By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 10 at 9:11 pm ET Earlier today, a day before the full House is scheduled to take up HR 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, the Office of Management and Budget released a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the bill. And the White House is not too happy with the bill in its current form:
The Administration supports maintaining a strong national civil space science and aeronautics enterprise and is committed to advancing the quest for new knowledge, discovery, and exploration that is embodied in NASA programs and activities. However, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6063 because it mandates specific Space Shuttle flights that greatly threaten NASA’s ability to retire the Shuttle in 2010, an action that is critical to implementing the President’s Vision for Space Exploration. In addition, the Administration has other serious objections to several provisions of H.R. 6063 that must be satisfactorily addressed prior to final congressional action on reauthorization legislation.
As the excerpt suggests, the administration’s biggest concern with the bill is the provision that mandates that NASA carry out the two “contingency” shuttle flights currently on the manifest as well as add one for carrying the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to the ISS. “The direction in this section would almost certainly result in several serious impacts and risks to NASA’s exploration programs and other activities, including: (1) significantly increasing costs of the Shuttle program, not including potential recertification activities; (2) delaying the operational capability of the Orion CEV well beyond its current projected dates; (3) exacerbating transition challenges, including facilities and workforce; and (4) exposing astronaut crews to increased risks. In addition, statutorily mandating additional flights regardless of safety assessments and costs sets a dangerous and unwise precedent.”
The administration has several other problems with the bill, including a provision that mandates COTS awards for crew capabilities, several technology development requirements, and a requirement for continued operation of the ISS beyond 2016. The administration is also opposed to the topline authorization of $20.2 billion, compared to the administration’s proposed FY2009 budget of $17.6 billion.
While the White House states that it is “strongly opposed” to the bill, nowhere in the SAP does the administration make any threat to veto the bill if approved in its current form, something it has not hesitated to so in the past, particularly with appropriations bills. It is, though, clearly a warning shot across the bow of the bill’s supporters in Congress.
Update: Wednesday morning’s Houston Chronicle reports that Houston-area members of Congress, Democratic and Republican, continue to support the bill despite the SAP. (The article oversimplifies the NASA authorization bill, claiming it would “hand NASA $2.9 billion for three additional shuttle flights to the international space station before retirement of the shuttle fleet in 2010″; the additional money is for more than just the shuttle flights.)
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 10 at 7:19 am ET There was one additional item in Rep. Tom Feeney’s press release about the Cape losing Orbital’s Taurus 2 business. The full House, he said, will take up HR 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, on Wednesday.
The web site WashingtonWatch.com has its own analysis of the bill, claiming that the bill will cost the “average family” $190.88 (or $60.98 per person). That seems to be based on the authorized spending level for FY09 in the bill; the actual cost will depend on exactly how much ends up getting appropriated, which could be significantly less.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 10 at 7:07 am ET Outside of New Mexico, which is putting nearly $200 million of state and local money into a new commercial spaceport, no two states have been more active in space policy and related economic incentives than Florida and Virginia. For the last few months, the two states have also been competing against each other to win the launch business of Orbital Sciences Corporation, which was considering both Cape Canaveral and the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) on Wallops Island as the launch site for the Taurus 2, its planned medium-lift launch vehicle the company is developing as part of its COTS cargo system.
Yesterday, Orbital made its decision, picking MARS over the Cape, much to the glee of politicians in both Virginia and Maryland. The announcement merited a press release from the office of Virginia governor Tim Kaine (a person, incidentally, touted as a potential running mate for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama), with quotes from a number of local officials in both Accomack County, where MARS is located, as well as Loudoun County, where Orbital is headquartered.
The announcement also triggered an enthusiastic press release from Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), a supporter of government and commercial activity at Wallops (in part because many of the people who work there actually live across the border in Maryland.) How enthusiastic? “This is the biggest thing to hit the Eastern Shore since Captain John Smith’s anchor!”
The announcement triggered some soul-searching from Cape supporters, like Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL). Feeney thanked state officials, including Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, for putting together an incentive package to try and lure Orbital to the Cape. “Today’s disappointing announcement highlights Florida’s need to redouble our efforts to attract space business to Cape Canaveral.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 6 at 8:35 pm ET This week The Rideau Institute, a Canadian think tank, along with the Canadian Auto Workers union, issued a white paper outlining a plan to revise Canadian space policy, an issue that has been on the minds of many in Canada’s space community in recent months, in light of the Canadian government’s decision to block the sale of the space unit of MDA to ATK, a US company. While that deal is now dead, the debate about the sale set off a debate about Canada’s future in space.
Both Rideau and the CAW (which represents a number of MDA employees) opposed the sale, and see the aftermath as an opportunity to reexamine what the Canadian Space Agency and the rest of the government should be doing on space issues. “While cancelling the sale is laudable because it preserves a mainstay of the Canadian space industry, more must be done to keep a vibrant space industry in Canada,” the report argues. “Positive changes must be made so that companies involved in the space sector can rely on a clearly outlined long-term government commitment.”
The report makes a a number of recommendations, including bringing in a permanent president of the CSA: the agency has had three presidents since former astronaut Marc Garneau resigned in 2005 to pursue a political career, and the current president, Guy Bujold, is set to leave in October. The report recommends a number of other national initiatives, including the formulation of a national space policy. The report also calls on Canada to lobby the US for more ITAR exemptions to make it easier for Canadian companies to do business in the US. As one might expect, the report asks for a major increase in CSA’s budget, to bring it line with other G8 countries, from about $300 million/year now to $870 million/year by 2012, or about $1.53 billion in overall new spending over a five-year period.
These arguments are not dissimilar to those made by Chris Gainor in this week’s issue of The Space Review, who states that the debate over the MDA-ATK deal exposed the “neglect” Canadian space programs have suffered under for years. “The aborted sale of MDA placed Canada’s space program on the political agenda for the first time since the CSA was formed in 1989, and has provided a warning of the consequences of continued neglect of the space sector by the Canadian government,” he wrote. “Canada’s space program has been a source of pride for Canadians and a success in terms of generating business for Canadian high technology firms. Now Canada has been put on notice that these successes will not continue without governmental action.”
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 6 at 8:13 pm ET Congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) is facing a rather strong challenge in his bid for another term in the House, and what he has done—or not done—for space could play a role in the outcome, the Orlando Sentinel reported Thursday. His Democratic challenger, Suzanne Kosmas, is arguing that Feeney has not done enough to save jobs in the Space Coast region of the state that are in jeopardy when the shuttle is retired in 2010. “He hasn’t placed a focus and priority on maintaining those jobs,” she claimed, a charge that, naturally, Feeney disputes. “When she says things like that, her total lack of understanding of space is evident,” he countered.
The root of Kosmas’s charges is that Feeney has not done enough to support increased NASA budgets that would close the Shuttle-Constellation gap and improve the situation for workers on the Space Coast. It is true that it has been the House that has been the obstacle in getting things like the billion-dollar “Mikulski Miracle” passed, as was the case last year, although what more Feeney—who is in the minority and is not an appropriator—could have done isn’t mentioned. The Sentinel adds that Kosmas herself is not totally fluent on space issues, noting that “she could not answer questions on the planned use of Russian spacecraft by American astronauts”, among other NASA policy issues. However, if Kosmos is able to plant the seed in voters’ minds that Feeney somehow did not do enough to fund NASA and save jobs at KSC, it might well make a difference in a race that is currently considered a toss-up by some observers.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 6 at 12:37 am ET Republican presidential candidate John McCain is willing to spend more money on NASA and consider human exploration of Mars, according to a report on washingtonpost.com. McCain, meeting with Florida newspaper editors, said, “I’d be willing to spend more taxpayers dollars” on NASA. How much more money, he doesn’t say (or at least washingtonpost.com doesn’t report), nor how that would fit into his plans for a discretionary spending freeze if elected.
He added that he had an interest in sending people to Mars that dates back to reading Ray Bradbury’s The Martian Chronicles. “I’m intrigued by a man on Mars. I think it would excite the imagination of the American people… Americans would be very willing to do that.” Exactly how that intrigue would translate into policy (if it would at all), though, isn’t mentioned.
The AP account of the meeting brings up a different issue: McCain would “support continuing space shuttle missions” beyond 2010 and that he wants the US to have “a better set of priorities” for the space program. That last point sounds a little bit like what Barack Obama has been saying about reviewing the agency’s direction.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 5 at 1:26 pm ET The House Science and Technology Committee unanimously approved HR 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008, during a markup session on Wednesday. Space News [subscription required] reported that the committee made only minor changes to the bill, including a new provision that requires the Office of Science and Technology policy to examine “the merits of establishing a commercial launch range in close proximity to a federal launch range”. The committee rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-CA) that would have exempted NASA from a provision of an energy bill passed last year that prevents NASA from using alternative fuels when those fuels produce more emissions than conventional counterparts.
Also, the bill picked up three new cosponsors, all members of the full committee: Nick Lampson (D-TX), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and David Wu (D-OR). The bill has to be considered by the full House, and the Senate has yet to take up its version of the legislation.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 4 at 6:16 am ET Sen. Bill Nelson said last month that he had been talking to Barack Obama about space policy and taking credit for changes in Obama’s recent statements. But Nelson is not the only member of Congress counseling Obama on space issues. Rep. Bud Cramer (D-AL), whose district includes NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, told the Birmingham News that he had talked to both Obama and Hillary Clinton about space and missile defense:
“I had a terrific meeting with Barack Obama a few weeks ago,” Cramer said. “I was very impressed with Barack Obama … I think he’s likely to be the nominee and I want to continue to be a voice to his campaign about space and missile defense.”
Cramer said Obama had positions about space exploration and how far along the space agency was in funding a return trip to the Moon and on to Mars.
He said Obama made it clear that the exploration program was not just a signature of the Bush Administration, but one that many congressmen had wanted for years.
“I wanted them to look at the issues more thoroughly … I just got a commitment that they would,” he said.
Now to get Obama, as of last night the presumptive Democratic nominee, to make those “positions about space exploration” a little more clear…
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 4 at 6:04 am ET Later today the full House Science and Technology Committee will mark up, and likely approve, HR 6063, the NASA Authorization Act of 2008. On the eve of that markup, the AIAA formally endorsed the legislation and urged the House to pass it. In that press release and accompanying statement, AIAA president George Muellner praised a number of the bill’s provisions, including increased authorized funding for exploration as well as a requirement for the government to carry out another study on the effects of export control on the aerospace industry.
By Jeff Foust on 2008 June 3 at 7:36 am ET As last week’s ISDC panel proved, getting the presidential campaigns to talk about space in any detail is difficult: policy comes out in dribs and drabs at town hall meetings and speeches, but rarely to the level of detail desired by space advocates. The argument made for that lack of detail is that space is not a major campaign issue. That runs contrary to what Sen. Bill Nelson said last month, when he said that space policy was “mightily important” to winning Florida, and possibly even Ohio, two critical battleground states in the November election.
Countering Nelson, and upholding the conventional wisdom on the topic, is NASA administrator Mike Griffin, who told Orlando Sentinel space editor Robert Block last Saturday that space was not a major issue in the presidential campaign:
Block: Since we last talked have any presidential candidates or their campaign people come to NASA yet?
Griffin: No. But the same would be true if you asked about the Social Security Administration or Veterans Affairs, or the Department of Energy, or anything else in government. All of the presidential teams are focused on getting elected. They are not focused on running the government if they get elected. It’s just not the way campaigns work
Block: Yes, but with the role Florida could play in an election…
Griffin: Space is not an election issue. Iraq is an election issue, the economy is an election issue, the deficit is an election issue, but space is not an election issue and they are not focused on it. And I don’t expect them to be.
Doubtless for some people space is a campaign issue, but it’s almost certainly a tiny fraction of the overall electorate. There are places, like Florida’ Space Coast, where space is a bigger issue, but as the Florida Republican primary demonstrated, space policy is not a deciding factor even there.
|
|
