Congress, NASA, Other

Today: hearings on LightSquared and ISS

Two House committees will be holding separate hearings on space-related issues this afternoon. At 1 pm, the House Small Business Committee will be holding a hearing on “LightSquared: The Impact to Small Business GPS Users”. LightSquared is a company planning a hybrid satellite-terrestrial communications network that, recent studies have found, could create significant interference with GPS signals. The hearing will feature an executive from LightSquared as well as officials with industries and organizations potentially impacted by LightSquared-induced GPS interference. “Thousands of small businesses, like farmers, construction workers and the aviation industry, rely on an accurate GPS signal for their day-to-day operations, and potential interference could severely handicap or impair their business,” said Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), chairman of the committee, in a press release about the upcoming hearing. This is not the first Congressional hearing about LightSquared and potential GPS interference: past hearings include one by the House Science Committee last month. (It’s probably no coincidence that LightSquared is running ads on at least one DC radio station this morning, talking about how it quickly came up with measures to mitigate any GPS interference as well as the benefits of its wireless broadband service.)

Later this afternoon, the science committee’s space and aeronautics subcommittee will be holding a hearing titled “The International Space Station: Lessons from the Soyuz Rocket Failure and Return to Flight”. Joseph Dyer, the chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Committee, has been added to the witness list that includes NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier and former astronaut Tom Stafford. The focus of the hearing, according to the hearing charter, will be on the status of Russian plans to return the Soyuz launch vehicle to flight and contingency plans in the event the Soyuz is not ready by mid-November, when the remaining three ISS crew members would return to Earth and leave the station unmanned.

32 comments to Today: hearings on LightSquared and ISS

  • “Thousands of small businesses, like farmers, construction workers and the aviation industry, rely on an accurate GPS signal for their day-to-day operations, and potential interference could severely handicap or impair their business,” said Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), “

    Not to mention astrophysicists who do their research in the radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum (as in moi). But there should be ways to get a reasonable compromise with all concerned parties without banning Light Squared’s efforts. I am not going to automatically take an opposing position simply because as it stands now it could affect my research. Other people with irons in this fire should take the same attitude.

    “Joseph Dyer, the chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Committee, has been added to the witness list that includes NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier and former astronaut Tom Stafford.”

    Let’s hope Stafford has updated his knowledge concerning advances in technology over the past few decades in regard to the improved reliability and safety of modern EELVs since his earlier testimonies. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be suprised if he advocated something stupid like bringing back the shuttle or accelerating development of (i.e. throwing away more money at) SLS/MPCV.

  • Coastal Ron

    Joseph Dyer, the chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Committee, has been added to the witness list that includes NASA associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier and former astronaut Tom Stafford.

    One of these people is not like the others…

    Why is Stafford on the list? The last time he was involved with the space program was during Bush 41, and at least a generation removed from what’s current going on in space.

    Is Congress averse to talking with anyone with current space experience?

  • amightywind

    The notion that LightSquared, yet another politically connected startup, can even get a hearing to defend its disruption of the GPS signal is not to be believed. The politicization of business by this Administration continues to spiral to new heights.

  • I think that it is insane that NASA is even considering de-crewing the ISS.

  • MrEarl

    It would seem to me that even potential interferiance with GPS makes LighSquared present business plan a non-starter.
    I didn’t see any mention of the DoD or FAA.

  • amightywind

    I think that it is insane that NASA is even considering de-crewing the ISS.

    It is a decision forced by a string of previous bad decisions, including relying on the Soyuz for space transportation. Has NASA ever audited the vehicle’s design, performance history, or manufacturing processes? No. The Russians were held to a lower standard of compliance because they were cheap and seemed to be performing. The worst may be yet to come.

  • Dennis

    I think Soyuz has certainly proven itself over the years she has been flying. Although the fault was from within the launcher, it too has proven itself over the years. Lets remember here nothing is 100% and Murphys laws will prevail at certainl points. Look at what happened when we became to confident with the shuttles and rushed the launches. I believe the Soyuz will continue to be a very viable and able spacecraft for years to come. I believe a lunar mission should be carried out with a Soyuz ASAP. This would again get mankind out to the lunar environment and again our expansion could continue.

  • Larson

    If something unfortunate does happen, and NASA orders the ISS de-crewed, I would like to see the astronauts up there simply say “No” and remain onboard. It’s not like NASA can go up there and force them down. They have plently of supplies and work to do. If the astronauts want to take the risk of staying on the ISS with a Soyuz past its expiration, let them. Right now, there is no way to get people back from bases on the south pole, and in that case there’s not even a hundred billion dollar investment at risk. The scientists going to the south pole know and take the risk that something will happen while they cannot be evacuated. Why isn’t NASA willing to let the astronauts take that same risk?
    If they stayed, they would probably be discharged from NASA (or their respective gov’t space program), but it would raise my respect for them immensely. And they could probably get jobs flying for private industry in a number of years, anyways. Perhaps even sooner than if they had flown again with NASA.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ October 12th, 2011 at 11:31 am

    I think that it is insane that NASA is even considering de-crewing the ISS….”

    yes you are absolutely correct and while I do not agree with every sentiment in your post the gist, the direction of it is correct. The entire notion of an ACRV is in my view a legacy from to many paper pushers on the ground trying to dream up safety requirements. Marines in Fallujah and Ramadi at the height of the fighting held on with higher odds of dying.

    well written Rand RGO

  • Fred Willett

    The soyuz has a fixed use by date and has to leave the ISS. If it returns crewed then the ISS is left crewless.
    However it should be possible to return the Soyuz with a crew of 1 or 2 and leave 1 or preferably 2 people on orbit.
    Sure they would be without a soyuz return vehile but that is not much of a risk and the benefits of keeping the ISS with some sort of crew would be priceless

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ October 12th, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Has NASA ever audited the vehicle’s design, performance history, or manufacturing processes? No.

    IIRC, NASA did an audit and tried to match up Russian specs against NASA ones – kind of certification by similarity. But essentially we accepted their standards as “good enough”.

    The Russians were held to a lower standard of compliance because they were cheap and seemed to be performing.

    Oh sure, and don’t forget they have killed fewer astronauts… but whose counting.

    Listen, you either use them or you don’t. They either meet your needs or they don’t. Considering the level of accomplishment the Russians have had with the Soyuz, the safety record they have, and the price they charge, it’s still is a good deal.

    That there are no other providers is not Russia’s fault, it’s our own.

  • Coastal Ron

    Larson wrote @ October 12th, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    If something unfortunate does happen, and NASA orders the ISS de-crewed, I would like to see the astronauts up there simply say “No” and remain onboard.

    While admirable, I don’t think they will, since there is even more at stake than de-crewing the ISS for a few months.

    If something happened while they were on their extended journey aboard the ISS, the Soyuz may not work (beyond it’s service life) or their landing destination may be a snow covered steppe that swallows them up until Spring – they would get posthumous awards for bravery, but I don’t know if it would be worth it.

    I think the ISS can withstand a short duration of no one onboard, but a death would bring too much negative publicity.

    My $0.02

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ October 12th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
    “While admirable, I don’t think they will, since there is even more at stake than de-crewing the ISS for a few months.”

    yes, what kind of presence we have paid for in space RGO

  • While I don’t think they should de-crew either, I’ll play devil’s advocate and suggest maybe it would be good experience to go through a de-crew just in case it ever has to be done with a legitimately compelling reason.

    The ISS is supposed to be used as a test bed for deep space flights. So why not use it as a test bed for how one would temporarliy operate the ISS by remote control without a crew?

  • So why not use it as a test bed for how one would temporarliy operate the ISS by remote control without a crew?

    You could do that without decrewing at much lower risk by just having the crew keep their hands off for a period of time.

  • SirThoreth

    Why is Stafford on the list? The last time he was involved with the space program was during Bush 41, and at least a generation removed from what’s current going on in space.

    Is Congress averse to talking with anyone with current space experience?

    Evidently, he’s chairman of the International Space Station Advisory Committee. And, no, I didn’t know that either, until I read it in nasaspaceflight.com’s article this morning.

  • Coastal Ron

    SirThoreth wrote @ October 13th, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Evidently, he’s chairman of the International Space Station Advisory Committee. And, no, I didn’t know that either, until I read it in nasaspaceflight.com’s article this morning.

    Saw that this morning too. In that case he’s a relevant witness.

  • Matt Wiser

    Neither did I, but now that he’s considered relevant to the ISS/Soyuz discussion, then he ought to be relevant for other issues as well (hint, hint, those who dissed his testimony in previous hearings).

  • Mr. Right

    Orion Test Flight Could Take Place In 2013.
    Florida Today (10/15, Halvorson) reports, “NASA is gearing up for two flight tests of the spacecraft being designed to carry US astronauts into deep space,” although the order of whether to do “an atmospheric re-entry test or a low-altitude emergency escape mission” with the Orion capsule first has yet to be decided. NASA Orion Program Manager Mark Geyer said he expects “within the next two months” for NASA “spaceflight chief” William Gerstenmaier to decide on which test will take place first as early as 2013. Both tests will take place from the Kennedy Space Center. Lockheed Martin “will begin delivering Orion spacecraft components for the first test in fall 2012,” with assembly to take place at the center.

  • @Matt Wiser
    “Neither did I, but now that he’s considered relevant to the ISS/Soyuz discussion, then he ought to be relevant for other issues as well (hint, hint, those who dissed his testimony in previous hearings).

    Since I was the one on this blog who was the main “disser” of Stafford’s earlier testimony, I will assume that your comment is directed to me and respond to you when previously I have not.

    It is provable that Stafford’s earlier assertions that modern EELVs are NOT more reliable than early ELVs are wrong. He didn’t keep up with the evolution of these vehicles over the decades. That’s a fact. Even Mellberg finally admitted that.

    In this case in his capacity as “Chairman of the International Space Station Advisory Committee” he has kept up to speed on some issues and I or anyone else will give him credit for what he does truly know. But, unlike you, most of us will not say he or Armstrong or Cernan (or Aldrin for that matter) or anyone else (be they proSLS or proCommercial) is incapable of being mistaken just because they are our personal heros. Nobody is perfect. In response to that argument, you like to pretend that the rest of us hold Elon Musk to a similar godlike level, but there are issues where Musk and I have differing views and as much as I admire his accomplishments, I realize that infallibility is not one of his attributes.

  • David Davenport

    They have plently of supplies and work to do.

    What work do they have to do, please tell us? Aside from photographing each other having a jolly time aboard the ISS?

    You could do that without decrewing at much lower risk by just having the crew keep their hands off for a period of time.

    Suppose it was shown that basic ISS functions could be controlled and maintained remotely. Wouldn’t that have embarrassing implications for ISS crew size?

  • Suppose it was shown that basic ISS functions could be controlled and maintained remotely. Wouldn’t that have embarrassing implications for ISS crew size?

    Not that I know of. Do you imagine that the purpose of the crew is to maintain the ISS?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mr. Right wrote @ October 14th, 2011 at 8:17 am

    I doubt either test will happen…money.

    The launch escape system test is a big waste of money. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ October 14th, 2011 at 12:47 am

    Neither did I, but now that he’s considered relevant to the ISS/Soyuz discussion, then he ought to be relevant for other issues as well….lol

    what the heck power does the “International Space Station Advisory Committee.” have? this is just another useless committee…RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    David Davenport wrote @ October 14th, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Suppose it was shown that basic ISS functions could be controlled and maintained remotely. Wouldn’t that have embarrassing implications for ISS crew size?

    Not just the ISS, but the whole Human Space Flight initiative – the whole “why send humans into space?” thing.

    Of course this is just a thought exercise, since even if the ISS could be kept alive without a crew it would not be fulfilling it’s intended purpose which is running a vast array of science experiments and testing out new technologies. Those can only be done hands on, so the need for humans in space continues on.

  • Das Boese

    David Davenport wrote @ October 14th, 2011 at 10:01 am

    What work do they have to do, please tell us? Aside from photographing each other having a jolly time aboard the ISS?

    Here you go

  • @Dennis’s Oct.12th Comment; Yes, you are right, my friend. The Soyuz has indeed proven its worth in the test of time. And hell yes, the Soviets/Russians should have damned well used it by now to have reached the Moon. Why they never ever really tried is beyond me! A fly-by cicumlunar mission would’ve been a golden epic trek!!! Why, oh why, is human Lunar exploration only something that could’ve been done in the 1960’s & 1970’s???! If it weren’t for Barack Obama becoming President, this great nation was to have commited itself to renewed human exploration of Luna. But the flim-flam artist-in-chief made us disbelieve in both ourselves & in our own capabilities. Do you all recall the late 2009 Ares 1-x rocket test, that in fact was a successful flight?? Do you really believe that American engineering ingenuity wouldn’t have been able to handle the building of a Lunar-capable Orion craft AND an Ares 1 rocket?? Do you all really believe that the construction of a heavy-lift rocket, like the Ares 5, would’ve been impossible for American engineers to grapple with, and bring to fruition?? Project Constellation was an entirely viable space plan!! It’s just that the collective powers-that-be wanted to popularize it as a pipe-dream. (The Flexible Path people also want the American public to buy into the notion that ANY form of heavy-lift is impossible for this nation to do.) After all, if heavy-lift rocketry is a pipe-dream, then who immediately gets the benefit?? The space entrepreneurs, that’s who. But the truth is that commercial space will never get us anything but low earth orbit. Being trapped in low earth orbit for the next two decades is all that will happen, if this nation continues to go the commercial space route!

  • @Dennis
    “Why, oh why, is human Lunar exploration only something that could’ve been done in the 1960′s & 1970′s???!”

    If you think any of us here said that you are even sillier than most of us think you are.

    “Flexible Path people also want the American public to buy into the notion that ANY form of heavy-lift is impossible for this nation to do.”

    This is an out and out lie. Remember SpaceX’s proposed 150mt to orbit launcher for a proposed $2.5 billion? Remember ULA’s upgrade proposals for HLV? “Flexible path people” merely say that HLV’s are not a necessity for at least some years into the future because in the meantime we can do ambitious manned space missions without them. See this:
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

    But then you know that already. You’re just being as irrational as you always are. Even Gaetano is more factual than you are.

  • @Chris Castro
    Sorry meant @Chris Castro not Dennis in previous post.

    “Why, oh why, is human Lunar exploration only something that could’ve been done in the 1960′s & 1970′s???!”

    If you think any of us here said that you are even sillier than most of us think you are.

    “Flexible Path people also want the American public to buy into the notion that ANY form of heavy-lift is impossible for this nation to do.”

    This is an out and out lie. Remember SpaceX’s proposed 150mt to orbit launcher for a proposed $2.5 billion? Remember ULA’s upgrade proposals for HLV? “Flexible path people” merely say that HLV’s are not a necessity for at least some years into the future because in the meantime we can do ambitious manned space missions without them. See this:
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

    But then you know that already. You’re just being as irrational as you always are. Even Gaetano is more factual than you are.

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ October 17th, 2011 at 5:38 am

    And hell yes, the Soviets/Russians should have damned well used it by now to have reached the Moon. Why they never ever really tried is beyond me!

    Because it wasn’t worth the money/effort. I have no doubt the USSR could have done it, and I have no doubt that Russia and others can do it today given enough money.

    The main reason the U.S. went to the Moon was because it showed the superiority of the U.S. over the USSR. Once that was over going to the Moon was mainly of scientific interest, and not deemed worthy enough by any nation to commit the huge sums of money required. “Because it’s there” doesn’t cut it.

    Do you really believe that American engineering ingenuity wouldn’t have been able to handle the building of a Lunar-capable Orion craft AND an Ares 1 rocket?

    We have always had the ability to go back to the Moon, and likely to travel on beyond the Moon. The issue has always been how much money Congress will provide to NASA. Constellation was cancelled because it was way over budget, not because no one wants to go to the Moon. If Griffin had done a better management job, maybe the program would have survived. However in these tight financial times programs that don’t stay on budget are easy pickings, as was proved by Congress last year.

    Maybe you’d like to start a trend by committing 10% of your income to a Moon program?

  • Justin Kugler

    If it didn’t take so much crew time to maintain the Station, we in Payloads would be ecstatic. Even with six crew, we’re happy to get 35 hours of dedicated time per week.

  • Coastal Ron

    Justin Kugler wrote @ October 17th, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    Even with six crew, we’re happy to get 35 hours of dedicated time per week.

    Any idea what the major categories of labor are for maintaining the station?

    Do you know if they are working to reduce the man-hours required?

Leave a Reply to Stephen C. Smith 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>