Space Politics

In an op-ed that appeared in Thursday’s edition of The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, Congressman Ralph Hall (R-TX), ranking member of the House Science and Technology Committee, makes the case for increasing NASA’s budget. The arguments he makes in favor of NASA are pretty standard: the US needs to stay ahead of encroaching international rivals like China and India, NASA gets a tiny part of the overall federal budget, the agency and its technological contributions help the economy, and the space program encourages students to pursue science and engineering careers.

Hall in particular is concerned, like many others, about the Shuttle-Constellation gap. “Accelerating development of the Constellation system would keep American tax dollars working for us here at home and have a multiplier effect throughout the economy by stimulating high-tech manufacturing and networks of suppliers around the country,” he writes. “The extra, relatively small investment to fully fund NASA would provide incalculable economic and national security advantages.” He does not specify, though, exactly how much additional money would be needed to “fully fund” NASA.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the seniority spectrum, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who won the seat last November previously held by Dave Weldon, tells TCPalm.com that he has asked the chairman and ranking member of the House Budget Committee for extra money for NASA for both extending the life of the Shuttle and accelerating Constellation. “Neither the U.S. nor the rest of the world can afford to rely on China or Russia to transport materials into space,” he writes. “[T]hese two nations just don’t have the technology or the success record that we have had with space.” (That may come as a bit of a surprise to the Russians, given their proud history of numerous space firsts.)

Posey also notes that he has written to President Obama to ask him to select a nominee for NASA administration “as soon as possible”. “NASA cannot afford to remain without an Administrator at this critical juncture. Major decisions are being made that will greatly affect our nation’s future in space,” he writes in the letter to the president. “If this transition is not done right, not only will thousands of American workers at the nation’s space centers and their families be severely and adversely affected, but our nation’s leadership in space will further erode.” All good arguments, but how likely is the president to be persuaded by a freshman representative of the opposing party?

The shuttle is still scheduled to retire in 2010, with a several-year gap to follow until Ares 1 and Orion are ready to enter service. As a result, thousands, if not tens of thousands, of jobs at the Kennedy Space Center and the surrounding Space Coast region are in jeopardy during one of the worst periods for the national economy since the Great Depression. And it’s all your fault, Sen. Bill Nelson.

Well, not really, but it’s not difficult to get that impression from an Orlando Sentinel article today that some in the industry, as well as a former Congressman, had pinned their hopes on Nelson as an “angel” to watch over those interests, only to have apparently failed them. Nelson is criticized for not winning more for spaceflight programs in the stimulus bill (one “space-industry executive” called Nelson’s approach to winning support for NASA funding in the legislation “pathetic”, according to the article) as well as not convincing the Obama Administration to extend the shuttle’s life beyond 2010. Retired Congressman Dave Weldon said he was “disappointed” with what Nelson has accomplished on the issue, but added that “I know that he has tried.”

So does Nelson deserve all this blame? The article doesn’t note that the $400 million set aside for “exploration” in the stimulus bill—the part most likely to directly benefit KSC—was $400 million more than what was in the House version of the bill; the Senate version of the stimulus bill, supported by Nelson, had $500 million for exploration. And while Nelson boasts of his influence on Obama’s shift on space policy during the campaign—he tells the Sentinel “I took it upon myself to counsel with candidate Obama” on space—how much influence he really had then, or has now, is less certain.

The article correctly explains that Nelson’s influence in the Senate is limited because he is not an appropriator, and thus he (and his Space Coast constituents) are at a disadvantage compared to Sens. Barbara Mikulski and Richard Shelby, the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate appropriations subcommittee with oversight of the NASA budget. However, while the Sentinel quotes Weldon about his disappointment with Nelson, it only mentions in passing that, for his last several years in Congress, Weldon was an appropriator himself, including a stint as vice-chair of the House subcommittee with NASA oversight—and even he wasn’t able to prevent or mitigate this situation.

If Floridians are really concerned about the economic fallout from the shuttle’s retirement, they may want to cultivate some more “angels” in Congress rather than rely on a single individual, especially one with limited access to the federal purse strings.