Space Politics Stumbles Into the 2016 Election (video)
Keith’s note: This video from last week’s Goddard Memorial Symposium features Marcia Smith, Editor, SpacePolicyOnline.com; Lori Garver, General Manager, ALPA; Chris Shank, Policy Director for the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee; Sandy Magnus, AIAA Executive Director; and Mary Lynne Dittmar, Executive Director, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration. The real discussion – bordering on a debate – was between Lori Garver and Chris Shank. You could say it was the opening salvo of space policy in the 2016 election.
The most naive thing to be said came from Mary Lynne Dittmar when she got to talking about a mandate to explore space (around 1:10:00) “Why is space held to this sort of standard that we – in this country – have to come to some single consensus about what the mandate needs to be in order for us to go forward? We don’t do that for almost anything else.” In other words, who needs a clear reason to go build SLS (i.e. a mandate)? We should just build it and then find something to go do with it – because we want to do something, somewhere – eventually – because that’s what space people do – build new things that go into space. Oh, and just send us everyone else’s money when we need it. In other words space IS special – to space people. They are just are blind to the obvious and feel no compulsion to make what they are doing actually relevant to the people who pay for their party.
Space Policy White Paper = Shopping List For The Journey to Nowhere, Previous post
“On one hand the space groups want to have a say in the political decisions that affect their members (and donors). But on the other hand they’d rather not have the politicians pay too much attention to space such that the current status quo is not upset. In other words “write us the checks but don’t rock the boat” – or more bluntly “look but don’t touch”. This is, at best, naive thinking on the part of the space community.”
– White Paper Lays Out Steps to Ensure U.S. Leadership in Space, AIAA, earlier post
– NASA Begins Its Journey To Nowhere, earlier post
– ASAP: NASA Has No Plan or Firm Funding For Its #JourneyToMars, earlier post
Lori was impressive. Her formula for programs that can survive changes of administration were telling: 1) Have a well-defined purpose, 2) Manage well and make your milestones, 3) Don’t blow out your budget. The fact that very few current NASA programs can check all three of those boxes is a serious indictment of the clown show NASA has largely become under the last several administrations. And then she pulled out the shiv and really drove it home by explicitly comparing SLS and Falcon Heavy – not to the former’s advantage. Lot of bit-into-a-lemon faces in the room after that one.
She is, of course, entirely correct to point out that commercial space will be making monkeys out of the Blind Rocket Boys of Alabama very soon without even having to make an explicit effort in that direction. Falcon 9 and Atlas V will have been carrying astronauts for half a decade or more by the time SLS-Orion makes its first manned flight – if it ever does. One suspects Vulcan and Blue Origin’s orbital launcher may be in the mix by then as well. Meanwhile, Falcon Heavy will have long since become the go-to rocket for heavy loads, and then heavier loads as it gets a Raptor-powered, reusable 2nd stage; all this before SLS-Orion ever lifts people.
There will be concensus reached, alright, but it won’t be the one all those apologists for the NASA status quo on the panel will either want or recognize.
All good points! Classic for Shank to blame OMB. Isn’t it the job of NASA to work with OMB and show programs’ progress and value? These smart civil servants’ “agenda” isn’t political, but rather to assure programs are on track – goals being met, aligning with budgets etc. Griffin and company obviously failed to do that as well as O’Keefe, so Obama transition had to work with OMB to repair the damage and create a path forward. Shank’s comments confirm Garver’s point. He admits they knew of all those problems (no $ for last shuttle flights, ISS in the ocean in 2015, nowhere for Orion/Ares I to go, Webb, MSL overruns etc., in order to pay for CxP), they just didnt want to tell the transition team, leaving them to find it out themselves (likely from OMB)! Seems Garver’s just pointing out those tactics didn’t help build consensus or trust and may have had more to do with the last transition being seen as disruptive and incoherent as Magnus, Smith and Morring whine. So who is really “circling the wagons and pointing in” as best buddies Dittmar and Magnus grouse is the problem? Seems like the panelists and moderator had Garver surrounded, but she still managed to keep her messages positive.
Agree that Garver was the target of this wagon circling (as she has been for awhile, since Charlie has never been able to convince anyone he understood or supported the President’s plan). Just sorry she held most of her fire here. Many of us looking forward to the day she decides to tell all and really fire back. Hope that doesn’t have to wait for her book deal!
I hope she DOES get a book deal and a great ghost to help her. I’d like to see a readable and popular book.
She won’t, though, until her career runs another decade or so. My view.
I’d feel more comfortable with that comparison if Musk was finally doing commercial flights for Falcon Heavy, rather than hoping it will finally be ready this year.
If this is the opening salvo for ’16 – I look forward to it! Did anyone else notice Morring’s obvious bias? He says Dittmar’s “job is to build consensus”? She is paid by large government contractors to keep their cost-plus contracts “sold”! He tells an odd story about some unnamed person from the transition team being sweaty and feeling ambushed and journalists not knowing what was going on before the budget came out – with a total lack of understanding that there is a mandatory pre-budget “black-out” for the Administration. If he (or others) had studied the Augustine Report, it was obvious where the human spaceflight program was headed. Not sure why Garver doesn’t point that out. Morring later says he is “surprised” at a recent visit to Blue Origins to learn that they are “actually doing something”! Where has he been that he could miss their “actual” test flights? Did he think those were CG graphics like the Ares/SLS/Orion programs use? He asks Garver about her regrets, but not Shank? No surprise that Morring is from Huntsville. The almost total lack of unbiased journalism in the space program has contributed to the sorry state of human spaceflight. Where are the expose’s on these stunningly wasteful and unnecessary, government programs? Trade press can’t offend their advertisers and “journalists” want their invitations to lunches, dinners, parties, and press pass for launches, so all support the status quo. The one person who didn’t use her big NASA job to set herself up for industry is the only one willing to call this what it is. Her remarks make it pretty obvious she isn’t interested in coming back to NASA… can’t say I blame her if these panelists and “moderator” are an indication of our best and brightest.
I wonder. Lori Graver could easily be the next NASA Administrator if Hillary Clinton is elected President. If she was she could well lead NASA into the brave new world of space commerce.
Well, I’ll just say what I said a number of items ago. If space becomes an issue in the campaign, it will not be to the advantage of space exploration. Posturing & demagoguing over it cannot lead to good results. Better it lies doggo.
I have to finish seeing this but… ahh…I love the smell of napalm in the morning…
Wonderful view by Sandy Magnus about 46 minutes in.
At about 1:03 forward Garver does hit the nail on the head.
I think what Ms. Dittmar was saying is that there is no single overarching reason to explore space. The fact is that there are many reasons including inspiration, technology spinoffs, scientific discovery, weather forecasting, national prestige etc. and that together those reasons make a compelling argument to explore space.
Also I think it is important to point out that Ms. Garver was quite incorrect that the Obama administration “saved” ISS. Mr. Shank was absolutely right to point out that 2016 was only a placeholder end date for ISS.
Sure there may have been some in NASA in 2008 who wanted to splash ISS at that date but that was not the view of Congress or the President.
The Obama administration is doing the exact same thing as the Bush administration did by setting an end date for ISS about 8 years in the future, which allows the next admin to make a decision about whether to run ISS longer or not.
Griffin/Shank prioritized funding for CxP, so the budget run-out could not include the additional Shuttle flights or ISS after ’15. Sure, they could have increased the budget, but Griffin lost that argument within the Administration (bad-mouthing OMB likely didn’t help his case :). AresV, Altair etc. were to be funded with the wedge that opened up after ISS was de-orbited, so they couldn’t have it both ways. Would Congress have changed that? Very likely – but President Obama did it first, so can probably take a little credit. Garver makes the point several times that it takes both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to have an effective space program. We haven’t had either in awhile. So Garver et.al. seek advances in space development outside of government. But “the government” can’t even agree to allow that! Definitely see why she seems frustrated (and a bit wistful) here.
Ms. Dittmar is correct in that assessment, in my view, that thee’s no SINGLE reason, although everytime I buy gas I appreciate satellites. The aggregate use is huge for sure.
But still there’s no single reason. And singularity is what drove Apollo. Lack of singularity is what’s hampering Mars HSF as well.
Lori Garver is blunt and says what she means. She has a solid understanding of both technical and policy issues. I do not agree with everything she says but she is exactly what NASA needs.
Does Chris Shank really believe what he says here… that we need to let the program managers make the decisions like whether we spend $30B+ of the public’s money on a new rocket, vs. using commercial rockets? NASA astronauts and engineers/contractors just want to build new toys and fly on them and clearly don’t care about how much it costs, how long it takes, or whether we actually go anywhere. Garver is right to finally call this out. The “Doug Cook’s and Dan Dumbacher’s” were the ones who ruled out any EELV architecture, went to the contractors and the Senate to get SLS/Orion (keep CxP) and Bolden/Coats/Cabana conspired with Nelson and rolled the White House. So sad that we will have spent another $20B of NASA $ for one flight. No possible way it gets a second flight five years (and $10B) later. Even more of a travesty than AresIX silly test flight.
Spot on! Thank you.
Gerst for instance has many times talked about the difficulties of carrying out the SLS program and has spoken about the inefficiency. He has also talked about the so-called Mars program in light of shifting politics and his efforts to keep a gargantuan agency pointed in something resembling a consistent direction. He has said that he wants projects to be generalized enough to be nimble but specific enough to move towards a goal. It’s an impossible job.
The boys running NASA are every bit as aware of the SLS/Mars mess as those of us commenting. The only difference is that they have actual, you know, responsibility.
So, bottom line: Ms. Garver isn’t saying anything that everyone doesn’t already know, including that entire panel. Her chief advantage is lack of guile.