Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for October, 2010
October 29, 2010 at 7:52 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
The Orlando Sentinel reports that the additional shuttle mission approved by Congress in the recent NASA authorization bill could be in jeopardy should NASA’s budget be cut. The concern, voiced in the article primarily by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), is that fiscal conservatives, emboldened by victories in next Tuesday’s election that could shift control of the House and possibly the Senate to the Republicans, would seek significant budget cuts in even the FY2011 appropriations bills yet to be passed by Congress. Nelson in particular cited the desire of two fellow senators, Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) to reduce spending to FY2008 levels. “That, of course, would be devastating to NASA,” Nelson said.
If such cuts were made in FY2011 spending, one potential item that would be cut would be the additional shuttle mission, STS-135, with an estimated price tag of $500 million. Technology development and spaceport infrastructure work at KSC could also be cut, but local officials quoted in the article said they’d prefer to see the extra shuttle mission cut before losing those funds.
It’s not clear, though, just how much STS-135 is currently in danger of being cut. While Republicans are poised to win back control of the House, and at least significantly reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, Democrats will still be in control when Congress returns in mid-November for a lame duck sessions, primarily to handle the outstanding appropriations bills. Republicans could try to slow down or block those bills, though. Recall that in 2006, after Democrats won control of the House and Senate, they decided to sweep aside the appropriations bills that had not passed for FY2007 and instead passed a year-long continuing resolution that funded agencies like NASA at FY2006 levels.
Nelson’s statement, then, could be seen as a preemptive strike of sorts, a variant of the “Washington Monument Syndrome”: since the additional shuttle mission has bipartisan support, and is eagerly anticipated on the Space Coast, where it will keep thousands of shuttle works employed for a few additional months, saying it’s in danger of being cut may be a strategy for keeping it funded.
October 28, 2010 at 6:47 am · Filed under NASA, White House
A few miscellaneous items:
NASA administrator Charles Bolden went to China and it was okay: In a statement this week, Bolden said his visit met its objectives, which including getting to know the Chinese space program and key officials as well as “reaching a common understanding of the importance of transparency, reciprocity and mutual benefit as the underlying principles of any future interaction between our two nations in the area of human spaceflight.” The statement emphasized that the meetings “did not include consideration of any specific proposals for future cooperation”, a sore point for some in Congress, but that it laid the groundwork for potential future cooperation.
Back in the US, another NASA official said elements of Constellation would continue on even though the overall program will not. Doug Cooke, associate administrator for exploration systems, cited the J-2X engine, which was under development as the upper-stage engine for the Ares 1, as an example of an element of Constellation where work would continue even though the overall Ares 1 would not. Cooke also said that NASA was examining the development of an HLV with a capacity of 100 tons, somewhat higher than the 70-ton minimum prescribed in the NASA authorization bill.
Earlier this month the Office of Science and Technology Policy released a report to Congress on the hazards of near Earth objects (NEOs). The report, requested by Congress in the 2008 NASA authorization bill, discusses both the search for such objects as well as emergency response measures (FEMA, for example, “would implement its standard emergency notification and response procedures for a space object re-entry incident.”) The report notes that the administration’s goal of mounting a human asteroid mission by 2025 “relates to NEO detection and possible mitigation activities in several ways”, from ongoing search efforts that will turn up more candidates for such missions to “the opportunity to comprehensively survey an entire object” through such missions.
October 26, 2010 at 8:00 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
Last week the two major candidates for Alabama’s 5th Congressional District, Republican Mo Brooks and Democrat Steve Raby, participated in a debate hosted by the AIAA in Huntsville. The two are vying to win the seat held by Democrat-turned-Republican Parker Griffith, who lost in the Republican primary to Brooks. Not surprisingly given the district and the debate sponsor, the two tried to demonstrate their space policy bona fides. However, based on a media report about the debate, both candidates have some issues with this issue.
Brooks, for example, claimed that if elected “he believes he’ll be named to at least two key Congressional Committees that would have a major say in steering funding toward NASA.” It’s not clear what committees he’s referring to, but the only committee that “steers funding” to NASA is the House Appropriations Committee—and, typically, its members do not sit on any other committees. (There is the separate issue of the limited influence a freshman member, even one in the majority party, would have on the committee.)
Raby, meanwhile, argues that what NASA workers “need and want” are “new missions”, although he isn’t specific about what kind of new mission (Brooks, according to the article, advocates for a return to the Moon as a prelude to human missions to Mars.) Raby said he would support extending the shuttle program while NASA worked on an HLV. He doesn’t explain how the shuttle would be extended at this late date without a significant gap in launches, nor how shuttle and HLV work could both be fit into NASA’s budget without either an increase in the agency’s overall budget or cuts elsewhere. Raby said he’s also concerned about a “BRAC for NASA”, a reference to the Base Realignment and Closure process used to close Defense Department facilities. However, the new NASA authorization act prevents any reductions in force of NASA’s civil servant workforce—which presumably would be one element of a BRAC process—through the end of FY2013.
On his campaign web site, Brooks doesn’t directly discuss space policy issues, although on a section where he takes a rare pro-earmark stance, he states, “Mo Brooks will not defer total control over America’s defense, NASA or any other part of the budget to President Barack Obama.” Raby does have a section about NASA on the “issues” page of his site. “NASA’s role should be first and foremost in manned space flight with a definite mission to the moon, Mars, and beyond,” he states there. However, he also states, “The proposal to eliminate the Constellation program must be defeated and I’ll do all I can to protect this program.” It may be a bit late for that.
Most election analysts have the district strongly leaning towards Brooks: the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight gives Brooks nearly a 95-percent chance of winning a week from today.
October 22, 2010 at 10:32 am · Filed under NASA
When NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver started her keynote speech Thursday morning at the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight in Las Cruces, New Mexico, she said she thought for a moment before accepting the invitation to speak. “As you may be aware, I have a bit of a reputation for favoring those issues being discussed at this conference, personal and commercial spaceflight,” she said. “For some reason a lot of folks think I have my thumb on the scale for you guys in Washington.” While she said that she did have a long history in the commercial space field, “I would argue that my policy work over the years has been pretty balanced,” ranging from consulting for major aerospace companies to, when she was at the National Space Institute in the 1980s, being “considered an absolute stooge of the aerospace industry by the L-5 Society.”
Much of her speech focused on the recently-passed NASA authorization bill. “This is a bipartisan bill. I believe that deserves recognition,” she said, referring to the relatively contentious, partisan atmosphere today. “It is a compromise, we recognize that,” she added later. “No one ever gets everything they want in politics, and the administration’s proposals were seen by so many as a dramatic shift. This is significant progress, and in a very, very short period of time.”
One area of compromise, of course, is in commercial crew development, where the authorization bill includes about $2 billion less from 2011 through 2013 than in the president’s proposal. “The healthy $1.3 billion for commercial transportation activities over the three-year period is a lot more than we’ve spent in the past,” she said. “This is a real start.”
The challenge now, she said, is to implement the policies supported in the bill, including eventually transitioning the launch of NASA astronauts to commercial providers. “We now need to trust others,” she said. “But have we done it before? Yes, and in so many ways,” such as relying on companies to launch critical NASA space science missions. She indicated later that transition won’t be easy for the agency. “We often say we want to turn our more routine activities over to the private sector. But that’s hard for people at NASA; we do not see transporting people to space as routine.”
The success of commercial crew, and NASA’s new direction overall, requires bringing together both entrepreneurial and established aerospace companies, she concluded. “How can we together merge those histories, merge the braintrust that is the space community?” she asked. “We will only succeed if we utilize all of our resources.”
During the Q&A after her speech, she was asked about one other recent hot issue, administrator Charles Bolden’s trip to China. She said Bolden was on his way back from China on Thursday and that he “truly believed that he accomplished his objectives, which were purely to meet and start getting to know the leadership of the Chinese space community, and to start learning about their program.”
October 21, 2010 at 8:44 am · Filed under NASA
In a luncheon speech Wednesday during the International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight in Las Cruces, New Mexico, George Sowers, vice president for business development at United Launch Alliance, discussed what he said could be considered a “logical” approach for the near-term future of NASA’s human spaceflight program. “Once we agree on the goals, it becomes a lot easier to debate how to achieve those goals,” he said.
Taking as a starting point the statement from the Augustine Committee’s final report that the goal of the human spaceflight program is to chart a path for humanity’s expansion into the solar system, Sowers outlined four lower-level goals that derive from that ultimate goal “that I think we can also all agree on and that provide a good starting point to logically build a framework for a plan.” Those goals:
- Close the human spaceflight gap as quickly as possible
- Begin human exploration beyond LEO as quickly as possible (“we need to make schedule an overt goal,” he said, referring to the long delays in such missions in existing plans and proposals)
- Develop technologies and infrastructure that will enable long-term sustainability
- Fit within NASA’s budget, which he believes will likely be flat or even cut in the coming years as part of deficit reduction efforts.
On that last goal, Sowers said, “I am tired of hearing people in our community whine about not having enough money. $19 billion a year for NASA is a lot of money. And if we focus on the mission, instead of rice bowls and constituencies, I think it is more than enough.” That line triggered an impromptu round of applause from the audience.
He then followed with a few general suggestions on how to achieve those goals in the near term:
- Fully fund a commercial crew development program along with Orion, providing “two horses in the race” to close the gap. The two can coexist, he said, since they serve different markets, likening commercial crew efforts to regional jets and Orion to a long-range jumbo jet. Flying Orion early, he said, can be done by flying it on an existing vehicle, the Delta 4 Heavy. “I am continually amazed about how radical some people see that common-sense idea,” he said.
- Delta 4 Heavy and Orion can also be used for simple beyond LEO missions through the use of in-orbit refueling, which he called “the most important near-term technology for sustainability for the exploration program.” Testing this technology on the ground and space should be a priority, he said.
- On-orbit refueling and propellant depots also allow for a smaller HLV, he said, reducing overall costs. “A smaller, lower-cost heavy lift vehicle in a budget-constrained environment allows earlier and more frequent missions, which keeps the program sold,” he said. How small? He said an HLV that can place 70 to 80 metric tons in LEO is in the “sweet spot” since, combined with propellant depots, it can support exploration missions beyond LEO all the way to Mars.
On the last point, Sowers was asked what he thought of shuttle-derived HLV concepts. “I don’t have a negative opinion on shuttle-derived heavy lift,” he said, although he said he had some “skepticism” about it because of its potentially high fixed costs.
October 20, 2010 at 8:32 am · Filed under NASA
Former NASA administrator Dan Goldin doesn’t speak much publicly about his tenure as NASA administration from 1992 to 2001, nor about space policy issues today. So it was a bit of a surprise to see him speak last week at a symposium last week on the 50th anniversary of NASA’s astrobiology efforts in the Washington DC area. While he was careful to keep his comments focused on his work as NASA administrator to develop astrobiology research efforts, such as the agency’s Origins program and Astrobiology Institute, he did offer some subtle comments that reflect upon the agency’s current situation.
Goldin, at point in his talk, recalled the unpopular “zero-based review” of the agency that took place while he was administrator. “But the fact of the matter is, the President of the United States said, ‘This is what you gotta do,’” Goldin said. “So every time a NASA administrator gets skewered in the press, think about the fact that that person is being a loyal American and listening to the President of the United States.” He continued: “The administrator, if they’re good, does what the President asks him, what the Congress asks. You can argue, but when the argument is over, say yes and do yes, or say no and leave. There’s nothing in-between. And I say this because I see the frustration, as I read the newspapers, across NASA.”
Goldin also commented on how NASA traditionally has not done a good job communicating what it does to the public. Ask the general public what NASA does “and the first words out of their mouth will be shuttle or Apollo”, he said. “Then ask them about the search for life: you will watch their eyes will light up, because they aren’t really aware that NASA really cares about the search for life.” That, he said, was a reason why NASA’s small SETI program was cancelled by Congress the year Goldin became administrator. “SETI went down because NASA did not explain to the American people why they were doing it. They viewed it as an entitlement.”
“The American people pay for the space program; they love the space program,” he added, “but they want to know that NASA actually cares about them and is willing to take the time to explain to them, not to talk down to them, but to talk in two- and three-syllable words and explain, concisely, why they’re doing what they’re doing.” He picked up that theme a little later in his talk, recalling the town hall meetings he held as NASA administrator in the early 1990s. “The American people really passionately care about the space program, but they don’t think we communicate with them. We take for them for granted… They need to understand what NASA is doing.”
October 17, 2010 at 10:52 am · Filed under Congress, NASA, White House
Is NASA administration Charles Bolden being pushed aside by the White House? That’s the claim of a Houston Chronicle article Saturday, cobbling together various events, ranging from controversy about his China trip to his now-infamous al-Jazeera interview, suggesting that the administration is considering replacing Bolden. (The article also claims that the administration slighted Bolden by not holding a “high-profile White House signing ceremony” for the NASA authorization bill, but such ceremonies are the exception rather than the rule for legislation in general.) The article doesn’t ask whether Bolden’s recent globetrotting “well beyond the limelight” was at the instigation of a White House wanting to push him aside, or of his own volition.
In separate interviews in the Daytona Beach News-Journal today, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) and her Republican challenger, Sandy Adams, discuss topics including space policy. Kosmas reviews the provisions of the NASA authorization bill in her interview, noting that “NASA and protecting the Space Coast and the space exploration program is a very high priority for me.” In her interview Adams discusses general support of spaceflight, including human missions to Mars as part of a “long-term vision for NASA” and the need to not rely on other nations for access to the ISS. Her language is vague in places, though: when she says “I think it’s a vital part of our national security” it’s not clear if she’s referring to human spaceflight, which she mentioned immediately preceding that comment, or spaceflight in general.
Should Republicans take control of the House in November’s elections, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) would be in position to chair the House Science and Technology Committee, on which he is currently the ranking member. However, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that Hall is also a candidate to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has been that committee’s top Republican for six years, a limit under current party rules. Hall, though, indicates he’d prefer to run the science committee in a GOP-led House, saying of chairing the energy committee: “I probably ought to make a run for it but I’m not going to.” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is widely rumored to also be interested in chairing the science committee if the GOP wins the House next month.
October 15, 2010 at 7:33 am · Filed under Congress
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) and her Republican challenger, Sandy Adams, sparred in a debate earlier this week, with space policy as one of the topics, the Orlando Sentinel reported. Kosmas, according to the report, took credit for the additional shuttle flight included in the recently-signed NASA authorization bill, as well as support for an extension of the ISS and commercial spaceflight. Adams said she wanted to “increase funding so that spaceflights can continue regularly”; what “spaceflights” she meant wasn’t specified in the article but Adams has previously discussed a further extension of the shuttle program, such as on the issues section of her web site. However, at this point in the wind-down of the shuttle program adding more flights may not be possible without at least an extended gap after next summer’s mission.
On Friday Florida Today endorsed Kosmas for reelection, citing in large part her work on space policy. “The tireless efforts of Kosmas to help craft a solid blueprint for NASA’s future and her fierce advocacy for the spaceport and creating post-shuttle jobs” has been the “one constant” for the Space Coast in this period of change, the editorial states. “The work has been the centerpiece of her term and earns Kosmas our strong recommendation for re-election.” Adams, the editorial continues, has an “appalling” lack of knowledge about NASA: during an interview with the paper’s editorial board on the day the House was voting on the NASA authorization bill “Adams hadn’t even read the measure and did not know any of its specifics.”
The same editorial also endorses the reelection bid of Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who, unlike Kosmas, is not facing a strong reelection challenge in his district immediately south of Kosmas’s. Although Posey was opposed to the administration’s original plan for NASA, he later supported the Senate version of the authorization bill. “It was the right decision in the best interests of the Space Coast, with both a NASA heavy-lift rocket and commercial rocket fleet approved,” the editorial notes, adding that “his knowledge of the commercial space industry can serve the Space Coast well”.
Kosmas previously won the endorsement of the Orlando Sentinel, but that paper has decided not to endorse Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), instead throwing its support behins his Republican challenger, Dan Webster, for the Orlando-area district. Grayson is known in space circles for his sharp questioning of NASA administrator Charles Bolden in House Science and Technology Committee hearings earlier this year, as well as his opposition to commercial elements of the administration’s plans for NASA (“the epitome of socialism and corporate welfare”, as he put it during the markup of the House version of the NASA authorization bill in July.) Space policy, though, does not figure in the Sentinel’s decision to support Webster over Grayson.
October 13, 2010 at 7:23 am · Filed under Congress, NASA
Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) became the second member of Congress to speak out against NASA administrator Charles Bolden’s upcoming trip to China. In a letter to President Obama this week Culberson said he has “grave concerns about the nature and goals of China’s space program” and thus believes that there should be no cooperation between NASA and the Chinese space agency CNSA without the approval of Congress. “I do not believe it is appropriate for the Administrator to meet with any Chinese officials until Congress is fully briefed on the nature and scope of Mr. Bolden’s trip and planned discussions on cooperation.” Last week Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) expressed his own concerns about the China trip. Bolden, in a letter in response to Wolf, said that the trip “is intended to be introductory in nature and will not include consideration of any specific proposals for human space flight cooperation” or other new ventures.
Marco Rubio, the Republican candidate for Senate in Florida, met with Republican officials on the Space Coast Tuesday to discuss space policy issues. However, the Orlando Sentinel alleges that Rubio got some questionable advice from attendees, who put the blame for many of NASA’s current problems with the Obama Administration, even for those issues such as the post-Shuttle gap that have their roots in the Bush Administration. After the meeting Rubio, the current frontrunner in the three-man race, told the Sentinel that he believed NASA didn’t have a larger budget “because you don’t have fiscal discipline” in the overall federal budget. “If you had fiscal discipline then the federal government would be forced to focus on the issues [like space] that are important and that matter to our country.” (That assumes that other members of Congress would consider NASA an important issue, though.) He added that he believed that “the biggest overriding problem we have is that this administration failed to outline a compelling, long-term vision and goal for the program.”
October 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm · Filed under NASA, White House
Today may be a federal holiday, but that apparently won’t stop the president from signing into law the NASA authorization bill. NASA organized a last-minute telecon with agency officials and legislators to discuss the “anticipated signing” later this afternoon of the bill by President Obama. (How last minute? I didn’t receive notice about it until well after it started; hopefully they’ll provide a recording of the telecon later today.) There had been reports that the bill would be signed last Thursday, but this report, with the imprimatur of NASA, seems more likely to be true. As noted last week, the fact that the president is signing the bill isn’t surprising, but what’s important in the near term is that it starts the clock on a number of studies due over the next several months, even as the agency waits for appropriators to act on funding the agency for FY11.
Next entries »
