Here’s something you don’t see every day: a Tea Party group saying it’s in agreement with a pair of Democratic senators. Florida-based TEA Party in Space (TPIS), part of the larger Tea Party Patriots coalition, announced Monday that it has “publicly praised” a letter from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to NASA administrator Charles Bolden last month asking for a competitive bidding process for NASA’s Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket. In the statement, TPIS claimed Congress “tried to earmark $12 billion for existing Shuttle and Constellation contractors” with the language in last year’s NASA authorization act. “It is time to bring competition and fiscal sanity back into the NASA procurement system,” TPIS spokesman Everett Wilkinson said in the statement.
On the surface, a poll appears to offer good news to proponents of human spaceflight: a press release yesterday claims that “an overwhelming majority of Americans say they don’t want America’s manned space program to end”. The poll, performed by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research and commissioned by Ron Sachs Communications, found that 57% of Americans believed the US should “continue to be a world leader in manned space exploration”; splits among Republicans, Democrats, and independents showed little variation. But the single poll question also claimed that NASA has “no plans to continue sending men and women into space after 2011″. While there may be considerable debate about the effectiveness of various commercial crew development efforts, as well as the congressionally-mandated Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, there’s clearly no shortage of plans for follow-on human spaceflight programs. Moreover, the poll doesn’t ask what people would do in order to ensure that the US remain a world leader, such as increasing NASA’s budget (either by increasing overall federal spending or cutting other programs) or transferring funds from other NASA programs. It’s easy, after all, to say the US should be a world leader in space exploration (or other areas) when one isn’t asked what it would cost. Like some other polls, the principle of GIGO may apply here.
The joint NASA-ESA ExoMars program is facing budget pressures on both sides of the Atlantic, Aviation Week reports. ESA is trying to cut €200 million from hardware costs for its elements of the ExoMars mission after costs from a consortium led by Thales Alenia Space came in higher than expected. NASA, meanwhile, is juggling its contributions to the program after cutting $700 million from its planned $2.2-billion contribution to the joint effort. Much of those cuts may come in the form of combining separate ESA and NASA rovers for the 2018 ExoMars mission into a single vehicle, as suggested earlier this year. The NASA rover, the Mars Astrobiology Explorer Cacher (MAX-C), was identified earlier this year as the top priority “flagship” planetary mission for the next decade, but only if its costs could be cut.
Tea-N-space supporting the Boxer/Feinstein-2-Bolden letter is no more strange than the gaggle of otherwise conservatives being against free-market solutions for space exploration.
Indeed, Republicans being for a market-based approach should be considered normal. It’s the Republican opposition to commercial crew that is bizarre.
“It’s the Republican opposition to commercial crew that is bizarre.”
Not all Republicans… just those beholden to old space industry voters…
A personal preference which will never happen would be to see house/senate committee seats go to non-connected/influenced members that could take a rational look at their areas of oversight. ‘rational’. Yes, I am a dreamer.
I am a firm believer in ‘Dream Chaser’ (new space) riding on a ULA (existing space) delivery vehicle (either one that can get the safety requirement met). This, a middle of the ground way to keep all happy. My two cents repeated over and over…
Here’s something you don’t see every day.Tea Party group saying it’s in agreement with a pair of Democratic senators. Florida-based TEA Party in Space (TPIS), part of the larger Tea Party Patriots coalition
You don’t see it everyday because it is pure astroturf. A newspace splinter group posing as conservatives. Democrats do a lot of this. It is not newsworthy. It is not even political newsworthy.
It doesn’t make sense to rebid man rated Shuttle components that have flown 135 times. You just put them together in an improved configuration and go for launch. Don’t let spoilers from California hobble the space program.
ExoMars is a poorly conceived and horribly expensive mission. It should be axed in favor of several more, improved Mars Science Laboratory Rovers. It is much more cost effective to fly instruments to Mars then to bring samples back to a laboratory. There is a lot of mileage left in in situ analysis of Mars rocks and soil.
wind wrote:
‘ExoMars is a poorly conceived and horribly expensive mission. It should be axed in favor of several more, improved Mars Science Laboratory Rovers.”
constellation was a poorly conceived and horribly expensive mission, it was axed in favor of a new and improved senate launch system.
We know how these new and improved missions go . a new name .. a new schedule and a new budget and then …
more of the same ole’ same ole’
You don’t see it everyday because it is pure astroturf. A newspace splinter group posing as conservatives.
Really? The head of the South Florida Tea Party is “posing as a conservative”?
You are a laugh riot.
constellation was a poorly conceived and horribly expensive mission, it was axed in favor of a new and improved senate launch system.
As Neil Armstrong has said, Constellation enjoyed bipartisan congressional and Whitehouse support for 6 years before it was abruptly cancelled. If there were problems with the program, and I am not sure there were, it could have been redirected, redesigned, or rescoped. The left chose sabotage, and the rest is sad history. These are difficult facts to escape.
More interesting political perspective on America’s spaceflight interregnum.
In related NASA Mars news, Florida Today just published a report on cost overruns and delays associated with the Curiosity rover project. The article cites an audit of the project released today.
This comes right after an article and subsequent editorial by Florida Today citing mismanagement, delays and cost overruns with the James Webb Space Telescope project. The editorial concluded that NASA cannot be trusted to produce significant projects on time or on schedule, noting the wisdom of transitioning human space flight to the commercial sector.
More interesting political perspective on America’s spaceflight interregnum.
That’s nothing but a political hatchet job by a Lockheed-Martin shill.
That’s nothing but a political hatchet job by a Lockheed-Martin shill.
The tone of the Forbes piece was measured, rational, and logical. It is not a hatchet job. It is the inevitable political counter attack as disillusion with SpaceX grows. Your response was angry, desperate, and shrill, unbefitting the Washington Examiner. You make accusations about Loren Thompson’s paymasters. What shall we say of yours?
amightywind wrote @ June 8th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
“As Neil Armstrong has said, Constellation enjoyed bipartisan congressional and Whitehouse support for 6 years before it was abruptly cancelled.”
Which just goes to show … ? And now Congress is defining their own HLV!
Actually, Constellation enjoyed their support in words only. The project was cancelled because neither Congress nor any administration was going to fund it properly. It’s about walking the talk. They didn’t.
I will admit that the Forbes piece on SpaceX could be taken as “measured”, perhaps “rational”, and at least it pretended to be logical. Loren Thompson has a lot of expertise that comes to bear. But as Robert Block noted in his rebuttal, “One of the oldest tactics in Washington is repeating a falsehood in a voice of deep conviction often enough that it eventually becomes the conventional wisdom.” Thompson may have sounded “measured”, but that doesn’t mean he was right.
In fact, that’s what Congress makes a living at. Writing legislation that is measured and rational, in a voice of deep conviction, that often isn’t right. So much for Congressional bipartisanship on Constellation.
amightywind-I don’t see people getting all huffed up about Spacex. NASA is going to annouce Spacex’s COTS mission profile at the end of this month (June) possibly showing a mission to the ISS as their next objective. It’s only you who are in opposition to Spacex and COTS here.
Falcon 9’s first stage and interstage are already at the cape for COTS 2/3 awaiting integration.
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/imageviewer.cfm?mediaid=52410&mr=m&w=756&h=559&fn=2011-3306&sn=KSC-2011-3306
Thompson’s post was mendacious in a “measured” rational sounding (not rational) way. I called him on it. Again.
I’ll bet anyone a large pizza that ExoMars will become NASA’s attempt to teach the Europeans how to build a rover. That education will take place by teaching via example.
For example: ESA tosses out their rover and NASA steps in with all their build to print MSL hardware.
Press the “Easy” button.
It’s good to see that the insanity of the Constellation Era is coming to an end. The fact that conservative Republicans endorse commercial space is a great sign. Looks like we’ll finally see NASA getting out of the launch vehicle business. Even heard through various sources that Romney loves the concept of commercial space, so whether Romney or Obama wins in 2012, the die is cast.
@ mr. mark
cool. did not know that. but the announcement I’m really looking forward to is the “we still can’t build any HLV in the time alotted and with the money directed” announcement set for this month.
Aberwys wrote @ June 8th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
NASA may be having some problems with their new rover but don’t believe that they lack the expertise to construct, fly and operate it.
The existing Mars Exploration Rovers (MERs) are testomony to that. ESA has yet to match them.
“The editorial concluded that NASA cannot be trusted to produce significant projects on time or on schedule, noting the wisdom of transitioning human space flight to the commercial sector.”
You might want to look into the long, long history of cost overruns in the private sector for technology development. I have been part of several multi-hundred million to billion dollar development projects at a highly successful, top high technology that overran budgets as badly as many aerospace programs.
Over optimism at the beginning of projects is part of the human condition.
Aberwys, you simply have no familiarity with European rover tech.
Nor of the politics involved with it.
Period.
I’ve suggested 3 different excellent experienced senior space engineers to replace Ed Weiler. While I am sure that both Obama and Bolden have professional head hunters who know of people I don’t,
Do any of you have anyone else you would like to suggest?
mr. mark wrote @ June 8th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
And the trained astronaut who is to handle the grappling and docking of Dragon is now on board the ISS. Looks promising for a combined mission.
A followup to yesterday’s Florida Today report on the Curiosity audit … Florida Today reports that NASA quickly responded and claimed everything is fine, they’ll launch as scheduled.
Riiggghhhhttttt …
Yes, I can confirm that the first astronauts that are trained in Dragon cargo berthing will arrive today at the ISS.
E.P. Grondine wrote @ June 9th, 2011 at 2:34 am
Yeah, this.
Americans frequently seem to need to be reminded that ESA is an international organization, not a national agency, because Europe isn’t a country.
The idea that the ExoMars rover is going to be a carbon-copy MSL is utter nonsense. The technology is completely worthless to the European space program because we don’t do RTGs, and ESA has neither the money nor the need for a rover of that size.
The notion that we need NASA to “teach us how to build a rover” is nothing more than mindless jingoism.
I don’t think there is a sense at NASA that ESA can’t build a rover. The driver for sticking close to a previous design (i.e. MSL) would be cost more than technical risk. As far as technical risk goes, Mars entry, descent, and landing would be the main worry, compared to driving around on the surface.
COTS 2/3 will be a combined mission to the ISS. This just in…
http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/162275.html
Doug Lassiter wrote @ June 8th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Actually, Constellation enjoyed their support in words only. The project was cancelled because neither Congress nor any administration was going to fund it properly. It’s about walking the talk. They didn’t.
Neither did President Obama, who did a 180 from his campaign position and nothing to fight to keep it, which takes 1% ‘inspiration’ and 99% perspiration.
mr. mark wrote @ June 10th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
No that doesn’t actually say that. It just says a mission at the end of the year. COTS Flight 2 could still fly between now and then with COTS flight 3 being the mission to dock as planned.
This is a little off topic, but here’s some good advice for some of the commenters here at Space Politics. But they probably won’t take it, because one of the problems with being crazy is that you don’t know how to take advice to not look crazy.
Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ June 8th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
and
E.P. Grondine wrote @ June 9th, 2011 at 2:34 am
Perhaps my point is unclear. ExoMars is currently slated to contain two rovers: one is NASA’s responsibility and the other is the responsibility of our European colleagues.
As I’ve seen it, the Europeans are struggling with their part. As I’ve heard it, the responsibility may naturally shift over to the US.
Call it jingoistic mumbo-jumbo or call it someone who actually works on the project and knows what’s going on…your loss…
…And thank you to Mr. Simberg for posting some rules of civility…
Aberwys wrote @ June 13th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
I don’t follow the status of the European rover development that closely, but that it is “struggling” is hardly a relevant argument for the assertion that American assistance would be required, after all, NASA regularly “struggles” on its own programs. Even if “responsibility shifts to the US”, as is certainly not uncommon on joint programs, that wouldn’t be “teaching them how to build a rover” so much as NASA building a rover and ESA not building one, instead piggybacking their science payload on the American one. The net worth to ESA in terms of construction and operational experience would be practically zero, especially so in the case that the new joint rover is based on MSL.
Your original comment was, at least, poorly worded.
I’d like to add that the way I’ve heard it, the idea of a single joint rover has much more to do with budget concerns than technical difficulties.
Perhaps jingoism isn’t quite the right word for it, call it “blind patriotism” or whatever, the central point is the uncalled for allusion that ESA is incapable of building a rover without American assistance and would rather just copy the oh so superior superior American design. This is silly and quite frankly, offensive to me as an European.
It should certainly be possible to discuss the hurdles faced by joint programs without belittling the effort of your partners.
They’re not rules of civility — that’s different. They’re rules of sanity.