This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Congress

Is NASA Going To Break The Law By Not Delivering An ISS Transition Plan To Congress?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 29, 2017
Filed under
Is NASA Going To Break The Law By Not Delivering An ISS Transition Plan To Congress?

Keith’s note: NASA HEOMD AA Bill Gerstenmaier was speaking at the NASA Advicory Council Human Exploration and Operations Committee meeting today. It certainly seems that he has decided that NASA is not going to comply with S.442 – National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 – which is now law. In that law Congress told NASA that they are to deliver a ISS Transition plan no later than 1 December 2017 – this Friday. All indications I get from NASA – and Gerstenmaier’s statement – make it clear that there is no plan to be delivered.

According to S.442 – National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 (Public Law No: 115-10 (03/21/2017))
“(1) ((NOTE: Coordination.)) In general.–The Administrator, in coordination with the ISS management entity (as defined in section 2 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017), ISS partners, the scientific user community, and the commercial space sector, shall develop a plan to transition in a step-wise approach from the current regime that relies heavily on NASA sponsorship to a regime where NASA could be one of many customers of a low-Earth orbit non-governmental human space flight enterprise.
(2) Reports.–Not later than December 1, 2017, and biennially thereafter until 2023, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a report that includes–“

Full section below

SEC. 303. ((NOTE: 51 USC 50111 note.)) ISS TRANSITION PLAN.
(a) Findings.–Congress finds that–
(1) NASA has been both the primary supplier and consumer of human space flight capabilities and services of the ISS and in low-Earth orbit; and
(2) according to the National Research Council report “Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration” extending ISS beyond 2020 to 2024 or 2028 will have significant negative impacts on the schedule of crewed missions to Mars, without significant increases in funding.
(b) Sense of Congress.–It is the sense of Congress that–
(1) an orderly transition for United States human space flight activities in low-Earth orbit from the current regime, that relies heavily on NASA sponsorship, to a regime where NASA is one of many customers of a low-Earth orbit commercial human space flight enterprise may be necessary; and
(2) decisions about the long-term future of the ISS impact the ability to conduct future deep space exploration activities, and that such decisions regarding the ISS should be considered in the context of the human exploration roadmap under section 432 of this Act.
(c) Reports.–Section 50111 of title 51, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(c) ISS Transition Plan.–
“(1) ((NOTE: Coordination.)) In general.–The Administrator, in coordination with the ISS management entity (as defined in section 2 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017), ISS partners, the scientific user community, and the commercial space sector, shall develop a plan to transition in a step-wise approach from the current regime that relies heavily on NASA sponsorship to a regime where NASA could be one of many customers of a low-Earth orbit non-governmental human space flight enterprise.
“(2) Reports.–Not later than December 1, 2017, and biennially thereafter until 2023, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives a report that includes–
“(A) a description of the progress in achieving the Administration’s deep space human exploration objectives on ISS and prospects for accomplishing future mission requirements, space exploration objectives, and other research objectives on future commercially supplied low- Earth orbit platforms or migration of those objectives to cis-lunar space;
“(B) the steps NASA is taking and will take, including demonstrations that could be conducted on the ISS, to stimulate and facilitate commercial demand and supply of products and services in low-Earth orbit;
“(C) an identification of barriers preventing the commercialization of low-Earth orbit, including issues relating to policy, regulations, commercial intellectual property, data, and confidentiality, that could inhibit the use of the ISS as a commercial incubator;
“(D) ((NOTE: Criteria.)) the criteria for defining the ISS as a research success;
“(E) ((NOTE: Criteria.)) the criteria used to determine whether the ISS is meeting the objective under section 301(b)(2) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017;
“(F) ((NOTE: Assessment.)) an assessment of whether the criteria under subparagraphs (D) and (E) are consistent with the research areas defined in, and recommendations and schedules under, the current National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space;
“(G) any necessary contributions that ISS extension would make to enabling execution of the human exploration roadmap under section 432 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017;
“(H) ((NOTE: Cost estimate.)) the cost estimates for operating the ISS to achieve the criteria required under subparagraphs (D) and (E) and the contributions identified under subparagraph (G);
“(I) ((NOTE: Cost estimate.)) the cost estimates for extending operations of the ISS to 2024, 2028, and 2030;
“(J) ((NOTE: Evaluation.)) an evaluation of the feasible and preferred service life of the ISS beyond the period described in section 503 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18353), through at least 2028, as a unique scientific, commercial, and space exploration- related facility, including–
“(i) a general discussion of international partner capabilities and prospects for extending the partnership;
“(ii) the cost associated with extending the service life;
“(iii) ((NOTE: Assessment.)) an assessment on the technical limiting factors of the service life of the ISS, including a list of critical components and their expected service life and availability; and
“(iv) such other information as may be necessary to fully describe the justification for and feasibility of extending the service life of the ISS, including the potential scientific or technological benefits to the Federal Government, public, or to academic or commercial entities;
“(K) ((NOTE: Cost estimate.)) an identification of the necessary actions and an estimate of the costs to deorbit the ISS once it has reached the end of its service life;
“(L) the impact on deep space exploration capabilities, including a crewed mission to Mars in the 2030s, if the preferred service life of the ISS is extended beyond 2024 and NASA maintains a flat budget profile; and
“(M) ((NOTE: Evaluation. Determination.)) an evaluation of the functions, roles, and responsibilities for management and operation of the ISS and a determination of–
“(i) those functions, roles, and responsibilities the Federal Government should retain during the lifecycle of the ISS;
“(ii) those functions, roles, and responsibilities that could be transferred to the commercial space sector;
“(iii) the metrics that would indicate the commercial space sector’s readiness and ability to assume the functions, roles, and responsibilities described in clause (ii); and
“(iv) any necessary changes to any agreements or other documents and the law to enable the activities described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
“(3) Demonstrations.–If additional Government crew, power, and transportation resources are available after meeting the Administration’s requirements for ISS activities defined in the human exploration roadmap and related research, demonstrations identified under paragraph (2) may–
“(A) test the capabilities needed to meet future mission requirements, space exploration objectives, and other research objectives described in paragraph (2)(A); and
“(B) demonstrate or test capabilities, including commercial modules or deep space habitats, Environmental Control and Life Support Systems, orbital satellite assembly, exploration space suits, a node that enables a wide variety of activity, including multiple commercial modules and airlocks, additional docking or berthing ports for commercial crew and cargo, opportunities for the commercial space sector to cost share for transportation and other services on the ISS, other commercial activities, or services obtained through alternate acquisition approaches.”.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

10 responses to “Is NASA Going To Break The Law By Not Delivering An ISS Transition Plan To Congress?”

  1. Sam S says:
    0
    0

    There are quite a few laws like this where Congress says this or that department must do something by a deadline, but I’m not aware that any of them say anything about what happens if the required action doesn’t happen.

    Is there actually a crime that can be charged if the law in question doesn’t have a prescribed penalty for violations? Could it, e.g. be used as a basis for removing the leadership of that agency over the objections of the President, etc.?

    The conclusion of any successful prosecution involves passing a sentence in accordance with the law, and this law offers nothing to go by, as far as I can tell. Obviously IANAL, maybe someone with more knowledge can say if anyone has ever even been threatened with prosecution for violating one of these directives/laws from Congress.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      The two chambers of Congress can act as their own courts. (A power upheld by the Supreme Court.) So they could find a Federal agency (through it’s director/administrator) for “contempt of Congress”. AIUI, the maximum sentence is 12 months imprisonment. However, with regular courts, if the contempt is ongoing, by refusing to obey a legal order, it’s common practice to hold someone in custody until they comply.

  2. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    This section of the law is an exception, a well thought out requirement for specific information, including NASA level Mars / ISS interacting human spaceflight budget scenarios /cost estimates, with commercial emphasis on options, that actually made it into the law. Many of these writeups come and go, all the way to staffers and…well…others… but they never get through. Never go anywhere else. Many…

    Still, the contributors have -more likely than not- been around enough to know Gerst would just be pissed and ignore it. It like those Progressive commercials. Its what he does. Now, the originators have a few options. One is to farm the task out to some ronin, at a distance. Lots of distance. Drop the report on the new Admin. Ummm.

    • Mal Peterson says:
      0
      0

      IMHO, the staffers who came up with this section of the authorization act, no matter how well-intended, should have been cognizant of the inherent known-unknowns involved that pose challenges to produce such a report. And, did they put the language in after determining that NASA had the time and resources required to generate such a report in such a short time. Asking a large number of civil servants at NASA to devote thousands of CS labor hours amounts to a “drop everything else you are doing” request. In addition, the report can only be generated with the assistance of all the other parties involved in ISS. And, the technical analysis required to divine how or whether the external lifetime-critical elements of ISS can be repaired or replaced isn’t a trivial undertaking, particularly when the time span goes 6 years beyond 2024. Pretensions to knowledge when no such knowledge exists at the level required to perform cost estimates produces BS products. And, there is the small matter of the time to pursue the consultations with commercial space vendors and international partners…. just saying, folks.

  3. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    The problem is with the law. Presumably it was written by someone who believed ISS funding should be largely or completely cut off and transferred to human flight to Moon and Mars.

    There are two problems with this. First, no private organization could pick up the slack without a large government contract, and no agency except NASA even has the charter to fund it, let alone the resources. This is what the Bush administration proposed back in 04 for Constellation, that US participation in ISS would terminate with assmbly complete. Naturally the International Partners did not agree.

    Second, this is telling the public that NASA can’t figure out what to do in LEO so they are going to forget about it and ask for money to do something else. LEO has enormous potential. ISS can become a center for Earth and space observation, and for refuelling and final checkout of space probes and satellites, as was the original plan in the 70’s when the modern space station concept was proposed. It is vital as a destination for reusable launch systems. If NASA wants to delegate its management function to a commercial entity which could accomodate tourists as well as science payloads and market additional capabilities, there is nothing preventing it. But we must demonstrate that human spaceflight is practical and sustainable in LEO before we try it on the Moon or Mars, where costs are much higher.

    If we abandon the ISS we will not be stuck in LEO. We will be stuck on the ground.

    • numbers_guy101 says:
      0
      0

      I read the wording in the law quite the opposite. Its written to force consideration of how only a part of ISS funding goes to Moon / Mars exploration after the end of ISS as we know it.

      This is why the law is being ignored, because NASA leadership at the Gerst level sees all such discussion as unproductive. Once I start to set aside a plan and post-ISS funds for a permanent LEO presence, perhaps buying time and space on private stations, which nonetheless requires funding for a partnership, then the funding left-over reflects on the timeline for deep-space exploration. As in the 2030s becoming the 2050s. If ever. Or never, as baselined (with SLS, Orion).

      Remember, barring dramatically reducing costs through reinvention or new approaches, cost-plus spaceflight is just losing purchasing power every year thru 2024…or 2028. This law is being ignored because answering it means documenting this reality, among others, the last thing NASA leadership wants to do. No, they just want to see the Gateway take over ISS funding, sole source, international, cost plus. ISS 1.0 becomes ISS 0.3, for the same cost. But ending all the commercial elements (cargo, crew).

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        “barring dramatically reducing costs through reinvention or new approaches”

        Without such reinvention there is no path forward for human space flight. It will remain a curiosity without practical value. NASA’s principal goal in human spaceflight should be to work as a partner with industry to achieve it.

  4. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    It may be moot. I just saw that Arizona Treasurer Dewitt, who handled President Trump’s campaign finances, is being put in charge of NASA’s finances. He is tight fisted on managing a budget. SLS and ISS may be having their day of reckoning sooner than expected.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      How would being ‘tight-fisted’ actually make decisions? Put another way, would we expect a harder look at over-runs, for instance?

      And how does a guy with no space experience, or experience with original and industry-leading research, come to make informed decisions?

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        I might expect more attention to centers or contractors who chronically underestimate costs when proposing something. That doesn’t require any space or research-related experience. Understanding why people build in large budget reserves in case of unexpected problems might be a surprise, but I doubt seeing people low-ball cost estimates would be.