By Jeff Foust on 2010 October 8 at 6:56 am ET One of the lesser-covered aspects of last week’s vote on the NASA authorization bill is the opposition to the bill by members of Ohio’s delegation. Ten of Ohio’s 18 representatives, concerned about the effect the legislation would have on NASA Glenn, voted against the bill, ranging from House minority leader John Boehner to Dennis Kucinich (D). Prior to the vote Kucinich and Steven LaTourette (R-OH) released a joint letter opposing the bill, claiming that the Senate version, among other issues, “could cause over 250 contractors to lose their jobs and up to 250 civil servants will not be used to their capacity.” LaTourette added, “You can’t be a supporter of NASA, manned space travel and NASA Glenn and support this Senate-authored bill.”
The House, of course, did approve the Senate bill, but that didn’t end the debate about the bill in the state. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), who did vote for the bill, was criticized by her Republican challenger, Rich Iott, for supporting the bill. “This particular bill would not only be the death knell for U.S. manned space travel, but would also hurt NASA Glenn Research Center and Plum Brook Station,” Iott claimed. Kaptur countered that, among other factors, she had received personal assurances from NASA administrator Charles Bolden that Glenn would not be adversely affected.
LaTourette, meanwhile, indicated that he’d continue to fight provisions in the authorization bill when an appropriations bill comes up for consideration after the November election. “I’m going to fight tooth and nail in the appropriations committee,” LaTourette, an appropriator, told Capitol News Connection this week. “I think it’s a huge mistake, I think it’s wrongheaded, and I’m disappointed we find ourselves here.” His comments suggested that, as in his earlier letter, he was opposed to the bill’s effective cancellation of the overall Constellation program: “We are the world leader in satellite technology and if these things break, what are we going to do? We’re going to call Boeing, the Chinese, the Russians?” (It’s not clear from the transcript what he was referring to with “if these things break”.)
One Ohio senator also expressed some disappointment with the outcome of the legislation. George Voinovich (R-OH) told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he let the bill pass the Senate in August “only after getting a commitment that language would be added later on that would protect Glenn’s role in the Human Space Exploration program”, adding that the agreement “would be voided if the House passed the Senate bill without further changes.” The House, of course, passed the exact same bill the Senate passed, which would have “voided” that agreement. It’s meaningless in the context of this bill, since the Senate will take no further action on it, but one wonders if it will pose a problem down the road for the space agency.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 October 7 at 6:31 am ET [Update: apparently the president won’t be signing the bill today; it’s not listed on his schedule for the day (although other bill signings are) and the bill is still listed under pending legislation on the White House web site.]
According to a media advisory released late yesterday by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, President Obama is expected to sign S.3729, the NASA authorization bill, into law today. (Hutchison is planning a press conference Thursday afternoon at Space Center Houston with Reps. Pete Olson and Gene Green to discuss the bill.) The signing, of course, is expected, but it does start the clock on a number of reports and studies called for in the bill, such as one in section 403 that requires NASA to “develop and make available to the public detailed human rating processes and requirements” for commercial crew systems in 60 days, and reports due in 120 days on NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization as well as assessment of the shuttle’s retirement and planned HLV system on the nation’s solid rocket motor and liquid propulsion industrial base.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 October 7 at 5:58 am ET Rasmussen Reports released a poll this week that claimed that “most Americans think the historic shuttle program has been well worth the money.” “Most” might be stretching matters a bit: just over half, 52%, said the program was worth it, versus 28% who disagreed and 20% who weren’t sure. Those numbers, though, are an improvement over previous polls: 45% thought the shuttle was worth the cost in April and only 40% thought so in January.
The future, though, isn’t nearly as bright, and also a bit contradictory. While 80% have a favorable opinion of NASA and 72% say it’s important to have a human spaceflight program, respondents were split on cutting spending on space exploration: 41% said spending should be cut versus an equal percentage who disagreed. Space advocates can take solace, though, in that in the polls earlier this year the number who wanted to cut spending was around 50%.
In addition, the poll found that 40% thought the government should fund space exploration, versus 32% who thought the private sector should pay. That’s not too much different from the April poll (where the split was 36% government and 38% private sector), but the kicker is this: “Interestingly, most entrepreneurs and private company employees feel the space program should be government-funded, while the plurality of government workers feel the private sector should handle the expense.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 October 6 at 6:03 am ET In a discussion with the editorial board of the Huntsville Times this week, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) credited his colleague, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), for ensuring that NASA Marshall Space Flight Center would have a leading role in the new exploration plan through the development of an heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLV) in the authorization bill passed by Congress. “We got the best language we could get in the authorization bill,” he told the paper. “We worked hard to get that in; there was a lot of resistance to it.”
That statement is a little curious, since Shelby indicated that he was a little unhappy with the HLV language in the bill. “I remain concerned with the limiting direction set forth on the heavy lift rocket’s design,” he said in a statement last week after the House passed the bill. “NASA must not deliver a rocket that is simply a shuttle without wings. This would not represent a step forward for innovation or for the future of our space program.”
In that respect, Shelby is on the same page as some NASA officials, including chief technologist Bobby Braun, who told the Orlando Sentinel this week that the HLV design decision should be made by agency engineers and not members of Congress. “I would like to believe now that we are making progress in Washington towards the 2011 plan that the engineers…will weigh in and that we will move towards the technically correct choice,” he said. But will Congress allow “the best language we could get” to be improved?
By Jeff Foust on 2010 October 5 at 7:07 am ET With the NASA authorization bill complete, members of Congress are turning their attention to other space-related matters–including, it seems, making their case to win one of the space shuttles when the fleet is retired next year. The authorization bill contains this relevant passage in section 603:
Upon the termination of the Space Shuttle program as provided in section 602, the Administrator shall decommission any remaining Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles according to established safety and historic preservation procedures prior to their designation as surplus government property. The orbiter vehicles shall be made available and located for display and maintenance through a competitive procedure established pursuant to the disposition plan developed under section 613(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17761(a)), with priority consideration given to eligible applicants meeting all conditions of that plan which would provide for the display and maintenance of orbiters at locations with the best potential value to the public, including where the location of the orbiters can advance educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines, and 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. The Smithsonian Institution, which, as of the date of enactment of this Act, houses the Space Shuttle Enterprise, shall determine any new location for the Enterprise.
The emphasized section above is key, since it was added prior to the bill’s passage in the Senate to remove some concerns that the original bill favored sites such as KSC and JSC. “This legislation will ensure a level playing field for New York,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who got the additional language inserted into the Senate bill to protect the bid by the Intrepid museum in New York City, told the New York Daily News, “and on a level playing field, New York will win.” The day after the House passed the bill, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) sent a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden asking that one of the shuttles be awarded to her state, another beneficiary of the bill’s additional language.
A contrary opinion comes from Florida Today, which claims that “the legislation does still give Florida’s Space Coast a leg up on places like New York City. However, that assessment appears based on a reading of an older version of the bill, not the one passed by the Senate and House with the additional provision.
In a teleconference with reporters last week, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver said that the bill language would not affect the agency’s plans since it had already incorporated those factors in its evaluation of proposals for shuttle orbiters. The timing of the announcement, which had originally been expected for this summer, will depend on when exactly the shuttles will be retired, she said, but that announcement “certainly should happen this year.” (Ohio officials, including Sen. Sherrod Brown, told the Dayton Daily News Monday that they didn’t expect an announcement until as late as summer 2011, the notional date of the final, additional shuttle flight.)
By Jeff Foust on 2010 October 1 at 5:16 pm ET NASA is currently in a period of transition that goes beyond the retirement of the shuttle, end of Constellation (at least in its original incarnation), and introduction of elements of the agency’s new exploration strategy. While the NASA authorization bill passed by Congress late Wednesday night (and not yet signed into law by the president) gives the agency new policy direction, NASA is operating under a continuing resolution (CR) that funds the agency at FY2010 levels, with a final appropriations bill not likely until late this calendar year.
That is not stopping NASA, though, from pressing ahead on some elements of its new strategy. “We anticipate doing a CCDev 2,” NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver said in a telecon with reporters Thursday afternoon. referring to a second round of Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) awards. “We believe we’ll get a good healthy start in ’11″ assuming appropriators fund the program at similar levels to what’s authorized. And, in fact, late Friday NASA released a preliminary announcement about CCDev 2, which will support efforts “to further advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of elements of the system such as launch vehicles and spacecraft.” NASA expects to formally solicit proposals for Space Act Agreements under CCDev 2 around October 25, with multiple awards to be made by the following March. (October 25, coincidentally, is the beginning of the 2010 Commercial and Government Responsive Access to Space Technology Exchange conference at NASA Ames.)
Other programs, though, will be slower to develop. Because NASA is operating under a CR, it is still bound by language in the final FY10 appropriations bill that prevents NASA from terminating Constellation or starting up replacement efforts. “We are stil living under the appropriations language that we will not be terminating any contracts and, of course, can’t have any entirely new starts,” she said. “Those changes will have to wait until an approved appropriations bill.” However, she said that with the authorization bill eliminating the uncertainty about NASA’s future direction, it’s possible to reshape those continuing Constellation contracts. “We definitely feel now that we can direct them with more clarity from that bill.”
One other area that may be in flux in the near term is work on a heavy-lift launch vehicle, as directed in the bill. While the legislation is rather specific about the type of HLV NASA should develop, Garver said there may be some room to maneuver to keep other options open. “I think the trade space continues to be open on what type of vehicle we will have,” she said, adding that they may get “some additional guidance” from appropriators. “There’s still a lot of ability on the part of NASA to work with our stakeholders on what exactly is included in our new heavy lift launch vehicle.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 October 1 at 10:00 am ET The passage of S.3729, the NASA authorization bill, by the House, has elicited a broad range of reactions, even among members of the same party from the same state. “While I am by no means satisfied with the Senate version, I voted in support of it when it was presented today before the House because it was better than nothing,” Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) said, explaining why he grudgingly voted for the bill even though he preferred the “more favorable bipartisan alternative” proposed by House Science and Technology Committee chairman Bart Gordon last week. Bishop blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for delaying a vote on the original House bill, saying that if she had “taken up the House version weeks ago, instead of placing it on the back burner indefinitely, we would likely not be in the situation where it’s the Senate bill or nothing.” He added that he would continue to seek “support for the House proposals during the appropriations process.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), though, was pleased with the bill’s passage, saying it would “ensure the book is not closed on northern Utah’s storied solid rocket motor industry” since it bill calls for the development of an HLV “that, Utah industry experts agree, can only be realistically met through the use of solid rocket motors like the ones manufactured by ATK in northern Utah.” And Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) also praised the House passage of the bill, claiming that with the vote “Congress is one step closer to reversing the Obama administration’s misguided proposal to phase out the Constellation and Ares programs.”
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), while pleased the bill contains provision for developing an HLV, said he was concerned that it unduly constrained the design of the vehicle. “NASA must not deliver a rocket that is simply a shuttle without wings. This would not represent a step forward for innovation or for the future of our space program.” Shelby, hardly a fan of commercial initiatives in the White House fan, included a comment about them in his statement: “With the passage of the NASA Authorization bill, it is clear Congress understands that bravado does not necessarily make a rocket company viable.”
Members of the House who did vote for the bill offered a range of rationales for their vote. Like Bishop, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) reluctantly supported the bill, criticizing the “dysfunctional process” that led to the vote. “I will work hard to improve this bill in the coming months and when the Congress convenes in January so that we can keep America first in space.” Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL), whose district includes Marshall, said that he voted for the bill even though it “doesn’t fully rehabilitate [the] manned space flight program” because it does salvage elements of Constellation. “This will not save the space flight program, however something must be passed to fund the program and I voted in favor of the compromise to support continued funding to NASA,” he said. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) expressed his “strong support” for the bill, showing no sign in the statement that he might have preferred the original House version. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), whose district includes Ames, called the bill a “win” for both the center and the state. “California is the natural place for NASA’s new, innovative direction to begin,” she said, citing the work at Ames as well as commercial space companies in the state. And Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), who had been pushing for the Senate bill for some time, applauded the bill’s passage. “Quickly signing this legislation into law will provide much-needed direction and stability for NASA and the Space Coast while maintaining America’s global leadership in space exploration.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 September 30 at 6:35 am ET The final recorded vote for S.3729 in the House last night is available. There aren’t too many surprises in who voted for or against the bill; in addition to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who spoke out against the bill on the House floor, some Ohio representatives, including Dennis Kucinich (D) and Steven LaTourette (R), who had been lobbying against the bill, voted no. Several key appropriators, including the chair and ranking member of the full appropriations committee, Reps. David Obey (D-WI) and Jerry Lewis (R-CA), voted in favor of the bill. One interesting no vote: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), who is in line to become Speaker next year should Republicans win control of the House in November’s elections.
Some of those who did vote for the bill didn’t sound that enthusiastic about it. “While I am not completely satisfied with the Senate bill, I am very pleased it passed,” Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), ranking member of the House Science and Technology Committee, said in a statement. “While I preferred the compromise language offered by Chairman [Bart] Gordon, I am pleased that we were at least able to pass a bill.” Gordon, meanwhile, reiterated in his own statement plans to seek changes when appropriators take up their spending bills after the November elections, calling the passage of S.3729 “only one more step in crafting a sustainable, affordable, and productive future path for NASA.”
Senate leaders, understandably, were a little more effusive in their reactions. “I congratulate my House colleagues for taking a big step forward for America’s space program,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement. “It’s been a long, rigorous process – but I believe we’ve reached a sensible center.” The committee’s ranking member, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, “lauded” the House, in particular Houston-area representatives, in her own statement. “I am extremely pleased that the Houston delegation… pulled together to gain approval of the Congressional initiative to preserve America’s future in space and protect our proud heritage of exploration.”
One of the companies most affected by the bill, ATK, issued a statement early Thursday saying that it was “encouraged” by the bill’s passage. “The passage of S.3729 provides ATK the opportunity to support NASA on the development of a heavy-lift vehicle for human space flight that will utilize proven advanced solid rocket motor propulsion capabilities,” the company stated. ATK, of course, loses the Ares 1 launch vehicle that won’t be continued under the new plan, but the relatively prescriptive language in the Senate bill and accompanying report on HLV design (a point of criticism by Giffords in her floor speech) would appear to give the company a consolation prize.
Congress also got a message of thanks from NASA administrator Charles Bolden. “We are grateful that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 received strong support in the House after its clearance in the Senate, and can now be sent on to the President for his signature,” Bolden said. “Passage of this bill represents an important step forward towards helping us achieve the key goals set by the President.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 September 29 at 10:20 pm ET Update 11:45 pm: The House did pass the bill in a recorded vote by well over the two-thirds margin needed: 304-118.
For about 45 minutes this evening the House debated S. 3729, the NASA authorization bill. Because the bill is taken up under suspension of the rules, the debate was relatively streamlined, with no opportunity for introducing amendments. Most of those speaking, including Reps. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Ralph Hall (R-TX), and Pete Olson (R-TX), were reluctantly in favor of the bill, saying it wasn’t perfect but it was better than none at all. Some of the claims bordered on (or perhaps were fully) hyperbolic: Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) claimed that if the House didn’t pass the bill, President Obama would succeed in shutting down the nation’s human spaceflight program by the end of the year.
A notable exception was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), chair of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee, who spoke “in strong opposition” to the bill, calling it a “bad bill” that the House should vote down. Over the course of about seven minutes she laid out her issues with the bill, ranging from a lack of funding specified for an additional shuttle mission to a heavy-lift launch vehicle “designed by our colleagues” in the Senate as opposed to engineers, to its support of “would be” commercial providers.
The speaker pro tem declared at the end of the debate that the yeas had won the voice vote, but after a bit of an awkward pause, Giffords formally requested a recorded (roll call) vote. That will take place later tonight; perhaps much later, as the House is now moving on to debate the continuing resolution to fund the government after Thursday. The vote will take place tonight, though, as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced this evening that the House will adjourn after tonight’s votes until November 15th, after the mid-term elections. Note that under suspension of the rules the bill will need a two-thirds majority to pass.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 September 29 at 1:00 pm ET The House is in session right now, but there’s no timetable for consideration of the Senate NASA authorization bill. This morning there’s been one final wave of statements about the bill and requests for people to contact their representative regarding it. Late this morning NASA released a statement from administrator Charles Bolden expressing his support for S. 3729. Bolden said he was “hopeful” that the bill “will receive strong support in the House and be sent onto the President for his signature.” He adds at the end of the statement: “There is still a lot of work ahead, especially as the 2011 appropriations process moves forward, but the continuing support for NASA ensures America’s space program will remain at the forefront of pioneering new frontiers in science, technology, and exploration.”
A pithier request came from former Congressman Nick Lampson on Twitter: “Please call your congressman and ask him/her to vote FOR the space bill today in the House of Reps. Contact friends for same. Urgent!” What’s noteworthy is that Lampson posted the request on Twitter: his last tweet was more than seven and a half months ago.
Space advocate Rick Tumlinson isn’t one to mince words, and he doesn’t in an essay on The Huffington Post Wednesday morning about why people should support the Senate bill, as imperfect as it might be. “The Senate, on the other hand, although filling its own bill with as much pork as possible and keeping many of the obviously dead end programs started in the last administration alive, at least allows our NewSpace industry a shot at proving itself, and gives NASA marching orders at a time when many of its people are facing uncertainty and chaos,” he writes. And, because this is a relatively low profile issue, he says, a small number of people can make a big difference. “Because so little attention is being paid to this issue, those who do lift a finger can make a difference. And because the stakes are so large, the difference you make is greater than those issues so many see as important today and you can do little about.”
Recently retired Planetary Society executive director Lou Friedman would agree with Tumlinson that the Senate bill has its share of pork, but argues that’s a reason not to vote for it. “The NASA Authorization bills proposed in Congress barely mention exploration. They contain heavy prescriptions for how to build things, pointing to specific contractors. Having politicians design our rockets, propulsion systems, crew vehicles and payloads is a prescription for spending lots of money and accomplishing little,” he writes in a piece on The Planetary Society’s web site. “That’s why I personally oppose both Authorization bills. I am putting my hopes in the Appropriations Committees. Maybe they will authorize the funding and tell NASA to get beyond the Moon, leaving how to the scientists and engineers. Or maybe I am too naive.” Maybe.
|
|
