Space Politics

A lower profile for space in Florida’s House

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 20 at 7:23 am ET

Florida Today reported this weekend that the Florida House of Representatives is disbanding a committee devoted to space issues. The House Spaceport and Technology Committee had been created just two years ago, but the incoming speaker, Marco Rubio, decided to eliminate it as part of his “philosophy of less government and consolidation,” according to one representative. Space issues will now be assigned to existing committees on economic development and transportation.

Another appropriations reorganization?

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 16 at 7:20 am ET

Remember all the hubbub two years ago when Republicans led by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay revamped the various appropriations subcommittees? As part of that reorganization NASA went from being part of the VA-HUD-independent agencies subcommittee to part of the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce subcommittee. (DeLay’s desire to put NASA in a more favorable legislative environment, where it would no longer have to vie with veterans’ programs and low-income housing, was said to be a major reason for the reorganization.)

Now that Democrats have control of the House, they may be making organizational changes of their own. In an article in the Wheeling Intelligencer, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), who is in line to become chairman of the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce subcommittee, said the subcommittee “could likely” be broken down into smaller subcommittees. (“Could likely” doesn’t sound that definite.) One subcommittee would handle NASA and other independent agencies. Mollohan is apparently interested in such a subcommittee chairmanship, but could also be assigned to those that oversee VA and HUD; he said he will have to “wait and see” where he’ll serve.

Another take on space weapons

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 16 at 6:54 am ET

In an essay in the online publication World Politics Watch, Richard Weitz reviews the international controversy about space weaponization triggered by the release of the new national space policy last month. The key section of his essay is the following:

The major source of tension between the United States and other nations results from the military logic underpinning the new space policy. Typically, countries react to external threats in two ways. On the one hand, they can seek to resolve their disagreements through arms control — either with detailed treaties or less formal “rules of the road” agreements specifying appropriate practices (e.g., a possible prohibition on illuminating foreign satellites with lasers). On the other, they can rely on the classic tools of defense and deterrence — combining unilateral protection measures with threats of retaliation against hostile actions.

However, as Jim Oberg noted in his article in The Space Review earlier this week, one of the flaws in proposed bans on space weapons is a lack of a verification mechanism. “If it all comes down to blind trust of non-binding ambiguous promises, why bother with signing anything at all, ever?”

Centennial Challenges: another voice

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 15 at 1:01 pm ET

Given that another post generated a vigorous discussion about funding for NASA’s Centennial Chalelnges program, I thought I would pass along a message that Rick Tumlinson of the Space Frontier Foundation sent me yesterday. He makes the case that the space advocacy community, particularly the pro-entrepreneurial elements of it, need to do more to ensure the program is funded in FY07 and beyond.

Rick’s message, after the jump:
Continue reading Centennial Challenges: another voice

Putting NASA on notice

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 15 at 7:08 am ET

The change in control of Congress compels Florida Today to warn NASA that it has to stick to its budget if the Vision for Space Exploration is to survive. Otherwise, the paper warns, the agency risks “losing support in the new Congress where Democrats, and many Republicans, will not tolerate cost overruns.” The editorial doesn’t really address, though, how much that risk has increased now that Democrats control both houses of Congress, since some Republicans had already expressed concerns about cost overruns. Still, it’s reasonable to expect Congress to subject NASA and the VSE to more scrutiny over the next two years.

The editorial claims that “NASA will need at least $230 billion to construct the Orion fleet, two new families of moon rockets and other hardware to land astronauts on the lunar surface.” That seems awfully high until you realize that the GAO report that figure comes from is estimating the cost through FY2025, seven years after the first scheduled human mission to the lunar surface. (The same report notes that the cost estimate through FY2018 is $122 billion.)

Florida Today, though, does have faith in NASA’s leadership to keep the costs under control. “NASA Administrator Michael Griffin says the agency can live within its moon budget, and if anyone can make it happen, he’s that person.”

Still more post-election analysis

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 14 at 6:40 am ET

This week’s issue of Space News has the most thorough analysis of the effect the Democratic takeover of Congress will have on NASA. In general, NASA won’t face significant changes, but the article does go through some interesting details. For example, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV), expected to become chair of the appropriations subcommittee with oversight of NASA, is known for his “liberal use of budget earmarks” to support companies and groups in his home district (something that put him under scrutiny earlier this year), while outgoing chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) kept the budget earmark-free this year. Also, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) could become an influential supporter of NASA should be become House Majority Leader; he “is closely allied with [Sen. Barbara] Mikulski and has paid heed to space interests in his state.”

A Christian Science Monitor article on the changes in overall science and technology policy caused by the Congressional shift suggests that NASA could be an area “ripe for tighter oversight” because members of Congress from both parties are concerned that NASA isn’t getting enough money to carry out the Vision for Space Exploration without damaging other programs.

Space policy and space weapons

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 13 at 7:38 am ET

In this week’s issue of The Space Review Dwayne Day provides a thorough critique of new national space policy and some of the media attention it received. He notes that “in terms of actual policy positions, the 2006 National Space Policy is not fundamentally different from the 1996 Clinton-era policy that it replaced. Equally worth noting is that the new policy document is not really different than the overall Bush administration national security policy of the past five years.” Day does identify the differences between the old and new policies and their significance; an appendix provides a section-by-section review of the two policies, putting them side-by-side.

The media attention the new policy did receive focused on language that appeared to open the door (or open it wider) to the deployment of space weapons that would allow the US to deny other countries the use of space. In a companion article James Oberg examines those claims, including allegations that the US is actively developing space weapons (not really, says Oberg), and reviews a history that shows that the former Soviet Union was far more serious about developing such weapons than the US has ever been. In a separate MSNBC article, Oberg reviews the attention the new space policy received, particularly in Russia, where it has been perceived as a sign of aggression by the US in space, adding that it is not “the first time such mistaken fears paved the way toward genuine dangers.”

More on the election aftermath

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 13 at 7:23 am ET

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune published an article this weekend on the new power wielded by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) now that Democrats have taken control of the Senate. Besides being in line to chair the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, Nelson is also expected to take over the strategic forces subcommittee of the Senate Armed Forces Subcommittee, which has oversight of military space activities. He’s expected to use that power to help support NASA, and NASA/KSC activities, in particular, including reducing the gap in human spaceflight between the end of the shuttle and the introduction of Orion.

There’s one curious statement in the article: discussing the Vision for Space Exploration, the article claims that “It has drawn criticism from some government officials who argue the program is too expensive and unnecessary.” While the VSE has been criticized by some scientists and pundits, I’m hard pressed to think of any government officials openly critical of the exploration program, unless the reporter is including members of Congress in that definition.

Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle also briefly reviews the effect of the change of control of Congress on NASA. While noting the potential opposition to NASA funding from Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the incoming chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the Chronicle’s Carl Hall concludes that “Space programs aren’t likely to generate a lot of controversy.”

As the House goes, so goes the Senate

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 10 at 7:05 am ET

With the concessions yesterday by George Allen and Conrad Burns, the Democrats (and the two independents who will caucus with them) have won a majority in the Senate. That means a shift in seating charts and committee assignments, but not necessarily much else. Sen Bill Nelson (D-FL) will now likely chair the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, with Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) becoming the ranking minority member, but both hold very similar positions on space policy issues. Nelson tells the Palm Beach Post that he’ll work to get additional funding for NASA to accelerate development of Orion in an effort to reduce the gap between the end of the shuttle program and the introduction of Orion; Hutchison tells the AP that “Bill Nelson and I have the same objectives in NASA, so I feel we’re going to be in good shape in Texas.”. On the appropriations side, Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) will likely switch positions on the commerce/justice/science subcommittee. That won’t necessarily change the magnitude of NASA support there, but it might nudge the vector a little towards GSFC versus MSFC.

If you have access to the print edition of Space News, there’s a good article in this week’s edition about comments made by staffers on both sides of the aisle about the potential changes should Democrats take control of either or both houses of Congress (as they now have). Their conclusion is that such a shift would not result in major changes for NASA.

Some other reactions to the election, Congress, and space

By Jeff Foust on 2006 November 9 at 7:45 am ET

The Huntsville Times reassures its readers that they shouldn’t expect “mass layoffs in key Huntsville defense and space programs” because of the Democratic takeover of the House (and maybe the Senate), although NASA programs could come under new scrutiny. Huntsville-area Rep. Bud Cramer, a Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee subcommittee with oversight of NASA, will now have added influence, the article notes.

Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), though, is concerned that now that he and fellow Florida Republicans are no longer in the majority, they’ll be less able to support NASA and fend off potential attacks from Democratic leadership. “I was hoping to get more funding for NASA, to see if we could get the shuttle replacement online sooner than 2014,” he told Florida Today. “But in an environment where Nancy Pelosi is the speaker – and she has never been a particular proponent of the space program – I don’t know if that will be feasible.” (It’s not clear how actively Pelosi would oppose any effort to increase NASA funding or direct funds to Orion or other VSE elements.)

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), who is expected to become the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, says he will hold hearings on the subject of space weapons before making a decision whether to support or oppose such efforts. (subscription required) He said he would not “immediately block” projects in this area.