Author Topic: Impact of Republican Control of Both the House and Senate on Space Policy?  (Read 66595 times)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
So, with the Republicans likely gaining a majority in the Senate, and extending their majority in the House, what do people think this means for Space Policy (NASA, DoD, NOAA, etc)?

~Jon

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
So, with the Republicans likely gaining a majority in the Senate, and extending their majority in the House, what do people think this means for Space Policy (NASA, DoD, NOAA, etc)?

Any idea what the changes will be to the various NASA funding committees? Neither have been particularly good to commercial crew funding, but it's tended to be that the Senate adds a little more to what the House proposes.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
I expect the extreme conservatives like Ted Cruz to get a disproportionate share of committee seats, and possibly committee leadership positions. This will be great for all sectors of the US government that can run on no money. NASA will be okay with that, right?

However, I don't really see too much of a difference in legislation that can be enacted. Republicans gummed up the works under a Democratic majority, and I don't see any reason why the Democrats wouldn't be able to do the same under a Republican majority.

Also, any bills that do get past the Democratic filibuster, will still have to be signed by the President. Republicans will not have a veto-proof majority by a long shot. They will either have to pass bills that the President will be willing to sign, or get several Democratic senators to go along with them to override a veto.

Mark S.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I don't think that it will have much impact. It gives Shelby more power but he was already fairly powerful even when the Republicans were in the minority. Cruz and Rubio are more worried about 2016 than anything else. They will continue to act "presidential".

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
One thing that may matter is Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, who is now Majority Leader in the House and is likely to replace Boehner as Speaker. Musk is one of his contributors.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 12:54 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
So, with the Republicans likely gaining a majority in the Senate, and extending their majority in the House, what do people think this means for Space Policy (NASA, DoD, NOAA, etc)?
The policy forward is quite clear: BEO the Moon: thinking of the "Interstellar".  NASA working with the AF and DOD have provided an excellent, technically sound, economical, policy forward that includes short term and long term goals, carefully balancing obsolete operations and directionless honeypots of open ended research to meet future needs and challenges.  Accepting risk does not mean not testing and not doing analysis.  The real art is knowing....when to move on.

For NASA, the direction continues to be Mars, a new reuseable, launch vehicle independent architecture, and for the country, a new national policy is underway to consolidate the Atlas/Delta/SLS into a single common LV,  and to start work on the next generation of technology.  The policy solves the basic problem of too much LV capacity, too little payload, expensive soaring launch costs and shifts dollars to payloads and technology to meet future needs and challenges.  The broad Aerospace community is on board with this new flexible path forward that includes a significant amount of new work.

Political roadblocks will occur, but recognize that sound policies ALWAYS prevail with too much time lag.

*cough* Enter the X-factor called POLITICS and you'll be surprised...  ;)
It appears that Roger's Commission for Congress will be required outside of the tainted Congressional Hearing Process.  Unfortunately political responsibility is indeed out of fashion, having been replaced by ideology and partisanship, while the unprecedented work of lobbyists on legislators has severely weakened the democratic process.      is clearly not their passion, but will gladly leach off and take credit for the successes, and lay blame for the failures, the mis-want or false .

Quote from: Rogers commission
"Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them.

They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects.

Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.  For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
« Last Edit: 09/27/2015 02:37 pm by muomega0 »

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
With Shelby heading the Senate Appropriations Committee, my guess would be that the SLS can do no wrong for the foreseeable future.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
With Shelby heading the Senate Appropriations Committee, my guess would be that the SLS can do no wrong for the foreseeable future.

I'm hopeful we will no longer be subjected to special meetings being called to discuss contracts, and Russian engines. 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
For NASA, the direction continues to be Mars, a new reuseable, launch vehicle independent architecture, and for the country, a new national policy is underway to consolidate the Atlas/Delta/SLS into a single common LV,  and to start work on the next generation of technology.  The policy solves the basic problem of too much LV capacity, too little payload, expensive soaring launch costs and shifts dollars to payloads and technology to meet future needs and challenges.  The broad Aerospace community is on board with this new flexible path forward that includes a significant amount of new work.

Political roadblocks will occur, but recognize that sound policies ALWAYS prevail with too much time lag.

*cough* Enter the X-factor called POLITICS and you'll be surprised...  ;)
It appears that Roger's Commission for Congress will be required outside of the tainted Congressional Hearing Process.  Unfortunately political responsibility is indeed out of fashion, having been replaced by ideology and partisanship, while the unprecedented work of lobbyists on legislators has severely weakened the democratic process.      is clearly not their passion, but will gladly leach off and take credit for the successes, and lay blame for the failures, the mis-want or false 'America Dream'.

Quote from: Rogers commission
"Let us make recommendations to ensure that NASA officials deal in a world of reality in understanding technological weaknesses and imperfections well enough to be actively trying to eliminate them.

They must live in reality in comparing the costs and utility of the Shuttle to other methods of entering space. And they must be realistic in making contracts, in estimating costs, and the difficulty of the projects.

Only realistic flight schedules should be proposed, schedules that have a reasonable chance of being met. If in this way the government would not support them, then so be it. NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.  For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

One thing that must be learned from the lack of progress during the 1980s was how the Space Exploration Initiative failed.  It asked for a lot, both in goals and in cost, and it was presumptuous for both NASA and the first Bush administration to expect Congress to agree to something so over-the-top during the recession years.  The space shuttle proved to be less versatile or cheap as promised in the '70s and my generation was left with little to be impressed by between it and the lack of space probes.  Sadly, I regard the 1980s and early '90s as a bleak time for NASA and space.

It is naïve to expect results based on dreams alone, so it is vital to make current plans easier and adaptable.  SLS is a better workhorse than STS, and while Congress may debate whether to send Orion and humans to Luna or Mars it preserves the ability to visit either is the important fact.

Regarding election results, Republicans seemed to favor the Moon previously, were overall lenient to NASA (sans sore-thumb-giant bills), and willing to keep moving although not necessarily in Obama's direction.  I'd say with Obama eventually to be outgoing this is likely as good as we can expect for the time.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
So, with the Republicans likely gaining a majority in the Senate, and extending their majority in the House, what do people think this means for Space Policy (NASA, DoD, NOAA, etc)?

Any idea what the changes will be to the various NASA funding committees? Neither have been particularly good to commercial crew funding, but it's tended to be that the Senate adds a little more to what the House proposes.

observations:

Anything dealing with Obama or direction were wiped out yesterday.   That can be said Nationally and locally.

Locally, just about anyone who supported or was part of the local political machine was wiped out last night in State and local.   NSF isn't political but the point needs to be made.  The political machine collapsed in full control since 1985.  Translating this:  The NASA 2010 change is in its last legs; the new blood will reread the Augustine report.   Some of that direction will now be put into place?
 
Nelson is no longer chairman; Cruse, Rubio or someone new.
If James Webb is on schedule/costs it will be fine, otherwise troubled waters ahead.

Predictions based on some recent background actions within NASA.   Bolden has been reading the tea leaves.  Orion gets much more flight time.

 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
With Shelby heading the Senate Appropriations Committee, my guess would be that the SLS can do no wrong for the foreseeable future.

There are a lot of lower seniority Republican congresscritters who want to modify the committee assignment rules away from pure seniority. That system is ripe for modification.

It'll also be interesting to see what the Senate does to Reid's filibuster modifications. While a 60 vote margin has been the norm it can (and has) been changed. Could come back to bite the Dems in the rear.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 03:04 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
One thing that may matter is Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, who is now Majority Leader in the House and is likely to replace Boehner as Speaker. Musk is one of his contributors.

He also represents Antellope Valley and has been a big fan of commercial space companies like XCOR, Masten, etc. I got to meet him briefly after Masten won the NGLLC back in 2009. His district doesn't include Palmdale, but does include Edwards. But most of the aerospace companies he interacts with are of a more commercial flavor than most. Hopefully he has bandwidth to pay attention to what they have to say if he becomes Speaker--space won't be a priority issue, but at least commercial space will likely have more of a connection with him.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 03:16 pm by jongoff »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
In general, more stability and predictability for civil space budgets and program direction.  But this is not to say that there will be a large increase. The increases will be small and may be from the outside unnoticeable. But for NASA during the budget process and out year program budget design it will make a significant program impact.  You only have to appease one party.

As to what those actual program impacts will be will require a careful following of the new congress initial actions for the FY2015 and FY2016 appropriations.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 03:30 pm by oldAtlas_Eguy »

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Absent a very compelling event that serves as a "sputnik" moment, events will continue along their present path.  No major funding increase and perhaps a cut based on rhetoric from Paul and Cruz. 

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Absent a very compelling event that serves as a "sputnik" moment, events will continue along their present path.  No major funding increase and perhaps a cut based on rhetoric from Paul and Cruz.

look around we are still dealing with the trampoline moment.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Absent a very compelling event that serves as a "sputnik" moment, events will continue along their present path.  No major funding increase and perhaps a cut based on rhetoric from Paul and Cruz.

I wouldn't worry about Paul and Cruz cutting NASA's budget. Presidential candidates usually vote what is best for their candidacy and will often vote against any bi-partisan deals. Because of this their influence is fairly limited. Cruz and Paul are less likely to be in favour of pork because of their presidential aspirations. Cruz has been very pro-NASA so far. Not sure why that would change.
« Last Edit: 11/05/2014 05:47 pm by yg1968 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Absent a very compelling event that serves as a "sputnik" moment, events will continue along their present path.  No major funding increase and perhaps a cut based on rhetoric from Paul and Cruz.

look around we are still dealing with the trampoline moment.
Epic fail of your crystal ball yet again. The trampoline moment has gone away. For the foreseeable future RD-180's will continue to be supplied and ULA is already actively working to replace their Russian-dependent rocket with something all-US.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
nothing much will happen, same as usual, just more nothing than the nothing before
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
Anything dealing with Obama or direction were wiped out yesterday.   That can be said Nationally and locally.

In order for that to be true the Republicans would have to be able to move forward their competing agenda, and in divided government that is not easy to do.  If one were an optimist they would say that the current situation should result in bipartisanship on issues that will move the country forward.  But if one were a realist they would say the gridlock won't improve much, just the blame will shift (i.e. to the Republican's who no "own" the House and Senate).  Time will tell.

Quote
Locally, just about anyone who supported or was part of the local political machine was wiped out last night in State and local.

This was a perfect storm for the Democrats because of the states that were in play for the Senate this year.  Look at what the Republicans have to defend in 2016 and you'll realize how dramatically things could change in just two years.

Quote
Translating this:  The NASA 2010 change is in its last legs;

I disagree.  Let's dissect what happened in 2010:

1.  Constellation was cancelled.  You surely can't be implying that a Republican led House and Senate will try to re-institute Constellation, so this will continue to be a "Win" for Obama.

2.  The ISS was saved.  Do you think the new Republican led House and Senate want to end the ISS?  It has broad support, which is part of the reason why Congress chose to keep the ISS and kill the Constellation program.  I don't see this changing, although the funding for going beyond 2020 has always been questionable regardless who was in power.  This will continue to be a "Win" for Obama.

3.  If we have the ISS, we need Commercial Crew.  Obama led the charge for it, and still supports it.  I don't see the support for it being partisan, so though funding levels may change it's still an Obama win.

4.  The creation of the SLS and Orion/MPCV.  Obama didn't want them, but agreed to them as part of the "Grand Bargain".  Other than a few in Congress like Shelby, no one is standing up to fight for fully funding uses for either one of them.  Can you see Senator Cruz advocating for increasing NASA's budget?  Or the House supporting that?  Obama doesn't care about this topic, so in a way he "Wins" no matter what is decided.

Quote
...the new blood will reread the Augustine report.   Some of that direction will now be put into place?

Seriously?  You think Senator Cruz cares about what happened before he came into the Senate?  Do you think Senator Shelby cares about Augustine?  And what about in the House, which has always been Republican - has anyone over there cared about the Augustine Report?  That is ancient history, and not relevant to any political needs today.
 
Quote
Predictions based on some recent background actions within NASA.   Bolden has been reading the tea leaves.  Orion gets much more flight time.

The NASA Administrator cannot create more flight time for hardware he doesn't have budget to buy.  Remember, both the SLS and Orion are disposable, so each flight set has to be funded by Congress, and so far the Republican House has not cared about either the SLS or the Orion getting operational flight time.

Besides, Bolden will likely be gone in 2 years (new President and he's been there a long time already), so he is under no pressure to do anything that his boss (i.e. the President) doesn't want him to do.

I think we will meander along with pretty much what we have today.  The question about extending the ISS past 2020 doesn't have to be answered right away, however a plan for using the SLS has to be funded soon otherwise it is guaranteed that payloads and missions for it won't be ready by the time it becomes operational (i.e. causing it to be mothballed).
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Absent a very compelling event that serves as a "sputnik" moment, events will continue along their present path.  No major funding increase and perhaps a cut based on rhetoric from Paul and Cruz.

look around we are still dealing with the trampoline moment.
Epic fail of your crystal ball yet again. The trampoline moment has gone away. For the foreseeable future RD-180's will continue to be supplied and ULA is already actively working to replace their Russian-dependent rocket with something all-US.

your misinterpretation of the term  "trampoline moment" does not equate to an epic fail. 8)
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1