By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 20 at 8:26 am ET As the Bush Administration wound down to its end today, it, like other outgoing administrations, has been taking steps to try and shape its legacy. One form has been a a series of publications titled “The Bush Record” that identifies what, in the administration’s own view, it has accomplished in the last eight years. How does space policy figure into this? Not much.
“A Charge Kept: The Record of the Bush Presidency 2001-2009″ makes only a couple of tangential, at best, mentions of space: a reference to “space defense” among a list of “new defenses” the administration supported as part of a “new approach to strategic deterrence”, and a mention that civil space is one of several new areas of cooperation between the US and India. In “Highlights of Accomplishments and Results” doesn’t say anything about space policy that isn’t found in a standalone appendix, “100 Things Americans May Not Know About the Bush Administration Record”. That document does mention the national space policy that the administration enacted in 2006, curiously putting it under the “Helped American Workers and Businesses Remain Competitive” heading:
Created a new National Space Policy to ensure the continued free access and use of space for peaceful purposes and to help advance America’s economic competitiveness. Protected our national interests in space, governed the conduct of U.S. space activities, and enhanced the domestic space technology market.
How exactly the 2006 revision of the national space policy “enhanced the domestic space technology market” isn’t clear. Interestingly, the document doesn’t make any mention of the Vision for Space Exploration, the policy that radically altered the course of the space agency for the last five years. Bush’s January 14, 2004 speech announcing the vision is also missing from “Selected Speeches of President George W. Bush”, although that document does include Bush’s brief speech in response to the Columbia accident on February 1, 2003.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 19 at 4:59 pm ET In today’s issue of The Space Review a couple authors take different tacks on reforming how NASA procures hardware and services. In one piece, Derek Webber advocates moving from cost-plus to fixed-price contracts for the space agency. Such a switch would avoid cost overruns and allow for milestones to monitor whether the contractor is making progress. As for space being “different” somehow and thus not fit for fixed-price contracts, Webber, the former director of procurement for Inmarsat, responds:
Don’t tell me that you cannot use fixed-price contracting for space technology because it is so special, or so difficult, that nobody would take the risk of competing and winning, and then possibly losing money on the deal. Well, welcome to the real world! That’s the normal commercial risk that well-managed companies face all the time in deciding whether to bid or not, and at what price, for new equipment or services. We build bridges and buildings that way. And, ever since the early 1970s, communications satellites have been designed, built, and launched entirely on the basis of fixed-price contracts. Nevertheless, each new generation has pushed the technology envelope to its limits in order to meet the needs of the satellite services industry.
Meanwhile, Taylor Dinerman is concerned about the growing use of contract protests for government procurements, primarily in the defense sector but increasingly in the space arena, given PlanetSpace’s announcement that it is protesting the ISS Commercial Resupply Services contract awards made last month. “It now seems that once a contract has been awarded its fulfillment relies on the goodwill or a calculated decision by the loser not to contest,” he writes. “This effective veto power will eventually strangle the entire system and force through a set of reforms—possibly on an emergency basis—and the results will not be pretty.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 17 at 11:34 am ET Earlier this week is appeared that former Air Force major general Jonathan Scott Gration would be nominated this week as NASA administrator. However, the week has come and gone, and although Mike Griffin had his farewell ceremony Friday at NASA headquarters, there has still been no formal word on who will succeed him.
In an article that will appear in next week’s Space News and posted online last night [temporary link], Gration is still seen as the likely nominee. The article does note that Sen. Bill Nelson’s comments critical of Gration may have created a “potential roadblock”, particularly since Nelson sits on the Senate committee that will hold hearings on the nomination. The article cites a statement from Nelson on Friday (not (yet) published on the senator’s web site) where he says he wants Griffin’s replacement to be someone like Griffin himself, who Griffin called a “good man” and a “good administrator”: “I am hopeful that the administration’s selection to replace him has similar experience and knowledge of the space program as Mike does.”
Also noted in the article: Charlie Bolden, the former astronaut who got attention (and Nelson’s endorsement) last week as a potential candidate for the job, said he still hasn’t been contacted by anyone on the Obama transition team about the job—which seems to suggest that, at this late stage, he’s not a likely candidate for the job.
One other bit of trivia: Gration was among the guests at a “small dinner” with the president-elect in Washington last week to talk primarily about foreign policy issues.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 17 at 11:11 am ET Earlier this week House and Senate leaders announced the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009, which includes, in the words of the press release announcing the bill, “$550 billion in thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.” (emphasis in original) The good news for NASA supporters is that bill does include $600 million in funding for the space agency. The bad news, at least for some, is that the legislation’s “thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments” doesn’t necessarily match up with their priorities: $400 million for Earth sciences work, including both instruments and funding for scientists; $150 million for aviation safety of NextGen air traffic control; and $50 million for hurricane and flood repairs to NASA centers. In other words, no money for accelerating Constellation, extending the shuttle, funding COTS crew capabilities, or anything else that might address the shuttle-Constellation gap.
At least one member of Congress, though, is trying to change that. In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Congresswoman Susan Kosmas (D-FL), who took office this month after defeating Tom Feeney in November, asked them to add $2 billion to the stimulus package towards human spaceflight programs. “If the goal of this legislation is to stimulate our economy, support science, and maintain and create high-tech jobs,” she wrote, “there is no better place to dedicate resources than to our human spaceflight program.” She appears to be focusing exclusively on accelerating Constellation: her letter notes that that “infusion of funds will accelerate the Constellation program”, but doesn’t discuss any kind of shuttle extension or other uses for the funding.
Whether a member of Congress whose seniority is measured in days, not years, can have any influence on this bill, though, remains to be seen.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 15 at 7:10 am ET Wednesday came and went without a formal announcement of whether former Air Force Major General Jonathan Scott Gration would be the next NASA administrator (despite one publication jumping the gun). It’s also not at all clear how certain the selection of Gration is: while initial reports indicated that Gration was all but a lock to get the nomination, the Washington Post reported that “the selection is not a done deal” but could still be made prior to Tuesday’s inauguration. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Gration is not “an automatic lock” to get the job. The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] said that no final decision has been made, but could be forthcoming in a few days, adding that Lori Garver is the leading candidate to become deputy administrator.
However, enough reports have suggested that Gration is the leading candidate to generate a public reaction from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), and not necessarily a positive one. A Nelson spokesman released a statement to numerous publications, including the Houston Chronicle, expressing his concern at the lack of Gration’s NASA experience. “I think President Bush made a mistake when he appointed someone without NASA experience in Sean O’Keefe to head the agency,” the statement read. “I hope President Obama’s pick will have that kind of (NASA) background.”
It turns out, though, that Gration may have a bit more of a space policy background that first thought. SPACE.com reported that Gration helped draft the Obama campaign’s space policy white paper released in August. Exactly what role the former general played, though, isn’t described in detail.
Gration also got an endorsement from Hans Mark, for whom Gration worked for when the officer was a White House Fellow assigned to Mark, NASA deputy administrator, in 1982-83. Mark on Gration: “He’s a good judge of people. He’s a good leader. He knows who to listen to.”
And what about Charles Kennel, the Earth scientist who attracted attention a week ago as a potential candidate for the job? While Kennel’s prospects have apparently faded—if he was, in fact, a serious candidate for the job#8212;he’s keeping quiet about the topic when contacted by the Sentinel: “A rumor by any other name is still a rumor. In such a circumstance, silence is golden.”
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 14 at 7:23 am ET In perhaps his last meeting with reporters, NASA administrator Mike Griffin warned yesterday that the agency could be forced to lay off contractors if the existing continuing resolution is extended, the Houston Chronicle reports. Griffin didn’t say how many positions would be at risk, but did say they would primarily come from Constellation, which would get a half-billion dollars less than planned if the CR is extended for the full fiscal year. The paper adds, though, that “Griffin’s comments reflected a timeworn practice by agency chiefs who often use dire warnings to try to persuade lawmakers to ante up additional funds.”
In the same briefing, Griffin said that increasing NASA funding, perhaps as part of a stimulus package, would create jobs as well as “shore up the U.S. leadership in aerospace”, according to Reuters. “If you accelerate Ares and Orion as shuttle replacement vehicles, you provide immediate jobs to all of the aerospace states, which is quite a large number. That’s immediate. I can start buying parts tomorrow if I have the money,” he said.
That’s such a great idea to James Pinkerton, writing for Fox News, that he advocates putting “space exploration at the center of the new stimulus package” that the new administration will request from Congress. That interest in space exploration is less a desire to explore the universe, though, and more to exploit the perceived geopolitical benefits of being a leader in spaceflight. “Space exploration, despite all the bonhomie about scientific and economic benefit for the common good, has always been driven by strategic competition.” Pinkerton’s idea of “space exploration” is also apparently broad enough to include missile defense.
The more pessimistic case comes from The Hill, with this headline: “Recession may ground space flights” and this lede: “President-elect Obama will have to decide the fate of the costly U.S. space program amid a global recession and skyrocketing deficits.” It’s a bit hard to follow the author’s logic, though, when saying that the $3 billion a year proposed to extend the life of the shuttle is “even more expensive with a $1.2 trillion fiscal-year deficit as a backdrop”; with deficits that high, $3 billion is lost in the noise. The article also plays up comments by Congressman Barney Frank last fall that opposed human spaceflight, noting that “Frank’s comments are particularly interesting given the integral role he’ll play in the country’s economic recovery as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.” But as the discussion to the post linked to above noted, Frank isn’t involved in appropriations any more than the typical member (he can, like other members, propose amendments during floor debate on appropriations, as he as done in the past), and his committee will be pretty busy this year dealing with TARP and other bailout issues.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 13 at 11:23 pm ET Both NASA Watch and Space News are reporting this evening that a new and relatively unknown (in the space community) choice for NASA administrator has emerged: retired Air Force major general J. Scott Gration. (The Space News report is more certain, saying that Gration has been asked to take the job, and could be formally nominated as early as Wednesday.) As you can see from his Air Force biography, the former fighter pilot has virtually no obvious space experience, the exception being his stint as a White House Fellow, where he worked for NASA deputy administrator Hans Mark, but that was over a quarter-century ago (1982-1983). It’s safe to say he didn’t show up on most people’s shortlists to become administrator prior to tonight.
Gration, who retired from the Air Force in 2006, does have one key attribute: a close relationship with the incoming president. Gration was an early supporter of Obama and became a key military policy advisor during the campaign: according to a 2007 Newsweek article Gration accompanied Obama on a 2006 tour of Africa (Gration is the son of missionaries in the Congo, and is fluent in Swahili) and was apparently quickly won over by Obama. If Gration is indeed the selection, is will likely trigger a debate regarding whether it’s better to have someone with good White House connections but little/no space background running NASA versus someone with a much more space experience but weaker ties to the administration.
Trivia: if the announcement does come Wednesday, it will be made five years to the day after President Bush made his speech at NASA Headquarters unveiling the Vision for Space Exploration. Coincidence?
One other development: the Washington Blade reports that David Noble will be the “White House’s liaison” to NASA, according to a “prominent Democratic activist”. Noble joined the Obama campaign in June, leading efforts to mobilize gay voters. His background doesn’t indicate any space policy experience.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 13 at 7:38 am ET In yesterday’s issue of The Space Review, I write a more detailed article about Mike Griffin’s speech last week where he defended Constellation against the various alternatives proposed to replace it. A couple of items in the report that I didn’t mention in my previous post on the topic:
- Grififn said he would not necessarily be opposed to extending the life of the shuttle beyond 2010 as one means of shortening or eliminating the gap in US government human spaceflight and any loss in international stature that may result from that gap. However, those in the “highest levels of government” who made the decision had to be aware of the risks associated with extending the shuttle, and the $3 billion a year needed to carry out two shuttle missions a year had to be new money added to NASA, not taken from other programs.
- Congressman Ralph Hall (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the House Science and Technology Committee, said he endorsed keeping Griffin at NASA in remarks introducing the administrator. He hoped to communicate that desire in a phone call with President-elect Obama, but Hall was not available when Obama called his office, and later, his home, in response to a congratulatory note Hall sent Obama after the election.
A couple of related articles in Monday’s issue: Michael Huang tracks down some language in a CBO report that might have been the source for Obama’s original proposal to delay Constellation by five years, and Joan Vernikos and Kathleen M. Connell argue for the need for real, substantial change at NASA, including greater use of the ISS and more technology development and Earth sciences research.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 13 at 7:21 am ET
- While the House Science and Technology Committee has not released its membership for the new Congress yet, freshman member Parker Griffith (D-AL) says he’s won a spot on the committee. Griffith won the seat vacated by Bud Cramer, who retired; Griffith’s district includes Huntsville and NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.
- Who isn’t the Obama NASA transition team meeting with? A pair of former MSFC officials met with the team to discuss “Marshall and Huntsville space issues”, according to the Huntsville Times. Meanwhile, Steve Kohler, the president of Space Florida, met with the team on Friday to talk about, naturally enough, Florida space issues.
- NASA’s inspector general office was panned in a GAO report published Friday, noting that of the 71 reports issued by the office in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, only 1 has “recommendations to address the economy and efficiency of NASA’s programs and operations with measurable monetary accomplishments”, a key mission of the office.
- While it’s easy to poke fun at President Bush for referring to an “Orion rocket or Orion launching vehicle” in an interview with Texas reporters, give him credit, with everything else he’s had to deal with, for knowing enough about what’s going on at NASA to remember the Orion name itself—even if it’s not a “launching vehicle”.
By Jeff Foust on 2009 January 9 at 7:51 am ET No, the title is not the battle cry of supporters of current NASA administrator Mike Griffin, but it does have a cameo role in the saga of who might replace him. Read on…
There is a certain fascination within some elements of the space advocacy community with polls. Get enough people to vote in a survey of some kind and the issue will become more prominent with decision makers or other people of influence. The best example of this was the effort last year to submit and vote up space policy questions solicited by the CNN-Politico presidential candidate debates. That effort succeeded in the sense that space questions were, for at least some of the time, the most popular questions in the survey, but was ultimately a failure: no space questions were used in either debate.
A smaller-scale version of the above is taking place now, involving the “Open for Questions” section of Change.gov, the Obama transition team’s web site, where people can submit and vote on policy questions the new administration should consider. The Mars Society sent out a notice earlier this week asking people to vote up space-related questions on the “Science & Technology” portion of the site. The highest-ranked space question I could find there this morning was #21, and not terribly coherent: “What exactly is the plan in space exploration? Appointing a bureaucrat instead of a scientist leads one to the conclusion that NASA is not going to be used to inspire hope, instead, that it is going to the wayside. What is the plan?” It’s not clear what “Denver Gal” meant in her question about “appointing a bureaucrat instead of a scientist” in this context.
Given this fascination with polls and surveys, it’s not surprising that on Wednesday I saw a note (posted on the microblogging service Twitter) that a survey about who the next NASA administrator should be was posted at obamanasa.org. The site actually redirects to a survey at a site called UserVoice (“Customer Feedback 2.0 – Harness the ideas of your customers. Build great products. Turn customers into champions”). And, sure enough, you can vote for any number of people or nominate others.
One problem with this approach is that the voting process is not that intuitive. One of the first things you notice is a bright orange box with the text “10 votes left!” Huh? Should I hurry and vote now before the votes run out? Instead, it means that you have ten votes to cast (once you register for the service). No archaic one-person-one-vote system here: you can distribute votes among several people, and even give people more than one vote. Unfortunately, if there’s only candidate you like, you can’t give him or her more than three of your ten votes: the rest either go to waste or have to be distributed to others.
Another glitch I noticed is that it’s difficult to get a firm grasp of exactly how many votes each candidate has—something you wouldn’t think would be a problem, given the lack of hanging chads and absentee ballots. I checked the site simultaneously this morning on two different computers, running two different browsers, and got two slightly different vote numbers.
And then there’s the issue of the candidates. When the site was first announced Wednesday afternoon, it was clear it had spread among fans of NASA Ames director Pete Worden, who jumped into an early and significant lead even though he’s not thought to be on the transition team’s short list. Over time, though, given the open nature of the vote (anyone can nominate pretty much anyone) other candidates appeared. Some are quite serious: Lori Garver, Alan Stern, Charles Bolden, and even current administrator Mike Griffin.
But also there were people who decided to take the poll out for a joyride. As of Friday morning, the candidate with the most votes by far was Phil Plait, the “Bad Astronomer” blogger. In third place, right behind Worden? Wil Wheaton, best known as Wesley Crusher on the Star Trek: The Next Generation series. Other top vote-getters include Andy Ihnatko, a technology columnist; Stephen Colbert, who must be qualified since he is America, after all (and so can you!); and 80’s pop star Rick Astley (who sang the song in the title of this post). Yes, that’s right: the poll on who should run NASA has been rickrolled. (Don’t click on the link associated with Astley’s entry. Just… don’t.)
So what’s the purpose of such a poll that’s now been hijacked by people voting for TV personalities and pop stars? When the poll was first released I asked (via Twitter, of course) Andrew Hoppin, who announced the poll, what its purpose was: would it be used for anything more than an afternoon’s entertainment?. His response: “more than entertainment? Not sure,”, adding that he’s “interested in what people think out side the NASA community.” Now we know, although perhaps we wish we didn’t.
|
|
