainly about the agency’s future direction. In an editorial today, Florida Today calls on President Obama to mention in space in his State of the Union address.
“President Obama faces the difficult task in his State of the Union address later this month to advance his plans for economic recovery and job creation, and should use that bully pulpit to announce a bold new course for NASA that can contribute to those goals,” the newspaper argues, drawing a parallel to President Reagan’s announcement of Space Station Freedom in his 1984 SOTU speech, when “the nation was struggling to recover from a deep recession that pushed unemployment over 10 percent” like today. (Of course, by early 1984 the recovery was well underway, with unemployment around 8 percent; not quite the same situation as today.)
The editorial quotes Sen. Bill Nelson, who claims that the president’s FY11 budget will “provide some additional juice” to NASA; similar to comments he gave this week to a Florida TV station. He adds that he believes the plan will include “continued testing of a new heavy-lift rocket for future manned missions”. The “continued testing” phrase would seem to refer to Ares 1, which performed its first suborbital development test, Ares 1-X, last October, but be contrary to others rumors that Ares 1 is on the chopping block.
The real concern of the editorial, though, is the effect any policy changes would have on regional economy. Others are aware of that as well: Florida Gov. Charlie Crist will be visiting KSC today as industry supporters, the Orlando Sentinel reports, “hope that the visit will lead to Crist backing the creation of a special fund to help diversify the aerospace industry” so that it’s less dependent on NASA. (Crist, it should be noted, is also a Republican candidate for the US Senate seat formerly held by Mel Martinez.) Nelson, meanwhile, assures Florida Today that he has told the White House about the potential impact of post-shuttle job losses on the Space Coast: “I have worn out those people reminding them.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 5 at 2:27 pm ET NASA administrator Charles Bolden didn’t make any major policy pronouncements in his speech Tuesday at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Washington, DC, although one wouldn’t expect him to in this “quiet period” before the FY11 budget release and any White House announcement about a chance in policy. “I’m sure all of you would like to know what direction President Obama will choose for the future of the space program,” he told a large audience of astronomers. “All I can say for now is that NASA is working closely with the Executive Office of the President in helping him determine the best path forward.”
He did, though, seek to assure the audience that there would be a future for NASA’s human spaceflight program, and that NASA’s science programs wouldn’t be made to pay for it. “The future of human spaceflight will not be paid for out of the hide of the science program,” he said, triggering a round of applause and cheers. Later, in response to a question about what kind of gap in human spaceflight there might be once the shuttle is retired, Bolden said, “I don’t know what the President’s decision is going to be. However, having been around him and talking to him and having watched him when he’s interfaced with astronauts and kids and everybody else, I do not see this President being the President who presides over the end of human spaceflight. I don’t see that.” (As for the gap, he said that if we don’t have some American-made option of putting crews in orbit by 2020, “we’re in big trouble, to be be quite honest.”)
Bolden also played up the need for enhanced international cooperation. “We must develop a stronger partnership with the international community,” he said. “The cost and complexity of space programs require that both the achievements and the costs be shared among many nations, for no one nation can carry this burden alone.” He cited as examples of potential international cooperation human space exploration, Mars sample returns, and future large space telescopes. He emphasized both in his speech and in the Q&A session that followed the need to make international partners “true” partners, “which means they sit at the table when you’re planning”, as opposed to offering them pieces of a specific architecture once it’s put together. As an example, he talked about how he encouraged the Japanese to develop versions of its HTV cargo vehicle that could return cargo, and from there a human-rated version that could transfer crews to and from the ISS.
He also indicated, though, that international cooperation would not be restricted to major flagship missions but also to smaller projects, and smaller “nontraditional” countries. He noted that he met with the head of Nigeria’s fledgling space agency at the IAC conference in South Korea in October. “They don’t do very much, but they want to be a part” of bigger programs. He added that he met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just this morning to talk about “how could we enhance or expand our international collaboration, involve some small, nontraditional partners in what we do.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 January 5 at 5:14 am ET Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) tells Central Florida News 13 that he is “cautiously optimistic” that the White House will provide additional money to NASA in the FY2011 budget proposal, due out next month, but wasn’t specific about what changes in direction the administration might make in the agency’s space exploration plans. “I think he will end up giving a strong go signal to continue to develop this program,” he told the TV station, without elaborating.
Nelson added that he expected an announcement from the White House on a new plan for the agency in advance of the release of the FY11 budget. “My sense is that the president will make this decision and announce it before he comes out with his next budget,” he said. Keep in mind, though, that Nelson said two months ago that he expected a decision around Thanksgiving; if any decision was made it was certainly not announced.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 29 at 12:31 pm ET According to THOMAS, HR 3819, the commercial launch indemnification regime extension, was signed into law by the president on Monday. The Senate approved the bill by unanimous consent last week, two months after the House passed the legislation. The bill extends the current system, where the federal government indemnifies commercial launch providers for any third-party damage that exceeds a pre-determined amount the provider must insure against, through the end of 2012.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 24 at 10:16 am ET Late Wednesday evening the Senate took a break from the health care reform debate long enough to approve by unanimous consent HR 3819, legislation that extends the commercial launch indemnification regime by three years, to the end of 2012. The non-controversial legislation was quickly disposed of near the end of Wednesday’s session, as the Congressional Record illustrates. The House passed the same bill two months ago, so it will go on to the President for his signature, and just in time: the current indemnification provision expires on December 31.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 22 at 2:52 pm ET POLITICO is reporting today that Congressman Parker Griffith of Alabama will switch party affiliations from Democrat to Republican. As the article notes, while the timing of the announcement may be a surprise, Griffith has been one of the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus and critical of his party on issues ranging from health care to missile defense. On space, he has cited on multiple occasions in recent weeks, including an STA breakfast in early December and a hearing the following week his frustration at the White House for not yet making a decision on space exploration policy. He also expressed his disagreement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about her comments that she’s not a “big fan” of space exploration and that any additional funding for it would have to be weighed against alternative programs for job creation.
It’s unclear right now whether his party switch will allow him to continue to be a member of the House Science and Technology Committee and its space subcommittee. When Ralph Hall of Texas switched parties in early 2004 he did maintain his seat on the committee (ironically, he was the ranking member of the committee at that time when he left the Democratic Party; he’s now the ranking member again as a Republican.)
Update: Griffith mentioned support for NASA as one of the reasons why he switched parties in his official announcement:
I have also been very concerned about support in Congress for our Defense and NASA programs. These programs are not only important to our community they are critical for the future of our nation. Since election to Congress I have fought hard to educate other members on the importance of a strong National Missile Defense program and that we must give our NASA programs more support if we are to maintain our lead in space. And while there are some great Democratic supporters of these programs I increasingly find that my allies in fighting for these initiatives come from within the Republican Party.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 19 at 10:52 am ET A likely battle in Congress in 2010 will revolve around the budget deficit and attempts to reduce it, given the massive deficit accumulated in FY2009. At the same time it appears that Congressional space supporters, and perhaps the White House, will be seeking additional funding for NASA in FY2011. Are these two efforts on a collision course?
In his WAAY-TV interview yesterday, Congressman Parker Griffith (D-AL) mentioned both NASA and deficit reduction as priorities. Asked at the end of the interview about what his priorities were in 2010, he said, “It’s the continuing funding of Ares 1 and Ares 5, pushing our job creation here, but, most important, America needs to reduce its deficit and retain and maintain its dominance in space and in our military.”
Griffith isn’t the only space supporter also positioning himself as a deficit hawk. In an op-ed in The Hill earlier this week, Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX), ranking member of the House Science and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee, complained about the willingness of the White House and Congressional leadership to spend. “In a recession with extremely limited resources, Congress has gone on a spending spree writing costly checks that taxpayers simply cannot afford to cash,” he wrote. And Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) introduced legislation in October to require a balanced budget. (The release notes that Shelby has “introduced similar legislation in every Congress since 1981″, which should give you an idea of its odds of success.)
Of course, NASA is a tiny part of the overall federal budget (just over half a percent in FY 2010), and increasing its budget, by $1 billion or even $3 billion, does little to budget deficits hundreds of times larger. (Likewise, cutting NASA alone doesn’t do much for deficit relief.) However, if Congress does get serious in 2010 about deficit reduction, any program that’s proposed to get an increase is likely going to come under special scrutiny. Are the agency’s supporters in Congress—particularly those who also cast themselves as fiscal conservatives—prepared to respond?
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 19 at 10:09 am ET When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi suggested that she wasn’t a “big fan” of human spaceflight and that any additional spending proposed for NASA would have to be compared to alternative projects “in terms of job creation”, it’s not surprising it didn’t sit well with space supporters, particularly in places where NASA does provide a lot of jobs. An example is a Florida Today editorial on Friday, which declared that Pelosi “clearly doesn’t get it” on the importance of the space exploration. “Pelosi is flat-out wrong in her skepticism about NASA’s job creation power,” the editorial claimed. It added: “She should come to the Space Coast to see for herself what’s about to happen unless President Obama and Congress support retooling NASA,” a reference to potential job losses in Florida’s Space Coast once the shuttle is retired.
Late Friday Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) issued a press release responding to Pelosi’s comments, including a copy of a letter Kosmas said she sent to Pelosi. The letter outlined some familiar economic and workforce issues linked to NASA, both in Florida and nationwide. “I urge you to join me in supporting a robust human space flight program that will provide long-lasting scientific, technological and economic benefits for our nation,” Kosmas’s letter to Pelosi concluded.
Congressman Parker Griffith also responded to Pelosi’s comments on Friday in Huntsville, where he spoke to Marshall Space Flight Center employees. “I appreciate the Speaker’s comments. I think as she informs herself more, becomes more acquainted with manned space flight, sees that we are in a space race with China, she’ll understand that this is not just about an event that takes place on TV in someone’s living room,” he told WAAY-TV there after his MSFC appearance. “This is about dominance of national security, research and development, space exploration, and manned space exploration is absolutely critically important. And I think as she understands that, knows a little bit more about it, I think her comments will change.”
We’ll see how persuasive a couple of freshmen members can be with the speaker…
By Jeff Foust on 2009 December 18 at 8:12 pm ET The White House and NASA reacted Friday to reports, such as the Science blog post late Thursday, that decisions had made about NASA’s future during Wednesday’s meeting between NASA administration Bolden and President Obama. Both organizations were clearly reading from the same script:
“The meeting with Bolden was informational, not decisional,” White House spokesman Nick Shapiro told Spaceflight Now.
“This conversation (between Obama and Bolden) was not decisional at all,” Morrie Goodman, NASA assistant administrator for public affairs, told Florida Today. “It was informational.”
“The meeting was informational, not decisional,” NASA deputy assistant administrator for public affairs Bob Jacobs posted on Twitter, in response to a comment by NASA’s Wayne Hale. “I know that’s a lot of ‘al’s.'”
Yes, that’s a lot of als, but the point’s clear: no decision has been made. Yet.
|
|
