Space Politics
Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway…
Archive for White House
August 3, 2010 at 9:06 am · Filed under Congress, NASA, States, White House
What does the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) have in common with Congress? They’re both growing impatient with NASA for details on the agency’s commercial crew plans. The NAC’s commercial space subcommittee “expressed dissatisfaction with some of the information they have received from NASA managers on the agency’s approach” for commercial crew, Aviation Week reported. The subcommittee wants a better strategy from the agency on how it would spent the $6 billion over five years proposed for commercial crew—assuming, of course, that Congress is willing to go along with that.
In an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review, I provide some more insights on the new national space policy from a couple of forums on the subject held in Washington late last month. That includes discussion of the meaning of some of the language in the policy (what does “responsible behavior” mean, for example?) and implications for international cooperation and arms control. The PolitiFact project, meanwhile, uses the policy to assess a couple of Obama campaign promises. The lack of reference to a new National Space Council in the policy is considered a “promise broken” by PolitiFact, since the Obama campaign’s space policy white paper explicitly called for it. It also rates the language on arms control a “compromise” over a proposal in the policy for a “code of conduct” in the white paper.
In an op-ed in the Las Cruces (N.M.) Sun-News, Rick Homans, executive director of the New Mexico Spaceport Authority, thanks members of the state’s Congressional delegation for their support of the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) program in authorization legislation. He particularly thanks Sen. Tom Udall and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan for proposing amendments to remove funding and other restrictions on CRuSR in the legislation. “As of this week, with the amended NASA plan moving through Congress, we’ve taken a ‘giant leap’ to setting a new direction for NASA and laying the foundation for the commercial spaceflight industry,” Homans writes.
And finally, from a column in the same newspaper from Pat Hynes, head of the New Mexico Space Grant Consortium, this observation: “I have fallen under the spell of the 2010 Space Policy Act. It’s the sector guidelines on page 10. That’s when the Thunder Bolt hit me.” She is referring to the new national space policy’s definition of commercial space activities, and the role the state and its new spaceport could play. “When Spaceport America is fully operational, we will be able to compete for government business and save the taxpayers money while creating a new commercial space industry. Let’s hope this means future jobs in the commercial space industry evolving in New Mexico. What’s not to love?”
July 19, 2010 at 6:22 am · Filed under NASA, White House
On President Obama’s schedule today is a meeting with former senator and astronaut John Glenn. (The meeting with one of the Mercury-era astronauts comes, ironically, the same afternoon as a different Mercury meeting for the president: an appearance with members of the Phoenix Mercury, last season’s WNBA champions.) The closed meeting, scheduled for about 2 pm this afternoon, is intended to allow the two to “discuss the President’s plan for an ambitious and achievable space program”, POLITICO reports, citing White House guidance.
The meeting comes less than a month after Glenn released a letter with his views on space policy, calling in particular for an extension of the space shuttle (something, as noted here, he’s been suggesting for some time). While that clashes with the president’s plans for NASA (as well as the Senate’s version of a NASA authorization bill, which calls for only one additional flight), the two are on the same page on other aspects of the policy, such as continuing ISS and deferring a human return to the Moon.
July 7, 2010 at 7:11 am · Filed under NASA, White House
In this week’s issue of The Space Review, I provide an overview of the new policy and some reactions, particularly on areas of international cooperation and commercialization. While international cooperation is “woven throughout the new policy”, in the words of one White House official and there’s language in the policy (re)opening the door to space arms control accords, that doesn’t mean a treaty banning weapons in space is imminent or even likely for the near future. Also, the lack of specific details about space export control reform is not an oversight, but instead reflects the fact that such reform is ongoing.
The Marshall Institute has a much more thorough examination of the new policy, comparing sections of it side-by-side with the 2006 Bush Administration policy. “In general terms, the new policy builds on the old policy, much as one expects,” Marshall Institute president Jeff Keuter notes in the white paper. He adds, though, that the policy features some new terminology such as “sustainability” and “responsible behavior”. “How those terms come to be interpreted and subsequently reflected in decisions about other policies and programs will be of considerable interest to U.S. departments and agencies, policy analysts, and foreign governments.”
One of the more curious reactions came last week from the Greater Houston Partnership, which decried what it called the “Obama ‘United Nations’ NASA Space Plan”. “While we think the Administration’s plan is well-intended, we question the wisdom of its United Nations approach to our homeland security,” Jeff Moseley, president and CEO of the partnership, said in a statement. Homeland security? He explains that “it is important from a competitive standpoint that we not abandon the independence of our space exploration program and allow any country to forge ahead of us in space leadership. Our national security and economy is very dependent upon a space program that should remain independent and uncompromised.” Left unstated in the release is that many Houston-area people are working on something of a “United Nations” space program: the International Space Station.
July 1, 2010 at 6:46 am · Filed under Congress, White House
As noted here earlier this week, the new national space policy did not say that much when it comes to export control reform, and much of it was similar to the 2006 policy. Both policies contained short sections titled “Effective Export Policies”; the 2010 section notes that “space-related items that are determined to be generally available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably with a view that such exports are usually in the national interests of the United States”. The 2006 policy, by comparison, notes that “space-related exports that are currently available or are planned to be available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably” but without the language that such exports “are usually in the national interests”.
One reason for the lack of details may be that the administration already laid out its plans for comprehensive export control reform, including an approach dubbed the “four singles” that would consolidate the existing, multiple lists, agencies, and other systems. The administration is continuing to push this plan, including a speech yesterday by National Security Advisor Jim Jones, where he impressed upon a Senate Aerospace Caucus audience the need for reform and current work. This includes creating a tiered control list structure the prioritizes items on current export control lists and makes it easier to add and remove items. “Currently a bracket or screw used in an F-18 is treated the same for control purposes as the aircraft itself,” he noted in his prepared remarks. “I think we can all agree that an advance fighter jet poses a much higher threat than a screw that is merely cut to a specific length.”
However, as DoD Buzz reports, there is Congressional opposition to one element of the reform plan, the creation of a single export licensing agency. Some people on the Hill, according to the report, are worried about repeating the mistakes made when a number of agencies were put together in the Department of Homeland Security, as the creating of a single licensing agency would require bringing together people from existing offices in the Commerce, Defense, and State Departments. “It’s a massive change for a single agency, and rationale has not yet been provided,” a “congressional source” told the publication.
June 29, 2010 at 1:24 pm · Filed under Congress, NASA, Other, Pentagon, White House
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.”
June 28, 2010 at 3:09 pm · Filed under White House
The White House released at around 2 pm EDT today the administration’s new national space policy, along with a fact sheet and a statement by the president about the policy. A quick glance through the policy (and comparison to the 2006 policy issued by the Bush Administration) reveals a few initial impressions:
- The new policy seems to emphasize a greater need for international cooperation but also greater responsibility by all spacefaring nations. A quote from the introduction: “All nations have the right to use and explore space, but with this right also comes responsibility. The United States, therefore, calls on all nations to work together to adopt approaches for responsible activity in space to preserve this right for the benefit of future generations.”
- The new policy appears to walk back some of the more strident (in the eyes of critics) language of the 2006 policy, taking out the US-first emphasis some saw in the older policy. Compare this quote from the 2006 policy’s principles section—”Consistent with this principle, ‘peaceful purposes’ allow U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests.”—with the related portion of the new policy: “Consistent with this principle, ‘peaceful purposes’ allows for space to be used for national and homeland security activities.”
- There is a greater emphasis on promoting commercial space in the new policy. However, some might find the portion of the policy dealing with export control lacking, given the interest in ITAR reform. The new policy notes that “…space-related items that are determined to be generally available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably with a view that such exports are usually in the national interests of the United States.” That’s similar to the 2006 policy, which noted that “space-related exports that are currently available or are planned to be available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably.”
What else do you see, or don’t see, in the new policy?
June 25, 2010 at 6:15 am · Filed under Other, White House
With all the debate about the future of NASA, it’s easy to overlook the fact that the administration has also been busy crafting its overall national space policy, taking into account commercial, civil, and national security issues. That process has been ongoing for months and appears to be nearing completion. As SpacePolicyOnline.com reports, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley said Thursday that the policy will be released in the near future, giving responses ranging from “this summer” to “in the next couple of weeks”. That timeframe is not unexpected: at the National Space Symposium in Colorado in April, one official said that he expected the policy to come out this summer.
So what will be in the policy? Donley said Thursday he expected the policy would reflect the changes in the space domain over the last couple of decades, as Earth orbit becomes more congested and even contested. Meanwhile, Laura Grego and David Wright offered their opinions on what should be in the policy in a white paper published by the Union of Concerned Scientists this week. They hope to see the Obama Administration walk back some of the changes in the 2006 policy that represented, in their view, “a more aggressive U.S. approach to space”. They expect the new policy to include language “restoring a balance among civil, military and commercial uses of space”.
Update 6:45 pm: Space News reports that the new policy could come out as soon as Monday. One of the areas of emphasis of the new policy, according to a one-page fact sheet obrained by the publication, is “to strengthen our domestic commercial space industry”; improved international cooperation is another.
June 23, 2010 at 6:51 am · Filed under Congress, Lobbying, NASA, White House
In a letter to President Obama earlier this week, 62 members of Congress have expressed their displeasure with plans to cancel Constellation. “If we continue with this new space policy, including the outright cancellation of the Constellation program,” they write, “we are concerned that other countries will forge ahead of us, challenging our space dominance as we literally cede the higher ground to our foreign competitors.” However, they are not asking for the complete restoration of Constellation: instead, they support the “immediate development” of a heavy-lift vehicle that, along with Orion, “may be used for either lunar or deep-space exploration to an asteroid and beyond, as you said in Florida.” This is apparently the letter that a Houston Chronicle article referred to earlier this month as part of a shift to “political pragmatism”.
Congress, though, can get as good as they can give. As they were sending the letter to the White House, they were also receiving an open letter from a diverse group ranging from space company executives to spaceport operators to space advocates. The letter calls for both full funding for the commercial crew element in the White House budget proposal as well as a call to “accelerate the pace and funding” of NASA human space exploration plans. “We specifically wish to express our concern that the commercial crew to Space Station program is sometimes seen as optional or too risky to America’s future in space, but nothing could be further from the truth,” they write. “In fact, the commercial crew to Space Station program is a fundamental enabler of NASA’s human space exploration beyond Earth orbit, specifically because it will free up the NASA dollars needed to develop deep space transportation and exploration systems for astronauts.”
June 19, 2010 at 9:22 am · Filed under Congress, NASA, States, White House
In his speech at the Kennedy Space Center in April, President Obama announced that $40 million would be made available for economic growth and job creation in the Space Coast region of Florida around KSC. Since then a Presidential Task Force on Space Industry Work Force and Economic Development, co-chaired by NASA administrator Charles Bolden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, has been meeting to develop a plan to spend that money; at a public meeting in Orlando earlier this month Bolden said that $30 million would be used for regional economic growth and the other $10 million for job training activities. That, plus a separate $15-million Department of Labor grant to the Space Coast region, has generated criticism elsewhere, particularly in Texas, where the focus on the Space Coast is seen as political favoritism of a swing state versus solidly Republican states like Alabama, Texas, and Utah, who will also feel the impact of the end of the shuttle program and the proposed cancellation of Constellation.
Late Friday the administration made a move that appears intended to blunt some of that criticism. The president sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi containing a number of amendments to its budget proposal, including one for NASA. “This request would fund an initiative to develop a plan to spur regional economic growth and job creation along the Florida Space Coast and other affected regions in furtherance of my Administration’s bold new course for human space flight, which revitalizes NASA and transitions to new opportunities in the space industry and beyond,” the president wrote in his letter.
The amendment, contained in page 15 of the document, includes the $30 million that will go to the Commerce Department for regional economic growth on the Space Coast and the $10 million that will go to the Labor Department for job training in that region. The amendment also includes an additional $45 million that will go to Commerce for regional economic growth “in other areas affected by job losses associated with programmatic changes in this account” and $15 million more to Labor for job training in those other areas. All the money—$100 million total—would come out of the Exploration portion of the budget, although the document doesn’t specify what specific areas of Exploration would lose money to fund these initiatives (the original $40 million was to come from Constellation closeout costs.) Despite effectively getting its budget cut by $100 million, NASA put a positive spin on the amendment: a spokesman told Space News that the money was “essential” to helping the workforce and regions most affected by the agency’s changes.
June 6, 2010 at 9:27 am · Filed under Congress, Lobbying, NASA, White House
The same day that SpaceX was launching its first Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral, the Presidential Task Force on Space Industry Work Force and Economic Development held a public session a short distance to the west, in Orlando, with the task force’s co-chairs, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, in attendance. Little news was made at the forum beyond a statement from Bolden that $30 million of the $40 million promised to the region by President Obama in an April speech would go “to spur regional economic growth”. The other $10 million will be used for job training activities. The task force is scheduled to complete their report for the president by August 15.
Two local members of Congress, Reps. Alan Grayson and Suzanne Kosmas, both Democrats, spoke at the event. In contrast to their often harsh assessment of the president’s plan for NASA in congressional hearings, the two were low key at the meeting: Grayson talked about the importance of America remaining the leader in human spaceflight, while Kosmas made a pitch for giving KSC one of the shuttle orbiters once retired. Not present at the meeting was Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), who claims he was uninvited from the event (which was open to the public). “I’m disappointed that the Administration chose to inject partisanship into what really should be a serious and non-partisan effort to help address the needs of Florida’s aerospace workforce,” he said in a statement.
While there’s been limited, and at best lukewarm, congressional reaction to Friday’s successful Falcon 9 launch, one candidate praised the launch. Scott Spencer, running for the Democratic nomination for the US Senate race in Delaware, told WDEL-AM that he “sees a lot of potential” in Falcon 9 and commercial space. Spencer, as you may recall, wrote a letter to President Obama in late April, also signed by former NASA JSC director Chris Kraft, asking for the shuttle program to be extended and that a plan be developed to begin human lunar missions by 2020. That letter made little reference to commercial vehicles.
Meanwhile, in Huntsville, advocates of Constellation are making plans to “turn up the noise” on Capitol Hill about the program. “The next 90 days is going to be pretty important for us,” Huntsville mayor Tommy Battle said at a meeting Friday of Second to None, a local group fighting to keep Constellation alive, the Huntsville Times reports. “There seems to be no support, or extremely little support, for the president’s proposed plan,” said Bud Cramer, the former congressman who is leading the Second to None initiative, based on meetings the group had in a recent Washington visit. “We believe we’ve got tremendous support on the Hill for Constellation, for human space exploration, but we need those members to define that support; we need them to react to that support,” he said, hence the need for the additional noise, which the article said will be accompanied by a social media initiative.
Next entries »
