Campaign '08, Other

A coalition for CATS

At the Space Frontier Foundation’s NewSpace 2008 conference in Crystal City, Virginia on Thursday, a group of over a dozen organizations announced the formation of a National Coalition for Cheap and reliable Access To Space (CATS). The purpose of the coalition is to “put cheap access to space back on the national agenda,” in the words of coalition coordinator Charles Miller. The coalition will develop a “declaration” for CATS over the next four to six weeks, including during a meeting at the DC-X reunion conference next month in New Mexico. That will be followed by a National Summit on CATS that will be held on the campus of Ohio State University on October 7-8 that will delve into how to achieve CATS. Why there? “Ohio is a battleground state” in the upcoming presidential election, Miller said; the Ohio Aerospace Institute is one of the member organizations in the coalition as well. The coalition will ask CEOs of major corporations and non-profits to sign the declaration, which will then be presented to the next president after the November election.

Although the location of the summit is based in part on the state’s role in the election, Miller said that the coalition does not have specific plans to engage with the campaigns prior to the election. “We don’t think that the campaigns will be able to hear this” because of all of the other issues during the campaign. Miller said that they are building inroads into both the McCain and Obama campaigns so that they’re prepared to discuss this with the winning campaign after the election, but not earlier.

13 comments to A coalition for CATS

  • […] Space Politics » A coalition for CATS […]

  • GregN

    Culberson is really clueless.

    Every few years (or so it seems) the NSF publishes the “The NSF Decadal Report on NASA” (probably not exactly right, but you get the idea). They assemble a board of about 50-60 people, two thirds of which are college professors and the remainder retired aerospace execs, they get a travel budget, hear some presentations, hit some strip clubs and after about a year issue a report in which the number one conclusion is: “More of NASA’s budget should go to academia and industry…”

    Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

    I wish congress would direct NASA to do a “Decadal Report on the NSF”. Id volunteer to write it. One of the conclusions would be, “The NSF spends too much taxpayer money financing the graduate education of third world goat-ropers undermining American science and engineering and in effect subsidizing foreign competition”

  • anonymouspace

    “Culberson is really clueless.”

    Not nearly as ignorant as some folks.

    “Every few years (or so it seems) the NSF publishes the “The NSF Decadal Report on NASA” (probably not exactly right, but you get the idea).”

    There is no “decadal report” on NASA, published by the National Science Foundation (NSF) or any other entity. (The NSF is a federal agency just like NASA and would never be tasked with reviewing a peer agency.)

    At Congressional and NASA direction, the National Research Council (NRC) — a nonprofit organization outside the government — does conduct surveys of the science community every ten years to determine mission priorities for the upcoming decade in each of NASA’s science areas (astrophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and solar and space physics).

    But those decadal surveys not reviews or critiques of any NASA program, and they has nothing to do with the NSF or with the human space flight program that Culberson and Gingrich are (I would argue legitimately) criticizing.

    “hit some strip clubs and after about a year issue a report in which the number one conclusion is: “More of NASA’s budget should go to academia and industry…”

    Shocking. Absolutely shocking.”

    Got any references for these claims about the NSF visiting strip clubs and making self-serving recommendations about NASA? Or are you just making them up?

    “The NSF spends too much taxpayer money financing the graduate education of third world goat-ropers undermining American science and engineering and in effect subsidizing foreign competition”

    If the U.S. citizenry does not produce enough master and PhD candidates to satisfy demand, where else are they going to come from? Clones?

    Oy vey…

  • Doug Lassiter

    Just to add a few thoughts to the exasperation about the first poster who has his facts all wrong, and whose bitter comments have nothing to do with the seed post on CATS. (It would not be irresponsible to restart this whole discussion, should the moderator choose to do so, and perhaps move all this over to the right place.) So, again not about CATS …

    The NRC decadal studies are chartered (and funded) by multiple agencies — this coming year for astronomy by NASA, NSF, and a bit from DoE, to do a cross agency prioritization of projects/missions that have been proposed, on the basis of what is best for the field in the long term. This strategic prioritization is bounded by some likely budget envelope, and ideally responsible cost numbers. These surveys, which are supposed to reach out deeply into the research community and are the responsibility of selected panelists who bring deep insights into science, engineering, and policy and also respect from their colleagues, is to develop a clear and understandable consensus on what’s more important and what is less important to the field. This report is, as a result, taken seriously by Congress and the administration, which see it as hard decisions, responsibly supported by consensus, that they don’t have to make themselves.

    Culberson’s suggestion to run NASA like NSF is indeed somewhat surprising. NSF doesn’t have a lot of experience at building big facilities, and that’s experience that NASA depends on. But his suggestion that NASA be managed (and not just “advised”) by engineers and scientists as a way of depoliticizing the agency is worth some thought. It should be understood that NSF, for example, is hardly ever earmarked in appropriations bills, very much unlike NASA. His suggestion is interesting not because a wholesale reorganization of NASA can really be envisioned, but because the agency as a whole is probably up for some reinvention, if just through the regular rewriting of its own strategic plan. Culberson is one of the few people on the Hill who seem genuinely motivated by science and engineering excellence, and it’s fair to say that NASA could stand some improvement in getting that.

    Maybe I’ll get around to putting this latter paragraph in the right place.

  • Vladislaw

    “But his suggestion that NASA be managed (and not just “advised”) by engineers and scientists as a way of depoliticizing the agency is worth some thought.”

    NASA gets a budget, and then that budget is allocated across 10 centers. There are 50 states, 100 senators and 435 house members, all vying for a slice of that 17 billion dollar pie. People in Nasa will tie up to the coat tails of congress that will help them, congress will tie up with people in NASA that will help then bring home the bacon. I do not see how an engineer will somehow be above that.

  • Someone

    Screaming and yelling via a declaration is not going to bring CATS about. The best you’ll get is Shuttle II. The worst is Son of X-33. Neither will produce satisfactory results.

    If you want CATS give people a Profitable reason to go into space. Europe didn’t start building transatlantic capable ships until people saw there was lots of wealth to loot in the New World. Then they couldn’t build them fast enough. The art of ship building in Europe progressed faster in a few decades then it had in the previous millennium. Greed is a great motive for advancing technology.

    So if these groups really want CATS they should push laws like Zero-G, Zero-Tax (including revenues from suborbital space tourism…). Or government purchase of unlimited amounts of LOX, Water, etc ($2500/lb to start?) to start an orbital fuel depot. Or offer a guaranteed (and substantial) premium for SBSP delivered to the grid. The latter two would also be tax free of course as per Zero-G, Zero-Tax. And of course make the sale of raw materials from NEOs and the Moon legal and tax free. Then let the greed of the market decide CATS.

    But merely getting NASA to start another RLV program will be just a huge waste of time, effort, and if they get federal funding, money.

  • …merely getting NASA to start another RLV program will be just a huge waste of time, effort, and if they get federal funding, money.

    Who are you arguing with? I didn’t see anyone making such a proposal.

  • Someone

    What do you think a declaration will be about if not a call for more federal money to be poured into the CATS bottomless pit? If there were market value for CATS Wall Stree would have funded it years ago. And you wouldn’t need a declaration for the investors to notice the need.

    And if not NASA who? The USAF? They tried it in the 1990’s and got their fingers chopped off for reaching into NASA’s cookie jar. Same as with the X-20 in the 1960’s.

  • What do you think a declaration will be about if not a call for more federal money to be poured into the CATS bottomless pit?

    It would be about government policies to encourage CATS. Apparently you have no imagination whatsoever, give your monomania about cost-plus contracts, and NASA-funded RLVs.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “But his suggestion that NASA be managed (and not just “advised”) by engineers and scientists as a way of depoliticizing the agency is worth some thought.”

    NASA gets a budget, and then that budget is allocated across 10 centers. There are 50 states, 100 senators and 435 house members, all vying for a slice of that 17 billion dollar pie. People in Nasa will tie up to the coat tails of congress that will help them, congress will tie up with people in NASA that will help then bring home the bacon. I do not see how an engineer will somehow be above that.

    Yes, but FWIW, NSF spends a large fraction of its $6B on facilities and research grants in all fifty states. Somehow it avoids at least the most blatant forms of earmarking and politicization that are hallmarks of NASA and, for that matter, DOE as well. I’m not sure whether NIH, for example, is in a simiilar situation. As I said, it’s worth some thought.

    The question is not whether engineers can manage it, but how to depoliticize the management of it.

  • Someone

    Policies won’t help if there is no market nor funding.

  • […] Space Review about Cheap and reliable Access To Space (CATS, or CRATS, or CARATS, or whatever), the National Coalition for CATS announced last month, and plans for a national summit on the issue in Ohio in October. (The show […]

Leave a Reply to GregN Cancel 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>