By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 22 at 1:04 pm ET When NASA decided to put $150 million of the $1 billion in stimulus funding the agency received this year towards development of commercial ISS resupply capabilities, although not specifically towards Capability D (crew transportation) of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, agency officials likely thought they were taking a prudent step towards eventually securing commercial access to the station. However, that decision was criticized yesterday by two senators in two different hearings, for very different reasons.
In Thursday morning’s hearing on the NASA FY2010 budget request by the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, ranking member Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) expressed his concern that money was being spent on ISS commercial options, either cargo or crew, rather than on Constellation. “I believe that manned spaceflight is something that is still in the realm of government, because despite their best efforts, some truly private enterprises have not yet been able to deliver on plans of launching vehicles,” he said in his opening testimony, specifically mentioning SpaceX. “The reality is that, out of four attempts, they’ve only delivered a single dummy payload to space, have never delivered any payload to the space station, much less a human.” He added: “However grandiose the claims of proponents” of COTS-D, “they cannot substitute for the painful truth of failed performance at present.”
“I ask, is this the hope we will hitch our dreams of the future of manned spaceflight to? Will unproven cargo capabilities close the manned spaceflight gap faster than the work NASA has done on Ares and Orion?” Shelby asked. “Are we to entertain the idea of placing people on a rocket that has yet to deliver a single real payload of any kind to space? I would have trouble, Madam Chairwoman,”—referring to Sen. Barbara Mikulski—”supporting a budget that is poised to eliminate a real, manned space program and instead maintains the fantasy of one.”
In a separate hearing Thursday afternoon by the Science and Space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee on the same topic, chairman Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) lit into NASA for not explicitly funding COTS-D. The $150 million that NASA is planning to spend, acting administrator Chris Scolese explained just before the hearing recessed briefly for a vote, is split into two pieces: $70 million for developing capabilities “that any visiting vehicle would need”, including developing human spaceflight rating requirements for commercial vehicles; and $80 million “to stimulate activity for commercial crew”.
After the hearing resumed, Nelson pressed Scolese for why NASA decided to spend the stimulus funding in that fashion rather than a “milestone-based demonstration flight”. “We believe we need to take a measured approach to developing commercial crew” because of the difficulty in developing such systems, Scolese responded. That means starting with activities that broadly help the community by establishing standards, he continued.
“But that wasn’t what the legislation said,” Nelson countered, referring to the 2008 NASA authorization act. That legislation includes a provision that required NASA to enter into funded Space Act Agreements with two or more entities “for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services crewed vehicle demonstration program.” Nelson said that $150 million was supposed to be funding for COTS-D (although I don’t see that in the version of the authorization bill signed into law). “And in this case you would not even have to pay until the COTS-D partner was able to successfully demonstrate that capability,” Nelson added. Later: “This is an example of where NASA has not followed the legislation.”
Nelson then asked Scolese if he thought $150 million would be enough to demonstrate a commercial crew capability. “We’d have to look at it, but I don’t think so,” he responded. When Nelson asked how much would be needed, Scolese thought it would be “several times that”. (SpaceX’s COTS-D option was about $300 million.)
“We had a unique opportunity this year, between the 2009 operating plan and the additional funds provided by the stimulus bill, and the development of the 2010 budget, to craft a COTS-D plan that would have funded the program at the level the folks needed,” Nelson said. “And that path was not pursued. NASA did not obey the law.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 22 at 5:12 am ET One of the issues that has come up in the consideration of former astronaut Charles Bolden as a potential NASA administrator was his work as a lobbyist for ATK. “It’s something that should be aired and discussed. I don’t know if it is a detraction or not, but it’s something the public should be aware of,” Victoria Sampson of the Secure World Foundation told the Huntsville Times earlier this week. Similarly, ScienceInsider, the science policy blog run by the AAAS, suggested yesterday that “Bolden’s past as a lobbyist for ATK… is raising concerns about a possible conflict with Obama’s ethics policy.”
So what is Bolden’s past as a lobbyist? It’s pretty short and uneventful, as it turns out. According to Congress’s lobbying database, Bolden registered as a lobbyist for ATK effective June 1, 2005, although the document wasn’t filed with the Senate until July 29. According to a mid-year report filed with the Senate on September 1, Bolden had received less than $10,000 of income for that work through the end of June. According to the original registration statement, Bolden was hired to assist ATK in an “Education Campaign on the design considerations of the next generation NASA launch vehicles, in particular the Shuttle-Derived concepts” by meeting with members of Congress.
A final document from ATK indicates that Bolden terminated his contract with ATK on September 15, 2005 and asked that Bolden be removed from the Congressional lobbying list, although it wasn’t filed with the Senate until nearly a year later. More interesting is the letter attached on the second page of that final filing from Bolden. “I was employed as a consultant to ATK for several months in 2005 and they improperly reported me as a lobbyist for them,” he states. “They subsequently sent a letter to the Senate Office of Public records [sic] requesting that I be removed from the Congressional lobbying list (enclosure).”
So Bolden was a registered lobbyist for ATK for a few months, recorded less than $10,000 in income, and eventually stated that the lobbyist registration was a mistake. Should this be an obstacle to a potential NASA administrator nomination? It does not run afoul of the White House’s executive order issued just after President Obama took office, which has only a two-year statue of limitations on lobbying activity. (It also, strictly speaking, refers only to “appointees”, not “nominees” for positions that require Senate confirmation.) If there are reasons why Bolden should not be NASA administrator, this, it seems, should not be one of them.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 20 at 7:58 pm ET Late Wednesday afternoon President Obama spoke with the STS-125 crew (MP3 file). Much of the talk centered around platitudes about the successful repair of the Hubble Space Telescope, but at one point in the conversation with commander Scott Altman the topic turned to the vacancy at the top of the space agency:
Obama: You know, here in Washington there’s a lot of talk about clarifying our focus, our vision for where the country needs to go. I really think that what you guys represent is an example of what vision means. The space program has always described our willingness to stretch beyond current boundaries and to look at things in new ways. So in that way you inspire us all. I’m hoping that you guys recognize how important your mission is to the world as well as to this country. We’re soon going to have a new NASA administrator. I can’t disclose it to you, because I gotta have some hoopla on the announcement back here on Earth, but I can assure you that it’s a high priority of mine to restore that sense of wonder that space can provide, and to make sure that we’ve got a strong sense of mission, not just within NASA, but for the country as a whole.
Altman: Well, we thank you very much Mr. President for your interest in NASA and in space exploration. We agree with you that this mission has, I hope, captured some of that spirit of exploration. And just so we’re sure, the new administrator’s not any of us on the flight deck right now, is it?
Obama: [Laughter] You know, I’m not going to give you any hints.
As for both who and when, NASA Watch has conflicting reports on the meeting between the president and Charles Bolden, with some sources claiming that the meeting “did not go well”, while others saying Bolden will be named “any day now”. Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Nelson continues to back Bolden, calling him the “best person in the world” for the job but professing ignorance at a couple of potential obstacles to Bolden’s nomination: Bolden’s brief stint as a lobbyist for ATK in 2005 and his service on the board of directors of GenCorp Aerojet.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 19 at 12:54 pm ET The AP confirms that President Obama met with Charles Bolden this morning, presumably to talk about the NASA administrator position. The only detail provided by a White House spokesman is that “The administration isn’t expected to announce a new NASA chief immediately,” according to the brief report.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 19 at 7:04 am ET The New York Post is probably one of the last pages you’d turn for commentary on space policy topics, yet on Sunday no fewer than three op-ed pieces on the future of space policy appeared in that newspaper. However, in general you’re not missing too much.
In one piece, former astronaut Tom Jones makes the case for essentially the status quo, continuing Ares 1 and Orion, although with adequate (read: increased) funding. “A review of NASA’s management and program execution is prudent, but also invites further delay in getting Orion flying,” he writes, referring to the pending Augustine review. “Building our first new manned spaceship in thirty-five years will be difficult, but NASA’s people are up to the challenge, just as they are proving with Hubble. If given the resources, I know they will launch Orion, and make it both safer and cheaper to operate than the shuttle.”
In another essay, Buzz Aldrin argues for a renewed emphasis on the ISS, saying it should be “an international global commons for the space faring community of nations — led by, not dominated by, America.” In particular, he calls on bringing China, India, and Brazil into the ISS. He doesn’t note that, for the time being, China appears more interested in continuing work on its own, more modest space station plans (not the mention the geopolitical and other complications associated with incorporating China into the ISS), and that Brazil was once supposed to provide its own small contribution to the ISS under an agreement with the US but bailed out because of financial problems.
Finally, Phil “Bad Astronomer” Plait claims “NASA needs a modern Apollo”. And what exactly would that be? Plait is vague, other than it would involve exploration and science and taking “the next giant leap”. (How it would be different from, say, the Vision for Space Exploration isn’t clear.) “I want NASA to push against the frontiers again,” he concludes. “We should give NASA more money, not starve it of what little it gets now.” Given how difficult it is to give NASA more money in even the best of times, it’s going to be really tough to do it now, especially with a vision as vague as this.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 19 at 6:42 am ET NASA’s FY2010 budget proposal will be reviewed this week by two Congressional committees. This afternoon the House Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing on the budget proposal, with acting administrator Chris Scolese as the sole witness. On Thursday afternoon the Science and Space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee will have its own hearing on the budget proposal, although no witnesses are listed for the hearing.
The hearings come, of course, just as NASA appears to be getting a new administrator, and also as the Augustine panel prepares to begin its review of NASA’s human spaceflight programs. All this raises questions about just how much emphasis to put on the budget, especially for the exploration and space operations portions of it. “We now have a budget that doesn’t really tell us much for certain about what we plan to do,” noted Jeff Bingham, on the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee, during an event Friday afternoon at CSIS’s Washington offices.
Update 12:45 pm: I left out one other budget-related hearing: the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee will have a hearing Thursday at 11 am, with Scolese as the sole in-person witness. There’s one minor twist to this hearing: the STS-125 crew is scheduled to “testify” at 12:30 pm while wrapping up their work in orbit.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 18 at 5:25 pm ET In an article in today’s issue of The Space Review, I noted that a lot of people in the space field had been experiencing “angst or impatience” about the lack of a NASA administrator nominee, something that would appear to be assuaged in the immediate future given the rumors that the administration is about to nominate Charles Bolden. Well, they’ll have to wait just a bit longer, it appears.
Bolden was indeed scheduled to meet with President Obama this afternoon, but was bumped from the schedule when the president’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu ran long. At the daily White House press briefing this afternoon, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that the meeting between Bolden and the president had been rescheduled for tomorrow morning. Gibbs added that the president was “anxious” to have strong leadership at NASA, and that he may have “something” to announce after the meeting, but was vague about exactly what or when.
And as for the comment by Bolden that “there is no truth in the rumors” about an impending meeting or nomination? Apparently he talked with Space News before talking with the White House about the meeting. However, it’s still odd he talked with that publication while, the day before, telling the Orlando Sentinel that he was “under an embargo” on discussing his possible nomination and related issues.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 16 at 4:30 pm ET As the news accounts of the impending (maybe) meeting between President Obama and potential NASA administrator candidate Charles Bolden mount, it’s interesting to see how different publications report on similar events, namely the White House press conference Friday where press secretary Robert Gibbs indicated that the President would be meeting with Bolden. Or did he? Florida Today thinks so:
President Barack Obama will meet Monday with former astronaut Charles Bolden to discuss filling a crucial vacancy at NASA, the White House announced Friday.
The president “wants to meet with somebody about filling the important role of future NASA administrator,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Friday.
Asked whether that meeting was with Bolden, Gibbs acknowledged, “He will meet with him Monday, and we’ll see how that goes.”
The Orlando Sentinel, though, doesn’t think so:
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed a Monday meeting between Obama and “somebody” about filling NASA’s top job but did not mention Bolden by name.
“He will meet with them on, on Monday, and … we’ll see how that goes,” Gibbs told a media briefing Friday.
If you read the transcript it would appear that Gibbs did respond to a two word question (“Charles Bolden?”) with an affirmative answer (“He will meet with him on Monday”). The press conference video (skip ahead to the 28:00 mark), though, is perhaps less conclusive: maybe he’s responding to the question (posed by CBS News’ Mark Knoller), and maybe he was completing a train of thought. You can probably find evidence for either depending on your point of view.
Also curious is that none of the other reports have cited the Space News report Friday where Bolden said “there is no truth in the rumors” about an impending nomination or even a meeting with White House officials about the position. Florida Today, for example, was unable to reach Bolden, and the Orlando Sentinel got in touch with Bolden Thursday, who said he was “under an embargo” and could not comment. (That makes Bolden’s comments Friday all the stranger: if he couldn’t comment Thursday, why could he say Friday that he hadn’t had any discussions about the position?) Perhaps we’ll get some more clarity Monday. Perhaps not.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 15 at 7:37 pm ET Throughout the day Friday news reports, like this AP report, indicated that it was virtually a done deal: Charles Bolden would meet with President Obama on Monday, and very shortly thereafter—maybe even that day—would be formally nominated to become NASA administrator. While the early reports were based on anonymous sources, that appear to be confirmed by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs in a press conference Friday afternoon:
Q And on Monday, Robert, will there be a NASA administrator announcement?
MR. GIBBS: I think you know that the President will meet with somebody that he hopes will — wants to meet with somebody about filling the important role of future NASA administrator.
Q Charles Bolden?
MR. GIBBS: He will meet with him on Monday, and we’ll see how that goes.
So it looks like a done deal: everyone’s saying Bolden will meet with the President and, most likely, be nominated. Until, that is, someone managed to talk with Bolden himself.
Space News reached Bolden on Friday and got a surprising response when asking Bolden about that planned meeting and nomination:
However, reached by phone May 15, Bolden told Space News he had not been asked to take the job and had no plans to meet with White House officials to discuss it.
“I am hearing the rumors, and as far as I know there is no truth in the rumors,” Bolden said. “You can’t say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ when you haven’t had a conversation. I haven’t had that conversation and I don’t have one scheduled.”
So what’s going on? Is Bolden really not in contention? Has the White House simply not gotten around to asking Bolden to come meet the President on Monday? Or was their some kind of miscommunication between the reporter and Bolden?
By Jeff Foust on 2009 May 14 at 10:50 pm ET One NASA-related highlight of the House Science and Technology Committee hearing that features John Holdren was his statement that a nominee for NASA administrator could be announced “soon”, as he said at one point in response to a question. Later, he said:
I also have some reason for optimism that the President will be nominating a permanent administrator for NASA very shortly, and that that will help put at least that concern to rest, because I think it will be an outstanding person. The President’s concern has been to get the right person for that job. That fact that we don’t have one until now is not for lack of effort.
That may sound promising, but it’s not the first time we’ve heard such statements. Holdren told Nature he hoped to have “a new administrator in place in the next month”—in an interview a little over a month ago, for example. And President Obama himself said he planned to make a pick “soon”—in comments back in March. So initially it was hard to get one’s hopes up too much about this.
But this time the value of “soon” might indeed be measured in days, rather than weeks or months. NBC News reported late this evening that the administration will nominate Charles Bolden after a White House meeting on Monday. (The article says that Bolden will be “appointed”; the position of administrator requires Senate approval, so it would only be a nomination.) The news comes from a source kept anonymous “because there was no official authorization to speak about it publicly”.
If true, though, (and keeping in mind that this is not the first time a nomination was said to be imminent) Bolden would be an interesting choice. After all, Sen. Bill Nelson has been pushing for him since Bolden’s name first surfaced in connection with the job in January, even while the Obama Administration considered other candidates, some of whom were reportedly rejected by Nelson and other members of Congress. Bolden would likely have a smooth, and possibly very rapid, confirmation process in the Senate, barring an unforeseen problem or anonymous hold. However, why would the administration wait until now to nominate Bolden? Had they run out of other potential candidates? Did they strike some kind of understanding with him and/or Nelson? And what does the nomination say—if anything—about the independent review of NASA’s human spaceflight programs led by Norm Augustine that’s starting soon?
|
|
