Congress, NASA, Other, Pentagon, White House

Reactions to the new national space policy

It’s not surprising that NASA issued a statement about the national space policy on Monday, with administrator Charles Bolden noting that the agency “is pleased to be an integral part” of the new policy. But he was not the only administration official to speak out about the new policy. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a statement Monday indicating his full support for the policy. He said the DOD will work with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to develop “a strategy document to address specific national security requirements for outer space.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also issued a statement, calling the policy “a strong statement of our principles and goals regarding U.S. national interests and activities in space.” The State Department, she said, “will expand our work in the United Nations and with other organizations to address the growing problem of orbital debris and to promote ‘best practices’ for its sustainable use,” among other areas. And in a brief statement, Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke praised the commercial elements of the policy. “It recognizes the sea changes occurring in the space community, with federal budgets tightening at the same time that commercial space capabilities and markets are gaining momentum,” he said

The new policy got some third-party endorsements as well. The Aerospace Industries Association said that the policy “takes important steps needed to maintain our global leadership in space and ensure continued competitiveness and innovation”. The AIA noted its strong support of international cooperation provisions in the policy and its goal of strengthening US leadership in space. The Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement apparently prepared and released just before the policy’s release Monday, supported the policy’s shift in language back to policies from the Clinton and earlier administrations. And the Secure World Foundation “salutes” the new policy, calling it “a highly pragmatic approach to the international space regime that substantially enhances the long-term national security interests of the United States in space.”

The Space Foundation, though, had a mixed assessment of the policy. On one hand it supports elements of the policy ranging from improved space situational awareness to the “recognition” of space nuclear power in the policy (although the previous policy also had a section on that subject). However, it’s concerned that the new push for international cooperation will exclude India and China. It also claims that the policy statements on developing and retaining space professionals “ring hollow” given “plans for NASA continue to put thousands of American space professionals out of work”.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), meanwhile, “blasts” the policy in a statement late Monday. “The Administration is yet again trying to sell this country a failed space policy that irrevocably diminishes our central role in space exploration,” he said, citing plans to make the US “more dependent” on Russia and other nations as well as plans for “dismantling a proven and effective space program that has propelled our nation to tremendous heights.” Sen. Hatch concluded: “I urge the President to rethink this flawed policy, because while this might be a new direction for manned space flight, it’s a direction we don’t want to take.”

27 comments to Reactions to the new national space policy

  • Gary Church

    The death knell does ring hollow. The most powerful and fully developed launch hardware on earth is being sh#tcanned for kerosene cluster throwaway and a commercial conglomerate looking for nothing but profit. All for political payback. In a few years this will come back to haunt the U.S.

  • Vladislaw

    Hatch states:

    “The President says he is committed to ‘reinvigorating U.S. leadership in space,’ but what he’s proposing makes us more dependent on Russia and other nations.”

    The President is making us more dependant on the Russians by funding multiple commercial entries into the human access to LEO space launch market? These entrants will provide lower costs than the Russian for access and this will diminish the U.S.?

    Sorry Senator Hatch, that dog won’t hunt.

  • Gary Church

    I doubt anyone will beat the Russians on launch costs. We have yet to see anything that will carry humans. It is going to cost; there is no cheap. We are screwing ourselves, no doubt about it.

  • Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), meanwhile, “blasts” the policy in a statement late Monday. “The Administration is yet again trying to sell this country a failed space policy that irrevocably diminishes our central role in space exploration,” he said, citing plans to make the US “more dependent” on Russia and other nations…

    All the while omitting the fact the Bu$hco Administration signed the treaty in 2004 authorizing astronauts to ride Soyuz to ISS until we provide our own rides again.

    FAIL

    …as well as plans for “dismantling a proven and effective space program that has propelled our nation to tremendous heights.

    Translation: Dismantled a program that featured a Utah firm, ATK, as it’s center-piece resulting in a loss of pork-pie for the state and votes for me!

    Epic FAIL!

  • common sense

    “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released a statement Monday indicating his full support for the policy. He said the DOD will work with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to develop “a strategy document to address specific national security requirements for outer space.”

    HeckI just cannot help: So Stephen et al. do you think that the DoD was ever consulted? Or it something they pushed down his throat. I hope there is a clause for SD-HLV in the DoD support somewhere!!

    Just sayin’

  • Doug Lassiter

    Hatch says “The Administration is yet again trying to sell this country a failed space policy that irrevocably diminishes our central role in space exploration”

    By “our”, he really just means Utah. Everyone should understand that. His political hand grenades are APCP based.

  • common sense

    @Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT),

    ““dismantling a proven and effective space program that has propelled our nation to tremendous heights.” ”

    The only such program is the Space Shuttle program and it was terminated under George Bush. The Constellation program on the other hand? Tremendous heights? Like the suborbital Ares-1X launch?

    In the end it really is too much fun to read. It saves me tickets to the theater! Thanks Sen. Hatch. I am glad our tax money is used to pay the salaries of comedians.

  • DCSCA

    “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also issued a statement, calling the policy “a strong statement of our principles and goals regarding U.S. national interests and activities in space.” <- which is hardly an endorsement, just a statemnet by State. HC has been a proponent of manned space activities all her life.

  • Senator Hatch oinked:

    Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), meanwhile, “blasts” the policy in a statement late Monday. “The Administration is yet again trying to sell this country a failed space policy that irrevocably diminishes our central role in space exploration,” he said, citing plans to make the US “more dependent” on Russia and other nations as well as plans for “dismantling a proven and effective space program that has propelled our nation to tremendous heights.”

    Funny how Hatch hasn’t said a word about this in the 6+ years since the Bush Administration decided to replace Shuttle with Soyuz starting in 2010 and starting signing all those contracts to fly American astronauts on Russian craft.

  • Ben Joshua

    Given a recession that started in 2007/8 and will likely last years, not months, this space policy appears unusually forward looking, if a little too modest for the taste of some.

    I wish it could do more, more quickly, but I believe that horse left the barn in the 1970s. I wish the gap did not exist, but that horse departed in 2004.

    I predict and expect the gap will be shorter than otherwise, thanks to ramped up commercial launch activities. The tech advancement, likewise, appears to be more aggressive under the new policy than before, and should yield results that change how mission planners think about capability and architecture.

  • DCSCA

    @GaryChurch- Ares is a less than stellar LV. Commercial conglomerate[s] looking for nothing but profit…’ can never replace a government funded/managed manned space program, as long as they’re quarterly driven to deliver returns on investment ahead of delivering payloads to orbit. History has shown private enterprise, or whatever you choose to label it, has never led in space exploration. Always a follower, looking to cash-in and exploit the progress made by government-funded efforts.

  • Gary Church

    “@GaryChurch- Ares is a less than stellar LV.”

    I was talking about the shuttle hardware; the SRB’s,SSME’ and ET. It is the most powerful and fully developed.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Joshua wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 3:38 pm


    I predict and expect the gap will be shorter than otherwise, thanks to ramped up commercial launch activities. The tech advancement, likewise, appears to be more aggressive under the new policy than before, and should yield results that change how mission planners think about capability and architecture.

    about the only thing that Krugman has gotten right in a long time (in my view) is that we are headed into a period (nationally and interntaionally) that is going to be very bad. the Money spent by Bush and Obama has been essentially (in my view) wasted.

    However the paragraph quoted above (that you wrote) is right on target.

    We are entering the 1930’s period in spaceflight (if not in some other things sigh)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    Gary Church wrote in “The new national space policy is out”

    “And is there any mention of HLV’s?”

    Yes there is mention of heavy lift:

    NASA Issues Broad Agency Announcement For Heavy Lift Studies

    “Submissions should include assessments of a variety of heavy-lift launch craft and in-space vehicle architectures using various propulsion combinations. The submissions also should explain how the architectures can be employed to meet mission objectives. Proposals should capture potential system architectures and identify technology gaps, including propellant tanks, main propulsion elements and rocket health management.”

    Heavy Lift Studies

    I am surprised to see it also is looking for in-space vehicle designs. It must be they want the heavy lift to beable to lift the inspace vehicle to LEO.

  • Gary Church

    I would think and “in-space” vehicle is one that will go somewhere like lunar orbit or more likely the lagrange or asteroid belts and never comes back. Being used for taking people here and there for whatever activity. Not meant for any earth orbit mission. So the heavy lift would carry it up and another heavy lift would carry up it’s propulsion system and another heavy lift would carry up a radiation sanctuary for a very small crew of two or three- and then the 300 tons or so would break orbit. That is just my guess for a minimum mission using an in-space vehicle.

  • Gary Church

    And maybe an earth departure stage positioning an earth return stage in an earlier launch. And maybe a whole lot of other HLV payloads for any number of reasons. One thing is for sure- it will take alot of 70 plus ton payloads to go anywhere even with some kind of nuclear propulsion. Doing it with smaller launchers is a no go. It quickly becomes ridiculous as the launches add up on top of each other. With chemical propulsion- no go. Without water for added shielding from somewhere like the moon then it is a no go. So like a said, the flexible path is not flexible when it comes to HLV’s. There will be no BEO-HSF without an HLV. That is a nice string of acronyms if I do say so myself.

  • Gary Church

    “http://www.moontoday.net/news/viewpr.html?pid=30308″

    Thanks for the heavy lift link Vlad, very encouraging. I was pretty down today about the whole space thing.

    I notice Sidemount is shown in that link. Excellent. So with those 70 ton payloads and some ice on the moon- we are Ceres bound baby! Just need some of that sweet DOD money to pay for it.

  • Bill F

    The most disturbing thing about this new policy is the push for preemptive surrender of U.S. space weapons. Any treaty banning space weapons would be completely unverifiable. I guess little facts like that get in the way of the Obama utopian view of global peace and love though.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill F wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    The most disturbing thing about this new policy is the push for preemptive surrender of U.S. space weapons. Any treaty banning space weapons would be completely unverifi….

    Frank Gafney is out pushing that line, but I am not so sure that Mr. Gates agrees with it.

    Nor do “most” of the folks in the E ring of the Pentagon.

    I also know that Gafney and others (Whittington has it on his blog) are pushing the “bush developed space weapons”. And Sarah Palin is a thoughtful person

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Gary Church wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I doubt anyone will beat the Russians on launch costs.

    To a certain degree, the U.S. Government doesn’t need a cheaper option as long as it’s a U.S. crew system. That means any U.S. capsule (Orion, Dragon, CST-100, etc.) is good enough if launched on a U.S. launcher. Political considerations can easily override the need to save money for the government.

    The only per/seat quote that we can use for direct comparison is the $51-56M/seat that Soyuz currently charges (3 seats total), and the $20M/seat that SpaceX is quoting for Dragon (7 seats total).

    SpaceX charges $56M for a Falcon 9, which leaves $44M for capsule, recovery, profit and other costs per flight. Keep in mind that SpaceX will have 12 once-used Dragon capsules leftover from the COTS program, so they save a lot of money when they retrofit Dragon from cargo to crew. This price seems pretty reasonable to me, but even if they raised the price to $30 – 40M/seat, it would still beat Soyuz on both price and volume (number of passengers).

    For Orion, just the launch costs on a Delta IV Heavy would cost $50M/seat (6 seats total), and you still need to add in the capsule, recovery and all the other stuff. For commercial crew on a ULA Atlas V, they plan to charge $130M/flight just for the launcher, and you have to provide your own capsule. Using the CST-100, that would work at to $18.6M/seat (7 seats total) just for the launcher, so CST-100 could beat Soyuz if Boeing does a good job on holding down the costs (one of their stated concerns).

    I think Congress would prefer Orion as a 1st choice, but any U.S. capsule provider would probably get government business no maker what the per seat price.

  • Coastal Ron

    Bill F wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    The most disturbing thing about this new policy is the push for preemptive surrender of U.S. space weapons.

    Your statement implies that the U.S. is saying “we won’t have U.S. space weapons, and we hope you don’t either”.

    In reality, the Obama administration is going back to the view of Reagan, Bush the Wise and Clinton in stating that Washington will “consider proposals and concepts for arms control measures if they are equitable, effectively verifiable and enhance the national security of the United States and its allies.”

    I hope you’re not calling Reagan a wuss… ;-)

  • Rhyolite

    It is really too bad that certain politicians have come to view NASA as the Northern Alabama and SRB Administration.

  • DCSCA

    In reality, the Obama administration is going back to the view of Reagan… <- which was a figuratively- and literally — a disasterous phase for NASA and spaceflight.

  • DCSCA

    We are entering the 1930’s period in spaceflight <- when heavy goverment investment expanded the engineering and knowlwdge base of rocket development– just not in the U.S.

  • Bill F

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 29th, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Frank Gafney is out pushing that line, but I am not so sure that Mr. Gates agrees with it.

    Nor do “most” of the folks in the E ring of the Pentagon.

    I also know that Gafney and others (Whittington has it on his blog) are pushing the “bush developed space weapons”. And Sarah Palin is a thoughtful person
    >>
    OK… gratuitous slam on Sarah Palin… check

    I think I’ll take Frank Gaffney’s opinion on this over Gates.

    Are these “‘most’ of the folks in the E ring” the same folks who feel that “diversity” is more important than stopping future mass killings such as the Major Hasan Ft. Hood shooting? I’m referring to U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey’s statement that “It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well”. My point being that the folks in the E ring aren’t necessarily immune from politics and utopian idealogies.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill F wrote @ June 30th, 2010 at 7:50 am

    that is fine Frank G hasnt gotten a thing correct in almost a decade…he is stuck in the cold war.

    As for Casey’s statement, you are reading far to much into it, but anyone who supports Frank G is capable of that.

    Sorry Frank has never apologized for all he got wrong about Iraq.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Gafney & fellow comic Richard Perle are ‘neos’ with ‘cons’ to peddle, no more, no less. But their cameos in early Twilight Zones were always entertainingly amusing– usually as paranoid dwellers of bomb shelters or purveyors of patent medicine.

Leave a Reply to Bill F 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>