As an engineer, my first reaction upon reading the proposed Senate authorization bill for NASA was incredulity.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n There is an important clause in the language on heavy lift that leaves NASA an escape if it finds shuttle-derived components are impracticable.\u00a0 Thus, the staffers that helped put this bill together say that NASA is not technically constrained by the Senate language.\u00a0 The authorization committee also accepted amendments to provide more funding for tech R&D and robotic precursor missions.<\/p>\n 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n In any event, the Senate appropriations committee just approved the full $19 billion the President and the Senate authorization committee asked for.\u00a0 This is a bonafide example of how the system really is supposed to work.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n By contrast, the House legislation is a scattershot proposal, with its only clear goal being the restoration of the status quo.\u00a0 Forty-three – yes, 43 – amendments were submitted against it, even as the House committee meeting was ongoing.<\/p>\n Our own Rep. Pete Olson filed an “emergency” amendment intended to short-circuit their own priority queue to immediately fund the Constellation spacesuit project.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 (Note: The Space Act explicitly directs NASA to help grow American industry in space.\u00a0 It doesn’t actually say anything about flying people in space.)\u00a0 Towards the end of the day, it was silly season on display.<\/p>\n Senator Hutchison is showing some real leadership here and has done good work for our state and our space program.\u00a0 I hope Rep. Olson and his colleagues in the House will learn from her example and stop tilting at windmills.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This would be a more evolutionary change for NASA, as opposed to the revolutionary approach outlined in the President’s FY2011 budget.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 JSC, in particular, will have plenty of work to do.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Cross-posted at A World With No Boundaries<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As an engineer, my first reaction upon reading the proposed Senate authorization bill for NASA was incredulity.\u00a0 I remain unconvinced of the technical need for a heavy lift rocket and was appalled to see space technology research and development, which … Continue reading