WASHINGTON, D.C. – Following new developments in the shuttle disposition process, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) urged NASA to reexamine the selection process and reconsider Dayton’s bid for the Space Shuttle Enterprise. In a letter to NASA Inspector General Paul Martin, Brown raised questions about the jurisdiction of the disposition process, the selection criteria, scoring calculations, as well as changes to proposed bids.

“As we continue to learn about flawed space shuttle selection process, more questions come to mind than answers,” Brown said. “Even NASA cannot explain how and why many of its decisions were made.  The Administration should revisit the decision.”

An investigation initiated by Brown into the selection process for the placement of the retired space shuttles revealed that if a reporting error were caught, Dayton would have been in a three-way tie to receive one of two space shuttles. The report found several flaws in the selection process that might have led to a different outcome for site selection. Specifically, when NASA calculated access for international visitors, road travel from Canada—with large population centers in one day’s drive from Ohio— was excluded. In addition, the scoring system was inconsistent – combining population regions in some states but not in others – and biased toward metro areas with more than 8 million residents.

Furthermore, New York – which was awarded the Space Shuttle Enterprise based on an application that would house the disposed shuttle on the USS Intrepid – recently indicated that it would house the space shuttle in completely different museum in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood. This could present major obstacles to its placement, including lengthy and expensive local zoning and regulatory approvals and land acquisition.

Brown was an outspoken advocate for locating a space shuttle at National Museum of the United States Air Force at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. When it appeared that Dayton’s bid would have been undermined by a provision that would have given priority to museums directly connected to space shuttle operations, Brown fought to amend the NASA Authorization Act – which named criteria for selecting sites – to keep Dayton in the running. Brown’s effort resulted in allowing locations like Dayton, which have made significant contributions to human space flight, remain eligible to receive a shuttle.

Brown also made the case for Dayton’s selection with numerous federal leaders, including Vice President Joe Biden; White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley; NASA Administrator Charles Bolden; NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver; and White House Director of Legislative Affairs Rob Nabors. Brown led several letters signed by the Ohio Delegation in support of Dayton’s bid, visited NASA’s Glenn Research Center with Bolden, and visited the National Museum of the United States Air Force in October 2010 to discuss the shuttle.

The day before the announcement, Brown pressed Bolden at a Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing on the process he and his predecessors laid out – including reports of a “commission” within the organization. In response to a question from Brown, Bolden replied that “If there is such a thing, I don’t know about it. And -- and I am going to make the decision, probably when I get back over to my office this afternoon. So if I need to consult with them, somebody should tell me really quick.” An email exchange revealed by the IG report indicated that the decision had been made prior to the hearing.

The selection criteria that were used gave a maximum of 15 points for “international access” without giving equal scoring to geographic diversity of the space shuttle locations within the United States. 

Full text of the letter is below.

 

November 9, 2011

 

Paul K. Martin

Inspector General

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

300 E Street SW

Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

 

Dear Mr. Martin:

Thank you for your commitment and diligence on behalf of NASA and the United States.  I appreciate your response to my request for an investigation into NASA’s Selection of Display Locations for the Space Shuttle Orbiters with your August 25, 2011 report (the “Report”).  I have a number of follow up questions and concerns, several of which stem from developments since the Report was issued.

  1. 1.      Consistency with statutory obligations:  Public Law 111-267, provides that “[t]he Smithsonian Institution, which, as of the date of enactment of this Act, houses the Space Shuttle Enterprise, shall determine any new location for the Enterprise.”  Despite the clear statutory authority, the Report does not detail the Smithsonian’s role in this process. In fact, your report states that “[a]ccording to Bolden, he chose these locations.”  Therefore, it appears that the NASA Administrator rather than the Smithsonian, determined the location for the Space Shuttles, including the Enterprise.  Given the clear intention of Congress, did the Administrator have the legal authority to make this decision?  What role, if any, did the Smithsonian play in determining the location for the Enterprise?  Further, the Report states that “In exchange for receiving a flown Orbiter, the Smithsonian returned the title to Enterprise to NASA on April 7, 2011”.  Did the Smithsonian abdicate its statutory responsibility to determine the location of the Enterprise? 
  1. 2.      Access for International visitors:  According to the Report, a key criterion for locating the Space Shuttle was the ability for international visitors to access the site.  However, it seems that NASA’s estimations of international visitors only took into account ports of entry while failing to take into account international visitors that could drive to Space Shuttle locations.  While NASA used Department of Commerce data to determine the number of international visitors, I am concerned that this data fails to capture the number of Canadian visitors who may visit a site.  Specifically, while the Commerce Department data estimates international visitors to non-port cities, it bases these estimations on a voluntary survey of approximately 0.3 percent of all incoming international visitors – mainly those who arrive by air.  Given the sample size, these estimations must have a large margin of error.  More importantly, this sample set is biased against Canadian tourists, the majority of whom do not arrive by air. Most notably, the Province of Ontario is home to more than 13 million people the majority of whom live within driving distance of Ohio.  Did NASA’s estimations of international visitors take into account international visitors from Canada who could drive to Space Shuttle locations?  If not, why not?  
  1. 3.      Definition of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA):  I am also concerned with NASA’s definition of a region – a term clearly defined by the Department of Commerce.  For Example, the Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) region of Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville has 536,357 people, ranking KSC a “0” per NASA’s population scoring system – yet KSC was awarded a “5”.  The only way that would be possible is if Orlando was included in KSC’s population configuration.  However, Orlando is 47 miles away from KSC, and is not part of the U.S. Census Bureau-defined region for KSC.  Please explain this discrepancy.  How did NASA determine the final population categories and regions? 

If NASA – as it appears to have done with KSC – includes cities outside of an specific MSA, the Dayton region and surrounding MSAs (a region similar in size to the one including both KSC and Orlando) have more than 5 million residents, yet received the same score as another applicant - Tulsa, Oklahoma – when the entire state of Oklahoma has less than 4 million people.  Did NASA correctly capture the weighted values for population?

  1. 4.      Concerns about the revised population scoring system:  I am also concerned that NASA did not properly carry out its revised population scoring system.  This system changed three times before a final decision was made.  The final criteria (Over 8 million = 10 points; 800,000 to 8 million = 5 points; Less than 800,000 = 0) appears to be skewed heavily in favor of a few major metropolitan areas.  Is it reasonable to use a scoring system that would qualify 3 MSAs for the highest category, while relegating 63 MSAs to the second category?

      The original scoring matrix had four categories.  If NASA had used this system, Dayton would have been in the second-to-highest size category.  However, the final scoring matrix ensured that only three MSAs were large enough to qualify for 10 points and the 5 point category would include cities in a wide range of sizes - cities that ranged from huge metropolitan areas such as Dallas-Fort Worth (6,447,615 residents in 2009) to smaller cities such as Worcester, MA (803,701 residents in 2009).  Why was the original population scoring system changed?  Was it weighted to favor the nation’s three largest cities?

  1. 5.      Fundamental changes to winning bids:  Finally, the Intrepid Sea, Air, and Space Museum – the museum designated to receive the Enterprise – recently announced major changes to its bid.  Not only will the Intrepid no longer house the Enterprise, but it plans to move the Enterprise to an area zoned for manufacturing in the Hell’s Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan.  These major changes will require the museum to raise tens of millions of dollars.  This appears to be a blatant attempt to circumvent the entire Space Shuttle disposition process, since this new bid is an entirely new proposal.  I am concerned that the integrity of the entire Space Shuttle disposition process is suspect when winning bidders are able to present an entirely new proposal a few months after NASA’s decision has been made.  I ask that you review this new proposal, determine how it compares to other prior applicants, and provide your recommendations as to how NASA should treat what is essentially an entirely new bid that was never subject to competition.

I ask that you consider further review of the Space Shuttle disposition decision in light of these concerns and other new developments.  Again, thank you for your service to NASA and our nation.

Sincerely,

 

Sherrod Brown

United States Senator

 

###