I appreciate when officials who are fighting so hard on NASA's behalf also decide to hold their feet to the fire. As I have noted before, the rocket scientists on the Space Coast can get a little noisy. That usually doesn't matter to officials fighting for the program because the squeaky O-ring gets the grease.
But when NASA suggested they can't build rockets on schedule, it pissed off Sens. Bill Nelson and Kay Bailey Hutchison. I am happy to see the two acting with a strong bipartisan voice. But it is noteworthy Nelson is the one spending more political capital here. Hutchison isn't seeking re-election, and while her credibility on this issue is a good thing to have in the debate, Nelson is expected to seek another term in the Senate in 2012.
But he also knows the space program only has credibility with the public if it can work in an efficient manner. When it issues reports suggesting it can't meet its budget and accomplish anything on schedule, that hurts the agency in the eyes of a public that questions all government spending. From the Senators' letter, all of which is available here via 13 News, notes that billions have been spent on the programs at NASA, and that the law requires they get the job done.
From the letter:
---
"By building on current capabilities and previous investments, and making effective use of NASA's existing workforce and contracts to focus on the immediate development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew vehicle, NASA can reach initial operating capability much more quickly than it can by conducting another vehicle study."
---
The point is that NASA has to operate with the fiscal responsibility the public is demanding of all other facets of government. This is part of the great American paradox in viewpoints. We love the idea of sending rockets into space, but we don't want it to cost anything. Jeff Greenfield once called this the American Ice Cream Sundae Diet.
I have made my views known on this. I want space flight privatized with ports government-run. But those who support complete government-controlled space exploration should demand the agency work within the same constraints as our schools, transportation departments, and military.
Well, not the military. Fiscal conservatives for some reason give them a pass.
Many on the right also give NASA a pass, but that won't last if the program can't finish its work on time and on budget. And support among the public at large is frankly waining every day. And if NASA can't fulfill its promises to the American people, politicians should stop letting those promises be made.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Part of the problem is, politicians are not rocket scientists. (Literally; we can discuss metaphors later.) You don't say to the NIH, here's a billion dollars, go cure cancer in 2 years. Rockets, particularly the ones you want to carry people to places we haven't been, to do things we haven't done, are closer to curing cancer than to building a bridge. If you get down a path (especially one you were set on more for political reasons than technical ones) and you realize that it doesn't lead to your goal, you ought to be able to change course. That's one argument in favor of privatization, I suppose, except they suffer from the same pressures, particularly when the government is their only customer.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I haven't read NASA's report.
I empathize, but the NIH does have to work within its budget. I also think there is a very different relationship which government contractors have with the government than agencies. If a contractor promises to do something but cannot comply with the request, it is financially responsible either to reimburse some or all of the money or to pay some type of overrun penalty. And while I realize NASA is trying to boldly go where no one has gone before, many other government projects are attempting something new as well. Underwater mooring fields get contracted out before governments know what can be installed. Military planes are designed to do things which were only imagined years ago.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying NASA shouldn't live with a budget in the same way the NIH does. I'm saying that building a rocket is comparable to basic R&D. As another example, the education dept implements policies on a large scale that have presumably been tested and refined in smaller studies. It's production at that point. You've got to expect that there will be setbacks and delays. Military jets are an apt comparison; they're also on the cutting edge of technology, and most of those end up late and over budget as well. Admittedly, we could do a better job of managing expectations. But it doesn't make sense to say "You'll do it because it's the law." That's a good way to end up with a bad rocket.
ReplyDelete