Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for December, 2006
December 28, 2006 at 6:15 am · Filed under White House
Yes, he actually has one, but not necessarily as president. Prior to being selected to replace Spiro Agnew as vice president, Ford had a long career in the House and played a role in the formation of NASA in 1958, as he recalled in an April 1975 speech at the presentation of the Goddard Memorial Trophy to the astronauts who flew on the three Skylab missions:
I can recall very vividly when the first vehicle was put in space, not by us but by one of our competitors. And I can recall very vividly the relatively small part that I played thereafter as a member of the select committee, Congressman Teague, in putting together the new organization, which we now know as NASA.
(The reference to Congressman Teague above is a nod to Olin “Tiger” Teague, chairman of the then-named House Science and Technology Committee.) As a Florida Today article reports, Ford also had a reputation as a staunch supporter of the space agency within Congress. Astronaut Vance Brand made note of it in brief comments at an August 1975 presentation of the NASA Distinguished Service Medal to him and other participants in the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project: “Mr. President, throughout your years in Congress–your leadership there, your great support of man’s exploration of space…”
Once in the White House, though, it was a different story, largely because of his brief time in office and the other priorities he faced. He did oversee ASTP and the Viking landings on Mars, both projects that had started prior to becoming president. He also continued to support the space shuttle program despite some suggestions that, given the nation’s economic problem, it should be shelved. One minor, but very public, order he made, collectSPACE notes, is to have NASA rename the first shuttle orbiter from Constitution to Enterprise, after an outpouring of fan mail requesting the renaming.
On the shuttle program itself, Ford said the following at a public forum in Evansville, Indiana in April 1976:
I recommended in January of 1975 and again in January of 1976 the full goal on the space shuttle. In 1975 there were a number of applicants because of our economic situation that said we ought to cancel the space shuttle. I said no, it was roughly a third finished at that time, I think it would be unwise, uneconomic to cancel the space shuttle, so I recommended the funding necessary to keep the program going.
I did the same for the next fiscal year, and I am glad to report, I think the first vehicle is going to be made available for public display sometime late in August or early September.
The interesting part of that statement is that it came in response to a question about whether he supported the idea “to develop space stations in which solar panels could be set up and, in turn, supply this Nation with a continued supply of completely clean, free energy”, which the questioner said could be possible provided there was “massively expanded funding for the space shuttle” (which, at that time, still promised to drastically reduce space access costs). Ford missed the space solar power part of the question, talking about expanded funding for solar power research in general. Given that this was still a very novel idea at the time, this is almost certainly the first—and probably to date the only—time a president has been asked a question about space solar power.
December 23, 2006 at 12:51 pm · Filed under Congress
Saturday’s issue of The Tennessean features a number of editorials and op-eds on NASA’s plans to establish a lunar base, including an essay by Rep. Bart Gordon, incoming chairman of the House Science Committee. Gordon likens a lunar base to existing bases in Antarctica in terms of scientific and strategic importance:
Like our bases in Antarctica, a moon base appears to offer the promise of a research facility that could advance our knowledge, prepare the nation for future exploration and promote international cooperation in science and technology. And like our presence in Antarctica, it’s strategically important for us to be on the moon, given other nations will eventually be there, too.
However, Gordon said he and others in Congress need more details about the base from NASA, and signs from the administration that they’re serious about the project by requesting the appropriate amount of funding for the overall exploration program: “If a return to the moon is really the president’s priority, he needs to come up with the funds required, not simply take money from NASA’s other core missions and programs.”
An editorial in the same issue endorses, to some degree, the lunar base plans, although not on its scientific merits so much as for national spirit: “…inherent in the debate over the choices the United States makes over space exploration is the nice realization that in terms of discovery, America has a can-do spirit again.”
December 21, 2006 at 6:44 pm · Filed under Congress
The National Space Society and ProSpace have announced dates for their next space policy lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill, which will be among the first such citizen space lobbying events of the 110th Congress. The NSS plans to conduct its Space Budget Blitz 2007 on February 11-13, which should be shortly after when the FY2008 budget proposal is released. “With the new Democratic majority in Congress, American’s space program and NASA’s budget is in our hands. That’s why we need your help to make sure America’s space future is secure for generations to come.” The exact details about the event haven’t been released yet, but presumably the format will be similar to past “Space Blitz” events conducted by the NSS.
ProSpace, meanwhile, announced that its annual March Storm lobbying effort will take place March 4-7: training on Sunday the 4th, followed by Congressional visits on the 5th through the 7th. The preliminary agenda for 2007 edition of the long-running event includes near Earth objects (presumably supporting efforts to search for them, although it’s not specified), prizes competitions, ITAR reform, and “NASA/Commercial Services”.
December 19, 2006 at 5:38 am · Filed under Congress
A minor announcement last week could have some repercussions for NASA down the line. When Nick Lampson won Tom DeLay’s former seat in the House in November, many expected him to gain a seat on the powerful appropriations committee, a position from which he could be expected to flight for NASA’s budget (while also working to improve his odds of winning reelection in his majority-Republican district in 2008). However, last week the Democratic Steering Committee decided to give a slot on the committee to another Texan, Ciro Rodriguez, a former Congressman who won a runoff election last week over Henry Bonilla. Lampson will instead get a seat on the transportation committee, which will still be beneficial for Lampson, just not for JSC or NASA in general. (It might be useful, though, should incoming transportation committee chairman James Oberstar seek to introduce legislation to further regulate passenger safety on commercial spacecraft; Lampson fought against a similar effort by Oberstar during a debate on the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act late in the 108th Congress.)
December 17, 2006 at 11:53 am · Filed under NASA
The St. Petersburg Times (the one in Florida, not Russia) has a brief but interesting interview with NASA administrator Mike Griffin in Sunday’s issue. Besides talking about the lunar base announcement earlier this month and Mars exploration plans, the paper asks Griffin about what the change in party control of Congress means to NASA. Griffin gives a standard reply:
I would observe of course that we didn’t get the… very one-sided majority… without plenty of Democrats pitching in. NASA has not historically been a partisan agency…
(There are enough ellipses in that quote to make one wonder what else Griffin said.) The Times then asks whether he thinks Bush’s successor might change NASA’s overall exploration plans. “I would hope that doesn’t happen,” Griffin responded, adding that “the choices are pretty stark”, based on what the Columbia Accident Investigation Board noted in its report:
And then they went on to say (that) if it’s going to be done, that the goals ought to be worthy of the cost and the risk and the difficulty of the enterprise. That’s rational. And then they added that a human space program, a human space program which dead-ends at the space station is not, does not qualify. That was a rather thoughtful piece in their report…
So we need to go beyond the space station if we’re going to do it at all. Now I personally do not envision any president or any Congress putting an end to the U.S. manned spaceflight program. I hope I do not live to see such a thing…
Griffin added that the “geometry of the solar system” means that the next destination for human spaceflight is the Moon, followed by Mars. “So when I look at all that and mush it up together what I come out with is a future president or a future Congress may say go a little faster or go a little slower, but I don’t see the rational grounds by which anyone is going to say pick another goal.”
December 15, 2006 at 7:02 pm · Filed under White House
One of the criticisms leveled at the Vision for Space Exploration is that, since President Bush’s January 2004 speech at NASA Headquarters, he has done little, if anything, to promote it publicly. A break in the silence came today, with the release of a presidential proclamation designating December 17th as Wright Brothers Day. According to the proclamation:
Today, our Nation follows the Wright brothers’ example of innovation as we continue to explore the frontiers of air and space. My Administration has outlined a vision for space exploration that includes a return to the Moon and a long term human and robotic program to explore Mars and the solar system. By working to expand the realm of the possible, we can gain a better understanding of the universe and continue the journey that the Wright brothers began more than a century ago.
This, of course, was not a public address but simply a written statement published by the White House, so it may not assuage those critics who want to see the President speak more about it publicly. (Given Bush’s current approval ratings, though, would you really want him out there talking about it?) At this point, though, the Vision arguably doesn’t need public attention from the President: it would benefit best from proper funding and some technical progress, as well as a better articulation by NASA of why we’re going back to the Moon and establishing a base there.
[A nod to Space News, which published a brief article about the mention of the VSE earlier today.]
December 15, 2006 at 6:58 am · Filed under Other
I neglected to mention earlier this month a new blog, Poli-Space Peer Review. Ryan Zelnio provides some synopses and commentary about space policy papers published in peer-reviewed journals, like Space Policy, as well as some related pieces. This is particularly useful for those of us without regular access to some of these journals.
December 14, 2006 at 1:17 pm · Filed under Congress
The decision earlier this week by the incoming chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees to replace the pending FY2007 appropriations bills with a year-long continuing resolution was a setback for NASA, which was looking for a small but critical increase in its budget to support the ramp-up of the exploration program, among other activities—not to mention hopes that Congress would approve an extra billion dollars for the agency, as proposed by Sens. Hutchison and Mikulski. While that billion-dollar increase is out of the question, Space News reports this morning that a smaller positive adjustment in NASA’s budget might be possible. (subscription required) Depending on how the resolution is structured, it may be possible to wring out some additional funding for NASA: a spokesman for Sen. Robert Byrd, the incoming chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told the Federal Times that there may be some flexibility in funding from agency to agency. The spokesman, Tom Gavin, said that the proposed continuing resolution will instead be called a “joint funding resolution” to make it clear that the guidelines for determining funding for the agencies included in the bill will not be identical to continuing resolutions, where (in the case of the current resolution) the funding is determined by the lowest amount among the House and Senate FY07 bills and the FY06 budget.
December 14, 2006 at 6:30 am · Filed under Other
Some links to articles about Robert Joseph’s speech about the new national space policy at the National Press Club yesterday afternoon:
- The AP account of the speech comes first, because it’s timestamped at 1:58 pm Wednesday, two minutes before Joseph’s talk started. (Presumably the AP’s Barry Schweid got an advance copy of speech, and the article doesn’t include any of Joseph’s comments from the Q&A session that followed.)
- A Reuters account, by contrast, focuses as much on Joseph’s comments in the Q&A session as it does his prepared remarks. including his comments on the linkage between space weaponization debates and missile defense, and his lack of comments about reports that China illuminated a US military satellite with a groundbased laser earlier this year.
- The Houston Chronicle notes that instead of worrying about treaties to ban weapons in space, the US should focus on bigger arms control issues, notably nuclear proliferation activities in Iran and North Korea.
- The Washington Times plays up Joseph’s comments that the US would consider using military force to defend space assets. Bill Gertz describes the Chinese laser incident as a “ground-based laser gun”, although it’s not clear from the limited information released to date whether it was a “gun” or a weaker laser rangefinder, and whether the incident damaged or disrupted the spacecraft, or simply got the US military’s attention.
The State Department has not posted Joseph’s speech on its web site. (Update 1 pm: the text of the speech is now posted.) I have an audio recording of the speech (MP3, 4.2 MB, 37 minutes) available if you’re really curious.
December 13, 2006 at 9:35 pm · Filed under Other
On Wednesday afternoon Robert Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the State Department, gave a speech at the National Press Club about the new national space policy, the first time a senior administration official has spoken about the policy on the record since the policy’s release over two months ago.
Nor surprisingly, much of Joseph’s speech centered on the perception that the policy reflected a trend towards a more unilateral, militaristic approach to American activities in space. Joseph rejected that notion. “At its most basic level, US space policy has not changed significantly from the beginning of our ventures into space,” he said. “Consistent with past policies, the United States does not monopolize space. We do not deny access to space for people for peaceful purposes by other nations.”
The emphasis in that previous quote should be on the phrase “for peaceful purposes”. Not everyone, he said, is interested in accessing space for peaceful purposes. “But not all countries can be relied upon to pursue exclusively peaceful goals in space. A number of countries are acquiring capabilities to counter, attack, and defeat US space systems,” he said. He did not identify any of the countries that are doing so, and later, when asked in the Q&A session about reports that China has illuminated a US spacecraft with a ground-based laser, would only say that “as a matter of policy” he would not discuss specific threats or other vulnerabilities to US space systems.
During his talk, he explained how extensive US use of space systems, in both the commercial and government sectors, made the nation particularly vulnerable to efforts by both nations and “non-state actors” (i.e., terrorists) to “disrupt or destroy them”. While that’s traditionally been thought to mean attacks on satellites themselves, Joseph said that such efforts also include everything from publishing data on the orbits of US reconnaissance satellites to GPS jammers to attacks on satellite ground stations.
Because of that threat, the US must be prepared to “deter and defend” against any potential attacks on space systems. “The United States views the purposeful interference with its space system as an infringement on our rights, just as we would view interference with US naval or commercial vessels in international waters,” he said. “If these rights are not respected, the United States has the same full range of options, from diplomatic to military, to protect its space assets, as it has to protect other critical assets.”
But what about the perceived weaponization of space that this policy supposedly enables? “There is no arms race, and we see no signs of one emerging,” he said, adding that because of that, he sees no need for a new international agreement prohibiting weapons in space. “The national space policy doesn’t direct the development or deployment of weapons in space,” he said in response to a question, “nor does it preclude it.”
Joseph also suggested during the Q&A session that objections to weapons in space were rooted more in terms of hindering missile defense efforts, saying that “when you strip away the veil of the issue of the weaponization of space, an arms race in space, [there] is a desire to constrain US options for the development of our missile defense capabilities. I find this quite odd, because those missile defense capabilities are designed to counter offensive ballistic missiles that are traveling through space on their way to destroy military or civilian targets.”
In general, there were few new insights in this speech, and it’s unlikely to convince people who see the policy as a sign of growing US interest in space weaponization or related policies. It’s a little disappointing that it took this long to get a fairly standard administration statement on the policy, although in Mr. Joseph’s case, he and his office are rather busy these days…
Next entries »
