NASA administrator Mike Griffin appeared before the House Science and Technology Committee on Wednesday to answer questions about the agency’s FY2009 budget proposal. During his opening statement, Griffin revealed that NASA will seek approval from Congress to purchase additional Soyuz flights beyond 2011 (the current limit as set by the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005), citing his skepticism that commercial entities will be able to provide crew transportation services starting 2012, despite the claims otherwise by companies developing or planning to develop such vehicles. “Our ability to sustain the station cannot be held hostage to hope,” he said. “Thus, given existing legislative restrictions, we will require explicit authorization by the Congress to make further extraordinary payments to Russia in order to provide crew transport on Soyuz to the station after 2011 for our astronauts as for those of our international partners to whom we have obligations.” Because of the 36-month lead time on manufacturing Soyuz vehicles, Griffin said such authorization will be required “prior to next January.”
Committee chairman Bart Gordon, responding to Griffin’s request, said that Congress would need to receive a formal request from the Bush Administration before it would act. “I have initiated those conversations within the administration,” Griffin said in response to Gordon, “and it is my intent to seek such a request,” which requires coordination with several agencies. “To be successful, you’re going to have to have this initiated by the administration,” Gordon warned.
Some other highlights from the hearing:
Chinese competition: Gordon said that Griffin, in a conversation a few years ago, “poo-pooed” Chinese space capabilities, but now seemed much more concerned about China. “A few years ago I was not particularly concerned about Chinese primacy in human spaceflight relative to that of the United States,” Griffin admitted, something that has changed based on several factors, ranging from China’s accomplishments and plans to his visit there in 2006. “I have become convinced that it is possible for China to mount a human lunar mission towards the end of the next decade and quite possibly before we are able to return.” He promised to provide a more detailed analysis on that for the written record.
AMS: Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) asked about the ability to add a shuttle mission to the ISS to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS). Griffin said a report on options to deliver the AMS, requested by Congress in the omnibus appropriations bill, is waiting clearance for release by the administration. Griffin said, though, that he does not have the authority to add another shuttle flight to deliver the AMS; “if I had that authority I would have added that shuttle flight and we would not be having this discussion.” When Lampson asked who would have to provide that authorization, Griffin said, “I have neither permission from the president nor authorization nor appropriation from Congress to fly another shuttle flight.” Griffin said he needs that authorization and funding by the end of the calendar year to add another flight.
Extending the shuttle and shortening the gap: Asked about continuing shuttle operations after 2010 by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), Griffin said there would be “no problem” if the last shuttle flights slip to the end of calendar year 2010 versus fiscal year 2010, a three-month difference. Beyond that, the shuttle costs need to end in order to transfer that funding to exploration efforts. In his opening statement, Griffin was adamant against extending the life of the shuttle beyond 2010: “Money spent flying the space shuttle after 2010 is not available for Ares and Orion, which causes the gap between shuttle retirement and the deployment of the new systems to grow.”
Griffin was asked later by Lampson why there was not more money in the budget proposal to accelerate the development of Constellation, when Griffin and other NASA officials said last year that an additional $2 billion could bring forward the introduction of Ares 1/Orion from early 2015 to September 2013. “NASA has had many discussions within the administration on this topic,” Griffin said. “We have many funding priorities in the nation, all of which clamor for first attention, and the priority of closing the gap between shuttle retirement and deployment of the new systems did not make it to the top.”
On Constellation and exploration: Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the ranking member of the committee, asked about the selection of Ares 1 over EELV-derived alternatives. Griffin again defended the choice, saying it was not a choice of using a new system versus an existing system for Constellation. “What has not been recognized is that there is no system today which can meet the Constellation requirements,” he said. Griffin said that a shuttle-derived architecture was the lowest risk, highest performance, and lowest cost alternative.
Hall also asked about the meeting taking place this week at Stanford looking at alternatives to the current exploration direction. Griffin was blunt in his criticism of those who believe that the Moon could be bypassed in any new exploration plan. “I cannot agree with so-called space policy experts who believe that the Moon is not an appropriate goal for our exploration efforts.”
It is outrageous that Bush deliver a 3.3 Trillion budget with defence spending increasing overall and still underfund his own Vision for Space Exploration by $500 million consistently each year.
This starvation diet is like beating a underfed Mule to carry more weight than it can.
Fellow Budget Scrutinizers –
A huge problem with our flagging space flight capability is aging hardware but a big part is the priorities of the people (at the highest levels) controlling the program.
A case in point was the cost and time needed for an Orbiter maintenance effort (called the OMDP) but when the managers decided to fly an Orbiter for a few more missions – suddenly a “mini-OMDP” was an option. This one, surprisingly, was cheaper and faster yet provided most of the functionality of the entire OMDP. Of course we do need to do needed maintenance, but if people just want to stop flying the Shuttle on an arbitrary day – they should admit that.
We have been told that the cost of flying Shuttles is known, and mostly that is correct. But there are options that can be, prudently, exercised that would help close the gap while we figure out where to go from here.
One other note – we have no option but to buy more Soyuz flights from Russia. Wouldn’t it be good to be able to put an upper limit on the cost of each flight? The problem there is that our friends in Russia would find out that number, and then the cost of each Soyuz flight would suddenly be somewhat above that number.
We should only hope that we will be permitted to buy seats on the Soyuz – at any price. In a couple of years the Russians are going to tell us that anyone can buy seats – except the US.
Charles
Don’t We All Struggle With Our Need To Vent? –
And I am giving in right now!!!
Administrator Griffin said: “NASA has had many discussions within the administration on this topic,†Griffin said. “We have many funding priorities in the nation, all of which clamor for first attention, and the priority of closing the gap between shuttle retirement and deployment of the new systems did not make it to the top.â€
I wish someone would have mentioned that lots of useless programs did make it to the top – missile defense of questionable dependability, high tech fighter planes when we don’t have a suitable enemy to use them against, aircraft carriers when we don’t have sailors to run them, etc.
Sigh. I feel better now.
Charles
“Our ability to sustain the station cannot be held hostage to hope,â€
Huh.. ability to complete the station is already hostage to hope, considering historical reliability data of shuttle. Its a gamble, one way or another. The only question is odds.
“What has not been recognized is that there is no system today which can meet the Constellation requirements,â€
Isnt it obvious that in this case, that the requirements need to be questioned and reviewed ?
The gap is meaningless from any sort of strategic, national security, or scientific perspective. If we stop flying humans into space nothing will change except some local economies in Florida, Houston, and Alabama.
No enemies will gain tactical advantage on the US.
No scientific research (except the reflexive kind done to justify further human activity) will go undone (rather much more scientific research might get done).
No critical technology will go undeveloped.
The gap will come and it won’t matter.
No enemies will gain tactical advantage on the US.
Except mother nature, with a national debt now approaching $10 Trillion dollars, human population approaching 10 billion souls, carbon dioxide concentration approaching 400 ppm, the sixth global mass extinction now well underway, asteroids whizzing around with humanity totally clueless.
Another severe ice storm will have you all down on your hands and knees praying. Katrina should have been your wake up call, but instead we have :
Constellation!
Since this budget is deficit spending. Congress should add two billion dollars to the budget for the additional space shuttle flights.
How much are we paying the Russian government for Soyuz? Are we going to outsource our manned space flight program to the Russians because they can do it cheaper?
Re-approriate $40billion from the military budget this year to NASA to continue shuttle flights and get us to the moon and mars.
Well said Jerry in Baltimore !
Too bad the middle school minds here don`t “get it” & just want to rant about their pet projects and peeves. Reality is hard to admit to when you are in fantasy land and have little real world experience.
Life does go on.
The Constellation program is a joke! It doesn’t do any of the things that NASA needs in order to establish a permanent human presence on the surface of the moon or Mars. Nor does it build a reusable space transportation system that gives NASA and private industry easy access to orbit and to the rest of the solar system.
Only the Ares heavy lift vehicle serves any useful to pursue, IMO. But even this vehicle shouldn’t take over a decade to build. It took NASA just five years to test launch the first Saturn V vehicle.
canttellya wrote:
“The gap is meaningless from any sort of strategic, national security, or scientific perspective.”
I propose that the same thing is true for the DOD. If we are just talking about what the rest of the world would do. Economically is does not make sense to attack us. I can’t even imagine how much “occupying” the US would cost a foreign invader. Turn the DOD budget off for 4 years and “The gap is meaningless from any sort of strategic, national security, or scientific perspective.” Lets save 1/2 trillion per year, and give the militias a reason to exist! You think I’m kidding? Look at North Korea, buying them off regularly is a hell of a lot cheaper than attacking. I’m reminded of the old saying “You can catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar”. 500 billion is a lot of honey!