Hearing on Space Leadership Preservation Act Set for Thursday
Full House Science Committee Hearing
The Space Leadership Preservation Act and the Need for Stability at NASA
Thursday, February 25, 2016 – 10:00 am
Witnesses
Panel 1:
The Honorable John Culberson
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
Panel 2:
The Honorable Michael Griffin
Former Administrator, NASA
Colonel Eileen Collins
USAF (Retired); NASA Astronaut, Commander, STS-93 and 114; NASA Astronaut, Pilot, STS-63 and 94
Ms. Cristina Chaplain
Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Background
The Space Leadership Preservation Act (H.R. 2093), to improve NASA’s management structure and accountability. The Space Leadership Preservation Act proposes a number of changes to the management structure of NASA and its procurement authority to address the issue of constancy of purpose.
The bill includes the following provisions:
10 Year Term for the NASA Administrator: The bill establishes a 10-year term for the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Administrator shall be chosen from a list provided by a new “Board of Directors”.
Establish a Board of Directors: The bill establishes a “Board of Directors.” It provides the manner of the selection and appointment as well as the criteria to qualify for the board and the length of each member’s term. This section empowers the board to provide to the President and Congress a proposed budget for NASA; to provide a list of nominees to the President for appointment to Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and Chief Financial Officer, all Senate confirmed appointments; to provide reports on specific policy matters deemed important by Congress; to review current space programs and future space exploration plans; and to provide a recommendation to Congress and President for the removal of the Administrator for cause.
Budget Deliberation Review: The bill directs NASA to provide the “Board of Directors” with the budget they send to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), thereby allowing them to see any differences between what NASA asked for in a budget and what the Administration formally requested for NASA. The bill also requires the President to provide an explanation of any discrepancy in the budget proposal provided by the “Board of Directors.”
Long-Term Procurement: The bill provides NASA with the capability to enter into contracts for rocket propulsion systems and manned and unmanned space transportation vehicles and payloads, including expendable launch vehicles, and any other infrastructure intended for placement or operation in space or on celestial bodies, and services related thereto for periods in excess of the period for which funds are otherwise available for obligation under certain conditions.
20 responses to “Hearing on Space Leadership Preservation Act Set for Thursday”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m sure Mike Griffin would love to be NASA Administrator again. Under this bill, his tenure would last a decade.
Mike Griffin — that’s exactly the scenario I was thinking of in my above post
are you suggesting that Griffin was bad?
While constellation was a cluster, he is the one that got a GOP congress to back funding of private space and without the massive fight that O has had to do to keep it going.
IIRC at the time, he hated COTS and essentially had it forced on him. He was able to kill COTS-C (return) and delay COTS-D (crew) for four years, until COTS-D was resurrected under Bolden/Obama, and COTS-C was effectively delivered by SpaceX under their COTS-B bid.
We are, after all, talking about a guy who still thinks that Constellation/Ares was a good idea, and claimed under oath that SLS will be price competitive on a $/kg basis with commercial launchers.
Hmmm. This sounds like a good idea on the surface — to insulate NASA funding and programs from the vicissitudes of political cycles and the political process.
What if, however, we get a poor administrator — one not so terrible as to do anything to justify forced removal, but one who sets NASA off in a poor direction and/or who doesn’t manage very well. In that case, we’re stuck with the same guy for 10 long years. Also, what happens if the facts on the ground change, such as through the introduction of a disruptive technology or approach, etc.? But we’ve got an administrator invested in a now-outdated approach and still with the rest of his or her decade to go…
I’m not saying I’m definitively against this — it could clearly potentially be beneficial. I’m just saying, 10 years is a looong time. Are we sure we really want to do this?
Also, in the face of declining discretionary spending (of which NASA spending is a part) as a portion of the budget, what big, ambitious government space endeavor can survive, regardless of such an Act? I think the answer is rather to facilitate the development of private space capabilities and nascent markets, and to gradually hand over as much space activity as practicable to private enterprise.
In other words, perhaps let necessity (of facing budget pressures and changing political priorities that forever frustrate progress) be the mother of invention (of a more efficient, much less politically dependent way of doing things), instead of trying to build a unbreachable protective wall around the old way of doing things.
“NASA is a federal scientific institution.”
That’s only it’s secondary purpose. It’s primary purpose is moving federal budget dollars into congressional districts.
“The GOP branch of congress is anti-science.”
No, but is is opposed to Leftists using government money to buy “science” which fraudulently supports policies the Leftists want.
I never claimed that was their charter, did I? Why are you making things up?
It’s backed up–informed–among other things by the refusal of the climate fraudsters to release their work to public scrutiny or scientific duplication, even though it was done on the pubic dime. They can plead the 5th is they want to.
You already have no credibility with me. You deserve none.
You complained, “I’m afraid I’m just not seeing that in NASA’s charter.” right after I said the the true thing that NASA’s purpose was to move federal dollars into congressional districts. Did you, with that quoted statement, reply to me in a in a meaningless manner? Parse that out.
“What I am … books and results. ” <– You have no evidence for that. Of course, there’s only fraudulently manufactured evidence for AGW, and that doesn’t stop you from spouting support for that nonsense at every opportunity. You cannot cite the AGW fraudsters being open and scientific in their methods or with their data, because they haven’t been. I can show how the AGW frauds literally conspired successfully to have editors who approved the publication of papers which disproved AGW removed from their positions–so if only the “peers” who approve of AGW get to review the papers, where’s the “science” in it?
“In America you … I’m a scientist.” <– More directly contradictory words have rarely been written.
“I do enjoy engineering and mathematics as well.” <– No, you don’t. When they conflict with your politics you deny them.
“I’m afraid I’m not following our logic and it would be a disservice to Doug to continue to pursue it” <– Which is why you volunteered this BS, “The GOP branch of congress is anti-science.” And you volunteer the same with every opportunity.
“Good luck with your scientific conspiracy theories.” <– Stating testimony from the AGW fraudsters as recorded in the Congressional record. It’s on film too. AGW is already overthrown, it exists solely in the political realm.
“Great, I can’t wait to read the paper.”
Sure you can. You’ve already ignored the mainstream media reports of the same.
“And in that … the universe again.” <– Meaningless twaddle. Word salad. Lies, by implication and lies outright, are really all you have, and all Progressives have ever really had.
The idea of a board of directors that leads the direction of NASA really does make good sense. In particular, with 9 members and a change ever 2 years, it should provide continuity.
However, the idea of keeping the same director is a mistake. Far better to allow the president to appoint as they see fit. Their job is then to work with the board along with the president.
Yes, the GOP is anti-science.
The problem is, so are the dems.
huh?
I hate to point this out, but 2 of the entities to be doing human flights, are doing so under the NASA umbrella.
Tom , the dems scream about AGW ( good since it is obviously ) as well as oppose storage of nuke waste at yucca mtn ( also good because there is lots of energy left ).
However, what do the dems do:
1) work to stop building new reactors screaming about meltdowns. Yet, flibe and transatomic have ZERO chance of meltdown.
2) those reactor can burn up 95% of nuke ‘waste’ while not digging any more uranium.
3) old reactors are really not safe. They are gen 2 and 3 and can have meltdown.
4) studies on AGW show over and over that wind and solar can NOT replace coal, let alone coal and nat gas, in time for us to drop our Co2 fast.
5) even with science showing reactors are safe and great replacement for majority of fossil fuel electricity.
6) same dems are pushing high speed twin rail, even though both economics and engineering prove that it will not pull any real amount of passengers without massive subsidies. And in CA, the dems are fighting against Hyperloop, though everything indicates it is superior to twin rail, roads, and aviation for 200-700 miles.
7) dems continue to scream about cutting American emissions, while ignoring oco-2 empirical data that shows that China’s emissions are much higher than what china gov reports.
8) numerous studies that show that our grid/utilities can handle 100% of EV passenger vehicles as long as less than 15% is charged in the daytime. In fact, they show that electrical cost will drop if less than 10% daytime charging. So dems give subsidies for low MPC EVs and hybrids, all of which will do daytime charging.
The list goes on and on about how anti-science they are.
So yes, the GOP is massively anti-science. So are the dems.
no, you were dumber before. You just do not want to admit that your dems are just as anti-science as the gop.
what was mandated by law? COTS? Constellation? They are all mandated by law. And funded by budgets.
And it remains that Griffin was behind both.
wow.
Lets see. You gripe about NASA’s human space flight and say that it is only billionaires doing it. I point out that that 2-3 of these coming systems are partially to fully funded by NASA as well as has a lot of input by NASA.
And then you throw in a red herring about Russians and China, along with a sub-orbital human launch system.
Ok, that is about par for your irrational arguments.
having aspirations and actively developing are 2 very different things. But hey.
You are a physicists today and not an engineer?
Wow, you changed your title regularly depending on what you are talking about, esp. when you do not have a leg to stand on:
https://www.google.com/webh…