It may not seem like it, but the 2008 presidential election is almost upon us. (Some might argue it’s already here.) That’s something that NASA is acutely aware of as it tries to build up public and political support for the Vision for Space Exploration, Deputy Administrator Shana Dale said at a Space Transportation Association breakfast on Wednesday morning:
We really only have about a year left until we get into “silly season” of [the] next election cycle, and we’re going to need to solidify the base: not only at a grassroots level, Congressional support, but also who the emerging candidates are. All of us need to figure out collectively how we’re going to engage with the emerging candidates and engage their candidacies to make sure that they’re supportive of where we want to go with exploration in the future.
Most of Dale’s talk was a reiteration of NASA’s plans to support the commercial space industry and also work with international partners to flesh out exploration plans. A few highlights:
- She mentioned she recently traveled to Europe and met with ESA and national space agency officials there to discuss means of cooperation on exploration; she plans to carry out similar trips to Russia, Japan, and Canada in the coming months.
- NASA is planning an “Exploration Strategy Workshop” April 25-28 at the Reagan Building in downtown Washington, that will feature participation from international partners, academia, and industry as the first step in plans for this year for “defining a strategy for lunar exploration”. By the end of the year NASA plans to complete a ten-year lunar exploration strategy, including roles for the commercial sector.
- Regarding the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, Dale said NASA received proposals from “a wide variety of organizations” earlier this month, and is on track to select winners by this summer.
- For Centennial Challenges, Dale said that NASA plans over the next couple of years to issue several “multihundred-thousand- to multimillion-dollar prize competitions” in a wide range of areas, from nontoxic rocket engines to low-cost pressure suits to subscale orbital fuel depots.
- Dale said that NASA got a “strong response” to a request for information issued earlier this year for Red Planet Capital, the NASA investment venture modeled on the CIA’s In-Q-Tel. NASA will select a specific proposal by the end of April.
- Overall, she said, “you might say our partnership strategy is one that consists of the three I’s: building international cooperation, promoting investment, and rewarding innovation.”
- “For us in the aerospace community who deeply love the space program, it is hard for us to sit back and figure ways to engage the rest of the American public and to inspire them and encourage the excitement that we think they should feel about the Vision for Space Exploration… So that’s something we’d really like to see the community come together on in terms of helping NASA develop a strategy that, only on a very short time frame, needs to do it.”
To continue the trend, here’s the audio from Dale’s speech and the Q&A session that followed. (MP3, 26:00, 2.98 MB)
[Clarification: a prominent web site was kind enough to link to this post, but referred to this site as “Futron’s space politics blog”. Please note that this site is a personal project and not the property of, nor endorsed by, any company. Futron is my employer, but they don’t own this site nor do they endorse its contents. See the disclaimer on the right-hand site of the home page if this isn’t clear enough. Thanks.]
Much as I believe that a human scientific and industrial return to Earth’s moon should be a higher priority than automated science, in this light, pissing off the scientific community was seriously poor politics. It will be interesting to see how Dr. Griffin, erstwhile friend of Congress, recovers from this.
— Donald
There is a tendency in Washington to measure all support in dollars and interpret all dissatisfaction as greed. It makes sense only to the extent that agencies are actually responsive to their constituencies. If NASA’s science budget is decided from on high without appropriate expertise, then a relatively small budget cut may indeed greatly irritate the scientific community. A lot of people like JWST, which was kept, but they may not like it 10 times as much as something else that’s 10 times cheaper.
Now that can be used as an argument against space science in general. Everyone understands what Jeff Foust has said, that space science as funded by NASA is funded out of proportion with NSF-funded science. But, but, but, this is no excuse to move money from space science to the microgravity toy rooms known as the space shuttle and the space station. Whatever Donald Robertson wants the space station to be, it is actually just a microgravity toy room. It is the same Potemkin science laboratory that it always was, exactly consistent with Hutchison’s mentality today, and Mikulski’s mentality before her, and Reagan’s mentality at the very beginning. Expensive science should not be sacrificed to Potemkin science.
Another way to irritate scientists is to gratuitously disrupt old plans. A “vision” for space exploration suggests stability, but it has so far been disruption in the name of stability. (Which makes it a lot like Medicare D and the war in Iraq.) The cancellation and then possible reinstatement of the Hubble servicing mission is only the most notorious example of this.
Well, folks, by hacking the science programs’ most vulnerable groups – the small-scale R&A, Explorer, and Discover programs – NASA is effectively putting an end to the careers of many promising young scientists. Only a few VERY senior astrophysicists get to play with big battlecruisers like JWST. The rest of us younger folks aren’t allowed. If they kill of the small programs, how can we ever learn to do space science? These small projects are tremendously successful – and by staying small, they aren’t as plagued with massive overruns (excuse me, “undercostings”) and waste. However, the problem with being small is that you don’t have zillions of lobbyists to fight for you, like JWST and VSE do. The amount of money required to support all of space science – including JWST – is trivial compared to the VSE, however. The VSE is basically a works project for defense contractors, and in view of the unbelievable deficit, it’s ridiculous. It will cost WAY more $$ than NASA has – or will have – in the next decade to do even a tiny fraction of what Shana Dale casually mentions. And they’ve never bothered to adequately define WHY, when robotic missions are roughly 100-1000x cheaper and carry no risk to human life.
Greg, while I agree with you regarding disruption, there also has to be a mechanism to change priorities. Automated science has been the government’s priority in space (less so the NASA sub-set of the government) for the past quarter century. Since the President made his decision, and the Congress and Senate have both supported it, the government has in fact changed its priorities, although I believe the events of the past few weeks have placed that change at some political risk. Whatever its scientific merits or lack thereof, a decision to re-emphasize human exploration was a legitimate decision for the government to make.
The space station . . . is actually just a microgravity toy room.
While it may prove to be true, it is far too early to make this statement. When the Space Station has been complete and in use for a decade or so, then and only then will I listen to this. At this point in time, we simply don’t know what the first fully-equipped hands-on laboratory in the environment that dominates the Universe will or will not teach us.
However, you are ignoring the experience of building the facility, which has taught humanity many skills that are likely to be important in the future. The ability to do large-scale construction in microgravity is likely to serve humanity well as long as humanity, and our evolutionary descendents, exist. In this light, building the Space Station was a project of far greater moment than the Apollo program, Galileo or Cassini, or anything else we have done in space.
Once again, it is too early to prove my latter assertion, but in this case, I will be very, very surprised if I am proven wrong.
— Donald
Is it too early to talk about the potential candidates’ views on space? I disagree with Sam Brownback on many issues, but I think that he’d be a gangbusters president from the standpoint of space. Particularly commercial space.
Angel, much as I support spending on small-scale science, I have to ask why it is that the government paying small groups of people to build small spacecraft to answer intellectual questions is any more a public works project than paying very large groups of people to build the spacecraft to deliver geologists to Earth’s moon? Neither are strictly necessary for our well being, at least in the immediate term, and neither directly feed anyone except those employed on the project.
The fact is, both are public works projects, that is, projects funded by the government for purposes that have been deemed public goods. You may think your small space projects are of greater value than a return to the moon, and you may be right (though I disagree), but you are no less dependent on the government teat than, say, Lockheed Martin.
— Donald
While I agree with you regarding disruption, there also has to be a mechanism to change priorities.
What I am talking about is disruption without any meaningful change in priorities. I am talking about interrupting lunch to serve dessert, then interrupting dessert to go back to lunch. After all, if they cancelled the Hubble mission and then reinstated it, they can’t be right both times.
When the Space Station has been complete and in use for a decade or so, then and only then will I listen to this.
At the very least, if it falls into the ocean in five years or so, it should expedite your attention.
I disagree with Sam Brownback on many issues, but I think that he’d be a gangbusters president from the standpoint of space.
This the same Brownback who said that we have to go back to the moon before China beats us to it. Also the same Brownback who held a hearing, where he tried to promise special funding, for Stephen Wolfram and his notorious ego book, “A New Kind of Science”. Yeah, I’m sure that Brownback would do a heck of a job. Would he accept the nickname “Brownie”?
Greg: if it falls into the ocean in five years or so, it should expedite your attention.
Granted. However, much as you would like that to happen, I wouldn’t hold my breath. The partners are not about to write off their investment, even if we (in our disruptive way) decide to.
— Donald
“The fact is, both are public works projects, that is, projects funded by the government for purposes that have been deemed public goods. You may think your small space projects are of greater value than a return to the moon, and you may be right (though I disagree), but you are no less dependent on the government teat than, say, Lockheed Martin.”
Lockheed Martin can build you a space program using existing technology developed in the 1960s. You can go to LockMart and say build me a satellite knowing that they can with a probability approaching 100%, and a similar probability they will run over budget.
Students, small startups etc. bring fresh ideas to the table. Their projects may cost 100 times less than a Lockheed probe and let’s say have a 1% probability of success.
So which is money well spent?
Why is it Griffin had no new options for ESAS??
Kevin, I think you need both. Regarding ESAS, it seems to me that Dr. Griffin is funding a lot of small company and student projects in the prize competitions.
— Donald
Mr./Ms. Space Cadet (see the danger of not using your real name?) brings up some good points about the dangers of cutting small-scale science programs, but he/she is a little off base to pin the blame for the problems on the VSE:
The amount of money required to support all of space science – including JWST – is trivial compared to the VSE, however.
Actually, the FY07 budget proposal contains more money for science (earth and space) than exploration (exploration does beat out space science alone, as I recall). That will change over time, though, but at the expense (hopefully) of shuttle and station, not science. Remember is was underestmates of the cost of flying out the shuttle program, not the VSE itself, that has put the squeeze on science.
The VSE is basically a works project for defense contractors, and in view of the unbelievable deficit, it’s ridiculous.
Given that NASA’s entire budget is a tiny fraction of the budget deficit, and the exploration budget just a fraction of the overall NASA budget, the statement above is a little, well, unbelievable.
It will cost WAY more $$ than NASA has – or will have – in the next decade to do even a tiny fraction of what Shana Dale casually mentions.
How much is “WAY” more? Is it the roughly 30% cost overrun projected by the CBO based on historical overruns of past programs, or a larger amount based other cost models?
And they’ve never bothered to adequately define WHY, when robotic missions are roughly 100-1000x cheaper and carry no risk to human life.
NASA does need to do a better job communicating to the public why the exploration program is important, something that Dale admitted in her speech. Part of that explanation will have to be why the Vision is more than just science.
Jeff Foust regularly shows up at these events wearing a name badge that says “Futron” and then writes about the event. I have seen it with my own eyes. He has also admitted that Futron often pays for his seat.
Is it too early to talk about the potential candidates’ views on space?
It never seems to be too early, but keep in mind there’s precious little information available now, or will be available for the next couple of years (!) or so. Brownback is something of an outlier because not only does he have a legislative record, he chaired a relevant subcommittee, so there’s a lot of information out there. (Although he’s had a lot less to say since stepping down from the chairmanship of the space subcommittee.) Trying to discern the space policy views of, say, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani will be much more difficult…
Jeff Foust: Given that NASA’s entire budget is a tiny fraction of the budget deficit, and the exploration budget just a fraction of the overall NASA budget, the statement above is a little, well, unbelievable.
Yes, but the point missed by this often-repeated argument is that tax cuts, war, and entitlements are pressing down on everything else. As I said, to first approximation the simplest way to balance the general budget is to eliminate non-defense discretionary spending. Why should NASA be one of the exceptions?
After all, if they cancelled the Hubble mission and then reinstated it, they can’t be right both times.
Just in case you weren’t paying attention at the time, the “they” who cancelled the Hubble mission and the “they” who reinstated it were different people.
You want less disruption in plans, you need less disruption at the administrator’s seat.
Nemo: You want less disruption in plans, you need less disruption at the administrator’s seat.
Well, sure. I don’t blame Griffin for reinstating the Hubble mission. As you say, the blame lies elsewhere.
Mr. Cowing’s statement above is based on some assumptions, including that the only or even primary reason I attend such events is to write about them here. That assumption is incorrect.
Jeff you cross this contractor/media line all the time. You have more or less admitted that in your post above – i.e. that you attend these events for reasons other than writing about them. Yes, you go there for Futron. They underwrite your activities.
Another example, you registered for the NASA MAPLD conference last year as media – and did not tell the NASA organizers that you worked for a NASA contractor – despite what was said in the meeting’s media policy: http://klabs.org/mapld05/admin/media_policy.htm (see Section IV)
The organizers only found out about this after the meeting was almost over.
Futron subsidizes what you do on this blog, Jeff. Everyone knows it. You even admitted to me that they liked what you were doing because it kept you (and them) informed.
Keith,
Where is this contractor/media line written?
I don’t see the problem, as long as Jeff discloses his dual roles to the affected parties. His employer is supportive.
It sounds like you are jealous over Jeff’s deal with Futron. Since you were obviously well informed about Foust’s deal with Futron, this means you knew that this was Foust’s site, not Futron’s, before you posted. So why post it?
Are you trying to destroy Jeff’s ability to do what he is doing? Is it your goal to make sure that “less” space events get covered and reported on? For example, would you be happy if nobody covered the STA breakfast? Is it your goal to eliminate the competition of SpaceToday.net?
– Al
I enjoy competition, Al. I never said Jeff’s sites were not useful – quite the contrary. And I hope he continues to operate them. But Futron supports their continuity and Jeff should simply admit that obvious fact instead of dodging it.
I commend Jeff Foust for taking the high road in response to this nonsense from Keith Cowing.