Annotated responses [in red] by Keith Cowing, editor, NASA Watch. 

 -------------------------------------------------------------

 Folks;

 There have been some concerns raised about our fight on behalf of Transhab.

 Some of these were brought forward as a result of a article in NASAwatch, published by Keith Cowing, attacking our campaign to save Transhab and accusing me of various types of deception. These accusations come in two areas:

 1. misrepresenting the nature of the Transhab issue

 2. misrepresenting Rick Tumlinson's position on Transhab

 With respect to the first, it should be clear that in citing Transhab as a Mars issue, we have stated the matter correctly. Keith Cowing, who is against Transhab because he is against JSC and George Abbey, is circulating the cover story that "congress" is attacking the program to be "fiscally responsible." In fact, the attack on Transhab (a program that has cost $3 million to date) is a punitive action against human Mars exploration technology development by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) This was made clear in a written message sent to us by his aide, Jim Muncy.

Bob: you have obviously not spent much time reading NASA Watch! I am not against Transhab. Indeed, I think the concept of inflatables is an intriguing one with many uses - and not just human habitability. NASA has an aluminum fetish that will be hard to break and Transhab may well be the way to get NASA thinking out of the box. As far as Mars goes - I grew up in the 60's (as did you) expecting to see humans on Mars by 1981. Now, almost 30 years later, it may well be another 30 before we get there. I have the itch to go just as bad as you do Bob. But playing tricks with the facts as you have been doing won't get us there a moment sooner. Quite the contrary.

 Transhab arose as part of a Mars mission design concept at JSC and was pursued as such by NASA. When the White House (not Rohrabacher, Bob) ordered NASA to stop working human Mars missions, the folks at JSC scrambled to find a way to keep Transhab alive. So, JSC concocted a way to sell Transhab as a better ISS Hab. Fine, it would be "better" - but ISS - the baseline ISS is what NASA signed up to build. "Better" is what you do once you have met your baseline obligations. NASA is far from meeting its baseline obligations (cost, schedule) and Congress has sought to ensure that it does - before moving on to other things. 

Moreover NASA has been incapable of completing ISS on time or within budget (for a variety of reasons). Congress (both House and Senate) want to make NASA live within its agreed-to budget and schedule. Transhab is outside of that budget and schedule. Indeed it would, according to NASA's own numbers, cost $80 million more to use Transhab than to complete the ISS aluminum hab module.

 As I said in my article on 7 June 1999:

 "The ISS program is still out of control and needs to be brought under stricter financial control. Adding something new - because it is better at this point would not be unlike trying to convince your bank that you need a third mortgage on a house you have yet to put a roof on so that you can build a new a garage to house a car you can't afford. At some point your lender is going to say No. Congress has said no."

> 1) Chairman Rohrabacher is behind both parts of the provision.
> (section 128a, limiting Transhab for ISS, and
> section 128b, limiting any inflatables for humans in space)
>
> 2) NASA wants us to delete both parts.
>
> 3) The purpose of part B is to not give NASA a loophole, but also
> to allow habitable inflatables research beyond 2000. Note that
> even this doesn't affect industry-funded research.
>
> 4) Chairman Rohrabacher is not changing the bill.
>
> 5) Tell Bob Zubrin that I'm thinking of recommending tightening the
> provision just because TransHab is really just about Humans to Mars.
> (And Chairman Rohrabacher HATES Humans to Mars.)
>

Actually, Bob, this is an email written as a flip response in the middle of a hectic day by a staffer. He is not a public figure. No staffer on the Hill is. Further, you never bothered to substantiate that his comments in a private email were indeed official positions. While it is true that Rep. Rohrabacher is certainly not an overt fan of sending humans to Mars, it is simply untrue, contrary to your assertions, that he is working with deliberate intent to prevent humans from going to Mars. Has Rohrabacher ever told you or said that he was specifically working to prevent humans from going to Mars? No, he hasn't. At best, he's ambivalent, but he is not a roadblock.

 Truth is, Bob, you needed a villain to build your Society's lobbying efforts around. With no real enemy in sight, you decided to demonize Rep. Rohrabacher. Meanwhile, other space advocacy organizations were working quietly behind the scenes trying to understand all of the facts on the Transhab issue and perhaps find a way for Transhab to survive. After this incident, the staff are leery of all contacts with space advocates or their organizations.

One look at the report language from the House Science Committee that accompanied the Transhab provisions in H.R. 1654 will show you to be in error. It is important to note that this report is what the House Science Committee actually said about Transhab with regard to H.R. 1654. This report was submitted by House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner - not Rep. Rohrabacher.

 There is no NASA manned mission to Mars, Bob. Transhab was being considered, at NASA's request, ONLY as an augmentation to ISS. Nothing more. It is in that context that Congress was acting. Congress said that they want to constrain spending on ISS so as to force NASA to stick to its baseline. Their expressed intent vis-a-vis Transhab in this regard is rather explicit - as a possible replacement for an ISS component. This effort (H.R.1654) is - and should not be interpreted as having anything to do with Mars - or any other planet.

 Have a look at the actual language in H.R. 1654

 "SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

 

(a) REPLACEMENT STRUCTURE- No funds authorized by this Act shall be obligated for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable space structure to replace any International Space Station components scheduled for launch in the Assembly Sequence released by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on February 22, 1999.

 (b) GENERAL LIMITATION- No funds authorized by this Act for fiscal year 2000 shall be obligated for the definition, design, or development of an inflatable space structure capable of accommodating humans in space." 

The spending prohibition is only for FY 2000-2002, the time period covered by this act (see HR 1654 report) . There is no prohibition on the development of structures to be launched after the ISS baseline is completed using funds after FY 2002. Nor is there any mention of the planet Mars, nor sending humans thereto. Indeed, there is nothing in this bill that prohibits or bars any human mission to Mars.

 Moreover, there is nothing in H.R. 1654 to prevent the commercial development of Transhab.

Demonizing Rep. Rohrabacher as being the main enemy who is blocking humans from going to Mars is simply incorrect. Note that the Science Committee's H.R. 1654 report says that "... After the White House and Members of Congress reaffirmed their opposition to a human expedition to Mars until after the Space Station is successfully completed..." It wasn't just Rohrabacher, Bob. And they did not say "no" to Mars, they said, "not yet" i.e. after ISS is done. Given NASA's inability to keep this program on schedule or under control (while the White House plays foreign policy games with it), this is a rather wise stance to take. 

 Richard Wagner is talking to Tumlinson to smooth the ruffled feathers over this misunderstanding.

My understanding from direct conversations with Mr. Tumlinson [member of Mars Society Steering Committee (MSSC), Executive Director of FINDS. (Foundation for the International Non-governmental Development of Space), and President of the Space Frontier Foundation. ] and others is that Tumlinson made his views clear from the onset. I understand that a statement agreeable to all will soon be online at your website. 

Yes Bob, there are indeed many types of space activists. There are those who do nothing, and there are those who do something. You are clearly one who does something and have taken a single idea and, almost single handed, caused a large impressive organization to be created.

 However, among those who do "something", there are those who work towards a common goal, building trust and making allies along the way. And then there are those individuals, such as yourself, who see facts as things to be spun for momentary political gain without any thought given to long term relations built on facts - not upon spin.

 In addition, some have expressed the concern that our mobilization has hurt us on the Hill. This is untrue. Rohrabacher was our openly declared opponent anyway. However as a result of taking a stand, we have established numerous valuable contacts with congressmen and aides of both parties, and now have multiple means of getting our ideas into the system. I emphasize both parties; while the Democrats have greeted our activity with open enthusiasm, the Republicans are interested too. In fact we have a meeting with a very important House republican leader scheduled for this sunday. This individual was previously inaccessible to us. A very well connected Democrat also called me and suggested that it might be possible for him to arrange a meeting with Mr. Gore.

I find it rather curious that the Mars Society's Steering Committee (which includes 6 current NASA civil servants - two from NASA JSC), would have advised you, as a the lead representative of the Mars Society, to take such a confrontational, indeed accusatory, lobbying stance with Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Chair Rohrabacher in particular, and Congress in general, over this one specific NASA JSC project. 

Please note that I have always felt that NASA civil servants, contractors, and investigators should take a much more active stand in the discussion of space related issues, and I applaud all of those who serve on this Steering Committee. They are all stellar individuals who certainly have much expertise to offer the Mars Society. But given the tone and tenor with which you have pursued this "fight to save Transhab" and the attacks on Rep. Rohrabacher, I get the feeling that these people have been kept out of the process instead of being active participants therein. 

Transhab may well be "saved" - but not necessarily by you - rather, through the normal legislative process and how it does, and sometimes does not work. Remember, there has not been NASA authorizing legislation passed in 7 years. Moreover, NASA may resort to a well-practiced habit of pressuring the Appropriators to get things changed. Or, NASA could come up with a commercial option that is acceptable to all parties. This would all be happening without you or the Mars Society. 

Bob, your actions to date vis-a-vis Transhab have served to polarize the differing factions on this issue, not bring them together. If you and the Mars Society want to be a constructive force in this process, you need to start working towards repairing bridges - and building new ones - not blowing them up. 

.. and punishes the shortsighted.

 Robert Zubrin