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

Turning SLS and Orion into Entitlements (Update: Webb Too)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 5, 2013
Filed under , ,

Keith’s note: According to a release issued today: “The Science, Space, and Technology Committee today approved three bills with bipartisan support. … Prior to debate on a fourth bill [H.R. 3625] offered by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), the Committee recessed subject to the call of the Chair. Chairman Smith indicated that he expects the Committee to reconvene to consider the bill next week.”
Full Bill information (note the cosponsors).
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) is going to join the party and will introduce an amendment to give the Webb Space Telescope the same protection against cancellation as SLS and Orion would get under this bill. Think of all the large contracts that will soon be voided and what this means for the way in which NASA engages in contracting for future programs – to say nothing of the contingencies that won’t be in place in case a program runs into trouble – and the decreased flexibility the agency will have to manage its finances.
Rep. Brooks is submitting an amendment that says “Page 5, line 6, insert “If the Administration terminates a covered program for the convenience of the Government, then the Administration is responsible for payment of all termination liability costs.” after “such prime contracts.” In other words, the government accepts all the responsibility and lets the SLS and Orion prime contractors off the hook when it comes to termination costs. This bill only affects the prime contractors. None of the subcontractors get anything out of it i.e. ATK, Aerojet etc. Indeed, they are left holding the bag as far as their potential termination costs are concerned. I have to wonder what CBO will say when it scores this bill and what the Budget Committee might have to say. This bill sets a precedent that could spread across the government.
If passed into law, H.R. 3625 would make it exceptionally difficult to ever halt SLS, Orion, or Webb or to adjust funds internally by treating them in a way that is utterly different than other NASA programs. Indeed it would make these programs into Zombies that can never be killed. Here’s an excerpt:

“(2) While the Space Launch System and the Orion programs, currently under development, have made significant progress, they have not been funded at levels authorized, and as a result congressionally authorized milestones will be delayed by several years.
(3) In addition, contractors are currently holding program funding, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, to cover the potential termination liability should the Government choose to terminate a program for convenience. As a result, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are unavailable for meaningful work on these programs.
(a) GENERAL RULE. Termination liability costs for a covered program shall be provided only pursuant to this section.
(b) PROHIBITION ON RESERVING FUNDS. The Administrator may not reserve funds from amounts appropriated for a covered program, and shall direct prime contractors not to reserve funds, for potential termination liability costs with respect to a covered program.
(c) INTENT OF CONGRESS. It is the intent of Congress that funds authorized to be appropriated for covered programs be applied in meeting established technical goals and schedule milestones.
(d) VOID CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS. Any provision in a prime contract entered into before the date of enactment of this Act that provides for the payment of termination liability costs through any means other than as provided in this section is hereby declared to be void and unenforceable.
(1) TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE. The Administrator may not initiate termination for the convenience of the Government of a prime contract on a covered program unless such program termination is authorized or required by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.”

Full text of HR 3265

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

34 responses to “Turning SLS and Orion into Entitlements (Update: Webb Too)”

  1. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    We should consider this development as having killed the argument that the SLS project is anything other than a direct Federal subsidy to certain corporations and states.

    • Rocky J says:
      0
      0

      Sponsors/Cosponsors –
      AL (MSFC- SLS & Contractors ) – 4
      TX (JSC, Orion & Contractors) – 4
      FL (KSC, SLS+Orion integration & launch) – 2
      CA, AZ, CO, MS, WA – 5 (locations of prime contractors)

      This bill needs to a stopped.

  2. porkfight says:
    0
    0

    You forgot to mention ISS, the ultimate NASA entitlement program. It was also included in this bill for termination liability shielding.
    We spend more on ISS sustainment than on Orion and SLS development combined, yet the ISS budget produces virtually no new hardware and even the cargo/crew vehicles that will fly to ISS are not included in the ISS budget.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      PF:

      The ISS actually exists and, therefor, should be preserved. SLS doesn’t, won’t and, therefor, shouldn’t be!

      You make a good point that the ISS budget produces virtually no new hardware. That hardware, in this utilization phase of the ISS, is those very same cargo/crew vehicles needed to support further progress.

      Cargo/crew vehicles should indeed be included in the ISS budget and given the funding necessary so they can help meet ISS goals.

      tinker

    • rb1957 says:
      0
      0

      why does a project have to produce hardware to justify itself ? surely using the ISS is the justification for making the darned thing ??

    • LPHartswick says:
      0
      0

      Too true. I just finished watching the movie Lincoln; and occasionally good things do come from crass politics. If common sense isn’t sufficient; perhaps naked self interest will keep SLS/Orion chugging along anemically until the “best & brightest” come to their senses and fund space exploration like the national priority it should be.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I’m not sure that the ISS budget isn’t supporting some other work that is reasonable but would be cancelled if it had to be funded on its own, and some overhead that should be funded out of institutional funds. Nevertheless we need ISS as a terminal for reusable launch systems.

  3. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    Wow. The fact is that big programs are terminated and so those termination fees must be held back. The SLS is almost certain to be terminated at some point when a couple of Senators have moved on, so those fees will be spent eventually.

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      Mo Brooks is a relatively young Congressman. Unless something drastic happens in the political landscape, he could be around 20+ years, long enough to ensure NASA never does anything meaningful again.

      • SouthwestExGOP says:
        0
        0

        Matt – SLS stands for Senate Launch System, a member of the House has some influence but as you say he is young. If a few Senators retire – the SLS is dead. Sen Hutchison has already retired…

  4. MattW2 says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like Congress recognizes that the end is near for these programs, and is trying to prolong the pain for as long as possible.

  5. Rocky J says:
    0
    0

    HR3625 – this is bad news. This bill is authored by congressman Morris Brooks from the Huntsville AL’s congressional district. Let’s recall a statement Brooks made to congress in April 2011. Brooks stated, “Folks, we
    are here today forcing this issue because America is at risk. We are at
    risk of insolvency and bankruptcy because the socialist members of this
    body choose to spend money that we do not have.” His superiors were so upset that he chose to strike it from the congressional record and at the same time, off the record, defended his statement.

    Another of Brooks statements, “Let’s talk about socialism for a moment. It’s greater and greater
    government micromanaging of our lives. It’s higher taxes to pay for it,”
    Brooks said. “Let’s talk about free enterprise. Free enterprise is
    belief in the individual, in freedom, in opportunity. It’s what has
    helped make America one of the greatest nations the world has ever
    seen.”

    With HR3625, Brooks is socializing the SLS, Orion and ISS programs and forcing micro-management of NASA by politicians, forcing NASA to spend money that it does not have, cannot afford … all because it defends big contracts in his congressional district. This bill by Brooks is the socialism he claims is eating at America.

    I hope that space advocacy groups will take this as a call to join together and defeat this bill and also bring to a proper end the SLS and Orion projects by replacing them with the emerging COTS solutions.

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      from Brooks, “…bankruptcy because the socialist members of this body…”

      I wonder if anyone can actually define socialism without political bias.

      and “Let’s talk about free enterprise…”

      how about commercializing the moon, it’s just 240,000 miles away and also be a great space race according to this article,
      http://qz.com/153500/why-th

    • AstroNerd says:
      0
      0

      “I hope that space advocacy groups will take this a call to join together …”

      Hmmm, good luck there.

  6. rb1957 says:
    0
    0

    it seems an odd way to run things … do what we say, but we won’t give you the budget to do them ?
    but then i guess to counter is .. we’re sick and tired of you picking your plums (choice projects) and not doing the things we think you should … it’s Our budget, not yours !

  7. spacegaucho says:
    0
    0

    So when it is finally time to terminate SLS the rest of NASA gets gutted to pay termination costs?

  8. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    If this actually becomes law, it will in my opinion be the worst decision ever made with respect to NASA. Certainly, guaranteeing program survival will do nothing to prevent program costs from skyrocketing or to encourage responsible management. In fact, it will very likely do the exact opposite. It will result in more NASA programs being axed every year.

    • mattmcc80 says:
      0
      0

      The danger of the precedent is government-wide, not just a NASA problem. Imagine if the F-22 or, God forbid, the trillion-dollar F-35 was given similar sacred cow status.

  9. Spacetech says:
    0
    0

    What’s the difference?
    I have been working at NASA as a contractor for 14yrs and it has always been “white collar welfare”.
    Why change now? At least this bill would make it official.

  10. Darren E says:
    0
    0

    This is a very sensible Bill. It will prevent the Administration from cancelling important long term projects (such as Constellation was cancelled) and prevent wasting Billions of dollars. It will also free up termination money for real work.

    • Engineer_in_Houston says:
      0
      0

      This might make sense if it was protecting actually important, long-term projects, instead of protecting important, long term pork for the benefit of the long term viability of particular Congress people.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        EiH:

        I’d be very interested in any realistic alternatives to the ‘status quo’ that you might have… stipulating that it leads to America being the undeniable leader in space in the shortest period of time! 🙂

        tinker

        • Engineer_in_Houston says:
          0
          0

          There are multiple problems that need to be addressed. First of all, there is no precedent in the industry as far as I know where a specific solution is designed and constructed prior to the specific problem being fully defined. This is a completely upside down approach to systems engineering, which – historically – NASA has been a world leader in. [Which fact further paints SLS as an unwanted political solution to an engineering problem.] An example might be the careful market analysis that must be done to forecast the need for a new airliner. There is, in my opinion, a sort of problem definition already defined. The several “vision” reports and statements made over the decades all point to a desired outcome. My preference is to summarize these in John Marburger’s words: “To bring the solar system within our economic sphere.” Exploration by itself is great, I find that very appealing. Apollo was an inspiration to me. The Lewis and Clark approach is not a bad one at all. But, to be sustainable, the cost has to be brought down. The best way to do that is to provide market incentives to the private sector to nurture a growing commercial space industry. Ideally, this would result in a profit engine not tied to NASA (that would also create jobs) and from which NASA could benefit by securing *services* rather than building up a capability to provide those services for itself. NASA is pursuing this to some degree now, but it ought to be expanded to include lift to LEO and perhaps beyond. If they knew exactly what their requirements were, they could put out an RFP for services to loft payloads. Of course, there would have to be incentives there, guaranteed. Nobody is going to invest in upgrading a launcher (if that’s even needed) without some assurances that their investment will be rewarded. Another part of this is that the future is unpredictable. It’s important to build up infrastructure and capability that can stand on its own and be useful (and even instructive) so that each succeeding step builds on the successes of the previous steps. SLS is a Hail Mary, and skips over lots of steps, not the least of which is (as mentioned) there is no specific raison d’être. There would be plenty of good work for all the NASA centers if a sensible, sustainable, logical sequence of steps was fabricated that worked with private industry. What we have now is a hijacked space agency because a few representatives are afraid that their centers might become obsolete unless they keep doing what they’ve always been doing.

          I’ve included a graph that will surely be argued, because it is notional, but some attempt was made to get it right. The true comparison should be a relative one between the various approaches. The take-away from this is that there is not a viable path forward with SLS where there will be enough money left over for payload development after SLS is completed and test-flown, when it will sit idle for however long it takes.

    • objose says:
      0
      0

      I have a work related bias towards SLS BUT I do have a thought: SLS James Webb. More expensive than thought but now way to far down the pipeline. IF NASA is to diminish it’s role, then it MUST do it at the start, not the beginning. James Webb is too far to completion to stop. SLS, to much a core program of NASA. Stop adding programs to the pipeline if costs issues are primary. Cancel James Webb because it is not what it was supposed to be. Well, milestones MUCH earlier on should have been used to guide ending that program. SLS, is being sold as the tractor trailer for the solar system. FINE, build it, see if it flys (pun intended). Stop feeding new programs into NASA and shut down locations where brains are (JPL, Glenn Huntsville) and move those brains to where work is done Kennedy, Michoud.

  11. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like the big contractors are watching the winds shift direction and trying to get what they can before they can get nothing.

  12. Engineer_in_Houston says:
    0
    0

    Seems to me like there is a need for Space Exploration 101 for some Congressional reps (and the general public, too). It would involve explaining the budget – current and over the next decade or two, currently available launchers and their growth capabilities (and the cost per pound to orbit relative to SLS), the difference between per-flight costs and infrastructure costs, what defines and supports a sustainable space exploration/development policy, and what does not. Former and current representatives from Texas, Alabama, Florida, especially would be required to attend such a class. After that, they would be required to justify their votes on spending for NASA in a public forum, where “bull$hit” could be called as needed.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Unfortunately, the cost per pound to LEO for SLS can’t be calculated since division by zero isn’t allowed in mathematics. Sure you can estimate the cost per pound to LEO, but that depends a lot on the assumptions made.

      Am I the only one experiencing deja-vu? Does anyone else remember the promises that the Space Shuttle program was making in the 1970’s? Remember when it was going to be the one and only Space Transportation System for the U.S.? Remember how cheap the cost per pound to LEO was going to be since it would be flying once every two weeks? Remember how reliable it would be with its aircraft like operating procedures?

  13. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Regardless of whether this bill gets passed or not, there are alternatives…

    SpaceX can and will ‘do it on there own’ with private money well invested… and make a profit doing so.

    If lawmakers are malicious enough to destroy SpaceX and gut NASA, big deal! The cat’s out of the bag, so to speak. Others now know what is possible and will emulate their success!

    They just won’t be Americans is all!

    tinker

  14. SurLeFueQ says:
    0
    0

    As an Orion subcontractor, we’ve been pressured for years by LM to assume the risk for TL and not set aside precious funding to cover TL (as required by the FAR). Their argument, LM is covering TL with its corporate funds, so we should do the same if we want to be a good “teammate.” Yeah, right. So what’s the likelihood they will pass down this windfall to their subs?

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      SLFQ:

      Zero!

      See what you can (quietly) do to become a SpaceX subcontractor. That’s where the money and the future is in spacetech. SpaceX already uses hundreds of ‘subs’ to nip ‘n’ tuck’ their own tech so as not to ‘reinvent the wheel’.

      SpaceX is only interested in being self-sufficient on the big ticket items, the ones the main contractors will over-price (or not sell for love or money to protect their non-existent edge). Often, the main contractor’s hardware is so out of date that SpaceX had no choice but to start from scratch; fully friction-stir welded tanks and the ingenious way that they make their own tank domes for example.

      What is it that you sub for the ‘big boys’, if you’re at liberty to say?

      tinker

  15. Mader Levap says:
    0
    0

    Pretty obvious counter against danger presented by Elon Musk and Falcon Heavy. Pork 4ever at its best.