By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 3 at 6:01 am ET The 109th Congress convenes this week, and one of the first orders of business will be organizational matters, such as committee assignments and chairmanships. Some changes are in store for space-related committees, as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) steps down from the chairmanship of the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) as chair the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) is seen as a likely replacement for Rohrabacher, while Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is expected to succeed Brownback. Terms limits are also set to claim the chair of the VA-HUD-indepedent agencies subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, but Rep. James Walsh (R-NY) told a local news channel that he plans to ask for a waiver to retain his chairmanship for two more years.
By Jeff Foust on 2005 January 3 at 5:49 am ET In an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review, Jim Muncy looks back at two events that may be considered “breakthroughs for humanity’s future in space”: the approval of NASA’s 2005 budget and passage of HR 5382. Muncy sets a high standard for what he considers a breakthrough:
For this discussion, let’s define a “breakthrough” as the achievement of an outcome that not only surpasses previous results, but was actually beyond the realm of prediction. In other words, a breakthrough is when you accomplish something nobody thought was possible. And its greatest significance may be how its attainment changes, or even transforms, what people see as possible thereafter.
Muncy also reminds us that these successes set a standard that will be a challenge to top in the future:
Sometimes winning creates a lot more work than losing. But it’s a nice problem to have. This should be an interesting year, thanks largely to two surprising political breakthroughs in 2004.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 24 at 11:01 am ET There has been one significant, although not unexpected, development this past week. On Thursday President Bush signed HR 5382, the Commercial Space Transportation Amendments Act, into law. MSNBC’s Alan Boyle has a nice summary article that leads with the signing and provides an overview of the legislation and its journey to enactment.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 24 at 10:56 am ET As you no doubt have noticed from the lack of postings, this blog is on a quasi-hiatus through the holidays, because of a lack of space policy developments during this time (and because I’m on vacation for a while, too.) Barring any major developments, posting here will be light until after the first of the year, when Congress convenes and people get back to work.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 18 at 6:02 pm ET A colleague asked yesterday what someone could do to support the candidacy of a particular person for NASA administrator. (The topic had apparently come up on a mailing list he was on.) The only suggestion that came to mind was to call the White House comments line (202-456-1111) and tell them who the President should nominate for the position. Emailing the White House is another option, but likely far less effective: can you imagine how much spam president@whitehouse.gov gets?
I would be curious to get some expert opinions on alternatives that might be more effective, or whether any such efforts would likely be ineffective or even counterproductive.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 17 at 8:08 am ET Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) has publicly endorsed retired Air Force general Pete Worden for the position of NASA administrator. Worden, who retired from the Air Force early this year, worked for Brownback until a few weeks ago as a Congressional fellow. “General Worden is a creative thinker who can cut through the stifling bureaucracy in the current space program,” Brownback said in the release. “He can lead NASA and our country’s space program boldly into the future.” Brownback’s backing of Worden has been rumored since early this week, but this is the boldest endorsement of Worden, or any other potential candidate, to date.
Sean O’Keefe has remained noncommittal about any potential choice, Worden included, as his replacement. The Houston Chronicle reported Friday that “when told Thursday that Pete Worden was emerging as a front-runner, he said whatever decision the president makes will be the right one.”
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 17 at 7:39 am ET With the FY 2005 budget finally done, you know what that means: it’s time to start thinking about FY06. (Actually, planning for FY06 started months ago, but most people are still focused on how the 2005 budget would turn out in Congress.) While NASA got a robust increase in 2005, the prospects don’t look nearly as well for FY06: the AP reports that NASA may get an increase of no more than one percent in President Bush’s proposed budget “pending appeals to the White House by outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe”, according to the AP. This would effectively be a minor cut, since one percent is less than the rate of inflation. Still, NASA fares better than many other federal agencies, which will see no increase or even a cut in their 2006 budgets.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 15 at 7:12 am ET Some commentary about Sean O’Keefe’s legacy and the search for his successor is making its way onto the editorial pages:
- The Orlando Sentinel blandly concludes that O’Keefe “had ups and downs” (who doesn’t?), and that “history’s final verdict” on his tenure will depend on the ultimate success of efforts to “solve NASA’s cultural problems and safely return shuttles to flight.”
- Cragg Hines, the Houston Chronicle columnist who called for O’Keefe’s resignation on Sunday, just as news of O’Keefe’s plans leaked out, now says “goodbye and good riddance” to O’Keefe in a new column Wednesday. Hines says he is not a fan of one candidate for the job, Ronald Kadish, because he believes that Kadish cannot provide the “maximum transparency and honesty and believability” the agency now needs. He is more of a fan of Robert Walker.
- The Los Angeles Times says that O’Keefe’s successor will face challenges like “finding students with the right stuff” to replace retiring engineers and scientists as well as be able “to make politically difficult decisions” by setting priorities for the agency. It’s clear the Times’ editorial writers are not fond of the Vision for Space Exploration, claiming that by “lavishing billions on nostalgically rich but scientifically poor missions like returning astronauts to the moon, the budget starves NASA of funding for projects with abundant scientific worth.” It seems unlikely, though, that any of the potential candidates to replace O’Keefe would, or would even be able to, reverse course on the Vision.
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 14 at 7:30 am ET Now that Sean O’Keefe’s resignation is official, there are plenty of rumors and speculation about who will succeed him. NASA Watch has compiled a number of names, including the five people mentioned earlier as well as a couple of new candidates: Craig Steidle and Pete Worden. (Worden would seem to be an unconventional choice, particularly given his antipathy for the shuttle.)
The name that initially emerged as the leading candidate was Ronald Kadish, the retired Air Force lieutenant general. One person not supportive of Kadish, though, is Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who told Florida Today that he felt Kadish was “prone to overstatement with regard to technical advances and accomplishments” when he testified before Congress during his tenure at the Missile Defense Agency.
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) didn’t tell the Orlando Sentinel which of the potential candidates he favors to take over NASA, but he did describe what kind of person that should be: “I think we need a combination of someone who’s a visionary, and also is able to sell the vision and market it to the public.”
By Jeff Foust on 2004 December 14 at 7:16 am ET In all the press coverage of NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe’s resignation, one couldn’t help but notice this zinger in an AP article from Duke University history professor (and former NASA historian) Alex Roland:
The captain’s abandoning a sinking ship and he was assigned to the ship to keep it from sinking. So I think it’s doubly bad because, in my view, he is essentially confessing that there’s no hope for NASA on its current trajectory.
Regrettably, the AP article fails to put Professor Roland’s comments in perspective: he has been a frequent and strident critic of the space agency, so it was unlikely he would have anything positive to say about O’Keefe and the space agency.
|
|
