By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 12 at 7:12 am ET More members of Congress are talking about the need to increase NASA’s budget. But how much action is really taking place?
On Friday Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), chair of the House Science and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee, reiterated her call for additional NASA funding in a presentation at the Sea Space Symposium in Washington. The Augustine committee, she said, “performed a valuable national service by making it clear that ‘you can’t get there from here’ under the budget plan included in NASA’s Fiscal Year 2010 budget request.” (She was far less charitable about the committee’s work in last month’s hearing.) “I believe that it provides an opportunity for President Obama to step up and embrace a robust budget for NASA and use our civil space program to both inspire and benefit all of our citizens.”
Another member pushing for a NASA budget increase is Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who tells the suburban Cleveland newspaper News Sun that he wants a $3-billion-a-year increase to “restore research ‘so badly damaged’ under the Bush administration.” Kucinich, though, isn’t a fan of commercialization: he warns that such ventures “would lead to more privatization of government functions and loss of civil-service technical jobs.” Kucinich said he’s made his funding request in letters to NASA administrator Charles Bolden and presidential science advisor John Holdren.
Meanwhile, Rep. Parker Griffith (D-AL) played up a meeting last week with Bolden about the future of the space program and the role that the Marshall Space Flight Center, located in Griffith’s district, will play. “As we await the full release of the Augustine Commission Report, we know that the Ares program is our best option to provide our nation with reliable access to space,” Griffith said in the statement, although it was unclear who he meant by “we”. Griffith added that Bolden “possesses a perfect mix of realism and ambition” for the job. “Commitment from the administration is our only concern at this point.”
And in today’s Florida Today, John Kelly reads between the lines of recent statements to conclude that the White House is considering raising NASA’s budget. Kelly cites statements last week by the president about spending more on science (statements he also made months ago, prior to the creation of the Augustine committee) as a sign that he’s considering boosting NASA’s budget.
“Certainly, there’s been more talk in Washington of significantly hiking space spending in the past week or so than there has been in a very long time,” Kelly writes. But even in Washington talk will only get you so far—and action to increase NASA’s budget is still lacking.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 9 at 5:16 am ET Days after the majority of the Texas Congressional delegation pushed for diverting stimulus funding to NASA to support the agency’s exploration efforts, members of Florida’s delegations are making similar calls. In a speech on the Senate floor on Thursday, Sen. Bill Nelson also asked for a transfer of $3 billion of stimulus funds to NASA, adding that his staff “has identified other possible revenue sources for future years”, without mentioning specifics. Besides the usual arguments about maintaining US leadership in space, inspiring youth, and more, Nelson mentioned the ability of that funding to, well, stimulate the economy:
The Augustine Commission notes that the time may finally be upon us when commercial space companies can begin to carry some of the burden of our access to space. Many of these companies are already developing capabilities to enable the commercial resupply of the International Space Station.
This ability, according to Augustine, is critical to ensuring our ability to operate the Station beyond 2016 and to maximize the return on what has become a substantial investment.
But these commercial endeavors serve another equally important function: they create whole new industries, and with that, new jobs for Americans.
Opening up to the private sector what has historically been limited to the realm of the government will enable economic growth, stimulus, and prosperity for many Americans.
The Orlando Sentinel reported that Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) is arranging a request for stimulus funds from the Florida delegation that’s similar to the Texas letter. Left unanswered is where the stimulus funding would come from (while unspent, it’s not unallocated, and Congress would have to reappropriate it) and how NASA would spend it.
Meanwhile, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) gave a speech on the House floor Thursday about space. Most of the three-minute speech, part of special order speeches at the end of the day before a mostly empty chamber, focused primarily on the spinoffs generated by NASA. Only towards the end did make a general request to help the president keep his promises to keep his promises to close the shuttle-Constellation gap and remain first in space. He didn’t make any specific calls for additional funding, only that Congress should do “our level best” to keep those promises.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 8 at 1:29 pm ET Last night David Letterman’s top ten list was “Top Ten Signs The Head of NASA Is Nuts”. While timed to the impending lunar impact of NASA’s LCROSS mission, the list came out just after NASA administrator Charles Bolden appeared at the White House, and just before he spoke at a Space Transportation Association (STA) breakfast on Capitol Hill. And while it’s clear he’s not nuts—there was no lunar rover parked outside the Rayburn House Office Building this morning, and he was not wearing a space helmet—his talk (a video of which is available, courtesy of SpaceRef) revealed that he does think a little differently than conventional wisdom in Washington.
“I think I can make a difference, but I can’t do anything if we don’t change the way we operate,” he said in his speech. He recounted a time in the early 1990s, when the future of space station was on the line, when he met with Congressman John Lewis to lobby him to vote for the project: a 15-minute visit that stretched on to an hour where Lewis, as Bolden recalled, did all the talking. “He talked to me for an hour about the importance of human spaceflight and the importance of exploration and what it will do for our nation,” he recalled. Yet Lewis said he wouldn’t vote for the space station because NASA didn’t do anything in his home district, and that he felt he would risk his seat if he voted for the station.
“I learned a valuable lesson,” he said. Members of Congress didn’t spend their time trying to figure out “how to screw NASA today” or other programs, for that matter. He also recalled the “lapel pin fiasco” from last year’s presidential campaign, when whether or not candidates wore American flag lapel pins on their suits got media attention. “We pick trivial things about which to make critical decisions,” he said. “What I hope to do here in my tenure as NASA administrator, no matter how short it is, is to try to unite people in something that I think is critically important.”
A little later in his speech he made similar comments. “I’m not here to get used to this culture. I don’t want to get used to this culture. But if you will allow me to do the job you asked me to do, I’ll do it and I do it well.” Also: “I won’t talk about politics. I don’t do politics. For those of you who want to teach me, I don’t want to learn.”
Bolden revealed in his speech that when he initially turned down the job of NASA administrator. “When the president asked me to take this job, I told him I didn’t want this job.” He said he was later convinced by “his vision” when he met with Obama face-to-face, including the story about a young Obama waving at Apollo astronauts when they arrived in Hawaii after their missions. “He gave me one instruction when I finally said yes. He said, ‘I want you to make NASA inspire young people again,'” he recalled. “I made a deal with him: if, a year from now, Sasha and Malia [the president’s daughters] don’t have an interest in science and math, you can fire me.”
On some key issues, notably the Augustine committee’s work, Bolden had much less to say. He noted that when the Augustine committee went into their work the ISS “was off the table” as something that wasn’t worthwhile. They were convinced otherwise, he said, by testimony from both the international partners and US businessmen. Most of the options contained in the committee’s summary report now extend the life of the ISS to at least 2020.
The final report should be out soon, he said, noting it might come out next week while he’s in South Korea for the International Astronautical Congress. It will be up to the White House to then take the results and make policy decisions. Bolden said he’s had “a number of meetings” with John Holdren, the presidential science advisor, on the topic, but offered no timetable for any policy decision.
“I know you’re frustrated,” he said. “Let me tell you, I’m frustrated. But that’s just the way the process works around here.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 8 at 6:31 am ET A reminder that the Review of US Human Space Flight plans committee will be holding a telecon today at 1 pm EDT for the “finalization of scoring of options” contained in their summary report. The telecon will be streamed online for those who can’t get into the limited phone bridge.
Meanwhile, the manager of NASA’s Constellation program, Jeff Hanley, had a strong and negative reaction to the Augustine committee’s summary report, Florida Today reports. Hanley wrote a 3,376-word email to JSC director Mike Coats complaining about several aspects of the committee’s report, including its treatment of crew safety and its emphasis on commercial launch options. At one point, in response to a section of the report that states that development of the Ares 1 under the current plan would delay development of the larger Ares 5, Hanley wrote, “This paragraph demonstrates either an intentional mischaracterization of the facts or a clear lack of understanding of Constellation.” Neither NASA nor committee members responded to the inquiries about Hanley’s email.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 8 at 5:47 am ET The president assembled quite a group at the White House last night: NASA administrator Charlie Bolden and deputy administrator Lori Garver, former astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Sally Ride, and science advisor John Holdren. A space policy summit? Nope, a star party, attended by 150 middle schoolers with a focus on science education, not space policy. Obama’s brief speech at the event didn’t drop any hints about NASA’s future, and Holdren wasn’t offering any hints, either:
Asked by a reporter what he would say if a middle school student asked him if America is returning to the moon, Holdren said simply, “We will certainly go back to the moon at some point.”
And would the administration be willing to put another $3 billion into human exploration? “We’ll be looking at that,” he said.
Earlier in the day President Obama spoke at the awards ceremony for the National Medal of Science and National Medal of Technology and Innovation, an event also attended by Bolden and Holdren. Obama did not explicitly mention space policy in this speech either, instead focusing on education as well as previously-announced plans to increase federal spending on R&D to 3 percent.
However, Spaceflight Now’s Craig Couvalt reads between the lines to conclude that the administration is likely to request additional funding for NASA’s human spaceflight program. Sources tell Couvalt that Holdren has had “unofficials sessions” with members of the Augustine committee and received the options presented in the report “favorably”. Holden, he reported, “expressed optimism that the White House can help with funding shortfalls toward modification of the Bush plan.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 7 at 7:37 am ET In a speech on the Senate floor Monday to introduce the Senate’s version of the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that worked on the bill, fired a few shots at the Augustine committee and its report. “While I commend the Augustine Commission for their hard work, I find many of the aspects proposed in their summary report to be unsatisfactory and disappointing,” the text of his speech reads. He didn’t go into details about what specifically he found “unsatisfactory and disappointing”, but it should be little surprise that he’s a big supporter of the current Constellation architecture. “This program is built on a foundation of proven technologies, using existing capabilities and infrastructure.”
Shelby also made this curious statement: “And yet, instead of simply providing Constellation with funds to move forward, it is delaying the current mission while seeking to have a do-over on plans that have been authorized by both a Republican and Democratic Congress.” However, NASA is not delaying Constellation: it is continuing work on its various aspects as it awaits any new policy direction from the White House, something explicitly stated when the review was announced in May.
Shelby also threatened to oppose any change in NASA’s direction that doesn’t pass muster with him. “NASA, and this administration, should never forget that the support of Congress will still be necessary to authorize and provide funds as we move forward,” he said. “Mr. President, I will not support any future NASA budget request that does not have a robust human exploration program.” Given that the Augustine committee found that the current plan at its current funding levels (whose appropriations have been shaped in part in recent years by Sen. Shelby) is not executable, one might wonder if NASA has a “robust” program today.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 6 at 8:40 am ET Yesterday most of the Texas Congressional delegation—both senators and 26 of its 32 representatives—sent a letter to President Obama asking him to direct additional stimulus funding to NASA. Specifically, the letter requested that the White House request a redirection of $3 billion in stimulus funding from unspecified programs to NASA to provide initial basis for the additional funding the Augustine committee identified as necessary for NASA.
One reason they asked for the redirection of stimulus funding is that it’s late in the FY2010 budget cycle, so therefore it would presumably be easier to get the additional money that way than through the conventional appropriations approach (the full Senate is expected to take up the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, which includes NASA, this week.) A second argument is that, as Congressman Pete Olson notes in the release accompanying the letter, “only 15% of the $787 billion in ARRA funds have been spent”. That statistic is a little misleading, since only about $581 billion of the $787 billion is actually stimulus spending (the rest are tax cuts); of that $581 billion, $107 billion (over 18%) has been spent and an additional $144 billion is “in progress” of being spent, according to ProPublica. That leaves $330 billion left to spend: still a lot.
A second issue is that this provides a short-term solution only: the Augustine committee identified a need for an increase of at least $3 billion a year, not a one-time stimulus. The Texas legislators’ letter to the president recognizes this, noting the need for “the projection of at least that level of increase, as recommended by your Committee, at a 2.4% rate of inflation in the out-year projections included in the initial FY2010 Request.” However, Congressional appropriators have been reticient to provide even a fraction of that level of increase to NASA in the past, and it seems unlikely future Congresses will be as spendthrift as the current one. Getting $3 billion in stimulus money only defers the problem; it does not solve the agency’s budget issues.
Of tangential interest: the ProPublica data shows that NASA has been one of the laggard agencies in spending what stimulus money it did receive: only $27 million of the $1 billion it received has been spent, although nearly $400 million more is in “progress”. Only four agencies—the EPA, the Departments of Energy and the Treasury, and the NSF—have spent a smaller fraction of their stimulus funds to date.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 3 at 11:24 am ET NASA announced Friday that the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee will hold another meeting on Thursday the 8th via teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is the “finalization of scoring of options the committee presented in their summary report” released last month. (The meeting is being held via teleconference and the public can call in, although only about 300 callers can be supported; the committee staff is looking into a webcast option to allow more people to listen in.) No other testimony or public input will take place in the meeting.
This is further indication that it’s going to be a little while longer before the full report is released. As previously reported, the committee was not expected to deliver its final report until mid-October. When I asked Jeff Greason about the status of the final report in Boston earlier this week, he said the committee members were reviewing final drafts of the full report, but didn’t have an estimate when the report would be complete.
Meanwhile, Space News reports that the White House has requested Congress restore $670 million in NASA exploration funding cut in the House version of an appropriations bill. The letter, from OSTP director John Holdren, asked that funding be restored in the final version of the bill “in anticipation of a forthcoming presidential decision on NASA’s manned spaceflight future”. This is not the first time the administration has criticized that cut: in June, shortly after the House appropriations subcommittee acted on the bill, a Statement of Administration Policy from OMB stated that the White House was “concerned” about the cut. “This large reduction would likely cause major negative impacts to any options that may emerge from the ongoing blue ribbon review of U.S. human space flight plans,” the statement added.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 1 at 6:46 am ET One of the featured speakers at yesterday’s Space Investment Summit 7 in Boston was Jeff Greason, president of XCOR Aerospace. Rather than talk about his company, though, Greason talked about his work as a member of the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka the Augustine committee), providing his own perspectives and viewpoints on the committee and its work (emphasizing that he was not speaking for the committee but instead providing his own opinions). A few highlights follow.
Greason said he was approached by George Whitesides at NASA to be on the committee; he initially expressed concern about the time commitment but was assured by Whitesides that it would be no more than a “one-quarter time” effort. Instead he found himself, and other committee members, working 90 hours a week. “Right from the beginning of the program I learned about the value of NASA budget estimates,” he joked.
He noted that one of the key challenges faced by NASA in implementing the current exploration plan, or alternative options, was the high cost of simply running the organization. “NASA is an organization that is dominated by fixed costs. In business terms everything is in the overhead,” he said. The committee delved into agency financial accounts and estimated that the fixed cost of maintaining NASA’s human spaceflight enterprise is approximately $6-7 billion a year. “The bottom line is that they can’t afford to keep the doors open with they money they’ve got, let alone do anything with it.”
Projecting high levels of spending over long periods of time is also unwise, he said, because it’s vulnerable to changes in policy or the economy. “The number one carryaway lesson from the Apollo program that nobody ever seems to realize is: what’s the most important fact about the Saturn 5? We don’t have it any more. Do you know why? We canceled it because we couldn’t afford it.”
With that in mind, the committee said it considered Mars as the ultimate destination for human space exploration, but rejected it as the immediate destination because of technological immaturity and high costs. “If we did it we’d be sorry because we’d be Apollo all over again: we’d go there a few times and then we’d stop doing it.”
That lead to various options that either return to the lunar surface or go to other destinations (the “flexible path” option), that all prepare for eventual missions to Mars. All are necessary, he said, to prepare for Mars. “Literally the only question left is what sequence you do them in,” he said. “However, if you anticipate a world of budget constraints, there is a more obvious choice,” namely, the flexible path. That option spreads out the development costs since there’s no need for developing the lander and surface systems up front if you start with lunar orbit and NEO missions. “Unless you anticipate living in an Apollo-like era again, where NASA gets this huge infusion of funding that only lasts for a short time, one of them seems to lend themselves better to a budget-constrained environment than the other one.”
One of the most important findings of the committee, he believes, is the discussion of why to do human spaceflight, something of considerable discussion here. Science and international relations benefit from human spaceflight, but can’t alone justify the spending on it. “The reason why we’re going to space is because we’re going to live there some day,” he said. “This is what the future is about… It’s time for the real justification for human spaceflight to come out of the closet.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 October 1 at 5:59 am ET The AIAA announced yesterday that it will host an online broadcast of a panel discussion about the Augustine committee report on October 5. The panel, moderated by David Livingston of The Space Show, includes Frank Culbertson, Scott Horowitz, John Klineberg, Elliot Pulham, and Harrison Schmitt. The audio-only broadcast is scheduled for 2 pm EDT on the 5th, with this caveat in the AIAA release: “Scheduling is subject to the actual release of the final report”. The final full report has not been released yet, and and may not be out until mid-October as committee members work on final drafts of the document, so either the event will be postponed or the panelists will soldier on without it.
Update 6pm: according to David Livingston, the AIAA plans to go ahead with the panel on Monday even though the full report won’t be released until later in the month.
|
|
