Campaign '08

Delaying “the mission to Mars” and other policy clarifications

Today’s Houston Chronicle features an article about the space policy positions of the remaining presidential candidates, including a number of new, albeit minor, details. (Disclosure: I was interviewed for, and quoted in, the article.) Perhaps the biggest is a formal clarification from the Obama campaign that the Illinois senator supports reducing the gap between the Shuttle and Constellation, not extending it as the Clinton campaign has insinuated in recent weeks:

Obama supports closing the five-year gap by developing the Orion ship (and the Ares I rocket) as soon as possible, said campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro.

“We support replacing the shuttle and minimizing the gap. We also support delaying steps to take missions to the moon and Mars,” Shapiro said. “One of the many ways we’re paying for the education is delaying the mission to Mars.”

However, as Jim Muncy pointed out at a Space Transportation Association event last month, much of the Constellation-related spending in the initial years of the next administration would be devoted to Ares 1 and Orion, not “the mission to Mars”.

Also: Republican John McCain told the Chronicle of his support for human spaceflight but also a need to “prioritize” NASA programs, somewhat echoing what Obama told a Cleveland TV station last week:

“Manned spaceflight is something that is elemental and a vital part of our space program. I think we’ve got to catch up,” McCain told the Chronicle.

He said he wants to close the gap in manned spaceflight, but “I think we’ve got to sort out our priorities better. In other words, we can’t do everything. From my observing NASA, I think that sometimes we have tried to spray money in a whole bunch of different programs without the priority that I think they deserve.”

Finally, in a statement that may be meant more for his Congressional reelection campaign than his presidential bid, Ron Paul told the Chronicle that “the United States could be using extra funds now being spent overseas to increase funding for NASA.”

17 comments to Delaying “the mission to Mars” and other policy clarifications

  • This is really disappointing. First of all, NASA is spending almost nothing “going to Mars”. Second, by Mike Griffin’s own repeated declaration, if you were going to simply replace the capability of taking humans to and from Low Earth Orbit, you WOULD NOT build Ares. Mike justifies Ares 1 in terms of Ares 5, which he justifies as enabling human lunar and mars exploration missions. So Obama could achieve his goal much more cheaply by putting a smaller Orion onto Atlas 5, to say nothing of simply investing more in COTS.

    But the real disappointment is that Obama appears to be (once again, as unnamed spokespersons did soon after his initial education policy release appeared to push off Constellation) preserving the status quo while abandoning the future.

    The Columbia Accident Investigation Board was clear: either the federal government comes up with a more powerful reason to risk astronauts’ lives and the taxpayers’ treasure sending people into space than just going around in circles (e.g. exploration), or we should stop.

    Instead of embracing real change, Obama’s spokesman is saying let’s do more of the same.

  • Bill White

    Spaceflight and the Myth of Presidential Leadership:

    All three major candidates are saying essentially the same things, merely in different order, at least with respect to “closing the gap” between orbiter retirement and flying Ares. While I am disappointed to hear an Obama aide seemingly express a commitment to “stick with the Stick” I also note that Nick Shapiro wasn’t quoted directly on that point and that neither Clinton nor McCain have expressed any indication that they would alter course from ESAS and the development of Ares 1.

    It also appears that Nick Shapiro was primarily focused on fending off a Clinton attack in the immediate context of tomorrow’s primary:

    “So the question we have here is: Where does he stand?” asked Alvarado. “Is he supporting a 10-year gap between the shuttle going offline and the Constellation coming online? Or is he now saying he won’t delay the Constellation by five years? And if he won’t, how is he paying for his education plan that he said would be paid in part by delaying the Constellation plan?”

    Obama supports closing the five-year gap by developing the Orion ship (and the Ares I rocket) as soon as possible, said campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro.

    “We support replacing the shuttle and minimizing the gap. We also support delaying steps to take missions to the moon and Mars,” Shapiro said. “One of the many ways we’re paying for the education is delaying the mission to Mars.”

    The STS workforce has now appeared on Obama’s radar screen, in part because Clinton has openly attacked Obama for seeming to threaten those same jobs. I would also point out that the “gap” cannot be closed until well into the 2nd term of anyone elected in 2008 therefore a decision to postpone “Moon or Mars” but still close the gap merely kicks the can down the road.

    Ares V money doesn’t become significant until after orbiter is retired and therefore “lunar return and Mars or LEO-only” won’t be campaign issues until the 2012 cycle.

    Of note: Only Mike Huckabee (not one of the 3 major candidates) gets specific enough to simply say that NASA needs more money:

    Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says he, too, wants to close the gap and notes that an extra $2 billion for NASA would shorten the gap by two years.

    Although that may not be accurate in terms of how much money NASA needs to accelerate Ares 1 by 2 years.

    Anyway, this passage strikes me as being the true take home message from all of this:

    The smart money is saying that no matter who is president in 2009, “they continue funding NASA at roughly the same level because that level of spending in absolute dollars and as a percentage of the overall budget seems to be a fairly stable, sustainable level,” said Jeff Foust, editor of SpacePolitics.com, a blog that focuses on space policy issues.

    which means that circumstances beyond the control of Obama, Clinton and McCain will direct each towards very similar policies, unless a candidate chooses to decisively break with the ESAS architecture that has been officially embraced by the Bush Administration over the past several years.

    = = =

    To respond to Jim Muncy, switching to a smaller Orion on Atlas V and/or increase COTS would terminate NASA taking the lead in any lunar return. There is insufficient money for both ESAS (Ares 1) and an alternate cheaper ride to ISS. If ESAS is canceled without a simultaneous switch to an architecture capable of lunar return, budget money will be reallocated and NASA will not be returning to the Moon by 2020.

    Maybe some would see that as a feature, but the take-home message I get from Nick Shapiro’s comment is that the jobs associated with the STS infrastructure have now emerged on Obama’s radar screen and neither an Atlas V Orion or COTS does anything to accommodate that interest group.

    Given tight budgets, a switch to the DIRECT 2.0 architecture and the Jupiter series of launchers offers the best chance to incorporate increased COTS funding and/or a smaller Atlas V solution for ISS access.

    At least IMHO.

    = = =

    Obama’s space policy very much remains a work in progress and discussions with his office need to be stepped up, especially once he wraps up the nomination.

  • Bill White

    Eh, my quote tags are messed up. Sorry.

    A “preview” button would have helped here.

  • Al Fansome

    MUNCY: This is really disappointing. First of all, NASA is spending almost nothing “going to Mars”. Second, by Mike Griffin’s own repeated declaration, if you were going to simply replace the capability of taking humans to and from Low Earth Orbit, you WOULD NOT build Ares. Mike justifies Ares 1 in terms of Ares 5, which he justifies as enabling human lunar and mars exploration missions.

    Mr. Muncy, you are absolutely correct.

    However … Griffin has personally been the lead-salesman for “reducing the gap”. He has made his own bed on this issue. He created it.

    Meanwhile, Griffin has comparatively de-emphasized his arguments for putting humans on the Moon, and to Mars. Perhaps, because they have been landing with a dull thud. He has lost his way on this issue.

    MUNCY: So Obama could achieve his goal much more cheaply by putting a smaller Orion onto Atlas 5, to say nothing of simply investing more in COTS.

    This makes a lot of sense. It would constitute a first step of change.

    WHITE: All three major candidates are saying essentially the same things, merely in different order, at least with respect to “closing the gap” between orbiter retirement and flying Ares.

    I mostly agree with this statement, excepting the inclusion of Ares. The easiest & quickest & surest way to reduce the gap is to kill Ares, and focus on launching the Orion on Atlas V. Plus increasing COTS of course.

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • Bill White

    I agree 100% with this:

    The easiest & quickest & surest way to reduce the gap is to kill Ares, and focus on launching the Orion on Atlas V. Plus increasing COTS of course.

    But unless this is linked to a comprehensive alternative to ESAS, that route would that take the Moon off the table for NASA and threaten many of the jobs associated with the STS infrastructure. Remember, Obama’s aide made his comments in response to a direct attack by Clinton with respect to the flow of federal funding associated with STS operations.

    There are three independent constraints pointing in different directions:

    (1) The gap (Americans flying Russian lift to ISS);

    (2) STS workforce issues (Even terminating STS outright in 2011 would incur outplacement and de-commissioning costs that would limit moving money to an all EELV / COTS solution);

    (3) A very tight budget environment; and yes a #4:

    (4) Some people think we need to leave LEO. (I assert that NONE of McCain, Clinton or Obama care very much about item (4) in the abstract.)

    = = =

    Okay, this solution does solve constraint (1):

    The easiest & quickest & surest way to reduce the gap is to kill Ares, and focus on launching the Orion on Atlas V. Plus increasing COTS of course.

    but it throws (2) and (4) under the bus.

  • Bill White is correct… I hadn’t read the original article, and therefore didn’t see that the Chronicle reporter inserted:

    (and Ares rocket)

    after the campaign spokesman’s mentioning of Orion.

    But of course, none of these campaign folks know the difference between Orion and Ares.

    I disagree with Bill, however, on the issue of when LEO only becomes an issue. While “exploration vs. circles” may never be a real campaign issue, the decision point is NOW. If you simply try to postpone Ares 5 and EDS and Altair, the industrial base for building them will wither.

    As much as I sometimes disagree with Mike’s architecture (or more precisely, with his assumptions), it is an integrated whole. It makes no sense to do just part of it, and hope that you can take up the second part a decade later.

  • MarkWhittington

    Jim Muncy is correct that Obama is clueless, even within the context if his own stated policy position. Hillary Clinton, as usual, is pandering. McCain has been the most specific in supporting VSE, albeit with the caveat about “prioritizing.” None of the candidates have opened their minds about commercial space policy.

  • Bill: 4) Some people think we need to leave LEO. (I assert that NONE of McCain, Clinton or Obama care very much about item (4) in the abstract.)

    I’m not sure that’s correct. Ms. Clinton has talked about spaceflight in relatively ideological and inspirational terms, somthing the other two candidates have not done. If this reflects her real thinking, than it is at least possible that she may care about Item 4.

    — Donald

  • The candidates only seem to care about NASA in the sense that it funds jobs and that voters work for the space industry… not because they see any value to space.

    Why is that you ask? Because most people do not understand the value of the U.S. space program. NASA needs to get a decent Public Relations campaign going to rally people behind it. Then, and only then, will politicians do more than just pay NASA lip service.

  • Alan: The candidates only seem to care about NASA in the sense that it funds jobs and that voters work for the space industry… not because they see any value to space.

    Well, of course. Welcome to politics. Members of Congress and the Senate (and even the President) think as far as their next term and of how much they can improve the economy (among other things) of the district they represent. This is unlikely to change much as long as we remain a Republic.

    It is our job as advocates to work within this reality to go forward. That is why the VSE was such an important policy — move forward with existing technology, achieve quick results “on the ground” in space, and stay within more-or-less existing budgets. It is also why ESAS looks increasingly likely to be a disaster: it abandoned existing technology for something new (if not exactly “advanced”); four years in it has achieved no results in space and is unlikely to for the foreseeable future; and it busted the (admittedly reduced) budget almost before it was out of the starting gate.

    Since I agree with Al in another thread that the economic winds will be increasingly against us, we may have lost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, here.

  • Bill White

    Since I agree with Al in another thread that the economic winds will be increasingly against us, we may have lost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, here.

    The Direct people are asserting that with a June 1, 2009 decision to go forward with the Direct 2.0 plan, a Jupiter 120-X could launch with crew in September 2012.

    Gap? What gap?

  • Bill, I recall hearing similar promises for “the stick” back when that was popular in this venue and I was one of the few arguing against it. That said, I hope they are correct.

    — Donald

  • Anon4

    Its interesting how Obama keeps flip-floping. First delaying Ares I, now accelerating it. Wonder where the coin will land? BTW Bill White, I told you so that Obama would not be good for the VSE.

    In any case it appears offical that VSE/Policy for Space Exploration is DOA in the Obama administration and the CEV becomes an expensive ISS taxi. Good bye COTS hopes. Wonder who will even want to be NASA Administrator if he is president?

    Clinton will probably ignore NASA once elected. Maybe after making noise about turning NASA over to Lori Graver as the first female administrator fi we are lucky. Then move on to other things. VSE will probably be quietly forgotten. However New Space would probably benefit given Lori’s desire to be a space tourist.

    Meanwhile it appears that McCain would make no changes, maybe even ask Griffin to hang around. He just might. Or you at least get a good replacement like Peter Worden. VSE would stay on course more or less.

    So decide which future you want for NASA?

  • Bill wrote: “(4) Some people think we need to leave LEO. (I assert that NONE of McCain, Clinton or Obama care very much about item (4) in the abstract.)”

    Bill I would suggest that they don’t care much because it will not be until their second term in office that the decision to proceed beyond LEO will even come up for a decision at a practically level beyond low level studies and artwork.

    What will happen under their watch is the transition of American based access to LEO from the Space Shuttle to something else. Right now it’s the engineering 101 implementation of the VSE policy that is being messed up. In fact its politics 101 combined with engineering 101 combined with budget 101 that makes DIRECT so strong. Any solution needs a good score in all three areas.

  • Jerry in Baltimore

    Hillary could easily take 4 billion of fy2010 from Irag and keep VSE on track. Since we’re spending 12 billion a month, and she proposes to start bringing some troops home 60 days after taking office. It could be done, as far as Oboma’s education plan hug, how many times have I heard that one. All the education plans of politians are the same, a waist. R&D money does more for education, since it is conducted at our colleges and universities than any other plan to date.

    If you really want to increase education then give matching funds to the school boards directly not the state governments but the local governments.

    But that leaves too few hands in the pot so it won’t get done.

  • I’m going to jump in here with a few comments that are probably more political and cultural than they are technical. I just starting digging into the Direct proposals on a technical level. I haven’t had any dealings with the people who are working on them in that context.

    First, I think I should issue a warning. At present I am a moderate supporter of Hillary Clinton in this campaign. Why? I do consider her a more than acceptable candidate. Lori Garver — whom I have known for something like 20 years — invited me (as well as others) to an issues and policy breakfast last June which I attended. Since my particular focus in politics is workforce issues, management culture and items that flow from those concerns, I saw this as an opportunity to influence people who will be making decisions with regard to the future of space exploration and, possibly, other areas relating to technology.

    Is Hillary Clinton genuinely interested in space and science and technology in general? I think she is. The number of votes she can win by appealing to the techie crowd is not all that big. Her admission that she wanted to be an astronaut when she was young is quite believable. She was born in the late 40s and grew up in an era where space in particular and technology in general had high positive recognition. For a more in depth look at what life was like for people around Hillary’s age, please see my blog posting A Few Observations. It’s more about the differences between people born in the late 40s and those born after Apollo stopped, but I think people here will get the drift. Even people as old as Obama will see things much differently than the Clintons and Griffins. Clinton and Griffin came of age in a time when almost anything seemed possible. That conviction started falling apart in the 1970s, when relative youngsters like Obama were coming of age.

    Criticisms of all the candidates that they are failing to fully understand what is going on are much closer to the mark. This is not surprising given the cultural biases present in the tech community. To really “sell space” we need to listen and observe the larger world, not simply preach. For instance, the energy from space crowd (see my blog posting Energy from Space Luncheon) could well be onto something given the current concerns about carbon in the atmosphere as well as other energy concerns (e.g., security of depending on the volatile Middle East for oil).

    Can the space community work with the next president, be it Clinton, Obama or McCain? I think we can. But it will require our doing more listening than talking.

    I will also comment on Jim Muncy’s excellent post at top of this discussion. Another set of problems the Columbia Accident Investigation Board spent much time researching and discussing relates to the culture of NASA in the years preceding the accident. These kinds of cultural issues affect too much of tech industry, not just aerospace. My blog posting Aerospace Workforce Issues covers this area as well. I’ve also sent a copy of the proposals to people employed in the political arena.

    I will do a final plug for my blog, Independent Broad Minded Centrist. Yes, I spend a great deal of time discussing the sorts of cultural issues I’ve touched on here.

    I do hope my comments made some sense.

  • GM

    Why would Pete Worden be a good NASA administrator? He hasn’t led any projects.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>