Looking Ahead to A Post-Election NASA
Hearing: The Space Leadership Preservation Act and the Need for Stability at NASA
“Tomorrow, February 25 at 10:00 a.m. ET, the House Science Committee will hold a hearing on the need for stability at NASA through changing presidential administrations. The hearing will feature former astronaut and first female Space Shuttle pilot and commander, Colonel Eileen Collins, as well as former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. Rep. John Culberson, chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, will also testify. Culberson is the author of legislation the Science Committee will review on Thursday, the Space Leadership Preservation Act, which is intended to bring stability to NASA despite changing presidential administrations.”
Keith’s note: So … would Mike Griffin entertain the notion of being Donald Trump’s NASA Administrator?
Hearing Charter: The Space Leadership Preservation Act and the Need for Stability at NASA
Statement by Eileen Collins: Hearing: The Space Leadership Preservation Act and the Need for Stability at NASA
“I believe program cancellation decisions that are made by bureaucracies, behind closed doors, and without input by the people, are divisive, damaging, cowardly, and many times more expensive in the long run. As a shuttle commander, I would never make a huge decision without input from all the experts, even the ones I do not agree with. So what will keep us from having surprises like this that set us back years? Answer: A continuity of purpose over many years, over political administrations, and over normal changes in leadership throughout the chain of command. I know there must be ways to do this through policy, organizational structure, and strong leadership.”
Statement by Michael Griffin: Hearing: The Space Leadership Preservation Act and the Need for Stability at NASA
“What might the “right path” look like? I have been clear in the past and hope to be clear now to me the most logical step beyond the ISS is an international partnership, led by the United States, to return to the Moon, this time to stay. In the course of so doing we will learn what is needed to go beyond, to go to Mars. And if, as I have long suspected, the Moon turns out to be quite an interesting and useful destination in its own right, well then, so much the better.”
GAO: NASA: Preliminary Observations on Major Acquisition Projects and Management Challenges, GAO
“Our ongoing work has also found that the Space Launch System and Orion, the two largest projects in this critical stage of development, face cost, schedule, and technical risks. For example, the Space Launch System program has expended significant amounts of schedule reserve over the past year to address delays with development of the core stage, which is the Space Launch System’s propellant tank and structural backbone. The Orion program continues to face design challenges, including redesigning the heat shield following the determination that the previous design used in the first flight test in December 2014 would not meet requirements for the first uncrewed flight. The standing review boards for each program have raised concerns about the programs’ ability to remain within their cost and schedule baselines. If cost overruns materialize on these programs, they could have a ripple effect on the portfolio and result in the potential postponement or even force the cancellation of projects in earlier stages of development. We have ongoing work on both of these programs and we plan to issue reports on them later this summer.”
I wouldn’t think Mike would want to help Donald Trump apply NASA’s budget to fixing potholes and bridges. Which is Mr. Trump’s stated priority for federal funding.
Just out of curiosity. Who would be the NASA administrator to be nominated by Clinton and Sanders?
The only obvious name I could think of would be Lori Garver. She has been running point for the Democratic nominees on space issues since 2004.
As a less probable, non-nominal scenario-
If Garver is named, it won’t be just to keep the NASA ship on it’s prior heading. More likely than not, regardless of what statements will be made at the time about accepting the SLS mandate and being eager to manage the SLS program towards success, she will set the stage for the termination of SLS.
Simply, this will be done by forming new “review teams” to “help SLS” – all with non-SLS, selective membership. This team will be given the authority from the top, the air cover, and some nukes so to speak, to request detailed SLS budgetary information, to require estimates for operational costs NOW, to see how this fits with Mars in a budget, and to make ALL this information public. The termination of SLS will then be a matter of course, as rats (stakeholders) leave the ship finally and continually revealed to be sinking (or in the obvious process of being scuttled).
I have to sympathize with the SLS program’s people, the day they have to deal with these “review” team members, analysts and questioners. They’ll be quick to discover that if they won’t cooperate with the review team that’s “here to help”, the new ‘Administrator will find those who will.
Wishful thinking. We hardly need detail on the numbers. We just need someone to point out that, yes, the house is actually on fire.
Everybody knows the numbers to a sufficient degree of accuracy. Additional sigfigs won’t help.
We *do* need some detail on this Mars craziness, though, specifically how much it will cost to maintain any sort of Mars presence.
Actually we really do need details because that is the only way to PROVE that the picture of the burning house is actually burning..
We agree on lots of things and I imagine we agree on this as well.
The difference in development cost between SpaceX work product (F9 and FH) and the SLS approaches an order of magnitude. Close enough, for comparison, in my view.
In fact it is so large that I wonder if those Senators are actually wearing any clothes.
Robert Lightfoot
Musk?
NASA & the DoD need Musk more than Musk need the US government contracts. The supply of Atlas V is a bit iffy with the recent geopolitics and the replacement Vulcan launcher got an ambitious early in service date.
If you think about it. SpaceX is a spacecraft manufacturer, launcher manufacturer, rocket engine manufacturer, launch provider & national space agency all rolled into one. With all the toys he have, Musk doesn’t need the headache of lobbying the Congressional critters. Besides Musk also have the Tesla electric car side business.
I think you’re right, there’s no chance it would happen. I was thinking more about how he’d shake things up IF it happened. As a young immigrant multi-billionaire with a string of successes, he’d be able to intimidate and embarrass the Pork Posse on Capitol Hill!
Given what is going on with the Republicans, the next President will be a Democrat. Unless she is indicted, Hillary will win. With either Democrat, NASA will remain a low priority. NASA budget will continue a slow decline. Continuing Democratic administration, no need for NASA management to change at all. We will continue on the same dismal, poorly defined and largely unaccepted path to nowhere. ISS will continue.Dragons, CST, and maybe even a Dreamchaser will fly with crew during the next President’s first term. Orion and SLS might fly unmanned. Discussion about asteroid and Mars missions will continue unabated with no real progress.
As a nominal scenario, the general gist of what is more likely than not, I have to agree with your scenario Neal.
That said, there are a couple of less probable scenarios, depending on events as they unfold, that can quickly move from being 10 or 20% probable into the “more likely than not” range.
NASA’s budget has actually been slowly growing thanks to both Obama and Congress – it was about $17B in Obama’s first budget – its $19.3B today. Obama and the Republicans in Congress can’t agree on anything; why would NASA ‘s destination be any different? NASA has made slow progress on SLS and Orion and is now looking to start doing a Cis-Lunar proving round with a long duration Hab; I think that will be enough to get us through the next 4 years; we’ll have to see whether Hillary or Trump gets re-elected in 2022,
All in all, a pretty dismal outlook for the next President and for NASA..
Doesn’t seem dismal at all to me… If NASA want’s cargo shipped to LEO .. multiple domestic suppliers, if NASA wants to put astronauts into LEO, multiple domestic suppliers, NASA wants to lease space in LEO a commercial firm waiting to come online just as soon as domestic passenger services start.
To me that does not seem dismal at all .. for me it is America FINALLY moving space transportation away from a single government agency and into the commercial sector wihich already provides every single form of transporatation imaginable.
I believe NASA will be able to FINALLY get out of the fields they should have abandoned 30 years ago
“With either Democrat, NASA will remain a low priority. “
You DO realize the Nation’s checkbook has been controlled by the Republicans in the house for years correct?
You do realize the republicans have been free to BOTH authorize and appropriate ANY amount for NASA correct?
You do realize the President can only send a NON BINDING budget SUGGESTION to congress correct?
The Congress can send a 40 billion a year appropriations bill to the President’s desk and provide for a Lunar program correct?
This idea of all we need is President that says lets spend like drunken sailors on the space program and it is going to happen is total nonsense.
Strictly speaking, it can also go the other way. Congress could pass a huge appropriation and the President could order NASA not to spend it. Things like that have happened before (e.g. when the President really disapproved of the funded activity or didn’t like what the spending would do to the debt.)
No the President can no longer do that. A law was passed against Nixon because that was what Nixon did.
http://www.politico.com/age…
This keeps the Executive branch from doing that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Good point. I had to look that up. But I’d say the key point was the Supreme Court ruling on it in Train v. City of New York. If it was just a law passed by Congress, it’s status would be more ambiguous.
The best way would be the President would just veto the spending bill. It would be hard to not fund and entire program like SLS… slow walk it . maybe but outright not allow the funds to be used.. not very likely.
I would have liked for the President to veto literally hundreds of bills to break republican obstructionism. Veto EVERY DIME they wanted until they finally started doing their jobs.
deleted
If Trump becomes president, NASA probably won’t exist unless someone can convince him sending people to mars is a good reality tv show.
Are you KIDDING? Just take him outside; point to the moon, and say: real estate.
Wrong. He’s going to build a lunar colony. And make the aliens pay for it.
Stability to spending in particular congressional districts that is. Wouldn’t it be awesome to be done with the charade and just write it into law, this many billions to Utah, Alabama and Florida for next 20 years – and we really honestly don’t care what exactly do you do with it.
We tried that and called it ‘Revenue Sharing’, another example of crazy thinking from our friends on the right. Didn’t work.
They do care. It’s not enough to go to the state, it has to go to a specific contractor in the state. It can’t just go to Utah, it has to go to ATK in Utah. Because that’s the only reason ATK is in Utah.
Well, if dropping the charade is the subject, then just put the contractor names in law too. And then everyone involved can go off on a nice 20 year vacation, which i think would have a net benefit for our progress in space.
“Dropping the charade” would mean they don’t get re-elected. They need the pretence of doing it for their state, with the reality of doing it for their
ownersdonors.Please,no more astronauts! One was more than we needed.
Erm, we’ve had two (Truly and Bolden) and one acting (Gregory).
Oh, Truly was the one who turned down the first Bush Moon and Mars plan. I echo, PLEASE NO MORE ASTRONAUTS. We need people who can think strategically and who can deal with politicians.
All future NASA administrators should have astronaut experience.
Why?
Astronauts have a very limited ( but impressive) portfolio, none of which is relevant to running an $18B Agency.
One of the best in recent years had very little background in space (I’m speaking of Sean, of course.)
Party doesn’t matter very much in these jobs; Mr. Obama appointed a Republican to head the Dod, for instance.
Strictly speaking, Mr. Obama retained a Republican who was already in the job. But he did nominate a Republican as ambassador to China.
Well, to be completely accurate: Mr. Gates isn’t a registered Republican but claims affiliation; then there’s Mr. LaHood at Transportation; Mr. Greg withdrew his nomination.
Well, Trump-on-the-stump might well prove to be a different sort of thing than President Trump would be.
While the former is quite fun to watch, you might also look over and ponder Scott Adams’ little piece, Clown Genius: http://blog.dilbert.com/pos…
I’ll just say that politicians wh0ring after office will say anything to get there. The old adage ever applies: Watch what they do, not what they say.
Thee’s truth to your point. More significant than WHAT they say is HOW they say it, in my view; do they appear to be men of integrity?
Trump’s plan is to allow the media to TOTALLY fund his campaign..
Makes a statement about illegals .. millions of free press for week
makes a statement about women .. millions of free press for week
Makes a statement about muslims .. millions of free press for week
on and on and on
It is has been the EXACT same thing every couple days .. a new “outragous” statement and millions of free press.
Trump actually outlined this plan to some associates a year before he declared he was running.
Will there be another “Worm Watch” type of activity? Other than that, I think whoever next President will be, NASA’s mission will veer toward political objectives (like it always has done) i.e. need to please certain key senators and congressmen, do a high profile activity that does not create much embarrassment. Other than that, NASA gets lost in the noise compared to other budgets.
Dennis Wingo did analysis of OMB numbers (those huge spreadsheets you can download from whitehouse.gov/omb) normalize spendings of various govt agencies throughout the years. It shows NASA budget always declines compared to everyone else which Wingo says there are two space programs: Political space program and space program that is sold to the American people. i.e. politicians “I am cutting federal spending such as NASA to reduce the deficit.”
“another “Worm Watch””
I hope so! I first started watching Keith’s work during that era and for the longest time couldn’t figure out what the hell he was talking about!
Must be a by-product of working at Some Other Center for years, but why does the “priority” part of the charge sound like “All Johnson all the time?” Couldn’t be because Rep. Culbertson is from Texas, could it?
I doubt it. That bias towards certain centers goes back a long time. As in before Culbertson was first elected. Astronauts bring a certain amount of political prestige, and most of them live and work in the Houston area.
Texas versus alabama?
Sure. That feud has been going on since it was the Redstone Arsenal and “some swampy place south of Houston.” Almost all current politicians were still in college, or younger, when that started.
Alabama +6.
Oh sure, running around in a monkey suit. You guys really DO want space command to take over, don’tcha?
Hey,lighten up on the “pushing 70” comment. 70 is the new 50.
Well darn it – I found myself agreeing with Mike Griffin!!?
Why? What in his career makes him capable of managing $18B+ a year? What’s his relationship with Congress?
Lots of questions.
How about someone from the commercial world? Someone like a Stu Witt? Or a Micheal Lopez-Alegria?
President Obama tried to appoint a pro commercial administrator .. the senate said no and Bill “Monster Rocket” Nelson told the president that the senate would approve Bolden.
To me it seems more like the congressional members from space states, Currently mostly red states with centers(?) want to take NASA out of the portfolio of the Executive Branch and allow congress to control it. The President would only get to pick an administrator from a list provided by the board that he senate will approve?
Sometime within the span of the next Presidential administration, it will no longer matter what the President, Congress, or even NASA wants to do in space. Momentum will come from elsewhere and they will only have the choice to hop on the gravy train or not.
By “Momentum” do you mean SLS? Or do you refer towhee’s happening in private space?
Combination of private and foreign. Mostly private. Old money is starting to get involved now, so I think that momentum will come increasingly more from percieved commercial opportunity rather than political will.
I should add that those opportunities will build infrastructure on which NASA will fly their stuff too.