Looking for some insightful commentary and analysis regarding the national space policy released late last week by the Bush Administration? Well, keep looking. There hasn’t been a lot of commentary in general about the document, and what little has been published has focused, not surprisingly, on the portions of the document dealing with security and freedom-of-access sections of the policy:
In a piece in the self-contradictory OpEdNews.com (is it an op-ed, or is it news?) Maryland activist Ron Fullwood fulminates against the new policy. “In an amazing coincidence to the N. Korean nuke test, the Bush administration has sneaked and released a major new space policy which just happens to mesh with the missile threat the rouge nation is so intent on proving it possesses.” (“rouge nation”? Well, North Korea is a communist regime…) “Bush and his chickenhawk cabal,” he continues, “in their best Orwellian dictum, are laying the groundwork to have the world recognize their ambition to litter the upper atmosphere with space weaponry to defend their satellites and shoot down others, as ‘peaceful’ and ‘for the benefit of all humanity.'” If you say so.
Also speaking out against the policy, but without quite the same purple prose, is RJ Eskow, a “writer, business person, and songwriter/musician”, in The Huffington Post. Eskow claims that the policy’s “militaristic statements have the effect of declaring a ‘New Space Order.'” He goes so far as to claim that since Russia is the “likeliest” country to develop a “space-based defense capability”, “represents, in effect, a re-establishment of the Cold War and a declaration of his unilateral right to move beyond the spirit of those treaties that helped end it.” (Huh?) He’s also critical of provisions of the policy designed to promote commercial space interests. “In other words, the U.S. space program must now use the same procurement policies that brought you Halliburton, Blackwater, lost billions in Iraq, and faulty body armor.” Oh dear… (Also, the article is illustrated with what the author claims to be a Northrop Grumman design for a common aero vehicle for the FALCON program, but what’s shown looks more like a 80’s-era SDI relic than a hypersonic suborbital vehicle.)
Steven Aftergood, writing on the FAS’ Secrecy News blog, avoids the hyperbole and tortured language of the previous essays to examine some other details of the policy, including its support for space nuclear power. One odd statement: Aftergood writes that “in a rhetorical flight of fancy, the new Bush policy purports to adopt a new national ‘objective of extending human presence across the solar system,’ no less.” This, of course, is simply restating the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration, announced in January 2004, which include “Extend human presence across the solar system”.
Jeff,
one point of RJ – he does say
The development of a healthy private-sector space industry is, in fact, a good goal for U.S. public policy – provided that it’s balanced by strong oversight and supported with public-sector research that’s available to all Americans.
The reason a lot of people on the left (I don’t know for certain, but reading RJ’s comments, I suspect he is) distrust space commericialisation is that this administration has a lousy record with providing needed oversite, espicially where the public/private interactions are concerned. And thats the problem. You have companies that have ripped the government off for so much money (and other people as well), that any sort of public/private enterprize is inherently assumed to be another case of ripping off the government.
This administration? If I recall correctly it was H.W. and Clinton at the helm during the majority of the defence and aerospace industry consolidation.
This is one off the very few quagmires which isn’t George W. Bush’s fault.
Most of the policy was old news, although the nuclear space power section was a surprise. In particular the section on “non-government spacecraft” was particularly striking.
I think it will be quite difficult for a “non-governmental entity” to get the approvals necessary to fly a nuclear powered spacecraft. I can only imagine what the anti-nuclear forces, and the media, will do when you combine those “evil capitalists” with “raining nuclear material down on our heads”.
I am wondering what others think about this.
– Al
I agree with Chris. The “consolidation” of the aerospace industry has been a financial, and probably a technical, disaster — and we can’t blame this one even mostly on Mr. Bush, Jr. On the other hand, his Administration did nothing to prevent the current impending disaster, the “consulidation” of the medium-class rocket industry into one company with the potential to lock out everyone else. . . .
— Donald
Donald and Chris,
I don’t claim that most of the consolidation happened before GWB (although the impending ULA that is happening is on his watch)
The larger issue is not consolidation, but oversight on projects. Its this lack of oversight that is the problem. Things like no bid contracts, and the like. Things like moon projects, or invading other countries, are complex projects, that require competent oversight, and a deep understanding of the issues. This administration has dropped the ball on almost every large project that it has touched. It has valued the political beliefs and cronyism over actual understanding. The reason that it hasn’t impacted (or hasn’t impacted it much I should say) is that they haven’t really cared about it. The one area where they have actually played some role, in developing VSE, has pushed for the retention of the standing army that is needed for the shuttle, never mind the long term implications. And, yes, I won’t deny that Congress has undoubtably played a role, but who was arguing for the Ares I from day one?
As I said, I don’t claim that the consolidation that happened in the 80s and 90s hurt the industry, but this is about where they want to go, and do we trust them. And the short answer is, given their history with large scale projects, I sure as hell don’t trust them
Al,
With respect to the “non-government” spacecraft using nuclear power, I believe it was put in to accommodate IoStar and its plan/dream of using a fission reactor in a orbit servicing vehicle. IoStar was successful in getting language put into a DoD appropriations bill (FY2002 I think) that essentially provided loan guarantees if they could raise a certain percentage of the overall expected development costs. To get the guarentee, they needed a Govt. sponser and they were able to find someone withing DoD to serve as that sponser. I don’t know if that language ha carried through since that point or if they were able to raise the necessary capital. The NASA Prometheus Program put a major dent in their business case I would imagine.
With respect to the “non-government” spacecraft using nuclear power, I believe it was put in to accommodate IoStar and its plan/dream of using a fission reactor in a orbit servicing vehicle. IoStar was successful in getting language put into a DoD appropriations bill (FY2002 I think) that essentially provided loan guarantees if they could raise a certain percentage of the overall expected development costs. To get the guarentee, they needed a Govt. sponser and they were able to find someone withing DoD to serve as that sponser. I don’t know if that language ha carried through since that point or if they were able to raise the necessary capital. The NASA Prometheus Program put a major dent in their business case I would imagine.
The Iostar concept has been around for nearly 10 years now. It is true that Prometheus did weaken the case for it, particularly in the year that the loan guarantee language came out (2002). However, the concept itself is on a somewhat tenuous footing. The purpose of Iostar was to provide a commercially viable means of maneuvering wayward satellites and earth-orbiting assets back into their intended orbits. Although the use of high specific impulse electric propulsion is a necessity for this application, the need for a nuclear powerplant is doubtful. Much as I endorse nuclear power in space, you have to admit that for applications up to Mars orbit, solar PVs deliver an order of magnitude or better specific power than even a large nuke.
Roger Lenard, who provided the thought leadership for Iostar, claims that the case for PVs is weakened by the need to travel through MEO and the Van Allen Belts.
I was unfamiliar with any commercial proposal for space nuclear power. This idea sounds like a complete non-starter. A nuclear reactor that would operate in Earth orbit for long periods of time? NASA itself was working on the assumption that it would NOT turn on Prometheus in Earth orbit, and would in fact boost it out of Earth orbit before starting it. So if that is the rule for the U.S. government, why would they allow a private company to operate under fewer restrictions?
Also, the Outer Space Treaty places responsibility for objects that fall to Earth on the launching country. So any American commercial reactor that falls to Earth is the responsibility of the U.S. government, which gets stuck with cleanup and liability costs. At the very least, the U.S. government would require very large amounts of insurance for the operator so that John Q. Taxpayer does not get stuck with the bill. It’s a totally crazy idea and would never work.
With respect to an IoStar system, I agree its is a tough sell. In a previous life, I was involved with a similar mission concept that used solar thermal propulsion (significantly higher thrust than EP and 2x plus the Isp of chemical). This approach was viable from a business case standpoint as the development costs were miniscule compared to a nuclear-based system. The major driver isn’t specific power. Rather it is responsiveness. The satellite owner/operator needs a quick rescue otherwise he is seeing tremendous revenue loss if it takes a large SEP/NEP system (IoStar sized) 9+ months to relocate the asset to its proper orbit not to mention the deleterious effects of that many passess through the radiation belts. An appropriately sized STP system can typically perform the mission in 30-45 days.
With respect to Prometheus opting to wait until the SC was out of Earth’s orbit before starting up the reactor, that was a political/PR decision. The US (with SNAP-10) and the Russians (TOPAZ series) operated within Earth orbit. There is no law (either US or international) that precludes operating a space reactor within Earth orbit. A commercial entity would have to negotiate an international agreement that limited liability in case of the SC coming down. The bigger concern is that it lands in an unfriendly country as the amount of weapons grade uranium (HEU) that could be recovered would make put that country in the top five worldwide in HEU stockpiles.
“that was a political/PR decision.”
Everything is politics. The U.S. government has made a decision to not operate nuclear reactors in Earth orbit. It seems unlikely that the U.S. government would then allow a commercial entity to take a risk that the government had already deemed to be too great–and for which the government would ultimately assume liability. It is hard to forget Cosmos 954.
Scott,
You have given the Govt. too much credit in this case. Prometheus was just beginning the EIS process for the JIMO mission. The NASA program office took the position that it would not start-up the reactor as a conservative (and likely end-game) position that allowed them to minimize the additional safety features associated with the reactor which helped minimize mass (and complexity) in the instrumentation and control of the reactor itself. The last Space Nuclear program (SP-100) fully intended to operate within Earth orbit and thus designed in the mass and complexity to operate at this altitude, even given COSMOS 954. The greatest risk is that all those additional safety systems result in a failure to start the reactor as opposed to causing and event that would bring it down. Also, Prometheus hadn’t even begun the process of establishing international liability limitations, etc. which would have to be in place prior to launch as each case is unique (any agreements associated with RTGs wouldn’t apply). Govt. liability would be limited to whatever the US Govt, the commercial entity, and international entities ultimately come to agreement on. Currently, with no other agreements in place, that liability (outside US borders) is only $1M.
GuessWho,
Thanks for the comments. I did know about the loan guarantee provision, but I had not seen much movement on this issue since that tiem.
If this is all Iostar, I think it is pretty impressive that one commercial company persuaded the White House to create a detailed national space policy guideline that is expressly designed to enable their business case. I expect that they must have some real money behind them, and some heavy hitters involved.
In other words, I am thinking that they may have their DoD sponsor.
I also wonder if their financiers have done the comparative technical analysis you use assert that STP is a better solution. I do note that your asssertion assumes that their only (or even their primary) customer are comsat operators.
Again, what DoD-related missions might Iostar enable?
– Al
One odd statement: Aftergood writes that “in a rhetorical flight of fancy, the new Bush policy purports to adopt a new national ‘objective of extending human presence across the solar system,’ no less.” This, of course, is simply restating the goals of the Vision for Space Exploration, announced in January 2004, which include “Extend human presence across the solar system”.
It isn’t all that odd, Jeff. The VSE is itself shallow rhetoric, even though it might sound deep to some people here. So it’s no surprise if Aftergood didn’t know or forgot that it had been said before.
FYI,
Spurred by Jeff’s comment, I decided to do my own point-by-point comparison of the 1996 and 2006 documents. If you’re interested, it’s in podcast form here:
http://geekcounterpoint.net/files/GC044.html
Lorne
I don’t know that IoStar it enables any one mission. Servicing of existing satellites is certainly an option. DSP-19 is a good example. Also, if you have a satellite that requires periodic resupply, i.e. a space-based laser, this type of high delta-V capability would be useful. I could also envision a space situational awareness function where the system could survey a large number of satellites over a range of orbital altitudes and if necessary, take one out either on a temporary basis or permanently.
The “consolidation” of the aerospace industry has been a financial, and probably a technical, disaster — and we can’t blame this one even mostly on Mr. Bush, Jr. On the other hand, his Administration did nothing to prevent the current impending disaster, the “consulidation” of the medium-class rocket industry into one company with the potential to lock out everyone else. . . .
Considering that Boeing had already signaled, in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways, their intention to dump Delta and exit the launch market if ULA were not approved, the administration arguably had little choice. The alternative to a ULA monopoly offering both Delta and Atlas was a LockMart monopoly offering Atlas alone.
I really don’t see how ULA could lock out new entrants any more effectively than LockMart could by themselves, once Boeing was out of the picture.
Below is a recent presentation by Dr Jim Stuart, President of IOSTAR. Corporate Capabilities include the space tug project, Power Beaming & W-Band communications (publicaly known as SWANSAT – swansat.com.
http://csmarts.colorado.edu/presentationpages/34_future_of_space/page_01.htm (intro-nav page)
http://csmarts.colorado.edu/presentationpages/34_future_of_space/Slide45.JPG (corporate capabilities: W-Band & power beaming etc)
See my blog for more info & also a 20 minute video presentation regarding IOSTAR’s w-band satellite communication constellation (non-profit & possesses licenced spectrum). IOSTAR claims 600 million broadband MOBILE internet connections per satellite. The communication capacity is in an order of magnitute unprecedented – not even worth considering without Nuclear Power plant in orbit.
http://weaponmasstechnology.blogdrive.com/archive/7.html