Congress, Other

Losing another Congressional advocate

An article in today’s Houston Chronicle reports that the Texas congressional delegation “is launching a campaign to combat potentially deep budget cuts for NASA” that some fear will be necessary to cover the costs of government bailouts and stimulus packages. The specific of the campaign seem vague, other than “building alliances” with other members of Congress and counting on lobbying efforts from industry. Just how much effort most members of the Texas delegation, particularly those with no particular ties to NASA, isn’t made clear in the article. (Also look past some minor errors, like NASA’s “$20.2 billion budget for the current year”—that’s the authorized amount, which has little bearing on what the agency is likely to get—or calling newly-elected Alabama congressman Parker Griffith a Republican.)

The more important news in the article, though, is something that has been rumored for some time but not widely discussed, at least in space advocacy circles. One of the strongest NASA supporters in the Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), is expected to resign her seat some time next year in order to run for governor. Hutchison’s interest in the job is clear: she considered running against current governor Rick Perry in the Republican gubernatorial primary in 2006 before choosing to stay in the Senate. She has worked in particular with Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) to try and win additional money for NASA—an effort that has had mixed outcomes in the Senate and no additional money for NASA overall.

But, in an era where hundreds of billions of dollars in proposals to boost the economy are being considered, could NASA be a recipient and not a donor? That’s the suggestion Robert Hopkins offers in a Chronicle op-ed published this weekend. Hopkins, former chief of strategic communications at NASA, offers some suggestions for specific efforts that could “meet the new administration’s broader economic, innovation and environmental goals”, ranging from additional support for ISS research to development of commercial low Earth orbit transportation systems to Earth observation. “NASA must be seen as a part of our nation’s economic and innovation solution,” Hopkins writes. “The Obama administration must recognize that an investment in NASA and space exploration is an investment in the future well being of our nation.”

14 comments to Losing another Congressional advocate

  • Kevin Parkin

    If congress wanted NASA to save money, they would reform the way government operates.

    NASA and the others waste truly sick amounts of money trying to do simple grass-roots things (eg. fix a light bulb, buy a computer) in a way that complies with vast regulatory framework of practices and procedures that congress requires. The net result is that the way you do pretty much anything within these agencies is not fast, not cheap, not transparent, and not fair.

    Adding more to that will not boost the economy, and it will sink more talented people’s careers into a paperwork quagmire that can only be solved from the top. If they want aerospace to grow without spending more money, they should move that buying power under the control of less burdened organizations.

  • Vladislaw

    “Funding commercial space capabilities that will enable NASA to forgo low earth cargo transport and focus squarely on its core mission of exploration and discovery;”

    I feel NASA should have been out of the LEO manned launch business since the SKY LAB mission, astrouauts should have been buying tickets from the private sector.

  • sc220

    The best way for NASA to survive, while making an economic contribution during these difficult times, is by supporting an expanded national initiative on energy and the environment. NASA has developed considerable expertise over the last 30 years that could greatly contribute to the U.S.’s achieving sustainable energy independence. Most of this stems from the nature of human spaceflight itself, where energy management and environmental control are key aspects in the design of all spacecraft. The National Aeronautics and Space Act provides authorization to NASA to assist DOE in addressing the nation’s energy issues. Thus, President Obama could direct NASA to start contributing to an expanded energy and environment R&D program in very short order.

    Such a role for NASA actually has an historical precedent. In the wake of Apollo, NASA helped the predecessor to DOE by making major foundational contributions in wind energy, solar power, batteries, and fuel cells. Many of the people who spearheaded these achievements still work at NASA, augmented with new talent in power generation and energy storage systems, advanced materials, instrumentation, advanced chemical processes, computational fluid mechanics and plasma physics. The potential for developing new commercially viable technologies is tremendous.

    Bringing NASA into a national energy and environment initiative would send a clear message to the American people that the new Administration is serious about addressing the energy problem by committing one of the U.S.’s premier technical institutions to solve it. Such an approach would show that the new Administration is willing to adopt innovative, out-of-the-box approaches to address the challenge of energy and the environment. It also makes NASA more relevant to national needs and brings new technologies to the table in solving the nation’s energy problem. Bringing the NASA community (e.g., NASA centers, contractors and research universities) into the solution space also opens the door for further cultivation of green industry and job growth.

  • Kevin Parkin

    I agree that NASA has accumulated some truly excellent technical people. But ditto what I said about money — they’ll be more effective under less burdened organizations.

    The Moon was once an imperative for NASA, I remain to be convinced that (a) it is organizationally capable of responding to any imperative at this stage and (b) that an imperative outside the scope of space or aeronautics is a good organizational solution either for NASA or the fulfillment of said imperative.

    The history of the birth and death of US government agencies suggests that the optimal response is to form a new agency around the new imperative, and assimilate the useful parts of legacy agencies into it as needed.

    There is a mindset, particularly prevalent on this blog, that priority 1 is to get NASA more money. To my mind, priority 1 is to further the expansion of humanity into space. That has little to do with NASA, and NASA does not seriously pursue the technology R&D to make this possible. Convolving ‘space exploration’ with ‘energy independence’ inside a legacy agency whose name happens to be NASA and whose only imperative is to continue to exist is the worst of all possible worlds.

  • sc220

    To my mind, priority 1 is to further the expansion of humanity into space. That has little to do with NASA, and NASA does not seriously pursue the technology R&D to make this possible. Convolving ’space exploration’ with ‘energy independence’ inside a legacy agency whose name happens to be NASA and whose only imperative is to continue to exist is the worst of all possible worlds.

    The importance of space exploration went from low to nil in the last 6 months, and it is likely to stay there for many years. That said, what do you do with a NASA workforce that is working within a 1960’s bubble of national priorities when we are facing daunting 21st Century issues?

    You could cut NASA’s budget and allocate the difference to DOE for an expansion of their energy programs. That would be fine, but now you’ll put many NASA employees out of work, which aggravates a national problem.

    It is much better to vector NASA’s mission to support an expanded national energy program, working with DOE and other agencies of course. This saves jobs and brings some new interesting perspectives to the table.

  • Eric Sterner

    FWIW, I wouldn’t “preserve NASA and its jobs” just to preserve NASA and its jobs. The purpose of any gov’t organization should be to serve the national interest, however you define it. If it serves the national interest, then it should be organized and resourced to achieve the goals set for it. If it doesn’t, then its time has passed and the agency should close up shop (as unrealistic as that may be in modern government) and the resources should be allocated to something better suited to the country’s needs. Personally, I think NASA still serves the national interest. Exploration leads to new opportunities in science and technology that might otherwise not exist and science ought to be pursued for its own sake, as expanding the sum total of human knowledge generally benefits the human species.

    That said, it’s not clear ot me what national interest “bringing NASA into a national environment and energy initiative” serves. Despite its collection of brilliant people, NASA isn’t designed for such purposes and we’d always be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Surely, there are more efficient and effective mechanisms for mobilizing the country’s S&T/R&D capabilities to meet energy and environmental needs. NASA may have resident skills and experience that could be tapped, but that’s different from changing its mission.

    It shouldn’t be about saving the NASA/contractor workforce. They’re only a national asset if you believe that aerospace is a national interest. If you don’t buy the premise, then there’s not much reason to spend $17 billion to keep the workforce around. Seems to me that the space community would be better off arguing the benefits to the country of a strong space program than looking for new work to try and hold the agency together.

  • SSP Fan

    STERNER: That said, it’s not clear ot me what national interest “bringing NASA into a national environment and energy initiative” serves. Despite its collection of brilliant people, NASA isn’t designed for such purposes and we’d always be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

    Mr. Sterner,

    I agree with you IF the proposal is to just use NASA to fund generic technologies for a “national environment and energy initiative” that have nothing to do with space.

    However, if the technologies and R&D is space-related, then NASA can (and IMO should) have a role.

    STERNER: Surely, there are more efficient and effective mechanisms for mobilizing the country’s S&T/R&D capabilities to meet energy and environmental needs. NASA may have resident skills and experience that could be tapped, but that’s different from changing its mission.

    If the question is where do we put the S&T/R&D for Earth-based energy solutions, then the obvious answer is DOE and/or NSF (e.g., not at NASA).

    BUT if the question is where do we put the S&T/R&D for space-based energy solutions, then NASA is one potential option.

    The NSSO’s space-based solar power study here:
    http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/solar.htm

    reported that:

    NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion).

    Today America spends $300 million per year on fusion energy research, yet people harp on even minimal proposals for working on SSP. Good people assert that SSP is not economical, however we don’t even invest enough to do serious analysis on the economics of new approaches to SSP, such as studying the approaches to make SSP economical for niche markets (in-space power, power to forward bases, etc.) This inside-the-box thinking, which does not even allow a home for those who want to explore innovative solutions is a real problem.

    This issue is caused an institutional problem here, namely:

    “FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that no existing U.S. federal agency has a specific mandate to invest in the development of Space‐Based Solar Power”

    and continued …

    “Lacking a specific mandate and clear responsibility, no U.S. federal agency has an existing or planned program of research, technology investment, or development related to Space-Based Solar Power.”

    In other words, nobody is responsible.

    Some agency in the U.S. Government should be tasked with *responsibility* for SSP, and a low-level initiative to evaluating various approaches to making SSP economical is completely justifiable.

    It would not be a change of “mission” to task NASA with that responsibility.

    – SSP Fan

  • Eric Sterner

    SSP Fan:

    All welcome points. Sadly, I suspect that SSP won’t be much more than a science fair project for a long time, though. Heck, NASA and DOE can’t even agree on funding for RTGs. And it would likely be a new mission for NASA to do much more than paper studies for the simple reason that there’s nothing SSP-significant on the agency’s plate now. To do anything approaching justice to the mission would require either giving the agency more money or curttailing some other activity.

    In any event, I’m not a big fan of simply “tasking” someone with responsibility if we don’t also give them the resources to perform the function. We’ve done that with NASA for almost two decades now and I don’t think it has served the country well.

    I don’t know much about fusion research, but unless there’s high confidence that we’re less than two decades away from producing an economically efficient fusion reactor for the purposes of power production, I’d be in favor of whacking that budget and placing some of the funds down across a wider range of energy bets, probably starting with SSP simply because I’m a space geek.

  • red

    sc220: “The best way for NASA to survive, while making an economic contribution during these difficult times, is by supporting an expanded national initiative on energy and the environment”

    I agree that shifting NASA in a way that supports solving national problems like energy and environment, rather than spending half its budget just operating an old rocket and building a couple new ones, is a good idea. There are a number of other “national problem” areas I also think would be appropriate besides energy and environment, but I’ll stick with those 2 for this post. As SSP Fan says, NASA’s contributions to these areas should be related to space (and I’ll add aeronautics to that). I’ll make a few suggestions:

    – increase (or restore) funding for NASA Earth observation systems – This is a pretty obvious one, as it’s already a major part of NASA. The additional funding could be used in ways that are helpful to expanding commercial space and space infrastructure, like using Earth observation payloads hosted on commercial satellites, using small satellites and correspondingly small launchers to complement the many big satellites, using suborbital rockets (eg: VG’s NOAA SS2/WK2 climate sensors), simply purchasing environment data from commercial providers, etc.

    – make space infrastructure investments, using commercial services whenever possible, that support much more ambitious Earth observations once implemented: tugs, robotic/human servicing Hubble-style, propellant depots, CATS, etc. Some of these could be done with modest demos to start with.

    – expand planetary science missions with potential to give insights into Earth’s environment

    – ” solar and space weather ” ” ” ” ” ” ”

    – improve satellite, space vehicle, space station, rover, and/or habitat power subsystems and efficient power use subsystems, as well as improved closed life support systems on crewed vehicles – always with an eye towards energy efficiency applications on Earth

    – improve airplane fuel efficiency through vehicle improvements, air traffic control improvements, etc

    – Increase Earth and space weather observations that are useful not just for environmental science and management, but also for energy business – wind maps, geological resource mapping, ocean/tide observations, space weather effects on power grids, power dam siting, urban planning for efficient ground transportation, etc

    – Do activities that support the comsat industry and GPS satellites, which are already helpful in the energy/environment fields (since they support efficient navigation during transportation, telecommuting, remote metering, etc)

    – affordably-sized solar power satellite demos

    – affordably-sized solar power relay satellite demos (i.e. augment the “smart power grid” concepts to take renewable energy from remote locations to population centers – similar to comsat augmentation of terrestrial communications grids)

    – lunar HE3 resource assessment

    Every one of these efforts has potential to help solve national energy or environment problems. They all can be done within NASA’s appropriate focus on space and aeronautics. None of them need be particularly expensive (note that I’m not suggesting full-blown city-powering SPSs or HE3 mining – just working demos and resource assessments). Many have potential for both robotic and crewed sides of the NASA house. All of them could, with appropriate leadership, be done in ways that support commercial space and space infrastructure improvements that are probably needed for some of the bigger goals of the space community.

  • One way NASA and the US can help each other is to redirect some of NASA’s skills and resources towards a national project to solve the global energy crisis. President-Elect Obama is seeking infrastructure investments that can stimulate the economy. What could be better than a new power source that does not emit CO2 and makes power less expensively than coal power plants?

    The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) converts thorium to uranium while making heat and inexpensive, clean power. It leaves behind 0.01% of the long-lived radioactive waste from today’s nuclear plants, and it can consume existing stocks of such waste.

    Please read through Aim High at http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh and note how many of the LFTR technologies are supportable by NASA skills.

    The Manhattan Project was accomplished in 3 years. NASA put a man on the moon in less than a decade. We need a similarly driven effort to solve the world’s energy crisis and contribute to our economic well being.

    The Department of Energy and Idaho National Laboratory should participate in such a NASA project, but today DOE-INL progress in LFTR-related molten salt reactor technology proceeds at a snail’s pace, with fickle funding and different mission to support for the existing solid fuel nuclear technology.

    Please visit Aim High.

  • sc220

    One way NASA and the US can help each other is to redirect some of NASA’s skills and resources towards a national project to solve the global energy crisis.

    I agree, and LFTR is certainly a great example of a technology that is synergistic in terms of NASA skills and long-term exploration need. Many have noted that exploitation of the Moon’s rich Thorium resources for future lunar bases and colonies makes a lot more sense than utilizing the Moon to support a D-He3-based economy.

    There are many other energy technologies where NASA should have a role. Others that are both synergistic in NASA need and capability are:

    – Solar Photovoltaics and Solar Thermal power, including high performance concentrator technology;
    – Bio-derived fuels, particularly those for aviation and rocket propulsion;
    – Green aviation, including improved engine fuel economy, emission control and noise reduction;
    – Energy storage and distribution, particularly system integration with intermittent renewable sources, large-scale storage (redox batteries, CAES and flywheels);
    – Nuclear, including in addition to LFTR, high performance thermal-electric conversion cycles, high-temperature/high-rad tolerant instrumentation/controls, etc.

    NASA can also contribute in other areas due to its unique technical strengths in materials, high-temperature instrumentation, aeronautics, energy conversion systems, hydrogen handling expertise, etc. These areas include:

    – Wind;
    – Geothermal;
    – Carbon Mitigation;
    – System Efficiency and Co-generation Improvements;
    – H2 storage and distribution;
    – Green Land Transportation;
    – Ocean Energy, particularly wave and tidal systems.

  • SSP Fan

    STERNER: To do anything approaching justice to the mission would require either giving the agency more money or curttailing some other activity.

    I agree. The most likely path is that the Obama administration will curtail some other activity in NASA. President-elect Obama did consistently, and without prevarication, campaign on a theme of “change” for 21 months, and was elected as a result. Obama’s instincts were right on the mark — and his final competitors all adopted some version of his “change” theme.

    The President-elect also made it clear, in the debates, when challenged to make priorities between “energy independence”, “health care” (and I forget the third issue) … that energy independence was his top priority. This suggests that energy independence will truly get Obama’s personal focus in this administration, right up there with dealing with the near-term economic issues and the war.

    I do think that anybody who wants to be NASA Administrator would be served well (in the job interview) to tell Obama “I know how to utilize NASA to help American with energy independence”.

    If one candidate gives the boss what he wants, and others do not, everything else being equal the responsive candidate will win.

    STERNER: In any event, I’m not a big fan of simply “tasking” someone with responsibility if we don’t also give them the resources to perform the function. We’ve done that with NASA for almost two decades now and I don’t think it has served the country well.

    I agree. Real leadership means making real choices.

    STERNER: I don’t know much about fusion research, but unless there’s high confidence that we’re less than two decades away from producing an economically efficient fusion reactor for the purposes of power production, I’d be in favor of whacking that budget and placing some of the funds down across a wider range of energy bets, probably starting with SSP simply because I’m a space geek.

    Unfortunately, space geeks like us are not in charge of DOE.

    I think it highly unlikely that fusion research will get whacked — the optics are all wrong. Fusion research has survived for nearly 50 years, in times when energy prices are low, and is highly likely to survive (if not grow significantly) when the demand for an energy breakthrough is high.

    But who knows — maybe I am wrong. You have to check your assumptions at the door when “change agents” are elected President.

    – SSP Fan

  • sc220

    Fusion research is approaching the next level of sophistication with the completion of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore next year, and construction of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in France already underway.

    NIF, which will begin ignition experiments by the end of this decade, was ostensibly built to support the nuclear weapons stewardship program. However, it is positioned to make critical ignition demonstrations that could lead to commercial Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) approaches using lower energy drivers and compression techniques.

    The U.S. is not the lead on the ITER project, and pulling out would raise the concern that the other partners, that is China, the European Union, Russia, could get the leg up on us. I would be much more concerned about China and the rest of the world developing sustain, controllable nuclear fusion than having them beat us to the Moon (40 years after the fact).

    The future of human space exploration depends on us developing vastly more energetic propulsion systems, along with revolutionary advancements in life support, integrated system health diagnostics and automated repair, and radiation protection/mitigation. Doing it like we’re doing now is exhorbitantly expensive and will only lead us to another dead end, like in 1972.

  • […] Losing another Congressional advocate – Space Politics […]

Leave a Reply to sc220 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>