Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for August, 2004
August 18, 2004 at 9:56 pm · Filed under Congress
Florida Today published an article Wednesday describing last month’s Moon-Mars Blitz on Capitol Hill. The article is mostly a straightforward account of the lobbying efforts of private citizens, and the uphill battle they face to get funding for the Vision for Space Exploration. However, the article does have a goofy headline, “Space junkies push Congress”: it makes the participants seem a little like oddballs. It doesn’t help that two of the participants profiled are a husband and wife whose wedding had a “space theme”. The danger here is that space advocates may get marginalized, perceived as a fringe group not representative of a wider section of the American public.
The best quote from the article, though, comes from young Jake Hicks of Alabama, who believes that at least the Congressmen from his state will come around to support the plan. “If they are from Alabama, they sure like them votes.”
August 17, 2004 at 12:38 pm · Filed under Congress
Congressman Nick Smith (R-MI), chairman of the research subcommittee of the House Science Committee, made some interesting comments on the benefits of manned versus unmanned spaceflight in a commentary for the fairly obscure Truth News web site. Rep. Smith talks about the costs of the shuttle, station, and even Apollo programs, and concludes, “These projects have provided relatively little scientific discovery compared to cost benefit of unmanned missions.” He then suggests that current—and presumably future—human spaceflight programs will continue to be scrutinized by Congress after the August recess:
This fall, as we complete our appropriation bills, we will weigh the costs and benefits of our current manned space programs. With our overall efforts to reduce spending, debating potential changes to NASA will be futile if we first do not closely scrutinize our space science efforts, particularly with regard to manned versus unmanned exploration.
August 16, 2004 at 1:09 pm · Filed under Campaign '04
The online publication The Washington Dispatch has an opinion piece by Mark Whittington on John Kerry’s space policy views. Regular readers of this blog will find little new here: there is discussion of Kerry’s Senate voting record on the space station project, his lukewarm endorsement of NASA (but not the Bush exploration program), and, of course, Bunnysuitgate. And that’s the problem with this commentary and (to be fair to Mr. Whittington) many other essays and editorials on space policy published in recent months: they’re fairly shallow. They mention Kerry’s anti-ISS voting record in the Senate through 1996, but ignore the votes he cast in support of it in 1997 and 1998, or why Kerry changed his opinion of the project so quickly. Essays like this one mention the “veto threat” the Bush Administration made when the House Appropriations Committee cut NASA’s budget, but fail to point out that the threat is, on the face of it, quite empty, since it is unlikely that Bush would veto a bill that funds veterans and housing programs in an election year (even less likely if the VA-HUD appropriations bill gets wrapped up into an omnibus appropriations bill.) The veto threat is not without significance as part of a bid to convince the full House to restore funding for NASA, but most analyses don’t go even that deep. Other people complain that Bush has said nothing publicly about the Vision for Space Exploration since its unveiling in January, but don’t question if a Bush statement about the plan would be actually that positive for the effort.
Here’s hoping that the professional journalists and experts with access to policymakers and other insiders will be able to flesh out some of these and other space policy details in the next two and a half months. However, as both campaigns turn their rhetoric amplifiers up to 11 and focus on the big issues, I’m not holding out that much hope.
August 11, 2004 at 4:29 pm · Filed under Congress
[The combination of the August doldrums as well as being on travel this week has contributed to the lack of postings. My apologies.]
The results of the compromise on HR 3752 are now available in the form of S.2772, the Space Commercial Human Ascent Serving Expeditions (CHASE) Act. This is a new bill that, presumably, will take the place of the original HR 3752. The content of the legislation is very similar to the original bill, with this new definition of a suborbital vehicle:
a vehicle, rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of its flight.
The subtle changes in the wording (”rocket-propelled in whole or in part”) would appear to address the concerns made by Rocketplane earlier this year that caused Sen. Inhofe (R-OK) to put a hold on the legislation. (Inhofe introduced S.2772 on July 22, according to Thomas.) Presumably the Senate Commerce Committee will take up the bill when the Senate reconvenes after Labor Day. I’m sure there are readers with more insight and experience who may shed more light on the legislation ands its prospects for passage this year.
August 6, 2004 at 6:20 pm · Filed under Congress
A UPI article published late Thursday argued that the growing costs of returning the shuttle to flight will make it difficult, it not impossible, for NASA to afford any kind of shuttle or robotic Hubble servicing mission without, perhaps, sacrificing money from the exploration plan:
…if NASA does decide to send a shuttle to the Hubble, it most likely will do so only if it has a second spacecraft standing by with a separate crew ready to jump into action if the first shuttle runs into trouble.
Such an approach figures to stretch NASA’s budget even thinner — unless Congress acquiesces on the extra money to refly the shuttle fleet, and coughs up the start-up money for the space exploration plan. Then, there should be enough to fund the Hubble repair mission if O’Keefe gives his approval.
Otherwise, NASA cannot attempt such a complex mission. Without the extra money, a backup shuttle and crew probably would be out of the question. That would leave only a robotic mission, something even Hubble’s staunchest supporters have admitted remains highly speculative within the timeframe available.
August 5, 2004 at 7:09 pm · Filed under Other
The AIAA is hosting a Space Nuclear Power & Propulsion Roundtable next week in Washington (there is some confusion whether the event is on Tuesday the 10th or Friday the 13th). The date, though, is a moot point for most: the roundtable is a closed session, open only to participants and other invited guests. The event will be taped for a future webcast. No reason was given for the closed nature of the event, although one possible reason is to shut out anti-nuclear protestors (think Bruce Gagnon and his ilk.) The list of roundtable participants is primarily from industry and policy circles, and it would appear that most would be in favor, to one degree or another, or nuclear power and propulsion applications in space.
August 4, 2004 at 6:50 pm · Filed under Congress
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the cost of returning the space shuttle fleet to flight is going up, perhaps as much as $900 million over what was originally expected. Those cost increases could affect other, unspecified NASA programs as the agency seeks additional funding within the agency before asking Congress for more. That turn of events generated this response from someone on Capitol Hill:
One knowledgeable Republican source, who refused to be quoted by name because of office policy, acknowledged that Congress had heard about the shortfalls last month, and lawmakers “don’t know what to think about it.” While NASA is “acting responsibly” by voicing its fears early, the source said, the news “puts additional pressure on an already impossible budget — and what are you going to take it from? And is this as high as [the shortfall] is going to get?”
We’ll see how this plays out over the next few months…
August 2, 2004 at 7:20 pm · Filed under Other
Over at The Space Review this week there are a few articles on space policy topics. I have a book review of New Moon Rising, the behind-the-scenes account of the development of the new exploration policy. It’s an interesting book, but is marred to some degree by some production issues, such as poor editing. In addition, both Taylor Dinerman and Anthony Young have essays suggesting that the vision goes beyond just space exploration to encompass issues like economic and national security (which the Aldridge Commission also suggested in its report as well.) I’m a bit skeptical of such arguments, but it’s worthy of discussion.
August 2, 2004 at 7:01 pm · Filed under White House
In a letter to the editor in Monday’s Houston Chronicle, astronaut John Young mentions that he was among the Apollo veterans that met with President Bush at the White House last month. (Earlier reports had suggested that only the Apollo 11 crew met with the President.) Young said that Bush, in private, continued to strongly support the exploration vision:
In the Oval Office, I heard President Bush’s commitment to exploring space and to meeting the goals of the vision he proposed in January. He is determined to provide and I am confident he is providing the national leadership required for us to return to the moon and move even further into the cosmos.
Proponents of the vision no doubt wonder, though, when the president plans to publicly demonstrate “the national leadership” needed for the vision to become reality.
August 1, 2004 at 9:27 am · Filed under Other
A number of press accounts have erroneously reported that the Vision for Space Exploration will cost on the order of $1 trillion. In a recent editorial, the editors of the Berkshire (MA) Eagle have apparently decided to discount the alleged price of the plan:
The program could cost as much as $800 billion at a time when Washington is building a huge deficit and slashing health and social programs.
A trillion-dollar plan, now 20% off! Needless to say, the newspaper is not terribly fond of the vision, and has some advice for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry:
Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, has had little to say about the American space program thus far. Here is what we would like to hear him say: The manned moon and Mars program is canceled, and some of the money saved will go to inexpensive unmanned missions like the highly successful Mars lander program and the exciting Cassini mission now exploring Saturn and its rings. Money will be freed up for similar programs by the cancellation of the Pentagon cash cow known formally as the National Missile Defense program and informally as “Star Wars.” Finally, once the space shuttle program is active again, one of its last missions before it is phased out will be the repairing of the Hubble.
Someone should tell the Eagle’s editors that NASA and the Defense Department are funded from different appropriations…
« Previous entries ·
Next entries »
