Not a surprising development really, since it was abundantly clear that Congress was not going to approve Obama's NASA budget proposal. I'm starting to think this may have been the plan all along, that this proposal was nothing more that political showmanship that was never intended to become reality. It was after all ironic (and amusing) to watch Republicans fighting against privatization.WSJ wrote:NASA Chief Bolden Seeks 'Plan B' for the Space Agency
By ANDY PASZTOR
NASA chief Charles Bolden has asked senior managers to draw up an alternate plan for the space agency after members of Congress indicated they wanted to reject a White House proposal to hire private companies to ferry U.S. astronauts into orbit and beyond.
In an internal National Aeronautics and Space Administration memo viewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Bolden ordered officials to map out "what a potential compromise might look like" to satisfy critics on Capitol Hill. By calling for an alternative plan, Mr. Bolden threatened to undercut White House efforts to get its proposed NASA budget through Congress.
The White House is seeking to cancel major existing programs intended to build a new generation of government spacecraft and rockets to carry astronauts into space.
Instead the administration wants to outsource some early missions to smaller companies, such as Orbital Sciences Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
Under the White House plan, large and small companies would also compete for NASA funds to devise longer-term "game-changing" leaps in space propulsion and other capabilities.
Congress has reacted coolly to the White House proposal, which could lead to thousands of job losses in places like Florida, Texas and elsewhere. Many of the targeted programs involve large contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. and Alliant Techsystems Inc.
The move to draft a compromise highlights behind-the-scenes maneuvering by NASA officials to save big chunks of existing programs now in jeopardy.
A space-agency spokesman said that while the administrator "is open to hearing ideas from any member of the NASA team," Mr. Bolden and the ageny "are fully committed to the President's budget" because it "sets the agency on a reinvigorated path of space exploration."
The NASA memo, dated March 2, came just a few days after Mr. Bolden faced a tough round of questioning in Congress over the White House plan.
The memo suggests the NASA chief and his team were more inclined to try to pacify lawmakers than wage a tough battle to end multibillion-dollar contracts signed under the previous administration. It was written by Michael Coats, director of the Johnson Space Center.
In an email, Mr. Coats told senior managers at other centers and program offices that Mr. Bolden "agreed to let us set up a 'Plan B' team" to come up with alternate budget and program priorities.
NASA's latest budget has been buffeted by stiff bipartisan opposition from House and Senate members, including Rep. Bart Gordon, the Tennessee Democrat who chairs the House Science and Technology Committee. The memo says Mr. Bolden is meeting with Rep. Gordon "in a couple of days and asked for a one pager with talking points before his meeting."
The memo doesn't mention any coordination with senior White House budget aides, or senior policy makers in the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy, who played major roles in devising the administration's position.
The memo says the team will work further to "flesh out" alternative approaches consistent with White House budget caps and report through Douglas Cook, the NASA official overseeing the Constellation program to return to the moon, which the White House wants to kill.
NASA managers recognize the fiscal challenges they face to retain big-ticket items. "Living within the budget is a huge issue," the memo said, "since it's doubtful we'll get more funding" than the White House requested.
On Capitol Hill and in interviews, Mr. Bolden has stressed that he envisions retaining only small portions of the hardware being developed under the Constellation program.
But in the memo, which went to NASA offices that have major roles in supervising parts of Constellation, Mr. Coats suggests any alternate plan to please Congress most likely will entail keeping large chunks of Constellation and its planned Orion capsule, designed to transport astronauts to the international space station and beyond.
The memo lists "a human spacecraft development effort," heavy-lift rocket development and "a launch vehicle test program" as important elements of any alternate NASA plan. All three are core Constellation objectives.
Mr. Coats wrote about quickly assembling a study team and told colleagues: "You can name it anything you want—I don't recommend Constellation or Orion."
On Wednesday, NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs said that "after a long period of underinvestment in new technology and unrealistic budgeting," the President's proposals chart a space exploration path "that is bold, ambitious, and, most importantly, achievable."
On the other hand, while I'm relieved that Constellation will apparently live to fight another day, the main problem with the program will remain, that it was never given enough funding to achieve it's goals. Even as a supporter of Constellation I'm not certain I could get behind a big spending increase for NASA (or anything else, for that matter) at the present time. Of course, if current funding were maintained for the time being, there's no reason it couldn't be increased at some point in the future if the budget situation improved, which would avoid the problems of having to start over from scratch.
I actually just finished re-reading it after Shep started that last Mars thread.
