Congress has no desire to let NASA slow down its work, | AP photo Shooting for the moon amid cuts

For all the rhetoric about cutting government spending, NASA’s space mission remains sacred in Congress.

A handful of powerful lawmakers are so eager to see an American on the moon — or even Mars — that they effectively mandated NASA to spend “not less than” $3 billion for a new rocket project and space capsule in the 2011 budget bill signed by the president last week.


NASA has repeatedly raised concerns about the timeframe for building a smaller rocket — but the new law expresses Congress’s will for the space agency to make a massive “heavy-lift” rocket that can haul 130 metric tons, like the ones from the days of the Apollo.

Congressional approval of the plan — all while $38 billion is being cut elsewhere in the federal government — reflects not only the power of key lawmakers from NASA-friendly states, but the enduring influence of major contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing in those states.

For instance, a series of stop-gap spending laws had kept money flowing to the man-to-moon Constellation program because Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) initially tucked a provision into a 2010 budget bill — even though President Barack Obama and Congress agreed last fall to end that Bush-era initiative. An internal NASA audit pegged the cost of that move at $215 million over five months.

While some praise Congress for pushing the United States to remain a world leader in space science, critics say the national space program is effectively run by lawmakers protecting jobs in their home states.

“Manned spaceflight is prohibitively expensive, especially considering our budgetary woes,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. “At one point, the administration was trying to lead NASA out of that, but congressional politics protecting parochial interests have forced the agency to waste money in the recent short-term continuing resolutions and are forcing a specific approach down NASA’s throat in the yearlong spending bill.”

The latest $3 billion will likely be awarded to the same major companies that had contracts under the Bush-era Constellation program, most notably Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Alliant Techsystems — firms with extensive operations in Alabama, Maryland, Texas and Utah.

As a whole, NASA is facing its own budget crunch, with its $18.5 billion budget recently trimmed by about $275 million. A top space expert, Scott Pace of The George Washington University, testified last month that NASA spent at least $21 billion over the past two decades for various programs, including manned space flight, that were later canceled.

But Congress has no desire to let the agency slow down its work to return to the moon and beyond, even if that potentially could take decades to accomplish.

Lawmakers from those states say their push is not parochial — that it’s rooted in the national interest to ensure the U.S. remains the base for an industry that supports thousands of highly skilled jobs. Moreover, they say it makes sense to give money to contractors with proven track records in this technical field, especially ones who have already begun work on the next generation of rockets.

“Dismissing [the 130-ton rocket], or the capsule work, as constituent concerns misses the point that these are unique, national capabilities necessary to remain a leader in space exploration,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.). “The Chinese are building a 130-ton rocket to go to the moon. We are dependent on the Russians for access to the International Space Station. The greatest nation on Earth, the one who stunned the world and inspired a generation by sending a man to walk on the moon, cannot afford to be eclipsed by Russia or China.”

One of Obama’s central promises in his February 2010 budget was to end the Constellation program, which called for sending humans back to the moon for the first time since 1972, transitioning instead to private companies that could carry astronauts to the International Space Station.

Under heavy criticism from Congress, Obama later insisted he wasn’t abandoning the manned space mission. Last October, he signed the NASA authorization law in which Congress laid out its vision for future space travel, including the initial development of a smaller rocket that could enter the Earth’s lower orbit, before upgrading to the massive heavy-lift rocket to go to the moon and beyond.

But some lawmakers whose states rely on the industry have grown increasingly concerned that NASA no longer was on the same page.

Aderholt — who has Boeing as a major constituent back home — told Republican Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf that NASA “is more determined than ever” to slow down the creation of the heavy-lift rocket.

So the congressman pushed Wolf — a key appropriator — for $1.8 billion to be spent on building the heavy-lift rocket, and an additional $1.2 billion to be spent on the creation of the accompanying capsule that would carry the astronauts. By saying NASA can spend “not less than” that amount, it would prevent NASA from spending on other needs within the agency, he argued. A similar effort was under way in the Senate.

“That makes it crucial that NASA receive direction from the Committee,” Aderholt said in one of three letters provided to POLITICO.

Aderholt and Senate supporters of the language insist that the line-item is not an earmark, arguing it does not specify the companies that would receive the money. But the way the 2010 NASA authorization law was drafted all but ensures that Lockheed will be awarded much of the $1.2 billion to finish its Houston-based Orion space capsule — and Boeing and Alliant Techsystems will split the $1.8 billion to create the heavy-lift rocket.

“No new contract is needed,” said Joan Underwood, a Lockheed spokeswoman.

A NASA spokesman said the agency is currently reviewing its options for distributing the money, but that it “embraces” the funds because it “fully supports the requirements” in the authorization law. A White House Office of Management and Budget spokeswoman said the dollar amount was consistent with the president’s budget request.

Critics have said that if the money isn’t competitively bid, it is no better than an earmark — at a time when Congress has effectively banned the pet projects.

“Heavy lift of 130 tons is not necessary for missions beyond Earth orbit if we develop a few key technologies,” said Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.). “But whatever Congress decides, one thing is clear: The process needs to be open and competitive with transparency throughout the process.”

Shelby, who told POLITICO that the heavy-lift rocket is critical to make NASA “more viable,” isn’t the only senator who pushed hard for the language in the spending bill. Two key appropriators — Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski and Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison — each advocated the language.

And the companies that have billions at stake were heavy players as well.

Boeing spent nearly $18 million on its own lobbying operation in 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a government watchdog group. In addition, Boeing hired 19 outside lobbying firms and paid them an additional $3.5 million-plus. Among its outside lobbyists is former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.).

Boeing’s PAC donated more than $2.2 million during the past cycle, including $7,500 to Shelby’s campaign committee, $13,000 to Mikulski’s reelection committee and leadership PAC, $1,000 to Aderholt and $3,500 to Wolf.

Lockheed Martin spent nearly $13 million on in-house lobbying and $3 million on outside lobbyists, including former Rep. Sonny Callahan (D-Ala.). And Bill Inglee, staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, is a former vice president at Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin’s PAC shelled out nearly $3.5 million in 2009-10, according to records, with the lawmakers seeking the NASA funding receiving more than $69,000.

Alliant Techsystems, also known as ATK, spent $1.3 million on federal lobbying, according to disclosure reports. Its PAC gave out $28,500 to lawmakers involved in obtaining the new NASA funding, including $15,000 to Shelby, FEC records show.

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which is working with ATK on part of the rocket system, is a division of United Technologies, and is itself a major lobbying force — spending $14.5 million in 2010 — with a PAC that dished out nearly $30,000 to members pushing for the NASA money.