By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 20 at 8:57 pm ET
On Thursday morning eight members of the House from the greater Houston area held a press conference with Houston mayor Annise Parker (at the podium above, flanked by the House members), who was visiting Washington in part to lobby to project jobs at the Johnson Space Center that might be jeopardized by NASA’s plans to cancel Constellation. While Parker described her concerns about the economic impact to the city and region should those plans go through, the Republican and Democratic members who gathered with her expressed considerable optimism that Congress would move to preserve Constellation in the coming months.
“All of us, from Democrat to Republican, no matter geographically where we’re located in the Gulf Coast area, support the effort to save the Johnson Space Center and Constellation,” said Rep. Gene Green (D), who served as the master of ceremonies for the 40-minute press conference on Capitol Hill. “I happen to be a person that is optimistic,” said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D). “I see the light at the end of the tunnel.” And Kevin Brady (R): “It is an uphill fight, but I become more optimistic each day, because together I believe we can get this done.”
The arguments they used in support of Constellation covered familiar grounds: concerns about local jobs, about the potential loss of inspiration for students to study science and engineering, and national security and loss of international prestige should Constellation not go forward. While the arguments were familiar, the rhetoric was amped up a bit. “If we do away with the Constellation project, American astronauts are going to have to hitch a ride into space, and that means we going to have to ride with the Russians or the Chinese, or maybe the Iranians,” said Ted Poe (R), referring at the end to a recent sounding rocket launch by Iran carrying several animals briefly into space. Al Green (D) contrasted efforts in Congress to generate new jobs with the potential to lose jobs at JSC under current plans. “We’re talking about shovel-ready jobs that we want to bring online, when we have ‘already’ jobs that we ought to protect… Why lose the already jobs?”
The members, and Mayor Parker, gave mixed messages about one aspect of the new plan, its reliance on commercial providers to transport cargo and crews to low Earth orbit. “This is not an attack on private sector participation in spaceflight,” Parker said. “We believe that the private sector can add innovation and can be a partner, but we believe that the United States needs to be the lead in this effort.”
Some, though, raised various concerns about handing over human access to LEO to the private sector. John Culberson (R) likened it to privatizing the Marine Corps: “It is as inconceivable to me that the president would privatize the Marine Corps and hand over their job to the private sector as it is to imagine the closing down of America’s manned space program.” He later asked, “If the private sector exclusively owns access to space, who owns the technology? They’d have the right to sell it to any nation on the face of the Earth?” (Someone should probably acquaint the congressman with ITAR.)
The members were less specific, though, about how they plan to preserve Constellation. Jackson Lee did discuss some “logistics”, as she put it, including a meeting she had with Rep. John Spratt (D-SC), chair of the House Budget Committee, about this. “He’s asked for language that we can submit to be able to impact the congressional budget resolution,” she said. “That is an action item that is enormously important to get ourselves back in place.” She said she’s also provided White House staff with information about this during a meeting by the Congressional Black Caucus with President Obama.
She added that the she’s introduced legislation “to declare NASA as a national security asset”. This is a reference to H.Res. 1150, a resolution she introduced earlier this month with 16 cosponsors, mostly from Texas. The resolution includes, among other language, the claim that the “elimination of the Constellation program will present Homeland Security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and the intelligence community of the United States”. She also claimed that “right now the intelligence committee is having a hearing on NASA as an intelligence, or as an asset.” A check of the intelligence committee’s web site doesn’t turn up any hearings in the past week that would featured NASA, as least in their titles.
While the members of Congress exuded confidence that, one way or another, Constellation would be preserved, Parker sounded a little more pragmatic, focused more on preserving jobs and economic activity at JSC. “This is not an attack on the president, this is an appeal to the president and the administration to work with us,” she said. “I have confidence that the administration is considering what to do, whatever the final outcome may be, to make sure that there’s not an abrupt end and everything falls off the table.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 19 at 6:45 am ET Supporters of NASA’s Constellation program are fighting for the program wherever they can, including in legislation that has nothing to do with NASA. On Thursday Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) announced that he was introducing an amendment to an FAA reauthorization bill that would reiterate an existing provision in the FY2010 appropriations legislation for NASA that prevents the agency from terminating any part of Constellation. “NASA is ignoring the will of Congress by taking steps to terminate the Constellation program,” LeMieux said in a statement, referring to claims that NASA has already started work to close down Constellation. “This effort sends the clear message that there are no loopholes, exclusions, or other routes the agency can use to kill the program.”
In addition to the “reaffirmation of prohibition”, the amendment prohibits NASA from using anti-deficiency provisions to stop work or end contract procurements on efforts related to Constellation. The GAO would be required to issue a report within 180 days of enactment on any elements of Constellation “that are contrary to law or are experiencing waste, fraud, or abuse.” The amendment also prevents NASA from taking any steps that would “limit or impair” the launching of at least the payloads on the current manifest.
Six senators, all Republicans, have joined LeMieux as cosponsors of the amendment: Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah. The Senate is currently debating the FAA reauthorization bill (several proposed amendments, dealing with issues like prohibiting earmarks and imposing spending caps, were defeated in votes Thursday), a process that will continue at least through today.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 18 at 7:25 am ET One of the less-obvious impacts of NASA’s plan to cancel Constellation is on the US military. NASA is the largest customer for solid rocket motors (SRMs), subsidizing to a considerable degree the costs needed to produce SRMs for a variety of missiles. However, with the shuttle scheduled for retirement at the end of this year, NASA’s plans to end development of the Ares 1 and 5 rockets means it will no longer be that anchor customer. Costs for the military will thus go up, but by how much?
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), a critic of the new NASA plan, fears the military’s costs will double, as Defense News reports. However, at a hearing yesterday of the strategic forces subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rear Admiral Stephen E. Johnson, director of strategic systems programs for the Navy, expects a much smaller increase: on the order of 10 to 20 percent. Vitter was skeptical of that claim, wondering why the loss of the biggest customer—NASA—wouldn’t cause a bigger increase. Johnson replied that NASA’s requirements are so different than what’s needed for even ballistic missiles that it may be possible to control costs by shutting down shuttle-specific production facilities. “It’s a very valid concern. There’s no doubt costs are going to go up,” Johnson said. “I don’t think they’ll double.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 17 at 6:10 am ET While NASA administrator Charles Bolden might not think that Constellation is “the symbol of American leadership in space”, some members of Congress disagree—or at least see Constellation as a symbol of economic concerns for their states if it’s canceled. Yesterday Utah’s five-member congressional delegation submitted a letter to President Obama asking him to reverse his decision to cancel Constellation. In the letter, they write: “we have strong trepidations the new proposal offered will lead to a decline in our nation’s preeminence in space and curtail our nation’s ability to send astronauts to explore the cosmos.”
One part of the letter is a little confusing. Referring to plans for heavy-lift launch vehicle development, the letter states: “We are cognizant your Administration’s budget proposal seeks funds to subsidize the private development of so-called ‘heavy-lift’ systems. However, it is important to note that these initiatives are preliminary and have largely yet to begin.” It’s not clear what private “heavy-lift” vehicle development efforts they’re referring to; the funding in the budget proposal regarding heavy lift is focused on technology development for such systems, separate from commercial crew development, which doesn’t require vehicles typically considered as “heavy lift”.
Also on Tuesday, Florida governor Charlie Crist met in Washington with members of his state’s congressional delegation, with NASA as one of the key topics of discussion. However, according to the Orlando Sentinel’s account, the meeting “generated little more than sound bites” other than a suggestion that Crist work with governors of other states affected by the new policy. “Using a blue Sharpie, Crist wrote them in a notebook: California, Texas, Alabama…” the St. Petersburg Times recounted.
Potentially more effective for Florida, though, was a private meeting Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) had with President Obama Tuesday, with space on the agenda. Nelson announced the meeting on Twitter, adding, “Lots of folks unhappy with newly released plan for NASA.” After the meeting Nelson described it as an “excellent conversation” but without providing other details, other than that “We’ll see the fruits of that conversation when the president visits [Florida] on April 15.”
One other related note: members of Houston’s congressional delegation are scheduled to host a press conference Thursday morning with the city’s major, Annise Parker, to discuss Constellation. Parker, as reported yesterday, is in Washington in part to discuss the potential economic impact on her city if Constellation is canceled.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 17 at 5:41 am ET The Senate Commerce Committee has released the list of witnesses for Thursday afternoon’s hearing by its space subcommittee on “Assessing Commercial Space Capabilities”. And it’s a pretty full panel:
- Lieutenant General Thomas P. Stafford
- United States Air Force, (Ret.)
- Astronaut (Ret.)
- Mr. Bryan D. O’Connor
- Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- Dr. George C. Nield
- Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Mr. Malcolm L. Peterson
- Former NASA Comptroller
- Mr. Michael C. Gass
- President and Chief Executive Officer
- United Launch Alliance
- Mr. Frank L. Culbertson Jr.
- Senior Vice President and Deputy General Manager, Advanced Programs Group
- Orbital Sciences Corporation
- Ms. Gwynne Shotwell
- President
- SpaceX
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 17 at 3:51 am ET NASA administrator Charles Bolden spoke Tuesday at the Washington Space Business Roundtable (WSBR) flagship luncheon, held as part of the Satellite 2010 trade show just outside Washington, giving perhaps his strongest defense to date of the agency’s new plan announced a month and a half ago. While part of his speech was a generic overview of the agency’s various programs, he spent part of the speech, as he put it, “dispelling some of the myths that have sprung up about NASA’s future.”
“My first message to you is that this budget is good for NASA because it sets the agency on a sustainable path that is tightly linked to our nation’s interests,” he said, noting the increased overall budget for the agency and the opportunities it provides to the private sector to be involved in the agency’s future plans. It was also, he said, necessary to break with the past. “The Constellation program was on an unsustainable trajectory,” he said, a conclusion reached by both NASA leadership as well as the White House. Constellation would not have allowed humans to return to the Moon “until some time after 2030″, and only by making steeper cuts elsewhere in NASA, such as terminating the ISS in 2015. “Some have argued that the Constellation program was the symbol of American leadership in space. I think they’ve been misled,” he later said. Those additional cuts, and extended reliance on Soyuz, “is not American leadership in my book.”
“The president recognized that what was truly needed for beyond LEO exploration was game-changing technologies; making the fundamental investments that will provide the foundation for the next half-century of American leadership in space exploration,” he said. “In doing so, the President put forward what I believe to be the most authentically visionary policy for real human space exploration that we’ve ever had.”
Bolden reiterated that Mars was the “ultimate destination” for human space exploration, but that “we don’t have the technological wherewithal to safely get humans there yet, and I think everybody in this room understands that.” He aslo defended NASA’s plans to develop commercial crew and cargo capabilities, noting that commercial providers are already used to launch “our most valuable payloads”. “My guess is that the American workers who have successfully built and launched the Atlas 5 20 times in a row would probably disagree that US commercial spaceflight is untried and untested.”
In a brief Q&A after his speech, he said that he sees access to LEO “as something that belongs in the commercial sector.” “Commercial is about making money,” he continued, “and I think there are incredible opportunities for money to be made with commercial access to low Earth orbit.” NASA was willing to pay for to transport crews to the ISS, and perhaps later, he suggested, even manage access to the station as the agency tries to get out of more routine operations. “We at NASA want to get our of the operational business,” he said. “We don’t want to manage low Earth orbit anymore. We want to use it, but we want to give it over to commercial entities who can use it for profit. I know that’s hard for some people to grasp.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 16 at 6:31 am ET The big effort in the House this week is to pass a health care reform bill, but that doesn’t mean that space can’t figure into the mix. The Orlando Sentinel reported that Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) brought up the subject in a meeting with President Obama last Thursday. The president if trying to secure Kosmas’s vote on health care (she voted against the original bill last year), but “Kosmas frequently pivoted the conversation to NASA” during the short meeting, according to an unnamed congressional Democrat.
Another politician who is going to be talking about NASA in Washington this week is Houston Mayor Annise Parker. She plans to meet with local members of Congress, NASA administrator Charles Bolden, and White House advisor Valerie Jarrett, among others, during the two-day visit, with a particular emphasis on trying to save Constellation. “I don’t know what the best plan is for going back to space, for continuing human spaceflight,” she told the Houston Chronicle. “I want to ensure that we are and remain one of the centers of human spaceflight.” She fears a loss of 7,000 jobs in the Houston area and economic losses of over $500 million should the cancellation of Constellation go through.
Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) is also worried about Constellation, and concerned that NASA is already working to end the program and start the new plan despite legislation that prevents the agency from terminating Constellation or initiating new exploration programs this fiscal year. He and 15 other House members have asked the GAO to investigate NASA’s activities since the unveiling of the FY11 budget proposal to see if NASA is in violation of that law. “While the word contract does not appear in the bill language (it is in the report language), this question naturally occurs: to what extent can planned contracts be canceled, suspended, or slowed and the agency still be considered to have not terminated the program?” the GAO letter asks.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 15 at 12:17 pm ET Well, not really, but it’s close. On Thursday afternoon the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee is planning a hearing titled “Assessing Commercial Space Capabilities”. The witness list and other hearing details haven’t been published on the committee web site as of midday Monday, but this appears to be the hearing Sen. Nelson referred to in his floor speech last week “to look at the commercial rocket competitors and whether they need the $6 billion the President has recommended over the next 5 years in order for them to get humans to and from the International Space Station.â€
It’s not the only event this week with implications for commercial space and related policy issues. The local AIAA chapter is hosting a luncheon Thursday with George Nield, associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the FAA, as the speaker. Also this week is the Satellite 2010 commercial satellite industry trade show at National Harbor, just south of the District. Among other events at the conference is a session titled “ITAR 2010 and Beyond: Will Obama Make Changes?” on Wednesday afternoon, exploring the prospects for export control reform. On Tuesday the Washington Space Business Roundtable will be hosting a luncheon at the conference with NASA administrator Charles Bolden as the keynote speaker.
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 12 at 7:04 am ET Speaking at the annual conference of the Ex-Im Bank in Washington on Thursday, President Obama announced that a new proposal for reforming export control policies—the bane of the commercial space industry in the US for a decade now—is in the works:
Finally, we’re working to reform our Export Control System for our strategic, high-tech industries, which will strengthen our national security. What we want to do is concentrate our efforts on enforcing controls on the export of our most critical technologies, making America safer while enhancing the competitiveness of key American industries. We’ve conducted a broad review of the Export Control System, and Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates will outline our reform proposal within the next couple of weeks.
NASA is also involved in the export control reform effort, deputy administrator Lori Garver said Wednesday at the Goddard Memorial Symposium. “This is an administration-led issue,” she said in response to a question on ITAR. “We are trying to get all the data we can about the kinds of things that ITAR restrictions have kept us from doing that have actually led to this nation being less secure rather than more.” She said that most people in the industry acknowledge that ITAR has been a “hindrance” to companies as well as organizations trying to cooperate with international partners on space projects. “NASA is one of the reasons why ITAR needs to be reformed, but not the only one. This is an administration-led activity we are active participants in.”
At the same time there are still efforts in Congress to pass legislation to enact reforms, such as HR 2410, the State Department authorization bill the House passed last year and is currently sitting in the Senate. “We do believe there will be legislative fixes as well, as we work with the Hill,” Garver added. “But right now we’re working on this administration effort.”
By Jeff Foust on 2010 March 11 at 7:25 am ET On the recently hot topic of shuttle extension, I recommend that people review the comments to yesterday’s post on the topic, where shuttle program manager John Shannon has provided his insights to clarify what’s been reported on the topic. In addition, David Radzanowski, deputy associate administrator for program intergration in the Space Operations Mission Directorate (SOMD), discussed shuttle extension during a panel session at yesterday’s Goddard Memorial Symposium in Greentbelt, Maryland, alongside the heads of the Aeronautics, Science, and Exploration Systems directorates.
“SOMD believes that if the nation told us to extend the space shuttle, we could do it technically,” he said. “But the reality is that we can do anything if we’re given enough money and enough workforce.” He said that “enough money” would be “well over $2.5 billion a year” to keep flying the shuttle. “That additional money would probably have to come from their directorates,” he said, referring to his fellow panelists. “It’s highly unlikely in the budget environment that we’re in that we’re going to get additional dollars.”
He also noted that not everyone agreed that flying the shuttle beyond the remaining four missions was wise. “Our own Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has essentially said that they don’t support extending the shuttle beyond its current manifest. Essentially they said that the point to make the decision to extend the shuttle has passed.”
“If we’re directed to do so, and if the money actaully shows up, and if we bring the workforce and the suppliers onboard that we need to move forward, there would still be a two- to three-year gap between the last flight and the new additional flights,” he concluded. “That’s just the way it is, folks, that’s the way it is because it takes us that long to build an external tank.”
|
|
