Space Policy Priorities for 2002: An Overview From Washington Policy Staff
On Wednesday evening Women in Aerospace held a Space Policy Forum on Capiltol Hill which was free and open to the public, that looked at “Priorities for 2002”. A number of representatives from NASA, Congress and the White House spent a few minutes giving their assessment of what space policy issues face NASA – and the nation – in the near term. Each person was asked to identify their top issues. What follows is a synopsis of what each person had to say – and their responses to questions from the audience.
Jeff Bingham, Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Bingham opened by saying that “this is a unique time. There is not a clear picture where we go as a nation in space.” Explaining that it took a while for NASA to get its new Administrator – and thus someone to implement the President’s agenda – he said “NASA is late blooming”. Noting that the arrival of Sean O’Keefe signaled a change at NASA Bingham said ” we have an opportunity that we have not had in a couple of decades – since [former NASA Administrator] Jim Webb.” In addition to handling the cost overruns associated wit the ISS, Bingham said that the White House had also charged NASA with coming up with “where do we go from her – what do we do next?” In so doing, Bingham said “this is not a matter of setting up commissions.”
Bingham made note of Sean O’Keefe’s style calling it “very participatory”. Noting that O’Keefe is seeking a broad input on NASA’s future direction Bingham said “there are real people out there beyond the beltway.” He admitted, though that “space was not a major issue in the election [2000]”.
Moving to the issue of NASA’s relationship with the rest of the government, Bingham said “we need to come to the Hill to reestablish our credibility as managers that can manage a program to cost.” Looking ahead to NASA’s future Bingham said “we are not going to be asked to do new exciting things until we can do the things we are supposed to do now. If we do our job right [on the ISS] there will never be a time when there is not a person living off of this planet.”
As a specific example, he cited NASA’s focus on working towards U.S. Core Complete on the ISS noting that NASA can’t expect to work on a fully equipped ISS until it can demonstrate its ability to meet this initial, core capability. “The point gets lost on 3 Vs. 7 (people). Does the Administration believe in the ISS? Yes, it does – but we need to drive the definition of what the ISS should be by defining the research requirements – returning to the main justification for the ISS. That will be a major accomplishment that we need to demonstrate before we can go to future things.”
Jean Toal Eisen, Senior Professional Staff Member
Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space
Eisen opened by saying “this is an interesting time. There are more questions than there are answers.” Eisen’s first important issue was “financial management”. Speaking in terms of Congress to NASA she said “we don’t think it is impossible to tell us what you’ve spent on something or how much it cost.”
She backed up this concern by noting “every year GAO says that you can’t do this. It is not just an issue of counting or cost estimation. It is problem in that you have 14 different ways to count money. That’s not good. When O’Keefe talks about ‘one NASA’ that is what he is talking about.
Looking at ‘one NASA’ from a broader policy perspective she said “if we do figure out what ‘one NASA’ is, where do we want it to go – and do.”
Doug Comstock, Program Examiner, Science and Space Programs Branch, White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
In listening to Doug Comstock, it is important to note that he worked under Steve Isakowitz who is now NASA’s Comptroller. Sean O’Keefe was, of course, Deputy Director of OMB before being named to his current position. Comstock characterized O’Keefe’s mission at NASA as being “getting back to basics” with a focus on the management aspects of what NASA does so as to “make them be on a par with [NASA’s] technical excellence.”
Noting that many assessment activities are currently underway – and that they will be generating many answers – Comstock cited “follow through” as a key issue.
Moving to NASA’s current relations with the White House and Congress Comstock said ” the challenge is to restore credibility with cost estimates and accountability such that people on the Hill and in the Administration can believe that. There is not a lot of credibility at NASA right now.”
With regard to REMAP (Research Maximization and Prioritization) Task Force Comstock said “it is important to lay the foundations for the ISS – why are we doing this in the first place – and have the ISS driven by the research – instead of the engineering.” As for space transportation, he noted that a group is currently looking at competitive outsourcing for Space Shuttle operations and that an “Integrated Space Transportation Plan” is being developed – one which he hoped would “put a little more emphasis on ‘integrated’ ” and would look out at the next decade and beyond.
He also mentioned the need for NASA to continue to move towards better budget performance and full cost accounting. “There are many problems with having a dozen or more financial management systems in the agency. We need to have a true NASA-wide system for financial management.”
Brett Alexander, Senior Policy Analyst, Technology Division, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
Alexander gave a quick overview of the many flavors of space policy in play at the White House right now. The first one mentioned was remote sensing – as it relates to the current war efforts and how the vast amounts of data from various systems including unmanned vehicles require substantial space based assets in order to operate. As far as Homeland Security is concerned “The whole government is trying to get up to speed – NASA is no different.” One thing that Alexander said is being looked at in particular is the use of GIS – (Geographic Information Systems) as a way to coordinate information from a wide variety of sources.
Another issue of concern to Alexander – as was the case with other panelists – was financial management at NASA. NASA is not alone in having these problems noting that “Air Force programs are as notorious for their cost overruns. The track record is not good for space programs across the government.”
Alexander then described in outline fashion how issues are being addressed at the White House. With regard to space, the White House has worked along the lines set out in the “Rumsfeld Report” with the establishment by the National Security Council of a Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) for Space. [See Spacelift Washington: National Security Space Needs May Drive Bush Space Policy“]
In addition, work is underway to establish a SIG Space (Special Interest Group) for space with membership at the Assistant Secretary level for federal agencies that are involved in space activities and utilization. [see “Spacelift Washington: Hart-Rudman Panel endorses SIG Space for civil, military space policy-and space launch“]
As for Sean O’Keefe’s efforts at NASA – Alexander thought it significant that O’Keefe told reporters at a press breakfast held during his first week on the job that the President’s management agenda was going to be an important guide to where NASA goes and that O’Keefe handed out copies of that report to reporters as they left the breakfast.
Bill Adkins, Majority Staff Director, House Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
Adkins noted that he agreed with the issues raised by those who spoke before him and said that his prime issues were management, the ISS, and the Space Shuttle. Human issues are also of concern. He noted that a recent report showed that only 3.8% of NASA’s science and engineering workforce is under the age of 30 and that (in 3 years) 25% of NASA’s scientists and engineers would be eligible for retirement.
As for “fixing NASA” Adkins said that he does think that Congress can simply “buy NASA out its problems.” The House Science Committee is hoping to have a NASA Authorization Bill this year. This won’t be easy. According to Adkins “there are many things up in the air. What does Shuttle privatization mean in a 5 year context? This makes it difficult for us.” Given the uncertainties of where NASA will be going, Adkins noted that this “requires us to do rigorous oversight – even if they [i.e. NASA] don’t like it.”
Adkins then asked “Is space relevant?” He seems to think it is – saying that he sees space as being “an enabler”. “For the military it is the ultimate high ground. It is also critical to the commercial sector. For NASA it is the ultimate frontier.”
Adkins then quickly listed a number of things sees as being of importance including export controls, alternate access, the ISS international partners, Space Shuttle replacement, space science (Pluto-Kuiper mission).
In closing he sought to put NASA in a broader context. “NASA probably has the best charter in the government”. Noting that it has a budget that is not insignificant he reminded people that the government spends “$41 million a day, $2 million an hour on NASA. That is a tremendous investment.”
Questions
When the panel was asked to discuss barriers within NASA (between centers and programs) and how they affect its operations Doug Comstock replied “often times you see someone who has been at a NASA center for their entire career. Their world view is centered round that. It might be beneficial for the agency for people to have a broader experience base – perhaps moving people around the agency.” He then noted that one thing NASA was looking at was how much movement there is within the agency.
Bill Adkins noted that this issue has a pendulum effect – one that moves from one extreme to another. Under Dan Goldin this allowed the centers a lot of autonomy.
Brett Alexander said that he was more interested in the movement of people between NASA and the private sector and that this is “more relevant than moving people inside the agency.”
Jean Toal Eisen then said “there are some members [of Congress] who do not have a center in their state who therefore have a larger view and therefore do not ask ‘how this affects my center’.” And there is also the opposite case where members have a center in their state or their district. “There may be a tension between people as we look at what ‘one NASA’ means.” she said.
When asked whether there will be any new space policy documents coming out of the White House Brett Alexander said “there are no plans to write new policy.” When asked if the old Clinton Administration space policy was still in effect Alexander said “the old one is still in effect.” He then repeated that the White House was looking to implement recommendations made in the Rumsfeld report with the senior person at the PCC for Space being Frank Miller at the NSC.
When asked if there was an effort within the Administration to deal with the long term view of humans moving out into space and whether it was shaping policy Jean Toal Eisen replied “that is a good question. It is hard to answer when you represent the Senate Commerce Committee” (she was referring to the broad panoply of issues that the Committee faces). “I am not even certain that I think about NASA on a daily basis – certainly not on an hourly basis. NASA is not always the top priority for us. We don’t have the time to sit back and say ‘where are we going’.” As for the Committee member’s interest in NASA – and its future she said “I don’t know that the Committee members go home and sit on their couches and think about where we will be in 50 years.”
She did say, however, that in a broad sense “in the back of our mind” that the Committee does keeps the focus on NASA’s charter for exploration and that “we do right for the taxpayers” in this regard.
The next question referred to the vision statement recently presented by Sean O’Keefe. Brett Alexander said “there is no one space program any more. They are all connected. Back in the 1960’s it was all national security with some civil overtones.
Doug Comstock placed space policy – and NASA’s new vision – in the context of the education of his two very young children. “I don’t think about what grad school my kids will go to but I make sure that they do well in school”.
Jean Toal Eisen then said (referring to O’Keefe’s vision): “it is a vision that underlies what NASA does – or wants to do – it is not something we have had a chance to hold a hearing about. We ask ‘how’ – that is how these priorities get linked up.”
Bill Adkins echoed these comments saying “it is the ‘how’.” “NASA has a lot of fundamental management problems. If they don’t fix them, these are just words on paper.”
When asked about the cost of space transportation Doug Comstock said that NASA needs to reduce this cost. Right now NASA spends $5 billion a year on space transportation. “If they can reduce that from $5 billion to $3 billion or $2 billion then they can use [the money saved] for research in other areas. He added “if NASA restores trust on the Hill and in the Administration and creates a new environment, that bodes well for the long term future.”
