This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Exit Wolf, Enter Culberson?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 20, 2013
Filed under , ,

Love planetary science? Dying to explore Europa’s oceans? Meet the man who can make it happen., Houston Chronicle
“This week U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, announced he would not run for reelection in 2014. This move makes Houston Republican John Culberson the odds-on favorite to replace Wolf and become chairman of an appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA. I have a story in today’s paper that outlines why this is a powerful position, and explains how it is likely to benefit Johnson Space Center. But Culberson’s interest in space go far beyond Houston. He hates the asteroid-retrieval mission. Has strong views about China. And you couldn’t ask for a more ardent proponent of planetary science. Particularly Europa.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

19 responses to “Exit Wolf, Enter Culberson?”

  1. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    Awesome news

  2. Brian_M2525 says:
    0
    0

    This is when NASA leadership should be preparing a plan and rationale to identify exactly what is needed, what takes priority, and why. Otherwise they will, as Keith’s statement indicates, leave it entirely up to the politician to decide for them.

    • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
      0
      0

      Congress will direct NASA regardless of what NASA HQ really wants. SLS is a case in point.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        I think SLS is a perfect case in point. it was because NASA had made no plans, made no effort to lobby for anything to replace first Shuttle, and subsequently, Ares, that Congress belatedly came in with SLS. It would have been much wiser for NASA to have maintained Shuttle supply and manufacturing lines, and they made no effort to do that, and then they went off halfcocked on Ares which was less affordable and less sustainable, and so eventually Congress came back with a Shuttle derived SLS, far less affordable, far more difficult and time consuming. It was a NASA strategic planning failure.

        • dphuntsman says:
          0
          0

          Agreed; we got SLS because Congress had to step into a vacuum left by the White House and NASA.

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          If NASA had maintained the supply lines, to what end? More expensive spaceflight to be dragged out for more decades??

          Isn’t the whole point the fact that public programs and rockets NEVER get more affordable???

          Lol the hero of future human space flight just may be Mike Griffin when he started cots never dreaming that it might succeed with so little money.

          • Brian_M2525 says:
            0
            0

            Most of the expense of Shuttle was in Orbiter and SSME refurbishment. External tanks and SRBs were relatively cheap (or so we were led to believe.

            SLS is based on both Shuttle ETs and SRBs and for the initial phase SSMEs which are not to be reused so require no refurbishment. NASA shut Shuttle, ET and SRB down; laid everyone off, made Orion as large as an Ares could carry and then started the procurement of Ares rockets. Ares was not based on Shuttle with larger diameters, new designs…and then they discovered that the NASA budget could not afford Ares.

            As Ares was dying, Shuttle was still flying and not all of the lay offs and shut downs had occurred just yet, but they were impending. NASA took no action to replace anything-Shuttle or Ares. Shuttle shut down. Lay offs occurred.

            Then in comes Congress, somewhat belatedly, to decide that the appropriate path all along was a Shuttle derived booster-which is exactly what SMS is. Now all the procurements have to be reestablished, all the supply lines reestablished, workers rehired and retrained…..costs skyrocketed.

            As I said, the entire process from start to finish was a NASA strategic planning failure.

  3. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    The tough queston has to be – how is any member of the House going to propose to pay for these missions to Europa, etc??? Does NASA have a big bunch of money not being used? The asteroid retrieval mission has no money so we can’t take it from there.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Therein lies the big problem. There’s not a lot of flexibility in NASA’s budget for such things.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Mr Squared

        You have said that I’m just Spacex fan boy and have tried to paint me as biased.
        Please read the posts in the wolf going away thread with guest, Steve and myself and give me your take on it. I think that may explain my thoughts on PR. Did we ever learn why that parrot was on ISS anyway???
        Also Others have suggested that Spacex be given cost plus contracts like the other guys. I completely disagree with that idea! I have done construction
        fixed fee and cost plus and have seen how it changes how I operated. It is poison.
        Well I’m waiting on the third I hear they may try a water soft landing with legs. Can t wait.

    • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
      0
      0

      sure you but if you kill AARM can you justify spending what $10B through 2021 on Orion/SLS if they have no destination?

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        Everyone wants a Shuttle sized booster. They will have that with SLS. Maybe they could have something similar with a commercial supplier like Space-X. Everyone wants a US indigenous human launch capability. They might get it with Orion and maybe they will have it with Space-X’s dragon (or Boeing’s CST, or SN’s Dreamchaser).

        What is missing is a legitimate long term plan for what to do, why to do it, and how. Nothing can be justified until these things are agreed upon.

        My own perspective:

        -we will need earth to LEO launch and return capability and Space-X, Boeing and SN will all be able provide this-SN will be most elegant returning to ‘airports’ rather than to mid-ocean. We will have to see whether they are as cost effective and efficient.

        -successful earth to lunar or planetary destinations will only happen successfully in the long term with reusable vehicles, advanced propulsion systems, and/or cycling space “cruisers”. The interplanetary vehicles will not be thrown away after every mision. Lunar or planetary crews may return to a LEO node where they will subsequently return to earth by whatever system is used for LEO to earth returns.

        -we will need large space boosters. Shuttle derived had been the way to go until the Shuttle system was terminated. Now it is whichever system is most cost and schedule effective.

        -Orion will never be needed.

    • Brian_M2525 says:
      0
      0

      I wouldn’t worry too much about asteroid recovery missions. I hear that the AA for science says that SMD has no need to recover any asteroids. It was just something dreamed up to give the ops people something to do. ARM will die soon enough. Once again I say, it is time for NASA to work out a plan, a strategy and to provide rationale. I think when its finished there will be no need for asteroid missions, and no need for Orion/MPCV; the work being done is now seen as educational work that is training some of the next generation of spaceship builders.There will be a need for a long term, not throwaway vehicle based on ISS that can take itself into higher orbits and eventually circum-lunar. Maybe they will get to work on that with the next POTUS, or maybe even sooner, since Culberson is very much against the asteroid idea.

  4. jski says:
    0
    0

    Thank God there’s now some one who can help lead NASA is a rational direction; some one who has the sense and will to push back on this senseless one-off asteroid mission; some one who recognizes the moon to be the logic next step.

    • Granit says:
      0
      0

      Yes it is, but there is not enough money in the foreseeable future to go to the moon. Better to send the ARM spacecraft to Deimos and demonstrate the next step in solar electric propulsion for future lunar and Mars missions.

  5. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Something needs will be put where his mouth is, either the money or, if not that, his foot.

  6. MattW2 says:
    0
    0

    How is this not a blatant conflict of interest?

  7. MarcNBarrett says:
    0
    0

    As far as China policy is concerned, Culbertson is an idiot, just like Wolf. They are exactly the same. Actually, Culbertson might be worse, since to him it is about conservative ideology, while Wolf just hates China.

    “So do you support Rep. Wolf’s policy that prevents NASA from working with the Chinese space agency?
    Yes. We need to keep them out of our space program, and we need to keep NASA out of China. They are not our friends.”

    It is futile, really. They want to keep NASA from involvement with China, supposedly to keep sensitive technology from falling into the hands of the Chinese military. But it is futile, because our “allies” (Britain, Germany, and Israel in particular) are just selling it to them anyway. So China is going to get these technologies whether we like it or not, and we may as well take steps to bring our space efforts and theirs together.

    http://thediplomat.com/2013