The Senate NASA compromise may be our best chance

As an engineer, my first reaction upon reading the proposed Senate authorization bill for NASA was incredulity.  I remain unconvinced of the technical need for a heavy lift rocket and was appalled to see space technology research and development, which I think is essential for developing a true in-space infrastructure, slashed in funding.

I had the opportunity yesterday, though, to sit down with some friends who have a little more insight into what’s really been going on up in DC.  Plain and simple, Senators Hutchison and Nelson quietly formed an alliance in the Senate and even more quietly pre-coordinated with the White House to come up with something that everyone can live with.

For all the suggestions of his inability to lead, it was NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden who made the case for a heavy-lift vehicle and that was the carrot Hutchison and Nelson used to get the support from expected intransigents like Sen. Shelby, who just earned a rather ignominious distinction from Citizens Against Government Waste.

There is an important clause in the language on heavy lift that leaves NASA an escape if it finds shuttle-derived components are impracticable.  Thus, the staffers that helped put this bill together say that NASA is not technically constrained by the Senate language.  The authorization committee also accepted amendments to provide more funding for tech R&D and robotic precursor missions.

At this point, it’s a matter of making the trades in the budget lines to come to an amicable conclusion that funds one more Shuttle flight, ISS continuation, exploration and space technology research, and a human exploration program beyond Earth orbit.  While commercial crew development is constrained in FY2011, I hear that was intended to actually provide commercial developers cover for moving out strong in FY2012 and beyond.

In any event, the Senate appropriations committee just approved the full $19 billion the President and the Senate authorization committee asked for.  This is a bonafide example of how the system really is supposed to work.  Senators, staffers, and the White House set aside partisan politics to develop a plan that we can move forward on, even while acknowledging that it isn’t perfect.

By contrast, the House legislation is a scattershot proposal, with its only clear goal being the restoration of the status quo.  Forty-three – yes, 43 – amendments were submitted against it, even as the House committee meeting was ongoing.

Our own Rep. Pete Olson filed an “emergency” amendment intended to short-circuit their own priority queue to immediately fund the Constellation spacesuit project.  Other Representatives squabbled over the $15 million CRuSR program to sponsor suborbital science research and whether NASA should foster the growth of commercial space industry at all.  (Note: The Space Act explicitly directs NASA to help grow American industry in space.  It doesn’t actually say anything about flying people in space.)  Towards the end of the day, it was silly season on display.

Senator Hutchison is showing some real leadership here and has done good work for our state and our space program.  I hope Rep. Olson and his colleagues in the House will learn from her example and stop tilting at windmills.  Rep. Kosmas from Florida submitted an amendment calling on the House to follow the Senate’s approach, so at least one person in that chamber gets it.

If the Senate’s strategy is adopted by the House and emerges from conference committee intact, we could have a bill that he will sign on the President’s desk before October and avoid a continuing resolution – which would keep NASA in limbo perhaps as long as another year.

This would be a more evolutionary change for NASA, as opposed to the revolutionary approach outlined in the President’s FY2011 budget.  Even so, NASA still gets an overall increase in its budget and breathing room for needed investments in commercial space services and technology R&D.  JSC, in particular, will have plenty of work to do.

As long as NASA retains the freedom to make appropriate technical decisions within the budget and schedule provided, I think we can make this work.

Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries

5 Responses to “The Senate NASA compromise may be our best chance”

  1. Bennett Dawson  on July 23rd, 2010

    Thank you for providing a clear picture of this convoluted process. When the House version came out I felt my hope for real progress starting to fade.

    Your article restores provides a glimmer that we may have a real future in HSF, and serious tech advancement for building the infrastructure we need to move out BEO.

    Thanks again Justin!

    Reply

  2. Thomas Lee Elifritz  on July 23rd, 2010

    which would keep NASA in limbo perhaps as long as another year.

    What’s another year or two after you’ve wasted nearly a decade pursuing folly at an incalculable loss of value, time and resources to our security.

    You are not fooling this person supporting a shuttle derived expendable heavy lift launcher. Future failure is guaranteed with this LV design.

    Reply

  3. Justin  on July 23rd, 2010

    I share the concern that a forced shuttle-derived design will not succeed, Thomas. My point is that the people who wrote the language say there is nothing in there that necessarily constrains NASA to such a design.

    Reply

  4. Nelson Bridwell  on July 23rd, 2010

    One of the big questions that many people are asking is how well NASA upper management will live up to the letter and the spirit of the NASA authorization bill, after the ADA issue.

    If I were in Bolden’s shoes I would try to repair relations with Congress. A little bit of good will can go a long way in the years to come.

    Reply


Leave a Reply