Congress Uses Legal Snark To Ask NASA About SLS And Europa
Babin Requests Information on Europa Clipper Mission and SLS Use
” I’m expecting a prompt response from NASA answering our questions on their analyses of launch vehicles, as well as cost, schedule, and mission impacts.”
Letter From Rep. Babin To NASA Administrator Jurczyk Regarding Europa Clipper and SLS Launch Issues
Image guide: White = Actual information request from Babin to NASA; Gray = legal gotcha language from a Babin staffer (larger image)
Keith’s note: You really should take a look at the letter that Rep. Babin sent to Steve Jurczyk on this whole Europa Clipper/SLS launch decision thing. I gotta tell you, I have neen reading letters between Congress and NASA for 25 years. Some have been rather pointed, confrontational, and snarky. And I have certainly written more than my fair share of snarky gotcha PAO and FOIA requests to NASA designed to make sure that no stone is left unturned. But I have to say that in all the time I have been editing NASAWatch I have never seen a letter from Congress to NASA requesting formation wherein the quasi-legalistic definitions of what constitutes the requested information – and how it is to be identified, sourced, and transmitted to Congress – that uses three times the words of what information is actually being asked for.
Rep. Babin is in the minority, so there is only so much mischief that he can do with whatever NASA provides. But he clearly has some legal eagle on his staff who is trying use their law degree to catch NASA in the act of doing something bad or not being responsive – however trivial the infraction may be.
– Moon 2024 Goal Delays SLS Availability For Europa Clipper, earlier post
– NASA OIG Audit: Management Of NASA’s Europa Mission, NASA OIG, earlier post
– NASA OIG Follow-up to May 2019 Audit of Europa Mission: Congressional Launch Vehicle Mandate, earlier post
What is there to answer? It wasn’t used because it would take longer to be ready, it would be much more expensive, and there were apparently technical concerns like vibrations being worse than the alternative.
Yup, this is wrong horse for the SLS porksters to bet the farm on.
Might be more of a warning shot across the bow to the administration: “We know we can’t win this fight, but we’re just reminding you we’re invested in this program.”
And would anyone on babin’s staff be able to understand whatever torsional data nasa provided? Are they really going to contradict whatever hard data nasa provided to try an invalidate the sound reasoning of not launching on an SLS
It’s possible he has one person on staff with enough of an engineering background to understand the analysis. Or at least the summaries. But the request is also for “all communications” related to the analysis. I hope no one involved sent an honest email to a colleague. Something like, “Thank god. Now we have an excuse to dump SLS and launch on something better.” I’m sure Mr. Babin’s staff would understand that and find it grounds to complain about the decision.
In my experience, the more specific the document being requested, the more likely the person already has it. The real purpose is to get the document from a source where it can enter the public record vs. a back door that can’t be acknowledged.
Another curiosity is the request at the very end of Page 2, to account for funding to look at vehicles other than SLS. Mostly when these analysts work they use the main programs funding. That creates the oddity of sometimes charging a program to try and kill it. I’ve recommended your program be canceled as irredeemable. Here’s the bill. So when I see these phrases I see someone trying to trip someone else up on using funds for other than authorized, which if anyone took a long hard look would probably put half the NASA employees charging to SLS and Orion in jail. So good luck on that one.
This is an interesting request, first Brian Babin is (sadly) my Representative. He is a dentist and so is not going to be able to evaluate this information himself, does he have any staff with an engineering background? This makes you wonder if he is just requesting information (with the goal of wasting appropriated money?) – or is he going to send the information to someone qualified to evaluate it? Who might be paying that someone and is it with appropriated money?
That’s called “A Staffer Has Had Enough.”
How truly good. The letter begins by saying, “Thank you for facilitating a staff briefing on NASA’s decision to not launch the Europa Clipper mission on the Space Launch System (SLS) as required by Appropriation law. The requirement to use the SLS for the Europa Clipper mission was directed by Appropriations Acts, not Authorization legislation.” That definitely isn’t a friendly tone… And asking for all documents, including all drafts and all communications, for a lengthy engineering analysis is going to result in a truck full of filing cabinets full of things no one is likely to ever read. That sure sounds like a statement that, “We can’t stop you, but we don’t like it, and we _can_ make it really painful for you.”
And a quick check shows that Mr. Babin represents Texas’ 36th district, which contains Johnson Space Center. Somehow that doesn’t surprise me…
Don’t mess with Texas I suppose…
It’s been said it takes brains to be a rocket scientist (Tsiolkovsky, Goddard) but that looks easy when comparing to the politics of getting funding, others to agree, goals, etc.
Someone is going to jail.
Why is it more appropriate for the Appropriations Committee to decide what launch vehicle a payload should use than the Authorizations Committee? Aren’t all Congressman equally qualified to decide what launch vehicle is optimal for any specific payload, based on such relevant parameters as how much they have received in campaign contributions from the relevant contractors? Can we submit a FOIA request for all documents and emails within Congressman Babin’s office relevant to the creation of this request?