By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 12 at 7:12 am ET Transition is in the air on Florida’s Space Coast these days. In addition to the impending Shuttle-Constellation transition, as well as the presidential transition, is the transition in the region’s Congressional delegation. Rep. Dave Weldon retired and his seat was won by fellow Republican Bill Posey, while Rep. Tom Feeney was defeated last week by Democrat Suzanne Kosmas. Having a pair of freshmen representatives during this critical time has some people in the region nervous about the implications for NASA.
In an editorial Wednesday, Florida Today argues that the two face different challenges in their efforts to support NASA and its activities on the Space Coast in the next Congress. For Kosmas, a Democrat who has requested a seat on the House Science and Technology Committee (where Feeney also served), she will be “in a position to make a case for additional funding and to build coalitions to push the agency’s lunar goals.”
Posey, a Republican who has not requested to be on that committee, and will not get Weldon’s seat on the Appropriations Committee, faces a tougher challenge, according to the paper: “He’ll join a severely weakened Republican minority and find himself in the middle of a fierce ideological battle within the GOP about the party’s future in the wake of last week’s drubbing at the polls.” Move too far to the right, the paper argues, and he could alienate potential Democratic allies and “could cripple his pro-NASA efforts before he’s even settled in.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 10 at 8:14 pm ET An article in this week’s Space News, republished on SPACE.com, notes that President-Elect Barack Obama “offered more specifics about his plans for NASA than any U.S. presidential candidate in history.” Those specifics include the six-page policy paper published by the campaign in August as well as a promise of an additional $2 billion for NASA to partially close the Shuttle-Constellation gap. But can he deliver? Former Congressional staffer Bill Adkins says yes, if Obama specifically asks for the extra money: “If Obama actually puts the $2 billion in [his budget request] that he promised in his campaign, I think Congress is likely to go along with it because it’s not big enough to have a fight over. If Obama doesn’t, I don’t see the mood in Congress to add the money.” Additional NASA funding could be added in one of the new economic stimulus bills being considered by Congress, perhaps during the lame duck session this fall.
Meanwhile, in this week’s issue of The Space Review, I examine some issues associated with implementing that policy, which was originally a tool to win votes on the Space Coast (and an largely ineffective one, given the outcome of the election) but is now seen as the blueprint for the new administration when it comes to space. The first, and perhaps biggest challenge, is determining who should lead NASA while deciding what to do with the shuttle and Constellation. There are other issues that it should consider, given the current state of the agency and overall policy, including whether to stick to the current deadlines of the Vision for Space Exploration; the need to act on, rather than just study, export control reform; and the importance of an open and effective new space council. Undoubtedly the NASA transition team is getting bombarded with suggests like the ones contained in this article, and it will be fascinating to see how they act to put the new administration’s stamp on NASA and national space policy.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 9 at 2:49 pm ET In an editorial in Sunday’s Florida Today, the paper calls on the new administration to focus on Constellation, not extending the shuttle despite calls for the latter. The editorial notes the recent GAO report that identified the shuttle retirement decision as one of 13 immediate issues facing the Obama Administration. “[F]lying the aging orbiters longer poses major safety risks and would siphon scarce money from the moon plan, which is why we favor pressing ahead on the next-generation vehicles,” the editorial argues.
In an essay for Discovery.com, former House staffer and NASA official Eric Sterner evaluates NASA’s current situation, good and bad, and calls the incoming president “the wild card in the mix” because of the change in position he made regarding Constellation during the campaign. “Does this change represent a true change of heart and the beginning of a commitment to our future in space, or an opportunistic campaign tactic to appeal to voters along Florida’s important space coast? That remains to be seen.”
An NPR article identifies space exploration as one of 13 key issues facing the next president; in its list it lies between telecommunications and labor organizing. NPR notes the gap between the shuttle and Constellation, then asks, “But can we afford space when we can’t afford better schools or health insurance for all?”
In Arizona, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat and member of the House Science and Technology Committee (and wife of NASA astronaut Mark Kelly), handily won re-election in her southern Arizona district over Republican state senator Tim Bee. But there’s a bit of sour grapes from at least one Republican about her victory, the Arizona Daily Star reports:
As an example of why Bee was a stronger candidate, [Arizona Republican Party executive director Sean] McCaffrey said one could “put two columns with numbers 1 through 10 on it” and list the accomplishments of Bee and Giffords.
“You could get through number 10 in Tim Bee’s column just in legislative accomplishments,” Sean McCaffrey said. “In hers you’d have to include marrying a spaceman. But that’s not to say she’s isn’t a wonderful person; she’s just not qualified to be a congresswoman.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 9 at 2:26 pm ET Sunday’s Huntsville Times includes a package of stories about the effect last week’s general election—including not just the presidential campaign but changes in Alabama’s Congressional delegation—will have on key issues for the area, principally missile defense and space. Some in the region are concerned that the transition to a Democratic administration, coupled with the retirement of senior lawmaker Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL), could mean cuts to projects like Ares and Orion.
Cramer’s newly-elected successor, Parker Griffith, also a conservative Democrat, said he will seek a seat on the House Science and Technology Committee, one of three committee posts he’s seeking. (Cramer had served on the Appropriations committee). In an interview with the Times, he described his position on Constellation:
Where do you stand on NASA’s Ares program, designed to take man back to the moon and eventually to Mars?
I am extremely pro-Ares I and Ares V. (A lot of that development work takes place at Marshall Space Flight Center.) I think we need to be especially sure that we accomplish V, which will be our large workhorse for NASA. That is absolutely critical for us to maintain our position as a leader in space exploration.
We will have intense discussion about whether to continue additional shuttle missions, which will involve money. (The shuttle program is set to be shut down in 2010.) We’ll have people on both sides of the aisle wanting to accomplish both things, possibly two more shuttle missions and the completion of Ares I and V.
It’s not clear from the statement whether the two shuttle missions means two on top of the additional shuttle mission for the AMS that Congress ordered this fall in the NASA authorization bill, or if it’s one additional mission plus the AMS one.
Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who is expected to return to his position as the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee dealing with NASA, remains hopeful about adding money to NASA’s budget:
“We’ll continue to deal with NASA,” he said, adding that Marshall Space Flight Center is in a key position. “You know, the role that Marshall plays … you can’t go anywhere in space without propulsion.
“We would like to see a larger NASA budget,” Shelby said. “It’s a big fight every year. … I hope to do it but we’re going to have some challenges and some political fights. But I’ll be there working for Marshall.”
Others, though, have mixed expectations for what the new administration will mean to NASA in general and Marshall Space Flight Center in particular. Mark McDaniel, a Huntsville lawyer and former NASA Advisory Committee member who is said in the article to be working with the Obama transition team, said to expect more funding for the sciences and aeronautics. “The vision of the next White House is very much one that would rely on science and technology as a mission for NASA,” he said.
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, though, doesn’t think there will be much emphasis for “lunar exploration” in the Obama Administration. “Although Obama has expressed support for human spaceflight later in his campaign, after saying he would shift that money to other programs, I wouldn’t think it will go to pay for lunar exploration,” he said, adding that “unmanned science will probably be the focus” for NASA in the new administration.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 7 at 7:33 pm ET Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) has a little bit of space advice for President-Elect Barack Obama: keep NASA administrator Mike Griffin in his post, at least for the time being. A Nelson spokesman told the Orlando Sentinel that Nelson wants Obama to wait until the new administration has a “surefire” replacement for Griffin before asking him to resign. Nelson didn’t indicate who, if anyone, he had specifically in mind, but in Nelson’s opinion it would be one who would “stay the course” with the current exploration program but also extend the shuttle.
One other item from the report: according to the article, former NASA associate administrator Lori Garver, a familiar figure in space policy circles, is leading the Obama NASA transition team.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 6 at 9:28 pm ET A ripple of concern, bordering on panic, has been going through the commercial space community this afternoon. It started with a post on National Review Online today that named Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as a potential candidate to become Secretary of Transportation in the Obama Administration. This led some to worry, recalling that, back in late 2004, Oberstar tried to block passage of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (CSLAA). (He also, a few months later, introduced legislation to try and roll back some of the provisions of the CSLAA; the bill was referred to the House Science Committee, where it was never heard from again.) Commercial space advocates fear that a Secretary Oberstar could hinder the development of suborbital and orbital commercial human spaceflight through a reinterpretation of existing regulations, if nothing else.
However, before you fire off angry missives to the Obama transition team or march outside your nearest spaceport wearing a sandwich board reading “The End Is Near”, there are some things to keep in mind:
Oberstar is not the only candidate for the job. While National Review only listed Oberstar, transportation trade publication Traffic World reported this week that a number of people are being considered for the job, including Oberstar but also others ranging from Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell to New York City traffic commissioner Jeanette Sadik-Khan. And, as the article notes, “Transportation industry executives close to the Obama campaign, speaking on condition of anonymity, say it is more likely, however, that the incoming administration will seek to put a new stamp on the department through new appointments less familiar to Washington’s political establishment.” And Oberstar, who won election to his 18th term this week, is certainly part of the establishment.
Oberstar may not be interested in the job. Oberstar told Minnesota Public Radio Thursday that it’s “unlikely” he would accept the position if it was offered to him. He didn’t rule it out (and he may only be playing coy to avoid looking too interested in the position), but he said he would need a “meeting of the minds” between himself and Obama to ensure they shared the same transportation agenda.
Space would likely be a low priority for Oberstar. While people point to his opposition to the CSLAA, he has done nothing—at least of any significance—on the subject since introducing the ill-fated HR 656 back in early 2005, even after Democrats regained control of the House after the 2006 elections and elevated Oberstar to the chairmanship of the transportation committee. As Transportation Secretary, his time would likely be occupied on road and bridge infrastructure issues and air traffic control modernization. (And maybe riverboats.)
Commercial space has its advocates in, or connections with, the new administration. Recall what New Mexico governor Bill Richardson said last month: “But here’s what I want to be sure of: that the Obama Administration is pro-commercial space.” A move to change regulations in such a way that would jeopardize the state’s nearly $200 million investment in Spaceport America would not sit well with Richardson, who supported Obama in the primaries.
To be clear, Oberstar as Transportation Secretary would not be a positive development for commercial space in that he would not be an advocate for it. (Although it would be interesting to see a Sec. Oberstar show up to a Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) meeting at FAA headquarters. Awkward!) However, it’s far less certain that he would become Transportation Secretary than that initial report indicated (especially when you consider that National Review is unlikely to have any great insider contacts within the Obama team), and even if selected, would likely not devote a lot of attention to commercial space transportation given the press of all the other, much bigger, issues.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 6 at 12:55 pm ET What does the impending retirement of the space shuttle have in common with US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, oversight of food safety, the 2010 Census, and the transition to digital TV? They’re all issues the Government Accountability Office has identified as “urgent policy concerns” that, they believe, “require prioritized federal action”. Regarding the shuttle specifically:
The administration needs to move quickly to nominate and fill key leadership positions within NASA because the decision on whether to retire or continue operating the Space Shuttle will need to be made soon.
In order to preserve this investment option for the next administration, NASA needs to retain the workforce, facilities, equipment, and suppliers necessary to continue operating the Space Shuttle.
In its brief discussion of the issue, the GAO argues that extending the shuttle beyond 2010 “may offer the best course for the future of the International Space Station” given concerns about relations with Russia and the gap in US access, government or commercial, if the shuttle is retired in 2010. (It doesn’t note that extending the shuttle does nothing for long-term access, since the shuttle can’t take the Soyuz’s role as a station lifeboat.) “However, extending the shuttle could also have significant consequences on the future direction of human spaceflight for the United States. Specifically, NASA is counting on the retirement of the shuttle to free up resources to pursue a new generation of space flight vehicles that is anticipated to come online in 2015.”
The GAO also has additional information about NASA-related issues facing the next administration, including completion of the ISS, development of Constellation, balancing investments in the agency’s various programs, and improving financial management.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 6 at 7:24 am ET Some news and notes from the aftermath of Tuesday’s election:
In Florida, Congresswoman-elect Suzanne Kosmas is seeking a seat on the House Science and Technology Committee, an assignment the man she defeated for the job, Tom Feeney, also had. Congressman-elect Bill Posey, who won the seat vacated by Dave Weldon, apparently is not interested in the Science Committee and is unlikely to win a place on the Appropriations Committee, where Weldon served, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
The Houston Chronicle is worried that the defeat of Congressman Nick Lampson “potentially could erode congressional support for NASA” in general and the Johnson Space Center, in Lampson’s district, in particular. Lampson had been promised the chairmanship of the Science Committee’s space subcommittee had he won reelection.
Congressman-elect Parker Griffith, who won the seat vacated by Bud Cramer in northern Alabama, is looking forward to meeting with the next defense secretary and NASA administrator. “I would much prefer sitting down with them over anyone else I can think of,” he told the Huntsville Times.
The defeat of a tax referendum in Otero County, New Mexico, will not derail plans for Spaceport America, backers of the commercial spaceport told the Las Cruces Sun-News. The tax would have provided a few million dollars towards the $200-million cost of the spaceport, and spaceport officials are looking at alternatives, including both federal financing and taxes in other counties in the area.
Whither the Obamanauts? Despite the energetic efforts of Democratic space advocates on the Space Coast, Obama did not win Brevard County, and while the margin of victory for McCain was narrower there than it was for George W. Bush four years ago, similar changes in margin were seen in other counties in the state outside the region. Nonetheless, their candidate did win the state and the overall election, so what’s next? According to NewScientist.com, they may become “watchdogs” to ensure President Obama follows through on his space policy proposals. Alternatively, they could take on a more general role to raise awareness about space policy.
Finally, an election that has nothing to do with space, but has some ties to a space traveler: Sonia Chang-Diaz was elected to the Massachusetts Senate, winning a seat in Boston. She is the daughter of former NASA astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 5 at 7:34 am ET The outcome of the 2008 Congressional elections had little influence on the standing of space in the Senate. The most prominent advocates of NASA and space policy, including Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Bill Nelson (D-FL) were not up for reelection this year. One senator with a strong interest in military space issues, Wayne Allard (R-CO), did not run for reelection; his seat was won by Mark Udall, who had been chair of the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee. Overall, little change.
The story, though, is different in the House, and for space advocates not for the better. In addition to Udall, two other House members, Bud Cramer (D-AL) and Dave Weldon (R-FL), also did not run for re-election; both served on the Appropriations Committee, although not on the subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA. A bigger blow, though, were the reelection defeats of Reps. Tom Feeney (R-FL) and Nick Lampson (D-TX); Feeney had been the ranking Republican on the House Science and Technology Committee’s space subcommittee, while Lampson had been promised the chairmanship of that subcommittee had he won.
While these members are generally being replaced by new Congressmen who are, at least on paper, similarly supportive of space (one exception is Udall’s House successor, Jared Polis, whose campaign web site doesn’t include space, science, or technology among his issues), they’ll be at the bottom of the seniority ladder. It will be an opportunity for other members to step up, such as Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA), who had been the vice-chair of the space subcommittee and presumably would be in line to chair the subcommittee after Lampson’s loss. The chair and ranking member of the full science committee, Bart Gordon (D-TN) and Ralph Hall (R-TX), will be back, as well as another staunch space advocate on the appropriations committee, John Culberson (R-TX). It will, though, be a time of transition in the House just as NASA approaches its biggest transition since the end of Apollo.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 November 5 at 7:05 am ET All the attention that space policy got in the 2008 general election for president was primarily focused on Florida’s Space Coast: the state was a swing state in the election, and Brevard County was considered part of the so-called “I-4 corridor” stretching through the central part of the state that was key to winning the state, . So how did the election go in Brevard County, one of the few places where space policy is a major issue?
| Obama |
127,400 |
44% |
| McCain |
157,402 |
55% |
Compare that to the state at large:
| Obama |
4,066,057 |
51% |
| McCain |
3,866,641 |
49% |
So Obama won the state by nearly 200,000 votes, but lost in Brevard by 30,000 votes. The I-4 corridor did play a role in the outcome—Obama won neighboring Orange County, which includes Orlando, with 60% of the vote—but the Space Coast wasn’t anywhere near the deciding factor. The outcome in Brevard wasn’t that much different from 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection with 58% of the vote in Brevard, in an election where space was rarely mentioned by either candidate. So were voters on the Space Coast convinced that McCain had a better space policy in their eyes than Obama, or was space simply overshadowed by other issues?
|
|
