Uncategorized

Calvert talks space

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), chairman of the space subcommittee of the House Science Committee, gave an address at the National Space Symposium this week. This is perhaps his most detailed address on space issues to date; he is also scheduled to give a press conference next week where he will outline his plans for the space subcommittee for the year. Some highlights from his talk:

  • The major theme of his address is that the barriers between the civil, commercial, and military space efforts need to come down. “We no longer have the luxury of each sector of our Nation’s space program working in isolation from the others,” he said, adding that closer cooperation is needed to reduce “expensive duplication of effort”.
  • The one comment that attracted the most attention, including a Space News article, was his preference to proceed with a Hubble deorbit mission rather than a robotic or shuttle servicing mission. “Although we will have a gap of coverage” until the James Webb Space Telescope is launched, he argued, “Hubble has delivered volumes of data that will keep scientists busy for years to come.”
  • One of his highest priorities this year is to get a NASA authorization bill passed, although he acknowledges “how difficult that it is to get a NASA Authorization through the Congress.”
  • Calvert said he supports NASA’s current “small prize program” and adds that the NASA authorization bill now under development will include prizes.
  • NASA, he said, “needs a Human Capital Strategy that retains the best people and encourages the next generation to pursue careers in science, engineering and technology.” Before that, though, the agency needs “a clearly defined mission” that includes space exploration, aeronautics, and other core missions. That might involve something like a Zero-Based Review “to create a new, requirements based organization.”
  • Calvert strongly supports Michael Griffin as the next NASA administrator. “He is a free thinker, a rocket scientist, and a business man who understands the government. What a great combination to lead NASA at this critical time!”
  • One quizzical comment he made was that “when it comes to the newest and most exciting field of commercial space, human space transportation, the leader in the field deliberately chose not to have any involvement with our civil space program.” Presumably he means—but does not explicitly name—Scaled Composites, developer of SpaceShipOne. Yet for all of Burt Rutan’s “Nay-Say” bluster, Scaled is part of the team led by Transformational Space Corp. (t/Space) that won a $3-million NASA “concept exploration and refinement” contract last year to study lunar exploration architectures.

2 comments to Calvert talks space

  • Mr. Walker

    In my opinion, Rep. Calvert was probably referring to t/Space.

    NASA’s bureaucracy requirements could spell trouble for any smaller company (as compared to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc) desiring to compete under the VSE. This in turn could greatly reduce competition. NASA needs to state its high level requirements, and then base its purchase decisions upon being a consumer of transportation services.

    If NASA truly wishes to transform itself, it needs to start with its bureaucracy.

  • John Malkin

    The bureaucracy within NASA is inherited from the government in which is exists. Many times O’Keefe has complained of the bureaucracy in which he had to operate. In other words bureaucracy begets bureaucracy. It is my hope that despite this fact that Dr. Griffin will raise NASA above this bureaucracy and allow a new national space program to emerge. This is not guaranteed and only by constant vigilance by US voters particularly space activist can success be attained. Rep. Calvert words are the most promising, I’ve heard from government in 30 yrs. There is actually a chance the US could move forward on space policy. The other alternative is NASA will eventually suffocate within bureaucracy which wouldn’t be pretty. However the private sector would eventually emerge in some form with little control by American citizens, otherwise no national goals. I realize an endless debate on the better course will ensue but the simple fact is that nobody really knows the outcome of either path.

    Transformational Space Corp is t/space as noted by Jeff.