Adrian,

While I disagree that space policy is more important than who is elected the next POTUS, I will take you up on your offer to discuss space policy.

ADRIAN: look at Sec 404 of FY 09: “(c) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that NASA should make use of commercial services to the maximum extent practicable in support of its lunar outpost activities.”

what does that mean exactly? COTS? or more? and to what extent?

You are right to point at this, as bureaucracies tend to interpret legal mandates differently that the average American.

My interpretation — there are many potential opportunities to buy “commercial services” that could “support a lunar outpost”, including:

1) cargo/logistics delivery (ala ISS cargo logistics services)
2) communications services (need I say anything?)
3) timing & positioning services (e.g., GPS on the Moon)
4) power delivery (commercial power beaming)
5) habitat services (e.g. Bigelow habitation system)

ADRIAN: SEC. 506: “(a) Plan- The Director of OSTP shall develop a plan for restarting and sustaining the domestic production of radioisotope thermoelectric generator material for deep space and other space science missions.”

where will the plutonium come from? Russia? if it takes a concerted legislative effort to get INSKA waivers to buy more Soyuz flights, how will Congress react to a mandate to buy plutonium from Putin post-Georgia?

It looks like you missed the language about “domestic production”.

The issue here is cost. We can domestically produce plutonium for RTGs. We have done so for decades. It is just much less expensive to buy excess plutonium from the Russians. And the DOE is not interested in subsidizing the cost out of there pockets to support deep space missions for NASA. Meanwhile, NASA does not want to pay DOE for the full cost of producing plutonium for NASA’s needs, as the cost is quite high.

ADRIAN: SEC. 601: “(c)(ii)develop an estimate of the transportation requirements needed to support users of the International Space Station National Laboratory and develop a plan for satisfying those requirements by dedicating a portion of volume on NASA supply missions to the International Space Station.” SEC. 603: “b) Contingency Plan- The Administrator shall develop a contingency plan and arrangements, including use of International Space Station international partner cargo resupply capabilities, to ensure the continued viability and productivity of the International Space Station in the event that United States commercial cargo resupply services are not available during any extended period after the date that the Space Shuttle is retired. The plan shall be delivered to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.”

this is the most important for ISS. they order NASA to draw up what it will take to keep ISS going post-2015 (for no less than 5 years), ensure it can get done even if NASA has no in-house means of accomplishing that mission, but then leaves it an open book. it just tells them to get a plan within a year. does this mean COTS has effectively one year from the passing of FY09 authorization? will SpaceX make enough launches before the time is up?

No. The issue here is that NASA has been telling Congress that the HTV/ATV/Progress systems are the backup to ISS commercial resupply services. This infers that a backup plan exists somewhere, if only in somebody’s head. When Congress asks NASA for the backup plan, they get blank stares. So Congress is telling NASA “develop the backup plan and then show it to us”.

At least, that is my interpretation.

FWIW,

– Al

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

look at Sec 404 of FY 09: “(c) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that NASA should make use of commercial services to the maximum extent practicable in support of its lunar outpost activities.”

what does that mean exactly? COTS? or more? and to what extent?

SEC. 506: “(a) Plan- The Director of OSTP shall develop a plan for restarting and sustaining the domestic production of radioisotope thermoelectric generator material for deep space and other space science missions.”

where will the plutonium come from? Russia? if it takes a concerted legislative effort to get INSKA waivers to buy more Soyuz flights, how will Congress react to a mandate to buy plutonium from Putin post-Georgia?

SEC. 601: “(c)(ii)develop an estimate of the transportation requirements needed to support users of the International Space Station National Laboratory and develop a plan for satisfying those requirements by dedicating a portion of volume on NASA supply missions to the International Space Station.” SEC. 603: “b) Contingency Plan- The Administrator shall develop a contingency plan and arrangements, including use of International Space Station international partner cargo resupply capabilities, to ensure the continued viability and productivity of the International Space Station in the event that United States commercial cargo resupply services are not available during any extended period after the date that the Space Shuttle is retired. The plan shall be delivered to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act.”

this is the most important for ISS. they order NASA to draw up what it will take to keep ISS going post-2015 (for no less than 5 years), ensure it can get done even if NASA has no in-house means of accomplishing that mission, but then leaves it an open book. it just tells them to get a plan within a year. does this mean COTS has effectively one year from the passing of FY09 authorization? will SpaceX make enough launches before the time is up?