By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 22 at 7:20 am ET A roundup of miscellaneous items on a slow space policy news week:
As has been widely reported, President Obama will visit the Kennedy Space Center next Friday to witness the scheduled launch of space shuttle Endeavour on STS-134. His appearance will only heighten the media frenzy surrounding the launch, which has less to do with the fact that it is the penultimate shuttle mission than that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, husband of STS-134 commander Mark Kelly and recovering from injuries sustained in a Tucson shooting in January, is planning to attend. However, it will be a very brief visit: he has a White House event (welcoming Auburn University’s national championship football team) at 10 am, which means he would not get to KSC until early afternoon at the earliest. In addition, he’s speaking at graduation ceremonies at Miami Dade College Friday at 5 pm in downtown Miami, which suggests he’ll leave immediately after the 3:47 pm launch (and probably still be late.)
President Obama also had something to say earlier this week about the placement of the space shuttles. A reporter for Dallas TV station WFAA asked the president in an interview earlier this week if politics played a role in not awarding Houston a space shuttle orbiter when the fleet is retired later this year, passing over the city in favor of sites in New York, Los Angeles, outside Washington, and at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. “That’s wrong,” the president said. “We had nothing to do with it. The White House has had nothing to do with it. There’s a whole commission, a whole process, and that’s how the decision was made.” (The exchange takes place about four minutes into the video linked to above.) In testimony last week before a Senate committee, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said that the decision was “free of any political involvement,” although he also said he had briefed people “close to the president” on the issue.
The president’s statement has hardly assuaged critics of the decision. “Sadly, it seems partisan politics permeates this announcement,” Reps. Pete Olson and Ted Poe (R-TX) said in an CNN op-ed. Saying they are “demanding answers”, they added, “If, as we suspect, the measures were purely political, we will do everything in our power to make this right.” The two are among the 12 co-sponsors of HR 1536, which would override NASA’s selection and award Endeavour to Houston (giving Enterprise to LA and leaving New York empty-handed). They have not co-sponsored a competing bill, HR 1590, introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), that would require the Smithsonian to loan Discovery to Houston for 15 years.
The curious headline of the day comes from National Journal: “Spending Bill Funds NASA Mission to the Moon”. The article reports on funding in the final FY11 continuing resolution that funds work on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and Space Launch System (SLS), which combined will get no less than $3 billion in 2011. “The money will fund NASA’s Constellation Program,” the article claims, later referring to “the reauthorization of the Constellation Program” in the NASA authorization act last year. Strictly speaking, that’s not accurate: while MPCV is, to at least first order, a continuation of Orion, SLS is different from Ares, bigger in its initial iteration than Ares 1 but smaller than Ares 5. And a return to the Moon is not an overt goal of the administration’s exploration plan announced a year ago, which calls for instead a mission to a near Earth asteroid by 2025 and Mars orbit by the mid 2030s. Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said earlier this month he wants Congress to pass legislation that would “resume the goal” of a human return to the Moon.
Update 12:45 pm: the text of HR 1641, the bill introduced by Posey to make a lunar return NASA’s human spaceflight goal, is now available. (It was introduced last Friday but not posted on Thomas until some time this morning.) The “Reasserting American Leadership in Space Act” (or “REAL Space Act”) is primarily a set of findings about space exploration, with the key item at the end: “the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall plan to return to the Moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, in order to promote exploration, commerce, science, and United States preeminence in space as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations.” According to one report, Posey drafted the bill “in consultation with Mike Griffin”, the former NASA administrator.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 20 at 7:13 am ET Florida Senate president Mike Haridopolos, who is also seeking the Republican nomination to run against US Senator Bill Nelson in 2012, called for more support from the federal government for Florida’s space industry in a curious op-ed in the Orlando Sentinel on Wednesday. Haridopolos laments the impending layoff of 1,900 workers at the Kennedy Space Center as the shuttle program retires, but, he notes, since there is “still no clear continuing mission for NASA, contractor United Launch Alliance has no other choice.” Of course, it’s United Space Alliance that is laying off the shuttle workers, not ULA, which operates the Atlas and Delta rockets. He also claims that the $40 million promised to Florida workers last year by the White House has yet to show up, which he calls “a failure of leadership.” (No reason for the missing money is given, but one possibility is that the federal government didn’t have a final FY11 spending bill until last week.)
By contrast, he says, Florida is doing a much better job in supporting its space industry. “Despite limited resources, the Florida Legislature in 2010 increased space-program funding by more than 600 percent,” he writes. Space Florida did get $31 million in 2010, but about two-thirds of that was for one-time initiatives; new governor Rick Scott’s budget proposed $10 million for the agency in 2011, something not mentioned in the op-ed. He also cites “new aerospace jobs” that have come to Florida’s Space Coast as a result of space efforts, but most of the examples he gives are more “aero” than “space”, and some are neither, like 600 jobs for “Associated Telecommunications Management Systems” [sic], a company that is “the largest provider of pre-paid telephone service in the United States”, according to a local jobs site.
Even that $10 million for Space Florida may be in jeopardy. An editorial in Wednesday’s issue of Florida Today raises concerns that Space Florida’s budget could be combined with that other state economic development agencies and put under the direct control of Governor Scott. Citing Scott’s recent controversial decision to unilaterally kill plans for a high-speed rail project in the state, the editorial says, “There’s no reason Scott — who has no knowledge of the space industry and still hasn’t used his office to make a strong space commitment — could not do the same on space, rejecting ventures regardless of their benefit simply because he didn’t like them.” Even if he didn’t, the editorial adds, “the strangling maw of a super bureaucracy” could make it harder to win funding for space efforts in the state. To prevent that from happening, the editorial seeks support from… Sen. Haridopolos, who “should stop him [Scott] to ensure the agency maintains its ability to act quickly and aggressively to seek companies at a time when the shuttle program’s end will be a body slam to the Space Coast’s economy.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 19 at 6:36 am ET On Friday the president signed into law the final fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill, ending an appropriations process that started over a year ago. Passage of the bill last week was greeted relatively quietly, with a rather generic statement of appreciation from NASA administrator Charles Bolden, who noted the bill gives NASA the funds to implement the programs in the authorization act despite “these tough fiscal times”. Lockheed Martin offered their thanks as well since the legislation provides a minimum of $1.2 billion for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, the continuation of the Orion spacecraft the company was working on under Constellation.
But then there is the language in the appropriations bill about a “130-ton” heavy-lift launch vehicle. In a statement issued Monday, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) took credit for that, saying he “added language to the final Continuing Resolution for 2011 that requires NASA to fully develop its heavy lift capability.” Last week Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) said he had worked with Shelby and others to get that provision into the final bill. Shelby added the provision “saves over 500 jobs at the Marshall Space Flight Center”.
That language (specifically, that the heavy-lift vehicle funded in the bill “shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously”) has raised concerns that it short-circuits the NASA authorization act last year that mandated a 70- to 100-ton vehicle that could later be upgraded to at least 130 tons. A congressional source familiar with the formulation of the legislation, though, said that’s not the case. Early versions of the language in the appropriations bill did call for an initial lift capacity of 130 tons, but that word was stricken from later versions. The language does require NASA to work simultaneously on the core elements as well as an upper stage that may be specific to the 130-ton version, but that work does not have to take place at the same pace, allowing NASA to focus more attention on an initial, smaller version while assuring Congress that it will evolve it later to the ultimate capacity.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 15 at 7:30 am ET In the immediate aftermath of NASA’s announcement Tuesday, officials from Ohio and Texas, who were both left empty-handed, reacted differently to the bad news: while Ohio officials criticized the decision on geographic grounds and immediately issued a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) asking them to review the decision-making progress, Texas officials vented their frustration, pinning the blame on partisan politics. Now, though, Texas legislators are backing their anger with political action.
On Thursday 18 members of the state’s congressional delegation sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden asking a series of questions about the decisionmaking process and how Houston could be passed over for one of the four orbiters. “No city in the world deserves a shuttle more than Houston, certainly not New York,” Rep. Pete Olson said a release accompanying the letter. “Houston deserves answers to how this decision was made. Administrator Bolden has some explaining to do.”
In the text of the letter (also available here), the Texas delegation seems willing to admit that the Smithsonian, KSC, and even the California Science Center in Los Angeles are reasonable homes for shuttles, as they make no specific mention of them in the letter. But New York? That’s another story, apparently, as most of the questions are about the decision to award Enterprise to the Intrepid museum in New York City. “For what specific reasons was the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum in New York City chosen?” reads one question. “Are there any historical connections between NASA and the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum? Are there any historical connections between NASA and New York City in general?” reads another. Other questions focus on the logistics of getting the shuttle to the Intrepid museum and the costs involved.
The letter concludes with a warning: “If there is no rational explanation based on definable factors for the choice of the Intrepid museum in New York City, and that the transfer of the Enterprise to that location will cost significantly more than a transfer to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, we will do everything in our power in Congress, including legislation to prevent funding of the transfer, to stop this wasteful decision. ”
In fact, there’s already a move to override NASA’s decision. On Thursday Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced HR 1536, titled “To provide for the disposition of the retiring Space Shuttles.” The text of the legislation is not yet posted, but according to the Los Angeles Times, the bill would “strip New York of its shuttle and give one to Houston.” It’s not immediately clear why Rep. Chaffetz, from a state not involved in the shuttle competition, introduced the bill, but it does have nine cosponsors, including members from Texas, Florida, and California.
Update 9:30 am: Rep. Chaffetz’s office has issued a press release about the legislation. In it, the congressman states, “Instead of relying on political guidance systems, these decisions must be steered by history and logic.” The legislation would give JSC “Shuttle Endeavor” [sic] while the California Science Center, which was to get Endeavour, would instead get Enterprise; the Smithsonian and KSC would keep Discovery and Atlantis, respectively.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 14 at 1:24 pm ET One provision in the full-year fiscal year 2011 CR (which the House is scheduled to vote on later today) regarding NASA is language that the Space Launch System heavy-lift vehicle “shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously.” That’s contrary to the language in the authorization act, which calls for initial development of an SLS that can place 70-100 tons into LEO that would later be upgraded to a 130-ton capacity. NASA administrator Charles Bolden has said on a number of occasions, including Monday’s Senate appropriations hearing, that the SLS would be an “evolving program” to ultimately reach that 130-ton goal.
So how did that 130-ton language get into the FY11 CR? According to the Huntsville Times, it was added by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA, at the request of another subcommittee member, Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL). Aderholt’s north Alabama district is near, but does not include, the Marshall Space Flight Center, which would be the lead center for the SLS program. “Unfortunately, the signs I see are that NASA is more determined than ever to slow down the heavy-lift vehicle program,” Aderholt wrote in a letter to Wolf quoted in the article. Aderholt said in a later statement that the language reflected a joint effort with Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and other members of the state’s congressional delegation to provide “a real future for our nation’s space program.”
Requiring NASA to move ahead with immediate development of a 130-ton HLV, with no initial, smaller vehicle first—if, in fact, that is how the provision is interpreted—will only add to NASA’s challenges. Early this year a preliminary NASA report concluded that the agency could not meet the authorization act’s 2016 deadline for putting the SLS into operation under the projected budget profile—and that was for the smaller 70-ton version, not the 130-ton vehicle now being pushed in the appropriations bill.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 12 at 10:47 pm ET In a post here last week, I noted that after NASA announced which sites will get shuttle orbiters when the fleet is retired this year, some would be disappointed—or worse—when they walk away empty-handed: “They—and their advocates in Congress—will want to know how NASA could have possibly overlooked the merits of their offer. All that could cause complications for NASA.” After NASA decided to award orbiters to the Smithsonian, KSC, the California Science Center in LA, and the Intrepid museum in New York, rejecting bids from Houston and Dayton, among other potential sites, that prediction is coming true.
Houston and its Congressional delegation, for example, is not taking this decision with equanimity. Instead, “disappointment” is the theme of the day: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) “expressed deep disappointment” over the decision, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) was also “deeply disappointed”, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) was “extremely disappointed”, and Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) said that “Disappointment doesn’t begin to describe my reaction” to the news. Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), while not using the “d” word, called it “truly tragic” and likened a Houston without a shuttle to “Detroit without a Model-T, or Florence without a da Vinci.”
They, and other Republicans (Democratic members of the state’s delegation kept a low profile when the news came out) blamed politics for the decision. “With this White House I always expect the worst and am rarely disappointed,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX). “It is blatantly political,” declared Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), noting the four states that received orbiters all voted for Barack Obama for president in 2008. Most, though, gave no indication they would try to overturn NASA’s decision, even while some raised the question of whether NASA followed the letter of the language in the NASA authorization act. “This ought not to be. But, that’s just the way it is,” Poe said in his statement. The exception was Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who said in a statement that he would ask for a hearing of the House Science Committee to investigate the process that led to the decision.
The mood was somewhat different in Ohio, where people also felt that they didn’t get a fair shake in the decisionmaking process. Rep. Steve Austria (R-OH) said he was “extremely disappointed” but, unlike his Texas colleagues, didn’t put a partisan spin on the decision in his statement. Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) indicated to the Dayton Daily News that he saw this as more of a geographical snub rather than a political one. “No one in the Midwest is going to have a shuttle,” he said. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) also complained about the lack of “regional diversity” in the selections: “Unfortunately, it looks like regional diversity amounts to which coast you are on, or which exit you use on I-95.” He added that it was “insulting to taxpayers” that some of the selected museums charge admission fees (the Air Force museum in Dayton does not.)
While most of the aggrieved Texas members showed no indication of fighting the decision, Ohio members including Sen. Brown and Reps. Austria and Turner, along with Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH), are taking action. The five signed a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), asking it to review NASA’s process to award the shuttle orbiters. “Specifically, we ask that GAO review how the disposition of the shuttle program related property carried out, and if NASA and the Smithsonian did so in accordance with all statutory and regulatory guidelines,” they state in the letter.
That review, and the heated Texas rhetoric, may do little or nothing to change the decisions made Tuesday. But it could make, at least in the near term, relations between the space agency and some members of Congress a little strained.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 12 at 5:18 am ET NASA would get just under $18.5 billion for 2011 in the final continuing resolution (CR) for the fiscal year released late Monday night by the House, containing just under $18.5 billion for NASA. A summary table of the bill versus 2010 and the 2011 president’s budget request (PBR) is below:
| Account |
2010 Actual |
2011 PBR |
2011 Final CR |
Diff from 2010 |
Diff from PBR |
| Space Operations |
$6,146.8 |
$4,887.8 |
$5,508.5 |
$(638.3) |
$620.7 |
| Exploration |
$3,746.3 |
$4,263.4 |
$3,808.3 |
$62.0 |
$(455.1) |
| Science |
$4,469.0 |
$5,005.6 |
$4,945.3 |
$476.3 |
$(60.3) |
| Aeronautics |
$501.0 |
$1,151.8 |
$535.0 |
$34.0 |
$(616.8) |
| Education |
$182.5 |
$145.8 |
$145.8 |
$(36.7) |
$- |
| Construction |
$448.3 |
$397.3 |
$394.3 |
$(54.0) |
$(3.0) |
| Cross-Agency Support |
$3,194.0 |
$3,111.4 |
$3,111.4 |
$(82.6) |
$- |
| Inspector General |
$36.4 |
$37.0 |
$36.4 |
$- |
$(0.6) |
| TOTAL |
$18,724.3 |
$19,000.1 |
$18,485.0 |
$(239.3) |
$(515.1) |
The biggest cuts are in exploration and in aeronautics, the latter reflecting the lack of funding for the new space technology program in the original 2011 request. (NASA administrator Charles Bolden said last month that NASA would find ways to fund space technology efforts elsewhere in the agency.) In exploration, the CR directs NASA to spend at least $1.2 billion on the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $1.8 billion on the Space Launch System “which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously.” That seems contrary to statements by Bolden as recently as yesterday that the SLS would be evolvable and not immediately be able to lift 130 tons (metric or otherwise) into low Earth orbit.
Other policy provisions:
- The so-called “Shelby provision” from the 2010 appropriations act that prevents NASA from terminating Constellation programs is formally, finally removed.
- The CR contains a provision like that in HR 1, the House funding bill from February, that prevents NASA and OSTP from using any of the funds in the CR for bilateral programs with China or hosting Chinese visitors at NASA facilities.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 11 at 11:21 pm ET Monday afternoon’s hearing by the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee was unusual in two respects. One was the timing of it: 4 pm on a Monday, with the Senate not yet officially back in session from the weekend. The second was that the hearing, while ostensibly about the agency’s FY2012 budget proposal, focused far more on its current situation and even its past.
That focus is understandable to some degree, as NASA doesn’t quite yet have an FY11 budget, more than six months after the fiscal year began. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chairperson of the subcommittee, had little to offer in the way of details about the budget deal reached Friday night other than that the full appropriations bill will be released at midnight tonight. She asked NASA administrator Charles Bolden, the only witness at the hearing, to “scrub” the CR when it comes out and look for issues that could cause complications for 2012, and share that information with key members of the subcommittee and the full committee.
In her prepared remarks, though, she indicated that whatever NASA got in 2011 would likely be below the $18.7 billion it received in FY2010. “Nineteen billion dollars was authorized and $19 billion is what I put in my Appropriations bill. But my bill died, so NASA won’t get $19 billion. NASA won’t even get the $18.7 billion it got in 2010,” the statement reads. “Simply put, NASA will be cut more. The cuts are regrettable, and they will just build on one another.” Later in the hearing, she added, “In effect, you’re going to be below 2010.” She hinted, though, that there would be “some flexibility” in the CR.
A sizable part the hearing was also devoted to the question of what NASA will do with the shuttle orbiters when they are retired. NASA will announce which sites will get which orbiters Tuesday at 1 pm EDT at a 30th anniversary event at the Kennedy Space Center. Bolden said he would announce where all four orbiters, including Enterprise (currently at the National Air and Space Museum’s Udvar-Hazy Center) will be located; NASA would transfer Enterprise to another center if it awards Discovery (as widely expected) or another orbiter to the Smithsonian. (Interestingly, the NASA authorization act that the Smithsonian “shall determine any new location for the Enterprise”, not NASA.)
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), the subcommittee’s ranking member, and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) pressed Bolden for details about how the orbiters would be assigned; both represent states seeking orbiters. Bolden said that the final decision rested with him, and indicated that he actually hadn’t made it yet. “I am going to make the decision probably when I get back over to my office this afternoon,” he said. He also said that he had been briefing people “close to the president” about the shuttle plans, but denied there was any kind of political influence on the decision. “This process has been as pure as I could make it, and free of any political involvement,” he said. “I can that until I’m blue in the face but there will always be someone who will have the opinion that that was not the case.”
Later, when asked by Hutchison about whether NASA followed language in the NASA authorization act that gives preference to orbiters “with an historical relationship with either the launch, flight operations, or processing of the Space Shuttle orbiters or the retrieval of NASA manned space vehicles, or significant contributions to human space flight,” Bolden indicated that was the case. “I think you will find, when the announcement is made, that every place receiving an orbiter has an historical connection to human spaceflight and, in fact, I think you will find that every one of them has an historical connection to the space shuttle.”
There was some attention to current and future issues facing the agency beyond distributing shuttle orbiters and lining up appropriations for the current fiscal year. Mikulski asked a series of questions about the status of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), concerned that the program’s cost overruns and the lack of significant new funding for the program could make it “targets for big cuts” in future appropriations. Bolden assured–or at least tried to assure–her that the agency was taking steps to put the program on track, and would wait until an assessment is complete before asking for additional funds for the program. He did state that JWST has a “reasonable launch date of 2018″, which is significantly later than just last November, when an independent report found JWST would slip to no earlier than late 2015.
Hutchison, meanwhile, grilled Bolden on why he had not transitioned existing Orion contracts to the new Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) included in the authorization bill. Those delays, coupled with the request for only $1 billion for the MPCV in the 2012 proposal (compared to $1.4 billion in the authorization act), lead her to conclude in her opening statement, “This budget deliberately hamstrings the ability for Orion to reach an operability date of 2016.” Bolden noted that he is hamstrung as well by the so-called “Shelby provision” that prevents him from canceling Constellation contracts, although he said, as he has in the past, that NASA is focusing Constellation work as much as possible on elements relevant to the MPCV and the Space Launch System. Hutchison also expressed some skepticism about the viability of commercial crew and cargo providers, noting COTS awardees are “significantly behind schedule”, and added that “the same scrutiny that has been placed upon our other manned vehicles should be applied to commercial crew” as well to ensure safety.
One other person attending the hearing was Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), the vice-chairman (aka ranking member) of the full appropriations committee. He asked questions focused primarily on the use of the Stennis Space Center in his home state for rocket engine testing, but also expressed support for immediate development of a super-heavy-lift vehicle. “I hopeful we can stay on track and meet the goal of developing our heavy-lift capacity for operation by 2016,” he said. “And I’m hopeful that it’s a 130-ton capacity.” Bolden said later that while a 130-metric-ton vehicle is the “ultimate goal”, it would not be the first heavy-lift vehicle the agency would build under the plan. “It will be an evolving program to get there, though.”
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 10 at 10:50 am ET The Senate Appropriations Committee has moved up its once-delayed hearing on NASA’s FY12 budget proposal. The Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the NASA budget proposal this Monday at 4 pm. The hearing had been originally scheduled for March 31, but was postponed. At the time of the postponement the hearing had been rescheduled for May 5, but has since been moved up to Monday afternoon. (May 5th would have been an interesting date for the hearing: it’s the 50th anniversary of Alan Shepard’s suborbital spaceflight.) NASA administrator Charles Bolden is the only announced witness.
By Jeff Foust on 2011 April 9 at 10:49 am ET A new organization announced Friday seeks to convince Texas politicians of the benefits of commercial space–and, in the process, become a “tipping point” for a broader national change in perspectives on government versus commercial spaceflight.
Speaking at the Space Access ’11 conference in Phoenix on Friday, longtime space advocate announced the formation of an organization called the Texas Space Alliance (which goes by the acronym TXA, to avoid any association with the Transportation Security Administration). The goal of the TXA, said Tumlinson, is to make Texas “not just the United States’ leader in space activities, but also the world’s leader in space activities” through supporting commercial space activities in the state.
A big part of that effort is to convince state legislators and the state’s congressional delegation of the importance of commercial space, something he said they’re generally oblivious to despite the presence of ventures like Blue Origin in the state. “Everything is built around the NASA legacy,” Tumlinson said. “We’re going to try and change that.”
One of the first efforts of the TXA, a 501(c)4 lobbying organization, is to win passage of state legislation that provides liability immunity for spaceflight operators in the state. Tumlinson said the TXA originally planned to draft its own legislation, then learned of already proposed legislation, SB 115, supported by Blue Origin, and is instead backing that. That bill passed the state Senate last month; Tumlinson said he expected the House to pass it next week and the governor to sign it “in a few weeks.” The TXA is also exploring other state legislation, such as a zero-g/zero-tax bill.
The long-term goal of the TXA, though, is to get state legislators, and members of Congress, to think of space as something more than just NASA. That’s been a problem with the past with the state’s Republicans, he said, who are typically very conservative on most issues, but when it comes to space, “support a socialist space program.” That, he argues, could have benefits beyond the state’s borders. “I believe that if we can change what happens in Texas, and if I can change the behavior of the Texas delegation in Congress via-Ã -vis commercial space, we can hit a tipping point that begins to push the entire nation into opening the frontier.”
|
|
