The Rebellion Continues at JSC

"Scott Pace, a former NASA official directing the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, says he can foresee a compromise in which Congress maintains development of NASA's Ares I system to reach low Earth orbit and simultaneously underwrites efforts for rockets built by private firms."

Pragmatism has got to cut in at some point but it's hard to see when it will happen.

If NASA goes ahead with Ares I it will probably be humiliated. If they ever get it to orbit, Musk will be there to greet them and Bigelow will be there offering canapes, cocktails and a room for the night.

Even if Congress goes mad and decides to keep pouring money into the botomless pit, the only thing that can save Ares I from irrelevance is a crippling alimony settlement in favour of Justine Musk.

Typical behavior. Have a great summer Cx!
http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/steroids.html
Preclinical, clinical, and anecdotal reports suggest that steroids may contribute to psychiatric dysfunction. Research shows that abuse of anabolic steroids may lead to aggression and other adverse effects.1 For example, although many users report feeling good about themselves while on anabolic steroids, extreme mood swings can also occur, including manic-like symptoms that could lead to violence.2 Researchers have also observed that users may suffer from paranoid jealousy, extreme irritability, delusions, and impaired judgment stemming from feelings of invincibility.

What is Nasa HQ or the center director telling him to do?

Dale Thomas is over a program that is funded and Congress and Bolden have both said that they will continue to work that program.

So how is working the program defying NASA HQ when Bolden himself testified that they continue to work the program? And more importantly what direction is he getting from NASA HQ or the center director...Is it different from what Bolden testified to?

Keith,

The comment you make about JSC acting in "open
defiance of NASA HQ - starting with with its center
director" is a fairly inflammatory remark which
is limited in connection to the original Chronicle
article. I can't contradict you, but as a low level
CS employee here at JSC, I have seen no evidence of
your claim. In fact, at our level we have been told
that per law we must continue to work Constellation
as laid out in the FY10 appropriations and authorization
legislation. We have also been told that change, as yet
uncertain, is definitely coming. This change is being
spun as an opportunity for us to work on new R&D that
will, in the long run, provide new, possible revolutionary but most likely more evolutionary,
technologies that will improve the nation's capabilities
in HSF. In particular, we are being told of the technology
portfolio being developed by Dr. Bobby Braun, and that we
currently have a unique opportunity to provide input to this process. So, at my level, management seems to be
instructing us to be co-operative during this process and to follow both our chief executive's direction (Mr. Obama's), as well as our legal requirements as spelled out by Congress. Where the two directions conflict we are being told that those issues are going to be sorted out at the highest levels of government. All and all, we are being encouraged to keep our minds open and to continue to provide out best efforts at our jobs.

So, your claims, which may be true, are not evident at my level. It seems to me like management is trying to do the best it can under the circumstances rather than being defiant. What evidence do you have? Especially with regards to Mr. Coats?

Thanks you.

Cearly the answer is to just keep sacking everyone who still supports returning to the moon.

That'll fix it!

You don't want those kind of people working at NASA anyways.

Common Keith, following the law is not rebellion. This continued pursuit of people who are just doing their jobs is wrong. Please stop.

Editor's note: JSC staff work for Bolden at NASA HQ. Bolden works for the President. They do not work for Congress. They are not doing what NASA HQ tells them to do. They are in rebellion.

A good compromise would be to keep the new plan and keep the Moon as the goal.

The worst possible outcome is to keep up this infighting and when the budget cutters come, what is going to be your excuse for losing billions of dollars?

Read the book "Mars Wars" about the rise and fall of the Space Exploration Initiative.

The people who write these letters really need to spend sometime outside the space fan club .... "program that continues our elite astronaut corps,"

as if most Americans care.

the paragraph that this was taken from is a litany of things which most Americans dont care about and most really dont believe. It is a series of platitudes that the folks who support NASA HSF say over and over again, so they are sure that they are accurate...but when they get outside of the space fan club no one really "tags up" with the notions.

If the economy "double dips" (and that might be a reality here shortly) and federal deficits continue their ballooning the 5 percent cut that the POTUS is talking about across the board will seem childs play as Americans start getting very very nervous about where The Country is headed.

Poll after Poll seems to indicate that most Americans have had it with lots of government spending on HSF...letters like this are just trying to spark enthusiasim where none really exist.

As an aside. During aviation "infant decades" thousands of "ordinary Americans" died in routine flight operations as government and industry struggled with the technologies and regulations that would turn aviation into the safest mode of transportation known to humans. "elite astronaut corps".

thats a hoot

Robert G. Oler

Keith,

I guess I continue to be confused by your statements about JSC operating in defiance of NASA HQ by continuing to operate as directed by Congress. Perhaps you could elaborate on just what direction it is that you believe JSC is violating. NASA HQ is under direct Congressional orders to NOT cancel Constellation. Mr. Hanley and now Dr. Thomas, simply were / are executing the Program Of Record, CxP. Like I said, I must be missing something, so if you would provide more substance to your allegations, I might understand.

Editor's note: JSC staff work for Bolden at NASA HQ. Bolden works for the President. They do not work for Congress. They are not doing what NASA HQ tells them to do. They are in rebellion.

Keith, how can the NASA centers be "in rebellion" by following the PoR and continuing resolutions? Obama's proposed budget is just that: proposed. It will literally takes an act of Congress to approve it.

In the mean time, if HQ wants us to stop work on Constellation, why haven't they issued a stop work order? They haven't. Please provide evidence that HQ has issued a stop work order for CxP, and maybe I'll begin to take your claim of rebellion seriously.

"Editor's note: JSC staff work for Bolden at NASA HQ. Bolden works for the President. They do not work for Congress. They are not doing what NASA HQ tells them to do. They are in rebellion."

You didn't reply to his original point: "Perhaps you could elaborate on just what direction it is that you believe JSC is violating."

So Keith, what order from Bolden is JSC violating?

Has NASA HQ told its centers to ignore the program of record? I must have missed that announcement. Of course, if HQ had done such a thing, they'd be the ones in rebellion rather than the centers.

How does following due process of law get twisted into "rebellion"? Which orders from HQ is JSC violating?

Give us a break, Keith.

Umm, what is wrong with you?

Wait just a cotton-pickin' minute...

If Constellation continued as a Program, didn't that mean that ISS would be deorbited in 2015, simply to feed the insatiable Constellation budget?

So under the new Plan, JSC gets to keep ISS until 2020, right? So shouldn't JSC be somewhat happy that they get to keep their shining star?

Sounds like JSC, and their Congressional enablers, are acting like spoiled-rotten children.

Keith:

Editor's note: Go ask Charlie Bolden about his ongoing frustrations with regard to JSC management and their lack of cooperation on many things.

I realize that you like Bolden, hate CxP, and want to leave it in the dust. But people here are making valid points that you are ignoring, and I am just asking you to face the reality of how the NASA center operating model has worked for decades. In posts past, you, yourself, have even pointed out how center directors act like the CEOs of their own little companies. Nothing about that NASA operating model has changed, has it? Believe me, I would like NASA completely overhauled, with this dysfunctional hierarchy being one of the biggest things that needs to be fixed. But slinging caustic rhetoric such as "rebellion", when you know very well the JSC center director is walking a fine (legal) line, just does not add anything productive to the calls for NASA reform. Not being confrontational, Keith, and again, I fully understand where you are coming from. Frustration with the inherent politics of NASA is nothing new.

Editor's note: I do not "hate Constellation". I personally thought that they should have kept Orion as it was and sought commercial launchers. Ares 1 simply did not work and costs were out of control thus threatening the entire Constellation program. I am not pleased that lunar plans are now theoretical whereas before they were concrete. So long Altair we hardly knew you. I thought a lot of the lunar base work was truly exciting.

Umm, what is wrong with you?

Umm I don't know, as I do not take Steroids. The idea of one thin dime will not be taken from science comes to mind.
The study of Human Factors in dealing with Change will be an interesting study during this time period and is important for NASA.

I have fond memories of the start of the Cx program, it appears the activity was void of legislative and OMB oversite. I wish the Cx program and wonderful summer of change.
Why did Sen Hutchison attach the NASA budget to a war funding bill? What is wrong with her?
It appears NASA has an infection at the steroid injection site.

all is well in ARMD, SMD and SOMD!

all is well in ARMD, SMD and SOMD!

Except for multibillion dollar overruns on the James Web Telescope and the Mars lander.

"How does following due process of law get twisted into "rebellion"?'

because KC understands the situation and the folks who are saying "JSC must follow the law" dont.

They dont understand the law, a federal officials responsibilities under the law, nor the way the law is handled in a federal government POing match between Congress and the Executive.

this "we must follow the law" is the last stand of Constellation supporters who are trying to keep the program of record alive.

This is a dispute between "some" members of Congress and the Executive over POLICY not of the criminal federal code.

A sort of analogy was the situation of "bombing" Cambodia during the Nixon administration. Congress tried to stop the bombing by law. Nixon simply claimed after the deadline that the bombing that continued was "protective reaction strikes"...and Congress glumly sat as the bombing continued.

Not a single military officer who went along was prosecuted. not a one.

KC is correct...the JSC leadership is openly defiant of Bolden.

Robert G. Oler

Correct Dennis
SMD has it's issues, however it is still healthy.

The beatings will continue until morale improves!

This is no fault of JSC management as you have their congressional representatives and other Constellation allies giving the impression that Constellation will be saved plus legal language that says Constellation remains in effect until Congressional approval for a new plan, whereas JSC folks have to deal with reality, trying to cover their people and have little latitude to plan and respond to the new proposed plans for NASA as it would be in "violation" of the law. The onus is on Congress to put up or shut up, meaning that just spouting you want Constellation to continue is not enough at this point, realistic forward planning & budgeting is needed. Congress has rightly asked Bolden for more details on the proposed new NASA plans but ironically, they need to do the same for Constellation continuation. With current funding profiles, Constellation is simply unsustainable and will not meet its original goals in reasonable time. Plain and simply, if Congress wants Constellation to continue, they need to pony up the extra cash, and we're talking north of $4 billion a year for the next several years. A continuing resolution will spell disaster for NASA as existing schedules, contracts, workforce plans quickly become FUBAR. This is not the DoD where forcing DoD to buy a couple of planes it and the President don't want isn't exactly crippling. NASA's future is quite frankly locked up in immediate resolution of either Constellation continuation or switching to the new proposed NASA plans.

James Web Telescope and other programs are also still funded under the FY10 budget and continuing resolution, and (no surprise) work continues. Howcome Keith isn't branding the other directorates as rebels, too?

I'm curious as to what frustrations Bolden may have experienced with JSC management, too.

Editor's note: JSC staff work for Bolden at NASA HQ. Bolden works for the President. They do not work for Congress. They are not doing what NASA HQ tells them to do. They are in rebellion.

If NASA HQ has told them to cease work on Constellation, then NASA HQ is violating the law. Are you seriously suggesting this is the case? If not, then what exactly is JSC doing that is in "open defiance" of NASA HQ?

Editor's note: Go ask Charlie Bolden about his ongoing frustrations with regard to JSC management and their lack of cooperation on many things.

Here's a direct quote from Bolden a few weeks ago:

"As far as I am concerned, Jeff does exactly what I asked him to do, to be quite honest. And Jeff and NASA, we are in a tough situation in that we have to comply with the 2010 provision in law that says we cannot terminate [Constellation]..."

I'm sure there's stuff going on behind the scenes, but are you implying that JSC should comply with some "unofficial" direction Bolden isn't "officially" giving them?

Editor's note: Hmm, and then Hanley was removed from his job a few days later...

Okay, after reading this blog and seeing the administrations direction, here is a new plan,
cancel Constellation, end Shuttle, de-orbit station in 2015, make NASA a department under DARPA. Then you can take the money from the NASA budget and use it to subsidize health care. This way there isn't anything left to argue about. LOL

Editor's note: Hmm, and then Hanley was removed from his job a few days later...

No kidding, but you're missing the point. Are you implying that JSC should ignore "official" orders and march to "unofficial" orders? Just what orders do you accuse JSC of disobeying? Please, a direct answer this time...

Care to fill us in on what the law really is, then? So far, Robert, you've only said that I'm wrong.

How is your angle on things right? What would justify halting work on CxP while it's still funded, and in the absence of any legitimate stop work orders?

Okay,

So assuming we were all on the debate team in High School. Here is a helpful reference for this continued argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

This all reminds me of Obama's henchman offering jobs to people for political favors, a clear violation of the law, but its ok because everybody does it. Why do we have laws if they are not enforced? This corruption must stop.

Keith,

I hate to say it, but you seem to me to be less than objective on this thread. I will make a few points:
1) The law of the land as enacted by Congress and
signed by the President states that the Constellation
program will not be terminated in FY10 - 3 1/2 months
remain in FY10.
2) In the US, the President does not have limitless
power. Yes, he is the Chief Executive, but he must
respect the law of the land which is not controlled by
a single branch of the government. It is a power shared
by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches. The
founding fathers purposely made the US President a "weak"
position relative to Kings, Prime Ministers, etc. It was
all part of the system of checks and balances installed.
Yes, NASA is part of the Executive Branch and therefore the
President is our boss. But as government employees have sworn also to uphold the US Constitution. I interpret this
as we must obey the commands of our Executive Branch "chain of command" unless these commands are illegal. The Program of record is (for FY10) Constellation as enacted by Congress and (in this case - there was no override of a veto) signed by Mr. Obama himself. Continuing work on Constellation in FY10 is, whether one supports that or not, in fact the law of the land.
3) I do not believe that Mr. Obama or NASA HQ has directed us to cease work on any FY10 Constellation work. Am I wrong?
4) From my point of view, if there is any defiance by JSC senior management in terms of program content beyond FY10, it is not "open".
5) Your comments are extraordinary and yet vague and without any provided substantiation other than for us to "ask Mr. Bolden".
6) If you are the journalist as you claim to be, I would think that your claims require more specifics such as what are the acts of defiance and what is your proof. If your sources are anonymous have they been verified?

Thanks again.

Editor's note: I never verify anything. I just imagine things and type random words into my computer and hit "post". OF COURSE I have confirmed all of this!

Keith, Until you are here everyday working with these issues in the tumultuous time, please do not pretend to know what is happening at JSC.

Editor's note: clearly you haven't a clue what is going on!

Keith (AKA Mr Editor):

We all genuinely appreciate your excellend website and coverage of this very interesting situation.

For some of us it is clear that you are exercising your imagination as far as what is happening at JSC. You do not appear to have any specifics, or at least not any that you are at liberty to discuss. Nevertheless, please keep up the good work.

It is helpful to have a range of views, because often times people with very different views happen to be more in tune with valuable information that we might otherwise overlook.

Cheers,
Nelson

Editor's note: ask Charlie Bolden.

It's a familiar tactic that is an abuse of power as far as I'm concerned. We are supposed to read the tea leaves from the firing of Jeff Hanley. We are supposed to cease work of our own accord, to do what HQ wants, without HQ actually having to stick its neck out and issue stop work orders that it would have to answer to congress for.

Folks:

The problem here is that politicians have too much say on an engineers job. Making a law preventing NASA from closing constellation contracts has absolutely nothing to do with whether the system would work, would be economical or would ever be finished (considering how they underfunded it year after year). It has to do with politics, jobs, campaign contributions and elections. It's what got us a Space Shuttle design that was only partially re-usable, uneconomical and had no launch escape system besides.

During the early days of the space program it was "how much do you need?", "Boy, that's a big rocket." and "Just get us to the moon on time, OK?". Where did things go wrong? When did politicians become rocket scientists? They that are killing the space program as I type! How do you change the game if the folks that make the rules are the problem?

Think about it.

tinker

"How is your angle on things right? What would justify halting work on CxP while it's still funded, and in the absence of any legitimate stop work orders?"

Federal employees swear to uphold the Constitution...and to follow the lawful orders of their superiors...

What Bolden is doing is within the law. He is NOT in my view following the intent of Congress on Constellation, the intent as the law states is to try and preserve Constellation so that a decision can be made "later"...but nothing he is doing is outside the law and the companies know this (they have good lawyers) and that is why they are shutting the program down.

Disputes in policy are handled at a level far higher then anyone at JSC...and the last chance Congress got to do it at the NASA administrator level...was in confirming Bolden. If Congress has a gripe other then the rantings of a few lawmakers that greased something into "law" they would take other actions, but they wont because most of the Congress doesnt care.

Congress does this all the time. In the 80's the Congress passed a measure tagged onto the DoD appropriations bill which required that the Navy study reactivating the few remaining Heavy Cruisers instead of reactivating the few remaining Battleships. In theory there was equal funding for both studies. The Navy (and the administration) wanted the BB's. Guess where almost all the money was spent. Guess what the outcome was? I'll help you, the Navy spent almost all the money on reactivating USS New Jersey. (a BB).

The problem with the folks at JSC is that they still think DeLay is around. Between the back door to both Texas Senators and DeLay JSC was able to more or less throw some political weight. Olson aint DeLay and the economic times are different.

There is zero support in Congress for the dollars Constellation will cost (in any form).

in the end, Charlie will win.

Robert G. Oler

Folks:

As far a Johnson Space Center is concerned, you might as well call it "mission complete" and shut most of it down. Turn it into The Astronaut Office And Training Center and just get rid of everyone else. It is no longer the Center Of The Universe but it's gonna go down kicking and screaming anyway.

tinker

Ok, let's start over. And how about an answer other than "Ask Charlie"...

Keith: specifically, what order(s) is JSC breaking?

To avoid any confusion: 'lowlycontractor' (someone else) and 'lowly contractor' (myself) are two different persons.

Folks,

I think I understand both the frustration of the JSC guys -- especially Mr. Lumpkin, who seems like he has his head screwed on well -- and my friend Keith. And as someone who has worked in the Executive Office of the President AND on the Hill, I would like to point out a few painful realities to those who honestly believe NASA is bound by law to continue Constellation as if nothing were going to change.

First of all, Congress did not forbid any changes in the Program of Record. The actual appropriations LAW, as opposed to the report language, forbade total cancellation of any projects during FY2010, unless Congress spoke again. The Executive Branch, as a matter of precdent, has never accepted that they are bound by "report language" as opposed to explicit provisions of law.

Now, note that this doesn't mean that programs can't be "slowed down".

Furthermore, federal contractors are usually entitled to some amount of funds for cancellation penalties if a program is terminated. Those usually pass thru to subcontractors also. But prime contractors have the choice as to whether to believe the government will eventually pay them from a future appropriation, or to keep enough money in escrow to pay these costs.

This Administration has decided that Lockheed and ATK are responsible for those costs, and must not spend remaining FY2010 funds on actual work, but hold on to them for termination costs.

Therefore, in effect, work on Constellation is stopping.

What Keith is saying, in so many words, is that Cx management at JSC has been trying to get aroudn this direction, and continue spending money on actual Constellation progress. this may indeed be in keeping with the intent of Senator Shelby and others in Congress, but it is not what the explicit letter of the law says.

The Antideficiency Act, and various procurement laws, also bind NASA to do certain things, including retaining funds for contract cancellation.

The Constellation contractors hate this, since they want their projects to continue. So do the folks who have been loyally trying to make Constellation work, like the new Cx lead guy.

The painful reality that nobody, especially several Members of Congress from MY affiliated party (GOP), want to acknowledge, is that the money simply does not exist to make Constellation successful. IMHO Constellation can never be made affordable and sustainable, because it just isn't. But the money doesn't exist to force thru the sausage grinder into contracts to actually make hardware that flies in space. It will be like Space Station, in slow-motion hibernation as the work and spending drags on, year after year, until it gets cancelled by some other President.

This is what Augustine said. Constellation is not executable inside the current budget. You don't have to like it or even agree, but you cannot prove that it is executable. That there is a high probability path to complete Ares 1 and Orion and then Ares 5 and Altair inside the budget runout as reduced by both Bush and Obama. And therefore it will fail.

To the extent that any managers at JSC are in denial about this, and trying to keep the program of record going in the hope that Congress will turn Republican -- as Hanley himself said openly -- then that's just not following Adminstration direction, which is that Constellation must ramp down and (in FY2011 end) before we waste any more money on a dead-end path.

If folks want to say that this direction is unlawful, then they should say so publicly and possibly resign. But ultimately the question of legality is between the White House and Congress... it is not a question for GS-14s or even SESes at JSC to decide.

Those would want this situation to be different, who feel incredibly betrayed because the program they have worked so hard on for 5 years is crashing at burning thru no fault of theirs, may have every right to those feelings. But they do not have the right to ignore direction.

God knows I wish Charlie were more crystal clear in his direction. But those who choose to use his tolerance of some dissension to abuse their obligation to follow the President's direction do neither NASA nor Charlie any service.

Submitted with huge respect for all the great folks at JSC (and elsewhere) trying to keep America #1 in space...

- Jim Muncy

Keith,

Sorry if my point about confirmation offended you to
the point that you thought I implied you invented stories
or that random words spewed from your keyboard. (If you have developed the technology for randomly generated words to be somehow filtered/rearranged into coherent English, I would be interested in the details.)

Kidding aside: You state that "OF COURSE, I have confirmed
all this". My questions are 1) What is "all this"? You state that it is "open defiance", but can you give a few specific examples. Something along the lines of say collusive contact between a JSC senior manager and a member of Congress where information was provided to Congress in a form which would aid the camp who wish to continue Constellation beyond FY10?? 2) You extort us to "ask Charles Bolden." That would lead me to wonder if Mr. Bolden is your source. Is that the case? 3) If this defiance is so "open", widespread, and so upsetting to Mr. Bolden, why aren't these rebellious JSC managers being reprimanded or removed (other than Mr. Hanley)?

Bottom line, it is hard to believe the allegations without more substantiation that simply "ask Mr. Bolden". I am not trying to be argumentative, but it just seems to me like you are wanting us to believe some fairly serious accusations of insubordination without providing much in the way of proof. All I have heard from the managers up and down the line in all hands meetings, etc. is "Yes we are disappointed in the proposal to cancel Constellation. Many of us think it is the wrong thing to do. However, we are subordinate to the President and we have new marching orders". Now, I don't know what goes on behind the closed doors on the upper floors of B1 here at JSC, but if that is where the defiant acts are occurring then I certainly wouldn't call these acts "> defiance". I have not heard one manager here at JSC encourage us to act defiantly towards the President's new proposals. On the contrary, I have heard many of the line troops voice opinions that they wish the JSC senior management argued much more strongly in public (i.e. "openly") to save Constellation from the ax.

Once again:
1) What are these defiant acts?
2) If they are so "in the open", how come not a single one has been referred to specifically by you or the readers who have commented in this thread?? In other words if they are so "open", why is it that only a question to Mr. Bolden will reveal what they are???

Thanks again for NASAwatch.

when enforcement of law is stopped, anarchy comes home.

Editor's note: No, the problem lies with people who do not understand what a "law" is and what things are not "laws". NASA employees and contractors are notoriously ignorant when it comes to these things - especially as they relate to Congress. You'd think by now they'd take the time to understand all of this a little better.

Ummm...Keith, I really think you've got this one mixed up.
Go back to your days at LvII SSF and put this in context. Like it or not, Constellation is what NASA is directed to execute under the appropriated budget. Obama's FY11 proposal is just that: a *proposal.*

Until Obama's proposed redirection of the Agency is authorized and then appropriated, it remains just a proposal. In the meantime, us worker bees must continue to work as the appropriated budget directs us. Keith, you've been on the inside and know this. Why stoke the flames unnecessarily? I think you're a better journalist than that.

Editor's note: yes, I was at SSF Level II. We worked on the PoR until we were told not to work any more by NASA HQ. Then we were shut down and people moved to new jobs, were laid off, or in my case, quit. You also need to spend a little time understanding what the Antideficiency Act means.

In the case of SSF, there wasn't a Executive/Congressional conflict to muddy the waters. There was - relatively speaking - concurrence to shut Reston down, so we did. But my point to you was to imagine if that sort of conflict *had* existed back then ... perhaps we in the SSFP would've felt differently about what should be done. I speculate that you might've felt differently and/or acted differently, that's all.

Anyway, I know and understand the Antideficiency Act.
However, I didn't think that was the issue here. Many commenters have been trying to get you to put some "meat on the bone" to substantiate your initial comments, and I've been puzzled by your unusual lack of candor. Hmmm...maybe that's the key? Do you have some specific instances of senior managers directing subordinates to violate the ADA? Is that why you're not offering up any details?

Editor's note: since you find my answer as to what actually happened at SSF Reston to not mesh with the point you hoped to make you now ask me to imagine an alternate universe where things happened differently. No thanks - I'm just too busy to get out the time machine and play "what if". We all got over it and moved on. As for naming names - I find it to be hilarious that people who post on this thread anonymously (I know who some of them are) who have also provided me information as sources (anonymously) now protest when I seek to protect my sources. If you do not believe what I have written then go find another website to read - got that? Have a nice day.

Keith,
Smell the coffee, buddy... You can't arbitrarily move appropriated funds. The agency CAN move funds to varying extents WITHIN a program, such as what happened with your project and what happens all the time WITHIN programs. SSF was not canceled until the most recent budget cycles. CxP HAS NOT been canceled in any legal budgetary context...

Editor's note: SSF was not cancelled either. It was redesigned and reorganized. Option A was chosen. Some designs stayed unchanged, others were tweaked, others discarded. Offices were closed, others were expanded, contracts were modified and/or cancelled, people were reassigned, etc. Much of what is in orbit now was part of SS Freedom. Indeed, some of the old SSF decals (now covered up) can be seen inside of ISS nodes pointing to things (ACRV) that were never built. Check your facts next time.

Jim, thank you for your post. May I ask for clarification on a few points: 1) You say : "The actual appropriations LAW, as opposed to the report language, forbade total cancellation of any projects during FY2010, unless Congress spoke again". Excuse me, but it sounds like you are saying the LAW says "no cancellation" which is the primary issue at hand. 2) you say that there is simply not money available to make Constellation work. I believe the issue here is the unbelievable spending on bailouts and give aways to politcally friends of the current administration without consideration of normal priorities. Would you agree or not agree that if spending priorities were different enough money would be available to make it work?

Thanks for making my point clearer...

Keith, you need to brush up on your federal budgetary process. Obama could order Bolden to issue a direct order to stop working on CxP. Anyone who follows that order is in direct violation of law, and they can be personally liable for any costs incurred to both the government and to its contractors.

The bulk of CxP is one specific color of money. It is not discretionary spending and cannot be spent on anything else, regardless of how much Obama or Bolden don't want it.

That's how it works. It's not a rebellion, it's people following the 2010 law.

Editor's note: Oh, I have. Congress cannot force NASA to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act - a law that they themselves created. CxP contractors are in violation of the ADA and are now being held to the letter of the contracts they signed. Lets see if CxP managers adhere to THAT law as directed by NASA HQ. And before you think I am being cold hearted and cruel -- yes, it really sucks that it has come to this. Every job lost belongs to a real human being with a family and bills to pay - and dreams that will now be dashed. NASA and the contractors should never have let it come to this point - they should have been honest with the numbers and what the committed to do. They did not and now thousands of hard working people get the shaft as a result of bad management.

While everyone is arguing about the "law" the U.S. is losing an agency with a very competent workforce, and credibility (due to an incompetent administration and congress who only wants to appear concerned). Within 10 years I expect NASA will more than likely not exist.

Note that I didn't say anything about the Anti-Deficiency act. That's in Bolden's rights, though I think it's a petty way to kill a program when you can't drum up enough support in Congress to get your agenda through. (How many other dozens of programs have we had that have waived the anti-deficiency clauses in their contracts?)

But I digress. The point is Hanley was removed simply because he was a proponent for his program.

I guess we at NASA have all learned our lesson - don't believe to strongly in your programs. Don't try too hard, even if that's what the law tells you to do. Don't ever do anything that might be seen as ambitious, or dedicated. If you do, you'll need to find another job.

"Congress cannot force NASA to violate the Anti-Deficiency Act - a law that they themselves created."

And Congress can change it if they wanted to. It will be interesting to see if they are still united and take any action in support of Constellation.

As my friend Bob Allen used to say, "facts are stubborn things".

Gary01 says:
"I believe the issue here is the unbelievable spending on bailouts and give aways to politcally friends of the current administration without consideration of normal priorities. Would you agree or not agree that if spending priorities were different enough money would be available to make it work?"

The TARP funding was passed pursuant to the request of the Bush administration. While it could have been administered better, we avoided a second great depression. The Obama administration used some leftover / residual to provide bridge financing to keep two major US automobile manufacturers in business. Are GM and Chrysler what you mean by "political friends"? We will probably get the money provided to banks and car companies back, but will get stuck covering the AIG "insurance" of bad deals like we did with the S&L mess.

The Obama recovery act (stimulus bill) spent about $750 billion. One third was middle / lower class tax reduction; one third was funding to states to help them maintain education, public safety and other priorities at a time when their sales tax revenues were cratering due to the recession, and one third was spent on a variety of federal infrastructure and programs - including a NASA chunk for exploration. Where the funding went for a large majority of these projects was designated by state (and sometimes local)governments. This was how the priorities were set.

The direction from OMB suggests that agencies will be required to propose reductions that are likely to be reflected in next years budget. I think that space supporters should be trying to get Congress to appropriate the increased five year levels proposed by the President.

The primary issue is really not is what is the President prepared to pay, it is what is the country supposed to be buying. Ares I is not a lunar program. Anything is workable if you have infinite money or time. Unfortunately, the nation has neither.

There is a strong case to be made for consistently spending a portion of the national budget to develop technology, programs and infrastructure to advance the spread of the human race beyond earth orbit. I believe the president's budget and plan reflects this. But taxpayers funds need to spent to advance national goals, not to service a theory of ongoing program, system or center based entitlement.

Keith-
Sorry if I pissed you off; that wasn't my intent. I was only trying to compare a similar shutdown effort (SSFP dissolving Reston Level II) that I know you had intimate knowledge of, with the current situation. I think if we had had an Executive/Congressional conflict back then, it would've been even worse than it was, with much confusion in the ranks on what we could/couldn't do. I sense that kind of confusion among the working troops now.
As for naming names, I've never asked you to do that; nor do I want you to reveal mine. My question was a simple yes/no; "do you have some specific instances of senior managers directing subordinates to violate the ADA?" My guess is the answer is yes, and that would explain why you've made some vague answers to commenters on this thread.
Well, things will get more interesting before this settles down.

Editor's note: Yes, I do. I cannot provide more detail right now since people would be fired.

"we avoided a second depression is not a fact, it is an opinion. Yes, I blame Bush for the TARP too, but Obama was right along with him. Bailouts of auto companies were bailouts of unions more than the companies. The unions are democrat friendly. SEIU is less of a union and more of a PAC for dems and enforcement wing. The Obama Recovery Act stimulated nothing but greater government employment. 6 out of 10 economic indicators still lag (including unemployment). My point was wasting money doesn't help NASA, Constellatioon, Obama's nebulous vision or anything else. So when the next administration comes in and changes Obama's plan will those working on Obama's vision be included in your entitlement categories or will the new plan be based on national goals? Funny how some facts are really opinions.

Gary,

There is a difference between cancellation of the program, and slowing down spending on the program in preparation for shut down on October 1st, the beginning of FY2011. The former, if carried out in FY2010, would violate the letter of the law. The latter does not.

More importantly, if there is not enough money left in FY2010 to carry out the original plan to continue spending on the Constellation projects AND keep a reserve for paying cancellation costs, then spending can stop. I realize this is a terrible way to run the program, but it's also a requirement of existing laws.

It would have been much better if Congress hadn't posited in the FY2010 appropriation that the Augustine report didn't exist and there was no reason to change direction until FY2011. If Congress had wanted to explicitly say in law don't make any changes, don't slow down, ignore termination and antideficiency requirements... then they could have. They didn't.

Instead, they said "don't cancel". So the Administration isn't canceling the programs. They are simply honoring ALL of the laws they must, while trying to move to a sustainable and affordable program in FY2011 that can survive future budget problems, which we already see coming up with the new proposed 5% reduction in discretionary spending.

Congress has forced the Administration to waste billions on the old program in FY2010. Instead of yelling and screaming about saving Constellation, Congress should have tried to work with the Administration this year to pursue an affordable path. Facing bipartisan 'roid rage' from Congress, the hangover from Dr. Griffin's big promises, the White House and NASA senior leaders have had to spend money in FY2010 on Constellation so long as money was left to do so, while starting to plan for FY2011.

As for your comments about political favoritism and bailouts and such... hey, I'm a republican. I didn't vote for this president and I don't support 95 percent of what he is doing. But I agree with what he is doing on space. In so many ways I think it is a more effective implementation of the original Bush Vision than Apollo on Steroids ever was.

Congress had an opportunity last year to add money to NASA's budget so they could afford to pursue Constellation, for at least another year. Congress has already passed supplemental and other bills this year that could have added money to NASA. But the defenders of Constellation cannot get 218 votes in the House and 51 votes for adding billions per year.

You may not like this. But it is political reality. You may not share the White House's or Congress' priorities. But the system does reflect, broadly speaking, public views. You may argue that the public don't understand the importance of space. Fine. We live in a democracy that doesn't require people to know everything about everything in order to vote for Congress or President. As Churchill said, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others.

Finally, even if it were possible to add billions of dollars to NASA's budget, I would still argue that it would be much better to change the underlying exploration architecture and strategy to one that lowered fixed and variable costs, instead of designing everything for the mythical Mars reference mission that is at least a couple decades away. I would pick an affordable, extensible, incremental, get-smarter-and-cheaper-as-I-go approach, much as that offered by Augustine option 5B. Then I would use the extra money to just fly a lot more exploration missions sooner, demonstrating mroe results for the taxpayers and actually EARNING more political support for continued increased funding, even as other discretionary agencies get slashed during the baby boomer entitlement explosion over the next couple decades.

I expect a lot of my friends will be angry with me now, but I do have this crazy notion that we should base our plans on budgetary and political reality, instead of the way we would like things to be. Water is wet, rocks are hard, gravity sucks, and reality is reality. Children throw tantrums about reality, while adults accept reality... and then start to change it. I prefer to be an adult.

- Jim

Would you agree or not agree that if spending priorities were different enough money would be available to make it work?"

The fundamental problem here is that we have an Apollo on steroids program with a Shuttle budget. There is no way to get there from here and absolutely no indication from congress that they would support such a budget.

The harsh fact is that Griffin's ESAS is not a bad plan if you had a nation that was fully committed to space exploration and development. I would agree with you that if the money that we have essentially pissed away with the stimulus could have been applied to space, that it would have helped make it work, temporarily.

The problem is that our elected leaders and the majority of our fellow citizens have never seen the value in the space program that we who have given our lives to it see. I would argue that if you really want the United States to get a long term economic punch in the arm that would make the 21st century the second American century there is no better place to put it than space. Instead of slashing each others throats over $19 billion a year, space exploration and development should be ten times that amount. We would not only transform the United States, we would transform the world.

Unfortunately, most of our fellow citizens think that NASA is moving merrily along toward star trek with a Gilligans Island budget. You can only do so much with two coconuts and a string. Our elected officials have the vision of a gnat on geritol and these are simply realities that we have to live with.

I would suggest making the most out of the assets that we do have, and that our fellow citizens have forked over $100 billion dollars to support, namely ISS. We can develop a sustainable exploration program with that as an anchor but we have to quit arguing how many astronauts can dance on the head of a never to exist heavy lift rocket.

Jim,

Excellent article you posted. Full of Wisdom that is often lacking in these forums.

Lets hope that in facing the new budgetary constraints, which will occur as a result of our politician's total disregard for fiscal responsibility, that NASA finally decides to reduce its number of Centers and reduce its workforce consistent with it's curtailed budgets.

Well, I think retaining a skilled unionized manufacturing is in the national interest, I think retaining the skilled, largely unionized human space flight workforce is in the national interest, I think SEIU is not really a part of this discussion, I think 95% of economists disagree on your assessment of the impact of stimulus and TARP (stimulus was underfunded by about a third and we should borrow some more money at these low interest rates and fund major infrastructure repairs), and the government employment under stimulus is mostly teachers and cops funded at state and local level so I'll take it (infrastructure and tech spending went to contractors and companies).

When the next administration comes it, hopefully it will find an agency that effectively and predictably manages the funds it receives and is starting to apply a new set of technologies, vehicles and facilities designed for the 21st century. So if the objective changes or is accelerated, NASA will be able to respond quickly and effectively.

Jim, thank you so much for your reply. The whole point of this discussion and thread is whether or not JSC staff are in "rebellion". You have made it perfectly clear as to what the law says, i.e. no cancellation of Constellation. Therefore, maintaining the thread, can JSC staff or for that matter, the administration including NASA headquarters violate that law? Slowing the program down or subversively impeding contracts may not be a violation of the letter of the law but certainly adds nothing to the spirit of the law. Therefore, the point that JSC staff are "rebelling" is wrong. They are simply doing their jobs.

Aside from that thread for now, it appears another point you make is that Congress could have, should have made it clear that slowing down the program would violate their intent as well. Granted, perfect information in advance as to what the administrations intented would have been valuable. Unfortunately, the administration did not follow normal NASA procedure in exploring their new plan and Congress and we did not have knowledge of their intent.

Now we can disagree or agree on the benefits and costs of Constellation or the Obama plan. The problem I have with the administration is as follows: they simply announced their plan without study or evaluation, without exploration of the unintended consequences. They did so without input from the NASA community. As you clearly point out, this is a "political" decision not an engineering or technological decision. Clearly, the administrations response to the "bad press" is to play politics by throwing money at Florida and neglect the thousands of NASA employees and contractors in other States which may not be friendly to the administration. Political reality, yes. And an injustice to the many fine NASA employees and Contractors in those States. So if you don't mind, I'll call a spade a spade.

Finally, I suspect there are legitimate benefits associated with the administrations plan. But we don't know what they are so I'm not sure where your support for the plan derives. Political and budgetary realities are not the only basis for evaluation. If that were the case JFK could have slept on his decision to go to the moon in a decade and we would still be looking at it wondering what was there. I suppose he could have chose an incremental approach but he was a leader and leader's challenge followers with bold goals. By the way, Congress was throwing money at NASA to achieve that goal and the American people were behind it.

Again, thank you for your comments.
Respectfully,
Gary

"Would you agree or not agree that if spending priorities were different enough money would be available to make it work?"

anything can be made to work if enough money is pumped into it. The question is or should be "do we get value for the money spent".

Look the nation is deficit spending at enormous amounts. There are so many "its only 4 billion dollars a year" projects in the federal government that politicians want to fund because they do great things in their districts...that the nation is bleeding to death.

In the best of times is is hard to argue that Constellation is value for the money...it is impossible to argue it now

Robert G. Oler

All:

OK. I must admit now, after some more posts on this thread and
the latest in the media about NASA directing Constellation contractors
to insure that remaining FY10 funds cover the termination costs
in the contracts as prescribed by the ADA, that I am really ignorant
about what is going on and what is being discussed. It seems to be pretty serious since layoffs may begin soon - very soon. Perhaps Keith or Mr. Muncy could fill in some gaps for us. As a starting point, I have some (perhaps very naive) questions:

1) It seems that the ADA should apply to every program and the contracts
that every program signs across all of government. Correct? What is different about Constellation that an FY11 proposed budget which cancels it would cause a sudden need to reallocate the FY10 $ to cover contract termination costs?? Shouldn't this have been done all along?
2) Must all programs carry a big reserve of appropriated $ to cover the terminations costs on these large multi-year contracts? If the answer is yes was Constellation doing this? If no, why not? If no, is/was Constellation unique in that?
3) Doesn't the President's FY11 budget proposal have $ to cover the cancellation costs of Constellation. I seem to remember a multi-billion $ line item to cover Constellation contract termination costs? Is that at all relevant to this discussion?
4) It seems that it has been implied that Mr. Bolden has told Constellation to
make sure we (NASA, the government) adhere to the ADA. And it has been
implied that JSC management including Mr. Coats has been "rebellious/defiant" towards this directive. I know that Keith is unwilling to give more detail than that in order to protect his source(s), but am I getting the jist of it correct?
5) If number 4) is true, it certainly hasn't trickled down to us civil service worker bees in the Engineering directorate. So, is the is rebellion really so "open"?

DISCLAIMER ON MY QUESTION #5
We (Engineering Director worker bee civil servants) are fairly out of the loop on such "program" issues since we are a line organization and therefore support all programs (Shuttle, ISS, and CxPO). So we don't have nearly as much at stake as some of the "program" contractors with whom we team (e.g. in my Branch we work a lot with folks on Lockheed's Orion contract up in the Denver area). Those people are looking at possible layoffs depending on the amount of work that will continue as Orion shifts from the Constellation program to being a "lifeboat" for ISS. We Engineering employees at JSC will (unless there is a RIF which we have been told is very unlikely) still have jobs. We will just be working on something other than "CxPO" such as Orion lifeboat or some of the proposed flagship missions. As such, this whole ADA issue has much, much less affect on us than it does with the contractors with whom we work. Maybe that is why I am just now becoming aware of the ADA. At any rate to say that JSC management is being OPENLY defiant w.r.t. to direction from HQ regarding the ADA seems to me to be a bit of a stretch since most of us worker bees have never even heard of the ADA until the last few days. It seems to me like there is a battle going on with regards to how this law is being interpreted especially with respect to other legislation that says "thou shalt not cancel Constellation". Perhaps the two laws in some way conflict. The settlement outlined by our founded fathers is for such a conflict to be brought before the US Judicial Branch for Constitutional interpretation. Perhaps ATK Thiokol would bring such a suit since from what I read they are the contractor affected the most severely. I am no legal scholar. I am just a naive rocket scientist trying to remember things I learned in high school. So, much of what I write may be way off (I am not a lawyer, but I disclaim like one on TV).
END DISCLAIMER

Would any of you guys more knowledgeable than I care to set the rest of us straight on this whole ADA morass?? Something akin to "The ADA for Dummies"?

Thanks.

". If that were the case JFK could have slept on his decision to go to the moon in a decade and we would still be looking at it wondering what was there. "

in retrospect JFK should have slept on his decision and passed on it. My wife, baby, and I just rewatched "Enterprise" so alternate timelines are fun...but imagine that JFK had passed on the Moon goal and come up with some other "substitute for war" goal in space.

As it is the lunar goal barely outlived Kennedy, even if he had gotten a second term. By 1967 the reasons to go to the Moon, the things that had made the preceding years "the space age" had more or less started to wain in the minds of the American people. I was alive in that era (though a child) and I recall the waves of protest over the networks interrupting (I think) HEIDI with the Gemini 8 "problems". The nation dumped Apollo very quickly after 11.

If JFK had gotten a second term it would have been interesting to see what he would have aimed NASA for in the "post landing" phase as his second term came to an end. There is almost no evidence that JFK would have argued for a "stay on the Moon" approach to human spaceflight. It is clear that even JFK was recoiling from the cost.

As it was the Apollo program became the template for almost 50 years of human spaceflight conducted more or less as a "keep NASA in business" approach. Compare HSF's first half century with say aviations.

Aviation in the 1903-1953 timespan was in all respects as difficult to the technologies of that America has HSF is to ours. In aviations infant decades thousands of Americans died pursuing their lives and business by flying. Aviation had won two wars, was keeping the peace, and changing the American economy. We had gone from the WRight flyer and were knocking on the door of the 707.

HSF? Exclude the Moon effort. We have spent two or three hundred billion in real dollars planning to fly humans in space, building projects and actually flying them in space. 100 billion plus on the space station...and HSF is barely hanging on. It has not played any part in our defense, changed our economy or impacts most American lives. It is hard to argue that the crews of Challenger or Columbia or any of the "near misses" were doing things that changed the course of the nation.

What if JFK had passed on the Moon? We would know about what we know about it now...in fact with the likely heavy robotic probes we would probably know more.

It is to late to redo history, but not to late to stop repeating it. At somepoint we need to learn the lesson that massive government projects to do things with humans in space that really have no vital national purpose really dont change the course of events much.

Robert G. Oler

I too was around during that time, just a young buck tho. JFK's decision was not made in a vacuum. JFK's decision was not just political. It was also based on the technical issues. Considerable thought was given by the scientific community of lunar exploration before JFK ever took office. The impetus for JFK's decision to go to the moon actually originated during the Eisenhower administration. Eisenhower was concerned (and more so Kennedy) with Russian military use of space. Eisenhower however pushed for NASA to be a civilian agency and not miitary. Thus, the public would be aware of what was going on. Kennedy was reactionary to the efforts by the Russians. Had he lived, I seriously doubt his concern would have abated since the cold war lasted until Reagen ended it. So, in the mean time, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle..you name the program, provided technology of considerable value in our lives today. I say thank God for both Eisenhower and Kennedy. You opine that we could have gained the same value with robotic technology. Debatable.

I'm going to have to reply briefly now and then longer when I have more time.

I do not agree with most of the conclusions you have reached.

Most importantly, it is not, I repeat not, a violation of the law that says "don't cancel constellation during FY2010" to declare that:

1) it is changing in FY2011 because it has to
2) we will try to slow spending in FY2010 to
begin some transition
3) and if we run out of money, for whatever
reason, we will simply stop spending.

To be sure, the choice to do those things is a political choice, made by the man elected to make them: the President. He runs the executive branch.

And therefore, if JSC staff were trying to spend money from whatever pot they could find to try to accelerate constellation, in the face of points 1-3 above, they might have been making Congress happy, but the law did not mandate that action, or empower them to ignore AntiDeficiency, or, for that matter, legal direction from the President.

And so they WERE/ARE in rebellion.

That is Keith's point, and Keith is right.

Jim, sorry but I know some of the folks over at JSC. They cannot pass gas without headquarters approval. So I fail to see how they are rebelling let alone "spending money from whatever pot they could find". That is simply not the case. In fact, they are so controlled by headquarters that most of the time they cannot perform routine functions which has become extremely frustrating for them. On the rest of it, I'm not the one who said it was against the law, you were? I look forward to your clarification.

Darth Bolden to Princess Coats: "You are a member of the rebel alliance, and a traitor!"

The old budget and the new one does not have funds for a lander.However after the launcher is developed you could add in a lander but while it is being developed you would have de facto flexible path missions,Augustine commission stated that flexible path is not mutually exclusive of a lander.But try and fund both simultaneously!
Apollo 8 was indeed the first flexible path mission, and if the Apollo lander had been delayed for say 5 years we could have done a lot with Saturn in cislunar space.
So this could be our compromise,2015 start super EELV,2020 start lander,EELV starts flying in 2020 with flexible path missions,lander is ready some time after.

But try and fund both simultaneously!

The Altair lander might not be fundable but there are several ideas for landers of humans that would be pretty easy to fund. The whole issue is what kind of lunar program do you want? The Altair lander was not set up to be a ferry lander to an outpost but a sortie class lander. If you get rid of all the weight and hardware that is needed to support that style of lander, you could go down all the way to an open cockpit lander that would go to an outpost landing site.

It is all in how you put the pieces on the table. This is in a larger sense, why ESAS failed. Griffin knew right from the start that he did not have the money for ESAS and yet plowed on forward anyway, slashing and burning science and tech development budgets right and left to get the money for his program and still he was billions short. This was within a month or two of the unveiling of the ESAS architecture, not years later as is said by some.