AmericaSpace
An Engineer’s View
April 25, 2009 at 4:18 pm · Filed under NASA, Politics
Great quote by Florida Senator Bill Nelson in post yesterday in The Flame Trench: “There is some political center that is slow walking this. And I don’t know what it is, who it is, or why,’ the Orlando Democrat said. ‘But all of the competition has either dropped out or been put someplace else? I don’t know anybody else who is in serious contention.”
The Senator is exactly right. With so many qualified candidates for running NASA, why is the Obama Administration taking so long nominate someone for NASA Administrator? As to the “political center” that Senator Nelson mentions, the who or what is well-known now and it’s none-other than Ms. Lori Garver, Chief of the Obama Administration’s NASA transition team.
Anyone nominated for NASA Administrator will have to go through Senator Nelson and the committee he chairs. So if the NASA Administrator candidate isn’t someone he’ll pass-on, such as Ms. Garver, this could get interesting if Chris Bergen’s post yesterday is true.
April 24, 2009 at 9:47 pm · Filed under Politics
I am including these exchanges between Lori Garver and me because I think people should have a full appreciation of someone who is playing such a large role in NASA as part of the Obama Administration.
My Space News Letter
From: “Jim Hillhouse”
Subject: An Early Victory for NASA’s Vision Plans
Date: December 5, 2004 12:44:04 PM CST
To: “Space News Editor”
I am responding to Lori Garver’s letter to the Editor, “An Early Victory for NASA’s Vision Plans”, (Space News, Nov. 28, 2004) in which Lori wrote, “While I have personally been very supportive of the vision ever since it was announced by the president Jan. 14, …” and in which she goes on to try to bolster her claim of support of NASA’s Space Exploration Initiative, history tells a different story. On the Yahoo group KerrySpace, Lori posted the following on July 18th:
From: “Lori Garver”
Date: Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:17 pm
Subject: RE: [kerryspace] Come Celebrate Kerry’s Great VP Choice, Edwards!
“Please don’t write-off the Kerry-Edwards camp on space. The Bush initiative is simply hot-air and has made it impossible in an election year for Kerry to say much on space. What he has said — will support increased funding for NASA R&D, will support Prizes, a more genuinely international effort, etc… is already more than most Presidential Candidates. It took Bush 3.5 years and a tragic Shuttle accident to come up with a policy. Democrats will be able to pull-off a better record — if not rhetoric!”
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, it was no secret that Lori was working for the Kerry campaign as an advisor. And in a statement in February 2004 Lori did state her support for the Space Exploration Initiative, calling it long overdue. However, in the above and in subsequent postings to KerrySpace and in statements during a debate with Frank Sietzen on October 14th, her comments were anything but supporting of NASA’s new exploration effort.
All is fair in Love and War…and perhaps politics. But, even though I respect and admire Lori, her claims are simply inaccurate and should not be left unchallenged.
Sincerely,
Jim Hillhouse
Read the rest of this entry »
April 24, 2009 at 8:28 pm · Filed under NASA, Politics
According to Chris Bergen’s piece on NASASpaceflight.com, former NASA Associate Administrator of Plans and Policy and present Obama Team Transition leader Lori Garver will be nominated for NASA Administrator by President Obama early next week. Ms. Garver is a Space advocate and a passionate supporter of Space exploration, as are so many in our country.
Still, one would think that with critical technical and policy decisions facing NASA, a President would nominate someone to lead the agency who had a technical or professional aerospace background and was considered a heavy-lifter in the Space business. It’s not as though there are not such candidates for NASA Administrator–Marine General and former astronaut Charles Bolden, Johnson Space Center Director and former astronaut Mike Coats, and Boeing’s Joy Bryant come to mind. Any of these individuals would quickly come-up to speed on the technical issues facing NASA; retire or not to retire the Space Shuttle; continue with Ares I or move-over to the Delta IV Heavy; reconfigure Orion as a 3-4 person spacecraft rather than 6.
Read the rest of this entry »
February 28, 2009 at 11:17 pm · Filed under NASA
Keith Cowing noted yesterday the Washington Post’s article about the Obama Administration’s proposed budget for NASA and that it did nothing to close the gap between the retirement of the Shuttle in 2011 and first launch of the Orion/Ares I in 2015. He closed with a comment that the Democratic controlled Congress had not created the “Gap”, that the Gap was created in 2004 when then-President Bush initiated the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).
Well, yes and no. Many partisans likes things black and white. But the reality is that there is plenty of blame for the Gap to go around.
Read the rest of this entry »
February 14, 2009 at 12:41 am · Filed under NASA, Politics
NASA did pretty well in the final conference version of the American Recovery & Investment Act of 2009. Here are the numbers from Thomas, which I’ve mixed with the summary and detailed version:
Read the rest of this entry »
February 7, 2009 at 11:13 pm · Filed under NASA
According to CNN, NASA, aeronautics, and exploration were each cut by $50 million in the Senate version of the Stimulus Bill.
That is a far cry from the original intent of the Senate moderates to cut $400 million from NASA’s budget. That prompted Senator Bill Nelson (D., FL) sent a letter to Sen. Daniel Inouye, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, requesting that NASA be spared the budget knife that has been used so many times against it.
Read the rest of this entry »
January 24, 2009 at 2:12 pm · Filed under NASA
There has been quite a bit of discussion on the web about who will lead NASA, with rumors ranging from Major General J. C. Gration to Astronaut and USMC Brig. General Charles Bolden. Read the rest of this entry »
October 31, 2008 at 12:46 pm · Filed under News
WASHINGTON — John McCain said this week that he would exclude NASA from his across-the-board freeze on government spending that he has proposed — the first time that the Republican presidential nominee has singled out the space agency to be spared. The statement could put to rest longstanding — and conflicting — stances by the Arizona senator, who has called for both the freeze and increased support for NASA, which gets roughly $17 billion annually in the federal budget. He has promised to boost NASA funding by $2 billion. ”I will freeze government spending on all but the most important programs like defense, veterans care, NASA, Social Security and health care until we scrub every single government program and get rid of the ones that aren’t working for the American people,” McCain said Wednesday in Miami. Space policy could be a tipping factor in Florida, where thousands of workers at Kennedy Space Center are likely to lose their jobs once the space shuttle is retired, now planned for 2010. The $2 billion increase in funding proposed by McCain — and echoed by Democratic nominee Barack Obama — is targeted at closing the flight gap between the shuttle’s retirement and the first mission of its successor, now under development and slated for a first mission in 2015.
Links:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/10/mccain-nasa-wou.html#comments
September 12, 2008 at 3:36 pm · Filed under Politics
Senator Bill Nelson may be pro-Space but he’s apparently anti-KSC.. What other inference might one draw from his 180 degree turn from just a few months ago when he was promoting continued Shuttle flights to fill in the Gap to today’s word that he’s pimping for another INKSA (Iran, North Korea, & Syrian Non-proliferation Act) so that NASA can purchase rides on Soyuz for the 5 year gap between retiring the Shuttle and first flight of Orion/Ares. Fortunately, Representative Dave Weldon (R, FL-15) intends to put a stake in the heart of the INKSA request.
Why the dramatic turn-around by Senator Nelson? First guess would be politics; maybe Senator Nelson got word that his man Obama has no plans to pay for both continued Shuttle flights and accelerating Orion/Ares if he’s President? It didn’t help that NASA Admin also did a 180, likely driven by White House anger at his “leaked” email a week ago.
If just one Senator objects to Nelson’s push for unanamous consent to get the INKSA waiver, the process for that waiver gets much more complicated and political; and unlikely, given Russia’s actions in Georgia, Ukraine, and now Venezuela.
One has to ask the question of whethed America is willing to bear any burden, pay any cost to be a world leader. To keep the Shuttle flying during the 2010-2015 gap is guesstimated at $3.5-$4 billion a year. Apparently, that amount is a burden and a price that America’s so-called leaders, e.g. Senator Nelson, are unwilling to bear or pay. Profiles in courage? More like profiles in expedience.
Fortunately, there are Floridians who understand what leadership means, who understand that America’s Space program is at a cross-roads that offers two choices; we can either lead or follow. Senator Nelson obviously thinks that the U.S. should follow. Congressman Weldon thinks that America’s access to the International Space Station should not be on the Soyuz. Weldon is right and Nelson is wrong; Weldon remembers that he serves the people, but I can’t figure out who Nelson serves.
September 9, 2008 at 9:06 pm · Filed under Politics
Last week, Wayne Hale, NASA’s former Shuttle program manager, posted in his blog that, “The horse had left the barn” on not retiring the Shuttle. Well, as in most things, the situation concerning Shuttle retirement is much more complicated.
Money quote: according to John Shannon, the present Shuttle program manager, the point of no return has not been reached on Shuttle.
Very interesting…wonder if Mike, after writing his email, OK’d Shannon to speak his mind, even though that opinion is counter to White House policy? If so, glad he did. I can’t think of a time when an executive agency has set itself so apart from Executive Branch policy as NASA has in the last few days to the point of near open rebellion.
Whatever the reason for NASA management openness and disagreement with the White House, I could not be happier. The nation needs honest answers by those who know what they are talking about, not the party line by policy wonks who wouldn’t know a derivative from an antiderivative. America’s Space access is too important.
Next entries »
