Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for November, 2005
November 21, 2005 at 7:51 am · Filed under Other
Are Republicans for space exploration and Democrats against it? It sounds overly simplistic, given that NASA has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress. In an article in The Space Review, though, Jeff Brooks offers at least some anecdotal evidence that many Democrats, at least at the grassroots level, oppose the Vision for Space Exploration, in large part simply because it was proposed by President Bush. He argues that space exploration in general fits with the progressive roots of the party, given the potential for clean energy and unlimited resources from space. As he writes, “The space program can provide the solutions to many of the problems Democrats care about, while the pursuit of egalitarianism, international cooperation, excellence in education and other Democratic issues can contribute to a successful space program.” However, what Brooks doesn’t say is that support for that agenda doesn’t necessarily translate into support for the Vision for Space Exploration as outlined by Bush nearly two years ago: ideas like the utilization of space resources for the benefit of Earth are never explicitly mentioned as goals of the program.
Meanwhile, just because the Vision was proposed by a Republican President and funded by a Republican-led Congress doesn’t mean that all conservatives support the effort. Human Events reports that the Cato Institute once again has NASA on the chopping block. In a new book, Downsizing The Federal Government, Cato Institute Director of Tax Policy Chris Edwards has deemed NASA “obsolete”. Why? “We can’t afford it,” he told Human Events, adding that “the private sector is exploring space travel of its own.” This is the same old argument that Cato has been pushing for some time, with little effect to date.
November 18, 2005 at 7:46 am · Filed under Congress
Compared to the heated debate last year about how much money NASA should get, this year NASA’s budget sailed through with relatively little public debate, at least about the top-level figures. As such, there has been little public reaction now that the bill has been passed. Some politicians have spoken, such as Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), who told the La Cañada (Calif.) Daily Sun that the budget “is critical to our efforts to continue robust space exploration”, then goes to heap praise on JPL: “With missions like the Mars Rovers, JPL has continued to demonstrate that it is a pioneer in NASA’s program of space science and exploration. This funding will allow JPL to build on its track record of success by ensuring that current and future missions remain on schedule.” (Well, there is that delay with the Dawn mission, and the cancellation earlier this year of the Mars Telecom Orbiter.)
While that viewpoint might seem a little parochial, it’s nothing compared to other news reports about the NASA budget, which have pointed out funding for items like UAV infrastructure upgrades at Wallops, a $1.5-million “Digital Discovery Lab” educational center, a “space center” at a New Jersey college, and another “space and science center” at a California college. These are all, of course, earmarks added by Congress to the budget, to the potential detriment of other NASA programs.It gives you an idea of what people think as the really important parts of the budget…
November 17, 2005 at 12:49 pm · Filed under Congress
I did not get a chance to watch yesterday’s House Science Committee hearing on the troubled NPOESS satellite program, but it was pretty clear from both the post-hearing press releases by the full committee and the Democratic leadership that no one is very pleased about the cost overruns and schedule delays this program has encountered. In particular, members complained that NOAA “has withheld information in the past” about the program, a problem NOAA administrator Conrad Lautenbacher promised to rectify. As David Powner of the GAO said at the hearing, “In summary, NPOESS is a program in crisis.” It sounds a bit melodramatic, but when a program that was once forecast to cost $6.5 billion is now expected by the GAO to reach $9.7 billion, “crisis” may not be too strong of a word.
Aerospace Daily reports today that officials from NOAA, NASA, and the Air Force plan to meet November 22 to “discuss options for proceeding” with NPOESS. Those options weren’t discussed, although Lautenbacher said simply spending more money in the short term might not solve the problem. A final decision on the future of the program is expected in December.
November 16, 2005 at 7:14 pm · Filed under Congress
The Senate passed the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations conference report earlier today on a 94-5 vote, following up on a 397-19 vote by the House last week. NASA administrator Michael Griffin issued a press release after the Senate passed the bill, offering “my sincere thanks to the House and Senate for endorsing and funding, for the second straight year, our activities to implement America’s Vision for Space Exploration.” Griffin also explicitly noted that the NASA budget comprises only 0.7% of the overall federal budget—perhaps to preempt anyone who might complain about the size of NASA’s appropriation.
November 16, 2005 at 7:45 am · Filed under Other
RIA Novosti has published a summary of an article from the Russian newspaper Novye Izvestia about concerns that NASA and Roskosmos reportedly have regarding the numerous private claims of ownership of the Moon, claiming that these “owners” would sue for “moral and material damage” if these agencies established bases on their property. According to the article Roskosmos officials are a bit flummoxed:
“Our legal experts have been checking the validity of owners’ claims but have not been able to come up with definite answers so far,” Igor Zatula, a Roskosmos spokesman, said. “A large number of international laws and agreements have to be worked through. In any case, only courts can confirm the legitimacy of ownership of the Moon and other planets.”
The article also claims that NASA would void any claims by citing a law dating back to colonial times that “if a person failed to cultivate his land or appear on it for more than 12 years, the plot was to be confiscated.” Regardless of whether such a law currently exists, it seems unlikely NASA would invoke it, since the agency and the US government in general have denied the validity of any claims to ownership of the Moon or other celestial bodies. Where’s a space law expert when you need one?
November 16, 2005 at 7:37 am · Filed under NASA
NASA administrator Michael Griffin, speaking at the American Astronautical Society’s annual conference Tuesday in Houston, took some time to discuss his plans to involve the private sector in the exploration architecture, the Houston Chronicle reports. He covered some familiar ground about commercial ISS cargo and crew transport, but also added that, down the road, “NASA would purchase propellant from commercially operated fuel stations in Earth orbit.” An interesting idea, to be certain, but on-orbit fuel depots don’t seem to fit into the current exploration architecture, which relies on heavy-lift vehicles to launch fully-fueled spacecraft and upper stages for carrying out human lunar missions—unless, perhaps, NASA is planning for the case where the heavy-lift capacity currently envisioned doesn’t materialize or is insufficient to carry out planned missions.
One thing Griffin does not address, at least in this article, is the overlapping roles of CEV and commercial transport providers for servicing the station. If, by the time the CEV enters service around 2012, NASA has already contracted with commercial providers for crew and cargo transport to the station, what does the CEV do: elbow out the commercial transport companies or find another mission to do?
November 15, 2005 at 7:20 pm · Filed under Congress
The House Science Committee plans to hold a hearing of the full committee on Wednesday morning to discuss the status of the National Polar-orbiting Operational Earth Satellite System (NPOESS), a weather satellite program that has encountered serious delays and cost overruns. (The link to the media advisory announcing the hearing isn’t working as of this writing.) The hearing, at 10 am in Rayburn 2318, will feature Conrad Lautenbacher, the head of NOAA; Ronald Sega, undersecretary of the Air Force; David Powner of the GAO; and Alexis Livanos, president of Northrop Grumman Space Technology, the prime contractor for NPOESS. Earlier today the Defense Department released details of a “selected acquisition report” on the NPOESS program, reporting that the program’s cost has increased from $6.8 billion to nearly $8.3 billion, “due primarily to technical issues arising during the engineering and manufacturing development portion of the program.” That increase is enough to trigger a Nunn-McCurdy review of the program; while there’s no sign that the program is in jeopardy (it got over $300 million in the FY06 budget), it will likely be restructured in some manner.
November 15, 2005 at 12:59 pm · Filed under Other
The Mars Society and the NSS are jointly sponsoring a talk by former astronaut Scott Horowitz, the new associate administrator for exploration at NASA, on Tuesday, November 29 at 2 pm in room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington. Not surprisingly, Horowitz will speak about ESAS. To RSVP, please contact George Whitesides at the National Space Society at (202) 429-1600 or e-mail george [at] nss.org.
November 12, 2005 at 9:43 am · Filed under NASA
I’m at the University of Illinois this weekend for the SpaceVision2005 conference, the national conference of Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS). Friday afternoon featured a presentation on the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) by two representatives of Northrop Grumman: Alan Ladwig and Mike Lembeck, who recently joined Northrop from NASA. Lembeck had some interesting things to say about the development of a precursor to the CEV, the Orbital Space Plane (OSP):
Orbital Space Plane really didn’t make sense. Again it was another program that NASA was trying to do that you couldn’t build a good business case for. It was my job to go forward and try to put that business case together, and I couldn’t. Myself, a couple of folks from the Chief Engineer’s office, and a number of astronauts, got together and we laid this out, and we basically showed Mr. O’Keefe that this was a bum program, and we needed to do something different.
Lembeck also recalled the development of the Vision for Space Exploration, and the role that President Bush played:
And about the same time [as the OSP study], President Bush came over to NASA and said, “You know, I don’t know what you guys do.” Because he looked at NASA and NASA had been going around in circles for a number of years, just sitting in low Earth orbit. And he wanted to do something more. A lot of you might think that the President’s not been engaged in this, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that the President was very engaged in the generation of the Vision.
Lembeck also took credit for the creation of the name “Crew Exploration Vehicle” itself, saying it same out of a November 2003 meeting as an alternative to a hodgepodge of terms and acronyms being used for that planned manned spacecraft.
November 10, 2005 at 5:55 am · Filed under Congress
The Senate approved by unanimous consent late Tuesday the amended version of S.1713, the legislation that allows NASA to purchase Russian hardware and services for the ISS. The Senate had previously approved the bill—also by unanimous consent—back in September, but had to go through the process again after the House amended the legislation somewhat when it approved it last month. The passage of the bill removes any uncertainty about the US presence on the ISS, which was in jeopardy if NASA didn’t have the ability to purchase flights on Soyuz missions to the station, something prohibited under the original Iran Nonproliferation Act. As NASA administrator Griffin put it in a statement, “The legislation passed by Congress reflects the U.S. government’s continuing commitment to nonproliferation objectives but also recognizes the value of international cooperation in space exploration.”
« Previous entries ·
Next entries »
